[SJ] Are SJ's more normal or less unique than the rest of the types?

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Yes to the above post or to the OP?

OP.

 

[skylights]

I personally think it's a stereotype. Actually, I find Si particularly interesting, as Si users prefer to utilize direct experience as their primary source of knowledge and judgment. So you could see how that could play out into giving the impression of SJs who share many experiences being fairly similar, but when you find two SJs with very different experiences, they may be more different than two Ns in the same scenario, for example.

I do think, though, that SJs tend to be more practically-minded, but that does not equate to boring or not unique in my mind, either. I would say it is true that you are probably less likely to find the giant model rocket in the garage of the SJ than the NJ, but that doesn't mean that SJs aren't quirky in different ways. I feel like SJs tend to be more picky than others about specific details, for example.

Also, I do often hear that "SJs are most common" in the population, and maybe that is true, but I don't think it's by nearly as wide a margin as I have heard suggested. People seem to repeat that Ns are a minority, but frankly, I don't think it's very true; seems like "special snowflake" syndrome to me.

 

[Giggly]

We're more normal, you fucking freaks.

 

[Tellenbach]

I conform with those rules, traditions, and expectations that I agree with. It really is a mixed bag when it comes to conformity.

For example, I don't conform to popular tastes in music and culture:

I don't watch American Idol, ever. I don't watch Jersey Shore, Jerry Springer, Oprah, the View. Lady Gaga is ok in small doses; don't care much for Bieber, Swift, Miley, Hip Hop, and R&B. I don't do pot lucks; I don't celebrate birthdays or holidays. I don't do drugs of any sort; I don't drink alcohol (It tastes bitter; don't really get the appeal of getting high). I can't stand crowds or loud music. I don't attend church; I'm not a member of any organization. I don't have a smart phone or a tablet and I don't plan on getting one. I don't have a Facebook account either.

Here are some things that I do conform with because I agree with them:

I don't go more than 5 miles over the speed limit (because I don't want to get ticketed). I tip at restaurants (15% unless the service is really bad). I want the whole traditional family with the picket fences and the 2 kids deal. I like the police. I pay my taxes early. I exercise regularly and eat well. I sleep at around 11:00 pm everyday and I get up at around 6:00 am.

I would agree with the OP that I am more "normal" than other types using my definition of "normal".

 

[21%]

Also, I do often hear that "SJs are most common" in the population, and maybe that is true, but I don't think it's by nearly as wide a margin as I have heard suggested. People seem to repeat that Ns are a minority, but frankly, I don't think it's very true; seems like "special snowflake" syndrome to me.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think some types are as 'rare' as people seem to believe them to be. I think people tend to show their 'normal' side in public, leading to other people mistyping them as 'S' -- not that people are very good at typing themselves or other people anyways.

 

[mrcockburn]

If people have to debate their type, and take binary tests to figure out which mass of humans they're categorized with....then it's hard to argue that anyone is significantly less normal than anyone else. A non-SJ is unique just like everyone else...SJs included.

 

[tinker683]

If by "unique" you strictly mean fewer in number, then I would say no...we're not as unique as NFs or NTs

Otherwise, I don't see why an SJ is any more or less unique than anyone else. There are things I'm sure I could do better than other people and vice versa

I doubt I fit the stereotype of the typical SJ who lives in the deep South...

-I'm an atheist
-I'm a center-right Democrat
-I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage
-I'm for the legalization of pot but I'm not yet sold on legalizing other illicit drugs

The image of the SJ here in the south is the conservative Christian Republican who has socially conservative values. In some areas I might fit that bill but in most I really don't. In my own family I seem to possess this strange dichotnomy: I am both "the good son" in that I perceived as being 'straight laced and responsible', a perception that I don't feel is wholly accurate but I'm also the odd one out as I am the only Democrat in my household AND the only atheist. I play both down significantly at family gatherings as to not cause any arguments or such but I do get the occasional glance during a family prayer or something while I 'play along' and go with the group.

I think you need to tweak your definition of unique

 

[greenfairy]

Some people considered themselves to be non-conformists, but then they just end up conforming to something else. That's still adherence to standards, it's merely different standards. I do not believe this should be considered to be more "individidualistic" because it's really not. For instance, someone might get involved in the punk scene, and then start bitching about how too many people in the scene aren't "punk" enough. I can never wrap my head around why some people consider that "better" than the other thing (unless it's perhaps merely what they would do anyway).

Omg I've bitched about this SO MANY TIMES.



Ok, I've been persuaded that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and good points have been made.

 

[Cellmold]

Omg I've bitched about this SO MANY TIMES.

Watch every south park episode that features the Goth kids.

