Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been seeing this pattern of TJ typology bloggers (who are now a majority) trying to explain the differences between Te and Ti. Because the very few TPs bloggers who are still into MBTI only post memes I want to ask:

Here are Te vs Ti posts:

TJs vs TPs and getting onto college
TJs vs TPs and problem solving
TJs vs TPs and general thinking attitude

Do you recognize yourself in the Ti examples provided?

I want to know weather their scenarios are accurate or biased towards their own judging function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
On the schooling thing. Yeap, Te-users do school to get somewhere. I do school to understand something.
I've meet plenty people who thinks and acts like they're "in the know" but they clearly don't understand anything at all. I at least can say "I don't know yet!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashina

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Hi! I relate to the specific school being a step of "How to get to somewhere". As Te user, I did some school just in intent of work in specific companies/field. I trust myself to learn what I need by my own and used school system to develop network and connections to the professional world. I also relate to Te wants to take action right away and will have a quick-and-dirty way to decide what needs to get done on a basic level. I can take time to make a decision if I feel I don't know yet what is the clear outcome of each decision but once I decided I don't evaluate the aspect of each data, I like going straight to the point and sometime can forget some details that I fix on the road, but when I have my general goal I like to put the plan in action pretty quickly, usually they are pretty long therme plan and I usually feel I should not lose time before started if I want to reach my goal before retirement ahah. In general, Tidom are way more patient than Tedom.

Also I notice that Ti like to think on their own and research a lot of data on their own to make the most optimal decision, where most likely Te like to research what is just "needed" and like to debate with targeted people which course of action would be the most likely to work. Thinking out loud and testing their plan with specific people (if Te deeply trust their opinion) to see comment and reaction is also seen as an efficient process of decision making for Te Dom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
I don't like what is being said about Ti in the first article it's not just about logic and certainly not "logical but false". The particularly offensive bit is the mckinsey example that actually tells you more about the speaker than his subject. I'm sure he is wrong because the stuff he said about mckinsey I already know and I don't think people who are smart enough to be interviewed by mckinsey will fail to notice the same at all regardless of their functions and types. It's interesting to see the way he reached his conclusion though.

Also feel like what's being said in second article about Ti is missing the point altogether. I get a feeling a common misconception about Ti is that they don't realize Ti is like drawing the perfect circle the whole exercise is holistic and inward looking (i.e. not radiating towards possibilities all over the place and not separable) and this circle represents everything we understand about this world and we keep drawing with that ideal in mind. Ti only has one model for this world and everything it comes across. The theory of everything? It is not exactly a theory but something comparable to that idea.

Again in the third article the mistake arises from the misunderstanding of the nature of Ti. It's not about subjective and objective logic in the first place and I find it funny because for the sake of discussion lets just pretend and accept it is a fact that for example istp and estp are good with their hands and physical environment and good at sports etc. Is mr entj trying to tell us that beckham (assuming he is tp) is able to curve the ball the way he did is because he leans toward subjective logic when he kicks the ball? Messi (assuming he is tp) is able to dribble the way he did because he is a subjective dumb mfker who routinely fails to take into account the objective facts and reality? What kind of stupid assertion is that? I hope one is able to see the ignorance and insults embedded in the assertions mentioned in this article.
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Thank you for both who replied!

Also I notice that Ti like to think on their own and research a lot of data on their own to make the most optimal decision, where most likely Te like to research what is just "needed" and like to debate with targeted people which course of action would be the most likely to work. Thinking out loud and testing their plan with specific people (if Te deeply trust their opinion) to see comment and reaction is also seen as an efficient process of decision making for Te Dom.
About your method of research: what do you mean by "needed"? Can you please give an example of something you had to research and what you included?

I don't like what is being said about Ti in the first article it's not just about logic and certainly not "logical but false". The particularly offensive bit is the mckinsey example that actually tells you more about the speaker than his subject. I'm sure he is wrong because the stuff he said about mckinsey I already know and I don't think people who are smart enough to be interviewed by mckinsey will fail to notice the same at all regardless of their functions and types. It's interesting to see the way he reached his conclusion though.

