The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[ChocolateMoose123]

Amen

 

[sgtmac_46]

I thought S stood for sensing, not stupid. Are ballerinas, musicians, sculptors innately stupid just because they aren't big on NT?

I'd scratch my head again, but this thread has already made my scalp raw.

It all kind of depends on your definition of 'stupid'. Some folks believe that lack of NT makes one stupid. And while that might be accurate on a limited level (i.e. the NT in questions areas of expertise), the reality is that on the whole it isn't true.

Human intelligence has a wide range.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.

Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?

It's because many ESFP's pattern their lives after being perceived as clowns. Often, however, they are far from stupid......they just wish to be seen as entertaining, not smart. They derive their self-esteem by their ability to keep an audience.

My best friend is an ESFP.....and he's more than equal to the task of keeping up with my most abstract discussions (of course he's been my friend since high school so he's used to it).

But most folks who know him merely as that big funny guy who acts like John Belushi in Animal House.....and he's fine with that.......he loves that he's the life of the party, not the brains of the operation.

So in that since it's not an unfounded stereotype......but it's not because they are stupid, just that they don't care if they are perceived as stupid IF they are also perceived as talented at entertaining people.

 

[King sns]

It's because many ESFP's pattern their lives after being perceived as clowns. Often, however, they are far from stupid......they just wish to be seen as entertaining, not smart. They derive their self-esteem by their ability to keep an audience. My best friend is an ESFP.....and he's more than equal to the task of keeping up with my most abstract discussions (of course he's been my friend since high school so he's used to it).

But most folks who know him merely as that big funny guy who acts like John Belushi in Animal House.....and he's fine with that.......he loves that he's the life of the party, not the brains of the operation.

So in that since it's not an unfounded stereotype......but it's not because they are stupid, just that they don't care if they are perceived as stupid IF they are also perceived as talented at entertaining people.

I feel that way..
Though no one's ever called me stupid, or questioned my intelligence, so I've never been in a position to try to prove it or care what other's thought. Its just never come up.

Well.
Till now.
Kind of.
Indirectly.

Sometimes its the opposite.
People trying to copy off my test and using me as a study crutch and asking advice and sneering at my grades and stuff. While I don't mind being called smart, I'd rather be seen as funny, a good friend, entertaining, fun, etc. I'd just rather be loveable!!

 

[NewEra]

One man's real life observation of four people: no control, no variables, no set questions, no set tests... no definition of "stupidity" "utter moron" or "thinking chain." No clear definition of esfp even.

Perhaps if this now qualifies as a "study", then the entire science of statistical analysis should become obsolete.

 

[Jaguar]

I thought S stood for sensing, not stupid. Are ballerinas, musicians, sculptors innately stupid just because they aren't big on NT?

I'd scratch my head again, but this thread has already made my scalp raw.

I'm sure the S millionaires are glad they aren't NTs on welfare.

 

[Litvyak]

Tch. People, you should understand that you're intelligent ONLY if you choose a username like... hm, let's see, 'Occam's razor', 'Tetricus II' or 'Social discontinuity', you use an emperor or a philosopher as your avatar, then start spreading bullshit about connections between your tuna sandwich and the New World Order. This way you can compensate for your inferiority complex AND make everyone else look stupid despite the fact that you're an incompatible chipmunk constantly bullied IRL

 

[Jaguar]

Connecting a tuna sandwich and a New World Order.
What a riot.

 

[King sns]

hahahahaha...

I'm emperor shorty INTJ of the eighteenth empire.
The new world order Big Brother is dumping gallons and gallons of brainwash juice in the ocean, people, and then publishing brochures that say that tuna is good for you. Cooincidence????????

 

[Litvyak]

See? Now you're the cleverestest in the forum.
I bow before thee, Dame Short

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.

Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?

