# Why xSxJs aren't into MBTI



## Blue Ribbon

I was on hiatus but I came back to reply to this. 



bentHnau said:


> Random thought: Maybe if the SJs participated more, they could dispel what you think is untrue or even out the ranting with their negative perceptions of other types.


What's the point? I've seen threads where people talk about how much they hate their ESFJ moms and ESTJ bosses and I try telling them, hey, not all of us are like that and we're not even heard. I have been told that SJs just do basic work, that we don't bring anything new and that we're just filler for the NT types who are the real visionaries and creators. Maybe if the intuitive community was more accepting, there would be more SJs here. Just a thought. 



> I wouldn't assume that is the only or even the primary reason that MBTI attracts intuitives. Some of us felt and feel isolated, confused, and misunderstood, and believed that MBTI could help with that.


I agree with this. However, I would say that all people struggle with some aspects of identity. Being misunderstood isn't exclusive to N types. Why do you think I'm here? I'm an SJ and I feel sometimes that I don't fit in. I feel lonely and lost too. I'm sure other S types feel this way too. I'm not saying that Ns don't but my problem here is that a lot of N types appear to think they are special because they're Ns. I've run into people who use their type as a coping mechanism. It's not their fault they're not understood - it's because they're XXXX type that's rare. I as an ESFJ don't have that luxury because I can't do that - ESFJ is one of the most common types. So what's my excuse for feeling lost and misunderstood? Surely, I have no right to complain. Do you get where I'm coming from? 

I'm completely okay with accepting the fact that different people are different and that certain types are rare and generally do feel misunderstood. However, I don't buy this entirely because I have met well adjusted members of this type who don't have any of the issues that people complain about. For example, I've seen INTxs complain that they hate small talk and spending too much time around people. However I also have met INTx types with social skills that can rival mine. So I don't understand what the issue is here. One of my best friends is an INTP and he actually takes time to try and understand his weaknesses in socialising and he works hard to try to be more outgoing and friendly. He often tells me how he wants to be back in his room asleep but since his peers are going out, he decides to tag along too. I also saw a post by an ISTP who says that whenever an extrovert decides to talk to him when he's working, he feels like doing violent things to them. Now you tell me, which of the two is a healthier individual? 

Now my problem here is that there are others who chime in and say 'omg I have the same problem' and then it becomes a circle jerk of some sorts. Can you honestly tell me you haven't seen that? 



> That isn't a problem; that's the inherent nature of theory. If a set of ideas isn't generalized, it isn't a theory. MBTI can't do more than "paint broad strokes" (and would be worse off if anyone tried to use it for more than that) because it cannot account for more individualized personality determinants like upbringing.


No, you cannot club MBTI together with other theories like let's say, the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution. Though I agree with you that theories are general, it doesn't mean they can't be proven or at the very least, have enough evidence for it to be considered plausible. I will address this point further down in the post. 



> That's what one is supposed to be doing when applying the theory in their personal life, when analyzing their own experience or interacting with specific people. Personality theory *can't *incorporate this level of detail.


Which is my problem with it. Most people aren't scientists. I would say most people don't even know how to make accurate observations without any kind of bias. Which is why we need people who are trained in personality theory to do real research on this. And I don't see much of that tbh. The theory of evolution is taught in schools all over the world however I don't even see the psychology community accepting MBTI as hard science. 



> First of all, this paragraph seems contradictory. It seems you are simultaneously saying that the theory itself is flawed (too abstract), and that it's not flawed and the problem is people not putting it into practice. Which is the problem?


Already explained this, I think. 



> As for being a certain type, it has meaning to some people. For me it was a means to find other people with whom I can relate.


I agree. But the meaning is entirely subjective. No two people of the same personality type experience being the type in the same way. 



> I don't know why you think the theory has no practical application. PerC has a constant stream of posts about people applying it to their personal lives. Do you find their applications impractical?


Yes, these people are trying to apply it in their lives but there is a huge problem here and that is people being mistyped. I myself was mistyped for several years and only recently did I arrive at my real type. I would assume that a lot of people on the forum are wrongly typed. And then you have to wonder how good people are at typing others. 

For example, there are people on this site that insist I'm an ENFJ because I'm someone who doesn't shy away from abstract theoretical discussions; I'm good at maths and sciences, I'm not as annoying as most ESFJs they know and several other reasons. This just shows their own typing bias. If they were good at typing, they would know that I'm a very strong sensing type. Then there are people who make threads complaining how much they hate their ESFJ moms because they don't discuss abstract ideas with them and are micromanaging. But here's a problem as well - that's not necessarily an ESxJ trait because we have Ne in our third slots. Anyone who knows an ESFJ well enough would know we are secret nerds and you'll find members of our type in heavy theoretical science fields. ESFJs and ESTJs are very open minded types however as far as these people are concerned, everyone they find annoying is an SJ.

You yourself may be very good at typing others but you can't deny that this kind of bias exists in typing? 



> No, other people don't need to be interested in personality theory for us to make use of the theory. We can use it in our interaction with them even if they don't do the same. We can also use it to improve ourselves regardless of whether anyone in our lives knows our type. You said so yourself further down in your post!


This part I agree with. I have seen people use MBTI as a tool for self reflection and becoming better versions of themselves. However, it becomes a problem when they use it to type others and categorise their behavior. 



> I thought this is what you meant when you said it had no practical application. Isn't understanding oneself and others practical?


I genuinely don't believe understanding the theory will help in understanding others. I know this because there is no handbook for getting along with people. My two closest friends are INTP and INTJ and I know them really well. I am quite confident they feel the same way for me as well. So from my own observation, this should imply that I understand these two types well enough to be considered best friend (especially an INTJs best-friendship seems like a treasure to be earned as I've seen on the forum). However this is not true. I do not get along with every INTP or every INTJ I meet. 

I know what you're going to say - each individual is different. But I have also seen people say things like 'SJs are a necessary evil' and 'Sensors are more likely than intuitives to be shallow' Then, when Sensors and other intuitives say they're wrong, these people vehemently defend their positions. 

Do you see the problem here? 



> What do you think the theory is used for?! It is used for learning to get along with people, just like you are talking about here. That's the purpose of the "understanding others" you yourself have mentioned.


No, my point is that people use their MBTI type to justify their behavioural flaws but for some reason, other types flaws make them evil. I was having a conversation with an ENTP where he threw some obscene words at me, so I asked him to stop and asked him to be nicer and more respectful. He at that point told me that he 'doesn't need a feeler to tell him to be nice.' I've seen T types accuse FJs of being manipulative and when I try to tell them that, no, emotional manipulation is something that T types do as well and there is a thing as logical manipulation too and they don't even hear it out. 

Yes, in the idealistic world, MBTI is useful for the purpose of understanding. However that's not how I see people use it. And that makes all the difference. 



