Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[entropie]

What about hybrids btw. ? I mean we always assume that there are only S or N types, but regarding T and F we say that being borderline is possible. So how about someone who climbs Mount Everest and solves a 4th order polynom while climbing ?

 

[Red Herring]

Have you considered the possibility that [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] is just an ass?

Anyway Ive actually suspected him of being an especially annoying ESxP ANYWAY.

Furthermore John F. Kennedy and F. Scott Fitzgerald were both smarter than [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] and they were both xSTPs. Don't forget Ernest Hemingway.

In fact, can we just change the title of this thread to "let's laugh at [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]"?

Ehm, apparently we didn't read the same thread. The Great One never said sensors were stupid. He called RaptorWizard a "sensing ass" for completely misunderstanding something he had said in an exchange instead of taking it for a metaphor. RW then misunderstood that as well and understood it to mean "you stupid sensor" (i.e. "you're stupid for being a sensor because sensors per se are stupid"). So that and the ridiculous website quoted inspired him to start this thread in protest. The Great One apperared and explained the misunderstanding. Everything peachy.

So I guess your calling him an ass and dedicating an entire post to how stupid and unlikable he is has reasons that go beyond this thread and have nothing to do with the topic at hand?



EDIT: By the way, I'm glad to see everybody is exchanging views in such a friendly, dignified and mature manner,,,it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!

 

[EJCC]

EDIT: By the way, I'm glad to see everybody is exchanging views in such a friendly, dignified and mature manner,,,it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!

I tried to be dignified and reasonable, in my interactions with the author of the article (who was also calm/dignified)!

Still waiting on a response from him, though...

 

[Thalassa]

What about hybrids btw. ? I mean we always assume that there are only S or N types, but regarding T and F we say that being borderline is possible. So how about someone who climbs Mount Everest and solves a 4th order polynom while climbing ?

that's where Jung comes in...an ISTP would be more likely, for example, to do that because of Ti/Ni...but they wouldn't do it WHILE climbing that would be idiotic and potentially lead to injury, where good usage of Se would come in

INxPs have better Si than ENxPs. ISxPs have stronger Ni than ESxPs.

It is said that ISTPs are most frequently confused with NTs, ISFPs with NFs, and ENTJs with SJs. For whatever reason people say ENxPs are confused with SPs, but I honestly believe those are probably just intelligent ESxPs mistaking themselves for Ns because of the big lie that smart people are all Ns.

I mean your example about someone solving a problem just proves to me how skewed your own view of intelligence is. I insist that doing higher math while climbing would be stupid and potentially lead to death. Derp. Se fail.

 

[entropie]

I mean your example about someone solving a problem just proves to me how skewed your own view of intelligence is. I insist that doing higher math while climbing would be stupid and potentially lead to death. Derp. Se fail.

I havent said that solving a problem or mathboy in my example means being intelligent. I mean people who are good at math are most often not intelligent, that, one can always be sure of.

I was more talking about beating the odds. I mean a stone thrown in the air, will fall to the ground if no opposing force is instilled. Thats a natural law. But that someone climbing a rock wouldnt solve a math equation because he is concentrated on climbing is no law. Cause its possible to beat that law. Same applies for Jungs types; they are no natural law, cause its always possible to beat them, if one just tries hard enough.

And here comes a problem. I remember reading sports interviews with racers, soccer players and mountain climbers. They were asked what they are thinking of when they achieve their highest performances. Most of them answer "Nothing, they aint thinking, they act on impulses, instincts and intuition." Some tho said, like Michael Schumacher, he sometimes is thinking, while racing about trivial things; like a grocery list or painting the house.

This phaenomenon is not too uncommon and it is a way of a prescindend thinking in the moment. That would be perfectly alignable with Jungs functions, cause it would roughly, in a 1st analysis, define the Se function as a form of action that requires no thinking. it would tho at the same hand define thinking as a function that requires no action. Therefore the two wouldnt need to be connected and you can basically have someone, achieving high Se performances, but thinking nothing... and getting bored because of that and to start thinking.

Thinking would herein describe the sole process, not the mbti function.

If you ponder about that, I wonder how many "men and woman of action" as in S people, had brilliant N insights while rubbing their balls. (figuratively spoken)

 

[Orangey]

I tried to be dignified and reasonable, in my interactions with the author of the article (who was also calm/dignified)!

Still waiting on a response from him, though...

I don't know why you did! There's no point engaging an internet narcissist who's going to give nothing but elaborate rationalizations for his original position, if anything at all. I wouldn't waste my energy or politeness reserves.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Have you considered the possibility that [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] is just an ass?

Anyway Ive actually suspected him of being an especially annoying ESxP ANYWAY.

Furthermore John F. Kennedy and F. Scott Fitzgerald were both smarter than [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] and they were both xSTPs. Don't forget Ernest Hemingway.

