[SJ] SJs and Theory

[EJCC]

My mechanic (ISTP) dad is like this with engine noises in movies. It seems that half the time they just use a big noise that sounds cool without caring which sort of vehicle it actually goes in - eg. "haha, that's ridiculous. That's a Detroit! That's the wrong engine for that model."

My INFJ mom does that constantly, with soundtrack music and with instrument faking. Especially soundtrack music! When we watched the "John Adams" miniseries together, she would always fast forward through the opening credits because the theme was "not true to the time period". I told her that it was trying to be intense/epic, and she said "It could be epic while being true to the time period! That's no excuse!!"

[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

View attachment 8045

That is definitely how I approach physics.

 

[SD45T-2]

My mechanic (ISTP) dad is like this with engine noises in movies. It seems that half the time they just use a big noise that sounds cool without caring which sort of vehicle it actually goes in - eg. "haha, that's ridiculous. That's a Detroit! That's the wrong engine for that model."

That's awesome. I'm a car enthusiast, so I notice stuff like that too.

I also notice when sirens are wrong. The standard Hollywood sirend sound effect an old Federal Signal PA-20. That would be correct if you're doing something like Adam-12, which is in the '60s and '70s, but not for a more modern setting.

I recently rewatched the first Matirx. In the lobby shootout I noticed something about the gunfire was wrong. It finally dawned on me that the accoustics are way out of whack and what you're hearing is the way gunfire sounds outdoors.

That said, when I watch a movie like Heat (1995), I'm wildly enthusiastic about it because so many things were done right.

 

[Southern Kross]

My INFJ mom does that constantly, with soundtrack music and with instrument faking. Especially soundtrack music! When we watched the "John Adams" miniseries together, she would always fast forward through the opening credits because the theme was "not true to the time period". I told her that it was trying to be intense/epic, and she said "It could be epic while being true to the time period! That's no excuse!!"

That's awesome. I'm a car enthusiast, so I notice stuff like that too.

I also notice when sirens are wrong. The standard Hollywood sirend sound effect an old Federal Signal PA-20. That would be correct if you're doing something like Adam-12, which is in the '60s and '70s, but not for a more modern setting.

I recently rewatched the first Matirx. In the lobby shootout I noticed something about the gunfire was wrong. It finally dawned on me that the accoustics are way out of whack and what you're hearing is the way gunfire sounds outdoors.

Yeah, I admit to being bit of a pendant myself when it's an area I know a lot about - usually it's anachronistic language or mistakes in manners/decorum in 18th to early 20th century period films (among other things). The last Pride and Prejudice film, as enjoyable as it is, had me gritting my teeth in places. I can understand how that can take you out of the moment if it's just blatantly wrong to you. My INTJ friend goes bananas if he sees even a hint of plate armour in a film set before the late middle ages. He knows a lot about medieval weaponry.

That said, when I watch a movie like Heat (1995), I'm wildly enthusiastic about it because so many things were done right.

Oh, I love that film! I watched the behind the scenes for it once and I believe they said made a lot of effort to acheive accuracy - in particular with gun fight in downtown LA, with all those cool, booming, gun shot echoes. And did you know that they use that incredibly speedy clip change Val Kilmer does in that gun fight (you probably noticed it), in training for the military? Apparently it's so impressive they show it to trainees to embarrass into doing it better than an mere actor.

 

[SD45T-2]

Oh, I love that film! I watched the behind the scenes for it once and I believe they said made a lot of effort to acheive accuracy - in particular with gun fight in downtown LA, with all those cool, booming, gun shot echoes. And did you know that they use that incredibly speedy clip change Val Kilmer does in that gun fight (you probably noticed it), in training for the military? Apparently it's so impressive they show it to trainees to embarrass into doing it better than an mere actor.

I own the special edition. On AR-15 family guns when you reload you can smack the side of the receiver with your hand to jar the bolt loose and chamber the next round, which is what Kilmer did.

For the most part, cars will only give you concealment in a gunfight, especially if you're being shot at with high velocity rifle rounds. The only part that you can really count on to consistantly stop bullets is the engine block. That was shown pretty accurately. You see the bad guys' 5.56mm NATO rounds going right through most cars, and when Al Pacino is reloading while Val Kilmer is shooting at him, he's deliberately crouching behind the front of a car so the engine block will shield him.

I also really liked Collateral. Michael Mann has pointed out that Heat starts at a train station and at ends LAX, and Collateral starts at LAX and ends at the same station where Heat began.

 

[Southern Kross]

I own the special edition. On AR-15 family guns when you reload you can smack the side of the receiver with your hand to jar the bolt loose and chamber the next round, which is what Kilmer did.

For the most part, cars will only give you concealment in a gunfight, especially if you're being shot at with high velocity rifle rounds. The only part that you can really count on to consistantly stop bullets is the engine block. That was shown pretty accurately. You see the bad guys' 5.56mm NATO rounds going right through most cars, and when Al Pacino is reloading while Val Kilmer is shooting at him, he's deliberately crouching behind the front of a car so the engine block will shield him.

Yeah, I watched something on Nat Geo about the north Hollywood shootout (which was influenced by the film). That shattered a lot of illusions about what will stop a bullet coming from a semi-automatic assault rifle, especially with the right ammunition. I think I learned a lot about the realities of fire-power in that programme - the cops were so mismatched. BTW didn't they use the same sort of guns too?

BTW does it drive you crazy when cars (often spontaneously) explode in movies? It annoys me...

I also really liked Collateral. Michael Mann has pointed out that Heat starts at a train station and at ends LAX, and Collateral starts at LAX and ends at the same station where Heat began.

That's right, I remember hearing that. I definitely enjoyed Collateral too, and am a Michael Mann fan in general (exempting a couple of his films)

Anyway, I should stop derailing this thread.

 

[IZthe411]

I'm not an artist in the sense of creating it but I'm a great art appreciator. Like you, I find the theory part kind of cold and I am an NT. I find art to be about the emotional expression as well as the beauty and mystery. You can't really reduce that to scientific principles. Well maybe you can but it takes the enjoyment out of it.




I noticed you know type yourself as InTJ. Did you decide on N because you prefer theory and figure if you prefer theory you must be an N or some other reason?

It's not as common but I don't see why there can't be S's who prefer learning by theory. The MBTI has a Step II test that breaks up each preference into 5 facets. One of the S/N facets is experiential vs. theoretical. So you could have an S type overall who prefers the theoretical facet.

Hey,

It's a little more than that. I've done a lot of thinking and figuring out of myself over the last few years, and with MBTI I was letting my experiences, not necessarily my preferences, define what I thought was my type. I started out ISTJ, but the more I read, the more I sat back and reflected, the more sense it made for me.

I went to school for accounting, I'm a CPA. I'm religious, I grew up in a large family in the inner city by two SJ parents who laid down the law. Things were very much 'one way' for me.

As a kid I did things less so because of what was expected, but because it made sense to me. I recall more than a few times in my life where I felt like I was the only person seeing something nobody else saw, which, while I got along with people, I can't say I had great relationships. Always called smart/creative/professor/ and my favorite, 'twierd'- my nickname among my bros and sisters. Something I used to hate, but I embrace it.

I can look at that list in the link for N/S, and for 9/10 I agree how I can approach/apply a situation. I'm least likely to be traditional-if it works it's cool, but if it's not working for me or the situation I'm ready to scrap it for what works best.

Long story short- INTJ fits better than ISTJ. I can me in both typecasts, but I lean more to an INTJ.

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

For me it varies. For some things, if I don't have a sense of the larger picture, the why behind things, I can't really learn it. With other things, I just want to get on with it and don't really care about the underlying theory behind it. I'm more likely to appreciate the theory behind something that I'm actually interested in.

same. there's just something hypnotic about Ne.

 

[The Iron Giant]

How many of you S types prefer theory over just learning how to do XYZ?

It depends on the situation. If it's something useful or interesting, I'd prefer to understand it conceptually, because in the former case, I like to be prepared, and in the latter case, I like to immerse myself in things that I find cool. When I absorb the system behind something, I suddenly know how all its components are supposed to behave, and that's very efficient and gratifying. This has been my approach to Jungian cognitive function theory: when I interact with Fi or Si doms for example, I can see where their behaviors and thoughts align with the way their dominant function guides their cognition.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Hey I'm bored and kinda read the thread, but I want to say N being about theory and S being about what's practical is one way to look at it, sure; but you could also see N as abstract understanding and S concrete understanding.
A lot of life is defined by "ideas" and these abstractions that we center our lives around; describing our emotional states, our governments, our pursuit of happiness which is often in conflict with others. These things are all abstract things that Ns can explain for people and elucidate how they differ and conflict with others, but to write it off as "theory" isn't what it is and to expect it to define people and ever explain things concretely isn't what it is because it's not about being right or wrong, but explaining the grey in life.
You know, the abstract is a part of life, just as the concrete is. But both are theoretical, right? If N was just theory for the sake of theory, why would anyone think intuition is worth anything? And if S is what's practical, still what use is intuition then? Seriously.