Also feel like what's being said in second article about Ti is missing the point altogether. I get a feeling a common misconception about Ti is that they don't realize Ti is like drawing the perfect circle the whole exercise is holistic and inward looking (i.e. not radiating towards possibilities all over the place and not separable) and this circle represents everything we understand about this world and we keep drawing with that ideal in mind. Ti only has one model for this world and everything it comes across. The theory of everything? It is not exactly a theory but something comparable to that idea.

Again in the third article the mistake arises from the misunderstanding of the nature of Ti. It's not about subjective and objective logic in the first place and I find it funny because for the sake of discussion lets just pretend and accept it is a fact that for example istp and estp are good with their hands and physical environment and good at sports etc. Is mr entj trying to tell us that beckham (assuming he is tp) is able to curve the ball the way he did is because he leans toward subjective logic when he kicks the ball? Messi (assuming he is tp) is able to dribble the way he did because he is a subjective dumb mfker who routinely fails to take into account the objective facts and reality? What kind of stupid assertion is that? I hope one is able to see the ignorance and insults embedded in the assertions mentioned in this article.
I opened this thread precisely because for a long time I've seen people basically paint TP as obtuse and impractical, wasting time even in dire situations, and that never sat right with me. No matter how much some of these authors may try to soften the blow by citing ways in which Ti is useful, it's obvious they actually see it as stupid and irrational. What they do is describe Te as perfectly sensible and objective, while Ti is out of touch with reality.

It confused me so much because I never saw myself in those descriptions and always found myself siding with Te in them to the point I thought I had to be a TJ. I believe Fe gets a similar treatment, with TPs being mostly described as amoral assholes who like to use people.

Your second paragraph is interesting because I did think that the theory of everything sounds exactly how dominant Ti is described as.
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Some quotes from another thread about Ti, if anyone would like to comment:

Logical validity =/= logical soundness. Argument will never suffice as evidence for us. Argument only serves to better explain that which is already proven or demonstrated unless a subjective premise is being argued (in which case our Fi seems to step in and argue relativism, or we judge it in such a manner that is reminiscent of cost-benefit analysis.) If you attempt to argue a premise that isn't falsifiable, or attempt to demonstrate that something is true through sheer reasoning and nothing else, you wont be taken seriously by Te.

The main issue is that Ti is never ending. Because it functions as sheer reasoning, there is always a counter argument to be made and that counter is valid so long as it satisfies the premise. As I said however, validity does not equate to soundness, so even if an argument is valid, that doesn't really mean anything to us until we verify it as being true/sound or not. Ti is simply counterproductive to our need for closure. Instead of arguing and arguing and arguing, we'll go outside with test tubes and verify what is being discussed. For whatever reason Ti typically views this sort of thing with disdain (reference something like the philosophy of science which tries to argue that science does not reveal the true 'nature' of 'things.') Inversely, Te views Ti with disdain because it:

1. Doesn't get shit done.
2. Doesn't abide by external, objective standards and is therefore difficult to understand and apply to anything.
3. Does not respond to clear and literal evidence.

We would rather not deal with it because we are more concerned with pragmatism and utilitarianism than ultimate truths anyways.

It does excel at analysis however. Mind you, INTJs and ENTJs use Ni, so we often do not need in depth analysis because we are constantly generating insights and predictions that end up having high rates of accuracy. When I need to understand things in depth however, I like how Ti goes into detail, so long as it's not backed or preceded by Ne, in which case it becomes hard to follow and seems to shoot all over the place.
When two Te users argue, it's not really an argument. They trade evidence and observations and discuss the MEANING and INTERPRETATION of it, as well as the ways in which it could be used.

Ti argues the very essence of such things. Te doesn't care about that so long as it has been empirically verified.
Yet again, Te comes out on top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Thank you for both who replied!



About your method of research: what do you mean by "needed"? Can you please give an example of something you had to research and what you included?



I opened this thread precisely because for a long time I've seen people basically paint TP as obtuse and impractical, wasting time even in dire situations, and that never sat right with me. No matter how much some of these authors may try to soften the blow by citing ways in which Ti is useful, it's obvious they actually see it as stupid and irrational. What they do is describe Te as perfectly sensible and objective, while Ti is out of touch with reality.