> You seem here to be guilty of the same thing you are saying is problematic with MBTI: ideas so generalized that they are practically useless.


I don't understand this. 

I am thankful for this response. I created this thread with the idea that I can get a different input than the ones I have been getting on the site. 

The thing is, MBTI was created as a tool to understand others, however the typology community is so overcome with bias that I might as well give up.


----------



## JennyJukes

Blue Ribbon said:


> I agree with this. However, I would say that all people struggle with some aspects of identity. Being misunderstood isn't exclusive to N types. Why do you think I'm here? I'm an SJ and I feel sometimes that I don't fit in. I feel lonely and lost too. I'm sure other S types feel this way too. I'm not saying that Ns don't but my problem here is that a lot of N types appear to think they are special because they're Ns. I've run into people who use their type as a coping mechanism. It's not their fault they're not understood - it's because they're XXXX type that's rare. I as an ESFJ don't have that luxury because I can't do that - ESFJ is one of the most common types. So what's my excuse for feeling lost and misunderstood? Surely, I have no right to complain. Do you get where I'm coming from?


literally just said this in another thread ("what if NFs ruled the world")
I've been typed as ESFJ and I believe Fe is my dominant function so it's plausible 
however I've never felt like I fit in the world, I've never experienced advantages in life that apparently extroverts and sensors have;

- more popular - i was literally the weird girl at school who had no friends and went bright red when anyone spoke to me
- we have more "normal" hobbies etc - nah again the weird girl who liked anime and kpop and murder stories. i was literally called creepy............
- taken more seriously - considering i'm female and have mental health problems... that ones a no...

yeah it gets annoying... to be told we experience something because we're this, this and this, without realizing we're individuals with our own hobbies, lifes, experiences etc. but yet "extroverts/sensors" are the shallow and judgemental ones lol.

if i'm truly an ESFJ, my boyfriend is only one letter off me (T), and i don't think we could be any different - and yeah if you go by MBTI we are different, our functions are really different. but people see the E/S/J and assume everyone that has these letters in their type are all the same lol.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

I'm an ISFJ and not once in my life did I feel like I fit in. I do feel like society is more of an ExTJ, which is the worst match for an ISFJ. Sometimes I wonder why the world is so harsh and why I can't be liked like everyone else... :frustrating: Seriously though I think getting into MBTI requires people who get deeply absorbed into certain subjects, like the stereotypical type 5. Maybe you need a little 5 in you? I've noticed most extreme fans of musicians are INFPs and ISFPs. I wonder what type is most likely to be into MBTI? 

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if most SJs don't get into MBTI... they depict all SJs in the most superficial and boring light. I wonder if the descriptions were more influenced by socionics and strictly functions if that would change. You need to feel connected to your type first before you can dive into the study of all types. It has to reveal something deeper than just "you're nice"... maybe like "you find yourself always prolonging pleasant conversations" and you have a deep admiration for art and creativity (very true for ISFJs). 

And by the way, you know SJs are misrepresented in the descriptions just by asking people what type they'd rather be... very few will say an SJ type, cause there's literally nothing cool or special being shown. Having said all this, I think there's a huge difference between xSFJs and xSTJs, and xSTJs probably aren't into MBTI because they're indeed too busy doing practical stuff.


----------



## Cobble

Well, there are a lot of resources about “Personal Development“. Some articles are definitely destined to S-types: very detailed, practical articles about how to act (“How to deal with an annoying colleague” or “how to overcome your fear”) and so on. 

I think MBTI fits the “personal development” logic. It’s about “How to know more about yourself, how to develop yourself, how to know more about people you know” - written in a very “N” “abstract and theoric” way. N-types got interested very quickly. As a result, most of the MBTI resources on Internet are thus written by N-types, so S-portrays often seem off. I'd never show a S-type description to anyone I know. 
<< I don't think there was a bias in the original theory, but I didn't read it entirely yet. >>

I had some difficulties to share my enthusiasm about MBTI to S-types. By experience, "They tend to take the type-stereotypes by words", "tend to dismiss the functions", rendering the MBTI as "useless". (Not all of them, of course. But NT types are usually quicker to get interested in "functions studies".) I really think the 16-types descriptions are useless -and can do harm- if you don't know how the functions work and how they stack. But getting interested in it is time and energy-taking. All the functions are very hard to know, especially when you don't use these functions ! (Fi is still a mystery for me, even if I'm into MBTI for two years now.)

But now, I try to talk about it in a different way. 
I take the tone of "personal development articles" without using MBTI words ("What's currently your problem ?"), I use the functions to simplify the problems in my head ("Oh, a Ne-Si conflict again"), and I communicate it with more "human, practical words" ("She's not too random nor you're not too stiff. She's not trying to be disrespectful. You have different ways of seeing life, making communication difficult for you two. So here's my advice <<< blabla >>")

Then I give some MBTI extracts (I really like MBTI-notes tumblr) just in case they want to know more about it. Usually, talking about it this way works well to get SJ interested. When people learn functions descriptions, communication become much more easier. "GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF AND USE YOUR Se, INFJ DUDE !!!" "Oh right I forgot... thanks."


note : Even without talking about MBTI, N-types and S-types tend to blend poorly and I know that we tend to be very condescending versus S-type, saying/thinking you're "too simple minded" "lacking originality" "way too boring". (On the other side, we get trashed by S-types a lot in our daily lives.)
As a pretentious-NT type and aware of it, I'm very sorry.

note 2 : I'm also angry when I see MBTI's being "misused". I read somewhere that MBTI was originally written as a "response of the war", and written "So that people can understand and accept each other. Thus, preventing conflits and wars." 

So I'm angry when I see oversimplification, like "ENFJ are manipulative douchebags" or "INTP have no feelings. Their Fe is inferior, see." I'm getting super angry when personality types become a way to insult someone - as if some types were better than another - as if we could determine who you are and who you'll become only with your type. And I'm getting super-super angry when types are used to prevent someone else's development. "You're an ISTJ, so you're supposed to be loyal !"


----------



## Zoquaro

I wonder...what sorts of things would _N_ types be less interested in? That can be considered entertaining by people of course (because MBTi is definitely interesting) XD

Well, at least in my opinion, interest in MBTI transcends one's type, strange as that sounds. For some, they mightn't like the idea that people can be 'shoehorned' into one of 16 groups, even though it's much more nuanced than that (the appeal for me is that it's _fun_ ^^).

