[MBTI General] What type do you least like?

[Glycerine]

So strong I and N are the only functions that don't bother you?

haha I forgot to mention them but it's just mostly extreme people. So pretty much unbalanced people...

 

[simulatedworld]

I somehow just can't get along with INTJs, no matter how hard I try.

I tend to think this is more their fault than yours. INTJs don't *want* to get along with most people; in fact, most social ritual you see them observing is a very rehearsed and methodical mask used for getting what they want out of people.

 

[simulatedworld]

Ugggh, ESFJs, or at least one particular ESFJ. Superficial, judgemental, controlling, and selfish. Oh and trying to teach them logic ... I was a logic tutor for a different ESFJ (I think) for a short time, and I might have well just rattled on at her in russian for an hour. She was a really nice lady though.

I don't dislike ESFJs though. My mom is an ESFJ and I love her more than anyting. They can just be sooo frustrating sometimes.

I can see where some ESFJs could get really annoying, but what always sets them apart from ESTJs for me is that they almost always seem to really have the best interest of others at heart. They may be merrily strolling straight down the road to Hell, but at least their intentions are typically good.

ESFJs may continue to nag the shit out of you about things that they simply lack the Ti and Ni to really grasp fully, but to me, ESTJs are worse because they nag you about these things out of more selfish reasons. It genuinely pisses them off when you break tradition and they seem to have this sort of cathartic need to punish the wicked--not out of revenge for the people they've hurt emotionally (as is common for ESFJ), but out of simple, petty anger that you tried to fuck with the system, and as such you need to be taught a lesson.

THAT shit pisses me off.

 

[Glycerine]

Actually, I wouldn't be so sure. INFJs would base their ethical standards on relating to others effectively, and would actually be more flexible than they seemed (since they're really Ni dominant, and Fe is only auxiliary). INFPs actually have much stronger ideas, that are based on their own subjective sense of what's right and wrong, which they constantly judge everything based on... but they try to change the angle they approach the situation with in order to seem flexible. Inside, they're far more rigid and unyielding. Don't be fooled. They may compromise and flex on the specific outward expression of something, but they are unwilling to really listen to anything that challenges their Fi values.

I've seen an INFJ actually completely reverse their position on something soon after hearing an argument presented in just the right way, even if they had just condemned the person presenting it for behaving that way. The thing is, just because an INFJ condemns you outwardly right away based on an Fe value they've picked up doesn't mean they won't actually be forced to consider (with Ni+Ti) what you say and change their opinion if you do offer a valid argument. Remember, an INFJ is a dominant N... and an INFP is a dominant F.

Of course, perhaps we just know different INFPs and INFJs. Or perhaps the INFPs I knew were just manifesting their shadow very strongly at the point I interacted with them.

I'm totally like this. I will sometimes quickly pass my judgement on something and will argue with people about it. Then I will process all the information gained from it and will compromise about 95% of the time. Even if I quickly pass judgement, I'm just as quick to accept an opposing POV.

 

[raz]

Hmm, let's see....what type stifles people's playful nature and tends to automatically, outwardly and vocally dismiss anything that doesn't fit into their very singular worldview?

You guessed it, ESTJ for the win. Seriously I'm starting to think we just need to round these people up and stick them all on an island somewhere, where they can all scream at each other until their little worlds collapse and their heads all explode from too much contact with other value systems.

Ehh. ISTJs do the same. We just aren't as vocal as ESTJs. That's what bothers me about ESTJs. They're vocal about the things that I usually keep to myself.

I dismiss playful nature. I only put up with the ENFPs because of the mounting sexual attraction.

 

[simulatedworld]

the liking everyone equally if they're happy comment seems like a cop out to me. types each have certain general trends. obviously some types have general trends you prefer more than other types...

I agree that it's kind of a cop out. The people here claiming that they don't have any biases whatsoever when it comes to behavioral trends in other types are just trying to be politically correct and avoid sounding like they're singling out any particular groups.

I say, it's fine to single out a group if that group's general characteristics are the things that are annoying you. It's NOT fine to posit that those general group characteristics apply to EVERY member of the group--I'll talk all day about how much I hate ESTJs but I have a few ESTJ friends that I like and get along at least reasonably well with. So I can't reasonably say, "All people with the ESTJ type are complete assholes and I hate them", but it's perfectly reasonable to say, "I have noticed common threads of behavior between many (though clearly not ALL) ESTJ people that I have met and here are the things that annoy me about them..."

I really think the political correctness movement has done a lot to neuter the effectiveness of generalizations in argumentation. Generalizing isn't inherently bad; it's just assumptions that generalizations automatically apply to every single member of a group that are bad.

For instance, time to be a polemicist for a moment: Black people are better than white people at basketball.

OH SHIT WHAT A RACIST HE'S CLEARLY SAYING THAT NOT ONLY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY WHITE PERSON TO EVER SUCCEED IN BASKETBALL, BUT THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND IGNORANT AND CAN'T POSSIBLY EVER BE INTERESTED THINGS OTHER THAN BASKETBALL! RACIST PRICK!!!