It confused me so much because I never saw myself in those descriptions and always found myself siding with Te in them to the point I thought I had to be a TJ. I believe Fe gets a similar treatment, with TPs being mostly described as amoral assholes who like to use people.

Your second paragraph is interesting because I did think that the theory of everything sounds exactly how dominant Ti is described as. I mistyped as ISTP until recently,when it finally hit me that the reason why I thought dominant Ti sounded so abstract and convoluted might not be just because whoever was writing them didn't get it. Some don't, but I can't relate to it simply because my Ti isn't that conscious.

Hi Gamine,

I used "needed" in a way that I read or look up at something until I feel I have enough to jump to a conclusion sometime. And I can sometime feel that I'm jumping to conclusion to fast by reading too quickly something that is consistent with what I think and not going deep enough in detail. Because I have a need to move on and get bored into details. I need data but not always have to patient to go in every corners if it's not something I'm passionate about.

But to be honest even though I though I was Te for a while, I'm still hesitating about my type. I'm sur that I'm type 3w4 which is influencing a lot of the use of my Te or Ti so whatever I learn and research is usually goal oriented, I'm an extrovert and like using my data to achieve something in the outside world. And being an intuitive make most likely to be bored of details. Recently because of my hesitations I even created a thread about me to see how people read my personality, If you ever have time I would be happy to have your point of view too : Personality Cafe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
Im not that familiar with Te and what you said helps me understand more about this function.

Its fine and understandable certain functions do not see eye to eye they are not supposed to. I always remind myself each function has its use and place in this world whether i like it or not.

There really is no point trying to place a higher value in any one particular function. Id just accept the fact we all operate differently and no one is perfect.
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hi Gamine,

I used "needed" in a way that I read or look up at something until I feel I have enough to jump to a conclusion sometime. And I can sometime feel that I'm jumping to conclusion to fast by reading too quickly something that is consistent with what I think and not going deep enough in detail. Because I have a need to move on and get bored into details. I need data but not always have to patient to go in every corners if it's not something I'm passionate about.

But to be honest even though I though I was Te for a while, I'm still hesitating about my type. I'm sur that I'm type 3w4 which is influencing a lot of the use of my Te or Ti so whatever I learn and research is usually goal oriented, I'm an extrovert and like using my data to achieve something in the outside world. And being an intuitive make most likely to be bored of details. Recently because of my hesitations I even created a thread about me to see how people read my personality, If you ever have time I would be happy to have your point of view too : Personality Cafe
I also am not 100% secure in my type because all I can be sure is that I'm an extrovert, a thinker and use Se/Ni and I'm also a 3w4. I keep going back and forth between ESTP and ENTJ because neither fit perfectly. I'll check your thread out and leave some feedback.

Im not that familiar with Te and what you said helps me understand more about this function.

Its fine and understandable certain functions do not see eye to eye they are not supposed to. I always remind myself each function has its use and place in this world whether i like it or not.

There really is no point trying to place a higher value in any one particular function. Id just accept the fact we all operate differently and no one is perfect.
I agree, which is why it's so frustrating that people who write about MBTI feel the need to degrade one function to bring the other up. Not only is a biased approach but also transforms type into a competition.


I think I might give a typing thread another shot later this weekend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,289 Posts
Thank you for both who replied!



About your method of research: what do you mean by "needed"? Can you please give an example of something you had to research and what you included?



I opened this thread precisely because for a long time I've seen people basically paint TP as obtuse and impractical, wasting time even in dire situations, and that never sat right with me. No matter how much some of these authors may try to soften the blow by citing ways in which Ti is useful, it's obvious they actually see it as stupid and irrational. What they do is describe Te as perfectly sensible and objective, while Ti is out of touch with reality.

It confused me so much because I never saw myself in those descriptions and always found myself siding with Te in them to the point I thought I had to be a TJ. I believe Fe gets a similar treatment, with TPs being mostly described as amoral assholes who like to use people.

