User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Se-NT Conflict?

  1. #31
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    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
    Maybe, but part of the advantage of MBTI is the ability to recognize situations where others whom you know are stronger than you in certain functions may exercise better judgment on those functions than you do.

    For instance...I've got this ESFP bass player in one of my bands who basically watches out for everybody (me, INTJ drummer and ISFJ guitarist) when we go to clubs to play and such, because he's really aware of what's going on around him and I know that I'm not so I trust him when he warns me of something...often it'll be pointing out people's body language and other subtle physical cues that I didn't notice. He often helps double check my appearance before going on stage, so I don't look like a dumbass. He comes in handy all the time with setting up stage gear and any difficulties that come up with engineering the physical space of the stage and where each cable should run and so on. I really don't notice that shit, so I trust someone who does. I've learned to trust that he's right on this a lot more often than I am.

    Your argument at this point reduces to, "Come on, that connection is too abstract to really be there!", which may seem true from your perspective, but to N-heavy types, especially Ne, these connections are actually visible and often legitimate.

    I know that's lame and all, but it's the truth. I can see an intuitive line of reasoning to imply why thinkers might potentially nitpick spelling more than feelers, but here's that classic generalization interpretation mistake again...

    She doesn't actually mean that a majority of Thinkers behave this way; only that Thinkers behave this way more often relative to Feelers. Again, we're not actually saying how many specific entities with the property Thinking are behaving this way; we're just comparing the relative frequencies of behaviors between arbitrarily designated groups.

    When that ESFP starts making fun of me too much for missing "obvious" shit in my physical surroundings, I remind him that for every silly spacy mistake I make by missing a Sensory thing, there's an iNtuitive thing you're missing that I'm just not telling you about. :L)
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #32
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    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
    You're doing it right now

    In stead of just asking me if I was in fact referring to all T's, since you weren't sure if i did, or, for that matter, seeing that it was a simple suggestion to make the conversation run smoother, a tool I am suggesting to get people to listen to you easier, and meant for those that would actually find it useful, you went defensive asap. Sad. I realize my wording isn't perfect. I try. I'm nonchalant with words and chaotic in my thoughts. That doesn't mean that what I said doesn't hold value. It's sad that you cannot see past formulation long enough to consider if what I said actually has value. For that matter, it would've been ok with me already if you were to look past formulation and see what I meant, even if you disagreed with it. You could've avoided your own (perceived) defensive behavior, this whole mess of going back and forward, trying to figure out what was actually said and my attempting to convince you that that was in fact what was said and not the thing you reacted to, and my (probably perceived) defensive response as well, as I'm more than willing to explain when people indicate that they aren't sure how I meant something. Oh well, don't worry, I'll chalk it up to your Ti or Se or whatever


    Meanwhile it's a nice example of the topic

    Oh and... he gets it:

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    She doesn't actually mean that a majority of Thinkers behave this way; only that Thinkers behave this way more often relative to Feelers. Again, we're not actually saying how many specific entities with the property Thinking are behaving this way; we're just comparing the relative frequencies of behaviors between arbitrarily designated groups.
    Can I keep you on as a part-time T/S-translator?


    Unique, if you would've actually asked neutral follow up questions, without assuming what I meant, since you clearly were confused about it, I would have, in my own clumsy way, explained you the same thing. So consider next time asking for clarification first to make sure you're on the same wavelength as the other party, then judge... and this was my original point all along
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  3. #33
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ Haha sure, just $99.95/hour. I'm worth it.

    This is such a widespread problem, though. All these people asking us to "prove that this person should be designated as an ENFP" are so missing the point because our entire inductive personality system is based on subjective standards.

    It can never be proven or disproven any more than we can prove that Miley Cyrus is or isn't a death metal artist. For another example:

    1) Deduction - The Eagles have the top-selling record in chart history. This can be objectively researched, determined and verified--it is judged in terms of "true" or "false" because it's a deductive and quantifiable claim.

    2) Induction - The Eagles were a great rock band. Really? What scientific evidence have we that the band Eagles were good musicians, or a rock band, or a band at all for that matter? If I ask for deductive proof of this, I'm simply missing the point and asking the wrong question--my query is meaningless because it's in the wrong context. I can only use induction by asking informed people to give their opinions. Inductive arguments aren't evaluated in terms of truth of falsehood because they inherently operate on a sliding scale basis--they are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

    Amusingly, this is exactly the same mistake that dogmatic religious followers are making--

    They are attempting to apply deductive reasoning to a question that cannot ever be answered definitively, which is a total waste of time.

    Since God is an issue that we can't answer with total certainty, deductive reasoning can't be applied to it. Religious zealots love to use this as an excuse to completely ignore the process of induction, clinging to that last grain of salvation--OH YEAH WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE 100% THAT HE ISN'T REAL, SO MY BELIEF IS JUST AS GOOD!

    Well, true--we can't really use deductive reasoning to say much about God. The proposition that "God exists" is not judged in terms of truth or falsehood because we can't really have quantifiable data on it.