As for the rest of the thread, I think you are right in the conclusion that it is somewhere in the middle ground. Allegedly normality is where you find it but it tends to be more true for me that normality is beyond the view of conscious awareness.

After all having met so many normal people and considering myself to be quite bland and normal, (well ok I think I am weird and slightly insane but I don't consider that a unique or interesting set of traits), I have realised that excessive normality is usually a very strange thing indeed.

My mum used to say "what is normal?" as a form of pep talk when I was socially ostracised at school and called abnormal. But then at meals and social events, she expected me to conform to some set standard of conduct befitting of the environment we were in. Later I learned this was a contradiction and having found out that I had been raised in contradiction so much of my reality became cartoonish and hilarious, as well as the unconscious elements of myself becoming more clear.

It can be fun to push someones idea of normality to the limit, watch them snap and then see just how 'normal' they really are.

Still i'm a bit of a coward and social convention was pressed upon me so much, not necessarily just from my mum, that I have conformed to it somewhat, while still underneath eyeing it suspiciously.

But to me laughter is as welcome at a funeral as tears. Deluding oneself into a concept of normality only serves to invite walls around each other, surely we know that as a species by now? But apparently not.

What a normal thing for humanity to do.

 

[PimpinMcBoltage]

It seems like the SJ definition is getting more and more like the Six one. Considering that apparently SJs can also be rebellious and whatnot.

Besides thinking about it, wouldn't you say that SPs are the least unique of them all? After all it's honestly quite so hard to find someone who is so anal about the rules, and society. Most people don't give a fuck until they have an excuse to beat up minorities, whine or fuck up the man. After all Hank Hill is more unique than say Stan Smith (conservative SP) personality wise.

 

[greenfairy]

It seems like the SJ definition is getting more and more like the Six one. Considering that apparently SJs can also be rebellious and whatnot.

Besides thinking about it, wouldn't you say that SPs are the least unique of them all? After all it's honestly quite so hard to find someone who is so anal about the rules, and society. Most people don't give a fuck until they have an excuse to beat up minorities, whine or fuck up the man. After all Hank Hill is more unique than say Stan Smith (conservative SP) personality wise.

I have thought about this. I think the normal SP's are more normal than the SJ's, but the less normal SP's are stranger than the abnormal SJ's. Or maybe they're equally strange but in different ways. Either way it does seem true that some of the most vapid people who seem like walking stereotypes are ESXP's. (<--Not implying that this describes the majority of them at all- don't freak out. I don't even really consider it a bad thing.)

 

[greenfairy]

Btw don't get the impression that I think bad things about S's. I S's of all types, especially the SP's.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

My ESFJ sister was voted "Most Unique" in her class. She really likes to bounce around the Fe+Ne pairing when in social settings. I've known a number of ESFJ's who could make some great jokes with their Ne when they want to/are in the mood.

I've been very fond of the SJ friends I've had in my life, and never once thought of them as dull or uninteresting. They've always tended to be highly thought of amongst the non-SJ friends. They value things that work, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to their personality.

I have a theory that the only "normal" people that exist are the people you don't know well. Even SJ's have their eccentricities. However, I admire them because they don't seem to feel a need to distinguish their self as "odd" because of the aspects that do make them different.

Looking at fictional examples: Dr. Cox, Dana Scully, Hermione Granger... I love these characters and admire them.

SJ's are bad ass in their own right.

 

[HongDou]

Either way it does seem true that some of the most vapid people who seem like walking stereotypes are ESXP's. (<--Not implying that this describes the majority of them at all- don't freak out. I don't even really consider it a bad thing.)

I'd think, specifically, ESTP for men and ESFP for women. Because of the whole "rugged and unemotional" thing associated with Ts and "soft and sensitive" thing associated with Fs.

Anyway, yeah, I could get into this whole thing about how I believe everyone is different to some extent but I think I have a few times before anyway. I mean, every type can look "normal" on the surface. ENFPs can seem look like ditzy socialites, INFJs can look like soft-spoken nerds. But when you actually start to connect with people and learn about them you start to pick up on little things that make them who they are as individuals. Not to single out INFJs specifically, but I find the whole "special snowflake" vibe about a lot of them really ironic since it just makes them seem more typical to me.

 

[tkae.]

Ok, really not trying to be a jerk, but the before this takes off, I feel like the question might need to be tweaked.

I'm not usually one to throw these kinds of things at people, but when I read the question, I really had a hard time thinking about what it even meant.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000269.htm

Actually, she was correct on a number of levels.

First of all, her title gives credit to each individual personality type as being unique from each other, some less unique than others and some more unique than others. You can certainly subject uniqueness to gradation. It's an arbitrary system of gradation, but everything is arbitrary.

