Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 114 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,444 Posts
Thank you very much for this post. I actually means a lot to me, even if you call me a prig. :))

My political position for most of my life was Liberal Democrat, but reading David Horowitz's Radical Son and The Black Book of Communism cured me of that, but I still remain liberal on most social issues except Identity Politics which can lead to very bloody consequences. i own several guns and have on two occasions had to use one to convince unwanted guests that they should not continue to try to enter my house. Fortunately they saw the light of reason and left. As for my getting aggressive, you are right. Unfortunately for me I tend meet what I perceive coming at me. As it's my perception I realize that I can be wrong. i also think I tend back off as soon as I believe the other person has. My sarcasm can be a little nasty, but it is actually the lesser of two evils. Now you have to explain, in detail please why you think I am a prig. Asshole I will accept as I have actually caught myself in that role but immediately stopped. But prig? I believe that you have my best interests at heart so this may be a chance to see myself as others ...
:kitteh:

It wasn't the intial post. Around these parts, we have a high tolerance for intricately-wrought systems, after all. We could jump on board and riff on it under other circumstances. I think it was:

1. The implied motives behind the system: to divide people further by personality and pigeonhole them politically. There's not enough freedom involved with that, enough access to exploration and saying the opposite of whatever party line they usually tow. So despite being a cool system, that's petting an INTP cat in the wrong direction. Perhaps you didn't intend that, so this will come as a surprise that maybe it was seen as such.

but

2. When people rejected the spirit and/or the letter of your system, your response was generally something along the lines of "you don't read very well." That's a personal attack. Attacking your system is one thing, attacking a poster is just starting a fight. You can explain things without implying people are dumber than you are.

And all of this arises from what I would guess is a desire to be believed. However, if your system works, it exists on its own, independent of anyone's flawed interpretation of it. So maybe don't invest in others' reception of it this way. You don't need them to believe it if it's true. And if it's true, it should be a lot easier to explain how it works without getting testy. That's supposed to be the fun part. Even if the objections are cranky, it still can be fun to figure out where they're coming from: what, exactly, is making people cranky.* And you certainly have the time, since a true system doesn't actually need you to defend it. You just need to keep explaining it rationally. Meanwhile, if you create a hostile environment, you're going to discourage people from adding thoughts that might help you further explore the idea. Not everyone is going to want to take on combat, and those who might demur could have useful ideas you would enjoy thinking about.

Hope that makes sense and helps. It's cool that you were genuinely interested. Many people wouldn't have the self-confidence to explore that.

*Sometimes the answer is they're cranky people. But not always. :th_wink:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,444 Posts
Bad idea. Most of the reasons already covered.

The main issue I find in all of this is how you're assuming that T-F lies on a polarity spectrum, like "hot" vs. "cold". Fact is that people who are smarter at logical assessments (T) generally also have higher emotional intelligence (F) than average, and vice versa. The table chart you get after completing a personality test is completely misguiding in that way. Someone who's "60 % T, 40 % F" doesn't necessarily have "less" T than someone who scores 90-10. In fact, it's more likely that the 60-40 wins both contests
It seems like you have considerable problems with the MBTI itself, but I don't see what I can do about that.
This is actually a great opportunity for exchange. What @HeadofHudet is referring to is the way that MBTI is seen as more of an alchemy of the way the component parts of each type affect one another in such a way that they are really inseparable and unique in combination. I was a poster here for a long while before I saw anyone explain this. It's really cool and makes sense once you get it, and I think it's much more plausible than neat polarities. We're not just shyer ENTPs at all. We understand them, we have a lot in common, but we absolutely fundamentally are not them. We're not INFPs. At all. These are just one letter difference, but because of the way each letter acts on the others, it's an entirely different personality.

So maybe Hudet could offer a link or two to some articles that explained how that works if he gets a moment. There are lots of them on this site, but I don't even know what you'd search for to find them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
This is actually a great opportunity for exchange. What @HeadofHudet is referring to is the way that MBTI is seen as more of an alchemy of the way the component parts of each type affect one another in such a way that they are really inseparable and unique in combination. I was a poster here for a long while before I saw anyone explain this. It's really cool and makes sense once you get it, and I think it's much more plausible than neat polarities. We're not just shyer ENTPs at all. We understand them, we have a lot in common, but we absolutely fundamentally are not them. We're not INFPs. At all. These are just one letter difference, but because of the way each letter acts on the others, it's an entirely different personality.

So maybe Hudet could offer a link or two to some articles that explained how that works if he gets a moment. There are lots of them on this site, but I don't even know what you'd search for to find them.
Correct. I don't have a problem with MBTI as long as it doesn't reach into the rhealm of scientific testaments and general truths that supposedly can be applied to whole populations. It also gives off bad vibes when people use it as a means to simplify large groups just to justify an already existing opinion about them. This only breeds elitism, which is the opposite of what it was intended for. Not only is it ineffective for better understanding, but it's also immoral and cultivates contempt.

MBTI is effective and harmless when it isn't pretentious. It does have insight, even when it's wrong. You just have to realize when that is.

I don't even remember where I read that @Eryngo and you'd have to make some sort of translation to make "T" and "F" make sense in any scientific study out there, but I guess this will have to suffice for now. You shouldn't need much convincing to understand that it's not a single process in your brain that makes up your F/T type of cognitive functioning, though, which means that using a two-dimensional way of measuring that relationship is absolutely a wrong way to go about it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,724 Posts
I find making friends on all sides of the aisles to be the best protection against the coming culture war. For example, because I'm a sheltered optimist, I don't have a gun, but @DarkBarlow does, and he's going to let me live in his basement bunker when the dark days arrive. If I ruled him out because he was betting on Trump, I'd be toast. And if he ruled me out, it would be a long end to the age without access to enough smart people to play complicated board games with while the world burns. We're both INTP, and therefore we can talk about politics without getting mad. So why would we need separate labels, and given the aforementioned plans, why would we want them?
Don't sweat the sheltered optimism...a shotgun, a few pumpkins...I'll have you up to speed in under five minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Thank you very much for continuing to interact with me. I appreciate your candor. As you have told me how others see me and my posts, I would like to opportunity to tell you how I perceived what was happening. Let me begin with the opening two sentences of my original post.

I want to propose an addition to the traditional four letter MBTI type. While this has been good for what it has been used, we need a more precise tool if we want to use the type as a research tool in other disciplines.
I thought that this established that I was interested in creating a more refined research tool to use in other disciplines (like political science, social psychology, etc. No one addressed this or seemed to understand it. This is what lead to my comments about reading ability, as everyone seemed to assume I was talking about individuals or the validity of the MBTI or whatever when I was talking about a tool for assessing aggregates. I think it is an interesting question why so many people though that I was trying to impose on individuals and totally ignored my clearly stated intention. In retrospect I can only assume that they didn't read it in the first place. Initially I assumed that they had but just flew over it without really comprehending what was said.

:kitteh:It wasn't the intial post. Around these parts, we have a high tolerance for intricately-wrought systems, after all. We could jump on board and riff on it under other circumstances. I think it was:

1. The implied motives behind the system: to divide people further by personality and pigeonhole them politically. There's not enough freedom involved with that, enough access to exploration and saying the opposite of whatever party line they usually tow. So despite being a cool system, that's petting an INTP cat in the wrong direction. Perhaps you didn't intend that, so this will come as a surprise that maybe it was seen as such.

but

2. When people rejected the spirit and/or the letter of your system, your response was generally something along the lines of "you don't read very well." That's a personal attack. Attacking your system is one thing, attacking a poster is just starting a fight. You can explain things without implying people are dumber than you are.
Now the first reply to my post. As it was by Nell and you gave it a like, and Nell gave this post a like, I would like for Nell to tell me what she actually intended and for you to tell me why you liked it so I can learn from my mistakes.

I like the idea of added nuance. I think it'd also help if we had our types in bold for those of us who are ass people, and italics for those of us who prefer breasts or pectoral definition.

I also think having an asterisk next to your type if you like plain tea would be very helpful as well, as I could then dismiss those who don't have it as sad degenerates devoid of good sense and save myself whatever time I'd waste trying to engage them in civilized speech.
I did not think it unwarranted to take this as a personal attack as well as a dismissal of my attempt to expand the usefulness of type as trivial. Why mention "sad degenerates devoid of good sense" in reply to a post about an enhanced research tool if she did not expect me to take a clue. and "save myself whatever time I'd waste trying to engage them
in civilized speech". She was obviously not wasting any time trying to engage me in civilized speech, so this implied I must be one of the sad degenerates she had mentioned. But I let all this ride and replied as if it had been a joke, rather than responding with aggression.

Actually I would rather that you not reply as I don't see that it would help. But I would like for you to ask yourself in your heart if it was truly I who cast the first stone.

Let us return to the status quo ante and treat each other with respect, which doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. I hold no animosity toward anyone here and will gladly enter into a civil conversation with them.

I still have one question. Why a prig? :))
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,724 Posts
I have a trusty Model 12 which agrees with you. :))
Heh. I put a laser sight on my Mossberg. My dad saw it and had to opine. (He's good for this on certain topics.)

"Useless. What the hell is the point of that?"

"I figure if the sound of racking in a shell doesn't make a home intruder shit his pants, the red dot on his chest will."

"Huh. Good point."

You think he would have learned by now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,444 Posts
@BlueFrog if you're trying to tell me @Nell can be a right and proper cunt, well...yeah. But that she does so in often disproportionate and hilarious style is why we love her. And sometimes it's even funnier when it's so hard to guess why in the world that particular post set her off.

So I didn't like it because she was rude to you. I liked it because it was funny. Also, "tits or ass" is an old inside joke in the INTP forum. I'm sorry this all seems like an impenetrable clique now. It really isn't.

Stick around, you'll get used to her doomed-Lord-of-the-Flies takes on humanity. That's not about you. Or rather, that's not JUST about you. Nell thinks that about all of us. So you got it right the first time when you played with the joke. Keep that up, and someday she'll shock you with something really sweet. I promise, it's totally worth the wait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
Correct. I don't have a problem with MBTI as long as it doesn't reach into the rhealm of scientific testaments and general truths that supposedly can be applied to whole populations. It also gives off bad vibes when people use it as a means to simplify large groups just to justify an already existing opinion about them. This only breeds elitism, which is the opposite of what it was intended for. Not only is it ineffective for better understanding, but it's also immoral and cultivates contempt.
To the extent that I understand that I have nothing to disagree with. I just don't see where it applies to my post on an extended MBTI typology. Let me explain just what it is that I would like to see and why. If you consider an analogy where the standard MBTI is a 16X lens on a microscope, it gives more information beyond being just a generic human. It gives greater individuality and says nothing about groups except that people with the same type tend to share more characteristics with each other than other types. What I am proposing is adding a 256X lens to be used on the same microscope (standard MBTI instrument or something similar), which I consider to give even greater individuality identity if applied to an individual, which is not my real intent.

I can give a relevant example. Using data over twenty years old which says nothing about individuals. It is a standard Type table with boxes for each type and the percentages of that type which selected either Democrat, Republican or Independent when asked to make a choice. When rearranged as it would be by someone interested in political theory rather than personality, it produced some amazing results. The types are arranged in a column from the one in which the highest percentage choosing Democrat (Liberal) is at the top to the type with the fewest choices for Democrat at the bottom. In the literature N is associated with liberal and S with conservative, but simply looking at the column shows something completely different. Four of the five most liked are indeed Ns, but so are four or the bottom four least likely. It is logically impossible for N to be what differentiates Liberals when it better describes those least likely to make that choice, four out of the four least likely, whereas it is four out of five of the most likely. The column does show what the true discriminator is, and that is F. Eight of the most likely eight are all Fs. All of the least likely types are all T. Every F type has a larger percentage of respondents choosing Liberal than any T type. It cannot get any more clear than that. I have not done anything and have used the data directly from the old Type table of over 3,000 respondents. The type with the least members choosing Liberal is INTP. That is the same type that is most likely to choose Independent. Independent was chosen by 49% of those who tested out INTP. However 17% chose to be Liberals. Here is where 2nd Order Types comes in. For each INTP there are now 256 possibilities so if we distribute the 17% liberals and the 49% independents then I believe we will have significantly different distributions for each, and the differences between the two populations with give us additional information about Liberals and Conservatives, information which already exists if we can recalculate each MBTI type as an MBTI.2 type. What I am proposing is that rather than just having one letter, we now have two. A capital letter for those who test out with more than half of the possible choices for a given letter, and a lower case letter for those with less that that. On the basis of the trend on the F-T I would expect that the majority of INTPs who chose Liberal would be XXtX in the expanded designation, and the Independents would be XNXP. These are empirical questions to which the answers already lie in the twenty year old data if only it could be recalculated. I appoligize for going into such detail but people seem to be reading so much of themselves into what they think I am saying or implying or whatever. This is it. Just what I have covered here. There is no other agenda.