Although I must agree that the online Sensor profiles are much less exciting than their Intuitive counterparts. To wit...ISFJ: caring and quiet. INFJ: _complex_, caring and quiet. This is of course, extremely paraphrased, but that's the feeling I get ;D

Not to mention that the 'big picture' sounds so much more _glamorous_ than being 'stuck in the details'. Even though the two boil down to _envisioning_ a dream (former), and _actualizing_ it (latter) - they're both equally awesome and important ^^

Well, if we want to kill the idea that SJs are boring/shallow, it starts here, in these little pockets of society with people who buck the stereotype. Living by example, and such. Thanks for this post - much appreciated


----------



## To_august

I think xSxJs are as prone to be into MBTI as any other type. The only premise one should have in order to be into MBTI is to have an interest in one's own self workings and interaction with others. And having or not having such interest depends on personal life circumstances, information people are exposed to, other preferences and gradual life developments that lead us one way or the other, and, of course, all of this is subject to change over time. 

Being misunderstood or feeling oneself different and isolated has nothing to do with N. All people have difficulties in this area at one time or another, or struggle with such issues throughout their life due to a wide number of reasons beyond typology, and primarily because we all are different and have to adjust to society. Kinda paradoxical, but that's the way it is. For once, I got interested in typology because of the common I-need-to-figure-out-what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-me. 

As long as MBTI ascribes focus on meanings and patterns to N we will continue to loop in circular reasoning: I'm interested in an abstract theory of personality therefore I'm an N, and N preference makes me interested in an abstract theory of personality. Distinction between S and N as a curiosity or ability for the non-abstract vs abstract is an utter bs. I mean, attention to the meaning and patterns of information is an N? Really? If so then all humans have a preference for N by default, since even the most mundane thing such as our first language is nothing but a bunch of abstract symbols we operate on everyday basis and which was naturally acquired by picking up patterns itfp. The same as with our everyday life where we generally react to the meaning things hold to us and interpretations we produce based on situations rather than to the bare actuality of what they are.

I don't think there's any significant difference in a number of types among population. I know there are stats and whatnot, but I remain skeptical in regards to how successful MBTI can discern someone's type as a system that doesn't even have definitions for cognitive functions, and therefore had to rely on ambiguous descriptions that overlap across multiple frameworks.


----------



## Na2Cr2O7

Do SJ's want to know their MBTI types? Absolutely.
I have typed several SJ's at least where I study and they are more than eager to learn about their types. While they see it as accurate for them, unlike other N types I know, they do not see why they should study this further or type others rather than themselves. No, this is not an act of selfishness but rather since there are rarer N's out there, N's tend to seek people who are like them, while S types are already part of the large crowd.
This is just what I observe. At least where I study people of N types tend to stick together more. (My "group" consists of INTPs, INTJs, ENTJs, ENFJs, and INFPs.)


----------



## Parrot

It's based on quantitative probability. SJs are fully capable of understanding MBTI, but are significantly less likely to be interested in it. Call it a bias all you will, but SJs like to discuss SJ-topics. Basic, everyday matters of life like career, family, basic hobbies. They enjoy finding depth with specific people but socially are much more superficial. My ISFJ mom meets people and starts talking about their families. If she wants to get deep, she talks about faith. I've discussed typology with her, plenty of times. She just isn't as interested.

So, SJs are 40-45% of the population. Probability wise, they aren't going to be as interested so very few, percentage-wise, might find their way here or strive to learn. INxx types, in comparison, are much more likely to be interested and thus represent the most numerous bloc.

Some tidbits I've found: Te users might be turned off from forums because people discuss this without experts. So some ESTJs could privately study typology, but don't discuss it as they aren't interested in what others have to say, if they aren't qualified. Fe users want to talk. The discussion and debate aspect can be a turn off so ESFJs, in particular, have trouble in the forum environment as it's filled with debate. I'm friends with plenty of ESFJs, on Facebook, and they like discussing interests, family, and how people feel about things. Se doms prefer doing things and keeping thoughts simple. Again, doesn't mean they are stupid, but they are generally not as interested in the depth that typology study requires.

And, of course, ENTPs like typology because it gives a chance to debate and self-generate theories. roud:


----------



## BigApplePi

Interesting post. Sorry I haven't read the rest of this thread except for the latest by @*Drunk Parrot*.


Blue Ribbon said:


> I see a lot of threads saying things like, 'I'm an XXXX type qnd I'm facing this problem' posted in that particular forum. This inspired me to make this thread.
> 
> I see positive descriptions of Ns and really really terrible descriptions of S tyeps. Especially on this site, there are threads about people ranting about how SJs are hard to deal with. We aren't really.
> 
> There's a reason that SJs aren't generally into MBTI and that is becuase MBTI has an intuitive bias - not only are the intuitive type descriptions all positive and upbeat and SJs are dull and boring, but the descriptions are written in a way that N types are more likely to be drawn to them.


If this has been the case it certainly shows an N type bias. 



> MBTI attracts intuitives for this reason - it is very general and paints broad strokes. But the problem with generalized theory is that it misses a lot of details and yes, details are boring to most N types but we do need to pay attention to and deal with them. Why do you think nature has made it so that S types make majority of the population? Sure, it may sound great when someone comes up with a whacky idea but implementation? This is the reason that NP types are famous for not finishing what they start.


My summary of the difference between an N type and an S type (and also for an N cognitive function and an S cognitive function) is N likes generalities and S likes particulars. Both are needed in this world. 



> The truth is, because it is so generalized and so abstract, there is no practical application to it. Being a certain type means nothing. This isn't because the theory is flawed but because the ones who put all grand theories into practice - the SJs - don't find it appealing enough to put it into practice.


Here is how I would put it: Particulars are for immediate practice; generalities don't get that benefit if they don't work. The advantages of generalities is they apply (by definition) to a whole lot of things.


----------



## BigApplePi

Drunk Parrot said:


> SJs are fully capable of understanding MBTI, but are significantly less likely to be interested in it. Call it a bias all you will, but SJs like to discuss SJ-topics. Basic, everyday matters of life like career, family, basic hobbies.


DP you must have been sober when you made this post, lol.

I agree that makes sense. As I said elsewhere, S's like particular things and N's like generalities. The MBTI is loaded with generalities. I have been to a few MBTI meetings in real life. Guess what? They are practically ALL N types. This is utterly non-random because as is said, S types far outnumber N's in the general population.


----------



## Parrot

BigApplePi said:


> DP you must have been sober when you made this post, lol.
> 
> I agree that makes sense. As I said elsewhere, S's like particular things and N's like generalities. The MBTI is loaded with generalities. I have been to a few MBTI meetings in real life. Guess what? They are practically ALL N types. This is utterly non-random because as is said, S types far outnumber N's in the general population.


