The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[garbage]

I agree. I'd like to see a modern day Hindenburg, 9/11 didn't really do it for me.

Yeah

Please make this thread

 

[Ginkgo]

Your post is so typical of ENTPs in its hypocritical presumptiveness and ill-begotten logic that I am honestly tempted to open up a thread examining why ENTPs are the most unworthy rationals.

Actually, INXJs are, by nature, irrational when perceiving information because they envision their own thoughts as outliers to what most others see. INTJs in particular must exert themselves by using empirical logic when assembling information. This way, they strive to create a clear and concise world-view; but they tend to reject anything that doesn't coincide with what they have already mantled. Which is exactly what you have been doing. You would have to come across a bit of information that undoes what you previously held to be true, thus metamorphosizing all data.

On the other hand, ENTPs are more rational because they are constantly perceiving new information, regardless of whether it is empirically evident or not. After all, we can't wedge the cosmos in our minds as human beings, can we?

Of course you were referring to the rational temperament, but whatever.

Judging from your posts, you seem narcissistic. How do I come to this conclusion?

Because you view ENTPs as the "weakest" of the NTs, and since they are apparently the weakest, INTPs must be one notch higher. Where you value ENTJs, I'm not sure. However, it is evident that you view INTJs generally as the "strongest", juxtaposed to the rest of the NTs. Since you view "NT" intelligence as the only intelligence, you must concede that the rest of the temperaments are intellectually inferior.

But of course, there are multiple intelligences - those of which you are unaware because of your "predisposed slate" of cognitive orientation. Because you are unaware of them, being an INTJ, your assumptions about intelligence are dissolved to mere personal accounts. These personal accounts are only evaluated when you compare your own intelligence to others'. Naturally, you hold the conviction that your ways of processing patterns are superior because you are you, and only you know what you want. You don't know what others desire or how they formulate their actions - regardless of their functional preference.

For a good portion of my life, I meandered about as an INFP thinking that I was intellectually superior to my peers because I made better decisions, held better grades, and retained information better than most folk. However, what constitutes "better" has yet to be evaluated, as preference is highly subjective and personal. As myself, I cannot determine the value of anothers' intelligence; nor can I measure the immeasurable worth of a human being. So, for closure's sake, I treat everyone how I would treat myself as equals - even though it may not be empirically evident that they are equal in any sense of the word.

But I digress, you never equated intellectual worth with human worth. That is an intuitive leap that I am making.

 

[simulatedworld]

Your post is so typical of ENTPs in its hypocritical presumptiveness and ill-begotten logic that I am honestly tempted to open up a thread examining why ENTPs are the most unworthy rationals.

The fact that you expect anyone to care enough to bother is astounding. I agree with Synarch though--go for it.

No, you have it wrong. Nobody is "imagining" patterns, they are seeing them.

They are seeing patterns and imagining erroneous and implausible conclusions.

No, your cliche and ultimately redundant calls for disparaging generalization is a notable characteristic of the left. It's entirely PC, and ultimately Marxist.

Your actual political position is not my concern.

Talk about cliche! You're spewing far rightist catch phrases like projectile vomit. Let me guess--you've single-handedly and conclusively disproven all of the tenets of liberalism, right? Just like every other paranoid far rightist INTJ?

You see? There is that classic ENTP misconstruction.

I do not "assume" that everyone in "x demographic" possesses "y negative" trait, but I do recognize (and anybody who studies and understands statistics does) that "y negative" trait may be correlated to "x demographic."

This is the problem with your line of thought: you see y negative trait in population x, but refuse to recognize that y negative trait is a characteristic of population x, and so you place your head in the sand.

Using your logic, you would enter a lion pride without hesitation because you couldn't possibly generalize the lions; after all, some of them may be peaceful and cuddly little kitties.

I actually agree with your statement about correlations. The average Asian has a higher IQ than the average West African.

I never denied such correlations; I said that one of the problems with dumb INTJs is that they assume such correlations justify prejudiced beliefs against all individuals in a group.

If you don't believe that, great. I initially brought it up as a generalized criticism of conspiracy theory nut INTJs. When I said you had prejudicial beliefs I was referring to the narrow scope of your definition of intelligence.

That is contingent on how you define intelligence.

And if you define intelligence as "the type of cognitive tasks that people like me are good at", it's easy to erroneously assume that other types are unintelligent. You're absolutely correct that there is a correlation between abstract, theoretical reasoning and NTs--unfortunately, abstract, theoretical reasoning is only one form of intelligence and there's no real reason to assume that it's better or more valid than other forms.

