[SJ] My theory on why SJs are perceived as closed minded

[Thalassa]

Well, I think the reason I described it as "uninterested" was because I have found that for many SJ's, once I, and therefore, the new information, is gone away, therefore, it is ALL gone. They never think of it again, and no matter how many times you remind them of it, they don't integrate it. I have the idea that the ISTJ's Marmie speaks of somehow were integrated during the social cycle in teen-hood lol.....or their parents passed it along. Basically, people seem to do what they NEED to do...... and SJ's don't need to change their beliefs or ideas. So be it........ there's something very serene in that. Why does it seem ok for a P to change all-over-the-place, but not for a J to remain the same? All in all, nothing is completely true anyway. It takes a J and a P to make a world.

Ugh, I'm not sure that's true, I know an ESFJ and an ISFJ who fit this, and if your assessment is true then they're actually ESFP and ISFP (which I have suspected, don't get me wrong, because of all these lame stereotypes about SJs) ....except the ISFJ keeps insisting he is ISFJ (seems Si in many ways, also) and my ESFJ ex fits the Si description very strongly, he just may have well developed tert Ne...as for the ISFJ he was raised by an INTP so his Ne may also be more developed.

I still don't think it's good to stereotype all SJs are closed minded - maybe SFJs are more flexible than STJs? Or maybe I just know some SJs with above average intelligence and you're talking about average or below average SJs.

 

[EJCC]

I think there are some SJ's who will still believe in heaven when the sky falls on them and kills their first-born child. I know SJ's who have been to-hell-and-back because of their beliefs and never changed a thing. (And this is with 80 million people telling them to change it for themselves and their kids). Some SJ's are SO resistant it is unbelievable.

I know people of every type who are like this. Just because you have strong religious faith, that does NOT make you an SJ.

I know alot of SJ's, and some like to think they are open-minded to new ideas, but even with the best of them, you can give 'em some convincing arguments with excellent sources to back you up, and they will agree, but they aren't gonna budge irl. During the discussion, sure, they will be positive, but the next day, they will wake up, and do the exact same thing again according to old beliefs. They take no action on the information, even if it is sound. And this is what gets on my nerves so badly. LoL.

Replace "SJs" with "INFJs" wherever it appears in this quote, and you have perfectly described my experience arguing with INFJs. Just an example of how what you're talking about isn't necessarily type-related.

Now, if there are SJ's who are "different" from the SJ's I have known, I'd be willing to SEE it. Telling me they are one way won't do the job, I have to SEE it happen. And as of yet, I have not. So yea, I'm a skeptic and not so easily convinced myself, but I'm nowhere near as resistant as any SJ I know. Someone prove me wrong.......

Well, here's the thing.
- You don't have to be an SJ to be a christian with a stay-at-home wife.
- A lot of SJs would rather die than be in a traditional family like that. Myself included.
- I think you may have mistyped some people, if you see someone who is very traditional and Christian and immediately type them as SJ. And if that has been what you've looked for, when looking for SJs, then no wonder you think they're all like that, because the SJ atheists who majored in art and went on to perform in symphony orchestras have slipped right under your nose.
- If you want to find SJs who break your stereotypes, look no further than TypeC. For example, if you go to the "Ask an ESTJ" thread, none of the ESTJs who have posted have been particularly traditional. For example, my political and social views are pretty "progressive", and I'm sorry to say that I'm often pretty quick to judge "traditional" people as being "on the wrong side of change".
- I would argue that NFs are equally resistant to changing their minds on moral issues. I know SJs who are perfectly willing to talk about moral issues, but I know NFs who never, ever will. I also know some NTs who refuse to talk about religion, because it's so personal to them.

I think it's mostly about values, tried-and-true (traditional) methods that have always worked, lifestyle changes, religions, etc. The ones I know watch everyone else change these things while they remain the same, and when it comes time when everyone else is doing it and apparently it is the right thing to do, they change it, but not until then. Non-risky and like-a-rock. That's the way it was meant to be. They aren't meant to be ahead-of-the-curve, but behind it. I pretty much see them as holding-down-the-fort while the rest of us explore the frontiers. Somebody has to do it!

Yeah, I and others had said essentially the same thing as that earlier in the thread - i.e. that it's only on moral issues that we won't budge. But like I said before, neither will most people, when they talk about morals. EVERYONE HAS A MORAL CODE THAT THEY LIVE BY, whether they say so or not. I'm sure you do too, even as an ISTP who changes religions once a week, or whatever you said earlier. Don't you also have some moral views that you refuse to stray from?

