User Tag List

First 412131415162464 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 847

  1. #131
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    define.. spiritual ?
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #132
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    define.. spiritual ?
    That's my point. You define spiritual.

  3. #133
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    That's my point. You define spiritual.
    no wait, that's cheating.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #134
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    Nah, they aren't stupid at all.

    My best pal's an ESFP. He is really street smart and has incredible Se that makes him a genius at maneuvering in social settings...he's knows all of the tricks and moves.

    On the factual side, he is amazing at remebering detail and does really well with Math and Foreign Language..whereas I do better in Science, History, and English. It's funny how our types play that one out.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  5. #135
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    no wait, that's cheating.
    Another wonderful point! Seriously.

  6. #136
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Yes, because N and T are generally regarded (and rightly so) as the foundational dispositions for intelligence. To twist the notion of intelligence as something based solely on society's view on it is false and grows tiresome.

    I don't understand the point you're attempting to make with this. It has no relevance to anything.
    You seemed to have missed my point. Take someone that actually is an ESFP. The smarter they are, the more likely they will be mistyped as N or T.

    What I'm saying is that there's not a uniform distribution among people that are mistyped. Smarter Ss are mistyped more than less smart Ss.

    Unfortunately, most of the people that write these tests seem to have the same implicit premise as you, that N means smart and S means dumb. So they'll word the questions accordingly. This leads to smart Ss testing as N.

    Don't know how to spell it out more than that.

    I agree, the test certainly has its flaws, and I myself have found that people will sometimes go with what they prefer (i.e. what they want to be) over what they actually are.
    I don't know where you got your ideas, but MBTI is about preference. Why do you think identical twins are different types?

    But even if this is the case, people who consistently score as a certain type will clearly display tendencies that are attributed to their type. If they do not, then that person is discounted from any particular type until they can rationally evaluate themselves (which unfortunately, some won't be able to, and Ps and NFs are notorious for this.)
    Sure, I grant that people within a type will have certain traits in common (otherwise, what's the point of typology?). Those traits usually have to do with what kinds of conversations are preferred or what hobbies people have. Or which majors people choose, or which roles they play socially.

    While it's quite possible that intelligence is correlated to these groupings, it's not like there are straight up causal links between intelligence and preference. And since accurate testing is so difficult, doing a study seems like it would get you nowhere.

    Clearly, I was referring to those who are real ESFPs, which I had gathered from the way they behave and their respective test results.
    So you have the final say in deciding whether someone is in a specific type?

    Odd, because your whole stance can be explained away by confirmation bias.

    Even if that were the case (which I'm sure it is in some instances, due to the several flaws of MBTI), this would at worst give you inaccurate results (depending on the extent to which the results themselves are inaccurate) for those studies and those studies alone. You couldn't draw a conclusion based on every other study. It would have to be proven that people consistently score results that are far enough removed from their "real" type first, before we could legitimately research this.
    It would have to be proven. I agree.

    If we are to assume that at least 50% of people score truthfully, it is possible to draw conclusions through statistical mapping (i.e. by employing factor analysis to map each consecutive variable and determine a specific correlation).
    Too much covariance. You keep assuming uniform distributions.

    So basically, your main concern is that the test isn't accurate enough and shouldn't be used to draw any conclusions at all, am I correct in drawing this conclusion?

    This comes off as the typical reactionary fear many Ps have of being "classified," and in so doing taking away their "special" place on the Earth by removing their precious need to be free to have options, although rarely do we hear why these options are beneficial to anyone but the Ps themselves.
    Yes, I think test results mean essentially nothing. Not because I need to "have options" or whatever, but because the data is so tainted that extracting good information from it is more work than just throwing the whole thing out and starting over.

    No, my usage is akin to taking all of the sedan's attributes and matching them to other sedan's that are better in specific areas than it, and drawing conclusions based on my given results.
    You realize that the MBTI only has four dimensions, correct? You can't take ALL of the attributes and compare them, or you're not using MBTI (which I would approve of actually). If you want a full comparison between two people, MBTI is a pretty bad tool. It's only useful for quick, shallow categorization. And it is quite good for what it does. It just loses power when you try to go more in depth in personality psychology.