In fact, can we just change the title of this thread to "let's laugh at [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]"?

I made The Great One famous!

 

[Cellmold]

I tried to be dignified and reasonable, in my interactions with the author of the article (who was also calm/dignified)!

Still waiting on a response from him, though...

He did respond to me and called me an INTP. The fact that he called me an INTP is somewhat worrying.

Ironically he seems to have completely missed the point which is that I was criticising his blog.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION]

1. I'm not going to report you for saying that I'm an ass because you didn't report me for sexually harassing you. So I'm just calling it even.
2. How the fuck did you get ESFP? I'm pretty sure that if I was an ESFP, then you and I would be getting along with one another cuz we have the same cognitive functions.
3. My Se isn't that great and I have like zero awareness of my outer surroundings.
4. No one else supports your theory that I'm an ESFP.

[MENTION=10251]Red Herring[/MENTION]

Thank you so much for clarifying that. If you were here right now I'd give you a hug.

 

[EJCC]

I don't know why you did! There's no point engaging an internet narcissist who's going to give nothing but elaborate rationalizations for his original position, if anything at all. I wouldn't waste my energy or politeness reserves.

Although I seriously judged his methods from the very beginning, I didn't want to judge him personally until I found out what his motivations were. But now I've given up. I did so after he essentially said that he wanted to educate without sounding educated -- and that he didn't have any respect for scientific/scholarly writing styles. I figured, hey, if you want to sound like an amateur for the rest of your life, be my guest. But I'm still glad I said something.

He did respond to me and called me an INTP. The fact that he called me an INTP is somewhat worrying.

Ironically he seems to have completely missed the point which is that I was criticising his blog.

You were logical, and therefore you're an INTP.
As if he didn't sound amateurish before!

 

[The Great One]

Ehm, apparently we didn't read the same thread. The Great One never said sensors were stupid. He called RaptorWizard a "sensing ass" for completely misunderstanding something he had said in an exchange instead of taking it for a metaphor. RW then misunderstood that as well and understood it to mean "you stupid sensor" (i.e. "you're stupid for being a sensor because sensors per se are stupid"). So that and the ridiculous website quoted inspired him to start this thread in protest. The Great One apperared and explained the misunderstanding. Everything peachy.

So I guess your calling him an ass and dedicating an entire post to how stupid and unlikable he is has reasons that go beyond this thread and have nothing to do with the topic at hand?



EDIT: By the way, I'm glad to see everybody is exchanging views in such a friendly, dignified and mature manner,,,it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!

What about hybrids btw. ? I mean we always assume that there are only S or N types, but regarding T and F we say that being borderline is possible. So how about someone who climbs Mount Everest and solves a 4th order polynom while climbing ?

I seem to be a hybrid (ENxP). I use both Fi and Ti well, and some Fe as well.

 

[Chaotic Harmony]

Oddly enough... My biggest problem with him is him discrediting what others thought to be an influential person just because they weren't well known.... Influential is defined as the ability to have a powerful effect on people and what they do, or on events. Some of the people he listed I'm not even sure who they are or perhaps it's that I never really care about what they did. So, by that token to me they weren't all that influential... It's hard for me to explain, because to be honest, reading this entire thread left me kind of numb and with a headache.

I guess what I'm trying to say is... Just because I think someone is influential doesn't mean everyone is going to... So by his logic in the blog... Influential = Smarter than Others = Ns.... So... If I think people like Nikki Sixx, Paul McCartney, and Jimi Hendrix are all influential...then they are all smarter than others....therefore they are all Ns... I just have a hard time following that kind of logic. (I don't know any of their types, I was just throwing out some names)

 

[skylights]

I havent said that solving a problem or mathboy in my example means being intelligent. I mean people who are good at math are most often not intelligent, that, one can always be sure of.

I was more talking about beating the odds. I mean a stone thrown in the air, will fall to the ground if no opposing force is instilled. Thats a natural law. But that someone climbing a rock wouldnt solve a math equation because he is concentrated on climbing is no law. Cause its possible to beat that law. Same applies for Jungs types; they are no natural law, cause its always possible to beat them, if one just tries hard enough.

And here comes a problem. I remember reading sports interviews with racers, soccer players and mountain climbers. They were asked what they are thinking of when they achieve their highest performances. Most of them answer "Nothing, they aint thinking, they act on impulses, instincts and intuition." Some tho said, like Michael Schumacher, he sometimes is thinking, while racing about trivial things; like a grocery list or painting the house.

This phaenomenon is not too uncommon and it is a way of a prescindend thinking in the moment. That would be perfectly alignable with Jungs functions, cause it would roughly, in a 1st analysis, define the Se function as a form of action that requires no thinking. it would tho at the same hand define thinking as a function that requires no action. Therefore the two wouldnt need to be connected and you can basically have someone, achieving high Se performances, but thinking nothing... and getting bored because of that and to start thinking.

