typological mythbusting

[Orangey]

Some posts moved here.

 

[Lily Bart]

Then there's the people you grew up with and associated with -- I'm a "N" but I live a very SP life, thanks to the influence of my SP mom. My sister is an SJ, but we were very, very close growing up and I like to think my NF influences rubbed off on her! I can talk to her more easily than many SJ's I know -- in fact, I usually have a very hard time talking to SJ's. Type is way too complicated to reduce it to the direct infuences of four simple letters!

 

[Nocapszy]

Type is way too complicated to reduce it to the direct infuences of four simple letters!

that's exactly it.
kiersey had it all wrong. type has very little to do with communication style or behavior. kiersey insists that you can predict behavior based on type.

in one light, you actually can, but there are so many potential manifestations of those behaviors which can be predicted that you would just as well be able to predict it simply by watching individuals, and ignoring type.

the only of the four letters which really has any sure observable tendency is E/I.

introverts prefer not to overextend themselves, where extroverts fear not experiencing it all, but that actually nothing about how they do their thing, whatever it may be.

excusing that, there is no one thing that any of the four letters or the four/eight function models can truly grasp onto.

 

[mortabunt]

S and N aren't polar. They are still major dividing factors. If you want polarization, read about autism.

 

[mortabunt]

listen carefully:

no one has said that they can't.
i was simply explaining why it's easier and more likely for an iNtuitive to gain the upper hand in using their Judgement functions.

this is to say, iNtuition figuratively flourishes Judgement.

i can't understand why you people think i'm talking about guarantees and sure-things.
i don't even think i used the word "all" in my OP. i don't think i used "every" either, and if i did, i'm certain i didn't use it in modification of a description a typological tendency.

Sorry OP, most people aren't like NTP's; they won't notice the nuances in your language.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

To the OP: Very insightful.

 

[Unique]

as PeeCee as it might be, pretending there isn't a divide is just ignorant.
we reference them differently because they are different.

i'd actually prefer to distinguish between P and J [in my opinion, the only division that ever really mattered, and ironically, the most outrageously misunderstood] but the last time i tried that, no one even bothered to read what i had to say.

Agreed x1000

I'd like to read whatever it was btw

 

[Unique]

Also its not about who's messy and who isn't, much deeper than that...

Do you leave doors open? or closed? Metaphorically speaking of course

That simple fact alone says a lot about a person

 

[simulatedworld]

i'm not a sensorist... or whatever you'd call it (does the group have enough constituents to merit word-smithing?)

I got it. Cute.

it's a myth that Thinking/Feeling is necessarily a stronger force in the iNtuitive types.
the truth is* a preference for iNtuition isn't what helps Judgement. it's not as if Intuitive information is easier to work with, or better information or any of that.

Intuitive information is easier to work with for intuitors. Sensors perceive and experience reality directly; intuitors tend to put the variables together to infer based on long term data what probably *should* be happening. They'd have you believe that it's because they choose not to use the S approach, that they're "above" it or something, but in reality they simply cannot directly experience their surroundings with the level of clarity that (proportionally intelligent) Ss can.

prior to this thread, this has been the assumption -- that intuition is just plain better.
well that's nonsense.

You mean that's been your assumption, right?

what puts the intuitors in the lead is the fact that there is so much more for Thinking and Feeling to work with.

iNtuition is a function which depends in part on the immediate sense impressions and with other sense impressions.
stop right there -- no i'm not describing Si. that's not the end of it.

I think you're overstating the importance of the whole physical environment vs. inner ideas thing. That's not really the crux of S vs. N...S/N is really fundamentally just a difference in scope:

In a long line of chalk boards, S is standing directly in front of one and reads it with total clarity, but is not so good at thinking about how far his chalk board might be from others.

N can tell you which chalk boards are closer or farther than others, but has a blurry, generalized view and, most importantly, cannot actually read the chalk boards!

S prefers to get an in depth, detail-oriented understanding of the real things themselves, the essence of the thing (it doesn't have to be a physical object!)

N prefers to think of things in terms of their relationships to each other. It doesn't experience the essence of the thing like S does.

I know an ISFJ guitarist who has near perfect pitch. He immediately knows whenever anything is off key because he hears a combination of notes and just gets in touch with the immediate essence of what C# is.

I can't do this; when I make a mistake all my notes go off key by the same amount. They maintain the same relationships to each other because that's how I conceptualize them--S hears C and E and G; N hears a major chord. They could move around, and as long as they've all moved the same amount, N wouldn't know the difference.