Your second paragraph is interesting because I did think that the theory of everything sounds exactly how dominant Ti is described as. I mistyped as ISTP until recently,when it finally hit me that the reason why I thought dominant Ti sounded so abstract and convoluted might not be just because whoever was writing them didn't get it. Some don't, but I can't relate to it simply because my Ti isn't that conscious.
The difference is often reduced to saying that Te is some scientific or empiricist viewpoint while Ti is just something else. This is of course absurd for obvious reasons, for example the observation that many Ti thinkers clearly adopt such a paradigm. The picture here is that Ti is pre-scientific and evokes images of those theologians who made arguments of pure reason that “proved” the existence of god. Yet, arguably so many philosophers who critiqued such reasonings were indeed considered “Ti” people. Ti users run the whole gamut of ideas (as could anyone), I’ve seen INTPs on here who are “Objectivists” which seems to be an exaggerated “Te” stereotype worth of a philosophy. It is wrong to equate a cognitive function to a specific philosophy.

It is supposed to be about temperament, personality, attitudes. In the MBTI world it seems that there is a psychologism present in some of its residents that suggests all philosophies are reflections of the philosophers’ temperaments. A sort of relativism where there isn’t any truth or falsehood, philosophies are all just psychological artifacts that come from different personality types, even though a great many INTPs dfor example could completely disagree with one another on these philosophies.

I think the silliest part of MBTI is the emphasis on “logic vs feeling” which is very imprecise. As I have stated before, Feeling functions are also “rational” functions so why the redundancy of “Thinking functions” being “rational” functions as well. The very idea that “Thinking” types are more “logical” doesn’t work for me, because I never studied logic until a few years ago, and that was perhaps a simple aspect of it. Logical fallacies befall us all, to suggest a person’s personality makes them less likely to commit logical fallacies by nature seems incorrect to me. What does “logic” have to do with “personality” anyway? There is more than one logic system as well. There’s classical logic, there’s intuitionistic logic, there’s quantum logic, paraconsistent logic and more. How would anyone’s personality mean they will come to understand these better by nature than other people? In Big Five, the T vs F dimension is moderately correlated with the “agreeableness” dimension. Anyone would argue that someone such as Donald Trump would probably be low on “agreeableness” but for “Thinking” some might say he is totally irrational (in a conventional meaning) if not someone who doesn’t seem to be some sort of logician that a “thinking type” ought to sound like.

Another different evocation some may get from “Thinking” types is the idea of being dispassionate, Thinking with the head instead of the heart. That at least seems somewhat more reasonable than suggesting some people are more “logical.” Even though we can observe that shutting down the “emotional” part of the brain results in an inability to make decisions. One could say this observation is merely psychologism, a “Feeling” type scientist came to this observation because it fits his worldview that logic isn’t supreme. I’d argue that there’s no need to shoot the messenger. The idea that some people automatically think “logic is supreme” when it isn’t even necessary that a person will have studied logic or logical fallacies seems questionable and at best is a very imprecise description of what these dichotomies are supposed to differentiate. There is some sense, that “thinking with the head instead of the heart” does seem to say something when it comes to people’s personalities I think, but saying that these people are simply more attuned to logic and rationality can’t be it. Also, I believe it perpetuates the idea of superiority of one view over another. I read people say they think with their heads before coming to this website, but I never heard someone say great things about “logic.” It’s something so people say to be sure. But, to describe oneself as “a very logical person” is at least not something I’ve heard before.

But anyway, an INTP could be a total skeptic about everything and still be an INTP I think. That means, an INTP can see logic and reasoning as a tool rather some “god” that the MBTI talk describes, for some people may have felt this way I think many people do not. Heck, some argue that logic and language cannot explain everything. If this is held to be true, then a “Thinking” personality type is impossible or completely futile. But I think ideally then, this claim should be held separate from a person’s personality. Otherwise, half of all people’s personalities are futile in their arrogance and likewise, an INTP for example could not think that reason is limited or that knowledge and certainty are limited (but many have and do think this. By coming to this realization, they must no longer be INTPs then, eh?) Or better yet, I am oversimplifying things by suggesting this.

Of course, there is more nuance to all of this I am sure, but I still find it difficult to get over what I see as a bad case of terminology in the MBTI system. I propose, we do not discuss Te vs Ti in terms of “types of logic, or different philosophical stances” because those aren’t a person’s personality. Suppose that Science was logically airtight, an ESFJ does not have a privilege to reject it “Because.. logic doesn’t matter or it isn’t everything. Actual reasoning doesn’t matter.” Likewise, if all philosophies are mental fabrications and the truth is “not conveyable in words” the INTP who realizes this (assuming it is undeniable) does not have the privilege to suggest that logic and language can thus penetrate this unknowable, unspeakable truth.

