User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Se-NT Conflict?

  1. #21
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    Could you fail harder?
    It was a simple question.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  2. #22
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    Could you fail harder?
    I don't know about Amarginth, but I know that I could.

    (Tries not to fail hard.)

  3. #23
    Member nocebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Question for T users...is it by any chance possible to, if you really cannot keep yourself from glancing over such an error (be it that 'all' thing or the grammar error), as you feel it might have value to the conversation, to in stead of correcting the person, formulate the correction as a question aka 'Is this what you meant?' without displaying that you know better? Coz I think that could save you a lot of frustration, defensiveness and derails on both ends.
    Regardless of which function is responsible, I agree with most of this post, if only for the reason that people are more likely to listen when their feelings aren't hurt. (Otherwise, you've got a room full of people with their helmets on. You can't reach them that way, and it just gets frustrating.)

    I've found that phrasing things as questions or jokes gets the point across in a friendlier manner. As long as the info isn't compromised, I don't really see a problem with it.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You know, if you were one of the guys sitting with me, T-Pain and another friend at the table when I found out I'd won a vacation on a boat, I'd totally not pick you.

    btw, several different functions can be responsible for spelling and grammar nitpicking, not just Si. My mom seems to do it out of Si, just to make it match past experience consistently...but I do it out of Ti, because it violates my inner framework of logical relationships by which everything is judged, and my dad probably does it out of Te, because you can't expect to achieve the highest efficiency in your pursuit of goals if you don't have your shit together with proper English (Ni asks, "What would that symbolize about me if I went around using language improperly?...he's an INTJ.)

    You'd be surprised.
    Never said Ti couldn't do that just that its generally an Si thing

    Oh and anyone who generalizes every single Thinking type and says they do *insert whatever here* deserves a comment like that, in fact it was tempting to be harsher

    However I'm not sure why you are having a stab at me.... oh yeah... I remember, you're the guy that doesn't accept anyone elses opinion other than your own

    And no "YOU T USERS" is not an opinion, its a stupid generalization of oh IDK maybe 40-50% of the population?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    It was a simple question.
    No it was a simple generalization of about 40-50% of the population, hell I don't do it so that proves you wrong instantly

    You want me to answer a question about something that I don't do? Oh but I must, because I'm a thinker!

    No, fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    sounds like a Te thing...

    this extraverted sensor happen to be an ESTJ?..

    In which case we're not talking extraverted sensing at all.
    we're talking Te and Si, which sounds more accurate. Se is not known for being a nitpicky function
    This X about 1000

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    I don't know about Amarginth, but I know that I could.

    (Tries not to fail hard.)
    You were spot on...

  5. #25
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ESTPs are so cool when they wave everything away by simply declaring that everyone else is wrong.

    It's a lot of fun to watch them embarrass themselves and swear up and down all along that they're totally right, all the while misinterpreting all unfamiliar contexts as threatening. Fight or flight, hm?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    What is your problem? I said its possible for it to happen through Ti but I'm not going to answer a question generalizing all T types

    Why don't you go ahead and answer her cause I refuse to

  7. #27
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Listen man, the problem is in your interpretation of generalizations.

    Sensors tend to interpret a generalization as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of a group.

    So if I say, Xs are bigger than Ys, and you find any single particular Y that's bigger than any other particular X, the generalization is false. When interpreted this way, it is--but so are all generalizations, which is why you need to interpret them inductively instead of deductively.

    iNtuitives are more naturally attuned to viewing data in terms of the average of all cases over time...so when we say that Xs are bigger than Ys, we don't mean that as a precise description of every single X and every single Y; we really only mean that the average X is bigger than the average Y.

    They're all just relative relationships, not concrete data, and that's why Ns like them better than Ss do.

    See? That's another one. There are certainly cases of S people who like MBTI more than certain other N people, but on average, MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss. And that's the only kind of information it offers--generalized induction.

    Seriously, read the wikipedia page on inductive reasoning. It will explain a lot.



    Here's an example because my Ne is overactive (may or may not actually be helpful):

    In music there's a concept called perfect pitch, meaning you can hear a tone and instinctively discern what note it is. Believe it or not, the vast majority of professional musicians cannot do this, because this ability can't be learned (past a certain age anyway), no matter how much training is put into it.

    What most musicians develop is called relative pitch--this means that I can observe the relationships between pitches and determine the way they interact with each other, but without actually knowing what notes they are.

    Say you play a C and an E on the piano, and you don't tell me what notes they are. I can tell that they're a major 3rd apart--this is an inductive term because it describes a relationship between things without any concrete details of what the things are.

    I may know that these notes I'm hearing have this relationship, but without perfect pitch, I don't actually know that they're C and E. For all I know, they could be G and B, or C# and F, or any two notes that are that same distance apart and display that same relationship to each other.

    When I make a typology read, I'm not predicting your behavior in any particular case...I'm merely stating that you'd tend to behave this way more often than not, based on what I've seen you do before. That's really all there is to it.

    A Sensor might ask, why bother if you can't actually tell what any of the notes are?

    But there's a lot of meaning in the relationships that can be applied inductively without having that much concrete information on the particular notes.

    When you ask us to prove MBTI, you're asking us to prove scientifically that the distance between C and E is a major third. We don't intend to prove that; the entire system is contingent upon acceptance of the idea that human behavior can be predicted inductively. If you think human behavior is fundamentally random and entirely unexplainable, typology is probably not for you.

    See how I said, "probably"? Ns like to word things in term of probabilities. To be honest, we really don't know exactly what's going on right now--we just make up for it by interpreting what the long term data indicates theoretically should happen. We leave figuring out what's actually going on to the Sensors.

    That metaphor may be way too Ne...in which case I apologize. It's all I really understand.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Listen man, the problem is in your interpretation of generalizations.

    Sensors tend to interpret a generalization as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of a group.

    So if I say, Xs are bigger than Ys, and you find any single particular Y that's bigger than any other particular X, the generalization is false. When interpreted this way, it is--but so are all generalizations, which is why you need to interpret them inductively instead of deductively.

    iNtuitives are more naturally attuned to viewing data in terms of the average of all cases over time...so when we say that Xs are bigger than Ys, we don't mean that as a precise description of every single X and every single Y; we really only mean that the average X is bigger than the average Y.

    They're all just relative relationships, not concrete data, and that's why Ns like them better than Ss do.

    See? That's another one. There are certainly cases of S people who like MBTI more than certain other N people, but on average, MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss. And that's the only kind of information it offers--generalized induction.

    Seriously, read the wikipedia page on inductive reasoning. It will explain a lot.
    Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing

    If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous

  9. #29
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    I agree that most of the NT aren't spelling nazi's at all. But I'm with Simulatedworld on the concept of generalisation.

    I, too, tend to root out averages when possible. The more statistics the better ofcourse, so when no statistics are present and just a mere grasp based on assumptions. It can get tricky however. But not by default wrong.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  10. #30
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Thoughts?
    It's ridiculous that she corrected you according to regional inflection. If you're going to correct someone's pronunciation, use International English as your standard. Provincial attitudes are extremely annoying.

Similar Threads

  1. [Se] Cutting off Se
    By SpottingTrains in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-23-2013, 11:24 AM
  2. [NT] NT explanation of Se + Fi
    By 2XtremeENFP in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 04:41 PM
  3. [Se] Se awakening?
    By xNFJiminy in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-19-2009, 10:47 AM
  4. [Se] Drug abuse and Se
    By yenom in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 04:37 PM
  5. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 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