Second of all, literal definition (denotation) doesn't drive language. Denotation is the word when studied in how it's been used, and historically how it's been interpreted to mean. Connotation is the driving mechanism of language, since it's the way the word is used in practical conversation, which is what denotation is studying. And since language moves so fast, even the best efforts (which there certainly have been in the past) can't keep up with the evolution of language. So of course dictionaries aren't up to date, since the way a word is being used popularly only just then gets added to the long list of words waiting to be updated.

Unique as a word has been drawn into meaning something that has peculiar or non-typical qualities, unlike it's past definition of being one-of-a-kind. Its structural grammar was correct, and I'm not sure how you could be unsure of what the meaning is. She clearly set up "unique" as a juxtaposition to "normal", so if you can understand "more normal", why can't you understand that "less unique" is opposite of "more normal"? That's how English works. And English doesn't favor people whose brains are rigid on meanings, so... you're gonna have a bad time.

To the OP:

I think it has more to do with the fact that the SJ population is larger than the SJ population being more normal. Normality in a society is driven by the characteristics of the members of the population, and since SJs comprise more of the population, they're therefor more normal. If NFs were the larger percent of the population, they'd be more normal, since the norm would be skewed towards them.

And like other people have said, they're the drivers of our societies. It's an SJ that's more likely to go into administration or management at some point, and they're the doers who get systems in motion. I think we give "normal" too much weight as "boring". I'm not saying SJs aren't boring (I've met some that are boring as all fuck). But if we didn't have SJs in our society, we'd be screwed. I wouldn't take my mom as any type other than ESFJ, even if we have some core misunderstandings. And it was my ESTJ grandmother that raised my mom, and owned three businesses and was a bank teller and real estate agent. If I need something sewn or something cooked, it's my grandmother I'll go to. Sure, she might think 7/10 paintings in our city's art museum are ugly and meaningless, or that scientists have gone off the deep end with their research on the travel habits of sea cucumbers, but if a store doesn't give us credit for a sale that's going on, she's a pit bull like neither me more my mom can be. She once shook her cane at a judge over a parking ticket.

It takes all types. Normality is a moot point. It's the minority (the unique ones) that has to do constant upkeep on uniqueness as a positive attribute. In Japan and Norway it's something horrible to be.

 

[Haven]

Omg you guys, SJs are such conformists

 

[Habba]

I think that SJs are the people who have the least problems with the normal. We take little pressure playing with the rules of normal or looking like we were normal. But the SJs I know have a very quirky side beneath.

On the otherhand, the INFJs I know are very obsessed with NOT being normal. They seem to be constantly comparing themselves to normal and wanting to stay away from it. They constantly refer to other people as 'normal', yet I have no reason to believe they are anymore paranormal than the next person.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Not to single out INFJs specifically, but I find the whole "special snowflake" vibe about a lot of them really ironic since it just makes them seem more typical to me.

 

[Thalassa]

Ok look [MENTION=7816]JTG1984[/MENTION] was kicked off of this forum for being a beligerent revolutionary about 87 times, and I am pretty sure he is an Si dom...he wasn't normal enough to stay on this forum, though irl he is pretty outwardly "normal" he is overall an idiosyncratic person who probably has more interesting taste in music than you do.

My ESFJ ex was morally pretty traditional, calling promiscuous people soulless, but knows more about independent film and world horror than some Ns I have encountered.

SJs still have Ne, and when they are smart they are simply incredible people who are good at creating a socially acceptable face.

You have to fuck an SJ to realize they are not robots from the borg, maybe.

I would agree that in HIGH SCHOOL SFJs can seem overly normative and terrified of everything different, but in my overall experience they are not especially boring. My ISTJ grandfather is a hero to me, really. Despite his fixed ideas about certain things, he had this secret ENFP self that taught me positive imaging.

Well educated and well traveled SJs of course are a much more formidable force. JTG and my ESFJ ex are both biracial and both have been outside of the U.S. My ISTJ grandfather went all over the world.

Maybe we sensors are only as interesting as what we have outwardly live.

 

[Thalassa]

I have thought about this. I think the normal SP's are more normal than the SJ's, but the less normal SP's are stranger than the abnormal SJ's. Or maybe they're equally strange but in different ways. Either way it does seem true that some of the most vapid people who seem like walking stereotypes are ESXP's. (<--Not implying that this describes the majority of them at all- don't freak out. I don't even really consider it a bad thing.)

Stupid people are fucking stupid. Stupid SJs might annoy you most because of their emphasis on normative experience. Actually this is mostly SFJs. Stupid STJs are probably still pretty responsible people and good grocery store managers....but like, I think stupid Ns are the worst, because they have terrible theories and irritating ideas not based in reality, or they think they are sensitive bc they won't read Wuthering Heights.

Stupid SPs are usually at least still interesting or useful.