Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Two types of people, revised

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 10:44:30 PM
Which INTP philosophers do you know of? Kant and Spinoza (especially so) are likely candidates.

You're right - the INTP is the best at building and keeping track of more complex system, whereas the INJ prefers a few all-encompassing concepts. In the example of mathematics, the new, revolutionary concepts - ways of viewing things - are more than likely Ni based. INTPs tend to take the concepts they're given, and then put those together into precise systems. I believe that the primary focus of ANUS ideology is targeted at an Ni understanding (with Te+Fi solutions given) but systematisation of knowledge is something that is highly needed. Ti has little inclination in dreaming up vision for future change, and can annoy Ni with its constant need for everything to be framed in a strictly logical framework - the Ni thinks it's logical enough, because it is able to fill in the blanks whereas most others can't. Ti will be necessary in framing ideas in a more communicable form, if this is the path chosen. Also, where technical knowledge is needed the INTP will prove highly valuable. I would say that Ni provides the sketch, Ti fills in all the details, and Je makes the ideas reality (Te and Fe target different areas).

+actually I will note an extra interesting difference, is that generally speaking, the INTP has little idea of the merit of their own ideas - I would mention Duning-Kruger in this regard. Whether the work which an INTP is incredibly basic, or absolutely groundbreaking, to them it is just the application of logic (which is their main passion). From time to time, they hit upon fantastic ideas, but are often rather oblivious as to which ones they are. They assume that if people like their work it must be because of the system as a whole, rather than for perhaps the single ingenious concept which their work was based on (which, after it is used tends to be forgotten). Contrast this with the Ni, you more often than not knows to what degree his ideas are genius - he is able to see their application immediately, and in fact only holds fast to ideas on this basis; the problem here is the lack of justification for his ideas to the common mind, and the Ni often envisages himself as having post-humous fame (which to him, is often enough). The mode of idea spread between the two is quite fundamentally different.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 05:59:39 AM
My hypothesis: that the degree to which one has confidence in one's external abilities is a linear function of the prominence of the extraverted function in one's psyche, but that one's actual competence is a linear function of the prominence of the introverted function in one's psyche - and that furthermore, we may determine the nature of that ability by looking at the cognitive functions as per MBTI. Basically, confidence = due to see the merits of your actions, but competence = due to the degree to which you think (hence we have the DK effect, which we may measure between the corresponding E and I types as per MBTI). I predict also that introverts have much higher inner self-esteem but lower outer self-esteem, whereas the reverse is true of extraverts.

Extroversion is due to dealing with new information, Introverstion is how we judge the merit of that information.

Introversion = quality over quantity

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 09:41:24 AM
My hypothesis: that the degree to which one has confidence in one's external abilities is a linear function of the prominence of the extraverted function in one's psyche, but that one's actual competence is a linear function of the prominence of the introverted function in one's psyche.

This seems to be bullshit, depending on what you mean by "external abilities".  I'm confident and competent, and I'm confident because I'm competent - time and time again, I've succeeded due to my own ability, thus I assume that I will go on succeeding until I start to hit bigger challenges.  Maybe this system works for morons and unconfident people, but there is a group of people who are neither of the two.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 09:44:46 AM
My hypothesis: that the degree to which one has confidence in one's external abilities is a linear function of the prominence of the extraverted function in one's psyche, but that one's actual competence is a linear function of the prominence of the introverted function in one's psyche.

This seems to be bullshit, depending on what you mean by "external abilities".  I'm confident and competent, and I'm confident because I'm competent - time and time again, I've succeeded due to my own ability, thus I assume that I will go on succeeding until I start to hit bigger challenges.  Maybe this system works for morons and unconfident people, but there is a group of people who are neither of the two.

Compared to an extravert of equal confidence, who would you say is likely to be the more competent one?

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 11:01:21 PM
My hypothesis: You wish you were as cool as ENTJ you fucking nerds

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
My hypothesis: You wish you were as cool as ENTJ you fucking nerds

*high five*

Compared to an extravert of equal confidence, who would you say is likely to be the more competent one?

By definitions, the introvert, because he would be inherently unconfident (yes?  No?).  I'm saying that the definitions are wrong, more than that the deductions based on those definitions are wrong.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 10, 2011, 11:55:45 PM
My hypothesis: You wish you were as cool as ENTJ you fucking nerds

ENTJ not so much. ESFP would be pretty fucking cool though. Also, are you going to make any constructive contributions?