    We can, of course, use induction to determine that the arguments for God's existence are comparatively quite weak, but there is no objective data to be had here.

    You can't prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Miley Cyrus is NOT a death metal artist, but if you run around calling her that, it's still generally understood by most people that you're (probably) a moron.

    Just stop thinking in black and white terms--that's really all you have to do.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #34
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    case in point
    a specific example of what one is talking about.
    Now, as a case in point, let's look at nineteenth-century England.
    Fireworks can be dangerous. For a case in point, look at what happened to Bob Smith last Fourth of July.


    Your Aunt made me do it.
    Lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Correcting spelling and grammar seems to be a Ti thing, in my experience.

    NTPs do it all the time, and the Se users that you're referring to are probably mostly ESTPs who are doing it more out of Ti than Se.

    The theory would probably argue that you as a Te user don't see much point in such nitpicking precision if it's not really improving results in any meaningful way, but oh well. Ti is annoying like that.


    I notice errors and inconsistencies quickly and often. They jump out at me like blinking lights. I had no idea that it offended people, though. I want to be corrected, so I don't make the same mistake again. Learning is all about trial and error, but how will you even learn if no one corrects your error? I come from a background where it is very disrespectful to not correct someone, because it shows them that you don't care about their growth. Same thing with kids - if I see my cousin's child doing something wrong and I don't discipline her, the whole family will be against me. But in the American society, it's not polite to discipline someone else's child, or to correct their grammar - so I learned not to do it.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    meh

  6. #36
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghoti View Post
    I notice spelling and grammatical errors without actively looking for them, but I won't point them out if they are not essential to the subject being discussed. Unless the wording is vague and leads to conflicting interpretations of a statement, I don't really care. I can still understand the idea being communicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    My sentiments exactly.
    Interesting. I actually just got into this conversation not too long ago on vent and agree with you both. To me, its a waste of time if you already understood the meaning through the error.


    That said, I probably encounter this more often than I would like though, due to fact I can't spell for crap.

  7. #37
    Member INTPatricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    Recently, a pattern has become increasingly prevalent of extroverted sensors around me feeling compelled to point out what they perceive to be grammatical errors and to obsess over minute details. As an NT, I find this terribly offputting and unproductive most of the time. For example, the other day we had company over (family) and I was explaining to my aunt that if I pursue a law degree in the UK, in order to make it transferrable to Canada it will have to be reviewed by a committee and based on where I got the degree, my marks, and so forth, they will specify X, Y, Z (usually some exams and a number of hours at a Canadian accredited law school). Now, here I said "Z" like "zee" rather than "zed." Then, she proceeded to completely derail the conversation by going on about it being "zed" for Canadians, which is something I know but don't care to change since zee comes much more naturally to me and I find it more pleasing to the ears, the heck with tradition. Nevertheless, here is a classic case of an NT talking about big ideas and a sensor obsessing over an irrelevant detail to the exclusion of the essence of the matter.

    In my experience, these matters are about choices. Let me use myself as a case and point. For those of you that have heard me speak on vent, you know that I can be exceedingly literal (i.e. if you use an "all" where it's only a "some," I'm going to call you on it. I am also going to be very attentive to the assumptions on which your arguments are based). Now, this comes quite naturally and therefore it is a challenge for me to hear an argument out to its fullest completion without interrupting to expose a minute flaw that was perceived with lightning speed. Even if I think it, I won't necessarily publish what I know if I think it's not going to degrade the quality of the discussion. True, it requires strong self-discipline but I believe it is better in the long run. Let someone else be the person who makes their big contribution by exposing a syntax error.

    Thoughts?
    If it is the Sensor it is because they may not have a clue about what the hell else you are saying so all they can do is robotically scan your data for some perceived error because they are threatened (but may want to be helpful in their own controlling way). You might want to check for understanding when speaking with sensors or use visuals or examples from the past or reality.
    If it is an xntp then it is because they think you may not know and want to help...it won't ever be one-upmanship from an intp...just terrible social skills and the drive for perfect language skills...assuming all seek the same. however, an xntp will NOT allow their correction to derail your conversation or point, we can corrrect in stride and put you right back on your point even if you cannot. I have been known to make the point FOR the speaker in the rare cases when they lost it due to my interruption. That aunt of yours is not an XNTP. However, I avoid making corrections whenever possible, especially when the speaker is fervently trying to get an answer or advice. I usually do it with children, illiterates or those who appreciate it, and always when we are alone...never in front of others. In the future, don't toss your pearls to swine. Families have competition issues that you cannot know about and that woman has issues of her own just being her type. I don't do family things anymore...how freeing. I used to go late and leave early but not going at all is better. I show up just for the funeral part or actual wedding, but not reception, etc. If something else, I will come by a few days after with my gift, whatever. Sigh...

  8. #38
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    most SJ types are just anal. I know all too well what you mean.

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