G
garbage
Guest
For that matter, all of the terms--thinking, feeling, etc.--are terrible. But they're kind of the best we've got.
I see that most of the people who voted indicated that they believed in none of the statements above. With that fact in consideration, I have just one question.
Why do we keep on making this preposterous connection between a person's MBTI type and certain skills or character features? For example, we have the NT Rationale forum which suggests that being an NT means being a rational thinker. Unless we believe that NTs are by definition more intelligent, rational or analytical than most people, there is no reason to call their forum a "rationale". If we don't believe that people of this type have such lofty virtues, regarding an SJ or an SP forum as a "rationale" can be supported by just as cogent of an argument as the act of applying the same descriptive epithet to the NT forum.
I was always under the impression that, as that part of the forum is modeled after Kiersey's four temperaments, the organizer of the forum also modeled the forum names after what he named the temperaments. Therefore NT Rationals = The NT Rational, NF Idealists = The NF Idyllic, SP Artisans = The SP Arthouse, and SJ Guardians = The SJ Guardhouse.
I, however, could be wrong and the creator of this forum could have decided he wanted to perpetuate nasty stereotypes about the temperaments such as NT types being logic-driven like the elitist bigot he is. Shame on him.
I see that most of the people who voted indicated that they believed in none of the statements above. With that fact in consideration, I have just one question.
Why do we keep on making this preposterous connection between a person's MBTI type and certain skills or character features? For example, we have the NT Rationale forum which suggests that being an NT means being a rational thinker. Unless we believe that NTs are by definition more intelligent, rational or analytical than most people, there is no reason to call their forum a "rationale". If people of this type don't have such lofty virtues, regarding an SJ or an SP forum as a "rationale" can be supported by just as cogent of an argument as the act of applying the same descriptive epithet to the NT forum.
Personally, I prefer words like "rational", "guardian", "idealist", and "artisan" over words like "sanguine", "melancholic", "choleric" and "phlegmatic". The latter ones sound like some kind of disease.
They seem more neutral and thus less prone to misconception than common everyday modern words like "rational".Personally, I prefer words like "rational", "guardian", "idealist", and "artisan" over words like "sanguine", "melancholic", "choleric" and "phlegmatic". The latter ones sound like some kind of disease.
And that's what the Keirsey temperaments and Interaction Styles (which both translate into those grouping you mentioned). Thus, most of the types are a combination of them.I am no fan of the "sanguine", "melancholic", "choleric" and "phlegmatic" groupings. Many people do not fall into one group alone; they are combinations.
Some of them are true, because they are kind of open. Such as this one:
C. If I test as an Extrovert, my results suggest that I am socially talented and should make lifestyle choices that involve a lot of interaction with people such as public speaking, hosting parties and pursuing careers that will not obligate me to spend a lot of time alone.
Is this not true?
It's not like these stereotypes don't exist, even if here we've hashed them out a number of times. They're worth shooting down one by one, just for public record.