avaxtskyr
New member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2015
- Messages
- 62
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
I think most scientist types are Intuitive types
Actual proof?
Not just hear-say passed down by generations of internet forumites.
I think most scientist types are Intuitive types
To show that the sensors would make the sky blue, the trees green, ect, and show that the intuitives would make the sky purple. That was pretty much it. I could see where sure that would be an example, but I do not think it was the rule. It was pretty much an I'm an intuitive, and I have to make sure that the sensors are aware of how great I am sort of presentation.
There are different ways to be creative, I know someone who I guess is an ISFP who can draw amazingly well. She has a a natural perception that I could never have because she is able to capture all of those details and string them together in her art. My art always looked like it was drawn by a fingerless mentally disturbed clown.
Actual proof?
Not just hear-say passed down by generations of internet forumites.
I have no reason to think that the sky is purple. However, I have thought the color is an illusion only showing according to their wavelengths. You can actually see how genders perceive color differently due to wavelengths being differently.
I don't remember. However, there's no need to be sarcastic when one is just asking for the facts.
To show that the sensors would make the sky blue, the trees green, ect, and show that the intuitives would make the sky purple.
I think most scientist types are Intuitive types which involves thinking in the abstract world. I saw a study somewhere showing most most types are mostly NT's followed by NF's. I don't think S types can do what N users can. I read reports that people even had stressed when constantly asked to use their inferior function. However, I wouldn't have said that N types can think of possibilities what S types can do in a million of years. When he said, "One million years," it sounds like one-upmanship. I would had said N types usually have mastery of the abstract world while lacking the detailed world. While S have mastery of the detailed world but lack abstract world.
LMAO. Ns go off and play in their head, Ss go off and play in the real world.
What propogates this absurdity? The closed minded people who only put value in what is "considered" N.
Its funny that N types pin "intuitive" as if its some how tied to "being correct". I work with a couple N types and I can generally run circles around them when it comes to computer programming which is actually a mixture of being abstract and not. As an S type I am considered the brain and used for processing power. Do I use intuition? NO. I use S to see whats in front of me, where they are stuck in their head trying to mentally abstract it out. What takes them days to computate, it takes me seconds to see, analyze, and get to the same place they eventually get to. So fast forward after being with this group for 6 years, I have a tremendous understanding of how every technology, framework, etc. all tie together and can explain just about any part in more detail then they can because they are stuck in their head trying to come up with new and creative while I am actually digging in, analyzing it, and using whats in front of me.
I have managed to knock the N out of technical lead due to the vast majority of knowledge of every aspect as well as my speed and judgement of priorities that need to happen in the real world.
What propogates this absurdity? The closed minded people who only put value in what is "considered" N.
That has nothing to do with my main point in which N's are usually scientist due to S not preferring intuitive function.LMAO. Ns go off and play in their head, Ss go off and play in the real world.
What propogates this absurdity? The closed minded people who only put value in what is "considered" N.
Its funny that N types pin "intuitive" as if its some how tied to "being correct". I work with a couple N types and I can generally run circles around them when it comes to computer programming which is actually a mixture of being abstract and not. As an S type I am considered the brain and used for processing power. Do I use intuition? NO. I use S to see whats in front of me, where they are stuck in their head trying to mentally abstract it out. What takes them days to computate, it takes me seconds to see, analyze, and get to the same place they eventually get to. So fast forward after being with this group for 6 years, I have a tremendous understanding of how every technology, framework, etc. all tie together and can explain just about any part in more detail then they can because they are stuck in their head trying to come up with new and creative while I am actually digging in, analyzing it, and using whats in front of me.
I have managed to knock the N out of technical lead due to the vast majority of knowledge of every aspect as well as my speed and judgement of priorities that need to happen in the real world.
You could use intuition unconsciously. That emphatic "NO" makes me less likely to take your comments seriously.
What propagates this absurdity? The closed-minded people who only put value in what is "considered" S.
Putting value in only one or the other is equally absurd.
That has nothing to do with my main point in which N's are usually scientist due to S not preferring intuitive function.
It seems like N types tend to put quite a bit of emphasis on S being stupid. I do get the stereotype of "stupid" pinned on me. I say seem, because its all a perception thing and what seems to be isn't always the case.
The S people I've been around have always been concrete people, they don't want to think too much about the abstract or philosophize our existence. They don't want to look deeper than what they need to do to live their lives in a way they think is best.
It's funny you do mention that now. I remember that thread, making it and wanting to discuss the beauty of rebirth in destruction. Instead, no one really had the patience to see past the fact that I saw any kind of beauty in destruction, that I made the connection between there sometimes being humanistic progress as a result of war. Perhaps I didn't articulate clearly enough or maybe I expected people to be open-minded enough to help expound upon the discussion.
But yes, it is very ironic, that you seem to lack enough patience to understand where people are coming from, yet think it's okay to criticize them for it. And who are you exactly?
You're really not that smart.