• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[SP] Do any other SPs get pissed the hell off on this forum?

mcmartinez84

New member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
650
MBTI Type
ISTP
I should write a story about a dragon princess who IS a space invader... that'll show everyone :cool:

Once upon a time there was a dragon. She was the daughter to the king and queen of all the land. She was the princess. One day she decided she wanted to go to outer space. She learned to fly so high that she made it to the moon. When there was no oxygen to breathe, she died.

The end.

:D



SEE?! I'm creative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
When it comes to the forums I've been to, there is a strong prejudice and stereotype when it comes to S and F. It gets worse when you combine those two letters, and it usually doesn't matter if your true type is SP or SJ in correlation to XSFX.
 

mattness

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
71
MBTI Type
ESFP
The Ns here just feel too persecuted in real life, so they have to come here and flip the tables a bit, is all.

And I concur about most of them probably being S's anyway. MBTI causes WAY too much confusion on that issue. That's why I subscribe to KTT.

I was only on here for like a month last year but i remember this cat!! sup bro!!

I don't get pissed off just ppl seem to be real serious on here & too much of that seriously gets up my ass. Its like ppl here just lurk to tear my opinion apart if i don't quote fucking nietsche (sp?)
 

knight

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
406
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
9
there seems to be more N`s then Senors on here, i noticed Sp`s dont really post a whole lot on this forum. where are all the sp`s at anyway?
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
there seems to be more N`s then Senors on here, i noticed Sp`s dont really post a whole lot on this forum. where are all the sp`s at anyway?

On forums about physical stuff - like sports, music, cars, porn, video games. Not as many on forums about psychological mumbo jumbo.
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
And I concur about most of them probably being S's anyway. MBTI causes WAY too much confusion on that issue. That's why I subscribe to KTT.

By KTT, you don't mean, say, Keirsey?!

His 'Rational' temperament, as described in Please Understand Me 2, correlates best to enneagram 5. Not an MBTI type. Yet, he refers to them as NTs. Which means that he thinks most/all people with E5 traits are NTs. *sigh* I can't consider something that ignorant to be valid! It doesn't help me avoid confusion at all! I actually believed I was INTx (granted, for two days) because of him, since I'm E5 and I have some/many of the traits he assigns to NTs.

Most of the S stereotypes I've seen here come from Keirsey's book. That's what happens when you say "Type X does behaviour Y all the time, without exception. Let's write a description about it!" You get people wrongly assuming, "I do behaviour Y so I must be type X."

MBTI may cause confusion, I couldn't agree more, which is why I subscribe to the function attitudes. It's kind of hard to go wrong with those.

Just my two cents.

P.S. I think Jack Sparrow is ISTP.
 

LeftKick

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
149
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
5 sp
On forums about physical stuff - like sports, music, cars, porn, video games. Not as many on forums about psychological mumbo jumbo.

+1

I spend most of my time on my car related sites,or doing research on whatever project I'm wrapped up in that day.I don't usually have any great insight to add to the topic. Back on topic, there isn't a whole lot that gets me mad. If it's annoying, I don't read the thread. Is there a list somewhere that shows how many people from each type of personality are registered users?

This is definitely not a mumbo jumbo site. I've finally realized I'm not alone in the world of ISTP's. What I am is what I am. I'm not supposed to try to be like Extroverts,and they aren't supposed to try to be like me. It's liberating.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
No, this forum doesn't piss me off AT ALL, EVER!

I mean, isn't it always fun when some self-appointed N (inevitably) insinuates that you're wrong in an argument because you're SP and therefore incapable of understanding what they, as beings with privileged access to truth, have to say? How can it not always be pleasant to be told that you're "limited" and "can't see past your nose" just purely because you're listed as an S? Honestly, who's bitter about that kind of thing? I just can't fathom it.

It's also really fun when any artist with a smidgen of creativity or "difference" is deemed likelier to be an N. Oh, as is being told that all philosophers throughout time were N.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
Most of the S stereotypes I've seen here come from Keirsey's book. That's what happens when you say "Type X does behaviour Y all the time, without exception. Let's write a description about it!" You get people wrongly assuming, "I do behaviour Y so I must be type X."

The problem with this assertion is that nowhere in any of Keirsey's books does he say "Type X does behaviour Y all the time, without exception." So your point about the validity of something ignorant rings a bit ironic to me.
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
The problem with this assertion is that nowhere in any of Keirsey's books does he say "Type X does behaviour Y all the time, without exception." So your point about the validity of something ignorant rings a bit ironic to me.

It was an exaggeration. Reading it over again, I still don't see how it could reasonably be interpreted otherwise. Except, of course, by a fox with a Keirsey-pushing agenda.

He does feed some stereotypes, though. For example, SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
It was an exaggeration. Reading it over again, I still don't see how it could reasonably be interpreted otherwise. Except, of course, by a fox with a Keirsey-pushing agenda.

He does feed some stereotypes, though. For example, SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought.