Thank you, I'm almost always sober when I post on PerC. Drunk is just my first name roud:

I've been practicing on how to explain typology to S types. Like someone else suggested, most people love to hear about _their_ type. Learning other types is where they lose interest.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

Drunk Parrot said:


> It's based on quantitative probability. SJs are fully capable of understanding MBTI, but are significantly less likely to be interested in it. Call it a bias all you will, but SJs like to discuss SJ-topics. Basic, everyday matters of life like career, family, basic hobbies. They enjoy finding depth with specific people but socially are much more superficial. My ISFJ mom meets people and starts talking about their families. If she wants to get deep, she talks about faith. I've discussed typology with her, plenty of times. She just isn't as interested.
> 
> So, SJs are 40-45% of the population. Probability wise, they aren't going to be as interested so very few, percentage-wise, might find their way here or strive to learn. INxx types, in comparison, are much more likely to be interested and thus represent the most numerous bloc.
> 
> Some tidbits I've found: Te users might be turned off from forums because people discuss this without experts. So some ESTJs could privately study typology, but don't discuss it as they aren't interested in what others have to say, if they aren't qualified. Fe users want to talk. The discussion and debate aspect can be a turn off so ESFJs, in particular, have trouble in the forum environment as it's filled with debate. I'm friends with plenty of ESFJs, on Facebook, and they like discussing interests, family, and how people feel about things. Se doms prefer doing things and keeping thoughts simple. Again, doesn't mean they are stupid, but they are generally not as interested in the depth that typology study requires.
> 
> And, of course, ENTPs like typology because it gives a chance to debate and self-generate theories. roud:


You know it's funny because I think my Si-Ti draws me into MBTI specifically. Learning new information and then trying to incorporate it in a consistent way with knowledge and understanding I already have as a framework.


----------



## Parrot

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> You know it's funny because I think my Si-Ti draws me into MBTI specifically. Learning new information and then trying to incorporate it in a consistent way with knowledge and understanding I already have as a framework.


Draws *you* specifically into MBTI based on your interests. Most ISFJs are not drawn into it, which is why I said quantitatively. Hell, plenty of ENTPs have no interest.


----------



## Eset

Oldie but goldie.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

People just need to generate topics for us to talk about. 

:3

:kitteh:


----------



## Merisela

Zoquaro said:


> Well, if we want to kill the idea that SJs are boring/shallow, it starts here, in these little pockets of society with people who buck the stereotype. Living by example, and such. Thanks for this post - much appreciated


I couldn't agree more!
It is human nature to want to stick different people into specific groups and start generalizing those people. This is why racism, sexism etc. exist. And now we have the same thing in the MBTI community (typism??). This is basically the core of what we're describing in this thread.

Actually, I just got yelled at by an upset mother the other day -- I don't know if this is just a phase or whatever, but I've been pretty unsocial this past year. It frustrates her to no end that she sees me researching and reading all these things on (social) pyschology, but she doesn't actually see me interacting with real people.. "you can spend all your time reading about other people, but unless you actually spend time with them, you know nothing about them!" 

With an abundance of N types in this community, a lot of us are just sitting here "feasting on the knowledge" without doing anything with it. A lot of us get upset - and it's nice to blame other people right? - and we end up blaming a certain group on all our problems. If we want things to get better, we have to start with ourselves and like you said, live by example.


----------



## Happy29

Drunk Parrot said:


> Thank you, I'm almost always sober when I post on PerC. Drunk is just my first name roud:
> 
> I've been practicing on how to explain typology to S types. Like someone else suggested, most people love to hear about _their_ type. Learning other types is where they lose interest.


I can see that - 99% of the time I want to talk about my type or the type(s) of people I know.


----------



## Parrot

Happy29 said:


> I can see that - 99% of the time I want to talk about my type or the type(s) of people I know.


Yeah, the ESFJs I know are always interested in the people they know. Never too thrilled by the concept of discussing theory. Because then we might get into theory and I might want to debate. That would then drain you.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Drunk Parrot said:


> Yeah, the ESFJs I know are always interested in the people they know. Never too thrilled by the concept of discussing theory. Because then we might get into theory and I might want to debate. That would then drain you.


Yeah but draining them is a good thing. It exercises that part of the brain and strengthens those neural connections. Do it for the greater good. 

Stop alzheimer's


----------



## Parrot

@Memory of Talon are you, like, following me, today? :dry:

You're obsessed with me :tongue:


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby

@*ColdNobility* , you and I are apparently the only SJ's that aren't offended by our MBTI descriptions, lol. 

Seriously though, I don't think as many SJ's are offended by their type descriptions as intuitive types would believe. And I don't think as many SJ's mistype or sit around wishing they were intuitives as intuitive types would like to believe either. No offense, but it's not all that. Personally, I'd MUCH rather be seen as a practical, down-to-earth, dependable, friendly, normal person than a bizarre, head-in-the-clouds, undependable, maverick. I'm not saying that's how I see all intuitives. But some intuitive type descriptions are VERY unappealing to me. Whereas some people may see 'visionary' or 'brilliant', I see 'crazy' and 'impractical'. Don't kid yourselves is all I'm saying. Not all sensors want to be intuitives. 

Also, some of us do find MBTI and Jungian theory interesting. Not everyone who is into MBTI is a part of this community or will even go to meetings or things like that. Someone mentioned SJ's sitting at home reading books on the subject, and that's probably spot on. I've known about MBTI for almost 15 years now but I didn't join this forum until 3 years ago. I had no desire to. I lurked sometimes to read up on things I found interesting, but saw no reason to join. It was only until I started questioning whether or not I was an ISTJ that I joined. I wanted to get some feedback from ISTJ's to see what they said and since I'm not close to any ISTJ's in real life, I decided to join PerC. Most SJ's are probably similar. If they enjoy the theory they probably use it for practical reasons, not to just sit around and debate. They use it to enrich their lives and improve their interactions with others. I know that's what I use it for. I now understand my own crazy inferior Ne in-the-grip moments better, as well as understand my INFP sister's dreadfully annoying issues with being habitually late and not finishing things she starts.

That's just my 2 cents.


----------



## Cosmic Hobo

An ESFJ friend is both proud of being an ESFJ and interested in the MBTI. He's also taken to testing his relatives and housemates. Probably as a Fe dom, it's another way of understanding and connecting to people.


----------



## Silastar

I am bewildered by the amount of fallacies and errors in this thread. I'll keep this concise, even if I know I'm going to write a lot to adress most of the points.

