"Intuitives", MBTIc, and the internet in general

[The Ü™]

So perhaps it's what Uberfuhrer is saying: that Ns can't stand a lot of word-watching at once.

I don't see why the notion would be that complicated for one to grasp.

And reading is widely considered to have more Introvert appeal than anything.

Extroverts are typically better at talking and listening than reading and writing.

 

[Eldanen]

I don't see why the notion would be that complicated for one to grasp.

And reading is widely considered to have more Introvert appeal than anything.

Extroverts are typically better at talking and listening than reading and writing.

I personally suck at listening. I just regard other people as too slow on information transmission. So I'll either multi-task or start daydreaming.

 

[The Ü™]

I personally suck at listening.

I suck at listening to other people, but I don't suck at listening to myself talk!

 

[Fiver]

For me it is much simpler.

Internet: I like it because it is full of everything I am curious about. It's also a frequently changing technology -- two things I like.

When I first came to this forum it was like being in a room full of people with interests and temperament similar to mine. As an NT, this was unusual and fulfilling.

Plus everything Aimahn said.

 

[Jeffster]

finally, someone else that actually reads and comprehends Please Understand Me II

I've read it, and I comprehend quite a lot of it. In fact, I'm working on a project related to it that I've posted some of here.

 

[nightning]

Uh huh.

People always favor like-minded others. It's a natural tendency to flock together. We're social creatures after all.

There's a disproportional number of Ns... in particular introverted Ns gathering on internet forums like here and INTPc because Ns started them. As you said, discussing theories and philosophy is our natural style. Clearer it'll be easier for us Ns to integrate than Ss.

As to superiority... that's silly. How do you define it? Different types have their own natural abilities. It's senseless saying one type is superior to another because we'll never agree upon what traits are the most important.

What people don't usually voice is the importance of having other types involved in discussions. As nice as it is hear here our ideas validated by like-minded others, other types bring in different perspectives that helps us see the larger picture. (This is my Ni talking ) I'm glad we have our small population of active sensors around.

are there other examples anyone can think of similar to this, or where the concept of "birds of a feather" then evolves into a self-fulfilling commune? do you think an environmental preference could be tied to other type dichotomies, such as the internet being more favorable to introverts for similar reasons?

Life, "real life", in general is like this. This is how cliques in school gets started, and clubs. Essentially any group formed on a voluntary basis would have that.

considering im bringing this up in the very environment it refers to, i know it might be difficult for people to consider it objectively, im just hoping we can favor the scientists and theorists in us for once and not make it personal.

As oppose to shouting matches insisting the superiority of one type against another? It's been a long long while since we had one of those around here.

 

[ptgatsby]

As oppose to shouting matches insisting the superiority of one type against another? It's been a long long while since we had one of those around here.

*Fist pounding on chest* Bring it!

(No really, don't Or at least make it something different this time. Like Js vs Ps! (No really, don't ))

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

*Fist pounding on chest* Bring it!

(No really, don't Or at least make it something different this time. Like Js vs Ps! (No really, don't ))

Can't make up your mind eh? You're such a P.

/em looks at his own type and then

 

[mlittrell]

He was much too wordy and descriptive of external elements to be an INFP, I think. INFXes like to boil things down in my opinion. Two examples are Terry Brooks and J. K. Rowling. The former is INFp, the latter INFj.

there is a big difference between INFPs and INFJs. also, i hold no opinion on tolkiens type lol i could care less, he writes good books and thats the point. but i notice INFJs or really XNFJs in general seem to use a lot of adjective in their writing. not sure how XNFPs would go about writing. i know the stuff i write has an "emotional" structure to it with "intellectual" hooks. i have a whole theory about types and music with that. u could be completely right with whatever you said before.

 

[Giggly]

The INternet is like a whole other world. I'm waiting for the self-excommunication of the INternet from the real world and the establishment of the INternet as it's own sovereign state. It shall be called "The United INternet of Libertarians" and have it's own government, army of deadly computer hackers, complex INternet social structure and continually be at war with the real world.

 

[Colors]

I want some of this supposed "S" advantage in real life.

 

[Llewellyn]

though off topic and i am unbiased, many regard tolkien as an INFP

He was much too wordy and descriptive of external elements to be an INFP, I think. INFXes like to boil things down in my opinion. Two examples are Terry Brooks and J. K. Rowling. The former is INFp, the latter INFj.

Isn´t mlittrell talking about MBTI and Eldanen talking about Socionics? (By the way, adding some partiality, from what I know of it I have no good words for Socionics).

Edit: Tolkien, for what I know of him, he has been some kind of recluse( maybe classically INTJ, like Newton) but from what I've heard he can be characterized as a "bad writer" for describing so many details. Doesn't sound N-like. And INFPs are typically said to be talented writers.