Introvert = prefers not to socialise/do stuff much= nerd? Maybe, if that's how you're defining it. Idea focused = "nerd", perhaps?

Quote from: cargest
By definitions, the introvert, because he would be inherently unconfident (yes?  No?).  I'm saying that the definitions are wrong, more than that the deductions based on those definitions are wrong.

Inherently? No. Introversion means a focus on the subjective world. I predict that an introvert will be less confident in external tasks due simply to not residing in the external world. People measure their competency largely off of the quantity of actions that stem from that area. Basically, the fact that you do something a lot means that you inherently think you're good at it. Otherwise, why would you do it so much and place so much importance in it? You have to feel your actions are justified, and this is where your feelings of confidence stem from. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. A cool thing about it, is that people believe the reverse of this as well - that if someone is confident, you will naturally assume they are competent, and adjust your model of the world accordingly (until given reason to do otherwise).

Introversion = quality, extraversion = quantity. Their strengths stem accordingly.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:14:12 AM
Quote from: cargest
By definitions, the introvert, because he would be inherently unconfident (yes?  No?).  I'm saying that the definitions are wrong, more than that the deductions based on those definitions are wrong.

Inherently? No. Introversion means a focus on the subjective world. I predict that an introvert will be less confident in external tasks due simply to not residing in the external world. People measure their competency largely off of the quantity of actions that stem from that area. Basically, the fact that you do something a lot means that you inherently think you're good at it. Otherwise, why would you do it so much and place so much importance in it? You have to feel your actions are justified, and this is where your feelings of confidence stem from. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. A cool thing about it, is that people believe the reverse of this as well - that if someone is confident, you will naturally assume they are competent, and adjust your model of the world accordingly (until given reason to do otherwise).

Introversion = quality, extraversion = quantity. Their strengths stem accordingly.

You seem to be starting from the position that everybody in question is a moron (which is probably a good position from which to start, since it's almost true).  As someone who currently seems to be able to switch between ENTJ and INTJ (thence the reason for my skepticism about the whole MBTI thing), I can't really fathom this particular concept of "confidence" - I'm confident because I achieve victory when I act, and for no other reason.  I go into activities which I've never done before with confidence because I know what I'm capable of, having testing myself in many other ways beforehand.

As far as I understand it, extraversion requires that the individual focus on/derive experience from the exterior world, introversion that he/she focus on/derive experience from the interior.  I do both, when necessary, and have no problem with either.  Am I insanely well balanced, or just insane?  It's not even that I'm "not particularly extroverted/introverted", it's that I can choose when to be either of the two, and I derive equal value from either depending on the circumstances in which each mindset is employed (extroversion is good for talking to new/unknown people/groups about interesting subjects, introversion is good for developing theories of my own - both are good actions, both are easy).

Edit: just looked it up.  I'm an ambivert.  Fucking score.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:17:46 AM
Quote
consequentialists versus emotivists
long-term thinkers versus short-term feelers, desirers, etc.
structural thinkers versus hedonistic samplers
those who internalize world versus those who externalize sel

I'll reframe these in a more moral-free way:

logical vs. holistic reasoners
implication focused vs. reaction focused
idea vs. sense property focused focused
subject focused vs. object focused

You can then apply the quality test to competency in the relevant focus.
- how well can you reason?
- what quality do your suggestions have?
- do you understand the ideas, can you apply properly?
- do you remain solipsism and narcissism free?

One may not be focused on ideas, or the subjective world, or logic, or imposing structure, but nevertheless make considerable contributions to society. Similarly, one might be totally idea focused and subjective and end up not making any contributions. Essentially the only "two kinds of people" divide is a) those who are good for society b) those who are not good for it. Simple as that. We can then look at the different ways one may contribute to society and judge accordingly. For example, if someone is incompetent in most areas but highly competent in just one, rather than calling them useless, put them to work where their strength lies.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:24:48 AM
Even with those different categorisations there, I still don't see why there are "divides".  It must be a matter of semantics, but I can't see why one individual can't use both logical and holistic reasoning, be idea focused while intuitively understanding the applications of ideas, inhabit the world of the subject while interacting with the objective world (like humans actually do), etc.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:25:39 AM
You seem to be starting from the position that everybody in question is a moron (which is probably a good position from which to start, since it's almost true).  As someone who currently seems to be able to switch between ENTJ and INTJ (thence the reason for my skepticism about the whole MBTI thing), I can't really fathom this particular concept of "confidence" - I'm confident because I achieve victory when I act, and for no other reason.  I go into activities which I've never done before with confidence because I know what I'm capable of, having testing myself in many other ways beforehand.

