The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[Lex Talionis]

I think he's intelligent.

But he's also a pussy. So.. meh.

Care to provide me with a reason for thinking so?

 

[Lex Talionis]

Lex is making value judgements about people's personalities that has little to do with their cognitive abilities. Just because someone's interests is considered less valuable by you does not mean they have less cognitive ability. And the "evidence" you use from IQ test correlating with MBTI types is dubious and incomplete at best.

Physicist Richard Feynman's reported IQ was 125, now that is above average but that is no where near genius IQ. But would you consider him less intelligent than alot of mensa members with IQs much higher than his IQ? He did great work in quantum physics and predicted nanotechnology in the 1950s, but yet most of those mensa members could not touch his genius with his contributions to physics. And oh yeah, his outward behaviour probalby would not be consider intelligent by you, he was known to be a free spirited nonconformist, much like how an ESFP might behave. He himself thought psychometric testing was dubious as he had good reason to think.

I think the only way to truly even understand what intelligence is would be through neuroscience, not through faulty psychometric testing and the same goes for personality as well. Lex, the evidence for most of your arguments goes from incomplete to dubious to laughable. How can you so quickly draw conclusions based on incomplete data and understanding? And look, I am good at alot of tasks but prefer not to do them, there is a difference between your true abilities and what you prefer. How many times do people on this forum have to explain this to you.

Lex, the best thing for you to do is keep your mind open to new information and not just come so quickly to very incomplete decisions. Your prejudice is really outlandish!

Richard Feynman took the test in high school, and the younger, the less reliable. Also, Feynman was most definitely slanted toward the mathematical (spatial) section of the IQ test, and his verbal IQ may have been considerably lower. Not that an IQ of 125 is "low," only less than what one would expect from a mathematical genius. It would certainly make sense that he was mathematically gifted but lacked verbal IQ, which governs abstract and complex language reasoning, such as that which is typically utilized by world leaders and businessmen. Of course, our current world leaders and businessmen are far more inclined to be simpletons, but that is a different matter; so are our scientists. Feynman was certainly specialized in his intelligence, which is not precluded by IQ testing.

 

[Robopop]

Lex, I hope you know MBTI is NOT a scientific theory at all and the personality types are just theoretical constructs. Besides, personality is way more flexible and dynamic and personality traits do change over the course of a person's life.

No reasonable scientist will take these stats from MBTI test very seriously. Again your making your own subjective value judgements, you are talking in circles.

 

[Lex Talionis]

No, it is psychological theory, and psychology is a science. Not a hard science, I agree, but a science.

Cease your blathering; it serves no purpose.

 

[Jaguar]

Attention K-Mart shoppers: On Aisle 7 we have a sale on a complete idiot.

 

[Robopop]

Hell, if you want to make a case, use the OCEAN model of personality instead, at least that has predictive value on a wide variety of behaviours. But most people on the 5 personality traits fall near the mean to form a bell curve.

 

[Lex Talionis]

OCEAN is much too general, and for that very reason results in the bell curve of a normal distribution.

 

[Robopop]

And how is it much too general, most MBTI test scores have similar results.
Where's Victor when you need him?

 

[Lex Talionis]

At most, OCEAN is no more reliable than Myers-Briggs. The only real difference between them in terms of "predictive ability" is that OCEAN has had much more money and research poured into it, and is therefore more refined and has a greater statistical foundation. OCEAN is also general in the sense that it doesn't reveal anything but the most superficial aspect of your personality. Regardless, what makes you think that I wouldn't use OCEAN in the same manner? If Myers-Briggs can be divided into the distribution of success and intelligence amongst types, then OCEAN itself most certainly can.

I don't really understand where this negativity toward the Myers-Briggs typology originates from. MBTI is a highly acclaimed and widely utilized psychometric personality assessment.

 

[Robopop]

I don't have a negative agenda against MBTI, I just have an issue when someone wants to make hasty conclusions based on ongoing research and incomplete data. Know what, you might be right about INTJs being smarter than ESFPs on average, but we don't have conclusive evidence at this point to make that judgment yet. The only thing is, INTJs and ESFPs as models by themselves don't really exist at all, there are alot of other factors that go into personality, so you get a general idea of a person but you still don't really know or understand their unique qualties and traits

And then again like it has been said countless times on this thread, preference does not equal ability and what you prefer is the foundation of MBTI, not your true abilties. I think we have two very different views on this issue.

 

[Robopop]

And don't forget there is a difference between jung typology and the MBTI system, and since you seem to rely more on MBTI test scores, the bell curve that results from both OCEAN and MBTI fails to give support to the 16 distinct personality types, of course this is not evidence against personality types either, but to me it seems alot of people don't fit neatly into one distinct type if you use the MBTI system.

Many people on this forum seem to rely more on jung's typology than the MBTI test scores and system.

 

[Robopop]

Of course, our current world leaders and businessmen are far more inclined to be simpletons,

The only thing we can agree on.

 

[KDude]

Care to provide me with a reason for thinking so?

Yeah, with all of your supposed talent and "scary" neo-Nazism, you're not even on the 11 o'clock news yet.

I think you have talent though. You're just going to squander it. Probably be doing roughly the same thing at 30.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Yeah, with all of your supposed talent and "scary" neo-Nazism, you're not even on the 11 o'clock news yet.

I think you have talent though. You're just going to squander it. Probably be doing roughly the same thing at 30.

What exactly should I be doing according to your immaculate logic?

What I find absolutely comical is that people like you only prove my claims about your type, and yet you carry on as if this fact never even entered your cognitive functions; which, it would probably be safe to say, it didn't.

 

[Lex Talionis]

The only thing we can agree on.

Well, I will certainly have to agree on that.

 

[Riva]

The only thing we can agree on.

He must be a simpleton. But he got what he wanted and did what he wanted. Won elections twice mind you. He won the 2nd term while he was quite unpopular too.

Some simpletons have a way of getting what they want. And that's just admirable.

 

[Lex Talionis]

He must be a simpleton. But he got what he wanted and did what he wanted. Won elections twice mind you. He won the 2nd term while he was quite unpopular too.

Some simpletons have a way of getting what they want. And that's just admirable.

That reflects more on the ignorance of the average American voter than on Bush.

 

[Riva]

^ That could be true. But my point was he got what he wanted even though he is a simpleton (as described by some).

 

[Lex Talionis]

Well, horribly incompetent politicians are voted into office in almost every election. It is an inevitability when the pool itself is polluted. You have the choice of voting for fool A or fool B, who tout the party line A or party line B respectively, both of which are simply variants of one another and never really seem to come to fruition when the politicians get what they wanted: power.

The age of great statesmen died with WWII.

 

[KDude]

What exactly should I be doing according to your immaculate logic?

What I find absolutely comical is that people like you only prove my claims about your type, and yet you carry on as if this fact never even entered your cognitive functions; which, it would probably be safe to say, it didn't.

What you should be doing is not devoting so much energy to this thread. If you're as capable as you view yourself, then your efforts at self-promotion would be entirely elsewhere. You'd be a pro. It wouldn't even cross your mind to beat your chest here. Or think it's even remotely worthwhile to say you can make more rational arguments than an ESFP or ISFP. Leave it me to laugh at myself on that one in order to laugh at you more. Seriously.. you're fucking breaking my heart. How could an INTJ ever could get so sad that he has to say his logic is better than an ESFP?