User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 141

  1. #81
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Keirsey isn't a threat. I think even a lot of people who'd question him would give him some credit as a respectable thinker.. but like many INTPs, he has a knack for building theoretical models and boxes for things, and that doesn't work for actual people. That kind of categorizing can get pretty claustrophobic from time to time. There is no harm in someone calling models into question, introducing more data, saying "consider this.. it's not that simple".... or "wait a minute". Just because someone does that doesn't give you the right to retype people. "Oh, you're looking deeper into things.. you must be an N. Nyah Nyah =P". For fuck's sake, man. If you think it's that objectionable, you're just being dogmatic. Not reasonable.

  2. #82
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post



    The internet Keirsey descriptions are much better than the ones in the book. They are also shorter. That said, whether I'm wrong or right is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It does not sound like you guys are reading into the descriptions. I may be reading things that aren't there, but when I see other people here coming up with the same things independently, I have to think I'm not totally off base.
    No, I don't think you're totally off base, and you're right, I personally didn't read into the descriptions much. When I got here, I assumed everybody had made those conclusions together. (As in, they came in with a fresh new mind, and learned the regular stereotypes here, and then changed their mind.) Because with the few things that I saw at more than face value, I found that my opinion was still quite different than a lot of popular opinions I see here. So, I just figured everyone else had new opinions when they walked in, and now are subscribing to popular forum opinion. Then again, I don't have a popular forum thought process, so that may also have been why my thoughts on what I read were so different from the rest. (Some Ni fails on my part?) Who knows? I may have felt differently if I read the book.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  3. #83
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Keirsey isn't a threat. I think even a lot of people who'd question him would give him some credit as a respectable thinker.. but like many INTPs, he has a knack for building theoretical models and boxes for things, and that doesn't work for actual people. That kind of categorizing can get pretty claustrophobic from time to time. There is no harm in someone calling models into question, introducing more data, saying "consider this.. it's not that simple".... or "wait a minute". Just because someone does that doesn't give you the right to retype people. "Oh, you're looking deeper into things.. you must be an N. Nyah Nyah =P". For fuck's sake, man. If you think it's that objectionable, you're just being dogmatic. Not reasonable.
    All this typology stuff could be considered "boxes for things." I'm not sure why you think Keirsey's model is more so than Myers-Briggs or anybody else. If anything I'd say that Keirsey's model is less "claustrophobic" because he doesn't attach a bunch of assumptions about internal functions. He types based on observable behavior.

    I don't get your deal about "right to re-type people" at all. I certainly have the right to express my opinion about someone's type based on my own observations. That person is free to ignore my opinion. I have no power over anyone when it comes to such things, so I'm not sure why that bothers you.

    Also, I think I'm one of the LEAST dogmatic people around this burg. I don't tell people things like "You can't be Fe Ne" or "If you haven't read Psychological Types, you can't comment on typology" and other such stuff that I've read on this forum. I'll all about freedom, man. Use whatever systems you like and more power to you. All I was doing in this topic was responding to some mischaracterizations of Keirsey's temperament descriptions. No dogma necessary, dude, I promise. I'm the last one to have a problem with questioning things and introducing more data. I don't know how you can misread me that strongly.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  4. #84
    Senior Member mcmartinez84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post
    I'm reading into the text, not just reading the surface and taking it at face value. I don't learn anything that way.
    Nuff said. You're talking to a bunch of sensors. Personally I take things very literally (face value). Rarely do I read into the text.

    Generalizations come with just about anything you learn. When I think about this, I usually recall Chem class having a few rules that applied to everything...with at least one exception. It happens. Not everything ever fits into a nice box, but it sure helps with organization and learning.
    I 65.63% E 34.38%
    S 68.75% N 31.25%
    T 87.1% F 12.9%
    P 66.67% J 33.33%

  5. #85
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default Jeffster

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Sounds like that's your problem right there. If it takes you making things up in your head to learn, you have a learning disability.

    Uhhh..so you're accidentally posting your opinions? Assigning your own alternate meanings to words that already have meanings isn't opinion. It's distortion.

    True, but as long as people are going to post misinformation, there's nothing wrong with me posting corrections. Obviously, i too hope people will read the books for themselves. It's a pity there's so much re-writing of it by people online.

    Do the founders of Typology Central have a "Keirsey-pushing agenda" too? Since they set up these sections of the forum based on his temperament categories, it would seem that they at least grant his theories some validity. I didn't join this site with any agenda to "push" anything, I'm just posting my views just as anyone else does.
    Much of this is true, and much of it is possibly intentional 'misinterpretation' on your part. Still, the important parts are below so I'll just continue on.