I disagree with the idea that:
a) MBTI favors N types over S types. This is something I read behind the lines rather than stated explicitly but of course, it is blatantly false. 
b) "Knowing that an individual is an ENFP or ESTP is not going to make your life any easier." What? Quite the opposite! Understanding their mind's general framework helps a lot. 
c) The fact that "nature favors S over N" appears more an attempt to confirm your type's superiority at a metaphysical level. It is also a blatant _appeal to nature fallacy_.

d) "MBTI is not recognized in science and academy." Quite the opposite, it is still considered a valid tool even if it is considered outdated and not as useful as the Big Five. And also a failed attempt at _appeal to authority_ fallacy. _(This actually comes from Drecon, an INFJ)_


On the other hand, I agree that:
1) Most SJs type are not into MBTI.
2) There is a negative prejudice against SJs in the internet communities. From this, however, it does not follow that SJs descriptions are those given by a random sympathizer of the theory. Here you actually tried to propose a flawed use of the MBTI as its appropriate use, which is untrue.
3) The theory doesn't catch the entirety of the individual (by extension, some small facts). True, to some extent. Those that are interested in psychology know that you can't get a truly comprehensive theory of the mind's personality. As stated before, this is true for all theories, for it is their purpose to generalize.
4) If the theory is used to select a potential partner, it is (usually) being used in a wrong way.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I shall explain my points even further. Numbers are the statements I agree with, the letters those I disagree with.

(b)+(1): The reason most SJ types are not into MBTI is not because it doesn't make life any easier but rather because most of them are uninterested with psychology. And when they do, most of the time they are the more critical/experimental side rather than the propositive one. Keep in mind that SJs wont see the use of MBTI because it doesn't only strike as a novelty which goes against Si ("people have been getting along well centuries before MBTI was ever invented") but something that doesn't truly concern them. They have an other way to relate to the world (tradition's impersonal values for example) and that's hardly an issue _as long as the other way is acknowledged aswell_. But traditional values' are not what everyone relies upon. 

(b)+(c)+(2): This is interesting. Before (and after) you criticize the MBTI, claiming that, as a tool, it is useless. However, you then use it to your advantage in order to put forward an other point, that "nature has favored S types over N types" and you see this in statistics which tell S types are more than N types (note how you made yours the stastical and historical part of the MBTI) and that (history) teaches us "NP types are famous for not finishing what they start". Here we get to my point (2). From you, I witness the same prejudice against N types that you claim intuitives have towards your type. An aggrandizement of your points? Perhaps not.

(3) I rephrased a bit in (3). You said: "The truth is, because it is so generalized and so abstract, there is no practical application to it. Being a certain type means nothing." Of course I disagree with this. Being a certain type means a lot! The sole argument to support this view is that there is no practical application in the MBTI. Which brings me to my point (b).
(b)+(3) As for there being no practical application... Well, this sounds vague. What do you mean here? For it can be useful when we relate to others. That is a practical application. You also used it (albeit in an improper way) to criticize other individuals and to bring forward a point among different people. And everyone catched what you were trying to say! Isn't that a practical application aswell? An *expert *(not a fan like me) may use it to mantain an harmonious workplace. Which is advisable, useful and, in some way, practical.
It is also useful when we understand how a mindset works. As ColdNobility said, "it can smooth a lot of interactions. For example, Istjs tend to dislike sudden changes because of Si dominant. If you know that, you can make it so to avoid sudden changes with a person who is an Istj, it will probably make your relationship with that person better so it does help in my opinion."
(3)+(1): "This isn't because the theory is flawed but because the ones who put all grand theories into practice - the SJs - don't find it appealing enough to put it into practice." If you believe the theory is not flawed to the point of it being useless but, rather, it is not appealing enough for SJs to learn it and put it into practice, then I agree. For example, most STJs are not really interested in understanding someone's mindframe and are not very good with psychology in general. They have other qualities. As for ESFJs like you, they may simply find it boring and lacking a lot of vitality (as most abstract ideas), thus not worth of their time. 
But here is one thing I disagree with: "the ones that put all grand theories into practice are SJs" is an excessive and stereotypical generalization which is uncalled for (and the very same thing you spoke against in the first place). This brings us again at point (2). You appear to hold the very same prejudice you claim N types have towards S types.

 *************************

Some other people made a different interpretation of point (3), however. They claim that "the theory doesn't catch up the entirety of the individual (or it is too generalized)". I think bentHnau already adressed this in a solid way. Theories have to generalize. Your reply seems to expand horizons even further as you call in scientific theories that are widely accepted by most communities ("you cannot club MBTI together with other theories like let's say, the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution") to the point they are unrelated to psychology. Here the post becomes a real disaster.


Blue Ribbon said:


> No, you cannot club MBTI together with other theories like let's say, the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution. Though I agree with you that theories are general, it doesn't mean they can't be proven or at the very least, have enough evidence for it to be considered plausible. I will address this point further down in the post.


There is a contraddiction and a false analogy fallacy here.
You claim that you shouldn't 'club togheter MBTI with other theories'... but then agree they are all theories. bentHnau was right here, all theories must generalize, regardless of what their topic is or their plausibility. From astrology to astronomy, from religion to science. This is a pure definition. He explaining why abstraction is inherent to any theory. 
But for some reason you make a *false analogy* fallacy while claiming people can't compare the MBTI with scientific theories, further introducing and expanding this uncalled comparison yourself! 
This would make the point invalid - but what matters to you (I think?) is that the theory of relativity and theory of evolution rely more on facts than the MBTI. Also, I'm inclined to think you picked these two because they share a certain degree of popularity in the scientific community and can hardly be discredited. Fallacy aside, you introduce an other statement here: a good theory, like a scientific one, has to be proven or needs enough evidence to be considered plausible. That's your idea: that's the reason MBTI is a bad theory. It is not attuned enough with facts. Ironically, the theory of relativity and evolution aren't, either. They are not founded upon facts nor have been verified/proven in anyway. And how do you exactly falsify these two theories? How do you falsify the theory of relativity? Inside a certain dialogue, within a certain tradition, *after * a lot of unsatisfactory theories, they appear more reasonable. But in no way the theory of relativity is more grounded upon facts than most other theories (hint, hint, Paul Feyerabend). So your fallacy not only fails to deliver the point but is also incorrect. These theories are even more abstract than MBTI for the latter can be used in everyday life. The theory of relativity and evolution are more elegant, refined, attuned with our mindset? Potentially. Are they more practical? Maybe to a physicist. But not for us. 



> Which is why we need people who are trained in personality theory to do real research on this. And I don't see much of that tbh. The theory of evolution is taught in schools all over the world however I don't even see the psychology community accepting MBTI as hard science.


An other inconsistent comparison. I do not see psychology being taught in schools all over the world _at all_. Psychology in general is not deemed hard science. 
As for MBTI professionals, there are I can assure you. There are some articles and books on and about MBTI but definitely you wont find them in a forum online. Read C.G. Jung, Isabel Briggs, Kiersey and others. They are the main authors of the theory. Otherwise, look for academical papers online - you may have to pay for those.



> I genuinely don't believe understanding the theory will help in understanding others. I know this because there is no handbook for getting along with people.


