• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Who's more close-minded: INTJs or ENTJs?

Who's more close-minded: INTJs or ENTJs?


  • Total voters
    29

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Spawned due to a great comment in the "Who's more close-minded: NTJs or NTPs?" thread.
 

LunarMoon

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
309
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3
Do we really need three of these things? Okay, let's just say that this is a valid thread, which is questionable as everyone is simply going to vote against their type. Wouldn't it be more effective to just have one "rank the NTs by closemindedness" thread and be done with it?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I guess your close-mindedness as an ENTJ has prevented you from seeing the purpose...

:wink:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
And I don't think that everyone is necessarily so intellectually dishonest as to simply vote "against" their type...

Plus, NTPs and everyone else can vote in here, so it's not simply about people voting "for" or "against" one's type...
 

Chloe

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
2,196
i vote for "type of person who put his gf's ass in profile picture" :D
 
F

FigerPuppet

Guest
You should get another temporary suspension for making stupid threads.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Ouch, I just read all the other posts.

:eek:uch:

What's so wrong with this thread?

*thoroughly confused*
 

Sinmara

Not Your Therapist
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
1,075
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ouch, I just read all the other posts.

:eek:uch:

What's so wrong with this thread?

*thoroughly confused*

It's like asking "Who's more lazy, blacks or Mexicans?"

It's a stupid question based on stupid opinions of stupid people.

Also, it is stupid.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
It's like asking "Who's more lazy, blacks or Mexicans?"

It's a stupid question based on stupid opinions of stupid people.

Also, it is stupid.

I believe in making observations, seeing patterns and filing clumps of data into categories, and categorizations.

What's so wrong in making/seeing/believing in generalizations?

There are always exceptions to the rule.

Also, would I be stupid if I asked, who tends to be more aggressive, males or females?

Or, who tends to be more thoughtful, introverts or extroverts?

I don't see what's wrong with opening a discussion about certain observations, for example I think both hypothetical questions I posed would lead to some very insightful discourse and debate.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The issue is that people are interpreting it like this:

It's like asking "Who's more lazy, blacks or Mexicans?"

...when that is not at all what it is meant to be.

As we can see from posts like this:

J is the close-minded function.

...and this:

Closed-mindness is built-in function of J.

...such biases are real and thoroughly entrenched in many people's minds.

As opposed to seeing these threads for what they are meant to be -- an attempt to explore the origin of these biases, get an idea as to why they exist, and perhaps gain a deeper understanding as to whether there is any truth to them -- some people are just viewing them as an attempt to reinforce these biases.

This interpretation, unfortunately, could not be further from the truth.

But simple minds need simple explanations.

And some people would apparently rather see issues like these, which are very real, swept under the rug and not talked about.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
I believe in making observations, seeing patterns and filing clumps of data into categories, and categorizations.

What's so wrong in making/seeing/believing in generalizations?

There are always exceptions to the rule.

Also, would I be stupid if I asked, who tends to be more aggressive, males or females?

Or, who tends to be more thoughtful, introverts or extroverts?

I don't see what's wrong with opening a discussion about certain observations, for example I think both hypothetical questions I posed would lead to some very insightful discourse and debate.

I hate to do this, but:

holocaust_gates_430_300_470x300.jpg


might have something to do with it. Humanity doesn't have a very good track record with simply discussing the negative aspects of a group.
 

Metamorphosis

New member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,474
MBTI Type
INTJ
Humanity doesn't have a very good track record with simply discussing the negative aspects of a group.

Is this, though? What if it were called, Which type is more open-minded? Or, which type tends to be more receptive to differing ideas?

Same question but more user friendly.

I'm not really sure what the object is of the thread but I think people tend to be overly defensive here.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I hate to do this, but:

holocaust_gates_430_300_470x300.jpg


might have something to do with it. Humanity doesn't have a very good track record with simply discussing the negative aspects of a group.
I saw that image, and without explicitly knowing it, I knew it had something to do with the Holocaust.

Um, I don't think the Jews were persecuted for their "negative" aspects.

They were scapegoated, I do not promote, in anyway, promulgated untrue generalizations, but you're a man of science, we can in fact make assertions regarding groups, hence there even existing groups/categories/systems.

What makes a group?

What makes a category?

What makes a system?

We operate in a world filled with generalizations, and generalizing is not a BAD thing, seriously, it's not.

I'm dumbfounded, how is making generalizations, in and of itself a bad thing?

:confused:

To know that something has a tendency/pattern/common characteristic does not negate the fact that individual people are just that, individuals, and individual situations and circumstances always trump generalizations about the group.

Also, what we need to do is make astute generalizations, understand why they exist, what they imply.

To say ALL women are sexually submissive is different than saying more women than men tend to be sexually submissive.

Make sense?

:)
 
Top