[NT] Stupid NTs

[entropie]

You should visit a techno festival there you will meet a lot of computers playing music

 

[Jaguar]

There is no intelligence in the CIA, I assure you.

 

[MacGuffin]

There is no intelligence in the CIA, I assure you.

How so?

 

[Jaguar]

^ Have you no sense of humor?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

How so?

It's a play on words, it HAS to contain wisdom! Dur.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's a play on words, it HAS to contain wisdom! Dur.

The joke is "military intelligence".

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

HAY GUYS THE CIA IS STOOPID

I ARE NT I FIND THIS OUT

 

[Jaguar]

^ Put down the martinis, pal. You've hit your limit.

 

[entropie]

Intelligence:

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwDnZYRiH0"][/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jaguar]

Intelligence:

What intelligence? There is no damn intelligence!

 

[entropie]

There is they actually figure out while eating who is an idiot and who is not in the new town. I mean a logistical masterpiece like that is just adoreable

 

[Kalach]

"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.

Long, long ago when I were a wee freshman in Philosophy classes, the perennial freshman favourite, determinism, was getting tossed about. One of the profs favoured a Radical Freedom position. He said, yep, determinism rules a la science, but right at the last minute it's just true that there's a gap between conditions leading to the decision and the decision, and in that gap, you can go either way, nothing constrains you. Another prof didn't like this position so much. He said radical freedom is actually the opposite of what one wants, for it means all that you were, all that you have done, all that existed is in principle nothing with respect to your choice. Indeed, he said, with radical freedom, there is no "your" choice because everything that constitutes you is in principle not involved in the choice. He went on to say that while every condition leading up to your choice was, is, and always will have been determined prior to your choice, still your choice is free because one is able to be aware, at least at a macro level, of the conditions that lead to your choices, and one is able to step away from their determining force by considering them in abstraction. The mind as an object in itself becomes one of the determining conditions that lead to your choice.

Thus, *deep breath*, I'm okay, indeed pleased, with determinable function orders and preferences. If the functions are just washing around out there willy nilly, where's the personality? It's found in the dynamic jumble, the overall governing principle behind the chaos? Could be. But that sound a lot like a ghost in the machine.

So I'd say if there's INTJs with different function orders, they're mutants and should be shunned.

 

[Jaguar]

So I'd say if there's INTJs with different function orders, they're mutants and should be shunned.

Aw come on Kalach.
That smacks of someone devoid of the ability to look at alternative perspectives and possibilities.

As far as the functions "washing around" as you say,
and then asking "where is the personality,"
do you think all INTJs have the same personality?
Son, you are nothing like Edgar.
I hate to break the news to you.

MBTI is about "preferences." That's all.
No one had my Mom and Dad for their parents.
To think someone has my personality is laughable.
Where the hell do you think I got my personality from?
Childhood environment has a massive effect on a person.
I am a product of not only genetics, but my environment.

 

[The Ü™]

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.

Indeed. My brother, who I just found out was an ISTJ, is a mathematical prodigy and wants to be a chemist. So he's more than capable of (and even enjoys) understanding abstractions, but he himself is definitely a more concrete thinker than abstract. He approaches problems in a conventional way, and he's less of an idea person and more of a facts person.

 

[Kalach]

Aw come on Kalach.
That smacks of someone devoid of the ability to look at alternative perspectives and possibilities.

As far as the functions "washing around" as you say,
and then asking "where is the personality,"
do you think all INTJs have the same personality?
Son, you are nothing like Edgar.
I hate to break the news to you.

Small mercies.

(*resists urge to answer with a kitten picture*)

MBTI is about "preferences." That's all.
No one had my Mom and Dad for their parents.
To think someone has my personality is laughable.
Where the hell do you think I got my personality from?
Childhood environment has a massive effect on a person.
I am a product of not only genetics, but my environment.

Here's hoping individuality is indeed possible. It may just be a product of selective perception, but type (and type/type interaction) seems to be such a large part of everyone I meet.

It doesn't seem that demeaning to acknowledge type, tho. It's not like there's any universally useless type that no one wants to be. Seems like people are usually (and rightly) proud of who they are, type or no.

EDIT: Waitaminute, that didn't make sense. I meant, is type not a thing to be proud of? The person does come before the type, but if type is part of the person, what's to lose by being typed? (Apart from one's radically unique snowflakeness.)

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

I've always felt that first off, that four letter type definitely has a range inside of it, just like how a political view could have a more "centrist" leaning and still adhere on a technical level to it's label. Also I've noticed from personal experiences from people that it's often the case that all people of a given type will be from INCREDIBLY different circumstances (including varying levels of IQ) and yet will still use the same behavioral patterning of their type. Edgar and Kalach may not share many of the same circumstances in life, and that attributes to their differences, but I'd like to think despite that, they still have similar behavioral patterns in, for instance, how they respond to a question, how they assert one, etc.

Also, I know this isn't exactly to do with the theory itself (to which "getting to the bottom of" isn't exactly possible right now scientifically) but if you were to validly prove that the MBTI, or socionics, or any other typology DIDN'T outline any archetypal correlation in human beings, than I suppose my question to you would be why the hell are you on a message board called typology central? R U a troll?

If anything, I post here and listen to the arguments and try to make connections simply because I do believe the test must have SOME manner of "empirical" value, it's just in a state where it's still by and large being defined.

 

[Kalach]

It is unsettling tho to have one's unique snowflakeness undermined. Like, I know (or accept as an article of faith) that all INTJs will share some significant similarities, but I'll still want to have my own identity as me be acknowledged. If I have to join the Borg, I'd still want to be an autonomous unit, even though that makes no sense at all.

 

[Valuable_Money]

This should be standard method.




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.

Wait so your saying im NOT a genuis just because Im ENTP? D':

 

[Jaguar]

Also, I know this isn't exactly to do with the theory itself (to which "getting to the bottom of" isn't exactly possible right now scientifically) but if you were to validly prove that the MBTI, or socionics, or any other typology DIDN'T outline any archetypal correlation in human beings, than I suppose my question to you would be why the hell are you on a message board called typology central? R U a troll?

Surely you don't think typology=MBTI, exclusively?
Kiddo, there are many alternatives.
MBTI is but a single fish in the ocean.

And no I am not a troll. Get serious.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

So you're arguing there is a superior typology which you would like to discuss on this board?