    Thanks for the quotes, however none of them state anything about "SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought" as you asserted earlier.
    Religious values about sex. Lack of original thoughts to decide whether or not to have sex (the peer pressure thing). The rest, I'll take back, or at least pretend to.

    If you said that the norms of society have changed and Keirsey's specific assertions about the common views of SJs seem a bit outdated, then I would actually agree with you there. And there have been topics about that here as well as Keirsey's own forum. But it's a big leap from "societal standards have changed, and SJs remain the standard-bearers" to "This entire text loses all validity because some behaviors have changed."
    The norms were not even this way in 1998 when the book was written. The quotes I posted sound damn near Victorian. That's why I think it should be discredited; not because behaviours were changed, but because it was wrong even at the time it was supposed to be accurate.

    Oh COME ON now. You want to talk about "pukeworthy bullshit." "Heteronormative assumption?" So, do you advocate re-writing every book to include the phrase "...or a same-sex relationship" in it somewhere?
    No. I advocate instead that people strive to avoid enforcing heteronormative standards (especially with a section like "Different Drummers" at the front of the book). How hard is it to use phrases like "romantic partner" or better yet, "sexual partner"? Why is it necessary to point out repeatedly that the partner "is" of the opposite sex?

    Wow...that's pretty ridiculous. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of romantic relationships are between members of the opposite sex, and not stopping to put an asterisk on texts about relationship in no way invalidates the millions of books written about such topics.
    This isn't my main point about invalidating Keirsey, it was more of a side...annoyance, we can say. That said, I think this post has shown your true colours. Helpful. ("Fuck them, they're just a minority! Yeah, who cares about them, right?")

    Hey, no problem. I don't advocate The Feminazi Handbook to Relationships either, so there we are. Thing is, I don't think it's difficult for most people (including SJs) to realize that the overall concepts of a theory don't go out the window just because certain specific standards change over time.
    Yes. Si causes SJs to maintain standards, because standards are externally verifiable, reliable, and known. That is far more accurate than surrounding it with all this bullshit. Si descriptions. Oh wait, Keirsey doesn't advocate the function theory. That's a problem for me.

    Also, I find it rather sickening that one has to be a 'feminazi' to be upset that Keirsey compares women to cattle. (Why buy the cow when the milk's free? -- puke)

    Sounds like you might need to hand in your SP card. In another topic, you said you don't like to be touched and here you say you read into everything. The prognosis is grim.
    Bullshit. I don't fit your stereotypes, so what? Learn what Se is instead of relying on Keirsey's SP descriptions, and perhaps you would reconsider, not that I care if you do. (Cue "you don't want to be touched? you're just a frigid bitch!" comments.)

    For the record, I am not in the employ of Keirsey nor do I worship him or consider him without flaws in his theories. I think my issue is with people who can't keep their critiques to what he has actually said. It's almost as if some here (and I'm not saying this about you specifically) feel like Keirsey is a threat to them somehow, because they seem to spend so much time trying to discredit him instead of simply advocating for what they think is a better system.
    Keirsey is as much of a threat to MBTI/JCF as a five year old tee ball player is to an MLB all-star. To date, I've written 5 or 6 posts discrediting Keirsey -- only two of which have reached this length. I've written over 400 posts, then, advocating the cognitive functions. So no worries, I'm definitely advocating for the better system.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  6. #86
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcmartinez84 View Post
    Nuff said. You're talking to a bunch of sensors. Personally I take things very literally (face value). Rarely do I read into the text.

    Generalizations come with just about anything you learn. When I think about this, I usually recall Chem class having a few rules that applied to everything...with at least one exception. It happens. Not everything ever fits into a nice box, but it sure helps with organization and learning.
    Great. Now when an N sees this and uses it as 'proof' that all Ss don't read into anything and we're all dumb, I can't say they lack all evidence and are delusional.

    My point is only that adhering to the function theory leads to fewer unnecessary stereotypes.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  7. #87
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    No, I don't think you're totally off base, and you're right, I personally didn't read into the descriptions much. When I got here, I assumed everybody had made those conclusions together. (As in, they came in with a fresh new mind, and learned the regular stereotypes here, and then changed their mind.) Because with the few things that I saw at more than face value, I found that my opinion was still quite different than a lot of popular opinions I see here. So, I just figured everyone else had new opinions when they walked in, and now are subscribing to popular forum opinion. Then again, I don't have a popular forum thought process, so that may also have been why my thoughts on what I read were so different from the rest. (Some Ni fails on my part?) Who knows? I may have felt differently if I read the book.
    Ahhh that's very interesting, it may be that (that you are not of a common type here)!

    If anything, though, this forum has erased some of the ideas I came in with, mostly about SJs. Many SJs here, especially the ISTJs and one awesome ESTJ are so open-minded, many are atheists (in contrast to the religious stereotype), and they are understanding people. It's great!