    As for the SUV, was that a serious question? I'll give you an opportunity to either revise your analogy or admit that it is horrible.
    Yeah, it wasn't a great analogy. What I meant was, if you just know that a car is an SUV and another car is a sedan, you can't possibly know which one has a higher top-speed. Because you don't know what's under the hood. You may think SUVs are slower on average because they weigh more. But they also tend to have bigger engines on average. And you can't see the engine from just looking at the outside. You can know certain things, like a sedan is probably faster around turns, and an SUV is probably better off the road.

    But in order to do a good comparison, you need much more than a few surface level factors. You need to inspect the engine, drive each one around, etc.

    My overall point is this: in comparing people, if you do a dimensionality reduction FIRST and then do the comparison, you lose lots of data. In fact, that's what the point of a dimensionality reduction is in the first place. To throw out data.

    In either case, it is the fault of the test taker, and not the test itself. The test is only at fault in so much that it allows for this to happen.
    A psychological test cannot just disregard certain people who take it. If it does, it's a badly designed test. If I wrote an experiment in my lab that only got usable data for half the participants, my professor would tell me to get my ass back to work.

    But then again, it's a psychological test, and until we can map and successfully correlate the brain's biochemical structure to distinct personality attributes, we will never be able to fully stop this from occurring.
    I mean...getting 95+% of people correctly categorized would be enough for me. 50% is definitely not enough, and I have doubts as to whether it's actually that high.

    Do you understand how cliche it is for a P, especially an NTP, to question the validity of anything that gives them concrete standing in the real world?

    As for a "cliche" response, I don't really know how to respond to that. Is this a cliche response?
    Sorry, that was a jab. You just remind me of a typical smart nerdy person, rejected by society, that sits in his room and categorizes people, throwing out 90% of the population as stupid. "Oh, they're just idiots, they're jealous, I don't care about them"...it resolves the dissonance in your mind from being rejected even though you're intelligent. The truth is, though, if you don't get along with 90% of people, there's something wrong with your approach.

    I, too, drew too many inferences from MBTI right when I learned about it. It validated tons of things about my personality. But what's the point in feeling validated? It just means you're less motivated to change your strategies for dealing with the world.

    You're young, you'll figure it out.

    Hah, I'm an asshole.

  7. #137
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You seemed to have missed my point. Take someone that actually is an ESFP. The smarter they are, the more likely they will be mistyped as N or T.
    Why is that? Because they are using their N and T skills for their specific tasks even though their general temperament is S or F?

    What I'm saying is that there's not a uniform distribution among people that are mistyped. Smarter Ss are mistyped more than less smart Ss.
    Is there really any evidence for this? If this were true (which again, I wouldn't find highly unlikely), it would only mean that the Myer-Briggs test is not versatile enough to compensate for slight variances among each of the four "preferences." Again, "preference" in this case is supposed to be what your mind naturally prefers (leans towards), not what you want to be, which is what your general predilection is.

    Unfortunately, most of the people that write these tests seem to have the same implicit premise as you, that N means smart and S means dumb. So they'll word the questions accordingly. This leads to smart Ss testing as N.


    Don't know how to spell it out more than that.
    First of all, how does this happen? I don't see that at all. What I do see is that S is clearly inferior to N in almost all forms of reasoning apart from linear deduction when all the facts are known. That is, they can be just as proficient when it comes to deducting information, especially when the goal and premise is clear, but they have a much more difficult time making inferences than N types.

    Let me guess, you're also the type of guy who thinks that IQ tests can be inherently biased, am I right?

    Don't know how to spell it out more than that.

    I don't know where you got your ideas, but MBTI is about preference. Why do you think identical twins are different types?
    Again, you misunderstand the way "preference" is used in MBTI.

