User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 373

  1. #21
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    It's not that the stuff in the ISTP description is bad in and of itself. If all descriptions focused on how the type presents in everyday life, that would be fine. But as it is, it's like the ISTP is Mechanical Joe from down the street and the INTP is John Nash. The devil's in the comparison, and these two descriptions (as is often the case) are on different scales. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with the reader valuing the N qualities over the S ones, because it's skills that are being attributed to the types. One is skilled with power tools while the other is skilled in precision of thought and language, concentration, argumentation, design, and efficiency. The ISTP one is realistic and the INTP one is gushing.
    It probably seems gushy because (1) there's some element of truth to that but (2) it's also generalized abstraction.

    Also, you do realize that, regardless of how smart John Nash is and the movie that was made about it, realistically he was probably a pain in the butt to live with and should not really be glamorized? He had some INTP-like strengths and a LOT of corresponding negatives. If someone called me John Nash, I'd probably be more put off than pleased.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #22
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It probably seems gushy because (1) there's some element of truth to that but (2) it's also generalized abstraction.
    It doesn't seem gushy; it is gushy. It's not an "abstract generalization" to say, "they are the master designers of all kinds of theoretical systems, including school curricula, corporate strategies, and new technologies," or "in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage." Are these not fairly specific in their praise?

    That's the key word. Praise. Why does this type get praise while the ISTP gets a detached description?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Also, you do realize that, regardless of how smart John Nash is and the movie that was made about it, realistically he was probably a pain in the butt to live with and should not really be glamorized? He had some INTP-like strengths and a LOT of corresponding negatives. If someone called me John Nash, I'd probably be more put off than pleased.
    You're quibbling. This is irrelevant to the discussion.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #23
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    There certainly are plenty of intelligent sensors, I meet them all the time especially related to historical discussions. Much of the time I can't keep up with them.

  4. #24
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    I don't really have much of a MBTI perspective outside of this forum and truly doesn't make much of a difference in the real world. Supposedly the smartest person I know irl is an ENFJ with an IQ of 170 (officially tested). If we took the descriptions to heart in real life, then ENFJs would probably be stereotyped as the dumbest N. Also, it doesn't have much validity outside of here.

  5. #25
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    You're quibbling. This is irrelevant to the discussion.
    It was entirely relevant. As far as I can tell, you are the one assuming that N's put themselves on a pedestal and put S's under the bus in their type descriptions. When I speak of Nash (or think/write about NTs in general), it's not as a hero who is better than an S... but for some reason you would see it that way.

    You blame the baggage on others, but from I see, you are more invested in slurring S strengths and assuming N positives than the N's I see on this site. Why the self-hatred?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #26
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    ESTP

    ESTPs are spontaneous, active folks. Like the other SPs, ESTPs get great satisfaction from acting on their impulses. Activities involving great power, speed, thrill and risk are attractive to the ESTP. Chronic stifling of these impulses makes the ESTP feel "dead inside."

    Gamesmanship is the calling card of the ESTP. Persons of this type have a natural drive to best the competition. Some of the most successful salespersons are ESTPs. P.T. Barnum ("Never give a sucker an even break") illustrates the unscrupulous contingent of this type.

    Almost unconsciously the ESTP looks for nonverbal, nearly subliminal cues as to what makes her quarry "tick." Once she knows, she waits for just the right time to trump the unsuspecting victim's ace and glory in her conquest. Oddly enough, the ESTP seems to admire and respect anyone who can beat her at her own game.

    "If I was any better, I couldn't stand it!" To an ESTP, admission of weakness feels like failure. He admires strength in himself and in others.

    "Shock effect" is a favored technique of this type to get the attention of his audience. ESTPs love to be at center stage, demonstrating feats of wonder and daring.
    ENTP

    "Clever" is the word that perhaps describes ENTPs best. The professor who juggles half a dozen ideas for research papers and grant proposals in his mind while giving a highly entertaining lecture on an abstruse subject is a classic example of the type. So is the stand-up comedian whose lampoons are not only funny, but incisively accurate.

    ENTPs are usually verbally as well as cerebrally quick, and generally love to argue--both for its own sake, and to show off their often-impressive skills. They tend to have a perverse sense of humor as well, and enjoy playing devil's advocate. They sometimes confuse, even inadvertently hurt, those who don't understand or accept the concept of argument as a sport.