Thinking would herein describe the sole process, not the mbti function.

If you ponder about that, I wonder how many "men and woman of action" as in S people, had brilliant N insights while rubbing their balls. (figuratively spoken)

Though you assume here that Se thought is somehow less "captivating" than Ne thought, or Ti thought. This also assumes that Se is almost completely a physical function, not requiring engagement of higher thought... as if there is some mental "space" that can be filled while engaging Se. Theoretically, then, this should be a capability for all other types, too - but we wouldn't think of Einstein being likely to suddenly master a complex dance move while working on advanced physics equations.

On the other hand, there is some merit to all of us having subconscious realizations pop into the conscious while we are engaged in "flow" states.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I FOR ONE AM VERY GRATEFUL THAT SO MANY S TYPES HAVE OFFERED TO BAKE ME CUPCAKES VIA REPS OR HAVE TOLD MNE THAT THEY JUST MADE CUPCAKES RECENTLY. IT IS SO AWESOME BECAUSE I HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS TO KNOW THAT I KNOW ALL AND EVERYTHING IS AMAZING YES YES YES.

POOR S TYPES. YOU ARE FODDER FOR US N;S AND YOU SHALL FEED US WITH THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW AND THE BLOOD OF YOUR HANDS AS YOU TOIL IN THE SALT MINES OF ROME.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I FOR ONE AM VERY GRATEFUL THAT SO MANY S TYPES HAVE OFFERED TO BAKE ME CUPCAKES VIA REPS OR HAVE TOLD MNE THAT THEY JUST MADE CUPCAKES RECENTLY. IT IS SO AWESOME BECAUSE I HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS TO KNOW THAT I KNOW ALL AND EVERYTHING IS AMAZING YES YES YES.

POOR S TYPES. YOU ARE FODDER FOR US N;S AND YOU SHALL FEED US WITH THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW AND THE BLOOD OF YOUR HANDS AS YOU TOIL IN THE SALT MINES OF ROME.

I laughed soooo hard when I read this.

 

[entropie]

Though you assume here that Se thought is somehow less "captivating" than Ne thought, or Ti thought. This also assumes that Se is almost completely a physical function, not requiring engagement of higher thought... as if there is some mental "space" that can be filled while engaging Se. Theoretically, then, this should be a capability for all other types, too - but we wouldn't think of Einstein being likely to suddenly master a complex dance move while working on advanced physics equations.

On the other hand, there is some merit to all of us having subconscious realizations pop into the conscious while we are engaged in "flow" states.

the intresting question really is, how can we imagine N and S at all. per definition both are ways to perceive the world, therefore you couldnt really relate them to any kind of actuation at all, they are more like sensors in a machine. that definition for me personally makes the most sense. and if n and s arent directly necessary for actuation you couldnt ever really make a statement about who would be the bigger achiever in any kind of field.

tho i have been thinking out aloud again, i think my conclusion on this would be that jungian type definitions aint sufficient to describe how and in how many various ways humans perceive the world and what they make of that latter. i agree with you that reducing S to some kind of instinctual component free of higher thought definitly is wrong

 

[Cellmold]

I laughed soooo hard when I read this.

Is that so? That salt really does your hands in. It's nothing to laugh about.

 

[garbage]

N;S

I spot a typographical mistake. Where's my Sensing badge?

 

[skylights]

the intresting question really is, how can we imagine N and S at all. per definition both are ways to perceive the world, therefore you couldnt really relate them to any kind of actuation at all, they are more like sensors in a machine. that definition for me personally makes the most sense. and if n and s arent directly necessary for actuation you couldnt ever really make a statement about who would be the bigger achiever in any kind of field.

Very true.

tho i have been thinking out aloud again, i think my conclusion on this would be that jungian type definitions aint sufficient to describe how and in how many various ways humans perceive the world and what they make of that latter.

I am reaching this conclusion more and more myself lately. Sad, almost. All of this time devoted to studying this framework only to discover the ultimate truth of reality being more vast and more splendid than a theoretical system can keep up with.

Truth is, the N POV might be useful in speedy transcendence of situations and therefore major overturns, but the S POV may possess more final wisdom in terms of actually being connected to the life that we are experiencing. We tend to think that N helps us reach faster conclusions but are those conclusions always aligned with actuality? No, no...

The MBTI itself may be a case in point...

 

[Elfa]

http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti

According to the above website, intuitive people are more intelligent than sensing people (like myself.) I also just got told by [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] that I am a sensing ass because I took something he said literally. I am tired of intuitives lording their higher positions in the social intellectual heirarchy and their supreme minds over us sensors!

An interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority