# Hellos SPs!!!! I just realized what a dreadful hypocrite I am!!! :(



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

*Well thank you for the lovely welcome! :tongue:*

You're welcome.



*Yeah, we totally need more faces. I want a Macho Man face, a Princess Face (WITH a tiara :crazy, a Smoking Cigarettes face, a WHATEVER face, an OH SNAP face, a Sarcasm face, an Oh No You Didn't face, a Now You Fucked Up! face, etc. :laughing:*


We need a I just ate something that tasted disgusting face, a opera singer face, a sleepy face, a darn it, i got caught face...



*:sad: But I LOOOOOVVVVEEEE war and violence and fighting and bullying and meanness! :crazy::laughing:*

Oh well, we all have to have our hobbies! :shocked:



*I'll do that! *
Right-ee-oh.


----------



## Nessie (Jan 6, 2012)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I'll make this brief. You're new here so you still think that the MBTI is this brilliant wonderful thing, when in reality it is mostly nonsense. Once you've been here for a short while you'll realize this. Most of the praise you give the test is completely false. You should check out the thread on the ENFJ section about the stupid MBTI stereotypes. As for the last part about graphs and such, surely you're speaking in jest. Just because somebody has "graphs" and "tests" does NOT mean that they have empirical evidence of any kind. This is why the word "hokum" exists, to describe things that look impressive but are nothing but nonsense. Astrology has a whole bunch of graphs and experiments, much more than MBTI, yet it is nothing but a silly pseudoscience. Scientology has the fancy meters and everything, yet even the founder of Scientology admitted they mean nothing. The "evidence" backing up the MBTI, or most of the entire field of psychology for that matter, is at best very little, and at worst nothing at all.
> 
> If you disagree, that's fine. Stick around here for a few more months and then let me know how you feel, once you've seen the silliness of it all first hand.


Hi Nick. Welcome to numerous company (hypocrisy), I havent been on page of your temperament yet:wink:.

MBTI tests scale 50:50 between confirmed and totale discredited (totally discredited are for example projective tests like Rorschach).
MBTIs performance on prediction of job success for example is poor 0.12 (scale from 0 to 1). 

Besides: Im Sanguine/sanguine, pattern SP/NT, very expressed extrovert and I like faces too. Where is difference between sarcastic face and NO, you diiidnt? For me similar.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Nessie said:


> Hi Nick. Welcome to numerous company (hypocrisy), I havent been on page of your temperament yet:wink:.
> 
> MBTI tests scale 50:50 between confirmed and totale discredited (totally discredited are for example projective tests like Rorschach).
> MBTIs performance on prediction of job success for example is poor 0.12 (scale from 0 to 1).
> ...


Thank you for the welcome!


----------



## Vtile (Feb 27, 2011)

:crazy: .


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

This is funny! XD


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

No worries @Niccolo Machiavelli
This is my first time viewing a thread in SP land that wasn't a result of a search function.=P
...+1 time I saw the ISTP's with 1337 threads, had to save that one <_<


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

You guys should come here more often! We don't often get visitors. And we're always in need of more posts, our busiest forum (ISTP) is barely busier than the quietest NF forum (ENFJ). Hey, they're opposites!


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

I have a really hard time believing that you're an introvert.


----------



## FearsomeCritter (Jan 14, 2010)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> - Thoughts on the S and the SPs!
> I know there is a lot of "sensor hate" around here, and while I love being an N, I'm kinda jealous of your ability to notice details. I'm in my own damn head so much I'm lucky if I notice when it is raining outside. :laughing: As far as SPs go, I'm not sure how many I know in real life. I generally don't "type" people in real life, the only people I've "typed" are those closest to me and a handful of people that stood out when I read the MBTI descriptions as being walking stereotypes of a certain MBTI type. I only know of one person who I'm sure is an SP in real life and he is one of the nicest people I know (he's an ESFP).


Good sir,

I can see you mean well, but please don't confuse sensory and intuition with introversion and extroversion. Introverted functions are those that merge or match; they detach from physical stimuli. Intuition can be both introverted or extraverted. Believe me, i'm inside my head far more often than not. The difference is that the subject matter and focus of my introspection are often more concrete than abstract because the judgement is being made on information gathered from Se. Though... I also am perfectly capable of using Ni as it's my 3rd function.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> You guys should come here more often! We don't often get visitors. And we're always in need of more posts, our busiest forum (ISTP) is barely busier than the quietest NF forum (ENFJ). Hey, they're opposites!


