| >> | No.45936304
Sorry, was getting food, now I'm back.
>>45936084
Everyone has four functions they use, out of eight possible ones in total. There are several types with which you share ALL of these functions. Sometimes you'll use a function that's not high up in your function stack, which can cause you to act 'out of character.'
>>45936113
They are sometimes accurate, but should not be relied upon. Don't let it make the final conclusion for you.
>>45936161
How am I overgeneralizing? I am talking about IN GENERAL, obviously. I didn't say that they're better than you in every respect, only overall (probably, but it depends on the person and how well developed they are, etc., but a fully developed INTJ > a fully developed INFJ)
You assumed I meant that the top types are better in every respect. That's quite a leap.
|
| >> | No.45936505
>>45936322
Thinking doesn't mean that they make decisions that seem logical. It just means that from their axioms they arrived at their conclusion for reasoning. Saying that x person did y and is therefore a feeler isn't sufficient. A lot of the time, different types will do the same kind of thing. You need to look at how they're doing it and why. Yes, Batman bases a lot on his emotional turmoil, but his outlet for that is utilitarian, which is generally a thinking thing. I know little about Batman, just playing devil's advocate.
>>45936352
Some people would definitely prefer to be around a Fe user than a Te user simply because they're nicer. I say that INTJs are better because they're both dominant Ni users, but the INTJ's Ni is grounded in reality thanks to Te. I already said 'overall, and not in every respect.' I'm not putting them into every situation and seeing who does better, just which tools (functions) are the best combinations.
>>45936374
>Each have pros and cons even when fully developed
Obviously. Again, I didn't say that they're better in every way. Of course each has its ups and downs.
>What in general makes one type of person better than another?
Obviously my criteria are not objective. They are ranked based off which types are the best to be around, hang out with, and be. If you hold criteria different than mine, that's fine, but if it's the same, you're going to have to argue your point.
|
| >> | No.45936930
>>45936797
Alright. Let me try again.
You've said things you thought were good or bad. I saw them. I may even agree with you in some cases. But you haven't actually listed a series of criteria, independent of the types, by which each should be good.
For instance, for a movie, the criteria might be "convincing acting," "good cinematography," etc.
But you've not done that. You've listed specific qualities you didn't like, when asked about certain movies.
What this is like, is like me talking to a self-professed film expert, him saying he hated a movie, me asking why, him saying he thought the special effects sucked," and when I say I don't care so much about that, he seems bewildered that I don't agree with his criteria.
I might agree with most of them, or I might think you're being unnecessarily harsh, but I won't know until you list them.
So how about instead of power rankings, we start with the criteria?
What makes a person "good" or "bad" in your opinion (in the form of a list, please)? After you tell me that, we can test each one against your criteria.
|
| >> | No.45938730
>>45938563
NTs can do things right within a finite amount of time, and they come up with their own solutions. That's why they're at the top. SJs will be diligent, though only try the way that they've been brought up to use and will immediately dismiss outside options. Also, there are plenty of SJs who aren't very diligent and even more who aren't specialized in something. I was kind of reaching with that praise.
The trait that SJs share is Si, which makes it so that they associate sensations with each other. If they're raped in a red room as a child, they might hate the colour red when they're older. If they're told being gay is wrong, that's probably what they'll believe. That's all that Si is. It doesn't actually make them diligent or anything, it just so happens that a lot of the time, SJs are brought up to be your model citizen, and so they act like it, because they associate being a model citizen with being good. I could go on, but if I got into any more depth as to why this is a bad thing, it would just come off as an insult to SJs (I'm not being too praising of them now, but I was pushed to this).
|
| >> | No.45939883
>>45939777
Are we talking about which band is most clearly made up of ISTPs, or that has an ISTP-like style? If the former, then okay, since I know little of the types of the band members. If the latter, then being particularly expressive in their music would probably disqualify them, since most of the time, ISTPs aren't expressive. They can be, sure, but it will be with Se, so ISTPs never come off as bouncy or particularly jovial, and even then, this isn't their primary state. Explain how those bands sound at all ISTP-ish.
|
| >> | No.45940782
>>45940468
I guess that I could see that, since INTJs and ENTPs are both dominated by their vision. It would make sense that growing up in an SJ society, ENTPs and INTJs would overcorrect a little bit in their teenage years. I was never a neckbeard and I never wore a fedora, but I was probably a little fedora in my opinions when I was a younger teen. I still think that most neckbeards on the internet are probably NF (since nothing holding down their intuition) or SJ.
>>45940516
Either. With inferior sensing, one way or the other, they're essentially neglecting the same thing in a different way.
>>45940599
A lot are, probably.
>>45940644
In your experience, maybe more INTPs have been neckbeards than any other type, but in my experience they aren't (I've met a lot of INFP neckbeards), and in their functions I don't see what particularly would make them more susceptible to becoming neckbeards than other types. They categorize internal ideas. They're not really ones to claim they know how the world works, in my experience, and introverted thinking is primarily non-confrontational.
INTPs are anything but ignorant. These INTPs that you know, how do you know that their types are correct? INTP is probably the type that most neckbeards would CLAIM to be.
Using Varg as an example is probably the most fedora thing that has happened in this thread.
|
| >> | No.45941853
>>45941522
Well developed people of every type are empathic. The difference is that the rational types will not make decisions solely on that fact. If acting on empathy is the best course of action, a developed thinking type will act accordingly. This doesn't mean that they're working on their feeling function more than their thinking. A feeler and a thinker can both make gestures that are equally emotional, the difference is how they decided to do it. Jungian typology doesn't have to do with how good you are with each function, but how much you rely on it.
>>45941533
Okay, that would make sense. I'm pretty sure most people have a fair grasp of their second function by the time they're 13 or so, though.
>>45941566
Try ISTJs. They're the same as ESTJs, but less efficient, less in your face, and more stuck in their ways. By 'less in your face,' I mean that they'll condescendingly tell you that you're wrong and judge you, but that's all they'll do. ESTJs will try to fix whatever problem they think is there.
>>45941726
That's quite a generalization, but I can't really disagree with you for the most part. I think what side NFPs end up in is less set in stone (I've met plenty of INFP neckbeards), and I think that most neckbeards are SJs (jumping onto it because no individuality) and NFs (jumping onto it because special snowflake). NTs certainly have their role in the neckbeard movement, but I imagine that that has dwindled as the movement has grown and become uniform.
|