 

[mlittrell]

im going off of what the title says so yes, MBTI

and ya Tolkien has oodles of details

 

[ragashree]

I've created a new thread for Tolkien to avoid going further off topic. I think there has been some unfounded speculation and some questionable statements made here, but it didn't seem like the appropriate place for me to provide detailed evidence or arguments to the contrary. If anyone who has voiced an opinion would like to repeat themselves on the new thread, feel free to do so!

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/popular-culture-type/10726-tolkien.html

 

[Totenkindly]

Two examples are Terry Brooks and J. K. Rowling.

Terry Brooks is pretty quintessential INFP (mbti). I think it's a great comparison study to look at The Sword of Shannara (his Tolkien knock-off) compared to Tolkien's work, and you can see the difference between T vs. F in what is focused on and what drama plays out in the characters. Also, how much of a focus "logic" has versus dramatic necessity.

I'm not sure about Rowlings, she seemed more INFP to me.

Guy Gavriel Kay is another fantasy author I believe to be INFJ. Lemony Snickett, too -- a good Ti function at work there underlying the Ni+Fe approach to the stories. Stephen R. Donaldson, I think, falls into that same category... strong Ti thinking that supports the often-fatalist and complex/realistic view of the world even while aiming for more.

 

[JAVO]

I agree with the OP.

Another real world example is that those with an intuitive preference are probably more inclined to prefer academia and research.

 

["?"]

Actually, no. He equates "novel" with intuition, and "tried and true" with sensing on the test in the front of the book. It's really a frustrating test, because basically you aren't going to find ANY SPs thinking they need to stick to tried and true ways of doing things. SPs don't care whether what they're doing is the traditional way or their own way -- being utilitarian and practical, we go for whatever way we think is going to get the job done most impressively.

I think the dichotomy of the particular question on the test contrasted "probing for possibilities" against "nailing things down." He considered it P versus J. I know this because I'm holding Please Understand Me II in my hands.

Uber, I think you two are discussing different things, but are closely interwoven in the SP type. Novel in meaning new or tried and true which Keirsey sees as a S/N matter, and open to possibilities or closure which is J/P. I think that Dr. Berens says it best in describing Artisans, Se, Improviser types:

To improvise is to vary your actions to get a result using whatever is at hand. In an ever changing environment, improvising is greatly needed.

This seems to say it all in that SP types will be open to varied ways of handling a matter expediently to get a desired impact and instant results. Both allow SPs to see possibilities and to bring closure. As for your example, this can be misleading for a SP type since I may infer this to mean seeing immediate results from my actions. Possibilities are meaningless without some practical application. For this reason when I first took the Temperament Sorter years ago, I continued to type as INTJ and still find myself having more commonalities with INT types than SPs, especially ESPs.

 

["?"]

First, there's no way of knowing how many of those people who test as intuitives really do prefer intuition. Pretty much everyone I know who has encountered the MBTI, Keirsey's book, or any of the knockoff tests on the internet thinks he or she is an Intuitive first, and only later comes to the realization that maybe they prefer Sensing, once they've bothered to read about temperament and contemplate which pattern really fits them more. It's ridiculous how often people who prefer Sensing (particularly SPs) are strongly attracted to the answers on type tests that are supposed to be linked with having a preference for Intuition.

Agreed, which is why an article I read years ago about Se types confusing themselves as intuitives made me see type differently. I was one of those who initially thought that I was INTJ from Keirsey's Sorter, then mistyped as INTP when taking the Step II. This article delves into the confusion for SP types. One reason for the confusion is the inability to distinguish Jung having different types of sensing and intuition which makes Se similar to Ne and Si to Ni. A snipet of the article says:

Jung described each of the mental processes in terms of their attitudes. It wasn't just Sensing, it was Sensing in the extraverted attitude or in the introverted attitude. Functions used in the extraverted attitude have a here and now quality to them. Thus both extraverted Sensing and extraverted iNtuiting are in-the-moment perceptions. When we engage in either of them, our energy goes to either seeking more sensory input (Se) or to interacting to develop more ideas (Ne). In both processes, the focus is on the possibilities and opportunities. With extraverted Sensing(Se), the focus is on the immediate, sensory possibilities and options for action. With extraverted iNtuiting(Ne), it is on the envisioned possibilities, new ideas and meanings.

Functions used in the introverted attitude have a past, future or universal quality to them. Introverted Sensing has a past and sometimes universal sense with the focus on the evoked impression, usually of something perceived beforehand, or as Jung said, "...it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing ..." (Psychological Types, p.395) Introverted iNtuiting is a process of becoming aware of what will be that hasn't yet been. Vision, foresight, and profoundly impactful symbols are often a result of this process.

 

[heart]

There is no revenge component for myself though, if you think that's part of it. It may be for some.

Yeah, the revenge aspect seems a bit off the mark. For me it was just finding a world that was far easier to navigate and it's a pleasure to go there.