I believe that this myth is influenced by culture. Most TV writers live in either NYC or LA and reflect those sensibilities. If you look at King of the Hill the "stupid" character is Dale Gribble and he's an INxJ. On the other hand Jon Redcorn is probably ESFP, and he definitely comes off getting the upper hand over Dale. King of the Hill appeals to different sensibilities culturally, so it has a different type of fool.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe that this myth is influenced by culture. Most TV writers live in either NYC or LA and reflect those sensibilities. If you look at King of the Hill the "stupid" character is Dale Gribble and he's an INxJ. On the other hand Jon Redcorn is probably ESFP, and he definitely comes off getting the upper hand over Dale. King of the Hill appeals to different sensibilities culturally, so it has a different type of fool.

John Redcorn is definitely an ISTP.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

John Redcorn is definitely an ISTP.

He might be ISFP, but he's no T. Every plotline about him is something Feeling related: his relationship with Nancy, wanting to get to Joseph, seeking restitution for how his people have been mistreated, etc.... His whole life revolves around his values.

The hard part is figuring out for me is figuring out if Dale is T or F. He's not particularly developed in either area. He's just out of control, paranoid Ni. Either way in this case the INxJ is portrayed as the idiot instead of the intelligent one.

 

[Lex Talionis]

He might be ISFP, but he's no T. Every plotline about him is something Feeling related: his relationship with Nancy, wanting to get to Joseph, seeking restitution for how his people have been mistreated, etc.... His whole life revolves around his values.

The hard part is figuring out for me is figuring out if Dale is T or F. He's not particularly developed in either area. He's just out of control, paranoid Ni. Either way in this case the INxJ is portrayed as the idiot instead of the intelligent one.

You cannot compare Dale's idiocy to that of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.

Dale isn't even particularly stupid (many indicators show that he is highly intelligent); he is simply delusional. There's a major difference.

John Redcorn can be either an F or a T. He is such a minor character with so little depth to him that his "intelligent" representation doesn't say anything.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You cannot compare Dale's idiocy to that of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.

Dale isn't even particularly stupid (many indicators show that he is highly intelligent); he is simply delusional. There's a major difference.

John Redcorn can be either an F or a T. He is such a minor character with so little depth to him that his "intelligent" representation doesn't say anything.

I can compare Dale to Homer, because Dale is the main fool in King of the Hill. (The only other possibility is Bill, but the show focuses more on Dale than Bill.) Hank is the butt of a few jokes, and so are the rest (Peggy, Bobby, etc...), but Dale is really not portrayed as intelligent or competent in any way. Instead he's totally out of touch with reality.

Jon Redcorn role in the show is to consistently make Dale look like a fool. He screws Dale's wife for years and Dale never suspects (again showing how out of touch Dale is). TV makes fun of an ESFP stereotype by showing an incompetent ESFP like Homer. It makes fun of an INxJ stereotype by showing an incompetent INxJ like Dale.

 

[Suzanne]

We have been, constantly, in this thread. But you don't seem to get that. We say that you can't generalize like that, and yet you continue to assert that you can and that it's 100% accurate every time.

Seriously, stop bullshitting. What is there to gain, to force these bullshit assertions into this thread? Everything you're posting here lacks purpose and you CANNOT prove that every ESFP is like what you've described based on a few people you've met. This is a basic rule in science, in any form of study, a basic guideline. That correlations aren't set in stone, ever. Statistical significance, in your case a few ESFPs, does NOT make a set standard. This is dangerous thinking in any field of study. This is like saying that because you win at a slot machine three times in a row, that you will win every time.

If you've been to college or taken any psychological courses in your entire life, it's in the second chapter of your textbook. Read the section about experimenting. If you've taken any formal psychology classes then you will know that what you're asserting is bullshit just because the statistical significance is nil. You are obviously un educated if you are asserting these claims.

Lex = INTJ, possibly introverted intuition without developed extroverted thinking in the real world to back it up?

There is an archetypal fool who underneath enjoys a high intelligence. As some posters have pointed out, many ESFPs are intelligent but like to play the fool to an audience for laughs. It would be easy to mistake that superficial aspect for the totality of a person.

 

[redacted]

No he isn't. He's definitely an S. Where do you get the idea that he's an N?

What I see all too often on this forum is that people point out one or two traits which are insignificant and suppose that one is of a particular temperament.

