Joined
·
999 Posts
OK, so a fact of my human experience is that I do see *some* repeatable, observable, empirical trends in people of various types. I work with a lot of scientists/professors, many of whom are INTJ and, you know, they're all very good at what they do. How do I know some of them are INTJ, you ask? Well, because I have an idea of what Te is, and what Ni is (as described by Jung) and, well, these individuals are observably introverted, they are observably very intuitive, observably very detached and thinkerish, and on and on. I also know a few ESFJ's (mother, brother-in-law, etc.) and the INTJ's at work are, well, extremely different from the ESFJ's I know. So, it's fairly easy to observe the behavior and to have interactions with the scientists at work and to say, "Yeah, he's not an ESFJ like my mom. My mom is very different from that scientist. He's more...........how do I say it............INTJ-ish! Yeah that's it!"
But, here's my question - and I'm honestly curious here. On this website, anytime we say anything like, "Yeah, most INTJ's are scientifically inclined." Or, "Most INTP's aren't attentive to what their mates are feeling." Or, "Most ENTJ's are pretty adept at leading people." Or, "Most xSTP's have a high spatial intelligence"...........these kinds of "stereotypes" (are they really stereotypes?) seem to freak people out. You see people say, "Not all INTJ's are scientifically inclined! That's absurd! How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?" "Not all STP's have spatial intelligence! How shortsighted of you!"
So, if we can't make any kind of categorical observations of the similarities between people of the same type (i.e., if we can't say and be confident in the idea that most INTJ's are scientifically inclined), then well, the simple question that comes to my mind is: Why do we even bother discussing this stuff or visiting this website? I mean, if we can't see any similarities in INTJ's, and we can't make statements like, "Most of the INTJ's I know are scientifically inclined", "most of the STP's I know are spatially/mechanically inclined", then that basically means that all the INTJ's in the world (or all the STP's) have no commonalities - there is no overlapping in personality, tendencies of behavior, etc. If this is the case, then we could then state that INTJ, and the other 15 MBTI types, are totally false. If we can't make any statements at all about INTJ's or INTP's, that are *generally* true, then MBTI is stupid and a waste of time and this ridiculous website should be shut down tomorrow. We're all wasting our time discussing something that has zero merit in reality.
But, the fact is, people *do* see repeatable, observable, empirical trends of people of various types. Heck, I even see *some* similarity, some overlap between myself and other INTP's that I know (some of which have been tested). So as I observe those commonalities between myself and them, that lets me know that there *is* something to this man-created category that has been labeled "INTP". And, oh look, there *actually is* something observable to that category that we call INTJ, and ESTP, and ESFJ, etc, etc.
So, logically (because I'm an INTP! Oops, another stereotype!), we either (a) *can* see some overlap and commonalities between people of the same type (and therefore, INTP is a "valid" category within which we can observe some common, overlapping sets of behaviors/tendencies), or else (b) we *absolutely cannot* see any overlap and commonalities (in which case INTP is not a category at all and people should NEVER be referred to as INTP's ever again because it doesn't exist).
We cannot, in one thread say, "Not all INTJ's are the same! They will all be different and we cannot be so shallow as to group them and not treat them as individuals" and then in another thread, on another day say, "I know 3 INTJ's and they are all scientifically inclined. I definitely think INTJ's have a knack for science."
Yes, I'm talking to YOU! And YOU! And you, and you, and you! You've all done it. I've done it. One day we say, "No, INTJ's are all different. You cannot say that INTJ's are x and ESTP's are y! You just can't!" And then the next day we say, "Yeah, my INTJ friend and my INTJ dad - they're both really good at science. And my INTJ professor from college was too!" "Oh, and both ISTP's that I know are really good at working with their hands." "Oh, my INTP ex-boyfriend was not attentive to my needs and my INTP cousin is the same way!" It either *is* or it *isn't*. Can't be both.
Either INTJ's are all different and MBTI is fake, dumb, lame, and should be taken out with tomorrow's garbage (and we should stop conversing about it)...............or, there really are some observable things about INTJ's and MBTI has some level of legitimacy and we can describe INTJ's in certain ways. Which one is it? It can't be both can it?
What are all of your thoughts, my respected PerC colleagues? The sweet, innocent girl in my avatar is longing to hear your opinions.
But, here's my question - and I'm honestly curious here. On this website, anytime we say anything like, "Yeah, most INTJ's are scientifically inclined." Or, "Most INTP's aren't attentive to what their mates are feeling." Or, "Most ENTJ's are pretty adept at leading people." Or, "Most xSTP's have a high spatial intelligence"...........these kinds of "stereotypes" (are they really stereotypes?) seem to freak people out. You see people say, "Not all INTJ's are scientifically inclined! That's absurd! How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?" "Not all STP's have spatial intelligence! How shortsighted of you!"
So, if we can't make any kind of categorical observations of the similarities between people of the same type (i.e., if we can't say and be confident in the idea that most INTJ's are scientifically inclined), then well, the simple question that comes to my mind is: Why do we even bother discussing this stuff or visiting this website? I mean, if we can't see any similarities in INTJ's, and we can't make statements like, "Most of the INTJ's I know are scientifically inclined", "most of the STP's I know are spatially/mechanically inclined", then that basically means that all the INTJ's in the world (or all the STP's) have no commonalities - there is no overlapping in personality, tendencies of behavior, etc. If this is the case, then we could then state that INTJ, and the other 15 MBTI types, are totally false. If we can't make any statements at all about INTJ's or INTP's, that are *generally* true, then MBTI is stupid and a waste of time and this ridiculous website should be shut down tomorrow. We're all wasting our time discussing something that has zero merit in reality.
But, the fact is, people *do* see repeatable, observable, empirical trends of people of various types. Heck, I even see *some* similarity, some overlap between myself and other INTP's that I know (some of which have been tested). So as I observe those commonalities between myself and them, that lets me know that there *is* something to this man-created category that has been labeled "INTP". And, oh look, there *actually is* something observable to that category that we call INTJ, and ESTP, and ESFJ, etc, etc.
So, logically (because I'm an INTP! Oops, another stereotype!), we either (a) *can* see some overlap and commonalities between people of the same type (and therefore, INTP is a "valid" category within which we can observe some common, overlapping sets of behaviors/tendencies), or else (b) we *absolutely cannot* see any overlap and commonalities (in which case INTP is not a category at all and people should NEVER be referred to as INTP's ever again because it doesn't exist).
We cannot, in one thread say, "Not all INTJ's are the same! They will all be different and we cannot be so shallow as to group them and not treat them as individuals" and then in another thread, on another day say, "I know 3 INTJ's and they are all scientifically inclined. I definitely think INTJ's have a knack for science."
Yes, I'm talking to YOU! And YOU! And you, and you, and you! You've all done it. I've done it. One day we say, "No, INTJ's are all different. You cannot say that INTJ's are x and ESTP's are y! You just can't!" And then the next day we say, "Yeah, my INTJ friend and my INTJ dad - they're both really good at science. And my INTJ professor from college was too!" "Oh, and both ISTP's that I know are really good at working with their hands." "Oh, my INTP ex-boyfriend was not attentive to my needs and my INTP cousin is the same way!" It either *is* or it *isn't*. Can't be both.
Either INTJ's are all different and MBTI is fake, dumb, lame, and should be taken out with tomorrow's garbage (and we should stop conversing about it)...............or, there really are some observable things about INTJ's and MBTI has some level of legitimacy and we can describe INTJ's in certain ways. Which one is it? It can't be both can it?
What are all of your thoughts, my respected PerC colleagues? The sweet, innocent girl in my avatar is longing to hear your opinions.