ChocolateMoose123
New member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 5,278
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Amen
I thought S stood for sensing, not stupid. Are ballerinas, musicians, sculptors innately stupid just because they aren't big on NT?
I'd scratch my head again, but this thread has already made my scalp raw.![]()
I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.
Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?
It's because many ESFP's pattern their lives after being perceived as clowns. Often, however, they are far from stupid......they just wish to be seen as entertaining, not smart. They derive their self-esteem by their ability to keep an audience. My best friend is an ESFP.....and he's more than equal to the task of keeping up with my most abstract discussions (of course he's been my friend since high school so he's used to it).
But most folks who know him merely as that big funny guy who acts like John Belushi in Animal House.....and he's fine with that.......he loves that he's the life of the party, not the brains of the operation.
So in that since it's not an unfounded stereotype......but it's not because they are stupid, just that they don't care if they are perceived as stupid IF they are also perceived as talented at entertaining people.
One man's real life observation of four people: no control, no variables, no set questions, no set tests... no definition of "stupidity" "utter moron" or "thinking chain." No clear definition of esfp even.
Perhaps if this now qualifies as a "study", then the entire science of statistical analysis should become obsolete.
I thought S stood for sensing, not stupid. Are ballerinas, musicians, sculptors innately stupid just because they aren't big on NT?
I'd scratch my head again, but this thread has already made my scalp raw.![]()
I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.
Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?
I believe that this myth is influenced by culture. Most TV writers live in either NYC or LA and reflect those sensibilities. If you look at King of the Hill the "stupid" character is Dale Gribble and he's an INxJ. On the other hand Jon Redcorn is probably ESFP, and he definitely comes off getting the upper hand over Dale. King of the Hill appeals to different sensibilities culturally, so it has a different type of fool.
John Redcorn is definitely an ISTP.
He might be ISFP, but he's no T. Every plotline about him is something Feeling related: his relationship with Nancy, wanting to get to Joseph, seeking restitution for how his people have been mistreated, etc.... His whole life revolves around his values.
The hard part is figuring out for me is figuring out if Dale is T or F. He's not particularly developed in either area. He's just out of control, paranoid Ni. Either way in this case the INxJ is portrayed as the idiot instead of the intelligent one.
You cannot compare Dale's idiocy to that of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.
Dale isn't even particularly stupid (many indicators show that he is highly intelligent); he is simply delusional. There's a major difference.
John Redcorn can be either an F or a T. He is such a minor character with so little depth to him that his "intelligent" representation doesn't say anything.
We have been, constantly, in this thread. But you don't seem to get that. We say that you can't generalize like that, and yet you continue to assert that you can and that it's 100% accurate every time.
Seriously, stop bullshitting. What is there to gain, to force these bullshit assertions into this thread? Everything you're posting here lacks purpose and you CANNOT prove that every ESFP is like what you've described based on a few people you've met. This is a basic rule in science, in any form of study, a basic guideline. That correlations aren't set in stone, ever. Statistical significance, in your case a few ESFPs, does NOT make a set standard. This is dangerous thinking in any field of study. This is like saying that because you win at a slot machine three times in a row, that you will win every time.
If you've been to college or taken any psychological courses in your entire life, it's in the second chapter of your textbook. Read the section about experimenting. If you've taken any formal psychology classes then you will know that what you're asserting is bullshit just because the statistical significance is nil. You are obviously un educated if you are asserting these claims.
No he isn't. He's definitely an S. Where do you get the idea that he's an N?
What I see all too often on this forum is that people point out one or two traits which are insignificant and suppose that one is of a particular temperament.
Peter Griffin exhibits no clear signs of being an intuit. He is a typical jester who acts purely on immediate grounds and impulses.
Lex = INTJ, possibly introverted intuition without developed extroverted thinking in the real world to back it up?
There is an archetypal fool who underneath enjoys a high intelligence. As some posters have pointed out, many ESFPs are intelligent but like to play the fool to an audience for laughs. It would be easy to mistake that superficial aspect for the totality of a person.
This is consistent with my earlier statement that given the fact that you understand MBTI the way you do, you're more likely to type stupid people as S and smart people as N.
Unfortunately, it's consistent with your view as well
I don't think he's present in the moment at all, though -- he's so intuitive that he's an idiot (very little judgment means the connections are essentially random).
Ni by itself is logical but not rational1