Peter Griffin exhibits no clear signs of being an intuit. He is a typical jester who acts purely on immediate grounds and impulses.

This is consistent with my earlier statement that given the fact that you understand MBTI the way you do, you're more likely to type stupid people as S and smart people as N.

Unfortunately, it's consistent with your view as well

I don't think he's present in the moment at all, though -- he's so intuitive that he's an idiot (very little judgment means the connections are essentially random).

 

[Lex Talionis]

Lex = INTJ, possibly introverted intuition without developed extroverted thinking in the real world to back it up?

There is an archetypal fool who underneath enjoys a high intelligence. As some posters have pointed out, many ESFPs are intelligent but like to play the fool to an audience for laughs. It would be easy to mistake that superficial aspect for the totality of a person.

Introverted intuition requires immediate feedback from Te. It doesn't just go as you seem to believe it does.

Ni by itself is logical but not rational, and without Te to support it one could hardly make even the remotest of observations (unless you live in imagination land for most of your life, which would still require Te, and is an extreme that cannot possibly be argued seriously). In other words, Ni feeds directly off of Te, and Te in turn draws from Ni to come up with conclusions.

So your conclusions are thus rendered incorrect. Ni simply draws in information it comes across, analyzes it, and Te configures it into a logical structure.

ESFPs act like clowns because they are - innately - clowns. Their conclusions are almost always false when in a debate solely because of the way they think. For the last time: it's not just about core intelligence (i.e. processing power.)

Just look through this thread. Almost every comment by ESFPs was founded on some false premise, and it was the NTs who put up the best arguments in your defense!

Oh the irony!

 

[Lex Talionis]

This is consistent with my earlier statement that given the fact that you understand MBTI the way you do, you're more likely to type stupid people as S and smart people as N.

Unfortunately, it's consistent with your view as well

I don't think he's present in the moment at all, though -- he's so intuitive that he's an idiot (very little judgment means the connections are essentially random).

My deductions are drawn directly from real world observation. How can this not be the case? ESFPs don't just spontaneously generate in my head. They have an origin that is quite grounded in reality.

Don't be an idiot.

 

[redacted]

Ni by itself is logical but not rational1

How is it logical?

I mean, I guess you could make the argument that all cognitive processes are logical because they follow some complex deterministic formula for the neural network that is the brain...but is that really what you're trying to say?

How would you define Ni? I'm curious because I would imagine it's incorrect.

All Ni does is unconsciously generate metaphors, biased towards the internal standard over the external (depth of metaphors, ie. metaphors about metaphors about metaphors vs. breadth of metaphors [Ne], ie. metaphors about all information without preference).

Why would you think that's logical or even useful? Without Thinking (or Feeling even, since it's a conscious deductive process), there is no logic (in the common sense of the word). It's just random associations, with Ni biased towards depth and Ne biased towards breadth.

Otherwise, you'd have to call all of cognition logical by definition -- it technically is, because it's just a complex network of neurons following deterministic physical laws. But then again, if you take that route, everything is logical since it's all made of matter/energy, which follows deterministic laws as well. Not exactly a useful way of looking at it, since it makes no distinctions.



Listen, I agree that in order to be intelligent, you must have good use of N and T. But also F and S. S provides the raw data, N creates meaning (all unconscious so far). F consciously filters out data that is not relevant to goals, and T consciously filters out data that's not logically consistent.

So it's true that smart ESFPs have good use of T and N. But it's also true that smart INTJs have good use of F and S (because otherwise, it's just analyzing all things, regardless of the use they have, not to mention that N can't do anything without data taken in from S).

I don't think MBTI is about ability with any of the four functions; it's just about which functions are most comfortable and descriptive of a person's thought process. An INTJ with no F or S would be a completely useless human being in the exact same way as an ESFP with no N or T.

Anyway, you might be falling into the trap of thinking an NT is defined by N and T, and the S and F are irrelevant. But that's just stupid. All tasks take all four functions. Type is just a descriptive tale of which preferences are preferred -- it has little to do with ability to use functions based on situations.

The types really aren't as different as you seem to think they are.