Oh man...

The hypocrisy and irony of your post astounds me.

You and me both, brother.

What is sensory/tactile intelligence, and how does it manifest itself?

What is "emotional intelligence"? Emotions don't think.

In short, they're the types of cognitive tasks that people strong in S and F functions are good at. Yeah, I get that you find these skills trivial, unimportant and not "real intelligence"--my point is that you're incorrect in these assessments because you have a narrow view of the nature of intelligence based largely on your own definition of yourself as intelligent, and the corresponding assumption that cognitive strengths which differ from yours do not actually represent "intelligence."

The fundamental point of typology is to recognize that the value of cognitive skills is relative, and that others do not lack intelligence simply because their cognitive strengths differ from yours. It's to broaden your conceptualization of the nature of intelligence, not to pump up your own ego and foster type elitism. I see you've missed the point in this regard.

On nothing? Really? Your comments aren't "nothing." Regardless, I did not "decide" that you're a leftist.

No, you assumed I'm a leftist because you thought my criticism of certain INTJs as having "prejudicial beliefs" meant that I deny that observable correlations between demographics and cognitive skills exist. I don't; that's your incorrect assumption. NTs are certainly better in general at abstract theoretical reasoning than others; it's just a mistake to hold up abstract theoretical reasoning as the only "valid" form of intelligence.

What "moronic" stereotypes about INTJs? I have seen many variants of INTJs: some foolish, some annoying, but never unintelligent.

This is rooted in your limited self-serving definition of intelligence. If INTJs are never unintelligent to you, there's something wrong with your definition of intelligence and/or your definition of INTJs.

I don't care about the other INTJs. They may either align themselves with me or return to the cesspool.

The fact that you think it's impossible for an INTJ to be stupid should make it painfully clear what's wrong with your image of legitimate intelligence.

 

[Ginkgo]

This is rooted in your limited self-serving definition of intelligence. If INTJs are never unintelligent to you, there's something wrong with your definition of intelligence and/or your definition of INTJs.

Lex Talionis's definition of intelligent: noun

1. Lex Talionis

example:
"That dude is so Lex Talionis."
"That's because he is Lex Talionis, dumbass!" *smack*

 

[KDude]

I don't really see how any of these factors make one "stupid." Recognizing patterns, such as in a conspiracy, is a characteristic of intelligence. As for "prejudicial beliefs toward various demographic groups they dislike," well, that just strikes me as more of the same leftist nonsense. Humans are social animals that gravitate toward groups, which is why our society takes up the characteristics of the group, and not the individual. Discrimination against groups is perfectly natural.



No, we don't all know a Dale Gribble in real life. Dale is a fictional character designed for comedic purposes, and an exaggerated one at that; Dale could easily be an FP and not an NT. Regardless, Dale is hardly stupid, only paranoid and delusional.

ESFPs, on the other hand, have an entire web of traits that influence their intellectual abilities in a negative manner.

So what. You may very well have a web of traits that influence you negatively in other aspects. I don't know enough about INTJ's to say what those may be, but I imagine this is simply the case for any "MBTI type". The world can't be approached in one way or with one set of tools. And I, for one, am at least "intellectual" enough to know this too. I try to learn from those unlike myself. You should try it sometime.

 

[simulatedworld]

So what. You may very well have a web of traits that influence you negatively in other aspects. I don't know enough about INTJ's to say what those may be, but I imagine this is simply the case for any "MBTI type". The world can't be approached in one way or with one set of tools. And I, for one, am at least "intellectual" enough to know this too. I try to learn from those unlike myself. You should try it sometime.

Why should he try learning from anyone unlike himself when he's decided that "unlike himself" is a negative quality?

 

[KDude]

Yeah, I guess he's pretty much fucked then.

 

[BlackCat]

How does it feel to have sat on a forum all day arguing about something that doesn't matter, Lex Talionis?

 

[Ginkgo]

Fellow Pokemon!! Unite in the form of......

 

[Ginkgo]

"Left-ophobia"? I don't fear leftists, only call them out on their bullsh*t.

The party wants YOU!!!

 

[simulatedworld]

It depends on whether or not I'm willing to spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing with cretins, like I'm already doing on this thread.

When the only people left bothering to argue with you are NPs, and the NTJs have resorted to filling up your thread with crude sexual jokes instead of seriously entertaining any of your ideas, you can rest assured they've already decided you're so far off base that you're not even worth responding to anymore.

Case in point: This thread.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Actually, INXJs are, by nature, irrational when perceiving information because they envision their own thoughts as outliers to what most others see. INTJs in particular must exert themselves by using empirical logic when assembling information. This way, they strive to create a clear and concise world-view; but they tend to reject anything that doesn't coincide with what they have already mantled. Which is exactly what you have been doing. You would have to come across a bit of information that undoes what you previously held to be true, thus metamorphosizing all data.

I don't see how this is irrational. We all build knowledge upon previously acquired knowledge.

For some reason, people assume that Ps are more analytical than Js, when this is not the case at all. NTJs analyze and consider theories at least at the same frequency as NTPs, but where we differ is in the fact that as Js, we discriminate between different theories and attempt to utilize those deemed the most accurate. Ps tend to seek alternative methods and are more inclined to spend time thinking over each individual theory in its own right instead of applying it to a greater theory or goal.

On the other hand, ENTPs are more rational because they are constantly perceiving new information, regardless of whether it is empirically evident or not. After all, we can't wedge the cosmos in our minds as human beings, can we?

Of course you were referring to the rational temperament, but whatever.

ENTPs can perceive all the information they want, but if they don't know how to apply that information in a logical and consistent manner, it's useless.

Judging from your posts, you seem narcissistic. How do I come to this conclusion?

Because you view ENTPs as the "weakest" of the NTs, and since they are apparently the weakest, INTPs must be one notch higher. Where you value ENTJs, I'm not sure. However, it is evident that you view INTJs generally as the "strongest", juxtaposed to the rest of the NTs. Since you view "NT" intelligence as the only intelligence, you must concede that the rest of the temperaments are intellectually inferior.

I suppose if this particular view makes me "narcissistic," then so be it.

But of course, there are multiple intelligences - those of which you are unaware because of your "predisposed slate" of cognitive orientation. Because you are unaware of them, being an INTJ, your assumptions about intelligence are dissolved to mere personal accounts. These personal accounts are only evaluated when you compare your own intelligence to others'. Naturally, you hold the conviction that your ways of processing patterns are superior because you are you, and only you know what you want. You don't know what others desire or how they formulate their actions - regardless of their functional preference.

What are the "multiple" intelligences? By that, don't assume that I don't know of which "intelligences" you refer (interpersonal, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, etc.); namely, those proposed by Dr. Howard Gardner. The problem with this is that I either, 1) incorporate most of those intelligences in my own definition, and 2) wouldn't classify some of them as "intelligences," but rather preferences and skills.

Take for example bodily-kinesthetic "intelligence," which affects one's ability to execute bodily movements with greater aptitude; in other words, "sports intelligence." The problem with this is twofold:

1) People are limited by their bodily structure; some people are more adept than others simply because of their own genetic endowments.

2) Some non-human animals, like monkeys, are far more agile and reflexive than I am, and a monkey (arboreal) has a far better intuitive grasp for tree climbing than I do, but I wouldn't consider a monkey more intelligent than me.

For a good portion of my life, I meandered about as an INFP thinking that I was intellectually superior

HAH!

to my peers because I made better decisions, held better grades, and retained information better than most folk.

I laughed.

However, what constitutes "better" has yet to be evaluated, as preference is highly subjective and personal. As myself, I cannot determine the value of anothers' intelligence; nor can I measure the immeasurable worth of a human being. So, for closure's sake, I treat everyone how I would treat myself as equals - even though it may not be empirically evident that they are equal in any sense of the word.

Ultimately everything is subjective due to the fact that we perceive it, but most reasonable people define objective criteria for dealing with the world.

But I digress, you never equated intellectual worth with human worth. That is an intuitive leap that I am making.

No, of course intellect alone doesn't determine human worth.

 

[Lex Talionis]

When the only people left bothering to argue with you are NPs, and the NTJs have resorted to filling up your thread with crude sexual jokes instead of seriously entertaining any of your ideas, you can rest assured they've already decided you're so far off base that you're not even worth responding to anymore.

Case in point: This thread.

The crude sexual jokes were made by only one INTJ.

How do you know that the rest don't actually agree with my opinions, or most of my opinions, but would rather refrain from commenting?

 

[simulatedworld]

On the other hand, ENTPs are more rational because they are constantly perceiving new information, regardless of whether it is empirically evident or not. After all, we can't wedge the cosmos in our minds as human beings, can we?

I'm not sure I'd call ENTPs any more rational than INTJs--let's not forget that, in Jung's terminology, types leading a perceiving function are called "irrational." In terms of pure, theoretical logical consistency, INTPs tend to be superior. In terms of application, ENTJs win the day. As Thinking dominants, both types are more "rational" in Jung's terms than either N-leading type.

INTJs are obv the best at everything though.

Judging from your posts, you seem narcissistic. How do I come to this conclusion?

Because you view ENTPs as the "weakest" of the NTs, and since they are apparently the weakest, INTPs must be one notch higher. Where you value ENTJs, I'm not sure. However, it is evident that you view INTJs generally as the "strongest", juxtaposed to the rest of the NTs. Since you view "NT" intelligence as the only intelligence, you must concede that the rest of the temperaments are intellectually inferior.

This. His posts are dripping with "My perspective is obviously better than everyone's" syndrome and he hasn't even grasped the relativity of his own cognitive biases yet. Typology n00b.

 

[BlackCat]

How do you know that the rest don't actually agree with my opinions, or most of my opinions, but would rather refrain from commenting?

Well I mean, it's pretty much implied because you're making ridiculous claims.

 

[Lex Talionis]

INTJs are obv the best at everything though.

This. His posts are dripping with "My perspective is obviously better than everyone's" syndrome and he hasn't even grasped the relativity of his own cognitive biases yet. Typology n00b.

I've studied Myers-Briggs typology for at least three years, and have studied personality typing for even longer. I wouldn't consider myself a "typology n00b."

 

[simulatedworld]

The crude sexual jokes were made by only one INTJ.

How do you know that the rest don't actually agree with my opinions, or most of my opinions, but would rather refrain from commenting?

Because I've made almost 5,000 posts on this forum and I'm familiar enough with the regular NTJ posters to know when you're being ignored because your ideas are too boring to give serious consideration to. As for Edgar, he would have given you a serious response if your posts merited any.

And Jaguar openly stated his disagreement with the idea that non-NT forms of intelligence are less significant or less legitimately intelligent:

Many of us, unfortunately, also have a nasty habit of dismissing all non-NT forms of intelligence as trivial or nonexistent.

Those of us who actually are intelligent NTs, don't do stupid shit like that.

What you don't seem to grasp is the entire point of typology is to overcome the mentality that your type is better than everyone else's and recognize the proportional strengths and weaknesses of different cognitive styles.

This requires getting over the delusion that your type's perspective is fundamentally superior. Since you have yet to achieve step 1, the NTJs who know this topic are simply not going to bother engaging you seriously until you stop using typology as an excuse to build your ego about your own cognitive strengths. (NTPs just enjoy arguing enough to shoot you down purely for entertainment purposes--NTJs usually need to think they're going to accomplish something by correcting you, and evidently, in this case, they don't.)

Lesson one: Every type has significant weaknesses proportional to its strengths. Half your posts are hilariously typical INTJ-stuck-in-narcissistic-self-perception stereotypes. That's why this is so funny!

 

[PeaceBaby]

I wouldn't consider myself a "typology n00b."

Just an in-general n00b, thats all. As we all are in some way. And that's OK.

 

[simulatedworld]

I've studied Myers-Briggs typology for at least three years, and have studied personality typing for even longer. I wouldn't consider myself a "typology n00b."

Apparently you've understood it as more of a tool for justifying your grandiose misplaced arrogance and feeling better than others than as a way of expanding your perspective.

I find that all the study in the world doesn't make much difference when you've built your entire understanding on faulty premises.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Because I've made almost 5,000 posts on this forum and I'm familiar enough with the regular NTJ posters to know when you're being ignored because your ideas are too boring to give serious consideration to. As for Edgar, he would have given you a serious response if your posts merited any.

And Jaguar openly stated his disagreement with the idea that non-NT forms of intelligence are less significant or less legitimately intelligent:

What you don't seem to grasp is the entire point of typology is to overcome the mentality that your type is better than everyone else's and recognize the proportional strengths and weaknesses of different cognitive styles.

This requires getting over the delusion that your type's perspective is fundamentally superior. Since you have yet to achieve step 1, the NTJs who know this topic are simply not going to bother engaging you seriously until you stop using typology as an excuse to build your ego about your own cognitive strengths. (NTPs just enjoy arguing enough to shoot you down purely for entertainment purposes--NTJs usually need to think they're going to accomplish something by correcting you, and evidently, in this case, they don't.)

Lesson one: Every type has significant weaknesses proportional to its strengths. Half your posts are hilariously typical INTJ-stuck-in-narcissistic-self-perception stereotypes. That's why this is so funny!

Whether or not the other INTJs agree with me is not something I care about. Like I've already stated: they're either with me or against me.