As far as I understand it, extraversion requires that the individual focus on/derive experience from the exterior world, introversion that he/she focus on/derive experience from the interior.  I do both, when necessary, and have no problem with either.  Am I insanely well balanced, or just insane?  It's not even that I'm "not particularly extroverted/introverted", it's that I can choose when to be either of the two, and I derive equal value from either depending on the circumstances in which each mindset is employed (extroversion is good for talking to new/unknown people/groups about interesting subjects, introversion is good for developing theories of my own - both are good actions, both are easy).

Edit: just looked it up.  I'm an ambivert.  Fucking score.

Well, you don't have to sit to either far end, but you nonetheless are positioned somewhere along the line. Introversion is probably more of a trait, but looking at the things using type just simplifies everything so much (without actually losing any of the content, since traits are just linear combinations of types). You're not switching between ENTJ and INTJ - you're an INTJ (presumably) who is alternating between using and not using your extraverted function, and you are likely a slight enough introvert that this is not at all draining for you. Basically, the further away from pure extraversion you are the harder it is to focus on objects, and the further away from pure introversion you are the harder it will be to focus subjectively. You probably tend to focus on a combination of the two which can be looked at equally well from either side - essentially, everyone should achieve this balance but the degree of use of each will be different.

Adding ambiversion to the scale may indeed be helpful, especially if many people lie close to the centre. The results however can be obtained by looking at I and E alone.
Quote
inhabit the world of the subject while interacting with the objective world

Are you absolutely sure that everyone does it this way around?

Quote
Even with those different categorisations there, I still don't see why there are "divides".  It must be a matter of semantics, but I can't see why one individual can't use both logical and holistic reasoning, be idea focused while intuitively understanding the applications of ideas, inhabit the world of the subject while interacting with the objective world (like humans actually do), etc.

Have you studied much maths/science? You analyse things as though everything existed separately first (assuming independency) and then combine it to look at real world examples. You don't start by looking at real world application, but by theoretical examples which outline the foundations you are to use. On the other hand, you may find certain things easier by jumping straight into how things actually manifest, and this is ok too.

Iron said a similar thing here:

In my view there are three types of people in the world, those who pigeonhole others and those who don't.

It seems like you're reacting to the simplicity of the dichotomy, which is understandable. Dichotomies are rarely absolutely true. However, they tend to possess a truth of a relative and functional order, insofar as they are useful for isolating and illustrating certain tendencies.

In this case, the dichotomy offered in the original post seems to refer to something real. Maybe it's true that few people fully embody just one or the other half of it, but don't you think that there's a certain accuracy to the general idea?

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:37:51 AM
ENTJ not so much. ESFP would be pretty fucking cool though.
As if a nerd like you would know cool. Lets see some terms that I see come up for ESFP:
* can be touchy feely
* suggestible
* prone to crying
* at times easy to impress
* guided by moods
preferred profession: hair stylist

I'm not really seeing "cool" in this guy so much as I'm seeing "female".

Let's check out the ENTJ:
* fearless
* dominant
* adventurous
* thrill seeker
* ambitious
preferred profession: FBI agent

I'm just giving you a hard time, I know you're definitely no expert on cool.

By the way, I took all that info from similarminds.com, which seemed to be the least bullshit site for this stuff I could find. At least without spending so much time researching bullshit theories as to be a nerd like you.
Also, are you going to make any constructive contributions?
Perhaps, if I figure out an easily understood summary on why this MBTI non-sense is a bunch of donkey doo-doo. Preferably one that will answer questions before they're asked. If I just started typing my thoughts all over the place it would end up reading like a transcription of a severely stoned man's inner monologue.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 12:40:57 AM
Have you studied much maths/science? You analyse things as though everything existed separately first (assuming independency) and then combine it to look at real world examples. You don't start by looking at real world application, but by theoretical examples which outline the foundations you are to use. On the other hand, you may find certain things easier by jumping straight into how things actually manifest, and this is ok too.

Now, this is interesting, as I'm definitely the kind of person who is more inclined to jump right into the middle of things and work it all out as I go along, rather than sit back and develop a framework for things and then seeing how well that framework fits reality.  I haven't studied mathematics or science to any astounding degree, though I'm probably far better versed in all such fields than the vast majority of people who went to highschool/secondary school in the West.  I can understand how looking at aspects of the world as being independant of each other could be beneficial in some cases, but I must stress that the vast majority of existence comes about with the interaction of multiple objects.  Sorry if this is a bit cloudy/longwinded, I haven't slept for fifteen hours and I'm getting ready for an exam in fifty minutes.

