User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 75

  1. #31
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    Did you feel seeming as unauthentic when you used your T function? Using T is less showmanship and display than using F, in my opinion, so I wouldn't think of most people considering that an "act". Perhaps an immature or harsh T would expect flawless T-like behaviour from others, but I find such unreasonable. I understand if you didn't feel like yourself at first when using T.
    Well, I'm in my fifties. When I was a kid, everyone pretty much just understood that guys were supposed to toughen up and be unemotional. So I just accepted that becoming more T-like was part of growing up. It didn't occur to me to question whether it was right or wrong.

    It was okay to be a "sensitive guy," but it was understood that even sensitive guys had to toe the line, toughen up, and bite the bullet when it came to certain "male" things like sports, work, etc.

    I accepted that being a "sensitive guy" was always going to be a part of me. But I also genuinely aspired to be able to hold my own in the "male" things. And changing into T mode for business negotiations was no different from putting on one's suit and tie before going to a business meeting.

    AH, on second thought, I won't. I expect to enter a career when such things are not yet so expected.. but just wait, they will be. I recommend to read Daniel Goleman's book, The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace (2001) to see why
    I agree. There is definitely pressure on Thinkers to be more "emotionally intelligent" in the workplace nowadays, especially in leadership positions. These days, leadership training in the corporate world includes training on sensitizing oneself to the emotional needs of workforce.

    Being somewhat ambidextrous in that way, I always excel in workplace leadership classes. It's fun to see the hard-charging INTJs stumbling about and trying to puzzle out how they are supposed to handle some emotional/ethical nightmare problem.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    I agree. There is definitely pressure on Thinkers to be more "emotionally intelligent" in the workplace nowadays, especially in leadership positions. These days, leadership training in the corporate world includes training on sensitizing oneself to the emotional needs of workforce.

    Being somewhat ambidextrous in that way, I always excel in workplace leadership classes. It's fun to see the hard-charging INTJs stumbling about and trying to puzzle out how they are supposed to handle some emotional/ethical nightmare problem.
    If a leader isn't in tune with the emotional state of his/her employees, he/she simply isn't in tune with an essential part of his/her company. Yet, I've spend time with more primitive leaders who've litteraly bragged about treating their employees unnessecarily harsh and inconsiderate. These kind of simple minded old school leaders will usually explain their behaviour with "running a business is only about making money" to which I can only reply "exactly!". To willingly be blind to the emotional state of the people you'r hired to lead is willingly being blind to people you've invested in i.e. dangerous and foolish.
    Verbal IQ Test

    SubFacor IQ score = 65
    Subscale percentile = 1

    You appear to have a very limited vocabulary and lack the ability to identify the correct responses for a variety of different questions. A deficient vocabulary can hinder you in many ways; you may struggle to find the correct words when speaking, fail to understand what others are communicating to you, or come across as inarticulate to others.

  3. #33
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    If a leader isn't in tune with the emotional state of his/her employees, he/she simply isn't in tune with an essential part of his/her company. Yet, I've spend time with more primitive leaders who've litteraly bragged about treating their employees unnessecarily harsh and inconsiderate. These kind of simple minded old school leaders will usually explain their behaviour with "running a business is only about making money" to which I can only reply "exactly!". To willingly be blind to the emotional state of the people you'r hired to lead is willingly being blind to people you've invested in i.e. dangerous and foolish.
    Absolutely. Worse yet, when they are working in a large corporate structure or in a bureaucracy, bad bosses put the corporation at risk. Bad bosses yell at subordinates, engage in discrimination, ignore harassment situations occurring in their department, deny their employees access to benefits promised to them, etc. Then the employees sue the corporation for millions of dollars.

    Furthermore, the modern high-tech environment has created a whole new breed of "bad bosses" within the corporate ranks or bureaucracies.

    In the old days, before the high-tech boom, managers traditionally came up through the administrative ranks and were educated and groomed to be good administrators and managers. But now that everything has gone high-tech, the departments are staffed with specialized technicians and so the bosses have to come from the same departments and be specialized technicians themselves. The modern bosses are trained to be good technicians, but they have no administrative experience and often have little or no leadership experience.

    So when technicians gain some seniority and look like they're destined for a leadership position, the corporation or bureaucracy has to send them to leadership classes and try to educate them practically from the ground up about basic people-handling skills, leadership skills, and administrative skills.

    Like I said in my last post, I've encountered those guys in my own leadership courses, and it's really quite hilarious. Those guys (and gals too) are young, intense, hard-working over-achievers. They have highly technical post-grad degrees and they have no problem working 16 hours a day for months at a time on a crucial technical issue involving hundreds of millions of dollars, and they fully intend to excel and end up in high positions in the corporation or bureaucracy. But they have never yet had a single employee reporting directly to them (never had to promote or demote, give performance reports, etc.). And when they deal with the front office secretary, they tend to get pissed at her and yell at her when she can't do their work right away. And when the overworked secretary breaks down and starts sobbing, they have no clue what's wrong. And then the boss yells at them and tells them that they can't use the secretary anymore and have to do all their own copying and mailing.

    Then one day, they're about to be put in charge of an overseas mission or be promoted to Deputy Division Chief and be responsible for lots of personnel. So suddenly they're sent to leadership courses where they're given hypothetical problems about how to address staff issues concerning touchy issues of ethics, emotions, and workloads. And they haven't a clue. They want to boil everything down to a simple rule or two and move people around like chess pieces. And when they sit down at a table with demoralized staff assistants complaining about work conditions, they freak out and start ordering everyone to quit bitching and just do their work.