MBTI is effective and harmless when it isn't pretentious. It does have insight, even when it's wrong. You just have to realize when that is.

I don't even remember where I read that @Eryngo and you'd have to make some sort of translation to make "T" and "F" make sense in any scientific study out there, but I guess this will have to suffice for now. You shouldn't need much convincing to understand that it's not a single process in your brain that makes up your F/T type of cognitive functioning, though, which means that using a two-dimensional way of measuring that relationship is absolutely a wrong way to go about it.
Thank you for the link. I found the article very interesting as I have an interest in popular neuroscience articles and books. As I read the article it is about general intelligence and emotional intelligence. If you look at the MBTI manual, specially some of the charts and graphs, a case can be made that the real correlation is not between T and general intelligence but N. I personally incline to this position. I have a manual and if I can get a proper scan I will post it for you and we can discuss it. Unfortunately so many of the data sets discussed in the manual are rather small.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,549 Posts
Thank you very much for continuing to interact with me. I appreciate your candor. As you have told me how others see me and my posts, I would like to opportunity to tell you how I perceived what was happening. Let me begin with the opening two sentences of my original post.



I thought that this established that I was interested in creating a more refined research tool to use in other disciplines (like political science, social psychology, etc. No one addressed this or seemed to understand it. This is what lead to my comments about reading ability, as everyone seemed to assume I was talking about individuals or the validity of the MBTI or whatever when I was talking about a tool for assessing aggregates. I think it is an interesting question why so many people though that I was trying to impose on individuals and totally ignored my clearly stated intention. In retrospect I can only assume that they didn't read it in the first place. Initially I assumed that they had but just flew over it without really comprehending what was said.



Now the first reply to my post. As it was by Nell and you gave it a like, and Nell gave this post a like, I would like for Nell to tell me what she actually intended and for you to tell me why you liked it so I can learn from my mistakes.



I did not think it unwarranted to take this as a personal attack as well as a dismissal of my attempt to expand the usefulness of type as trivial. Why mention "sad degenerates devoid of good sense" in reply to a post about an enhanced research tool if she did not expect me to take a clue. and "save myself whatever time I'd waste trying to engage them
in civilized speech". She was obviously not wasting any time trying to engage me in civilized speech, so this implied I must be one of the sad degenerates she had mentioned. But I let all this ride and replied as if it had been a joke, rather than responding with aggression.

Actually I would rather that you not reply as I don't see that it would help. But I would like for you to ask yourself in your heart if it was truly I who cast the first stone.

Let us return to the status quo ante and treat each other with respect, which doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. I hold no animosity toward anyone here and will gladly enter into a civil conversation with them.

I still have one question. Why a prig? :))
So, basically you got triggered by a facetious hyperbole over tea preferences? Or am I the one having reading comprehension problems again?

Also, your behaviour is essentially an elaborate variant of "But she started it" .You're focusing so hard on how things are said that you're missing what is said. I asked you some pretty neutral questions, you kept focusing on being butthurt. Let's try again.

Your idea is basically a thinly veiled attempt at facilitating socially sanctioned discrimination on artificial bases that have nothing to do with merit. And before you give me crap about not understanding your intent, the thread title basically says it all "Finer discrimination", which basically indicates you either have no idea how to use MBTI constructively or actually approve of the mainstream misuse of it.

Now, let me explain my "French" statement that you couldn't parse because (I suspect) you are relatively new to MBTI.

Mainstream use of MBTI has the unfortunate side effect of making people band into stupid little type cliques, of facilitating stereotyping and artificial excuses to alienate people and make incorrect assumptions based on type (Sensors are stupid, feelers are hysterical, thinkers are psychopaths, perceivers are airheads, judgers are taskmasters, intuitives are nutcases). This community shows it in spades, which is why the SFJ forums are basically ghost towns. People say the dichotomies are actually spectra, yet they aren't treated as such and the nomenclature doesn't help. And here you are looking to add a political component to a type indicator that is already clumsy and full of holes, conflicting interpretations and contradictions. It's not an improvement, it's a detriment.

The terms liberal, conservative and independent are kind of hazy and nuance changes depending on where you live, and what time you live in. In some places they don't matter at all . Independent in particular is not a spectrum at all and flattens a crapload of possibilities into one llittle label, including people who simply don't know or care about politics. It flattens personality nuances, it doesn't measure merit, it doesn't measure integrity. You'd be left reliant on aged statistical studies (because this sort of stuff would take ages to become publicized, plus all kinds of things can go wrong with statistical studies) to make decisions based on precedent and that in itself is another layer of vulnerabilities for a shitload of reasons that would take me hours to type.

Then you tell me you want to use this to actually screen for jobs. Nevermind MBTI, why does political alignment matter for this? You're talking about abandoning this if it is abused, but the whole point of this is discrimination on the basis of arbitrary criteria that don't measure merit or integrity, it's a tool to facilitate corruption as it is! You'd be so reliant on statistical studies, which can be compromised and key criteria can be overlooked easily depending on who's paying to conduct them, that the tool would have little value as anything other than a source of artificial, conveniently vague, not-yet-illegal criteria to segregate others.

To be frank, I thought this was a troll thread at the beginning which is why I responded as I did. I truly didn't think anyone would suggest this stuff sincerely. My bad I guess?


@BlueFrog if you're trying to tell me @Nell can be a right and proper cunt, well...yeah. But that she does so in often disproportionate and hilarious style is why we love her. And sometimes it's even funnier when it's so hard to guess why in the world that particular post set her off.

So I didn't like it because she was rude to you. I liked it because it was funny. Also, "tits or ass" is an old inside joke in the INTP forum. I'm sorry this all seems like an impenetrable clique now. It really isn't.

Stick around, you'll get used to her doomed-Lord-of-the-Flies takes on humanity. That's not about you. Or rather, that's not JUST about you. Nell thinks that about all of us. So you got it right the first time when you played with the joke. Keep that up, and someday she'll shock you with something really sweet. I promise, it's totally worth the wait.
I prefer the term playful misanthropist, but cunt will do. It's pithy.
And yes I do try to be comedic when I am annoyed by something. Might as well make it worth the read to hear me gripe.

Also no, this topic's just dumb. It's mgtow level dumb. The fact I have to deconstruct why it's dumb is depressing tbh


Also, I have it on good word that @kaleidoscope is freshly single again, so maybe it's time for a new maple tree to shade her?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
You know, I tried to find that fossil of a thread in Spam World but the search kept malfunctioning.

Anyway, you can't have both. It was a question of priority: "OR." :redcard:
That sounds like a lack of imagination to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
So, basically you got triggered by a facetious hyperbole over tea preferences?
I see by your social skills that you are also an INTP.

Or am I the one having reading comprehension problems again?
I have been advised not to go there.

Also, your behaviour is essentially an elaborate variant of "But she started it" .
You are absolutely correct, only a stick-in-the-mud pedant would say that just because you were first that you started it.

You're focusing so hard on how things are said that you're missing what is said. I asked you some pretty neutral questions, you kept focusing on being butthurt.
Actually what I focused on was that I ask you for help with getting quotes right in posts and you did nothing, so I did the same.

Let's try again.
I think that is actually some kind of olive branch, and I will gladly accept. You can forget all i said above and i will do the same for you.

Your idea is basically a thinly veiled attempt at facilitating socially sanctioned discrimination on artificial bases that have nothing to do with merit. And before you give me crap about not understanding your intent, the thread title basically says it all "Finer discrimination", which basically indicates you either have no idea how to use MBTI constructively or actually approve of the mainstream misuse of it.
I wrote a detailed explanation of what I was trying to do to @HeadofHudet earlier today. Please read it now as I really don't want to go through it all again as I wouldn't change anything. I was using finer discrimination in the sense of "She can read much better now as her new glasses allow her to discriminate the letters better." As for my familiarity with the MBTI, i was introduced to it by a friend in the late eighties as he found a fairly detailed article in a business magazine and knew I would be interested. I ordered a copy of the 2nd ed. of the MBTI manual and read it as well as several other ccp books. I read a book on it every so often, but I have forgotten a lot. I have a copy of the 3rd ed around here somewhere which I am having trouble finding as I want to share some information with @HeadofHudet. You might find it interesting. Do you think that general intelligence and emotional intelligence are on the T-F axis. I am inclined to say no and the general intelligence is more N than T. You are welcome to join as we have just go barely started.

After you read the @HeadofHudet post edit the remainder of this post, or just copy it if that it what you want, to a new post and i will answer all your questions to the best of my ability. A question of my own: what is penis ouija? Does it have anything to do with the hole in the board?
 
21 - 40 of 114 Posts
Top