I conclude by pointing out at this obvious generalization (again): you speak against generalizations, yet you are the first one to indulge in such judgements. I've already explained this quote in (b)+(3). Your rejection lacks a lot of rigor. The type theory doesn't claim to comprehend the entirety of the individual but only its natural way of relating to the world. It is only partially comprehensive. For example, it doesn't take into account traits (hence, type). The rest of your argument presents a _non sequitur_ which is not inherent to MBTI's logic, but your own:


> My two closest friends are INTP and INTJ and I know them really well. I am quite confident they feel the same way for me as well. So from my own observation, this should imply that I understand these two types well enough to be considered best friend (especially an INTJs best-friendship seems like a treasure to be earned as I've seen on the forum). However this is not true. I do not get along with every INTP or every INTJ I meet.


And so on. We returned to the point (3)+(b), which I adressed.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby

After going back and reading my earlier post I just wanted to say I'm sorry if I came off rude or prejudiced. I want to reiterate that I have no negative feelings toward intuitives, whatsoever. I wasn't trying to malign N-types. I just wanted it to be clear that sensors can have healthy esteem about their own type, which I feel I do. But N-types are great too. I'm probably overthinking things again, but I tend worry that my words were taken differently than I intended. :blushed:


----------



## 100_the_cat

Stay on your turf then. Leave MBTI. If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life because society is structured to make sure you have it easy. You don't need a tool like personality typing. Why are you even here?

You're already at an advantage, so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities. 

Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


----------



## nynaeva

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> After going back and reading my earlier post I just wanted to say I'm sorry if I came off rude or prejudiced. I want to reiterate that I have no negative feelings toward intuitives, whatsoever. I wasn't trying to malign N-types. I just wanted it to be clear that sensors can have healthy esteem about their own type, which I feel I do. But N-types are great too. I'm probably overthinking things again, but I tend worry that my words were taken differently than I intended. :blushed:



You seem to be such a nice person. You're good. I think some people get frustrated because being a N can be very lonely - and usually they are actually lonely, they can also be frustrated because they can't really connect with most people, and when people are in this state, they tend to project what they feel on others. It doesn't come out in a good way usually.


SJ are great. I love my N friends but my ESFJ friend (who's one of my BF) is the most caring one, she always checks-out on me, she sends smalls gifts when I'm unwell. She's one of the kindest & most humble & down to earth person I know and I learned a LOT with her. I've learned to think less & be more in the present & practical to begin with. She did the MBTI test and made her husband do it too  She liked the ESFJ description but she said she thinks she's actually an ISFJ ahah.


----------



## JennyJukes

100_the_cat said:


> Stay on your turf then. Leave MBTI. If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life because society is structured to make sure you have it easy. You don't need a tool like personality typing. Why are you even here?
> 
> You're already at an advantage, so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities.
> 
> Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


have you actually read this thread?
actual SJ's and their experiences in life where "society being structured to make sure you have it easy" doesn't matter?
me personally i'm here because i enjoy people and talking to people but posts like these make me want to leave. 
if you want to go around passing blame on others because society hasn't catered to you and pass off everyone in life as being more privileged and advantaged than you, then _thats _a disadvantage you've created for yourself. enjoy that.


----------



## crazitaco

100_the_cat said:


> Stay on your turf then. Leave MBTI. If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life because society is structured to make sure you have it easy. You don't need a tool like personality typing. Why are you even here?
> 
> You're already at an advantage, so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities.
> 
> Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


Wow, rude. You (and I) are the ones invading their "turf", this is their side of the forums. Furthermore, we don't "own" personality cafe, its for people of all types. Everyone benefits from this type diversity, they contribute fresh perspectives to our discussions. We need our SJ's, so let go of whatever grudge you have against them. They are welcome to mbti whether or not you like it.


----------



## There4GoEye

> I've just been so tired of seeing threads that ask for 'what's the perfect match for me - I'm an xxxx' or 'how do I deal with this type because I'm this xxxx type.' The answer? There is no answer. We're all humans. People have been getting along well centuries before MBTI was ever invented.


Honestly, I see all types as equally valuable. We couldn't do things without you. 
But also, we can often do things much better, if we selectively ignore you first. 
No offence lol.

I actually really hope these forums stay hospitable to all types. Learning more about/learning from other types is the reason I'm here, and not on (for example) INTJf.


----------



## BigApplePi

Suppose this thread were instead titled, "Why XXXXs aren't into YYYY?" I expect there never will be such a thread. Why not? Because it's too general and won't supply any good information. Nevertheless I will take a shot at answering it:

Because XXXXs have special interests. XXXXs like ZZZZ. If YYYY comes along, what are the chances YYYY = ZZZZ? Answer: close to zero. There are just too many other interests out there.

Now do you see what I did, lol? I avoided the question, Why xSxJs aren't into MBTI? Instead I posed a far more general question and answered it. Being general (which is close to what intuition is like) has the advantage of covering a lot more ground ... just like the MBTI. But being general is suffers lack of precision, specivicity and is rife with exceptions. xSxJs can really get down to it. They can nail what is important and be in the here and now ... if I have that right. The MBTI fails to do that.
=========

I am fond of intuition (Ne). I like to capture a lot of ground. But what I wrote above suffers from a lot of overgeneralizations ... and errors. If you are a sensation type, who needs that, lol?


----------



## Blue Ribbon

To all the people who have given serious replies, thank you. I was just venting and the fact that you've taken the effort, especially the NTs here to explain how you feel, or to debunk my rant post, I am so thankful. You are all wonderful people  

That being said, time to put away my niceness: 



100_the_cat said:


> Stay on your turf then.


Lol this is the SJs forum. This is my turf. 



> Leave MBTI.


No, you don't get to tell me what to do. 



> If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life


Oh really? You think that no SJ ever alive on this planet has experienced negative stuff? Geez, how typeist. 



> because society is structured to make sure you have it easy.


No it isn't. Society is comprised of all types. Intuitive types make around 30 % of the world population. That's not as low as you think it is. It means that 3 in 10 people is an N type - one in four people is an intuitive type. It's an intuitives world too. I don't know where you get this idea that only sensors or SJs can thrive in society. You want proof you're wrong? Go google the MBTI types of famous historical figures or celebrities. How many N types do you think are there? Society does not favor N over S. That is simply what you think and it's wrong. 



> You don't need a tool like personality typing.


That's up to me to decide. 

Also do you only do/ use/ have the things you need? Never heard of fun? Personal development? 



> Why are you even here?


None of your business.



> You're already at an advantage,


No I'm not. I go to engineering school and marvel at my NT friends who can just 'get' a concept or idea in just seconds. So no, I'm not at an advantage. Why do you think we are here? Why don't you go to a few SJs and ask them and their close ones if they're at an advantage. They'll tell you they aren't. 



> so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people


Let's not get into race here because I'm not white. 



> complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities.