    As for identical twins, I can show you a study that has been conducted between fraternal and identical twins since they were in their infancy. The fraternal twins lived together for most of their lives, while the identical twins were separated at birth. To the surprise of the researchers, the identical twins showed closer signs of like minded thinking (most staggering was their similarity in IQ, which was as high as a correlation of .75!) while the fraternal twins living in with the same family showed a correlation of only .60. That is amazing, and further supports the ever growing theory that personality and intelligence (which manifests itself differently depending on one's personality) are much more genetic than they are influenced by society.

    On that note, it is highly naive to think that identical twins share absolutely 100% of the same genes. There is growing evidence to support that they do not. And besides, nobody is discounting environmental factors. This isn't supposed to be a nurture vs. nature debate.

    Here is one study:

    About.com: http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(08)00102-X

    Here's another article based on this study:

    Identical Twins Not As Identical As Believed

    Sure, I grant that people within a type will have certain traits in common (otherwise, what's the point of typology?). Those traits usually have to do with what kinds of conversations are preferred or what hobbies people have. Or which majors people choose, or which roles they play socially.
    I find it highly ironic that you accuse me of looking at the superficial aspect of the different personality types when you are clearly basing your entire argument on how the different types mingle in the world, as opposed to the driving factors behind their respective behaviors.

    While it's quite possible that intelligence is correlated to these groupings,
    Not just possible, probable. In the field of psychometry, behavioral psychology, and sociobiology, it is accepted by all but the most ignorant that intelligence influences many aspects of our lives, and through that we can infer that it is related to personality.

    it's not like there are straight up causal links between intelligence and preference. And since accurate testing is so difficult, doing a study seems like it would get you nowhere.
    Look at this article:

    Personality Predictors Of Intelligence Change From Younger To Older Adulthood

    The personality types described here almost perfectly match the description of N and S, which seems to be what you are clinging to for some strange reason, as I haven't necessarily specified that S and N alone play the definitive roles.

    Basically, when it comes down to it, S types are better at storing and gathering factual knowledge, but N types are better at reasoning and understanding said knowledge, which is what general intelligence is all about.

    So you have the final say in deciding whether someone is in a specific type?
    No, the facts and empirical evidence have the final say. Honestly, are you seriously going to question my motives? You imply that you are older than I am, yet you show these reactionary fears of losing control of deciding what is what. C'mon...

    Odd, because your whole stance can be explained away by confirmation bias.
    Hahaha, I won't even bother defending myself against that. Ad hominem, anyone? Red Herring?

    It would have to be proven. I agree.

    Too much covariance. You keep assuming uniform distributions.

    Yes, I think test results mean essentially nothing. Not because I need to "have options" or whatever, but because the data is so tainted that extracting good information from it is more work than just throwing the whole thing out and starting over.
    The data isn't tainted, and that was the point I was trying to make when I stated that even if the test was correct 50% of the time, we could still derive conclusions from it. I did not mean that we should ignore those who are not being classed correctly (go back and read what I have stated: that we should disregard those who don't score properly because they are not taking the test honestly), but rather those who are deluding themselves. Would you think a math test was "inaccurate" because it failed to incorporate the scores of cheaters?

    You realize that the MBTI only has four dimensions, correct? You can't take ALL of the attributes and compare them, or you're not using MBTI (which I would approve of actually). If you want a full comparison between two people, MBTI is a pretty bad tool. It's only useful for quick, shallow categorization. And it is quite good for what it does. It just loses power when you try to go more in depth in personality psychology.
    Once again, if you are going to question the validity of the test (which I don't disagree with in some areas, primarily due to the fact that it allows for preference in your definition to occur, as I've stated several times now), there is no point in discussing this. Prove that the test is showing such large disparities between actual personality and scored personality, or else stop using it as a defense.

    According to you, most people who take the test score very differently from their actual personality, which I find rather comical. Why would that be the case? A personality test is there to measure your personality, not your "ability" to reason like an IQ test. While your personality may influence the way you reason, it certainly has no bearing on you answering the test questions truthfully.