Consider Dr. Gregory House, quintissential NT. Do you honestly think that he would ever believe that lies are wrong? No. House's morality includes the belief that everybody lies, and he refuses to stray from it. Does that make him an SJ?

And it's worth noting that "tradition" is subjective, and it's more about an SJ's sense of justice and fairness - which may or may not come from their parents. On the "Ask an ESTJ" thread, SilkRoad posted about how an ESTJ she knows had openly rejected the views of his parents and moved on to a completely counter-culture lifestyle because that was his way of trying to find a better way of life than what he had been living before. It's only when an SJ's views of fairness meshes well with the traditional view, that they will stick with it.

 

[mrcockburn]

I can't stand 70% of people as a whole. to me, most people are low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational and dense, so saying that I can't stand 80% of SJs is not so biased. this may be a foreign concept to you (not because you're ESFP, but because you seem to be a people person)

Whoever said you were any better? If you've got issues with so many people, the problem's probably you.

 

[ICUP]

Ugh, I'm not sure that's true, I know an ESFJ and an ISFJ who fit this, and if your assessment is true then they're actually ESFP and ISFP (which I have suspected, don't get me wrong, because of all these lame stereotypes about SJs) ....except the ISFJ keeps insisting he is ISFJ (seems Si in many ways, also) and my ESFJ ex fits the Si description very strongly, he just may have well developed tert Ne...as for the ISFJ he was raised by an INTP so his Ne may also be more developed.

I still don't think it's good to stereotype all SJs are closed minded - maybe SFJs are more flexible than STJs? Or maybe I just know some SJs with above average intelligence and you're talking about average or below average SJs.

I know a couple of brilliant SJ's very well. One ESFJ I was best friends with in high school and one ISTJ who is dev manager. And then I know some not-so-smart ones and some average ones too. I don't use people I am not sure of as examples, only people who have been typed and they themselves say they are and they appear to be SJ's. I don't necessarily see SJ's as close-minded, more-or-less just mostly unchangeable when it comes to certain things. So it's very possible I don't know any like the ones you describe, or that we simply have different perspectives when it comes to people, or we are communicating the same things differently.

 

[ICUP]

Whoever said you were any better? If you've got issues with so many people, the problem's probably you.

I know you didn't reply to me, but I just wanted to say that I don't think I am any better. I think I have my low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational, and dense moments, just like everyone else does LoL...... I simply think that all people are all of those in their own, unique amounts. I'm about 50% low class, 50% vulgar, probably 75% unpleasant lmao, 35% irrational, and 60% dense, at my own estimates.

 

[Thalassa]

I know people of every type who are like this. Just because you have strong religious faith, that does NOT make you an SJ.

I know right? Let me introduce to the SJ atheists I know. I hold Keirsey responsible for this garbage, no matter what I might have liked about his book, the simple fact he perpetuated all of this shit...that SJs are traditional, religious, have prudish attitudes toward sex....jeez, I know plenty of NFs or NTs who seem to have prudish attitudes toward sex, they make me feel like I'm a raging ESFP stereotype.

Replace "SJs" with "INFJs" wherever it appears in this quote, and you have perfectly described my experience arguing with INFJs. Just an example of how what you're talking about isn't necessarily type-related.

Yes, NFJs in particular can be quite preachy and have their own world view and want to evangelize it.

I actually went into tell-tale differences between SFJ and NFJ yesterday on another forum, because people who don't understand function theory all that well yet sometimes don't understand that they're not necessarily witnessing SJ behavior.

Well, here's the thing.
- You don't have to be an SJ to be a christian with a stay-at-home wife.
- A lot of SJs would rather die than be in a traditional family like that. Myself included.
- I think you may have mistyped some people, if you see someone who is very traditional and Christian and immediately type them as SJ. And if that has been what you've looked for, when looking for SJs, then no wonder you think they're all like that, because the SJ atheists who majored in art and went on to perform in symphony orchestras have slipped right under your nose.
- If you want to find SJs who break your stereotypes, look no further than TypeC. For example, if you go to the "Ask an ESTJ" thread, none of the ESTJs who have posted have been particularly traditional. For example, my political and social views are pretty "progressive", and I'm sorry to say that I'm often pretty quick to judge "traditional" people as being "on the wrong side of change".
- I would argue that NFs are equally resistant to changing their minds on moral issues. I know SJs who are perfectly willing to talk about moral issues, but I know NFs who never, ever will. I also know some NTs who refuse to talk about religion, because it's so personal to them.

All of this is true, and anyone who thinks this is the mark of an SJ really needs to study what Si actually is and how it makes the SJ mind work.

While Si trusts facts and past experience and subjective sensory impressions, that doesn't mean they were all raised as conservative Christians, wtf.

The world has changed. What Keirsey tried to stereotype as an SJ is a product of a white, middle-class mid-twentieth century WASP-y small town environment.

This is why, at the end of the day, Jungian function theory winz.

 

[Thalassa]

I know a couple of brilliant SJ's very well. One ESFJ I was best friends with in high school and one ISTJ who is dev manager. And then I know some not-so-smart ones and some average ones too. I don't use people I am not sure of as examples, only people who have been typed and they themselves say they are and they appear to be SJ's. I don't necessarily see SJ's as close-minded, more-or-less just mostly unchangeable when it comes to certain things. So it's very possible I don't know any like the ones you describe, or that we simply have different perspectives when it comes to people, or we are communicating the same things differently.

Do you not know any SJs who were raised in more liberal homes?

 

[ICUP]

Do you not know any SJs who were raised in more liberal homes?

Yes. I know a few very well. (3, one being an ISTJ, and two ISFJ's). They are still liberally-resistant, as in, they are a rock when it comes to their more liberal beliefs. When they decide they believe something, there is no changing that, be it worshipping cows, christ, or health. LoL....... It's just how I see it.

I never meant to imply that all conservative people are Christians. That is certainly not true. Or that all deeply religious people are SJ's lolol....... I was just giving an example of some that I know, and believe me, I thought they were insane. All SJ's I know are not deeply religious, but they do hold strong beliefs as opposed to me, and they do hang on to them for dear life. They are mostly unchangeable. And there's nothing wrong with that in my book! This is simply from MY perspective. I would expect that most of them would see me as flighty, non-committal, and confused, and that is ok with me.

It's more about a comparison than it is an argument. Look at me, and compare me to any ISFJ. Am I more non-committal and non-traditional when it comes to values, religion, lifestyle, etc.? All people are somewhat committal, and all people are somewhat non-committal. It's about varying degrees. And in general, you are going to find that most istp's are going to be more non-committal than any isfj you will find. That's why we see it that way. We're meant to see it differently than another type, because it's coming from our set of eyes.

This has absolutely nothing to do with mbti btw. I thought all of these things about these people LONG before I ever discovered mbti lolol!

I also addressed these things here:

Even the liberal ones I know who do delve into religion-changes, etc., are hard-pressed to change their beliefs concerning religion-changes lolol....They have been convinced of certain values from early-on, and even though these values seem to be more progressive, they are still mostly unchangeable.

I think it's mostly about values, tried-and-true (traditional) methods that have always worked, lifestyle changes, religions (whether it be worshipping cows, Metallica, or Christ, it's still THEIR tradition and not easily changed), etc. The ones I know watch everyone else change these things while they remain the same, and when it comes time when everyone else is doing it and apparently it is the right thing to do, they change it, but not until then. Non-risky and like-a-rock. That's the way it was meant to be. They aren't meant to be ahead-of-the-curve, but behind it. I pretty much see them as holding-down-the-fort while the rest of us explore the frontiers.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes. I know a few very well. (3, one being an ISTJ, and two ISFJ's). They are still liberally-resistant, as in, they are a rock when it comes to their more liberal beliefs. When they decide they believe something, there is no changing that, be it worshipping cows, christ, or health. LoL....... It's just how I see it.

I never meant to imply that all conservative people are Christians. That is certainly not true. Or that all deeply religious people are SJ's lolol....... I was just giving an example of some that I know, and believe me, I thought they were insane. All SJ's I know are not deeply religious, but they do hold strong beliefs as opposed to me, and they do hang on to them for dear life. They are mostly unchangeable. And there's nothing wrong with that in my book! This is simply from MY perspective. I would expect that most of them would see me as flighty, non-committal, and confused, and that is ok with me.

It's more about a comparison than it is an argument. Look at me, and compare me to any ISFJ. Am I more non-committal and non-traditional when it comes to values, religion, lifestyle, etc.? All people are somewhat committal, and all people are somewhat non-committal. It's about varying degrees. And in general, you are going to find that most istp's are going to be more non-committal than any isfj you will find. That's why we see it that way. We're meant to see it differently than another type, because it's coming from our set of eyes.

Well as a young ISTP you have inferior Fe, and if that Fe isn't very developed, with lots of Ti/Se you're potentially going to be one of the most non-commital people on the face of the entire earth lol.

I don't know if you're referring to Si, per se, or just Fi and Fe.

NFPs can get really upset about particular things (I already pointed this out in this thread, of course note that NFPs also have Si too...just in lesser form) if you cross their Fi.

Or I know a young ISFP at the moment, a seventeen year old kid. He's one of the most easy to get along with, adaptable people, just so mellow and "hey whatever." He rolls with things, very much so. But he is incredibly KIND, it's obviously an Fi ethic of his to be kind and generous to other people, and he's also very tolerant. However, if you messed with his family or were just mean to him he'd probably beat your fucking ass or punch a wall. I've seen him get extremely mad over his Fi being crossed, and he expresses that anger. Even SPs have their values, and I think it's important to make a distinction between an SFP and an STP, even, because of Fi or Fe placement.

By the same token, you'll have your SFJs, for example, who have particular Fe values that will not and shall not be crossed. I've noticed with the SFJs I've known fairly well those values tend to pertain to family and friend loyalty, relationships with their mates (yes, they do value commitment, which is one of the reasons why I like them), and sure, occasionally they'll pop up with some weird social tradition they learned within their family and insist upon it. The main thing I've noticed with the SFJs I know is that their sense of aesthetics is verrrrry Si. They have "taste" and are a little snobby about their sensory preferences. The trick is to find an SJ who has similar aesthetic or sensory preferences, and it's all good. LOL. I kind of appreciate that they have "standards" I think it's cool. It only got annoying when my ESFJ ex used to insist that his taste was wildly superior. Since I value tolerance with my Fi I'd get really annoyed with that, but that's only because I value tolerance of other people's values and preferences, which he could sometiimes be an ass about. Inwardly, I sometimes agreed with him though, because I've got my Fi/Si irrational subjective sets of intense likes and dislikes which I feel are more sophisticated or superior even though my Fi wants to create a tolerant environment for other people's values...live and let live.

Maybe you're having an Se/Si clash with SJs and they're seeming especially closed-minded to you, I don't know.

Have you read up on Jung's functions?

 

[Thalassa]

Oh, and yes ICUP (lol! your user name...), SJs do kind of tend to be like rocks and "hold down the fort." I'll agree with that. It can be a relief as long as they don't try too hard to exert a high level of control over me, I can love them for that.

 

[ICUP]

Well as a young ISTP you have inferior Fe, and if that Fe isn't very developed, with lots of Ti/Se you're potentially going to be one of the most non-commital people on the face of the entire earth lol.

I don't know if you're referring to Si, per se, or just Fi and Fe.

NFPs can get really upset about particular things (I already pointed this out in this thread, of course note that NFPs also have Si too...just in lesser form) if you cross their Fi.

Or I know a young ISFP at the moment, a seventeen year old kid. He's one of the most easy to get along with, adaptable people, just so mellow and "hey whatever." He rolls with things, very much so. But he is incredibly KIND, it's obviously an Fi ethic of his to be kind and generous to other people, and he's also very tolerant. However, if you messed with his family or were just mean to him he'd probably beat your fucking ass or punch a wall. I've seen him get extremely mad over his Fi being crossed, and he expresses that anger. Even SPs have their values, and I think it's important to make a distinction between an SFP and an STP, even, because of Fi or Fe placement.

By the same token, you'll have your SFJs, for example, who have particular Fe values that will not and shall not be crossed. I've noticed with the SFJs I've known fairly well those values tend to pertain to family and friend loyalty, relationships with their mates (yes, they do value commitment, which is one of the reasons why I like them), and sure, occasionally they'll pop up with some weird social tradition they learned within their family and insist upon it. The main thing I've noticed with the SFJs I know is that their sense of aesthetics is verrrrry Si. They have "taste" and are a little snobby about their sensory preferences. The trick is to find an SJ who has similar aesthetic or sensory preferences, and it's all good. LOL. I kind of appreciate that they have "standards" I think it's cool. It only got annoying when my ESFJ ex used to insist that his taste was wildly superior. Since I value tolerance with my Fi I'd get really annoyed with that, but that's only because I value tolerance of other people's values and preferences, which he could sometiimes be an ass about. Inwardly, I sometimes agreed with him though, because I've got my Fi/Si irrational subjective sets of intense likes and dislikes which I feel are more sophisticated or superior even though my Fi wants to create a tolerant environment for other people's values...live and let live.

Maybe you're having an Se/Si clash with SJs and they're seeming especially closed-minded to you, I don't know.

Have you read up on Jung's functions?

Yep. Have a good basic understanding. I just don't feel the need to describe it all by functions. I understand how they work. Pretty much into enneagrams right now, though. Reading a couple of books on it.

I'm not young. I'm 40, so yea, I've known a LOT of people lol..... I don't have clashes with SJ's. I accept them as they are and work with them. It's the way we were meant to see it. I don't see them as any more close-minded than I was meant to see them as. To me, they are, and will always be, unchangeable, and I like it that way. Are they annoying? Sure, sometimes, but no more annoying than I am to them lol......

Yes, I realize that these are VERY general concepts, which is why I think describing or arguing anything using mbti only, without enneagram, is basically a pointless endeavor. It doesn't describe the whole or paint a full picture, imo. But I enjoy pointless endeavors on occasion, so here I am. If I said anything that appeared too general, well, sue me, but i consider this entire thread to be too general, so........

 

[Thalassa]

Yes I'm constantly engaging in pointless endeavors, it's about having a lot of P-ness.

Sorry I assumed you were young, it was because of the user name. Ha.

 

[ICUP]

Yes I'm constantly engaging in pointless endeavors, it's about having a lot of P-ness.

Sorry I assumed you were young, it was because of the user name. Ha.

No problems. I seem very young to a lot of people. I don't want to give up my fun yet haha. (Plus, I've never been married and have no kids, so I wasn't forced to grow up). The name is just my silly, clownish stuff ........ Yes, I am very kiddish irl too. I collect stuffed animals and use them as puppets lmfao. I have a serious side too; I just tend not to show it often online. That's playtime! LoL.

 

[Thalassa]

No problems. I seem very young to a lot of people. I don't want to give up my fun yet haha. (Plus, I've never been married and have no kids, so I wasn't forced to grow up). The name is just my silly, clownish stuff ........ Yes, I am very kiddish irl too. I collect stuffed animals and use them as puppets lmfao. I have a serious side too; I just tend not to show it often online. That's playtime! LoL.

It's totally cool. I'm a big child, ask anyone.

Someone on another forum who was less familiar with me thought I was under 20.

 

[mrcockburn]

I know you didn't reply to me, but I just wanted to say that I don't think I am any better. I think I have my low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational, and dense moments, just like everyone else does LoL...... I simply think that all people are all of those in their own, unique amounts. I'm about 50% low class, 50% vulgar, probably 75% unpleasant lmao, 35% irrational, and 60% dense, at my own estimates.

Haha, no worries. That post applied to Elfboy and Elfboy only.

 

[King sns]

I can't stand 70% of people as a whole. to me, most people are low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational and dense, so saying that I can't stand 80% of SJs is not so biased. this may be a foreign concept to you (not because you're ESFP, but because you seem to be a people person)

That's because I know that if I approach people with the assumption that they are low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational, and dense, they won't open up to me at all. I will never be able to find out what they are really thinking. Everyone's got a story. If you're walking around thinking poorly of everyone else, you won't ever know them, because not only do you not give them a chance to begin with, but also they are going to be very skeptical to open up to you. Someone who is skeptical and unwilling to talk is going to appear closed minded and dense. (Because you are acting closed minded and ignorant to human nature.) What you're giving is what you are getting, a negative vicious cycle. If you think of people this way, then that's what people are going to be in your own reality. You can judge all you want and make assumptions, but you will never find a further truth. While having this mindset, this truth will remain your truth. You'll never make a new discovery.

Actually, this mindset means that there is a great possibility that you aren't even people's posts on here, that you think you're blessing everyone else with your presence and ideas. If I thought twice, I wouldn't have even responded to this (like talking to a wall, since I'm talking, and all you're reading is, "dense, dense dense, vulgar, lower class.")

In my field/life, I know a lot of people in different age groups, backgrounds, and walks of life. If I had to take everyone I know, there is no way that you can sum up people in five words in the way you have done above. I can't use good words or bad words. There are not enough adjectives in the English language to lump that many people into five single words.



(Edit: But it doesn't matter, we're all going to die tomorrow anyway.... Sorry, have been slipping that one in a lot today )

 

[ICUP]

It's totally cool. I'm a big child, ask anyone.

Someone on another forum who was less familiar with me thought I was under 20.

Hey, it's good to meet ya'. I enjoyed the interaction, and I appreciate your talents. You have some interesting thoughts. I appreciate you addressing mine. That doesn't mean I'm going to be irrational about it lmfao. Go figure.....

So far, pretty much believe most of you fu**s are either sociopaths or messed-up people. Sorry to say it, but i will never pretend. I will always tell the truth, no matter what the cost. It's the only way I can hold onto myself and guess what? ME is more important than you can ever be. I will give you this: you are here, and that is good enough. I like the fact that you are here. I find it interesting.

 

[Giggly]

you caught me I can't stand 80% of the SJs I know lol, but I at least want to understand them better so that I can make a more informed decision about which one's I don't like vs which one's I just don't understand. I suppose I believe in giving people a chance if I don't understand them

I was just kidding.

 

[Elfboy]

That's because I know that if I approach people with the assumption that they are low class, vulgar, unpleasant, irrational, and dense, they won't open up to me at all. I will never be able to find out what they are really thinking. Everyone's got a story. If you're walking around thinking poorly of everyone else, you won't ever know them, because not only do you not give them a chance to begin with, but also they are going to be very skeptical to open up to you. Someone who is skeptical and unwilling to talk is going to appear closed minded and dense. (Because you are acting closed minded and ignorant to human nature.) What you're giving is what you are getting, a negative vicious cycle. If you think of people this way, then that's what people are going to be in your own reality. You can judge all you want and make assumptions, but you will never find a further truth. While having this mindset, this truth will remain your truth. You'll never make a new discovery.

Actually, this mindset means that there is a great possibility that you aren't even people's posts on here, that you think you're blessing everyone else with your presence and ideas. If I thought twice, I wouldn't have even responded to this (like talking to a wall, since I'm talking, and all you're reading is, "dense, dense dense, vulgar, lower class.")

In my field/life, I know a lot of people in different age groups, backgrounds, and walks of life. If I had to take everyone I know, there is no way that you can sum up people in five words in the way you have done above. I can't use good words or bad words. There are not enough adjectives in the English language to lump that many people into five single words.



(Edit: But it doesn't matter, we're all going to die tomorrow anyway.... Sorry, have been slipping that one in a lot today )

I think you got the wrong impression from my post. it's not that I go around pre-judging people, I meant 70% of the people I know. being like "hmph, you're a low class brute" when you're first meeting someone would be extremely inconsiderate and disrespectful. that being said, I do have a lot of behavior filters that are kind of disqualifiers if you will. for instance, if someone beats his wife, there is no way I'm going to like them. if someone tried to be controlling with me, no other additional combination of traits can make me like them. if a woman is bitchy with me when I don't know her or a guy is an inconsiderate douche that I don't know, those are disqualifiers too.
PS: that doesn't mean I'm rude, condescending or ignore them, I've actually learned a lot from people I find repulsive, it just means that their presence is highly unsavory

 

[King sns]

I think you got the wrong impression from my post. it's not that I go around pre-judging people, I meant 70% of the people I know. being like "hmph, you're a low class brute" when you're first meeting someone would be extremely inconsiderate and disrespectful. that being said, I do have a lot of behavior filters that are kind of disqualifiers if you will. for instance, if someone beats his wife, there is no way I'm going to like them. if someone tried to be controlling with me, no other additional combination of traits can make me like them. if a woman is bitchy with me when I don't know her or a guy is an inconsiderate douche that I don't know, those are disqualifiers too.
PS: that doesn't mean I'm rude, condescending or ignore them, I've actually learned a lot from people I find repulsive, it just means that their presence is highly unsavory

Thinking that 70 percent of people you know are in the list of five adjectives that you mentioned means that 1.) You don't know a lot of people/wide variety Or 2.) You haven't spent any time trying to get to know them. If the second it true, the pattern will continue, and you will be able to continuously confirm what you already think to be true.

People have real lives and problems, jobs, circumstances, sickness, pain, families, feelings, knowledge, and thoughts. They're not cartoon characters.