I do not get this analogy. So I'm an SJ complaining about how I have problems with the online community is somehow invalid? MBTI is just four letters. I'm a much more complex individual than that. You can't compare being an INFJ to being a minority group in real life because MBTI is not even widely accepted by psychologists. I mean, there are people saying they don't like SJs. That's up to them; it's their prerogative but your post is on a whole new level. You're turning a non issue into an issue which benefits no one. 



> Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


I'm bisexual in an extremely homophobic country. The other day, my roommate told a bunch of people that she thinks I'm a lesbian. I almost had a panic attack. So don't tell me that being a four letter type makes you weak or unaccepted by society because I know what that's really like. I know what it's like to be shunned and shamed for being who I am. You're extremely privileged if you think that being a type is a challenge. I can mention several INFJs who are all happy, content with their type and acknowledge the strength that comes with it. Get off the computer and go into the real world and do something with your unique skills and contribute to humanity. 

I'm sorry if you think that being an INFJ has put you at a disadvantage but that's your cross to bear - just like how I'm not angry with the straight people in my country because I can't express my sexuality like they can. But I think that my struggle is a bit more real and authentic, right? Oh yeah, but no ESFJ ever has had to struggle with anything ever. *rolls eyes*


----------



## Hero of Freedom

100_the_cat said:


> Stay on your turf then. Leave MBTI. If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life because society is structured to make sure you have it easy. You don't need a tool like personality typing. Why are you even here?
> 
> You're already at an advantage, so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities.
> 
> Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


I can understand your frustration as I have had to put up with living/growing up in one of the most conformist based cities surrounded by "follow the crowd" attitude kinds of people in the population, but no need to be so harsh on the ones here whom haven't intentionally tried anything to hurt/upset the others. 

For your point about advantage though it's more complex than that? I mean factors such as race, gender, class/wealth, height, weight, appearance, biological makeup with disadvantages coming from that also play a part in combination. Maybe also enneagram. Say the SJs who experience racism, unemployment, poverty or other forms of discrimination/inequality and may not be able to "escape" from that like the others can without the instinct required to try to seek an alternate way out? And may have to look to the Ns for help in pulling them out of the hole they are stuck in?


----------



## The Terminator

Why do you care?


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby

There4GoEye said:


> Honestly, I see all types as equally valuable. We couldn't do things without you.
> But also, we can often do things much better, if we selectively ignore you first.
> No offence lol.
> 
> I actually really hope these forums stay hospitable to all types. Learning more about/learning from other types is the reason I'm here, and not on (for example) INTJf.


No offense taken. :laughing: This made me laugh. Growing up as the only sensor in a family of intuitives, I've come to the conclusion that N-types do things one way and S-types another. For things to function properly, both just need to stay out of each other's way, LOL. :tongue:


----------



## niss

100_the_cat said:


> Stay on your turf then. Leave MBTI. If you're an SJ you have nothing to complain about in life because society is structured to make sure you have it easy. You don't need a tool like personality typing. Why are you even here?
> 
> You're already at an advantage, so your post comes across as shitty as a bunch of rich white people complaining about equal opportunity stuff that benefits minorities.
> 
> Ni bias? I'm all for that. Anything that puts me in the lead.


A newbie with 225 posts...

The desire to be banned is strong in this one.


----------



## Happy29

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> @*ColdNobility* , you and I are apparently the only SJ's that aren't offended by our MBTI descriptions, lol.


Believe it or not, I'm not offended by mine, and ESFJs often get the worst rap, but I am what I am and I like talking to people and learning about them, so here I am.

I really agree with everything you said, but I'm trying to cut down on my huge quotes! :smile:

And @100_the_cat, *everyone* has issues...never judge someone's book by the chapter you walked in on. Hope things get better for you - you don't seem like a happy person.


----------



## Siriusly McGonagall

Okay, wow! I am not going to partake in this drama long time ago. I'll say this though because I can see reasons for the title but disagree with the post. I think Real MBTI stuff if you don't do the surface junk read descriptors I did that for a long time. I am sorry I thought that was MBTI. If you really go deep in to it, it can actually be pretty theoretical and I get some of it, not all of it. When NTS and NFs who focus on cognitive functions they start talking over my head. I think I am beginning to get it but still have to use real people to demonstrate these traits. I use SI to kind of tell stick with the facts and data much less then NI or Ne look at the patterns ETC... I think I usually use the dominant and secondary functions the most I have't figured out that well how to figure the 3rd and 4th functions within people. The faster you throw away this stuff with telling who is who by descriptions the better.


----------



## JamesCollector

I only took the MBTI and came here because my INFP roommate suggested it. I'm still skeptical. Personality tests have never interested me for reasons you already stated; they're not helpful or important to my life.

But I'm very bad with emotions, and supposedly learning about personality types will help with that.


----------



## Siriusly McGonagall

JamesCollector said:


> I only took the MBTI and came here because my INFP roommate suggested it. I'm still skeptical. Personality tests have never interested me for reasons you already stated; they're not helpful or important to my life.
> 
> But I'm very bad with emotions, and supposedly learning about personality types will help with that.


I think it can be helpful to know why someone behaves that way or another or how you think but no it's not that important.


----------



## JamesCollector

Siriusly McGonagall said:


> I think it can be helpful to know why someone behaves that way or another or how you think but no it's not that important.


I would certainly like to better understand why my roommate behaves the way she does. So that's good to hear.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> I guess you try to change to become well rounded by taking care of your weaknesses and maybe still strengthening your strengths.
> Or you can be all happy about stereotypes and have fun around here.
> Or you can just not give a shit and move on.
> 
> Your choice


Balance, that's the aim. I've been doing that.


----------



## Electra

The Penguin said:


> The only way to do that is to know their type. Sure, you can understand them and make allowances for them. The only way that works, is if they make allowances for you. Otherwise, it's a one-sided relationship, and those never work. Situations like that makes MBTI irrelevant.


I googled transed allowances but it said unfaithful or something like that. Is that correct??


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> The only way to do that is to know their type. Sure, you can understand them and make allowances for them. The only way that works, is if they make allowances for you. Otherwise, it's a one-sided relationship, and those never work. Situations like that makes MBTI irrelevant.


There are two practical reasons im staying here. 

*One*, i gain some energy by messing around and gaining knowledge at the same time.
*Two *, I want someday to get to the point i distinguish everyone's type around me so i can understand their motives and actions.

People are fun. Understanding them more can lead to new opportunities.


----------



## Super Luigi

Electra said:


> I googled transed allowances but it said unfaithful or something like that. Is that correct??


What I mean is to have reasonable expectations for people once you know their type. Of course, then you have to start with stereotypes until you get to know them.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> There are two practical reasons im staying here.
> 
> *One*, i gain some energy by messing around and gaining knowledge at the same time.
> *Two *, I want someday to get to the point i distinguish everyone's type around me so i can understand their motives and actions.
> 
> People are fun. Understanding them more can lead to new opportunities.


