[ESTP] ESTP Intimidation

[ptgatsby]

Any other ideas are welcome as well.

I find myself strangely on the other side of the fence in this case. I wouldn't say I'm a crusader for the S/N divide, even though I have been told that, but I am particularly sensitive to when the S/N is applied to people, directly or indirectly.

Yet, I don't see the issue in the OP. This was environmental, and it doesn't make claims to the bigger pictures. That is, the description was about the situation and the way it made him feel... and those feelings are legitimate. The language communicated his impressions of it. Now maybe those impressions should be expressed in a different language, but then we wouldn't of been able to understand how he really felt in that moment.

In addition, the statements made were of the "these (x) are ", as in "these groups had traits that are associated to ESTP", not "all are (x)", as in "all ESTPs have these traits". The difference is important in stereotyping.


Even though Sub may disagree, I haven't seen a better answer than an insecurity trigger brought up on by some shadow of his personality reflected in the local culture he intruded on. Because he described it as ESTP, I assume it is really the rough and tumble approach, which has a great deal of social context and belonging. I don't see anything personal in his post, or anything about others. From the start I read it as him trying to understand his own insecurity.

So, IMO, this was more of a projection of the general MBTI issue between S/N rather than something specific Sub brought up. And I find it unfortunate that it means that the Ns that do care have to spend a great deal of mental energy as to not rile up this reaction, while it is really perpetuated by others directly who simply don't care and would even go out of their way to enforce that stereotype.

Things have gotten better, overall, looking at the long run. It just takes coming down on the cultural aspect, gaining diversity and so forth. I was reading my old posts from a year ago and the direct S bias was pretty impressive back then. It comes down to the same thing as it did then - finding those that perpetuate it, calling them down on it, having lots of people come down on them, etc. But it really doesn't help when threads like this get the hammer, IMO.

 

[Anja]

Being of similar type I appreciate Night's comment.

And someone else here mentioned learning. We are a WE. A group of people experimenting with type and learning about ourselves and others.

I'd hope we don't fall prey to the mistake which political correctness foists on a public eager to demonstrate no prejudice by then labeling and manipulating quotas to seek balance. Doesn't work. Human nature.

It's better handled by the natural mix and the natural reactions dealt with in a mature and healthy way. If we jointly strive for an effort of consideration and inclusiveness the forum will cycle through all the stages of a small group. All by itself.

Unfortunately one of the stages is conflict. Following a few basic rules of courtesy will keep us on track to the working group stage.

Edit: And because this is an open group we will continue to cycle through phases of harmony and discord, just like RL. Good solution? Everyone tend to their own stuff and contribute in a positive way and things, as water, finally seek their own level. We are together only as healthy as our individual members are willing to be.

 

[Night]

Even though Sub may disagree, I haven't seen a better answer than an insecurity trigger brought up on by some shadow of his personality reflected in the local culture he intruded on. Because he described it as ESTP, I assume it is really the rough and tumble approach, which has a great deal of social context and belonging. I don't see anything personal in his post, or anything about others. From the start I read it as him trying to understand his own insecurity.

So, IMO, this was more of a projection of the general MBTI issue between S/N rather than something specific Sub brought up. And I find it unfortunate that it means that the Ns that do care have to spend a great deal of mental energy as to not rile up this reaction, while it is really perpetuated by others directly who simply don't care and would even go out of their way to enforce that stereotype.

Things have gotten better, overall, looking at the long run. It just takes coming down on the cultural aspect, gaining diversity and so forth. I was reading my old posts from a year ago and the direct S bias was pretty impressive back then. It comes down to the same thing as it did then - finding those that perpetuate it, calling them down on it, having lots of people come down on them, etc. But it really doesn't help when threads like this get the hammer, IMO.

I agree with what I perceive to be the essence of this post.

While the issue itself is certainly far from resolution, it bears mentioning that superflous conjuring of the stereotype does more to undermine the credibility of those who feel sincerely affected by the prevalent bias.

That is not to suggest that one shouldn't bring to bear feelings of unfair treatement on the basis of type prejudice. In order to weaken this malady further, we must cooperate into a concerted effort to smash it when it takes form.

The best way to do this is to alert a moderator. Taking it personally and/or indirectly addressing the issue by flame war does nothing to solve the underlying cause of the issue and instead simply wedges further the perceived gaps in rationale between types.

 

[sarah]

Are you suggesting there is a resolution? I don't think there is any way to change collective attitudes and ideas - quickly, at least. For the sake of fair representation, it would be nice if there was more balance in numbers amongst N and S types on the board.

I can see how you would think I was lumping all N's together with my "criticism". However, I think there could be a little bit more N criticism. Like anything, it has it's downsides. Could an inflated sense of self importance be one of those downsides? Seems that way. Am I guilty of this too? Sometimes, but I'm aware of it enough to keep it in check (most of the time, I'm not perfect).

Edit: That's actually a good suggestion. I would like to see more of SP viewpoints just for the sake of a more complete perspective.

