[NT] Stupid NTs

[LostInNerSpace]

There's a frustrating drop off in expressive power for this model, perhaps right at the most interesting point. (Or at least it's the interesting point once one has gone some way into the model and started wanting more.)

That's why I like the profiles. Not just one profile but the collection of profiles by different authors. Each adds a little more color to the overall picture. I also like things such as the balance test I look earlier. I know I'm not a stereotypical typical INTP. I know I have the capacity to be much more extroverted and I even know when that will happen. I resisted because I had a good sense for what you were trying to do.

 

[TSDesigner]

No wonder FPs like saving the forests/trees .

Which type likes to save the whales?

 

[Jaguar]

Werl... a friend likes to test his girlfriends. One of them took the test three times, different result each time, none of them ISFJ, which is what I believe she fits.

Not surprising. The repeatability of MBTI results is dismal.

But anyway by "strongly functional" I meant something like "actually works, delivers the goods".

Consciously delivering and unconscously delivering are two different animals.
You are assuming what you are conscious of, is actually accurate.
Don't think I'm picking on you, I include myself in that statement I just made!

We can't be 100% certain what functions are actually "delivering the goods."
There's an unconscious factor at play.

I own to being a believer. I like function orders that pair an e with an i. I like the idea that using one kind of function will preclude easy simultaneous use of some others--like for example someone trying to say they use Ti and Fi at the same time doesn't seem right.

So you are looking for what seems "right," rather than what might actually be true.
I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole

I'm content too with the idea that the lower in the function order, the more mentally costly it is to maintain conscious use.

What could be "costly" for one person, may not even phase another at all.

The thing that bugs me however is, I guess, the lack of really personal expressive depth. [...]

So for example, I'd guess there'll be some IRL correlation between being NT and being intelligent, but it seems like MBTI really doesn't have the juice to genuinely say why (or why not). Or what, or how. The really interesting parts of the person, as far as MBTI goes, are left up to accidents of birth, environment, and who the hell knows what else.

Years ago there was a Wendy's commercial with a little old lady in it.
She got her face right up into the camera and yelled: "Where's the beef!?"

That damn commercial just popped into my head, talking about MBTI.

There's no beef. No substance. No depth.
Not to this NT, anyway.

I'm not sure what you are after from typology,
but there are others out there.
And the results exist for perfectly functioning human beings,
to have any order of functions.

Thinking restrictively by suggesting or "liking" the functions to alternate:
E/I/E/I or I/E/I/E, is unfair in my opinion.
I'm a truth-seeker.
What I like or don't like should not be relevant.

At the risk of sounding cliche: Imagine other possibilities.
I have no problem imagining any function order for anyone.
I don't view people's function order existing like a prefabricated home.

 

[Kalach]

Not surprising. The repeatability of MBTI results is dismal.

That, I assert, is because people are retards.

Consciously delivering and unconscously delivering are two different animals.
You are assuming what you are conscious of, is actually accurate.

N'actually, I was going with the idea of functions working by themselves, mostly subconsciously. And I know I take that as a default position just because I have no idea where Ni products come from--it's easy to think all functions do most of their thing by themselves.

So you are looking for what seems "right," rather than what might actually be true.
I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole

Hey, c'mon! It's not like I have to prove stuff that comes out the a priori. That's only if I want others to believe it too.

What could be "costly" for one person, may not even phase another at all.

Well yeah. And for whatever that person has higher in their function order, they'll be even less phased. /Article of faith.


Here's the beef:

I believe I can feel when one function is more consciously present than another. Obviously they're all present, but being dominantly present to active consciousness is a different thing. I'm aware of having and using Ni, Te, Fi and Se. I'm not really very aware of an order of preference, except I do know Ni is far easier than conscious Se, and that Te comes to the forefront when I'm doing anything communicative and, to use a metaphor, sometimes it speaks for Ni and sometimes it speaks for itself. And I know to call all of these things by their MBTI names because their orientation feels obvious and while their actual functional nature isn't obvious without some MBTI education, modest primitive ideas of feeling, thinking, sensing and intuiting seem to key in nicely. (Go Team A Priori! What did that even mean?!)