    To their credit, these intense, brilliant kids mean well. They fully intend to be excellent leaders, so they want to master the material. They attack the material with the same intensity that they attack everything else in life. If they aren't good public speakers, they sign up for Toastmasters. If they aren't good with people, they sign up for sensitivity training. They willingly study the materials and sign up for more leadership courses and after-hours discussion groups until they get it right. They're not slackers; it's just that it's new territory for them.

    Sooner or later, they catch on. But it's funny to see them flailing about without a clue during those first leadership courses. A bunch of NT hi-tech whiz kids sit down together to hash out some hypothetical personnel problem as part of training, and they arrive at exactly the wrong answer. They get it completely backwards. Then some Feeler with a little bit of actual leadership experience at the next table stands up and gives the correct answer. And so they all stare at the Feeler dumbfounded, trying to follow the convoluted explanation about emotional entitlements and morale issues. It's a whole new world for them.

  4. #34
    Senior Member developer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    117

    Default

    The whole last post of FineLine was one of the smartest things I have read lately on leadership issues. I could not agree more. Actually, one should submit this as a letter to HBR....

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    Sooner or later, they catch on. But it's funny to see them flailing about without a clue during those first leadership courses. A bunch of NT hi-tech whiz kids sit down together to hash out some hypothetical personnel problem as part of training, and they arrive at exactly the wrong answer. They get it completely backwards. Then some Feeler with a little bit of actual leadership experience at the next table stands up and gives the correct answer. And so they all stare at the Feeler dumbfounded, trying to follow the convoluted explanation about emotional entitlements and morale issues. It's a whole new world for them.
    many times, all it takes is for T leaders to realize that it's mostly profitable to take emotions into consideration. That's often where the motivation comes from and if the motivation is there, they will as you say, mostly do their best to improve.
    Verbal IQ Test

    SubFacor IQ score = 65
    Subscale percentile = 1

    You appear to have a very limited vocabulary and lack the ability to identify the correct responses for a variety of different questions. A deficient vocabulary can hinder you in many ways; you may struggle to find the correct words when speaking, fail to understand what others are communicating to you, or come across as inarticulate to others.

  6. #36
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by developer View Post
    The whole last post of FineLine was one of the smartest things I have read lately on leadership issues. I could not agree more. Actually, one should submit this as a letter to HBR....
    That was an excellent post.

    I was going to say - I wish I was more of an F for similar reasons, but more at a personal level. Too many spousal inflicted costs with Ts (and I say this as both my fiance and I are Ts and utterly lack that emotional side.)

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That was an excellent post.

    I was going to say - I wish I was more of an F for similar reasons, but more at a personal level. Too many spousal inflicted costs with Ts (and I say this as both my fiance and I are Ts and utterly lack that emotional side.)
    Hmm, I would have thought a great gap between F and T would be the source of bigger problems.

    Sorry FL - forgot the wubbing - great post indeed.
    Verbal IQ Test

    SubFacor IQ score = 65
    Subscale percentile = 1

    You appear to have a very limited vocabulary and lack the ability to identify the correct responses for a variety of different questions. A deficient vocabulary can hinder you in many ways; you may struggle to find the correct words when speaking, fail to understand what others are communicating to you, or come across as inarticulate to others.

  8. #38
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Hmm, I would have thought a great gap between F and T would be the source of bigger problems.

    Sorry FL - forgot the wubbing - great post indeed.
    I don't know how well it correlates directly to MBTI, but in spousal costs (from memory, so grain of salt);

    I / E - Very little to no bearing on relationship satisfaction (general, emotional, sexual)

    N / S - Differential, in that open people and closed people don't tend to get along as well... but it seems like S:S and N:N tend to get along roughly equally (I think slightly worse for Ss, but... not terribly significant).

    T / F - Absolute; the more T you are, the less satisfied your partner is.

    J / P - Strangely enough, not statistically significant, except that male Js are more sexually satisfying to female partners. (The joke being - they get the job done). Or was it J female partners... hrmm... Well, one or the other.

    And of course, a major other factor is "Neuroticism", which is among the most important (T/F being the next one), with being N+ being absolute as well.

    Note that despite this, E means happier while I means less happy, so it's not a full picture thing.

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I / E - Very little to no bearing on relationship satisfaction (general, emotional, sexual)

    N / S - Differential, in that open people and closed people don't tend to get along as well... but it seems like S:S and N:N tend to get along roughly equally (I think slightly worse for Ss, but... not terribly significant).

    T / F - Absolute; the more T you are, the less satisfied your partner is.

    J / P - Strangely enough, not statistically significant, except that male Js are more sexually satisfying to female partners. (The joke being - they get the job done). Or was it J female partners... hrmm... Well, one or the other.

    And of course, a major other factor is "Neuroticism", which is among the most important (T/F being the next one), with being N+ being absolute as well.

    Note that despite this, E means happier while I means less happy, so it's not a full picture thing.
    i don't see it.. i think its far more complex than that ..

  10. #40
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexkreuz View Post
    i don't see it.. i think its far more complex than that ..
    Of course Just as people are more complicated than MBTI/etc.

    ( http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ent-style.html might be interesting. I'm quite against personality being used for relationship information.)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 294
    Last Post: 10-07-2017, 08:07 PM
  2. Thousands of people want to be Paris Hilton and no one wants to be Spiderman?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 11:54 PM
  3. [NF] NF Masquerade: What type would you want to be for a day and why?
    By Anew Leaf in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 01:51 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Is it possible to be both extroverted and introverted?
    By myrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 04:56 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 10:28 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