The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[King sns]

Lex is a Stormfront user. Stop taking him seriously.

No one takes him seriously.

 

[Aleksei]

not necissarily- there's actually a thread around here somewhere as people testing as Sensors because those traits are more widely valued in their communities (i.e. black women testing as ESFJ instead of as an N because those are the GOOD traits)

The younger people who tend to feel like outsiders or "special" are more likely to test as N because that explains it all to them... not the fact that they're younger and younger people rarely feel like they fit into society properly

So basically you're arguing that there is a margin of error on type on both ends of the spectrum, which kind of renders your argument useless -- If an equal number of Intuitives are mistyped as SJ as SPs are as Ns, then they balance out. Mistyping thus becomes statistical noise.

 

[miss fortune]

not really... if you can't ascertain anyone's type precisely how the fuck are you going to accuratly correlate it with IQs to come out with a proper comparison?

plus- on sites like this anyone with a flicker of brainwaves is often informed that they must be an Intuitive, whether it's true or not :rolli: The descriptions of sensors are so antithetical with the traditional "educated elite" stereotype that it's very unlikely that the average intellectual person would choose the sensor type- or that the average anti-elitist would ever choose to be an N

this isn't necissarily true though... it's lack of education that generally propels people to choose one type over the other- and most of the people who make the simple S/N tests and descriptions should be taken out back and be shot for being such idiots

 

[Aleksei]

not really... if you can't ascertain anyone's type precisely how the fuck are you going to accuratly correlate it with IQs to come out with a proper comparison?

I frankly doubt that it's possible for several hundred thousand people to all get their type wrong. There is certainly a margin of error, but over a large enough sample it can't be absolute. Ergo, it is statistical noise.

plus- on sites like this anyone with a flicker of brainwaves is often informed that they must be an Intuitive, whether it's true or not :rolli:

Sensing = Detail-oriented, concrete and down-to-earth. Intuitive = Abstract, theoretical and dreamy. A detail-oriented, concrete person will come off as such on any test they take, and vice-versa for an abstract, theoretical people, because intelligence is not actually officially type-related. Besides, statistical type/IQ studies do not rely on our amateur speculation.

The descriptions of sensors are so antithetical with the traditional "educated elite" stereotype that it's very unlikely that the average intellectual person would choose the sensor type- or that the average anti-elitist would ever choose to be an N

How so?

 

[miss fortune]

*sigh* I would think that these things should be obvious through social observation!

I really have to overexplain things around here sometimes and it gets pretty annoying I thought that Ns were supposed to be able to pick up on things

first off, you're not getting the definitions of Se and Si quite correctly- especially since you're lumping them all into one clump- Se can be quite creative and work with knowlege from everywhere- it's just tuned in more to the present than Ne is... which often manifests itself as being more concrete and down to earth since it can more easily be applied to the world around us, while Si stores data and compares, networks and contrasts with it in the back of the mind- a lot of sciences and predictions are actually based on Se and Si like principles of observation and comparison of past results

oversimplified tests mean oversimplified (and often incorrect) answers... show me what tests were used and where the data was actually collected- and I'd also like to know what the psychologists said to the people- there's not enough knowlege on the circumstances of these tests to NOT beleive that they aren't accurate

where did your suspicious bastard function go for goodness sake

the ivory tower- where all is done with one's mind and nothing needs to be done with one's hands- the stereotypical view of the educated elite- much more towards the stereotypical intuitive descriptions (though I know some Ns who work in rather physical settings!) while the down to earth description generally given to sensors would appeal more to those who are opposed to elitist and snobby attitudes

the amount of effort that some people are putting into proving that they're better than other people in this thread is disturbing and making me somewhat convinced that they are overcompensating for something in real life

really people- are you that pathetic?

 

[Quiet]

Imo, the world has more ES influence. It would seem that only Hollywood is being focussed on and Hollywood focusses on what the average American wants for entertainment purposes. It makes me also wonder about the ES characters mentioned. Could it be that they offer us something thought provoking in some way? It would seem so. . Maybe many can relate to these characters, or know of people like these characters. The posibilities are endless.