Well no, I'm just basing that on the fact that a great majority of professional basketball players are black. You can assume that my statement had genetic connotations, but it didn't. Of course there have been and will continue to be very successful white basketball players, so I don't need the Lifetime Special Inspirational Background of a white dude with Down's Syndrome who, through sheer perseverance, shattered racial stereotypes against all odds and became a great basketball player. (I also don't need the "my black father is horrible at basketball wtf are you talking about????")

Thing is, a generalization doesn't need to apply to every single individual person in the group it represents to have any validity; it only needs to represent enough of them that it's useful in adding strength to one side or the other of an inductive reasoning problem. I really can't believe how many people don't get this concept--even if it's documented that 99% of troggles are snorfs, stating it as a general "troggles are often snorfs" will STILL elicit an angry response from some family member of a troggle who ISN'T actually a snorf, as if this one case study somehow devalues the rest of the data from the the other 99% of troggles.

Seriously guys, cut the PC crap.

I'm sure there's a variety of socioeconomic and cultural reasons that the average black man is better than the average white man at basketball, but I don't need to go into them. The fact still is that, for whatever reason, basketball is a sport that's still more dominated by blacks than by whites.

Just pointing out that it's ok to generalize as long as you fully understand the inherent limitations of a generalization in general.

 

[SillySapienne]

Just pointing out that it's ok to generalize as long as you fully understand the inherent limitations of a generalization in general.

Absolutely!!!

Generalizing is a type or way of thinking that we *all* engage in.

We observe the world and we make note of any patterns that emerge or inconsistencies.

To categorize is essentially to generalize.

I can't stand people who can't stand people who make generalizations.

Women, in general, are shorter than men in any given population, and NO SHIT some women are taller than men, duh!!!

But if you have a family consisting of both men and women, the men, on average, will be several inches taller than the women.

 

[Clownmaster]

This topic, in the bonfire (instead of NT rationale) with a closed poll, would give better results imo.

 

[Jack Flak]

Yes, but we can't go and say "All ENFPs aren't annoying." Only "Most..."

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

ESTJ

ESFJ

ESTP

 

[Nihilen]

Stupid ESFJs, they seriously piss me off.

 

[simulatedworld]

ESTJ.

The absolute most important thing in life is not the proper way to load a dishwasher.

Touché!

 

[simulatedworld]

I can think of at least one person that I like from each type, with the exception of ESTJ's. I only have typed 2 ESTJ's though and happen to not like either of them, so i'm sure someone's going to come along and prove me wrong.

You're damn right, they'll not only prove you wrong (well, whatever their personal concept of "wrong" is, anyway...), they'll make it sting so hard that you never want to step out of line and challenge authority EVER AGAIN!

 

[simulatedworld]

Ehh. ISTJs do the same. We just aren't as vocal as ESTJs. That's what bothers me about ESTJs. They're vocal about the things that I usually keep to myself.

I dismiss playful nature. I only put up with the ENFPs because of the mounting sexual attraction.

Haha yes, and the ESTJ's only problem with you is probably that you keep to yourself things which s/he feels should be vocalized.

 

[kiddykat]

The ESTJ will never, ever, ever, ever listen to anything that suggests a fundamental change of perspective on the task or a restructuring of the traditional procedure or authority structure. The world of "what if?"s and abstractions about possibilities is both uncomfortable and threatening to them.

Hehehe. So true. So true.

Generalizing is a type or way of thinking that we *all* engage in.

We observe the world and we make note of any patterns that emerge or inconsistencies.

To categorize is essentially to generalize.

I can't stand people who can't stand people who make generalizations.

Women, in general, are shorter than men in any given population, and NO SHIT some women are taller than men, duh!!!

But if you have a family consisting of both men and women, the men, on average, will be several inches taller than the women.

Totally agreed. MBTI in itself is a total generalization, but it helps us to get a general view of how people work, which allows for better communication. Of course within each type, we will have our own unique variations.

Whoever made that dishwasher comment- I know whatcha mean! Ahahaha.

 

[Risen]

I least like INTP's...

 

[Kasper]

I least like INTP's...

Yeah! They suck.

 

[Richard0612]

Unhealthy SJs who believe that tradition should be maintained above all else and refuse to listen to a logical argument about a better way of doing something. This would mainly be ESxJs (who are more vocal about their convictions), although I've seen ISxJs show the same behaviour when pushed. I feel like screaming 'Innovation will not kill you!' sometimes.
However, my ISTJ mum and I get on fine with very little argument over how to do things.

 

[wolfy]

Which one is the work bully, all ego type again?

 

[Grungemouse]

Which one is the work bully, all ego type again?

Depends what you mean by "work bully"? I guess an unhealthy E-TJ fits that well, if you're talking about excessive micro-managing. Otherwise, any type has the potential to bully in the workplace. ESTPs can be seen as too blunt, the aloofness of the INTP can me misinterpreted as ignoring, etc.

I dunno, personally. A lot of NTs have stated SJs are the bane of their existance, so to speak. I honestly need an SJ in my life to keep me grounded, organised and telling me when my zipper is undone. My mum is an ESTJ, so just as well. My ISFJ and ISTJ friends were practically my parents at school; "Emma, you left your iPod on the train!"