I fucking love this thread! Thank you! If I would've typed this, i probably would've ended up getting really inappropriate, because I just think the stereotypes and stereotypists are soo retarded. It makes me so angry from personal experience to even get into this crap. You made brilliant points! I don't think stereotypes are funny either. They reek of people having nasty inferiority complexes that they're hiding, imo. The stereotypes are absolutely boring since they aren't real. I think yes, either people are weak-minded and see them as real, or people are just wacked and egotistical around here.
Fed Up
First of all, I think every person who wants to discuss MBTI should read this to start with (http://www.famoustype.com/functions.htm), and attempt to understand all eight functions. Since we each have all of the functions within us, and self-understanding is the true purpose of MBTI, each person owes it to him/herself to grapple with the material.
Oh, and fuck David Keirsey's temperaments, btw.
Some definitions.
If one does not own up to a particular function, that is a "functional inadequacy."
If one does not own up to particular traits one desires, gender roles, certain intelligences, social cohesion, etc. that is a "perceived personal inadequacy."
--
To sum up perceived personal inadequacies across different aggregated groups, that is the 16 different types, is absurd, even if anecdotally many people report similar experiences. Even if one person dubs his own perception of an inadequacy as valid (and that's a huge if), individual's perceptions cannot be added together. Life isn't an algebra equation. Yes, we can add abstract variables, but can we really aggregate experience? I don't think so. We also have a slew of questions relating to the nature of inadequacy. Who defines it and how did such a notion evolve? Such questions give even more reason to be skeptical of stereotypes.
This is what a stereotype is: an overly simplified anecdotal account of aggregated experience, in this case dealing with T/F and S/N dichotomies. Note that the stereotype is completely subject to the experience of those who create it. It has no basis in an objective context. It is subjective experience, passed on as objective knowledge.
--
One can speak of a function being underdeveloped, as this is simply a matter of time and effort. A functional inadequacy has no real stereotypes associated with it, since it is very true that an underdeveloped function will work badly. If one believes in personality theory, such an assertion is not invalid. However, perceived personal inadequacies are completely subjective. One chooses to believe them, though many people find these 'inadequacies' foisted upon themselves. These people do not choose to reject them. Such a task is difficult when one is weak in conviction and smothered by stereotypes. I aim to remove the pillow.
Additionally, the sample is skewed to our first world culture, and is subject to the whims of those reporting said experiences. That is, stereotypes are based in a limited world view. Envision a select group of people passing around notes in a classroom, iterating the same thing over and over in ever repetitive patterns. That's the kind of situation we have concerning MBTI stereotypes.
In other words, stereotypes only contain a grain of truth in that certain people view reality in that stereotypical way based on their experience. They are not objective, nor are they valid.
Enough of the abstract, which may or may not be cohesive at this point.
This forum is LOUSY with MBTI stereotypes. So much so, that the constant influx of stupidity has caused me personal anguish. I understand. It is a process. New people come to learn and, potentially, leave here with an enlightened attitude. But I am too optimistic with that statement... the constant flow of stereotypes, many times repeated by otherwise intelligent people, has motivated me to action.
I am going to correct you, fledgling stereotype user. I am going to jumpstart your education, I am going to bewilder your protocol. Don't ask for corroboration. Find it yourself.
Now:
1. Men can be feeling dominant. Feeling men are not necessarily weak and feminine. Judging by feeling is not a feminine process. Moreover, how does a process become feminine, asides from the single clear feminine process?
Get that out of your head.
If you are a pussy, you are one due to your raising, and not due to your propensity to feel. Don't blame your personality type for your shortcomings. Don't wish you were something else. It won't happen.
Further, feeling men are not shot out of luck with women because of their method of judgment. They are shot out of luck for an infinite number of other reasons, not necessarily exclusive to any particular category of men. Again, don't blame something nonreal, a stereotype, for your very real problems.
2. Feeling is a valid judgment process. Feeling is of the cognizant mind. It is logical, so long as emotion does not cloud one's sight. It is distinct from thinking judgment in process, but the end goal is the same.
Emotion is of the body, non-cognizant, designed to steer one away from death. Do not conflate feeling judgment and emotional reaction.
Emotions & Feeling MBTI Personality Type
3. Intuitives are not wholly smarter or better than sensors for any objective reason. This is not to say that different functions may not generally excel at different tasks (note the benign generalization). The tendency to praise intuitives, and to type oneself as intuitive, is absolutely prevalent here and elsewhere. However, intelligence is a category separate from personality. If one has a preference for intuitive company, then make no attempt to objectify that preference. That would be dishonest.
4. David Keirsey's temperaments are mostly stereotypes and are destructive because his observations are taken as fact by many people. Each function will shape the personality of its holder, but functions do not dictate behavior. The means to action lies within the self. You can be whatever you allow yourself to be, whatever you want. You can act as you like, breaking all expectations of mannerism.
I ask for serious contributions/refutations/debates/discussion to this list/thread. I have missed many stereotypes, as I have only felt the brunt of a certain few stereotypes myself. Stereotypes not only clutter the forum, but they are destructive to impressionable minds. Under the guise of illusion is no way to live life... let there be light, bitches.
Lastly, a quick note on stereotypes and humor... while this is more applicable to other subjects which are stereotyped, it applies here as well. Stereotypes just aren't funny, in my opinion. Maybe its just my bad experience with them, but I don't see the sense in making half-assed assertions about each other, laughing in our ignorance, and then feeling upset when the card is turned around onto us. Also, as one's ignorance melts away... stereotypes lose their humor I find. Once one sees the NONREALITY behind them, I just don't get how they can remain funny. That leads me to think that most people do not see the nonreality in them and view stereotypes as very real on some level. That is a very serious detriment to society, and the self, one which should be dismantled posthaste.
Oh, and fuck David Keirsey's temperaments, btw.
Some definitions.
If one does not own up to a particular function, that is a "functional inadequacy."
If one does not own up to particular traits one desires, gender roles, certain intelligences, social cohesion, etc. that is a "perceived personal inadequacy."
--
To sum up perceived personal inadequacies across different aggregated groups, that is the 16 different types, is absurd, even if anecdotally many people report similar experiences. Even if one person dubs his own perception of an inadequacy as valid (and that's a huge if), individual's perceptions cannot be added together. Life isn't an algebra equation. Yes, we can add abstract variables, but can we really aggregate experience? I don't think so. We also have a slew of questions relating to the nature of inadequacy. Who defines it and how did such a notion evolve? Such questions give even more reason to be skeptical of stereotypes.
This is what a stereotype is: an overly simplified anecdotal account of aggregated experience, in this case dealing with T/F and S/N dichotomies. Note that the stereotype is completely subject to the experience of those who create it. It has no basis in an objective context. It is subjective experience, passed on as objective knowledge.
--
One can speak of a function being underdeveloped, as this is simply a matter of time and effort. A functional inadequacy has no real stereotypes associated with it, since it is very true that an underdeveloped function will work badly. If one believes in personality theory, such an assertion is not invalid. However, perceived personal inadequacies are completely subjective. One chooses to believe them, though many people find these 'inadequacies' foisted upon themselves. These people do not choose to reject them. Such a task is difficult when one is weak in conviction and smothered by stereotypes. I aim to remove the pillow.
Additionally, the sample is skewed to our first world culture, and is subject to the whims of those reporting said experiences. That is, stereotypes are based in a limited world view. Envision a select group of people passing around notes in a classroom, iterating the same thing over and over in ever repetitive patterns. That's the kind of situation we have concerning MBTI stereotypes.
In other words, stereotypes only contain a grain of truth in that certain people view reality in that stereotypical way based on their experience. They are not objective, nor are they valid.
Enough of the abstract, which may or may not be cohesive at this point.
This forum is LOUSY with MBTI stereotypes. So much so, that the constant influx of stupidity has caused me personal anguish. I understand. It is a process. New people come to learn and, potentially, leave here with an enlightened attitude. But I am too optimistic with that statement... the constant flow of stereotypes, many times repeated by otherwise intelligent people, has motivated me to action.
I am going to correct you, fledgling stereotype user. I am going to jumpstart your education, I am going to bewilder your protocol. Don't ask for corroboration. Find it yourself.
Now:
1. Men can be feeling dominant. Feeling men are not necessarily weak and feminine. Judging by feeling is not a feminine process. Moreover, how does a process become feminine, asides from the single clear feminine process?
Get that out of your head.
If you are a pussy, you are one due to your raising, and not due to your propensity to feel. Don't blame your personality type for your shortcomings. Don't wish you were something else. It won't happen.
Further, feeling men are not shot out of luck with women because of their method of judgment. They are shot out of luck for an infinite number of other reasons, not necessarily exclusive to any particular category of men. Again, don't blame something nonreal, a stereotype, for your very real problems.
2. Feeling is a valid judgment process. Feeling is of the cognizant mind. It is logical, so long as emotion does not cloud one's sight. It is distinct from thinking judgment in process, but the end goal is the same.
Emotion is of the body, non-cognizant, designed to steer one away from death. Do not conflate feeling judgment and emotional reaction.
Emotions & Feeling MBTI Personality Type
3. Intuitives are not wholly smarter or better than sensors for any objective reason. This is not to say that different functions may not generally excel at different tasks (note the benign generalization). The tendency to praise intuitives, and to type oneself as intuitive, is absolutely prevalent here and elsewhere. However, intelligence is a category separate from personality. If one has a preference for intuitive company, then make no attempt to objectify that preference. That would be dishonest.
4. David Keirsey's temperaments are mostly stereotypes and are destructive because his observations are taken as fact by many people. Each function will shape the personality of its holder, but functions do not dictate behavior. The means to action lies within the self. You can be whatever you allow yourself to be, whatever you want. You can act as you like, breaking all expectations of mannerism.
I ask for serious contributions/refutations/debates/discussion to this list/thread. I have missed many stereotypes, as I have only felt the brunt of a certain few stereotypes myself. Stereotypes not only clutter the forum, but they are destructive to impressionable minds. Under the guise of illusion is no way to live life... let there be light, bitches.
Lastly, a quick note on stereotypes and humor... while this is more applicable to other subjects which are stereotyped, it applies here as well. Stereotypes just aren't funny, in my opinion. Maybe its just my bad experience with them, but I don't see the sense in making half-assed assertions about each other, laughing in our ignorance, and then feeling upset when the card is turned around onto us. Also, as one's ignorance melts away... stereotypes lose their humor I find. Once one sees the NONREALITY behind them, I just don't get how they can remain funny. That leads me to think that most people do not see the nonreality in them and view stereotypes as very real on some level. That is a very serious detriment to society, and the self, one which should be dismantled posthaste.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Thank you. I hope this gets stickied. ^^
I'm fed up too. The stereotypes here are insane. Ever been to the ESFJ forum? It's incredibly annoying. This sounds a bit emotional, but I simply do not understand how somebody can limit and prejudice against a certain type in that way. Because you are a Sensor, you are more likely to be less intelligent. Because you are a Sensor, you are more likely to be hands-on (which is odd, because the hands-on learners, the kinesthetic learners, are only 5% of the population X_x). Because you use Fe, you go along with the masses. Because you use Se, you don't care about the future. Because you're an Intuitive, you're probably lost in your head 80% of the time. Because you're an Intuitive, you have a higher IQ. Becuase you're an Intuitive (or NF), you're misunderstood.
Stereotypes are so limiting. You are actually slicing away at somebody's individuality. In reality, cognitive functions don't limit you. Sure, we have functions that are "underdeveloped" that we don't use as much as others. However, that doesn't limit us. Type doesn't limit you. It doesn't say you aren't or are intelligent. It doesn't tell you your interests. It doesn't tell you how you behave. It doesn't tell you who you will and who you won't get along with. It will not tell you what decisions you make. It can help show you how you perceive things and how you weigh decision. And that isn't limiting.
I've heard people point blank say the biggest difference in intelligence is intuitive>sensor. Where do people get these ideas? >.<
I'm fed up too. The stereotypes here are insane. Ever been to the ESFJ forum? It's incredibly annoying. This sounds a bit emotional, but I simply do not understand how somebody can limit and prejudice against a certain type in that way. Because you are a Sensor, you are more likely to be less intelligent. Because you are a Sensor, you are more likely to be hands-on (which is odd, because the hands-on learners, the kinesthetic learners, are only 5% of the population X_x). Because you use Fe, you go along with the masses. Because you use Se, you don't care about the future. Because you're an Intuitive, you're probably lost in your head 80% of the time. Because you're an Intuitive, you have a higher IQ. Becuase you're an Intuitive (or NF), you're misunderstood.
Stereotypes are so limiting. You are actually slicing away at somebody's individuality. In reality, cognitive functions don't limit you. Sure, we have functions that are "underdeveloped" that we don't use as much as others. However, that doesn't limit us. Type doesn't limit you. It doesn't say you aren't or are intelligent. It doesn't tell you your interests. It doesn't tell you how you behave. It doesn't tell you who you will and who you won't get along with. It will not tell you what decisions you make. It can help show you how you perceive things and how you weigh decision. And that isn't limiting.
I've heard people point blank say the biggest difference in intelligence is intuitive>sensor. Where do people get these ideas? >.<
I have a feeling that there are some idiots around here who actually get emotionally attached to the stereotypes (I've seen some people get defensive of preserving the "ESFJs are idiotic emotionally manipulative sheep" stereotypes in the ESFJ forum - it was one of the most insane things I've seen here!). There are a ton of people who literally make up information based on nothing but intuitive impressions - I sure hope to god that these people don't actually do the same thing when it comes to getting an education in general - especially in sociology classes.
I think that is partially because they've got a stereotype they think explains themselves, and it is one they like in some way or another. They also love how it pins down the people they don't like. In other words, it gives them excuses. And I don't think this is done intentionally. As humans, we can do this quite unconsciously.I have a feeling that there are some idiots around here who actually get emotionally attached to the stereotypes (I've seen some people get defensive of preserving the "ESFJs are idiotic emotionally manipulative sheep" stereotypes in the ESFJ forum - it was one of the most insane things I've seen here!). There are a ton of people who literally make up information based on nothing but intuitive impressions - I sure hope to god that these people don't actually do the same thing when it comes to getting an education in general - especially in sociology classes.
@Julia Bell
Yeah, I bet that's part of it. I still find it scary that these people go by prejudice rather than genuine curiosity to figure out their type - I mean, inferior function projection is one thing, but slandering is totally another ordeal - such a topic can make an interesting sociological study, come to think of it (it reminds me of this interesting analysis of Nazi mentality I read for my English class this year).
Yeah, I bet that's part of it. I still find it scary that these people go by prejudice rather than genuine curiosity to figure out their type - I mean, inferior function projection is one thing, but slandering is totally another ordeal - such a topic can make an interesting sociological study, come to think of it (it reminds me of this interesting analysis of Nazi mentality I read for my English class this year).
@JungyesMBTIno - I have been wondering the same thing... Why don't people see that they are actually slandering a certain type? It would make an interesting sociological study... that's something I've been thinking about recently. It has to do with how people see themselves and how they see other people. Which basically equates to how people want to see themselves and how they want to see other people. The Speshul Misunderstood Snowflake is the biggest of all of these. What people forget is that we're all "Speshul Snowflakes", actually. The hardest part is actually seeing somebody else as somebody just as "misunderstood" at times, just as "equal" and just as "special" as you are. We don't really like to accept that. But after you do, you begin to really appreciate the differences between people.
lol... i just love seeing people act outside of their stereotypes (you know, being fully human). then it actually is fun to lightly tease them--like an INTJ who got really amped up and started cursing in good humor... made my day, lol.
I think my thoughts on this issue run in a similar way, good thread.
I have also noticed a terrible propensity for convoluted denial when a person wishes to call another person out over their stereotypes. It is true that many people too often cry 'generalisation' and 'stereotype' in this so called modern age towards someone who did not intend or was misunderstood in his or her explanation.
However, there are a far greater number of people who freely engage in such things and while they are completely entitled to do so as human beings, so too are other people just as entitled to disagree and point out the flaw in the reasoning.
Ive met many a person on forums concerning personality theory, who, upon exposing their bias, suddenly hides behind large walls of text, (which unfortunately I feel obliged to read in my boring way), only for me to discover after a long moment of consideration and pondering on what was written....that it is little more than a shallow justification for such a bias.
Of course telling these apart from each other is annoyingly subjective. Although I see this as part of the effort we have to make.
I have also noticed a terrible propensity for convoluted denial when a person wishes to call another person out over their stereotypes. It is true that many people too often cry 'generalisation' and 'stereotype' in this so called modern age towards someone who did not intend or was misunderstood in his or her explanation.
However, there are a far greater number of people who freely engage in such things and while they are completely entitled to do so as human beings, so too are other people just as entitled to disagree and point out the flaw in the reasoning.
Ive met many a person on forums concerning personality theory, who, upon exposing their bias, suddenly hides behind large walls of text, (which unfortunately I feel obliged to read in my boring way), only for me to discover after a long moment of consideration and pondering on what was written....that it is little more than a shallow justification for such a bias.
Of course telling these apart from each other is annoyingly subjective. Although I see this as part of the effort we have to make.
Here's some stereotypes I really want to crush.
Sensors are NOT:
Unimaginative
Uncreative
Unthoughtful
Shallow
Totally grounded to reality
And a major one that always gets on my nerves... daydreaming & being lost in thought is NOT exclusive to intuitives!
Si is not about tradition and enforcing rules. It's simply projecting your own image of reality, into reality. Si's perception of what's real = real.
SJs are not evil people who wish to destroy your dreams and ideals.
Thinkers are not all unemotional jerks who have no concept of feelings or desire.
That's all I can think of right now... but I'm sure I'll think of some more later.
Sensors are NOT:
Unimaginative
Uncreative
Unthoughtful
Shallow
Totally grounded to reality
And a major one that always gets on my nerves... daydreaming & being lost in thought is NOT exclusive to intuitives!
Si is not about tradition and enforcing rules. It's simply projecting your own image of reality, into reality. Si's perception of what's real = real.
SJs are not evil people who wish to destroy your dreams and ideals.
Thinkers are not all unemotional jerks who have no concept of feelings or desire.
That's all I can think of right now... but I'm sure I'll think of some more later.
I try to keep an open mind. People have the capacity to change so why define yourself as something, or keep yourself inside a box? I can definitely see personality characteristics of certain personality types but were all changing and evolving. I don't hold too much stock in a single definition or someone else's definition of who I am. I know who I am and I know you are whoever you choose to be. Although, I don't think many people on here believe they are capable of change or they define themselves or me a certain way. Oh well, they will figure it out on their own when it comes time.
The forums are still fun, none the less. Maybe I haven't been here long enough to quite feel passionate about what other's view me as but it is a nice break from my Facebook addiction.
The forums are still fun, none the less. Maybe I haven't been here long enough to quite feel passionate about what other's view me as but it is a nice break from my Facebook addiction.
Yessss!!! The feelers are finally starting to believe that we thinkers are human. :laughing:Thinkers are not all unemotional jerks who have no concept of feelings or desire.
Nice, albeit wasted effort.
Such is life, move on, nothing to see here.
MBTI and Keirsey are dumped down enough for most people to grasp, thus there's no reason for majority to go any further than that.
Such is life, move on, nothing to see here.
MBTI and Keirsey are dumped down enough for most people to grasp, thus there's no reason for majority to go any further than that.
Boo you, cynicNice, albeit wasted effort.
Such is life, move on, nothing to see here.
MBTI and Keirsey are dumped down enough for most people to grasp, thus there's no reason for majority to go any further than that.
That falls under 'healthy realism' in my book :laughing:Boo you, cynic
Lol, the post was written mainly for my own peace of mind. I was pretty pissed.That falls under 'healthy realism' in my book :laughing:
But! I think that in order to educate others, you've got to take the first step. And I really have no attachment to the results of my post.
So...
Cynic. ;D
Considering how most people don't seem to care about actually figuring out how there mind works... "healthy realism" seems like a good plan.
The OP is good, though it is important to remember that stereotypes do serve a very important function, providing a general, readily graspable idea that can later be developed and broken apart.
Sadly, that takes effort, and most people don't have the time to break down all the stereotypes in their head. Realistically, if people were completely stripped of the stereotypical generalizations in their heads, society would slow to something of a halt (I think? wild guess here)
The OP is good, though it is important to remember that stereotypes do serve a very important function, providing a general, readily graspable idea that can later be developed and broken apart.
Sadly, that takes effort, and most people don't have the time to break down all the stereotypes in their head. Realistically, if people were completely stripped of the stereotypical generalizations in their heads, society would slow to something of a halt (I think? wild guess here
)
I feel like I wrote this. Same tone and everything.
Ugur Sak of University of Arizona(2004) found that the intuitives are over-represented in the population of gifted adolescents.I've heard people point blank say the biggest difference in intelligence is intuitive>sensor. Where do people get these ideas? >.<
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Personality Cafe
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Pure Violet
1695 Replies
ENTJudgement
949 Replies
WickerDeer
767 Replies