That's about as far as MBTI takes me. Discussing function dynamics would be interesting, actually probably really helpful, but still something feels absent. Something maybe about how preference comes to be.

I wonder if that's where the missing depth lies, in the question of the origin of preference. If there was an answer to were it all came from, and maybe how it, I guess, continues to sustain its own generation, then--why, by jingo, that'd be a personality theory worth something! I guess.


Is that the key: a theory of origin of preference?

 

[thisGuy]

Stupid NTs

whatuwant

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

I lol'd

 

[Jaguar]

That, I assert, is because people are retards.

You should come out of your shell and speak your mind.

Hey, c'mon! It's not like I have to prove stuff that comes out the a priori. That's only if I want others to believe it too.

HA!

I believe I can feel when one function is more consciously present than another. Obviously they're all present, but being dominantly present to active consciousness is a different thing. I'm aware of having and using Ni, Te, Fi and Se. I'm not really very aware of an order of preference, except I do know Ni is far easier than conscious Se, and that Te comes to the forefront when I'm doing anything communicative and, to use a metaphor, sometimes it speaks for Ni and sometimes it speaks for itself.

Yep. I hear all that, and like your metaphor.

Is that the key: a theory of origin of preference?

I don't have to know the origin.
But I don't much care for anyone who claims all XXXX have a function order of:

1
2
3
4
and so on.

I don't mind anyone suggesting X,Y, or Z may be true.
But claiming something is true, and making money off that lame-assed claim, is a whole different ball game.
At least to me, it is.

 

[Kra]

I'm glad that I learned about Jungian studies on cognitive function before I learned about MBTI, and not the other way around.

MBTI is like any other tool in that it has it's own uses for self-development. But, like some of you expressed, I also get the impression that it is often misused. Hell, I've misused it before, and it's akin to using a phillips-head screwdriver to drive a nail in some cases.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

I don't think it's possible for one to come out of one's shell on the internet.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm glad that I learned about Jungian studies on cognitive function before I learned about MBTI, and not the other way around.

As did I.

 

[CzeCze]

Hmmmmm, no. And, wow.

You're basically saying that "NTs are smart because they are NTs".

You've defined the terms to fit your conclusion, which works in your model and I "get" what you saying and also what you seem to be implying and I totally disagree.

You're not saying that NTs are the most "intelligent type" (but you're just one extrapolation away) but you are saying that by definition an NT has to be intelligent. And I'm still not clear what your definition of "intelligence" other than an NT way of thinking?

Every MBT type describes a way a type understands the world and processes consciousness, which are forms of intelligence.

Just because you like making arguments on what you think is logic doesn't mean that they actually make sense to anyone else. Of course, you can just say that "everyone else is stupid" (which people do all time )

If you define "valuing rationality" or "strategic thinking" or Ti/Te the cognitive functions themselves as a high quantifiable amount of intelligence then sure, by your definition NTs will be intelligent just because they are NT.

However, I think - no, scratch that - I know it's possible to be an NT of average to below average (or impaired) intelligence. You just prefer a certain way to understand and relate to the world. Kind of like what Heart was saying with her story. And maybe your IQ is higher than your "EQ". But, does that make you "intelligent"?

Just like your own personal best subject in school is chemistry or music or PE, but that doesn't mean you excel in those subjects compared to other students. Or that you're even very good at them, they are just what you are personally best at.

And I will also say that looking at the quads, NTs are more likely than other types to define themselves based on intelligence or value their intelligence above most of their other attributes. So far you(r post and my brother) back that one up.

Bah, is any of this making sense?

But basically, no.

But maybe the definitions of "intelligent" that we're using are different.

 

[Kalach]

An origin of preferences would probably have something to say on origin of function order too, be the order standard or non-.