Once again, something that's nowhere in the text. So, that's your interpretation, and a pretty silly one, considering the amount of time Keirsey spends talking about how SJs basically hold society together. So, it seems like you are the one with an agenda - to intentionally spread misinterpretations. I don't know why you have that purpose, but hey, whatever floats your boat. All I did was correct an obvious falsehood, I don't think that gives me a "Keirsey-pushing agenda." :shrug:
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It was an exaggeration. Reading it over again, I still don't see how it could reasonably be interpreted otherwise. Except, of course, by a fox with a Keirsey-pushing agenda.

He does feed some stereotypes, though. For example, SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought.

Really? I haven't seen that in the descriptions. I read the descriptions before coming here, and drew my own opinions and didn't learn all these negative stereotypes until I logged on here. I was like :huh: couldn't have drawn that from the descriptions. Though I do agree that the descriptions can be so... descriptive, that sometimes it looks like there's little room for guessing. It can appear from the descriptions that people do fit in little boxes. I didn't read very deep into the descriptions though. (Didn't buy the book.) So I can't say for sure that you're wrong.
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
Once again, something that's nowhere in the text. So, that's your interpretation, and a pretty silly one, considering the amount of time Keirsey spends talking about how SJs basically hold society together. So, it seems like you are the one with an agenda - to intentionally spread misinterpretations. I don't know why you have that purpose, but hey, whatever floats your boat. All I did was correct an obvious falsehood, I don't think that gives me a "Keirsey-pushing agenda." :shrug:

I'm reading into the text, not just reading the surface and taking it at face value. I don't learn anything that way.

I'm also not intentionally doing anything. I'm posting my opinions. If Keirsey is that wonderful, people should see that I'm wrong when they read his books for themselves.

About your Keirsey-pushing agenda, I was basing that also on your past posts on this forum (which are available through your profile). I also used to read the pleaseunderstandme.org forum, where I noticed you are a member (Assuming your username is also Jeffster there).

Good thing I have my book here: Please Understand Me 2. I'm going to open it at random and quote.

pg. 222 about "The Guardian Helpmate":
"SJs tend to regard premarital sex in moral terms, as if chastity were good and sexuality evil. They also speak of premarital sex as a matter of sanitation, referring to a virgin as someone 'pure', 'clean', or 'spotless', and picturing someone sexually active as 'dirty', 'trashy', or 'stained'."

Next page:
"And what Guardian father has not urged his daughter to get the marriage contract signed before giving away the goods -- warning, 'Why buy the cow when the milk's free?'"

"Female Guardians, in particular, usually have only limited sexual experience before they marry, even in an age of sexual freedom. For SJs, there is always the unexpressed attitude that 'nice girls don't'. If they do, it is likely that peer pressure led them into sexual activity because it was the thing to do."

i.e. Guardians, especially female ones, are so dumb that they succumb to peer pressure. i.e. they can't think for themselves long enough to make their own personal decisions about whether or not to have sex.

Under "Guardian Married Life" (pg. 224):
"And while Idealists and Rationals might consider sex a mutually pleasing activity, Guardians often view intercourse as a service to be delivered by the female, performed dutifully and on request, presumably in return for social and economic security. Because of this, an SJ female is likely to place the sexual needs of her mate over any she might have, perhaps seeing sex as a wifely duty rather than a pleasure, and concerning herself more with her husband's physical comfort and welfare than with her own sexual pleasure."

Is he saying SJs advocate marital rape? I hope not. What if two SJ females are married or in a relationship with one another? Is he suggesting that neither one would initiate sex, ever? I mean, sure, it might be a non-sexual relationship. But that's rare. The book is also full of phrases like "members of the opposite sex", which is an incorrect and heteronormative assumption.

So I opened the book at random and saw puke-worthy bullshit on the two pages I read. I'm sorry dude, I can't advocate such a book.

(For context, this book was written in 1998. Not 1898!)


Really? I haven't seen that in the descriptions. I read the descriptions before coming here, and drew my own opinions and didn't learn all these negative stereotypes until I logged on here. I was like :huh: couldn't have drawn that from the descriptions. Though I do agree that the descriptions can be so... descriptive, that sometimes it looks like there's little room for guessing. It can appear from the descriptions that people do fit in little boxes. I didn't read very deep into the descriptions though. (Didn't buy the book.) So I can't say for sure that you're wrong.

The internet Keirsey descriptions are much better than the ones in the book. They are also shorter. That said, whether I'm wrong or right is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It does not sound like you guys are reading into the descriptions. I may be reading things that aren't there, but when I see other people here coming up with the same things independently, I have to think I'm not totally off base.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
You're bound to get gross generalizations of some types if one person does the research. Keirsey is an INTP. As well meaning as he might be, he's not going to understand SJs as well as others. Same goes for Model A/Aushra Augusta in Socionics. She was an ENTp, and had some faulty notions about types and functions outside her quadra... some of which she humbly corrected herself later. MBTI sprung from the research of an INFP, INFJ, and ENFP, but at least, on top of that, it's undergone decades of research from outsiders and committee, comprising many types. It still makes mistakes, but at least the process is democratic.
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
You're bound to get gross generalizations of some types if one person does the research. Keirsey is an INTP. As well meaning as he might be, he's not going to understand SJs as well as others. Same goes for Model A/Aushra Augusta in Socionics. She was an ENTp, and had some faulty notions about types and functions outside her quadra... some of which she humbly corrected herself later. MBTI sprung from the research of an INFP, INFJ, and ENFP, but at least, on top of that, it's undergone decades of research from outsiders and committee, comprising many types. It still makes mistakes, but at least the process is democratic.

I see your point. That said, Keirsey's generalizations (at least some of them. see my previous post for examples) don't fit ANY of the SJs I know. I'm guessing they don't fit the majority of SJs my age (20). Which means they're not applicable to SJs under a certain age, which means that as time passes, they will be more and more wrong.

Yeah, MBTI seems more 'open-source', like everyone can take a look at what composes it and make/suggest/offer improvements. Plus there are studies done using it. Whereas Keirsey is less like that. I mean, there are many, many authors that have extrapolated on MBTI/JCF with their own ideas. Keirsey authors are pretty limited. I think there's only Keirsey himself and Stephen Montgomery (People Patterns). I'm not sure why that is? There's definitely less to 'play' with in Keirsey though, plus the accuracy issues, etc. MBTI seems self-correcting, even if the corrections are slow. It evolves. Whereas Keirsey seems stuck in some past era.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm reading into the text, not just reading the surface and taking it at face value. I don't learn anything that way.

Sounds like that's your problem right there. If it takes you making things up in your head to learn, you have a learning disability.

I'm also not intentionally doing anything. I'm posting my opinions.

Uhhh..so you're accidentally posting your opinions? Assigning your own alternate meanings to words that already have meanings isn't opinion. It's distortion.

If Keirsey is that wonderful, people should see that I'm wrong when they read his books for themselves.

True, but as long as people are going to post misinformation, there's nothing wrong with me posting corrections. Obviously, i too hope people will read the books for themselves. It's a pity there's so much re-writing of it by people online.

About your Keirsey-pushing agenda, I was basing that also on your past posts on this forum (which are available through your profile). I also used to read the pleaseunderstandme.org forum, where I noticed you are a member (Assuming your username is also Jeffster there).

Do the founders of Typology Central have a "Keirsey-pushing agenda" too? Since they set up these sections of the forum based on his temperament categories, it would seem that they at least grant his theories some validity. I didn't join this site with any agenda to "push" anything, I'm just posting my views just as anyone else does.

Good thing I have my book here: Please Understand Me 2. I'm going to open it at random and quote.

Thanks for the quotes, however none of them state anything about "SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought" as you asserted earlier.

If you said that the norms of society have changed and Keirsey's specific assertions about the common views of SJs seem a bit outdated, then I would actually agree with you there. And there have been topics about that here as well as Keirsey's own forum. But it's a big leap from "societal standards have changed, and SJs remain the standard-bearers" to "This entire text loses all validity because some behaviors have changed."


Is he saying SJs advocate marital rape? I hope not. What if two SJ females are married or in a relationship with one another? Is he suggesting that neither one would initiate sex, ever? I mean, sure, it might be a non-sexual relationship. But that's rare. The book is also full of phrases like "members of the opposite sex", which is an incorrect and heteronormative assumption.

Oh COME ON now. You want to talk about "pukeworthy bullshit." "Heteronormative assumption?" So, do you advocate re-writing every book to include the phrase "...or a same-sex relationship" in it somewhere? Wow...that's pretty ridiculous. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of romantic relationships are between members of the opposite sex, and not stopping to put an asterisk on texts about relationship in no way invalidates the millions of books written about such topics.

So I opened the book at random and saw puke-worthy bullshit on the two pages I read. I'm sorry dude, I can't advocate such a book.

Hey, no problem. I don't advocate The Feminazi Handbook to Relationships either, so there we are. Thing is, I don't think it's difficult for most people (including SJs) to realize that the overall concepts of a theory don't go out the window just because certain specific standards change over time.


The internet Keirsey descriptions are much better than the ones in the book. They are also shorter. That said, whether I'm wrong or right is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It does not sound like you guys are reading into the descriptions. I may be reading things that aren't there, but when I see other people here coming up with the same things independently, I have to think I'm not totally off base.

Sounds like you might need to hand in your SP card. In another topic, you said you don't like to be touched and here you say you read into everything. The prognosis is grim. :newwink:

For the record, I am not in the employ of Keirsey nor do I worship him or consider him without flaws in his theories. I think my issue is with people who can't keep their critiques to what he has actually said. It's almost as if some here (and I'm not saying this about you specifically) feel like Keirsey is a threat to them somehow, because they seem to spend so much time trying to discredit him instead of simply advocating for what they think is a better system.
 
Top