Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 81 Posts
I have realized more and more that, in order to better understand this, and to more quickly identify what someone is, I'll have to take a step back and think more about my conversations. I hate doing that. It makes my conversations sound awkward and forced. If it goes on too long, I become so frustrated with Extroversion I introvert. Oh well. Here we go.



Be back with the results...
Keep us posted.
 
For instance, an N might appreciate reading more than a sensor, because it would keep the N mentally occupied. Whereas a sensor might prefer sports, because it keeps him or her physically occupied. Keep in mind, there are S's who like reading, and Ns who like sports. this is just an example.
I wouldn't draw the line at mental/physical. I think Ns would prefer books filled with symbolism and metaphors whereas Ss would prefer reading about more concrete things. I think NTs are prone to reading non-fiction while SPs tend to prefer stuff like fantasy and escapism. STJs probably the typical best-seller crime books. NFs seem to like reading about human nature - especially abuses in foreign cultures or about dystopian worlds. That's what I've noticed in people I know anyway. They all like books though.
 
That's absolutely fair, and I agree. I was thinking of things in terms of the OP's question about spotting whether people are S/N immediately.
I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.
 
I have the prefect video for you. Sorry if someone already posted it.


Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.
 
I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.
Lol. SJs have ordinary eyes......OF COURSE!

I seriously need a break from this forum....

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-Collected-Works-Vol-6/dp/0691018138 while I'm gone, could somebody please check this book out? Sorry if this is spamming but it's for a good cause, the lack of IGNORANCE means less retards and sensor hate. If you don't want to spend money, if you actually like to be right about something, then you can always get a pdf by looking up the book title then added ".pdf" to the end of it. Thank you.
 
I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.
Lol. SJs have ordinary eyes......OF COURSE!

I seriously need a break from this forum....

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-Collected-Works-Vol-6/dp/0691018138 while I'm gone, could somebody please check this book out? Sorry if this is spamming but it's for a good cause, the lack of IGNORANCE means less sensor hate. If you don't want to spend money, if you actually like to be right about something, then you can always get a pdf by looking up the book title then added ".pdf" to the end of it. Thank you.
The eyes don't have it.
 
Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.
Did he mention eyes too? That's funny. I didn't watch the video before posting, and still haven't.
 
Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.
I actually think it's all very valid.
 
The problem is that it is very tempting to utilize the MBTI to predict and ascertain things about people that in reality have very little to do with MBTI.

Like how "sensors like small talk". No. Nobody likes small talk. There is no one waking up in the morning and going "Hot damn, I can't wait to uncomfortably talk to strangers about gas prices and the weather!".

Or, "sensors cannot understand theory". No, they can. If they couldn't understand theory, there wouldn't be any sensors on this site, and there are plenty. Is theory where their minds wonder when they have free time? Maybe, maybe not. When faced with a problem are they going to theorize, speculate, and build castles in the sky? Probably not. It's not what they prefer. But when it's the only option, many of them will do it anyway contrary to their preference because they have the ability.

My preference is to be a sarcastic, wise cracking, slacker, who likes to theorize, speculate, and analyze. But frequently I'm polite, industrious, routinized, and fall back on what's worked before and get shit done. I do this because that's what being a functioning member of society demands of me, and I have the ability to meet those demands, even though they are a far cry from my preference.
 
Even in the small set of each of the confirmed types that I know, none of what he said is true.
I know it to be true, for several N's. I don't think that SJ's do the stare anywhere as bad as he made it seem. However I've started using this more, and then seeing if it correlates after they type themselves. With some variation it seems to hold up pretty well.
 
Ti/Ni makes me theoretical. Se allows me to apply it in a practical way.
 
I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.
Wow. I'm trying to think of a less reliable way of determining this, and I'm only coming up with the first letter of the name of the street that people live on.
 
Wow. I'm trying to think of a less reliable way of determining this, and I'm only coming up with the first letter of the name of the street that people live on.
No need to knock my plan, redman. You would be surprised how many subtle clues you can learn about people from their eyes -- whether they're telling the truth, what they think of you, how much sleep they've had. All I'm suggesting is some of that may work for MBTI too. And who really cares if it's reliable? MBTI is a fun way to categorize people, but when you try to be exact the model starts to fall apart.
 