    I would say that it is people who want to deceive themselves about their real personalities that are the larger problem than the construct of the test itself.

    Yeah, it wasn't a great analogy. What I meant was, if you just know that a car is an SUV and another car is a sedan, you can't possibly know which one has a higher top-speed. Because you don't know what's under the hood. You may think SUVs are slower on average because they weigh more. But they also tend to have bigger engines on average. And you can't see the engine from just looking at the outside. You can know certain things, like a sedan is probably faster around turns, and an SUV is probably better off the road.
    This analogy is worse than your other one.

    But in order to do a good comparison, you need much more than a few surface level factors. You need to inspect the engine, drive each one around, etc.
    That is exactly what I am doing.

    My overall point is this: in comparing people, if you do a dimensionality reduction FIRST and then do the comparison, you lose lots of data. In fact, that's what the point of a dimensionality reduction is in the first place. To throw out data.
    I'm not making a dimension reduction, I'm making a conclusion based on given variables. Basically, I am stating facts based on what I see. If you want to question my facts, which is what you are doing, it is a different discussion.

    A psychological test cannot just disregard certain people who take it. If it does, it's a badly designed test. If I wrote an experiment in my lab that only got usable data for half the participants, my professor would tell me to get my ass back to work.
    See above.

    I mean...getting 95+% of people correctly categorized would be enough for me. 50% is definitely not enough, and I have doubts as to whether it's actually that high.
    Proof?

    Sorry, that was a jab. You just remind me of a typical smart nerdy person, rejected by society, that sits in his room and categorizes people, throwing out 90% of the population as stupid. "Oh, they're just idiots, they're jealous, I don't care about them"...it resolves the dissonance in your mind from being rejected even though you're intelligent. The truth is, though, if you don't get along with 90% of people, there's something wrong with your approach.
    I understand, you're a typical NP who becomes rigid and defensive when somebody begins making classifications and deductions. You question all of the details in order to avoid making it "definitive." I understand that you cannot help it, I just find the irony of it highly entertaining, especially considering the situation and the contents of your posts.

    I, too, drew too many inferences from MBTI right when I learned about it. It validated tons of things about my personality. But what's the point in feeling validated? It just means you're less motivated to change your strategies for dealing with the world.

    You're young, you'll figure it out.

    Hah, I'm an asshole.
    You think that because I'm a new member on Typology Central, that I am "just learning" about MBTI?

    You're not an asshole, you're more of a clown.

  8. #138
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    What I'm getting down to is this:

    How do you know that you're not just typing people as ESFP that you think are stupid?

    I'm not responding to possible correlations. I believe that there are correlations; like that Ns on average are more intelligent than Ss on average. I think I got off topic even arguing about correlations.

    I was responding to this:

    Let's face it, ESFPs are predisposed to stupidity, and there is no use defending them. They are shallow, linear minded, unoriginal in every way, tasteless, clearly lack abstract reasoning and don't care for it at all (sure sign of somebody with an insufficient critical thinking ability, it just doesn't exist for them!), and are "intelligent" only in the most practical of ways.
    I mean...that's just a ludicrous statement. Unoriginal in every way?

    All types have S, N, T, and F. Yes, N is the basis for creating novel connections. You think ESFPs have none of that? That's like saying Ts have no ability to come to value conclusions.

    One of the ESFPs I know got 15something on her SAT. You think she has no analytical ability?

    I guess I strayed a bit, but really, I'm taking issue with your applying correlations to individuals.

  9. #139
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I mean...that's just a ludicrous statement. Unoriginal in every way?

