[MBTI General] ENFPs pwn INTPs

[disregard]

It does imply it. It just doesn't guarantee it.

Good point.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Well CC, I have believed in your rationality so far, no problem about it - but it doesn't show up awfully lot in your daily writing. I always look at your posts as they're coming from someone who is well capable of being rational, but rarely bothers to exert her capabilities to half the extent. I've no problem describing you as a capable logician, if just a bit colored with personal agenda. Yet you display outstanding impartiality and logical skills at times.

But, most of what you do doesn't invite assessment of you as a rational person. It doesn't mean you would seem irrational. You like to juggle with thoughts for personal effect, for the kicks. It does diminish your rationality a bit. Can't help it - how could someone be irrational at will and rational at will, and get everthing from both worlds? For traits to be most useful, they have to be put into use consistently, not just for showing off now and then and forgotten for the most part. But, there's only so much anyone can do with the time they have

Edit: This is representative of my view of ENFPs in general.

 

[SillySapienne]

*sigh*

I have not even made it through the first page and I have to disagree

Over all and generally speaking ENFP's lack the ability to be rational and logical. Instinctively we are not. That however is not saying that we cannot be. As long as we are able to with hold our emotions OR we are NOT emotionally attached to a situation (which is rare at best but can happen) then and only then are we able to grasp for the rational and logical response.

WOW, I disagree wholeheartedly, how are we both ENFPs?

 

[heart]

*sigh*

I have not even made it through the first page and I have to disagree

Over all and generally speaking ENFP's lack the ability to be rational and logical. Instinctively we are not. That however is not saying that we cannot be. As long as we are able to with hold our emotions OR we are NOT emotionally attached to a situation (which is rare at best but can happen) then and only then are we able to grasp for the rational and logical response.

I agree with Targo. For the NF, one needs to know themselves and the tendancy to be emotional more than being rational, only then can rationality be sought. We have to first be honest about our nature before we can do this.

 

[Kiddo]

I know as an NF that I am fully capable of using reason, but hard logic is distasteful to me in comparison to intuition and feelings. To a degree I might be capable of it, but I certainly don't like it. It's all really just preference.

 

[Night]

"Rational" is a system of value used to described an assemblage of principles that actively seek to conform to the mechanical structure of a "parent" system.

"Rational" behavior is an extreme improbability given the singularity of our perceptual acuities; people can rarely see more than one perspective at a time. This inevitability degrades our ability to "rationally" respond to any situation.


NT's aren't necessarily any more rational than NF's; SP's; SJ's...whichever.

Emphasis on a system of intellectual belief does not necessarily make one an expert in it. NT's are no different.

 

[Nocapszy]

"Rational" is a system of value used to described an assemblage of principles that actively seek to conform to the mechanical structure of a "parent" system.

"Rational" behavior is an extreme improbability given the singularity of our perceptual acuities; people can rarely see more than one perspective at a time. This inevitability degrades our ability to "rationally" respond to any situation.


NT's aren't necessarily any more rational than NF's; SP's; SJ's...whichever.

Emphasis on a system of intellectual belief does not necessarily make one an expert in it. NT's are no different.

However because they're more emphatic on those, they're the ones more likely to come out with that impressive rationality, which is what CC's talking about.

 

[Lateralus]

Well CC, I have believed in your rationality so far, no problem about it - but it doesn't show up awfully lot in your daily writing. I always look at your posts as they're coming from someone who is well capable of being rational, but rarely bothers to exert her capabilities to half the extent. I've no problem describing you as a capable logician, if just a bit colored with personal agenda. Yet you display outstanding impartiality and logical skills at times.

This is a logistical problem more than anything else. ENFPs tend to be emotive in person and it's very difficult to be emotive when you're typing. I know I'm not very good at it. I tend to go a bit over the top at times (or I deliberately hold myself back, becoming very, very dry).

As for the premise of this thread, I think it varies between ENFPs. I tend to think of myself as pretty rational, most of the time, but I know some ENFPs have more difficulty than me. And so do some INTPs.

 

[SillySapienne]

The word emotional does imply excess, according to the dictionary, and to my past experience with the word. I however, do not think that it should carry the negative connotation, as it should only pertain the experience of emotion.. but everyone experiences emotion (save for the few nuts), so when the word it used, it is often expressed in regard to someone that has trouble controlling his or her emotions.

Not to the dictionary at least, check out the first definitions cited from several dictionary sources.

emotional - Definitions from Dictionary.com

 

[heart]

The word emotional does imply excess, according to the dictionary, and to my past experience with the word. I however, do not think that it should carry the negative connotation, as it should only pertain the experience of emotion.. but everyone experiences emotion (save for the few nuts), so when the word it used, it is often expressed in regard to someone that has trouble controlling his or her emotions.

I think it is more that our XSTJ culture here in the USA (probably UK too) wants to give emotion a negative connotation. The word itself doesn't imply excess, it is just that people view it negatively, so that any emotion is seen as too much.

 

[Geoff]

I think it is more that our XSTJ culture here in the USA (probably UK too) wants to give emotion a negative connotation. The word itself doesn't imply excess, it is just that people view it negatively, so that any emotion is seen as too much.

The principle at work is probably "the man in the street". The man in the street is meant to be rational, possessing common sense, and fundamentally male. Sure, he's an outdated concept. But he won't be overly emotional. Someone more emotional than the "man in the street" is therefore abnormal, by this own perverted definition.

 

[heart]

I think it is more that our XSTJ culture here in the USA (probably UK too) wants to give emotion a negative connotation. The word itself doesn't imply excess, it is just that people view it negatively, so that any emotion is seen as too much.

The principle at work is probably "the man in the street". The man in the street is meant to be rational, possessing common sense, and fundamentally male. Sure, he's an outdated concept. But he won't be overly emotional. Someone more emotional than the "man in the street" is therefore abnormal, by this own perverted definition.

Yes, you said it better. This is what I was getting at.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

(If P then Q) If all cats are black then Shade is black.
(Q) Shade is black
Therefore,
(P) All cats are black​

This is invalid i.e. the truth of the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Q does not "back up" P if Q is a consequence of P. The only way which this argument can be valid is if P is equal to Q i.e. if P then P. But who considers P a good reason for P? It is impossible for CaptainChick to avoid your charge like this, so what is the alternative?

This is invalid for a different reason. You have not explicitly defined Shade as an element of the set of all black cats. By convention upper case letters denote sets, lower case letters denote elements or instances of sets. One cannot assign a truth value to a set.

Damn feelers can't argue logic. Stick to feeling!

 

[Lateralus]

This is invalid for a different reason. You have not explicitly defined Shade as an element of the set of all black cats. By convention upper case letters denote sets, lower case letters denote elements or instances of sets. One cannot assign a truth value to a set.

Damn feelers can't argue logic. Stick to feeling!

LOL, did you consider the idea that the type he entered was a joke?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

This is invalid for a different reason. You have not explicitly defined Shade as an element of the set of all black cats. By convention upper case letters denote sets, lower case letters denote elements or instances of sets. One cannot assign a truth value to a set.

Damn feelers can't argue logic. Stick to feeling!

Just kidding! I know you are rational. Actually thinking rationally is not the same as thinking logically.


Thinkers are about analysis. Feelers are more about empathy and compassion. So for example, to reuse someone else's analogy, a thinker might reason that it makes more sense to build road to reduce the cost of and increase the efficiency of transporting food and supplies to starving children, whereas a feeler might want to use the money to feed starving children now rather than spend on the infrastructure. That's the difference between reasoning and feeling.

An irrational person is basically a person with low self-esteem. Their ego is distorting their view of reality. Meaning there is a disconnect between what they are perceiving and what is actually going on.

 

[Night]

Rational v. Irrational is a position of empirical perspective.

The "intellectual" ideal that is stapled to the "Rational" mindset is a misnomer inflated by the constituent parties that populate it's deomgraphic.

All types are "Rational". All types are "Irrational".

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

It's true that ENFPs could be as logical as anyone else, but you often confuse your feelings with coherent arguments.

 

[SillySapienne]

An irrational person is basically a person with low self-esteem. Their ego is distorting their view of reality. Meaning there is a disconnect between what they are perceiving and what is actually going on.

Very insightful!!!

But secure idiots, so too, can be irrational.

And someone who is temporarily flooded with emotions may also temporarily act/be irrational.

 

[Lateralus]

It's true that ENFPs could be as logical as anyone else, but you often confuse your feelings with coherent arguments.

It's interesting that you bring this up. I've seen many INTPs do this when debating issues like health care.

 

[Metamorphosis]

I think the defensive nature of this thread undermines its own purpose by insinuating that emotion is worse than logic. At least that's what I took from it.