No need to knock my plan, redman. You would be surprised how many subtle clues you can learn about people from their eyes -- whether they're telling the truth, what they think of you, how much sleep they've had. All I'm suggesting is some of that may work for MBTI too. And who really cares if it's reliable? MBTI is a fun way to categorize people, but when you try to be exact the model starts to fall apart.
Your plan needs knocking. This is a message board after all and we're discussing ideas, which means some ideas are open to criticism. My criticism, incidentally, was not ad hominem.

Some of the brightest people with the "liveliest" eyes I've ever encountered are Sensors. Some of the people with the dullest, heavy-lidded eyes have been N's. I see no pattern there, and I say that as someone who believes that body language can give away hints as to thoughts and emotions.

I agree that MBTI starts to fall apart if you try to be exact. Any system for defining people does. People are non-linear and incredibly (and unpredictably) variable. MBTI is very useful within its limitations, however. I've likened MBTI to a map grid of the human population, with your MBTI type conceptually amounting simply to you being located in grid square B-3, for example.

A two dimensional map grid still leaves a lot of potential variance within each grid square, howeer, and also lacks terrain features, weather, population, and any number of other factors which would add a lot of important map detail.

Likewise, MBTI types are simply bundles of characteristics that people have different combinations (and amounts) of, and moreover don't account for role modeling, mental illness, trauma, drug use, social norms, and any number of other variables that help to define each of us and our temperaments and personalities.
 
I actually think it's all very valid.
Ignore the robot. His argument boils down to "WTF. Dude said A. Now he's at L? Everyone knows B comes after A. This guy is whack." Expect an Si to not see how eyes could have anything to do with something other than eyes.

I actually got criticized a lot growing up for lack of eye contact because my eyes were constantly moving around when talking. People, especially SJs, see that as lack of authenticity. But when I am truly being authentic, my eyes just jump around as my brain goes through thoughts. When I do make full eye contact and do not move my eyes around, it is a controlled process, something I am forcing myself to do because it is expected, to get what I want out of the person.... Essentially for me making eye contact is a sign of deception ;-)
 
Discussion starter · #38 ·
I didn't like that video very much. He seems quite the ENTj (who too often can be cocky against those they think inferior). As for my earlier experiment (for those who know what I am talking about), I spent that night noticing the nuances of the talking trying to label my friend as a type. Later that night I made her take the test. Unfortunately she was pretty borderline on almost ALL of her traits except for extroversion, but I think still, to truly discover which one is which, I need to experience more sensors. In my classes, most people are intuitive types because it is the hardest set of classes, and I know many of these people's thoughts.

Though I have a system for those. I have noticed some people who struggle with the big ideas, especially in seminars. In those cases, I would hazard a guess that they are Sensors, but it is really hard to know. Maybe there are no real definitive easy give-aways, and you just have to know the person pretty well.
 
Ignore the robot. His argument boils down to "WTF. Dude said A. Now he's at L? Everyone knows B comes after A. This guy is whack." Expect an Si to not see how eyes could have anything to do with something other than eyes.
No. "The robot" discovered this theory a while ago and examined and researched it, and determined it was BS. Expect an Si to correct you when he knows you're wrong.

People, especially SJs, see that as lack of authenticity.
I know at least one confirmed SJ whose eyes dart this way.
 
No. "The robot" discovered this theory a while ago and examined and researched it, and determined it was BS. Expect an Si to correct you when he knows you're wrong.
To clarify, I did not mean "robot" in a derogatory sense, but in reference to your avatar.

Determined it was BS on what grounds? That is, you know, the relevant part. Without reference to evidence or an argument, just saying "I concluded it before" may be enough for your own Si categorization but is not enough to convince others.


I know at least one confirmed SJ whose eyes dart this way.
One counterexample does not disprove a trend when it is meant to apply to "most" but not "all" of a group.
 
21 - 40 of 81 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.
Top