    All types have S, N, T, and F. Yes, N is the basis for creating novel connections. You think ESFPs have none of that? That's like saying Ts have no ability to come to value conclusions.
    No it isn't. One makes an erroneous deduction about Ts, while the other assesses the traits of an ESFP and concludes that they are not predisposed to intelligence. Whether or not some ESFPs score high on aptitude tests and whatnot says only one thing to me: these people, who score as ESFPs and seem to be of that type, have developed other functions that allow them to solve higher level problems. In essence, they may be able to use NT to take the test, but are still SFs. Again, I don't know of many ESFPs who are like this, and even if that is the case, the behavior of the average ESFP prohibits them from accomplishing important tasks external of social pretense.

    One of the ESFPs I know got 15something on her SAT. You think she has no analytical ability?

    I guess I strayed a bit, but really, I'm taking issue with your applying correlations to individuals.
    So what? Getting a high score on an SAT is not completely indicative of intelligence. These tests can be studied, are linear, and test knowledge of curriculum. I think the correlation goes this way: intelligence --> higher scores, not higher scores --> intelligence.

    Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that it is oxymoronic when people claim that they know ESFPs who are highly smart/accomplished, yet act child-like and foolish, in typical ESFP fashion? Their Se prohibits them from using N to any degree apart from the most limited of ways (e.g. solving direct questions on an aptitude test.)

    Looking at the list of famous ESFPs, we can see that most are either, a) celebrity performers, or b) artists.

    Out of the two speculated ESFP presidents of the United States, one was a previous actor, and the other was a complete moron.

    So even the presumably "intelligent" ESFPs are stupid in every other way but the most confined ability to use NT. After all, what good is raw intelligence if one makes little effort to apply it to anything in an analytical and insightful fashion?

  10. #140
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    No it isn't. One makes an erroneous deduction about Ts, while the other assesses the traits of an ESFP and concludes that they are not predisposed to intelligence. Whether or not some ESFPs score high on aptitude tests and whatnot says only one thing to me: these people, who score as ESFPs and seem to be of that type, have developed other functions that allow them to solve higher level problems. In essence, they may be able to use NT to take the test, but are still SFs. Again, I don't know of many ESFPs who are like this, and even if that is the case, the behavior of the average ESFP prohibits them from accomplishing important tasks external of social pretense.



    So what? Getting a high score on an SAT is not completely indicative of intelligence. These tests can be studied, are linear, and test knowledge of curriculum. I think the correlation goes this way: intelligence --> higher scores, not higher scores --> intelligence.

    Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that it is oxymoronic when people claim that they know ESFPs who are highly smart/accomplished, yet act child-like and foolish, in typical ESFP fashion? Their Se prohibits them from using N to any degree apart from the most limited of ways (e.g. solving direct questions on an aptitude test.)

    Looking at the list of famous ESFPs, we can see that most are either, a) celebrity performers, or b) artists.

    Out of the two speculated ESFP presidents of the United States, one was a previous actor, and the other was a complete moron.

    So even the presumably "intelligent" ESFPs are stupid in every other way but the most confined ways. After all, what good is raw intelligence if one makes little effort to apply it to anything in an analytical and insightful fashion?
    Everyone uses N and T to solve problems. It's not like ESFPs can't. Everyone uses F to relate to people. Everyone uses S to take in input from the world. ESFPs prefer situations where they don't have to use N and T, but that doesn't mean they'll fail in those situations.

    It's possible they are worse in those situations on average, but to say they have no creative drive, no analytical skills, etc. is fucking retarded.

    So yes, ESFPs that do well in intelligence testing situations have developed N and T. Very true. But again, type is about preference, not ability. An ESFP math genius would probably prefer to run around and play sports than sit in a room in front of a computer. And based on their actions, you wouldn't know they were a math genius.

    Your sampling is biased.

Similar Threads

  1. [ESFP] The ESFP haters thread
    By King sns in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 02:35 PM
  2. [ESFP] ESFP Quote Of The Day
    By Mal12345 in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2012, 12:30 PM
  3. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 12:25 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-17-2011, 02:12 PM
  5. [MBTItm] ESFP/ENFP - how to get the ESFP off the ENFP?
    By Twixt in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 06:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO