[ESFJ] Why does everyone think ESFJs are stupid??? - Page 12

Why does everyone think ESFJs are stupid???

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 12 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 321
Thank Tree323Thanks

This is a discussion on Why does everyone think ESFJs are stupid??? within the ESFJ Forum - The Caregivers forums, part of the SJ's Temperament Forum- The Overseers category; Originally Posted by NiDBiLD "Nice win" , you mean. Oh my god, rofl.. you can't be serious. I -actually- laughed ...

  1. #111
    Unknown Personality


    Quote Originally Posted by NiDBiLD View Post
    "Nice win", you mean.
    Oh my god, rofl.. you can't be serious. I -actually- laughed out loud when I read that.



    I particularly loved this part:
    This is relatively well documented.
    lolscience? We're talking mbti self-reporting as one of the variables here, and the claim that there is some non-subjective universal way to measure intelligence.

    I'm sure you'll forgive me for saying that this is just bleeding with irony, since its supposed to be a demonstration of that superior nt scientific mind and what it really is, is just someone using excruciatingly bad science to try to support a stereotype that shines favorably on their own self-typing.

    Posting something weak and without substance doesn't support your claim just because you want it to.
    SVALP and Zombie Devil Duckie thanked this post.

  2. #112
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by TX_INTP View Post
    I havent actually read any of the studies and I am usually suspicious of summaries. I suspect the author is biased as they put all the studies in favor of a strong correlation in the first paragraph, then used a separate paragraph for each study that purports to refute the concept. The last sentence you read sticks with you making you think that overall the entry is biased against the idea. I think a 25% contribution to income prediction is pretty strong. There is a distinction between wealth and income. IQ is not predictive of wealth. One of the paragraphs that seems to refute the income to IQ correlation actually refutes income to wealth.

    In any case, as I said, I havent read any of the studies so dont know how valid any of them are. Im a believer in the "monotonic" up to a point, after which other factors become more important. that point is usually cited as an IQ of 120. However, that would indicate that for a majority of people (91%) IQ is correlated to income.
    The first paragraph didn't lean towards a strong correlation but a moderate one, and one that only needs to surpass a certain level for it to become in effect.

    Explain how, you're going to have to support your accusations and claims.

    You also seem to be neglecting rationality in the face of what is apparent, which could well be argued to be only ostensibly so. Don't formulate your stances solely on facts and statistics; think outside the box. You haven't responded to the assertions that preference could easily influence correlations, that character traits could well prove more attractive to high-salary jobs etc.

  3. #113
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by BeardedAgam View Post
    Extraversion and openness is not related in the five factor model. Openness in the five factor model is about imagination, insight and intellectual curiousity while Extraversion is about getting energy from being around people and high energy level among others. I can't argue with the fact that there is brilliant people among NTs, but I don't think they make up a majority, but that goes for any type. But the thing that makes me, even as an NT myself doubt the brilliant NT stereotype is selection bias, confirmation bias and the fact that different people have different priorities regardless of intelligence level. This example is only anecdotal, but I have two ESFJ friends, and both always had far higher grades than I ever had(but I was also a lazy motherfucker). One of them is studying to become a doctor and that requires pretty damn high grades. The other one is also studying at a top university. But when it comes to personal stuff me and my ESFJ friends have very different priorities. One of them puts very much energy into their social life, but like you probably already guessed, she is not stupid.
    I don't believe they make up the majority either, but I do believe it is the group most comprising of intellectuals, for want of a clearer expression. I'm meaning that, while the percentage isn't strong enough to compare to all three other dominant-function categories combined, it does rank the highest of them all on singular terms.

    There's general intelligence, and there's academic intelligence, the latter of which in fact isn't as much an intelligence as much as an ability to apply basic principles, until higher educations anyway. It doesn't thrive off intellect as much as it should, but instead on the ability to comprehend and apply fundamentals, which is, though moderately correlative, not to be confused with intelligence in it's purer form, so it doesn't really stimulate the maximum capability of intellect in most.

    I have SF friends who excel academically, but in general are the most irrational and ignorant people I'll accept as friends.

    Agreed. Priorities and preferences have a very important role regarding financial success, regardless of intelligence. It is intelligence, and not necessarily of above-average level, coupled with the most appropriate priorities that are responsible for the mild IQ-income relation, not intelligence in itself.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #114
    Unknown Personality

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyromaniac View Post
    I don't believe they make up the majority either, but I do believe it is the group most comprising of intellectuals, for want of a clearer expression. I'm meaning that, while the percentage isn't strong enough to compare to all three other dominant-function categories combined, it does rank the highest of them all on singular terms.

    There's general intelligence, and there's academic intelligence, the latter of which in fact isn't as much an intelligence as much as an ability to apply basic principles, until higher educations anyway. It doesn't thrive off intellect as much as it should, but instead on the ability to comprehend and apply fundamentals, which is, though moderately correlative, not to be confused with intelligence in it's purer form, so it doesn't really stimulate the maximum capability of intellect in most.

    I have SF friends who excel academically, but in general are the most irrational and ignorant people I'll accept as friends.

    Agreed. Priorities and preferences have a very important role regarding financial success, regardless of intelligence. It is intelligence, and not necessarily of above-average level, coupled with the most appropriate priorities that are responsible for the mild IQ-income relation, not intelligence in itself.
    I agree with it being many intellectuals in our type, and I think it has to do outside of intelligence, it has to with what I mentioned before:Priorities. And I also have question for you. What do you view as intelligence? And what do you think of it's nature? While some SFs are irrational as fuck, I think it's stupid to dismiss an entire type due to its idiots.(I apologize if I'm reading you wrong.)

  6. #115
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Promethea View Post
    Oh my god, rofl.. you can't be serious. I -actually- laughed out loud when I read that.



    I particularly loved this part:


    lolscience? We're talking mbti self-reporting as one of the variables here, and the claim that there is some non-subjective universal way to measure intelligence.

    I'm sure you'll forgive me for saying that this is just bleeding with irony, since its supposed to be a demonstration of that superior nt scientific mind and what it really is, is just someone using excruciatingly bad science to try to support a stereotype that shines favorably on their own self-typing.

    Posting something weak and without substance doesn't support your claim just because you want it to.
    As a numbers guy, im just going to bring up a few things to note here, without -numbers-, talking about correlations is a bit pointless because correlation is a numerical measure of the "spread" of a data set. That is something can positively correlate with 0.1 or 0.9 where 0 is uncorrelated and 1 is perfectly correlated. So things may correlate, but the correlation can be insignificant.

    You don't necessarily need to have unbiased measures if you understand or can estimate the bias. This is a common enough technique In data analysis. For instance you often subtract the mean from a data set to center the data.

    Another point is that correlations between type and IQ are just that -- between type and IQ. Whether one regards IQ as a measure of "intelligence" is besides the point, because proper IQ tests are statistically reliable. It's pretty clear that N correlates to high scores on IQ tests in most of these studies. Anthing inferred beyond that simple statement is suspect.

    Any correlations from type to other correlates of IQ are suspect because the correlations may lie in different directions. For example, type correlates to IQ generally across all populations due most likely to genetics (since type and IQ seem to be features that are not learned) while IQ correlates to income weakly and only in certain populations (it's doubtful smart baseball players earn significantly more than dumb ones).
    Pogona Vitticeps thanked this post.

  7. #116
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by BeardedAgam View Post
    I agree with it being many intellectuals in our type, and I think it has to do outside of intelligence, it has to with what I mentioned before:Priorities. And I also have question for you. What do you view as intelligence? And what do you think of it's nature? While some SFs are irrational as fuck, I think it's stupid to dismiss an entire type due to its idiots.(I apologize if I'm reading you wrong.)
    Intellectuals possess intellect, that wouldn't have anything to do with priorities would it?

    I define intelligence as the ability to acquire and perceive knowledge. Of it's nature, it is a combination of congenital and social/environmental development factors.

    There, you are definitely reading me wrong. As stated earlier, I never justified the stereotype but explained it's prevalence and pointed out it's subjective accuracy in comparison to other types; that, while generalizing the group as unintelligent would be inaccurate, it does appear they are not as cerebral (being the polar opposite of NTs) as other categories, and I appropriate them to more action-orientated aspects, such as ambition.
    To summarize, it's not that they're stupid, but more that they're not as intelligent or capable and suitable of being so, which doesn't imply a LACK of intelligence as many have misconstrued.
    Pogona Vitticeps thanked this post.

  8. #117
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    I'm going to make another general point. As an academic, I can state something I've observed too many times (among both researchers and students) for it to be less than a trend. It's my observation of a decade of teaching university mathematics classes, so take it as you will.

    The students who get the best grades are usually -not- the most intelligent in the class, where I view intelligence as the ability to say something interesting or ask insightful questions. The students who get the best grades are the ones who follow the rules. That's exactly why they score well on tests, because they do everything expected of them and follow the proper study procedures. It's also why they're less intellectually interesting because they never pause to consider that the rules may be wrong.

    But this is what makes the difference between pragmatic and theoretical types, from my observation. And at this point in time the pragmatic types rule the science academic roost.
    Aquamarine and Pogona Vitticeps thanked this post.

  9. #118
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyromaniac View Post
    .
    To summarize, it's not that they're stupid, but more that they're not as intelligent or capable and suitable of being so, which doesn't imply a LACK of intelligence as many have misconstrued.
    Indeed. People forget that NTs make up only 5-10% of the population. It's not quite proper to call something a deficit if a majority of the species by definition lacks it. It's more proper to say NTs have as a group superior IQ, but this terminology is exactly what pisses people off.

    Note: No one ever seems to have a problem admitting that Fs, as a group, have superior empathy or S as a group have superior athleticism. I suspect this is because lack of empathy can be spun positively (a badass), and lack of athleticism can be ignored in a world of obesity and desk jobs. If someone is born short and uncoordinated, we don't automatically see it as a disadvantage they can't play basketball. But you can't fix stupid, as the saying goes.
    Pyromaniac thanked this post.

  10. #119
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by azdahak View Post
    Indeed. People forget that NTs make up only 5-10% of the population. It's not quite proper to call something a deficit if a majority of the species by definition lacks it. It's more proper to say NTs have as a group superior IQ, but this terminology is exactly what pisses people off.
    Exactly, but even then I'm not stating that they lack it, just that they don't generally compare better to NTs, and I've had two or three people take to mean that I asserted all SFs were stupid. Guess you can't please everyone.
    But for my knowledge, doesn't the majority lacking something render that something a deficit?

    Note: No one ever seems to have a problem admitting that Fs, as a group, have superior empathy or S as a group have superior athleticism. I suspect this is because lack of empathy can be spun positively (a badass), and lack of athleticism can be ignored in a world of obesity and desk jobs. If someone is born short and uncoordinated, we don't automatically see it as a disadvantage they can't play basketball. But you can't fix stupid, as the saying goes.
    Absolutely. When qualities are attributed, and reasonably so, to function groupings in general, you don't see other types throwing a tantrum and showing such oversensitization to wording. It's as much a truism that intuitive thinkers will tend to be more cerebral and intellectual, as that sensing feelers will be more pragmatic and practical.
    azdahak thanked this post.

  11. #120
    Unknown Personality


    Quote Originally Posted by azdahak View Post
    Another point is that correlations between type and IQ are just that -- between type and IQ. Whether one regards IQ as a measure of "intelligence" is besides the point, because proper IQ tests are statistically reliable. It's pretty clear that N correlates to high scores on IQ tests in most of these studies. Anthing inferred beyond that simple statement is suspect.
    *Self-reported "n" (who knows what their types actually are) correlates (at some percentage - by no means all) with higher IQ (which many will agree is not a good measure of intelligence, one reason I can think of offhand - cultural biases in iq tests) is a more accurate way to put it, which actually ends up meaning nothing other than: "some people who claim they're intuitives score higher on IQ tests."

    I think whats actually going on there, is not that intuitives are inherently smarter, rather theres a more simple explanation in the way people misunderstand mbti - particularly the stereotype of intuitive = intelligent. I think that intelligent people are more likely to self-type as intuitive types. I see it in mbti culture all the time; its even fed by peers "you're too smart to be an s" so they default to n.

    If mbti type was something that people could accurately figure out on their own, I would be more inclined to agree that intuitives tend to score higher on iq tests. I still wouldn't say that iq is an accurate measure of intelligence however.

    And all I'm going to see in these studies is bad science.

    Quote Originally Posted by azdahak View Post
    People forget that NTs make up only 5-10% of the population.
    Most of the population doesn't know what their mbti type is, because the instrument is typically only found in certain internet cultures, and widely used in many corporations. Then, people report wrong, or test wrong (many people are not good self-observers, and many will answer the questions as an idealized version of self.) No decent typology statistics actually exist, to show what percentage of each type is in the population because its only pulling from places where the instrument is used, and not always using an accurate measure. Its a mess, basically. The numbers mean nothing.
    mimesis and petitpèlerin thanked this post.


     
Page 12 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] Getting Along With ESFJs
    By scarlett.page in forum ISTJ Forum - The Duty Fulfillers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-07-2016, 02:06 PM
  2. Stupid Question/Stupid Answer Thread
    By ShadowPlay in forum General Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-07-2011, 03:54 AM
  3. Being stupid about feeling stupid.
    By Radiant Flux in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-28-2010, 11:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0