In internet parlance, “facts don’t care about feelings, personalities don’t define the universe, etc., etc.” How about ‘dem apples?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,289 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,289 Posts
I could tell you were an intuitive with Ti, but wasn't sure if INTP or INFJ.
Some people aren’t sure if Yoda is an INTP or an INFJ. But no matter.

Some of PerC’s inhabitants have suggested that I am an ENTP. But they do not provide any evidence. No test results or heuristics to be found.

But anyway, the difference between an ESTP and an ESTJ is in P and in the J. An ESTP is a risk taker, bold and aggressive. An ESTJ is more like a defensive strategist. The general who commands from a Tank is the ESTJ. The ESTP general runs directly into the line of fire and defies battlefield tactics that involve static positioning. Their motto is that War is 90% fighting and 10% planning.
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Some people aren’t sure if Yoda is an INTP or an INFJ. But no matter.

Some of PerC’s inhabitants have suggested that I am an ENTP. But they do not provide any evidence. No test results or heuristics to be found.

But anyway, the difference between an ESTP and an ESTJ is in P and in the J. An ESTP is a risk taker, bold and aggressive. An ESTJ is more like a defensive strategist. The general who commands from a Tank is the ESTJ. The ESTP general runs directly into the line of fire and defies battlefield tactics that involve static positioning. Their motto is that War is 90% fighting and 10% planning.
Yoda seems pretty ISTP to me, but he's not a silent badass fighter and doesn't have a motorcycle, so of course he's intuitive 🙃

You lost me with this ESTP vs ESTJ thing: where did it come from and what's the relation to the discussion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,289 Posts
Yoda seems pretty ISTP to me, but he's not a silent badass fighter and doesn't have a motorcycle, so of course he's intuitive 🙃

You lost me with this ESTP vs ESTJ thing: where did it come from and what's the relation to the discussion?
That should help you uncover your type. Even though it is ESTJ instead of ENTJ. What’s the difference in an S?
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
That should help you uncover your type. Even though it is ESTJ instead of ENTJ. What’s the difference in an S?
The whole "general" thing is too divorced from reality to be useful. I see this type of war metaphors a whole lot when trying to differentiate some types, obviously a very N thing. No person who's confused about their type can actually relate to it, so it's all imagination, and people very seldom are self aware enough to now how they'd actually act in a more extreme situation like that. People usually fancy themselves to be much more badass and heroic than they actually are. These hypothetical scenarios are pretty useless for someone with no Ne like me.

The thing is ENTJ is an atypical intuitive, the odd one out in the group because they're very empirical and practical compared to the rest. I heard it being called the most sensor like intuitive, and I'd agree.

Another interesting thing about biases: I was typesdas xNTP several times by the most popular MBTI blogger because I "think fast, make easy connections and understand and create abstract theories". She specifically said I was Ne dom once because in her mind I guess the are the only ones who can make connections between concepts and facts. She's ENFP so I can only believe is a me=smart, me=Ne dom, therefore smart=Ne dom thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,289 Posts
The whole "general" thing is too divorced from reality to be useful. I see this type of war metaphors a whole lot when trying to differentiate some types, obviously a very N thing. No person who's confused about their type can actually relate to it, so it's all imagination, and people very seldom are self aware enough to now how they'd actually act in a more extreme situation like that. People usually fancy themselves to be much more badass and heroic than they actually are. These hypothetical scenarios are pretty useless for someone with no Ne like me.

The thing is ENTJ is an atypical intuitive, the odd one out in the group because they're very empirical and practical compared to the rest. I heard it being called the most sensor like intuitive, and I'd agree.

Another interesting thing about biases: I was typesdas xNTP several times by the most popular MBTI blogger because I "think fast, make easy connections and understand and create abstract theories". She specifically said I was Ne dom once because in her mind I guess the are the only ones who can make connections between concepts and facts. She's ENFP so I can only believe is a me=smart, me=Ne dom, therefore smart=Ne dom thing.
Here, I shall be deliberately exaggerated and careless in this comparison in hopes that it might bring out the idea out more.