ESFP pointed out some things about shading and coloring on a poster in my room the other day; I never noticed them because I had already generalized the whole group of colors and shapes as "a poster" and moved on to thinking about how it compares to other groups I've called posters.

along with that, intuition is capable of generating a bond of hypothesis between these two. this bond is what the intuitor makes himself aware of.
this is the truth: iNtuitives, you do notice concrete details.
you just don't make yourself consciously aware of them until they become relevant.

This is a good point, but we disagree with the Sensors on the definition of "relevant."

by contrast, sensation makes the user aware of those things which the intuitor used to generate an abstraction, rather than the abstraction itself.

therein lies the distinction between the Ss and the Ns. this is something to look for.

Yes, agreed.

this is the key: the faculty of perception in an ISTP will notice the wrench; the contours, the lettering, the color, the [...] where an INTP will remember about the bolt and form the hypothetical bond and it occurs to him that he can use it to tighten or loosen the bolt.

Yes, but I don't see that this gives Ns an overall advantage--unless you're biased toward thinking that the N perspective is inherently more valuable, which means, not surprisingly, that you're probably an N.

Typology is all about recognizing the ultimate subjectivity of your own value system and understanding the value in others.

both of these types are taking in information about the wrench.

Sensors, after having taken in everything they can about the wrench itself can't really learn anything more about it without access to something it can be used on.

True, but they're so much better at actually using it that it balances out. It takes many intuitors a while to accept that they aren't inherently better than sensors.

S_Ps learn to become very resourceful in devising ways [often through "impulses"] of forcing the object to offer more information about itself.

the iNtuitive on the other hand does not necessarily require environmental stimulation.
as a matter of fact, they can continue to form abstractions which can themselves be used to birth newer ideas/hunches.

in case you can't yet see, the Sensor is limited by his environment.
the iNtuitor is limited only by his mind.

if the iNtuitor isn't born stupid, their judgement faculty will surely have much more information to work with, and will likely be more finely tuned.

No, only more fine tuned toward working with abstractions. N is so comparatively weak at actual tactics for implementation of its grand vision that it really needs a strong S perspective to get much done.

I can see why you'd say that being limited by the environment puts S at a disadvantage, but that's based on N bias--you undervalue direct, experiential command of the real environment.

oh and all that stuff i said about IS/NTPs and mechanical things applies for IS/NFP and Feeler stuff.
i just didn't go into detail 'cause i don't really know what Feelers think about.
i sometimes think i do, but then i get shown up by an astute F, and it's happened enough times that i have to admit that i just don't know what you guys think about. i can't keep track.

Ahh, there you go. Recognizing your own probable weaknesses and mistakes...plugging leaks. Good boy.

---------------------------------------------

sensor bias is the only one i have for now.
i put a star in there somewhere and i was going to address it but i forgot what it was about and i'm not about to scroll up.

I'd like to discuss more about P/J as well; where have you written about this?

I recall Geoff saying it was the most fundamental axis, and I think now that that may be actually true, though I disagreed at the time.

It seems what drives most people's general attitude is whether the Judging function is directed inwardly or outwardly (which is what makes one a P or J, respectively.)

Most people seem to be either outwardly organized and more negotiable on the inside, or vice versa. This has a ton of implications, which I'm sure we'll get to later.

 

[Nighthawk]

I don't necessarily believe that Ns or Ss have an advantage. I've met more than one S who can think and theorize circles around me. The crux of my issue however, is this ...

Intuitives are forced to live in the Sensor world simply by the virtue of having to work, eat, pay bills, use tools, etc. It is virtually impossible to live entirely in the Intuitive world. Therefore, Intuitives have some sensory experience by virtue of being exposed to it every day. My question is, how do you expose a Sensor to the Intuitive world? I do know some Sensors who live quite happily exclusively in their S world. There is no need for them to visit the N side as they are surviving just fine without it. How do you pull somebody into the N world? Is it even possible?

 

[King sns]

I'd like to read whatever it was btw

yea- me too.

 

[Jeffster]

that's exactly it.
kiersey had it all wrong. type has very little to do with communication style or behavior. kiersey insists that you can predict behavior based on type.

No, you've got it backwards. Keirsey insists that certain behavior patterns can be labeled as a type, or an "intelligent role." "Predicted" behavior is then based on the already established pattern.

Now if your point is that Keirsey's types don't line up perfectly with Jungian types, then you have a valid argument. And Dr. K himself has pretty much acknowledged this, as in his latest book, he doesn't even use MB letters anymore, except in the section on the history of type/temperament theory.