As far as Introversion/Extroversion goes, it makes a lot more sense when considering them as functions rather than states - as with all skills, one's ability with each can be improved or degrade, but one's affinity for either stays roughly the same throughout life?  If that's the case, I'm almost certainly naturally INTJ rather than ENTJ, because I've had to "learn" to operate in social situations etc, whereas thought/conceptualisation came naturally.  They're both easy, but were brought about in different ways.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 01:13:15 AM
ENTJ not so much. ESFP would be pretty fucking cool though.
As if a nerd like you would know cool. Lets see some terms that I see come up for ESFP:
* can be touchy feely
* suggestible
* prone to crying
* at times easy to impress
* guided by moods
preferred profession: hair stylist

I'm not really seeing "cool" in this guy so much as I'm seeing "female".

Let's check out the ENTJ:
* fearless
* dominant
* adventurous
* thrill seeker
* ambitious
preferred profession: FBI agent

I'm just giving you a hard time, I know you're definitely no expert on cool.

By the way, I took all that info from similarminds.com, which seemed to be the least bullshit site for this stuff I could find. At least without spending so much time researching bullshit theories as to be a nerd like you.
Also, are you going to make any constructive contributions?
Perhaps, if I figure out an easily understood summary on why this MBTI non-sense is a bunch of donkey doo-doo. Preferably one that will answer questions before they're asked. If I just started typing my thoughts all over the place it would end up reading like a transcription of a severely stoned man's inner monologue.

Se = partying, Te = work. Partying is way cooler than work. Hence I win and you lose.

Have you studied much maths/science? You analyse things as though everything existed separately first (assuming independency) and then combine it to look at real world examples. You don't start by looking at real world application, but by theoretical examples which outline the foundations you are to use. On the other hand, you may find certain things easier by jumping straight into how things actually manifest, and this is ok too.

Now, this is interesting, as I'm definitely the kind of person who is more inclined to jump right into the middle of things and work it all out as I go along, rather than sit back and develop a framework for things and then seeing how well that framework fits reality.  I haven't studied mathematics or science to any astounding degree, though I'm probably far better versed in all such fields than the vast majority of people who went to highschool/secondary school in the West.  I can understand how looking at aspects of the world as being independant of each other could be beneficial in some cases, but I must stress that the vast majority of existence comes about with the interaction of multiple objects.  Sorry if this is a bit cloudy/longwinded, I haven't slept for fifteen hours and I'm getting ready for an exam in fifty minutes.

As far as Introversion/Extroversion goes, it makes a lot more sense when considering them as functions rather than states - as with all skills, one's ability with each can be improved or degrade, but one's affinity for either stays roughly the same throughout life?  If that's the case, I'm almost certainly naturally INTJ rather than ENTJ, because I've had to "learn" to operate in social situations etc, whereas thought/conceptualisation came naturally.  They're both easy, but were brought about in different ways.
Well, the framework needn't be consciously built and structured. It may just be a continuously updating conceptual model. Supposing you are Ni-Te, then your primary way of viewing the world is from subjective concepts as per philosophy and related disciplines, but your analysing/logical problem solving occurs directly in the environment, aided by that conceptual map for getting things done. Basically, to you, the most significant aspect of the environment is its logical structure and this is what you interact with. Building frameworks is more of a Ti thing, since for Ti logical structure is only seen internally. As a possible contrast to this, notice how some people seem to have an internal moral compass and prefer to consciously reflect on what they value etc. whereas others see this as a waste of time, and prefer to just dive straight into morally-related problems. Out of curiousity, do either of these strike you as reflecting your approach better?

NHA

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 11, 2011, 01:23:04 PM
From what I've seen the introvert/extrovert split has nothing to do with social skills. An extrovert will naturally run their mouth and an introvert, knowing the utility of "social grease", will make a calculated decision to talk about bullshit just to keep the conversation flowing. Consequently the introvert feels drained by long bouts of small talk.

An introvert needs to learn when to talk and an extrovert needs to learn when to shut the fuck up.

Extreme extroversion + low IQ is possibly the most irritating combination of human that exists. I was in a bus with a woman like this recently, the type of person that broadcasts to the world every stupid irrelevant fucking thought that crosses their mind.