    Edit: ISFJs too! lol. And I liked one ESFJ a whole lot, but she left. :/
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  8. #88
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Keirsey isn't a threat. I think even a lot of people who'd question him would give him some credit as a respectable thinker.. but like many INTPs, he has a knack for building theoretical models and boxes for things, and that doesn't work for actual people. That kind of categorizing can get pretty claustrophobic from time to time. There is no harm in someone calling models into question, introducing more data, saying "consider this.. it's not that simple".... or "wait a minute". Just because someone does that doesn't give you the right to retype people. "Oh, you're looking deeper into things.. you must be an N. Nyah Nyah =P". For fuck's sake, man. If you think it's that objectionable, you're just being dogmatic. Not reasonable.
    Thank you!

    Function theory is much less claustrophobic. For me, outside of the FiSe axis, I can be whoever I want without being un-SP. I am an SP because I have top-two Se, and it really is that simple, no matter what Keirsey says.

    I think he is indeed good at forming theories... but not a good theorist. Good theorists check with reality before publishing a book. (FTR, I don't consider myself much of a theorist at all, but I wouldn't be a good one, anyway.)
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  9. #89
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post
    Great. Now when an N sees this and uses it as 'proof' that all Ss don't read into anything and we're all dumb, I can't say they lack all evidence and are delusional.

    My point is only that adhering to the function theory leads to fewer unnecessary stereotypes.
    Hmm... Now when an N sees McMartinez post and tries to use it as proof that we're all dumb, I'd question the N's ability to properly collect their evidence before drawing conclusions. I always figured that "seeing things at face value" can be more scientific and smarter than reading into everything. Scientists have a hypotheses, but they should collect a whole lot of information to then be able to prove that. That's what an S is, to me. Not reading into anything tells me, "I don't assume things, I need as much information as I can to draw a conclusion, because jumping to conclusions is a waste of time when I can get my facts straight and then reach a more accurate conclusion in the end." For me, God forbid I make a decision at work without knowing exactly what I'm talking about. What about a judge in a court of law? They should never assume too much either. This is true in a lot of noble professions. That's how I've always viewed S's literalism + taking things at face value. The bias towards N's here because of this fact was big news to me. This has always been my view since before arriving to this forum.

    This view always comes to the front of my mind when I see some of the pompous NT's who walk around all day making assumptions on nothing and guessing on things. Like wait, back up. Aren't YOU supposed to be the scientists? A smart person doesn't know everything just because they "pulled it out of thin air". We're not all thinker statues here. We make wrong guesses when we do that. Smart and well balanced people get lots of facts and then draw conclusions, and are open to changing their minds as new facts come to light.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  10. #90
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Hmm... Now when an N sees McMartinez post and tries to use it as proof that we're all dumb, I'd question the N's ability to properly collect their evidence before drawing conclusions. I always figured that "seeing things at face value" can be more scientific and smarter than reading into everything. Scientists have a hypotheses, but they should collect a whole lot of information to then be able to prove that. That's what an S is, to me. Not reading into anything tells me, "I don't assume things, I need as much information as I can to draw a conclusion, because jumping to conclusions is a waste of time when I can get my facts straight and then reach a more accurate conclusion in the end." For me, God forbid I make a decision at work without knowing exactly what I'm talking about. What about a judge in a court of law? They should never assume top much either. This is true in a lot of noble professions. That's how I've always viewed S's literalism + taking things at face value. The bias towards here because of this fact was big news to me. This has always been my view since before arriving to this forum.

    Especially with some of the pompous NT's who walk around all day making assumptions on nothing and guessing on things. Like wait, back up. Aren't YOU supposed to be the scientists?
    They are the scientists because they can hypothesize based on limited data, and follow the hunch. The scientific method, which you describe, is IMO very S (I agree on that point). It forces us to get significant amounts of data. That is through statistics ofc. The rest of your post only enforces that old thread I made -- the world favours S types. Literalism.

    My point is that Ns don't seem to need as much data before drawing conclusions. They go from part to whole faster -- the downside is that the whole pattern perception is often wrong! So yeah, they may not be collecting evidence properly, but that doesn't mean that their N won't tell them it's sufficient.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] So any other ENTPs get along with the SPs or feel more like them???
    By Chilichimichanga in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-05-2017, 11:57 AM
  2. [SP] Any other SPs like this game lol
    By Rainne in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-06-2010, 09:04 PM
  3. [INFP] Do any other INFP's feel like this?
    By Soar337 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 07:08 PM
  4. [NT] Do any other NTs(INTPs) act this way?
    By Nizy in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 01:08 AM
  5. [MBTItm] Do any other N's replay events?
    By Matt22 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-21-2007, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO