The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[SillySapienne]

Stupid people are stupid, and they come in all shapes, types, sexes and sizes.

 

[Lex Talionis]

How is it logical?

I mean, I guess you could make the argument that all cognitive processes are logical because they follow some complex deterministic formula for the neural network that is the brain...but is that really what you're trying to say?

How would you define Ni? I'm curious because I would imagine it's incorrect.

All Ni does is unconsciously generate metaphors, biased towards the internal standard over the external (depth of metaphors, ie. metaphors about metaphors about metaphors vs. breadth of metaphors [Ne], ie. metaphors about all information without preference).

Why would you think that's logical or even useful? Without Thinking (or Feeling even, since it's a conscious deductive process), there is no logic (in the common sense of the word). It's just random associations, with Ni biased towards depth and Ne biased towards breadth.

Otherwise, you'd have to call all of cognition logical by definition -- it technically is, because it's just a complex network of neurons following deterministic physical laws. But then again, if you take that route, everything is logical since it's all made of matter/energy, which follows deterministic laws as well. Not exactly a useful way of looking at it, since it makes no distinctions.



Listen, I agree that in order to be intelligent, you must have good use of N and T. But also F and S. S provides the raw data, N creates meaning (all unconscious so far). F consciously filters out data that is not relevant to goals, and T consciously filters out data that's not logically consistent.

So it's true that smart ESFPs have good use of T and N. But it's also true that smart INTJs have good use of F and S (because otherwise, it's just analyzing all things, regardless of the use they have, not to mention that N can't do anything without data taken in from S).

I don't think MBTI is about ability with any of the four functions; it's just about which functions are most comfortable and descriptive of a person's thought process. An INTJ with no F or S would be a completely useless human being in the exact same way as an ESFP with no N or T.

Anyway, you might be falling into the trap of thinking an NT is defined by N and T, and the S and F are irrelevant. But that's just stupid. All tasks take all four functions. Type is just a descriptive tale of which preferences are preferred -- it has little to do with ability to use functions based on situations.

The types really aren't as different as you seem to think they are.

Logical but not rational. I don't know how else to explain it. Ni recognizes patterns, connects them, and/or generates ideas in a very logical manner (it draws its logic from Te, especially if Te is your auxiliary function.) Ni is irrational however, because what it connects or deals with may not be reasonable, feasible, or practical.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree and think that you're misunderstanding me.

I am not attempting to imply that ESFPs cannot be smart, only that they are by nature a type that has little predisposition towards intelligence.

You've actually supported my own comments by your (correct) claim that all types use all functions. I wouldn't dispute that, but it is the order and strength of each function (logical framework) that determines how one ultimately functions. It is true that a camera uses a lens (S) to draw in raw information that is processed by the internal apparatus (N), but the order is very important. Placing the lens somewhere where it's not suited renders the camera useless. Likewise, placing the apparatus somewhere where it doesn't belong produces the same effect.

I disagree that the types aren't as different as they seem. While it is definitely possible to find common characteristics amongst humans (naturally it wouldn't make sense if they weren't similar), it is also very easy to distinguish types from each other with relatively little observation if one becomes good at it. For example, I can almost always recognize NT, NF, and S (although admittedly my ability to recognize the Ss' is not as great, only because it's so distant to me - but I am getting better.)

I'm sorry that you disagree, but I cannot see how I am wrong, nor that I've been refuted. We seem to be arguing about semantics and motives more than the actual point.

 

[redacted]

it is the order and strength of each function (logical framework) that determines how one ultimately functions.

Oh. Well if you're typing people based on strength and not preference of functions, I doubt we're at odds at all. I just type people differently than you. (as do most people, you know...)

So you're not wrong, but you are using funny definitions.

Your point that smart SFs have well-developed N and T is completely true. I just don't think it's possible to accurately infer, through observation, what the strengths of un-preferred functions are. It is possible (and probably statistically true in my subjective opinion) that SFs on average have less strong N and T, but it's not actually verifiable. (How do you control for interest in the test, motivation, etc.?)

And even if it's true on average, you learn on the first day of any statistics class that you can't apply average statistics of a set to the individual members of the set.

An aside: It seems to me that everyone has different measures of intelligence -- usually one dimensional definitions. So maybe I think of myself as incredibly smart because I'm good at math, music, and understanding people. My unconscious definition of intelligence just falls in line with my skill set. When I judge people's intelligence without much analysis, I find afterwards that I merely look at how good they are at the things I'm good at. The truth, though, is that I'm horrible at a great deal of things, and I confirmation bias myself to forget about them.

Basically, intelligence is far from one dimensional. (This seems to be the argument that a lot of the F types in this thread are making). IQ scores are one dimensional, sure, but I know very few people that literally equate IQ with intelligence. So again, I think this argument reduces down to definitional problems.

Anyway, I figure you get my points by now.

 

[Space_Oddity]

I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.

Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?

I don't think that Hollywood writers make ESFPs stupid characters, or turn ESPFs into stupid characters, because I fairly doubt that any knowledge of MBTI (or any other psychological theory) has ever really played any role in creating characters. If writers created characters in their stories primarily according to some basic MBTI profiles (as in "There is supposed to be a comic character? well, so let's make him an ESFP, they're dumb!"), they would definitely come out totally unbelievable and lifeless. Instead, I believe that all good characters are created either according to basic human (arche)types (that have been simplified into mere stereotypes in popculture) or they're based on real people - which, I'd say, comes out just about the same, because the archetypes really seem to work in reality and manifest for example as MBTI.

Therefore, Kelly Bundy is not an ESFP because all ESFPs are dumb, but because she is the ESFP 'warm, fun-and-life-loving clown' stereotype that was her character intented to be and that is quite understandably very desired in comedy. If she wasn't an ESFP, she wouldn't be Kelly, and the character might still be funny, but in a completely different way, and wouldn't work so well in this story. That's one sign of a good character, actually: that it can't be interchangable with anyone else.

And by the way, definitely not every dumb sitcom character is ESFP. Look at the 'IT Crowd' and 'Big Bang Theory' NT nerds. And Rimmer in 'Red Dwarf' is clearly an INTJ, totally dumb as he can be - while Lister is indeed ESFP, not because ESFPs are stupid, but because he was written as Lister, Rimmer's polar opposite, every one comical and dumb in their own different way.

(And just a sidenote, if I look at my own life, the people that could work the best in a sitcom would probably be a couple of ENFPs, because when Ne is not exactly combined with bright intelligence, it can come out as extremely gullible and dense. And extremely cute as the result. But actually, sometimes my INTJ mother is just as endearingly dense, so the type might not matter after all.)

 

[MiasmaResonance]

Einstein - ESFP


/thread

Ha. Ha!

 

[sgtmac_46]

He might be ISFP, but he's no T. Every plotline about him is something Feeling related: his relationship with Nancy, wanting to get to Joseph, seeking restitution for how his people have been mistreated, etc.... His whole life revolves around his values.

The hard part is figuring out for me is figuring out if Dale is T or F. He's not particularly developed in either area. He's just out of control, paranoid Ni. Either way in this case the INxJ is portrayed as the idiot instead of the intelligent one.

I think Dale is an INFJ........met very few that weren't conspiracy theorists.

 

[compulsiverambler]

I agree from the few eps I've seen of King of the Hill that Dale is probably INXJ, but I do think there seems to be a disproportionate number of stupid ESFP characters in general. I think it's probably for the reason suggested early on, that stupid ESFPs are just more fun and/or easy to write. The same is true of sociopathic INTJs and shallow ESFJs. These types make particularly entertaining kinds of stupid, sociopathic and shallow, but in real life not necessarily the most numerous kinds.

 

[fotcydy]

I accept with Splittet: average IQ is probably slightly below average, but they would probably come out better in a multiple intelligence theory perspective, probably being above average in musical, bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal intelligence.

 

[Tamske]

Stupid people are stupid, and they come in all shapes, types, sexes and sizes.

Sure, sure, but the stupid comedy character has to fulfill more requirements than just being stupid. They have to show it. They have to land themselves in a mess because of their stupidity. They have to make a bigger mess trying to solve their first problem. Maybe a stupid ESFP is the right fit for this role...

However...

I can see a stupid, extreme J following his plan to the letter even if circumstances change. Could be funny too.

 

[LotsOfHeart]

The ESFP girl I'm dating is anything but dumb. She can do any crossword puzzle I've seen her attempt, no matter how difficult it is. She also knows a lot about a variety of music and she is very well-traveled and cultured. She also can sense what's wrong with people unbelievably quickly. She isn't the most theoretical person, perhaps, but she's incredibly intelligent, make no mistake.

 

[thisGuy]

they are not stupid. they just apply themselves in ways that are usually perceived as unimportant by the society.

unimportant transitions to dumb and dumb translates to stupid

 

[tcda]

Two of my fave ppl growing up were ESFP's and clever (friend and an aunt), though I don't read any rule into this, it's just a coincedence. But for this reason I never held to the aforementioned stereotype.

 

[Lex Talionis]

I don't understand why there is so much support for ESFPs on this thread.

It's a hideous type.

Logic used to defend ESFPs: "lolz mah bes frrand is n ESFP n she beez smurtz."

All ESFPs I've known have been stupid, be it in terms of sheer intelligence or their actions.

 

[BlueinGreen]

Sure, sure, but the stupid comedy character has to fulfill more requirements than just being stupid. They have to show it. They have to land themselves in a mess because of their stupidity. They have to make a bigger mess trying to solve their first problem. Maybe a stupid ESFP is the right fit for this role...

However...

I can see a stupid, extreme J following his plan to the letter even if circumstances change. Could be funny too.

Oh, and it can be hilarious when it's not infuriating, based on the one male esfj I know, but this isn't really a general esfj situation, as he's f*cking psycho and therefore a deviation from the norm

Also, at this point I recommend that other users stop dignifying Lex Talionis with a response; he's either a remarkably persistent troll or psycho/delusional.

 

[Venom]

I think it depends on the enneagram. ESFP 3s, 7s and 8s are typically the ones that strike us the @#$%^@#$% they are...

Other ennegram ESFPs though, are typically alright, because they have the energy level that only an ESFP could have, yet they dont have as many of the enneagram 3, 7, 8 flaws

 

[sculpting]

I don't understand why there is so much support for ESFPs on this thread.

It's a hideous type.

Logic used to defend ESFPs: "lolz mah bes frrand is n ESFP n she beez smurtz."

All ESFPs I've known have been stupid, be it in terms of sheer intelligence or their actions.

My ESFP brother is smarter than me. My ESFP sister is as smart as me. Their life paths are very different, likely related to Se, but having nothing to do with innate IQ.

I work with an ESFP who leads an awesome team as he gives them the freedom to contribute and also develops a sense of dedication

 

[Tamske]

I don't understand why there is so much support for ESFPs on this thread.

It's a hideous type.

Logic used to defend ESFPs: "lolz mah bes frrand is n ESFP n she beez smurtz."

All ESFPs I've known have been stupid, be it in terms of sheer intelligence or their actions.

You have a point - "I know a smart ESFP so ESFPs aren't stupid" is not a valid argument. However...

How many ESFPs do you know? Give some statistics before you generalise.
Moreover, how do you know they are ESFPs? If you've got the idea 'ESFP stupid' you'll automatically(*) bias yourself to collect data which support that these.
(*) I'm not saying you're cheating. It's an automatic reaction. Everybody does that. You've got to be really careful in order to avoid that bias. That's why double-blind tests were invented.

For the ESFPs: if you're still searching for ESFP heroes in fiction, Dickon from The Secret Garden (F.H. Burnett) is probably one

 

[Lex Talionis]

My ESFP brother is smarter than me. My ESFP sister is as smart as me. Their life paths are very different, likely related to Se, but having nothing to do with innate IQ.

I work with an ESFP who leads an awesome team as he gives them the freedom to contribute and also develops a sense of dedication

You're an ENFP, so I'm not inclined to take your word on who is and who isn't intelligent very seriously.

You have a point - "I know a smart ESFP so ESFPs aren't stupid" is not a valid argument. However...

How many ESFPs do you know? Give some statistics before you generalise.
Moreover, how do you know they are ESFPs? If you've got the idea 'ESFP stupid' you'll automatically(*) bias yourself to collect data which support that these.
(*) I'm not saying you're cheating. It's an automatic reaction. Everybody does that. You've got to be really careful in order to avoid that bias. That's why double-blind tests were invented.

For the ESFPs: if you're still searching for ESFP heroes in fiction, Dickon from The Secret Garden (F.H. Burnett) is probably one

No matter how many ESFPs I know, it would still be anecdotal evidence for me to use that as part of my argument. However, I haven't used anecodtal evidence as part of my argument, only as a reference point for my opinions.

I ackowledge that ultimately my criticism of ESFPs is subjective, but I've made an attempt to give you some good objective reasons for why I think so; they are visible throughout this thread.

 

[InfiniteIntrigue]

You're an ENFP, so I'm not inclined to take your word on who is and who isn't intelligent very seriously.

LOL times one million. I wonder if people see me as arrogant as I see you. No, I'm joking.

I can definitely understand why you wouldn't like an ESFP. My best friend is an ESFP and as much as I love her, she can drive me crazy. In general, it comes down to the fact that Extroverts tend to be loud, Sensors tend to be very active in the world, Feelers can be ridiculous when it comes to the use of logic and Perceivers can be so damn indecisive!

Still, any type is potentially annoying / stupid.

 

[Lex Talionis]

LOL times one million. I wonder if people see me as arrogant as I see you. No, I'm joking.

I can definitely understand why you wouldn't like an ESFP. My best friend is an ESFP and as much as I love her, she can drive me crazy. In general, it comes down to the fact that Extroverts tend to be loud, Sensors tend to be very active in the world, Feelers can be ridiculous when it comes to the use of logic and Perceivers can be so damn indecisive!

Still, any type is potentially annoying / stupid.

Well, since you're an INTJ (and have partially agreed with me), I'll accept your opinion and won't offer a counter argument.