The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[Jaguar]

Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that it is oxymoronic when people claim that they know XXXX who are highly smart/accomplished, yet act child-like

I put XXXX in your quote for a reason. Type is irrelevant for this post.
It is painfully obvious you know absolutely nothing about creative people.
The word "creative" is not reserved for only those in the arts.
It has broad strokes of meaning which cross all professional boundaries.

No one knows that better than Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
For 30 years, the man has studied what many would call "creative geniuses."
I will cut to the chase and tell you the most common denominator is they are all, paradoxical in nature.

From Mozart to Einstein.

This is why I laughed out loud reading your ignorant post.
Yes, I can indeed imagine a person who is not only smart/accomplished but also acts child-like in nature.
That's exactly what the most creative people in the world are like.

To come up with anything innovative, regardless of industry, one must indeed be creative.
The number one person who comes to mind which embodies the creative personality is none other than Albert Einstein.
He was smart, accomplished, and yes, child-like.

Clearly, you have no undertanding of people.
To put it bluntly: Your thinking is pure slop.

Clean it up.

 

[BlackCat]

I put XXXX in your quote for a reason. Type is irrelevant for this post.
It is painfully obvious you know absolutely nothing about creative people.
The word "creative" is not reserved for only those in the arts.

It's also painfully obvious that an ESFP made him/her butthurt at some point or another.

It's also obvious that he doesn't have any idea how type is supposed to be applied.

 

[Jaguar]

It's also painfully obvious that an ESFP made him/her butthurt at some point or another.

It's also obvious that he doesn't have any idea how type is supposed to be applied.

Is that a polite way of saying an ESFP stuck their foot up his ass?

 

[BlackCat]

Is that a polite way of saying an ESFP stuck their foot up his ass?

I don't think I'm entitled to answer that, maybe he should.

 

[Ginkgo]

There is a correlation of high IQ to musical talent, but there is also a correlation of musical talent to high IQ, if you catch my drift. Neither are necessarily dependent or independent, so when people are thinking IQ is what determines intelligence, they are naive to the other possible forms of intelligence, equal but different. There is even such thing as spiritual intelligence that I'm sure a variety of people would detest to call intelligence. How does a system created by nonperfect people determine intelligence, anyway? You tell me. Obviously they just have things to express compared to those who have none to express.

Correlation =/= Causation.

 

[Lex Talionis]

The responses I received are just hilarious. It's nice to see narrow minded individuals, who for some reason tend to be Ps, becoming defensive when one makes a point that they dislike.

As for Jaguar, your conjecture is based on little else than bare assertions. Circular logic, either avoid it or refrain from commenting, lest you come off like a clown.

The myth that Ps are more "open minded" than Js is backed by absolutely no evidence, and is usually professed by other Ps who, in a poetic stroke of hypocrisy, commit the very acts they accuse Js (especially INTJs) of transgressing.

Basically, it is clear from the replies that I have received, that quite a few of you are insecure and easily offended, ready to erect barricades that prevent rational analysis. Laughable...

Lastly, could one of you Ps (or anyone, although it seems to me that it is the Ps who are most acerbic and defensive) explain why I should look from your perspective when it is clearly flawed? What purpose would it serve me to analyze a perspective that is erroneously straying from the main point, other than to learn what to avoid? It isn't open minded to make pretentious statements like "I see your point, but...", and expect to have proven something. What have you proven?! The problem isn't that I cannot see from, or look at, your perspectives. The problem lies with the fact that you make invalid arguments, and moan when they are refuted, claiming that it is I who is ignorant.

As the old adage goes, "either put up, or shut the f*ck up!"

 

[BlackCat]

Lol we're just joking around you doofus. Yes I just said that.

You won't be getting a response since I am off to bed.

 

[Jaguar]

your conjecture is based on little else than bare assertions. Circular logic, either avoid it or refrain from commenting, lest you come off like a clown.

Just what we need, more kids who think they know something.
Your posts in this thread are worthless and biased garbage.
Don't waste my time.

 

[Ginkgo]

The problem lies with the fact that you make invalid arguments, and moan when they are refuted, claiming that it is I who is ignorant.

You speak as if you are entranced by a god complex induced euphoria.

Just thought I'd put that out there. No relevance to the conversation really. Just an observation.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Just what we need, more kids who think they know something.
Your posts in this thread are worthless and biased garbage.
Don't waste my time.

Hahahaha. You are wasting your own time if you think my posts are "garbage." Don't pay heed to them if you think so.

 

[Jaguar]

^ Stop vomiting your biased garbage into this thread, Lex. Get educated.

 

[Blackwater]

re: op

se = hardcore indulgence in immediate sensory experiences

non-dom fi = ego-based, seeks to strengthen and gratify ego

together yields a theoretical type that is primarily interested in short-term sensory gain such as beer, sex and meat

to liberal hollywood screenwriters this type of person must be stupid

 

[brainheart]

Think about it this way; people that score high on IQ tests are more likely to be typed as N and T.

For example, two of the three ESFPs I mentioned previously I had originally typed as ENFP (and they scored ENFP on tests and self-reflection). Now, obviously I am not objective, but it took months of thought to realize my error, and more data than just one day's worth of conversation and testing.

Many test questions dividing N and S actually speak more to ability to conceptualize abstract concepts than preference to. Just as questions dividing F and T sometimes speak to ability to think critically rather than preference.

I'll admit I'm mildly afraid to post on this thread. I'm concerned Lex T. may hurl verbal epithets at me from on high or lash me with his trusty ration whip, and I will have no means of defending myself, because I have to admit in a debate he would school my ass.

But I wanted to thank you for posting this, Evan. I was typed as an INFP in high school, and in the past several months have maneuvered my way through all of the INXXs, never feeling like any of them fully fit. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that I even looked at an ISFP description because it never occurred to me that I could even potentially have a preference for S, being that I was always classified as one of the 'talented' and 'gifted'. Those with an S preference, I assumed, sat on pizza box couches and used Cheetos bags for pillows. (Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. But not much.)

Again, preference is the operative word when referring to how people are supposed to be typed. I hung out at intpforum for a long while and they were all convinced that I was INTP because I knew how to think rationally and abstractly. (I was convinced for awhile, too.) They assumed it was impossible for someone with an F preference to engage in an argument without tearing out her hair and then running off the precipice of the nearest moor to dash her brains onto some lower rocks, it seems.

The way type descriptions are worded, it can lead one to believe that type is an all or nothing affair- "I'm an F so I must not think. I'm an S so I must not intuit. I'm an introvert so I must live in a cave and subsist on hair mites." The more and more I read of threads and posts, it's like witnessing a full-on class war between the ordained-by-God ruling Ns and the dimwitted S serfs. It's ridiculous, and I can't imagine that this is what the originators of type theory had in mind when they started out. But who knows, maybe they did. I suppose they could have secretly been a bunch of intuitive Eugenicists.

(Yes, I know I have a predilection for hyperbole, but I hope everyone sees my point. If not, I don't blame you, because I'm tired and I wouldn't be surprised if this made little sense. Just wanted to say well put, Evan! :hi

EDIT: Turns out I'm an ENFP. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[LEVINA]

I agree with BlackCat.

He was probably into a hot ESFP when a ENTP got her instead. Yes, that's how it all happened...

 

[Valuable_Money]

Einstein - ESFP


/thread

 

[Ginkgo]

The longer I read this thread, the more I realize that I was correct.

MBTI is not evil, nor is it good. It is a tool. However, whoever wields it has the power of choice. The choice to emphasize the differences among the populous to incite bigotry, arrogance, and inferiority. Or the choice to extend the level of your tolerance in order to edify and help people.

What choice are you going to make?

 

[Lex Talionis]

The longer I read this thread, the more I realize that I was correct.

MBTI is not evil, nor is it good. It is a tool. However, whoever wields it has the power of choice. The choice to emphasize the differences among the populous to incite bigotry, arrogance, and inferiority. Or the choice to extend the level of your tolerance in order to edify and help people.

What choice are you going to make?

I think that you're failing to look at this objectively. Simply because this test points out differences in the human psyche (something that is visible through sheer common sense and acknowledged at least tacitly by most people), does not mean its results will have negative consequences. Negative in this sense is something that you yourself apply because you choose to look at the situation idealistically instead of realistically.

It's a reality that equality is a myth, and your judgment of the test is based on a false premise because you think it isn't. In order for us to "edify" other people, we must first understand their strengths and weaknesses, which by any reasonable assessment, are partially revealed by this test. Attempting to mitigate the differences amongst the populace is no more beneficial, nor is it anymore moral.

Reality must pave the way for ideals, not the other way around.

 

[Ginkgo]

It's a reality that equality is a myth, and your judgment of the test is based on a false premise because you think it isn't. In order for us to "edify" other people, we must first understand their strengths and weaknesses, which by any reasonable assessment, are partially revealed by this test. Attempting to mitigate the differences amongst the populace is no more beneficial, nor is it anymore moral.

Reality must pave the way for ideals, not the other way around.

You're making a daring leap with your fallacious logic. I never said that I believe that all people are equal.

Indeed, differences are apparent among us, therefore we are innately unequal. But how might one inform another about these differences in an appropriate manner? Obviously, individuals of the ESFP archetype may take offense to claims that they are the "dumbest". They are, after all, feelers.

So, by informing them, you run a high risk of producing a negative effect. They may very well feel inferior to others because of this knowledge. Which, objectively, may not be the case. Intelligence is not the mark of worth for a human being.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Laurie]

An ESFP might come across at not the "most intelligent" because that is not always what is important to them. ESFPs can grasp concepts and do well at what they put their mind to. They just don't put their mind to school, usually, until after high school.

I've definitely seen "dumber" types.

The whole characters on TV thing is just lame. They are stereotypes made into characters. They need no depth. Of course an ESFP is going to be dumb. Just like every computer programmer is social inept.

So, by informing them, you run a high risk of producing a negative effect. They may very well feel inferior to others because of this knowledge. Which, objectively, may not be the case. Intelligence is not the mark of worth for a human being.

AHAH so now you aren't only labeling them as dumb, they can't handle the truth that they are dumb. I don't think that paragraph means what you think it means.

 

[Ginkgo]

AHAH so now you aren't only labeling them as dumb, they can't handle the truth that they are dumb. I don't think that paragraph means what you think it means.

This is not applicable to every ESFP. I just wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.

Damnit, why do I open my mouth?