You're a good man.


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> You're a good man.


I dont think so but how do you get this from me? I never said anything about helping people, i just said i find them interesting.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> I dont think so but how do you get this from me? I never said anything about helping people, i just said i find them interesting.


Your two goals, that's how.


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> Your two goals, that's how.


They are selfish though, nothing for the greater good, its more like using that knowledge to reach success.


----------



## Zeri

Who says isfjs aren't into mbti? I'm an isfj and I love myers brigg and other personality theories. I also find mbti very useful.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> They are selfish though, nothing for the greater good, its more like using that knowledge to reach success.


Success is good. Your goals could be to troll and provoke with aggression, to control people for your own disturbing pleasure. Those are the wrong goals.


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> Success is good. Your goals could be to troll and provoke with aggression, to control people for your own disturbing pleasure. Those are the wrong goals.


Though ive used it to troll people too. But didnt get too far.
Well it depends on success. I believe its good, others dont.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> Though ive used it to troll people too. But didnt get too far.
> Well it depends on success. I believe its good, others dont.


Why did you troll them?

Why would success be bad? Do these people believe everyone should suffer together?


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> Why did you troll them?


Well troll could have many meanings. It could go too far or it could be just playful. I mainly stay playful. 
And i do because its fun. Im trying to do it in a way others have fun too.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> Well troll could have many meanings. It could go too far or it could be just playful. I mainly stay playful.
> And i do because its fun. Im trying to do it in a way others have fun too.


That's different. I meant the trolling where the troll, the instigator, has fun at the expense of whoever he or she chooses to troll.

Why would success be bad? Do these people believe everyone should suffer together?


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> That's different. I meant the trolling where the troll, the instigator, has fun at the expense of whoever he or she chooses to troll.
> 
> Why would success be bad? Do these people believe everyone should suffer together?


No people believe that you should aim low and be thankfull for what you already got. 
No i troll to have fun myself too but i refreain from pickin on someone too much so i wont do it for long.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> No people believe that you should aim low and be thankfull for what you already got.
> No i troll to have fun myself too but i refreain from pickin on someone too much so i wont do it for long.


I agree with being grateful for what you have, but that doesn't mean you can't have ambition.

Then I stand by my claim that you're a good man. You're not really a troll, you just have a sense of humor, and you like to have fun with people. I'm sure most people would like that.


----------



## SirCanSir

The Penguin said:


> I agree with being grateful for what you have, but doesn't mean you can't have ambition.
> 
> Then I stand by my claim that you're a good man. You're not really a troll, you just have a sense of humor, and you like to have fun with people. I'm sure most people would like that.


You are making me red right now damn you. I hope you are not hitting on me. Im not used to compliments.


----------



## Super Luigi

SirCanSir said:


> You are making me red right now damn you. I hope you are not hitting on me. Im not used to compliments.


No, I'm not flirting. It wouldn't be appropriate. I was just describing you.


----------



## s2theizay

My dad is an ESTJ (confirmed) and while he thinks it’s semi-interesting, he already has a good grasp of how people function and how to mobilize them to get important things done. It doesn’t really help him accomplish anything. For me, it helped me figure out why I didn’t seem to be on the same wavelength as everyone else, and I learned how to adjust. I used to think that people saw things the same way I did and it made things frustrating. Now I’m far more relaxed and flexible with people and my relationships improved greatly. Maybe I would have gotten here eventually, but I’m pretty sure mbti spedup the process for me.


----------



## knitsix

Blue Ribbon said:


> I see positive descriptions of Ns and really really terrible descriptions of S tyeps. Especially on this site, there are threads about people ranting about how SJs are hard to deal with. We aren't really.


On tumblr is an amazing blogger with the blog name "funkymbtifiction". She is an ISFJ and has the best function and type descriptions I've ever seen. You should check them out. 



Blue Ribbon said:


> There's a reason that SJs aren't generally into MBTI and that is becuase MBTI has an intuitive bias - not only are the intuitive type descriptions all positive and upbeat and SJs are dull and boring, but the descriptions are written in a way that N types are more likely to be drawn to them.


Yeah often the Si and Se descriptions are very shallow because they're written by Intuitives. But generally I haven't heard a lot of bad things about sensors. 
But I don't think that the descriptions themselve don't make MBTI uninteresting for Sensors - Sensors are very pragmatic and thus may not see the sense in learning about it. But here is a great post why every type might be interested in MBTI. 



Blue Ribbon said:


> MBTI attracts intuitives for this reason - it is very general and paints broad strokes. But the problem with generalized theory is that it misses a lot of details and yes, details are boring to most N types but we do need to pay attention to and deal with them. Why do you think nature has made it so that S types make majority of the population? Sure, it may sound great when someone comes up with a whacky idea but implementation? This is the reason that NP types are famous for not finishing what they start.


Si because new things for early humans could mean death which is why they sticked to similar stimuli and methods. Se because to survive you have to be very aware of your surroundings and to try out new things to discover new and safe methods for Si users. 



Blue Ribbon said:


> The truth is, because it is so generalized and so abstract, there is no practical application to it. Being a certain type means nothing. This isn't because the theory is flawed but because the ones who put all grand theories into practice - the SJs - don't find it appealing enough to put it into practice.


I object - as in the previous link you can use it to understand others better, see what differences there are in people, improve communication with them and better cater for them. And for myself I saw what weaknesses I have so I can now work on them and what I have to do to feel "whole". 



Blue Ribbon said:


> All around you are sensing types. We make a huge chunk of the population. So even if you know your type - you maybe an ENFP or an INTJ but the people around you might not. So, even if you typed your friend or your co - worker or your family as a particular type, it's not going to be of any use reading up on that type unless they're interested as well.


Yeah but it's fun to see why people around you act the way they do and understand that they see and judge the world differently. Sure it's mostly for fun but why not? 



Blue Ribbon said:


> I've just been so tired of seeing threads that ask for 'what's the perfect match for me - I'm an xxxx' or 'how do I deal with this type because I'm this xxxx type.' The answer? There is no answer. We're all humans. People have been getting along well centuries before MBTI was ever invented.


I agree, these are just nonsense imo, just get to know people and see if it will work or not. I'm not a fan of reducing someone to their type which is why I personally won't type people I know. 



Blue Ribbon said:


> I'm not saying it's useless. It is a tool for understanding oneself and for understanding others but knowing that your boss is an ESTJ or that your mom is an ESFJ is not going to make your life any easier. They are who they are. You need to learn to deal with them. There will be people you hate and people you love in every type. That is how reality works.


Yes it helps in some way, but I agree it's not always applicable.


----------

