G
Glycerine
Guest
Some do, some don't.
From my debate with you on Harry Potter I remember you getting the definition of Feeler wrong and the definition of Extrovert wrong (Or, more concretely, denying the actual definitions as such because they did not fit your argument). So I'm gonna answer your question with another question: What exactly do you think a Sensor is?Well you have a really single minded way of looking at things. I'm going to repeat myself again, I think that sensors who are intelligent score as N's on tests because of the way tests are laid out. Because the makers may think that N = intelligent and S = simpleton. So the non simpleton S's would score as Ns. You seem to think that all tests are flawless and score every S as an S and every N as an N.
And I ask you this-
Why?
This thread's about five months old. I posted it when I knew nothing about mbti.
* August 26, 2007: I apologize for not having documented the source of the statistics that I cite here. I dimly recall finding them on or via the website of Mensa USA, but I am not certain of that. And I can no longer find the source by searching the web.
Unfortunately.. well, how many people "dimly recall" things without being able to point to primary sources? Lots of people. Too many people.
In all my college papers I just cite a "dim recollection of something I read on the internet" and the prof's are cool.
lol this would not be the most reliable of sources, no
From my debate with you on Harry Potter I remember you getting the definition of Feeler wrong and the definition of Extrovert wrong (Or, more concretely, denying the actual definitions as such because they did not fit your argument). So I'm gonna answer your question with another question: What exactly do you think a Sensor is?
Aleksei's First Law of Debate: If you argue against me, you are wrong.You're the one that seems to not have any idea of what he's talking about.
Would you deny me that pleasure? you are one cruel ISFP.And I didn't define those things because it wouldn't have honestly mattered. You would have just retorted "well you're wrong and I'm right as usual HAHAHAHAHAHA"
Extraversion and introversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaExtroversion/Introversion deals with people's mental energy. Introverts store up energy from being with their thoughts and interacting with the world in some way uses the energy. Introverts go crazy without interacting in some way because they have too much bottled in. But too much interacting drains introverts. Extroverts, on the other hand, get that crazy feeling if they aren't being stimulated mentally. They get the drained feeling if nothing is happening or there is nothing to do. Actual research has been done on this, it all deals with how people interact with the world. I stopped responding because you called me stupid for thinking that extroversion had nothing to do with liking people or something like that. I didn't want to waste my time.
The trait of extraversion-introversion is a central dimension of human personality. Extraverts (also spelled extroverts[1]) tend to be gregarious, assertive, and interested in seeking out excitement. Introverts, in contrast, tend to be more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable. They are not necessarily loners but they tend to have smaller circles of friends and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts. Introverts are less likely to seek stimulation from others because their own thoughts and imagination are stimulating enough. A common misconception is that all introverts suffer from social anxiety or shyness. Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference. An introvert may not be shy at all but may merely prefer non social or less social activities.
According to Carl Jung, introversion and extraversion refer to the direction of psychic energy. If a person’s psychic energy usually flows outwards then he or she is an extravert, while if the energy usually flows inwards, the person is an introvert.[9] Extraverts feel an increase of perceived energy when interacting with a large group of people, but a decrease of energy when left alone. Conversely, introverts feel an increase of energy when alone, but a decrease of energy when surrounded by a large group of people. Most modern psychologists consider theories of psychic energy to be obsolete. First, it is difficult to operationalize mental "energy" in ways that can be scientifically measured and tested. Second, more detailed explanations of extraversion and the brain have replaced Jung's rather speculative theories.[10] Nevertheless, the concept is still in popular usage in the general sense of "feeling energized" in particular situations. Jung’s primary legacy in this area may be the popularizing of the terms introvert and extravert to refer to a particular dimension of personality.
As I remember it you discarded the body of the Feeler/Thinker dichotomy because it described Harry as a Thinker -- whereas you wanted to believe he shared a type with you. Awww.And I never defined feeler either. So how was my definition wrong?
So, you have no idea. I thought as much.It's hard to define sensor, but simply a sensor is someone who has the Se or Si process as one of their first two functions.
Functional analysis get even more confusing because, to put it bluntly, it makes no sense. Carl Jung was on acid when he drew it up. The functions themselves are good, but the way he ties them together isn't. It is self-contradictory (Per Jung Extroverts should be P-dom and J-aux, yet ExxJs are supposedly J-dom P-aux, which contradicts reality), and at times simply absurd. I've done functional analysis on myself, my mother and several of my friends, and none of our functional preferences match our types (or according to Jungian analysis should even be possible).You seem to be stuck on the dichotomies themselves rather than using the functions. That's just not really an accurate way to typewatch. Using the actual dichotomies gets really confusing. MBTI typing people is more along the lines of analyzing where someone is coming from when they are sharing their thoughts (in whatever way), it's not really about behavior.
You guessed wrong.I'm guessing you're going to respond to just one line of this post and totally miss the point like last time and totally ignore the rest of it lol.
yeah but there has to be tens of thousands of those.of the people i've intellectually envied, infp's have been more than a couple
that is a common misconception.I don't think I have a high IQ but I'm sure there have been many of our number who could meet the grade.
By the sounds of things it's overrated anyway. I've seen the masses trumpeting their "IQ score" around and yet found their worldview and understanding of events to be poor and my conclusion of them to be "I think you're stupid" although in a less direct and blunt way. Once I was told that IQ score merely measures the rate of development, that a man with an IQ of 200 merely learns and grasps things twice as fast and twice as easy as someone with an IQ of 100. If that were true then one could learn fast but remember little and thus still have little potential to apply their knowledge. They may still have a poor facility to grasp certain modes of thinking, essentially being retarded. The only difference being is that they are only twice as fast as an other idiot with an IQ of 100 and cannot be anywhere near the same league as someone with an IQ of 100 but who has their entire brain engineered towards that mode of thinking.
Not mentioning any names NT types.
that is a regular misconception.
past a certain point people with large gaps in iq just think qualitatively differently.
As a regular Joe regular misconceptions are my cup of tea. Which part were you referring to exactly with that comment if I may ask? The section that asserts that IQ = rate of change?