 

[Nocapszy]

No, you've got it backwards. Keirsey insists that certain behavior patterns can be labeled as a type, or an "intelligent role." "Predicted" behavior is then based on the already established pattern.

either way, that's too limiting.

that's the #1 problem most people take up with typology is that it's too limiting. too conrete.

that's where these 'boxes' i always hear about come from -- necessarily tying type, in whatever direction you make the tie, to specific broad, or otherwise behavioral patterns.

type can't work all the time if we do that.

 

[Geoff]

I recall Geoff saying it was the most fundamental axis, and I think now that that may be actually true, though I disagreed at the time.

It seems what drives most people's general attitude is whether the Judging function is directed inwardly or outwardly (which is what makes one a P or J, respectively.)

Most people seem to be either outwardly organized and more negotiable on the inside, or vice versa. This has a ton of implications, which I'm sure we'll get to later.

Yes.. it is a fundamental axis, as it totally changes how you interact with the world.

It's the P or J that sets out whether you use a perceiving function (N/S) or a Judging function (T/F) to interact. So PvJ should feel very different to the end-user.

Whether it's THE most fundamental axis depends how you try to use it. If you are talking about frames of reference, I'd say it was N/S but if you are looking at ways of experiencing and determing the world, it's P/J (again because of what it sets up on the adjacent two axis)

 

[Nocapszy]

I think you're overstating the importance of the whole physical environment vs. inner ideas thing. That's not really the crux of S vs. N...S/N is really fundamentally just a difference in scope...

actually i'm not -- stating what the user of a function can do better than one who doesn't use it as much doesn't do much.

it's a fact: intuitors can bounce ideas off other ideas.
it's a fact: sensors bring concrete objects to conscious thought more easily.

I know an ISFJ guitarist who has near perfect pitch. He immediately knows whenever anything is off key because he hears a combination of notes and just gets in touch with the immediate essence of what C# is.

you're dangerously close to tying something completely irrespective of type to type itself.

This is a good point, but we disagree with the Sensors on the definition of "relevant."

not exactly.
it's not really a disagreement. i know what you're getting at but calling it a disagreement is the same kind of nonsense that got us on the slippery slope of cognitive dissonance in the first place.

really the only difference are those things which come to consciousness. for Sensors, it's the concrete, for iNtuitors, it's the abstract between the concrete.

surely as often as iNtuitors notice real things and ignore them, Sensors have some unhinged awareness of those connective tissues among the real things.

confusion might settle in when we hear stories about these "aha" moments.
a sudden revelation for an Sensor happens when they make conscious the abstract connections.
we've all heard of the S_P 'going with his gut' or some other variant of that idea.
for an iNtuitive, rather than discovering the connection in hindsight, the 'aha' moment comes when they finally remember to work that one detail that previously seemed so insignificant.

you can see how this probably goes both ways.

the rest...

tldr.
you typed Doyle as an E so don't discuss typology with me.

and whatever little quip you made about recognizing weakness -- recognizing and confessing to people are very different processes.

 

[Nocapszy]

P and J muddling

i might have ivy merge these 'cause they kind of belong together.
but i've had her merge a lot of shit so i'll probably make haight do it or something.

 

[Jeffster]

either way, that's too limiting.

that's the #1 problem most people take up with typology is that it's too limiting. too conrete.

that's where these 'boxes' i always hear about come from -- necessarily tying type, in whatever direction you make the tie, to specific broad, or otherwise behavioral patterns.

type can't work all the time if we do that.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean Keirsey is wrong, it just means he doesn't cover stuff that you desire out of typology.

 

[mortabunt]

I don't necessarily believe that Ns or Ss have an advantage. I've met more than one S who can think and theorize circles around me. The crux of my issue however, is this ...

Intuitives are forced to live in the Sensor world simply by the virtue of having to work, eat, pay bills, use tools, etc. It is virtually impossible to live entirely in the Intuitive world. Therefore, Intuitives have some sensory experience by virtue of being exposed to it every day. My question is, how do you expose a Sensor to the Intuitive world? I do know some Sensors who live quite happily exclusively in their S world. There is no need for them to visit the N side as they are surviving just fine without it. How do you pull somebody into the N world? Is it even possible?

Unfortunately, you cannot. They would not understand. We can use practice and drills to become better at S, but they ultimately, would not be able to understand N.

 

[Nocapszy]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean Keirsey is wrong, it just means he doesn't cover stuff that you desire out of typology.

actually it does mean keirsey is wrong, but i know how much you love him, so i'll just say he's right so you feel like you legitimately defended him.

congratulations sir!

 

[Jeffster]

actually it does mean keirsey is wrong, but i know how much you love him, so i'll just say he's right so you feel like you legitimately defended him.

congratulations sir!