    ENTPs are as innovative and ingenious at problem-solving as they are at verbal gymnastics; on occasion, however, they manage to outsmart themselves. This can take the form of getting found out at "sharp practice"--ENTPs have been known to cut corners without regard to the rules if it's expedient -- or simply in the collapse of an over-ambitious juggling act. Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of "toys"--physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better. They tend to tire of these quickly, however, and move on to new ones.

    ENTPs are basically optimists, but in spite of this (perhaps because of it?), they tend to become extremely petulant about small setbacks and inconveniences. (Major setbacks they tend to regard as challenges, and tackle with determin- ation.) ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general.

    In terms of their relationships with others, ENTPs are capable of bonding very closely and, initially, suddenly, with their loved ones. Some appear to be deceptively offhand with their nearest and dearest; others are so demonstrative that they succeed in shocking co-workers who've only seen their professional side. ENTPs are also good at acquiring friends who are as clever and entertaining as they are. Aside from those two areas, ENTPs tend to be oblivious of the rest of humanity, except as an audience -- good, bad, or potential.
    How about these ones from TypeLogic? Not only is there a huge difference in length, depth, breadth, and specificity, but the language used in the ESTP description is relatively neutral while the ENTP is called "clever," "funny," "innovative," "ingenious," "entertaining," and "incisive."
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #27
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It was entirely relevant. As far as I can tell, you are the one assuming that N's put themselves on a pedestal and put S's under the bus in their type descriptions. When I speak of Nash (or think/write about NTs in general), it's not as a hero who is better than an S... but for some reason you would see it that way.
    Who's talking about what you do or think? Did you personally write those descriptions? I'm talking about how bias in the descriptions affects self-typing on this forum and others around the internet. And when you model one description on Average Joe Regulars and another on famous, Nobel laureate professors (or something like that...I'm just keeping with the John Nash example since it seems so important to you), there is going to be a value difference. It's just true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    You blame the baggage on others, but from I see, you are more invested in slurring S strengths and assuming N positives than the N's I see on this site. Why the self-hatred?
    When have I slurred S strengths? What are S strengths to you?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #28
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Who's talking about what you do or think? Did you personally write those descriptions? I'm talking about how bias in the descriptions affects self-typing on this forum and others around the internet. And when you model one description on Average Joe Regulars and another on famous, Nobel laureate professors (or something like that...I'm just keeping with the John Nash example since it seems so important to you), there is going to be a value difference. It's just true.

    When have I slurred S strengths? What are S strengths?
    That's exactly my point. I read Keirsey and saw positives inherent in the S definition. You did not.

    That's a perception difference that you blame on Keirsey, but the blame likely is partially misplaced.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #29
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That's exactly my point. I read Keirsey and saw positives inherent in the S definition. You did not.
    Where did you get that? It's not that the "S definition" is not positive, it's that there is an imbalance in the type, number, and magnitude of language used to describe the positives between S and N (well, more precisely, between the ISTP and INTP description.) As a result, one is made to look more appealing than the other on face value. I never said there were no positives in the ISTP description.

    Anyway, none of this is an argument against my contention that the glossier N descriptions have a persuasive impact on people trying to type themselves. EVERY person I've had take a test or read the descriptions IRL has chosen an N type first. Even my mother, who is the most ISTJ woman on the planet, chose INTJ. And really, this is not surprising, nor does it take a fucking rocket scientist to see why. I tend to think that things would be more balanced if only the socionics descriptions existed, because those seem to give a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of different types, and they're not gussied up because someone really loves being an INFP or INTP.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #30
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    FWIW, my previous point is that I personally thought some S descriptions were appealing. Especially ISFP and ISTP.

Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] Why I Am No Longer An Enneagrammist
    By Mal12345 in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 10:10 AM
  2. [Enne] Even Though I Am No Longer An Enneagrammist...
    By Mal12345 in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 09:42 AM
  3. [INTP] INTP men, how do you behave when you are no longer attracted to a girl?
    By Almari in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-14-2012, 10:29 PM
  4. I forgot what I was going to talk about...
    By Cloudblue in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-09-2010, 03:02 PM

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