Does an origin of preferences theory have immediately to turn into neuroscience? If the creation and rise of preference is, as so seemingly, set in motion so very early in the growth of the person, then maybe we can skip as non-formative, though significant, stories of bouncing on uncle's knee, and maybe do have to take a closer look at brain function and growth.

Or not. I dunno.


In any case, what's up with not liking settled function orders? What is a function order, anyway? The end degree to which a given function's conscious product is present in the person's identity?





And ps. To anyone still watching: what NTs do is the stuff of being intelligent; what NFs do is the stuff of being moral... get over it. If you want to coopt my nice word for pissant things like emotional intelligence, then watch out for the new coinage coming to a street corner near you: intellectual morality. It refers to how far divorced from the actual basis of moral decision making your ethical schemes have become.

 

[Jaguar]

In any case, what's up with not liking settled function orders? What is a function order, anyway? The end degree to which a given function's conscious product is present in the person's identity?

"Settled function orders" is an oxymoron to me.

I view the human brain as a work of art, if you will.
So to take that masterpiece and turn it into a paint-by-numbers,
is less than acceptable.

That aside, it would be all too easy to take 100 INTJs and test their function preferences independently.
And when I say independently, I sure as hell don't mean that by preferring Ni,
the test automatically subtracts points from the S counterpart!
That still isn't fair testing.

I say abolish all assumptions, decouple the dichotomies, and let the chips fall where they may.
In the end, you know damn well those 100 INTJs won't have the same function order.

How do I/you know? Ask your Ni and see what it tells you.

 

[Quinlan]

If you're using MBTI to confirm your awesomeness then I think you're doing it wrong. Understanding MBTI and functions should be a humbling experience where you realise just how entrenched in your own bias you really are.

 

[01011010]

I'm glad that I learned about Jungian studies on cognitive function before I learned about MBTI, and not the other way around.

This should be standard method.

Take Ayn Rand, for example.

A couple of her books are my favorites based on entertainment value alone, but she was an absolute nutter.



OP: Intelligence is dependent on how it's defined. MBTI has no empirical value. On the other hand, NTs aren't created equally. I imagine someone that is actually correct in their perception of how they operate, and scores closer to 100% of both N/T, will be closer to what you claim. Theoretically.

I know two brilliant ISFJ scientists. One is definitely more intelligent than my other NT friends and I. The other ISFJ about the same. Though, one of my ENTP friends fails hard in all areas of academics/life in general. I can tell he uses the main ENTP functions, but he's just plain stupid. My other ENTP friend is an aerospace engineer. It's a mixed bag of nuts. Go, figure.

 

[simulatedworld]

Point 1: Everyone has their own brand of intelligence, yes. NTs should be able to acknowledge theirs without offending everyone else or making them feel inferior. Go ahead say it.

Admit it!



NTs are smart.....and it's okay.


They have worked hard at it, are probably naturally inclined, and are driven by intellectual pursuits. This is part of there personality. They pride themselves on their intellectual achievements. How can you deny NT intelligence?

Haters.

So? I could pride myself on my culinary abilities, but that doesn't make me any less of a shitty cook (which I am.)

Your assertion that NTs are intelligent because NTs are intelligent begs the question.

You need to stop conceptualizing "intelligence" as inherently equivalent to "everything NTs are good at"--IQ tests are not a measure of intelligence, only NT-type intelligence!

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

 

[Athenian200]

So? I could pride myself on my culinary abilities, but that doesn't make me any less of a shitty cook (which I am.)

Your assertion that NTs are intelligent because NTs are intelligent begs the question.

You need to stop conceptualizing "intelligence" as inherently equivalent to "everything NTs are good at"--IQ tests are not a measure of intelligence, only NT-type intelligence!

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

Abstract logical problem solving =/= intelligence

Well, you've told us what intelligence isn't.

Anyone care to tell us what it is?

 

[entropie]

Well, you've told us what intelligence isn't.

Anyone care to tell us what it is?

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

even being American, I'm going to have to disagree.

 

[entropie]