Also appropriate is a good amount of rambling to follow.




Well, an ENTJ sounds kind of unappealing in that sense. One might say the ENTJ thinks they are “practical” and “immersed in the external world” only insofar as they think about these things. You can say Aristotle was more “practical“ than Socrates because he studied natural philosophy of the fishes and the stars. But to compare such natural philosophy to an ESTP is a very big difference I think.

Take a stereotypical ENTJ concern, management. Better yet, Management Theory. The most boring type of theory ever constructed. To put it another way, it’s thinking about doing things, thinking about how to do things efficiently. It sounds a lot less practical than actually doing things.

Compare a white-collar cutthroat CEO sitting at a desk with an auto-mechanic. To be an ENTJ bragging about “immersed in real life” as opposed to an INTP is hilarious when you think about. Because they don’t “do things” in this sense. All the things they do are just thoughts about doing things. It would be like me saying, “I’m a computer programmer, I’m all about being practical” yet all I do is type words into a keyboard. That’s what an ENTJ concept of “doing” is. Telling other people what to do is their concept of doing. Coming up with a strategy to get things done is their idea of being part of the real world.

Meanwhile, I think popular belief (obviously following from the majority of the population being S types) is that this CEO or accountant or whatever doesn’t do anything. They aren’t grounded at all.

I think in this way ESTPs are entirely different. They don’t sit in armchairs. They are aggressive, bold. For them, to be involved is to go on the ground. Think of that show “undercover boss” when the boss goes to do the actual work that people on the ground do, he/she 80% of the time can barley do it and they lack coordination in these tasks. That’s the kind of person who spends time on the internet telling other people who are quite content with their thinking for the sake of thinking, that they think without purpose and without reference to the real world. It sounds absurd in this. The only thing real about it is the sensual pleasures that result from it all.

But anyway, ESTPs are everywhere, yes or no? Bender from Futurama, Bart from the Simpsons? Those are rebellious people, they are bold and they will mess with people. Does any of this represent the stereotypical concept of the “cutthroat CEO.” Maybe the eccentric billionaire, I suppose partially eccentric. Think of Bill Gates, he’s supposed to be an ENTJ. He has a broad knowledge and is very well read. But it’s silly to compare him to Bart Simpson. It’s like the difference between Book Smarts and Street Smarts. ENTJs don’t have street smarts like an ESTP.

On one hand, I think there is a bias toward “N” types online. A lot of virtues I hear are really “sensor” virtues. Empiricism in the basic sense of an external world that people act in, is a sensor virtue. Science it is said, can be an “SJ” paradigm and that’s the best description I think.

I wonder how much then, there is an “N” bias on forums like this, in the sense that people typing as “N” may mistake themselves instead of just knowing they are “S” types. On the other hand, isn’t the “Se” type wasting their time if they are even on here. There’s action happening somewhere. They don’t have time to waste discussing airy philosophy. I think that includes the “Management Theory” of the ENTJ. Why think about managing people so much? How about managing people? How about getting out of your office chair and experiencing the real world? That’s what the real world means. It’s about the senses. Not “thinking about them” not even “thinking about them as being real” just living them.

In a different way of saying this, I remember one ESTP on this forum and maybe a couple of ISTPs of a similar nature. Their reaction to 90% of what’s going on here is that it’s crazy. They were dismissive of theoretical talk because it wasn’t real stuff. ENTJs, they like their theories. They like to teach other people and guide them. ESTPs like to push people. Kind of like how they drag you into something you don’t want to do so you can overcome your fears or whatever.

Hopefully that brought something out. And you know, N types are “deep” and they “complicated and unique” but so many characters we love in life and in cartoons are “S” types they are no less interesting. A lot of “ESTPs” are larger than life in their personality. Nobody is more or less in this respect. I think my grandpa was an “S” type. It doesn’t make him any less than anyone, in fact he was universally beloved and a very interesting person. Myself, I am not interesting. I am a void. I don’t think much about myself. I may have such personality traits like he did, like being stubborn or stingy with money. But that’s extremely weak, it’s not my everyday thing. It only comes up when relevant. It gets pulled of me when people annoy me. But most of the time I’m not interacting with people. From the outside, a person like me could just be low IQ because I don’t show anything I know. Even putting into words what I know, sounds very weak and insignificant.

I read a philosophical work the other day that has a profound impact on how I will approach life going forward. But for me to attempt to summarize and put it all into words for others to hear, it is nothing but a statement. Maybe I’m just a weirdo who read a weird book. The “deepness” of an introvert or intuitive type that seems to be a source of this bias is kind of not real or at least nothing something for every person has their own characteristics. To introspect and exaggerate one’s own personality and to “know who they are” is a bit crazy. Everyone who met my grandpa knew him. At my funeral, will everyone who met me know me? No, probably only because they have only seen fragments because I don’t myself to other people. It would only be mistake if I were to think I am deeper than others. Even though monologue sounds like a stream of thoughts to me, but to a person reading it is nothing but a bunch of jibber jabber.

It’s funny that Sensors are so despied even though the ideal for so many people here is to be objective, practical and scientific. Isn’t the “real world” the world of the sensors?

You know what is most amazing? The most “profound” insights brought to us by sages are basically to just be “Sensors” just live in the present moment without thinking so much about the past or the future. In that sense, very few people are “Sensors” in that very many people have their heads in the clouds. Never really being the “doers” or “existers.” That is probably an Si wisdom or an Se wisdom. To not think so much is a wisdom.
 

·
Registered
sx/so 387
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
Here, I shall be deliberately exaggerated and careless in this comparison in hopes that it might bring out the idea out more.

Also appropriate is a good amount of rambling to follow.




Well, an ENTJ sounds kind of unappealing in that sense. One might say the ENTJ thinks they are “practical” and “immersed in the external world” only insofar as they think about these things. You can say Aristotle was more “practical“ than Socrates because he studied natural philosophy of the fishes and the stars. But to compare such natural philosophy to an ESTP is a very big difference I think.

Take a stereotypical ENTJ concern, management. Better yet, Management Theory. The most boring type of theory ever constructed. To put it another way, it’s thinking about doing things, thinking about how to do things efficiently. It sounds a lot less practical than actually doing things.

Compare a white-collar cutthroat CEO sitting at a desk with an auto-mechanic. To be an ENTJ bragging about “immersed in real life” as opposed to an INTP is hilarious when you think about. Because they don’t “do things” in this sense. All the things they do are just thoughts about doing things. It would be like me saying, “I’m a computer programmer, I’m all about being practical” yet all I do is type words into a keyboard. That’s what an ENTJ concept of “doing” is. Telling other people what to do is their concept of doing. Coming up with a strategy to get things done is their idea of being part of the real world.
ENTJs, and all Ns at that, are not rooted to their thinking chairs while the world goes on around them. There are as many passive or unimpactful sensors as there are intuitives, and it's provable by observation alone as we are surrounded by S types. I have only 2 Ns in my whole family, and they aren't slow turtles compared to the S dynamos. Quite the opposite actually, the sensors are the types to spend years claiming thy'd like to do or change something, but not do anything to bring that about. Aside from non typology factors Enneagram says a lot about who's more active or not. A lot of times it's about courage or boldness, and for whatever reason that is usually attributed to sensors. Bullshit, the only thing factual is SPs do tend to overthink less, but not only that is just one factor that goes into action but SJs are chronic overanalyzers due to low Ne+Ti.

You have to know your shit in order to be good at giving orders, which indeed is the difference between an ENTJ to be admired and one who's a nightmare (my mom's boss is one, highly incompetent).

Meanwhile, I think popular belief (obviously following from the majority of the population being S types) is that this CEO or accountant or whatever doesn’t do anything. They aren’t grounded at all.

I think in this way ESTPs are entirely different. They don’t sit in armchairs. They are aggressive, bold. For them, to be involved is to go on the ground. Think of that show “undercover boss” when the boss goes to do the actual work that people on the ground do, he/she 80% of the time can barley do it and they lack coordination in these tasks. That’s the kind of person who spends time on the internet telling other people who are quite content with their thinking for the sake of thinking, that they think without purpose and without reference to the real world. It sounds absurd in this. The only thing real about it is the sensual pleasures that result from it all.
Anti intellectualism seems to be very present in ESTPs in forums like this which drives me insane), but I can't say whether there's the way it is in real life for most.

But anyway, ESTPs are everywhere, yes or no? Bender from Futurama, Bart from the Simpsons? Those are rebellious people, they are bold and they will mess with people. Does any of this represent the stereotypical concept of the “cutthroat CEO.” Maybe the eccentric billionaire, I suppose partially eccentric. Think of Bill Gates, he’s supposed to be an ENTJ. He has a broad knowledge and is very well read. But it’s silly to compare him to Bart Simpson. It’s like the difference between Book Smarts and Street Smarts. ENTJs don’t have street smarts like an ESTP.
I've never met a rebellious ESTP in my life, loud yes, bold yes, but not the stereotypical rude and rough type. A couple of them were in fact rather soft, great Fe. Better with people than me by a mile.

Bill Gates is ESTJ, anyone who calls him ENTJ or INTP has never really watched an interview with him, or read what he says about his own decisions. Looking at Windows' history itself should clue people in that this man has no Ti. Also compare him to ENFP Steve Jobs, gates has no Ne. Churchill was the most ESTP to ever exist and he was also very well read.

On one hand, I think there is a bias toward “N” types online. A lot of virtues I hear are really “sensor” virtues. Empiricism in the basic sense of an external world that people act in, is a sensor virtue. Science it is said, can be an “SJ” paradigm and that’s the best description I think.

I wonder how much then, there is an “N” bias on forums like this, in the sense that people typing as “N” may mistake themselves instead of just knowing they are “S” types. On the other hand, isn’t the “Se” type wasting their time if they are even on here. There’s action happening somewhere. They don’t have time to waste discussing airy philosophy. I think that includes the “Management Theory” of the ENTJ. Why think about managing people so much? How about managing people? How about getting out of your office chair and experiencing the real world? That’s what the real world means. It’s about the senses. Not “thinking about them” not even “thinking about them as being real” just living them.
One of the biggest jokes ever told is that science is empirical above all. Yet people throw the term "scientific" around to justify their biases and narrow mindness, it's hilarious. Sensors being acting machines that spend 24/7 doing and not thinking is a second best joke. Clearly whoever says that as never talked to an ISTP or ISFP.

ENTJs don't actually talk about management in real life, they manage things. It's something they'll discuss in a forum like this because that's the nature of a typology forum.

Hearing an INTP talking about what "experiencing the real world" and "getting off your office chair" is very funny, you can tell you have no Se at all. There's a lot of assumptions and projections happening about what you think taking action is vs what it really is. Planning and executing things is what Te doms do, but it's not exclusive to their type: any intelligent person will include some sort of strategy in their thinking, no matter how short term it might actually be. That makes the person grounded, it's not a waste of time.

In a different way of saying this, I remember one ESTP on this forum and maybe a couple of ISTPs of a similar nature. Their reaction to 90% of what’s going on here is that it’s crazy. They were dismissive of theoretical talk because it wasn’t real stuff. ENTJs, they like their theories. They like to teach other people and guide them. ESTPs like to push people. Kind of like how they drag you into something you don’t want to do so you can overcome your fears or whatever.
ISTPs really do love typology though, obviously not all but many embrace their Ni and enjoy some sort of abstract theory. Many like thngs like conspiracy theories or even astrology. ESTPs tough, are frustrating on that front.

It’s funny that Sensors are so despied even though the ideal for so many people here is to be objective, practical and scientific. Isn’t the “real world” the world of the sensors?

You know what is most amazing? The most “profound” insights brought to us by sages are basically to just be “Sensors” just live in the present moment without thinking so much about the past or the future. In that sense, very few people are “Sensors” in that very many people have their heads in the clouds. Never really being the “doers” or “existers.” That is probably an Si wisdom or an Se wisdom. To not think so much is a wisdom.
What is the "real world" to you? Lack of objectivity is what makes people out of touch with reality to me, even before being practical or not.

Not thinking much, now that's both impossible and a nightmare. The problem with this world is precisely that people think way too little.
 
1 - 20 of 23 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