 

[Aleksei]

Se can be quite creative and work with knowlege from everywhere

How? Se is situational awareness. It doesn't modify -- it absorbs.

 

[miss fortune]

quite possible to absorb, assimilate, modify and use... you really don't fully understand Se do you?

I had a thread on that... it's perfectly possible to modify the things in front of you for the purpose of usefulness and awesomeness... like a quick fix for a broken shoe, or rewriting your score when one member of your group doesn't show up for competition

 

[simulatedworld]

No one takes him seriously.

 

[Aleksei]

the amount of effort that some people are putting into proving that they're better than other people in this thread is disturbing and making me somewhat convinced that they are overcompensating for something in real life

Are you referring to me? I don't have to prove I'm more awesome and smarterer than everyone else (it should be obvious already ), and being intuitive is not needed for that. I am defending a statistically proven fact that I consider logically sound.

 

[miss fortune]

ANYONE who's that defensive about proving their superiority is hiding something

especially if they're trying to "prove" it with the same study as one of the site's most notable billy goat eaters that is a sorry piece of work

 

[Aleksei]

My group's superiority is not my superiority. My superiority is established and independent of it. I'm just trying to ground in a fact that is truthful but everyone denies because it's offensive, which drives me up the wall. The truth is the truth, even if it's ugly.

 

[simulatedworld]

My group's superiority is not my superiority. My superiority is established and independent of it. I'm just trying to ground in a fact that is truthful but everyone denies because it's offensive, which drives me up the wall.

Seriously, doesn't it bug you when people think being offensive somehow deprives you of the ability to be right? :steam:

 

[miss fortune]

and I'm saying that it's shoddy research and that to draw conclusions from that is to unwisely jump to conclusions

you DO know what assuming does don't you Alexsi...

I'm also saying that it's just tacky to take up the same argument as a total troll... not good politics in the least

 

[Robopop]

The thing with all this information and research is what can you trust and what is dubious, if there's an equal amount of evidence for and against a theory or idea, it can be very hard to judge good research from bad research. The research of MBTI types correlating with IQ does seem a little dubious to me. Is there any other independent research in this area?

 

[Robopop]

In a way, MBTI is just a catergorization system, you could easily divide people in 8, 35, or 127 different personality types.
To me it works good as a theoretical model but none of these types actually "exist", they are ideal archetypes.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Heh. Be nice now... Lol...

Some people just don't know these things.

 

[garbage]

I stopped paying attention when dude said that MBTI was as scientifically sound as OCEAN

(hint: a probabilistic and situation-based personality system is gonna be more reliable and accurate)

seriously, like, when that happened, my eyes just glazed over as I was scrolling through the rest of this thread

if INTJs are statistically smarter than ESFPs, then, well, we found ourselves an outlier

 

[Tamske]

first off, you're not getting the definitions of Se and Si quite correctly- especially since you're lumping them all into one clump- Se can be quite creative and work with knowlege from everywhere- it's just tuned in more to the present than Ne is... which often manifests itself as being more concrete and down to earth since it can more easily be applied to the world around us, while Si stores data and compares, networks and contrasts with it in the back of the mind- a lot of sciences and predictions are actually based on Se and Si like principles of observation and comparison of past results

Se's the one which reminds me to enjoy the real party at the moment it's there. Ne's the one which imagines a million alternative parties.

But what's happened to the original discussion in this thread, actually? The stupid guy in comic fiction, remember?
I've thought about the very few funny things I've read and enjoyed... and I remembered a lot of stupid ENTPs.
Face it. Stupid ENTPs can beat stupid ESFPs for comic action. Inventing all sorts of original solutions which never work properly, talking their heads off about their latest theory.

 

[Ulaes]

watch the movie What's up, Doc
barbara streissands character seems to be a smart ESFP.
funny movie.