I agree, I don't see the point in criticizing people en masse. Any time I see gripes about a type code rather than about individuals and their behavior, I assume that person doing the griping doesn't know what healthy use of those preferences looks like, and probably isn't much interested in using type theory in a positive way. There is nothing inherent in the ESTP type that corresponds with rudeness or machismo, although certainly some people who are rude and macho could be ESTPs. It also doesn't follow that other types can't be that way. There just simply isn't a clear-cut link. If the complaint is about behavior, then why not just complain about the behavior, rather than the type? Or, if people believe there's a link, why don't those who believe it ask the ESTPs in this group if they notice that in themselves, and if so, to explain their motives. It's not about "political correctness". It's about type being a tool and a learning experience rather than mindless venting.

As far as SP stereotyping goes, I find it remarkable that there are articulate people of all four SP types on this board --which is really cool -- and yet every day I log on to find people on this forum trying to tell us what we're supposedly like, and what we value, and what we're capable of. (Rather funny that so many non-SPs think they know better than we do what it's like to be us.) If the original poster and others want to learn more about the ESTP type pattern and how it might be expressed both positively and negatively, then why don't they ask questions of the ESTPs in this forum intead of just complaining about strangers they've met who may or may not even have that type preference? You might actually be pleasantly surprised at the answers you get -- assuming you're not just fishing for material to support your negative assumptions.

Sarah

 

[cafe]

FWIW, if you think only Sensors get picked on around here, read some of BlueWing's threads.

It does sound more like ISTPs. ESTPs are more likely to charm your wallet right out of your pocket, in my experience. But like others have said, any group of people with similar personalities and interests can be like that to outsiders. I feel that way at my kids' elementary school and in the kitchen at any carry-in meal. The non-IN women reign in those places and I'm a pathetic wannabe no matter how hard I try.

 

[ptgatsby]

If the original poster and others want to learn more about the ESTP type pattern and how it might be expressed both positively and negatively, then why don't they ask politely-worded questions of the ESTPs in this forum intead of just complaining about strangers who may or may not even have that type preference?

Sarah, I've loved your posts and... well... you sound a lot like me (but nicer ) and my complaints about the S/N issue... But, do you think your description is a fair assessment of the OP? In reading the OP now, I can see how that interpretation is possible, but I'd suggest that his post can be seen as sort of a blank canvas. It reflects what we feel more than what he meant. Even more to the point, he clarified what he was feeling after that, generalising the situation.

The most interesting thing about it is you can see the sensitivity effect - his first line refers to "xNTJs" being intimidating because those threads exist already. And that was way more personal, not even subject to interpretation.

The removal of discrimination is the acceptance that we are equal in treatment, and I feel that in this case there was no case of discrimination - this was more about type breakdown than poor stereotypes. And no one rejected his stereotype at all, just said he was wrong. But how can be wrong about how he felt?

The big question is if anyone has the occupational breakdown from CAPT (Atlas of Type Tables) to actually make the argument that garages do not tend to be ESTP, or at least STP, and thus to explain how he felt. This is especially poignant when he clarified that he meant the environment, not the individuals.

 

["?"]

FWIW, if you think only Sensors get picked on around here, read some of BlueWing's threads.

It does sound more like ISTPs. ESTPs are more likely to charm your wallet right out of your pocket, in my experience. But like others have said, any group of people with similar personalities and interests can be like that to outsiders. I feel that way at my kids' elementary school and in the kitchen at any carry-in meal. The non-IN women reign in those places and I'm a pathetic wannabe no matter how hard I try.

I think this is the whole point being made Cafe. We assume that people who do those types of jobs would only be sensing types when that is far from the truth.

 

[cafe]

I think this is the whole point being made Cafe. We assume that people who do those types of jobs would only be sensing types when that is far from the truth.

True, but aren't the non-sensors probably the oddballs in the group? I mean, there are non-NFs in counseling jobs, but they are probably the odd ones out, right? Non-NTs in IT? No job is dominated exclusively by one type, but some jobs are going to be dominated by certain types, I'd think, simply because it's an area of strength/comfort.

My husband is an INTP who drives a truck for a living and he's most certainly not the only one, but when you think of truck drivers, you don't typically think of INTPs.

 

[SillySapienne]

My two cents:

I do not think that it is a trait for many, if not most, Ps to ever try or care to be intimidating.

It is just not what we are about, that is, forcefully, or intentionally intimidating others.

Sure, people might *feel* or *be* intimidated by an ESTP, but that has no bearing on whether or not the ESTP is trying to be intimidating.

I haven't really read this thread, and will peruse it after I post this, but I think that, in general, people tend to feel intimidated for a multitude of reasons and by certain people, due to their own sense of insecurity.

I would conjecture that the more confident one is, the less likely one will be inclined to feel intimidated by others.

 

[King sns]

Sometimes I think that verbalizing (or atleast consciously thinking about) a prejudice against certain people can be helpful in kind of "getting over" your prejudices. To say that "ESTP's are intimidating mechanics" is obviously a broad generalization. But I think that almost everybody gets certain "feelings" about groups of people, or types of people. The feelings can come for different reasons. But I think to acknowledge those feelings can be a good thing if approached in a way that admits that the problem is YOURS and not the problem of the said group. Its the first step in finding out why you have these feelings about these people and what you can do to move past them.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

 

[The Ü™]

From a functional order standpoint, I think that ENJs are best at appearing intimidating due to their tertiary Se function, which they use in a more scheming way -- this is why ENJs tend to have a flair for the theatrics, but in actuality, have limited confidence in engaging their Se freely.

An intimidating ESTP, on the other hand, is intimidating to others because of his self-confidence to maneuver on impulse, which others who are less skilled can become intimidated by, I suppose. But he doesn't use Se as a defense.

 

[Grayscale]

i dont think anyone should be intimidated, of the worst possible outcomes in any interaction with another person, the integrity of your mind is an invincible quality. we are our collateral impact, and our sheer existence of body and mind necessitates that, even if those abilities are removed in death, our historical displacement can never be taken away.

intimidation is fear of impending defeat, and in a way, fear is not knowing in what ways you are undefeatable.

 

[Jack Flak]

i dont think anyone should be intimidated, of the worst possible outcomes in any interaction with another person, the integrity of your mind is an invincible quality. we are our collateral impact, and our sheer existence of body and mind necessitates that, even if those abilities are removed in death, our historical impact can never be taken away.

intimidation is fear of impending defeat, and in a way, fear is not knowing in what ways you are undefeatable.

But you could still be remembered as the guy who blew himself up with a propane tank. *intimidated by propane; humiliation*

 

[Grayscale]

But you could still be remembered as the guy who blew himself up with a propane tank. *intimidated by propane; humiliation*

existence, in past, does not require memory; in future, it does not require prediction

 

[Frank]

But you could still be remembered as the guy who blew himself up with a propane tank. *intimidated by propane; humiliation*

Love him or hate him he's a funny mofo.

 

[King sns]

Love him or hate him he's a funny mofo.

Love him!.

 

["?"]

True, but aren't the non-sensors probably the oddballs in the group? I mean, there are non-NFs in counseling jobs, but they are probably the odd ones out, right? Non-NTs in IT? No job is dominated exclusively by one type, but some jobs are going to be dominated by certain types, I'd think, simply because it's an area of strength/comfort.

My husband is an INTP who drives a truck for a living and he's most certainly not the only one, but when you think of truck drivers, you don't typically think of INTPs.

And you said it again, it's a mindset that has been created on stereotypes and poor descriptions. I will give you a prime example in how many ISTPs who had admitted that they are not mechanically inclined. On INTPc there are a number of INTPs who in past years have admitted to not being mathematically inclined. Not all ESFPs are wild party-goers. In fact the only ESFP I know is a bit of a prude. These are biases that were never articulated by Jung or Myers-Briggs. In fact Myers-Briggs describes both ESPs as being the ultimate realists. Okay off the soap box because as some have said, of all forums that I have visited over the years, Typologyc has less biases than other forums. I think that is because we do have a more diverse group posting here. Thanks for your input.

 

[Totenkindly]

... Not all ESFPs are wild party-goers. In fact the only ESFP I know is a bit of a prude.

I know one ESFP woman who is now a stiff-collared, crusty, stern, rather skin-crawling fundamentalist now that she "found God better."

I actually liked her better when she partied and laughed all the time with the happier God.

My son, ESFP, is actually pretty much a "party kid," but he also has a quiet side and will spend hours listening to music when home and drawing lots and lots of pictures. That's more his F side coming out through S sensibilities.

Tangent, I know, but I thought it interesting.

 

[BlueScreen]

I thought of that slogan for ESFP's when I read a thread about ESFP's being generally dumb a while back. My face was like the insulted caveman after he sees the banner or watches the commercial

hehe, you should see some of the descriptions of ENFP on the net and how they think and what is best for them. It can be a problem when your shadow (INFJ) has so many psychologists who are into Myers-Briggs.

Didn't know you guys were considered stupid... Your type seems pretty nice and interesting from my experience of them.

 

[cafe]

And you said it again, it's a mindset that has been created on stereotypes and poor descriptions. I will give you a prime example in how many ISTPs who had admitted that they are not mechanically inclined. On INTPc there are a number of INTPs who in past years have admitted to not being mathematically inclined. Not all ESFPs are wild party-goers. In fact the only ESFP I know is a bit of a prude. These are biases that were never articulated by Jung or Myers-Briggs. In fact Myers-Briggs describes both ESPs as being the ultimate realists. Okay off the soap box because as some have said, of all forums that I have visited over the years, Typologyc has less biases than other forums. I think that is because we do have a more diverse group posting here. Thanks for your input.

Couldn't an ultimate realist easily become kind of nihilistic and hedonistic? I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. I enjoy MBTI, etc, but I don't take it super seriously, I guess. Any time you divide people into groups based on similarities you're going to get some inaccurate stereotyping and even if a stereotype is generally true, it certainly isn't going to be true of everyone in the group. I don't see it as being terribly harmful unless you use it as a rigid guideline or something.