Well thank you, sir! 



Kayness said:


> I have a really hard time believing that you're an introvert.


:shocked: And I have a really hard time believing that @Stephen picked _you _over _me_!  *Waves head all around while snapping my finger in front of your face in a confrontational manner* :tongue:

Seriously though, I have no idea why everybody here is so convinced that I _must _be an E. 




FearsomeCritter said:


> Good sir,
> 
> I can see you mean well, but please don't confuse sensory and intuition with introversion and extroversion. Introverted functions are those that merge or match; they detach from physical stimuli. Intuition can be both introverted or extraverted. Believe me, i'm inside my head far more often than not. The difference is that the subject matter and focus of my introspection are often more concrete than abstract because the judgement is being made on information gathered from Se. Though... I also am perfectly capable of using Ni as it's my 3rd function.


Noted! :wink:


----------



## lemonade (Feb 12, 2012)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I'll make this brief. You're new here so you still think that the MBTI is this brilliant wonderful thing, when in reality it is mostly nonsense. Once you've been here for a short while you'll realize this. Most of the praise you give the test is completely false. You should check out the thread on the ENFJ section about the stupid MBTI stereotypes. As for the last part about graphs and such, surely you're speaking in jest. Just because somebody has "graphs" and "tests" does NOT mean that they have empirical evidence of any kind. This is why the word "hokum" exists, to describe things that look impressive but are nothing but nonsense. Astrology has a whole bunch of graphs and experiments, much more than MBTI, yet it is nothing but a silly pseudoscience. Scientology has the fancy meters and everything, yet even the founder of Scientology admitted they mean nothing. The "evidence" backing up the MBTI, or most of the entire field of psychology for that matter, is at best very little, and at worst nothing at all.
> 
> If you disagree, that's fine. Stick around here for a few more months and then let me know how you feel, once you've seen the silliness of it all first hand.


@Niccolo Machiavelli Sorry, but you annoy me. Don't take it personally yet, if you intend to do so. You're judging the MBTI system. I can understand why you say all this scientific/psychoanalyctic stuff is silly and hard to believe without hard evidence. But there is evidence in the form of recorded statistics. And the fact many people who've identified with a particular group and know MBTI does as it says is evidence enough, enough to have hope/faith in this non-tangible science. Working theories work, are functionable until the point they can't function anymore. Even though you're "the scientist," you don't seem to fathom having an ounce of faith in a theory that could be an actual science. What scientist gives up on a working theory just because there is nothing tangible to use as evidence or because it seems silly? That's an insult to science itself. 

And you remind me of Mark Twain.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

lemonade said:


> @_Niccolo Machiavelli_ Sorry, but you annoy me. Don't take it personally yet, if you intend to do so. You're judging the MBTI system. I can understand why you say all this scientific/psychoanalyctic stuff is silly and hard to believe without hard evidence. But there is evidence in the form of recorded statistics. And the fact many people who've identified with a particular group and know MBTI does as it says is evidence enough, enough to have hope/faith in this non-tangible science. Working theories work, are functionable until the point they can't function anymore. Even though you're "the scientist," you don't seem to fathom having an ounce of faith in a theory that could be an actual science. What scientist gives up on a working theory just because there is nothing tangible to use as evidence or because it seems silly? That's an insult to science itself.
> 
> And you remind me of Mark Twain.


I'm not sure where to start here. :laughing:

1) I'm not getting into a long debate. If you want to debate science, talk to @NekoNinja (AKA Neko:ninja, he really enjoys repeatedly ramming his head into a wall when it comes to the topic of what is and is not science. :laughing: I however do not. 

2) You're new here too. Once you've been here for awhile, you'll see what I mean.

3) I remind you of Mark Twain? :laughing: Okay, I'll take the bait, how do I remind you of Mark Twain? :laughing:

4) As for science, science is ALL ABOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! When you lack empirical evidence, you're not discussing science, you're discussing pseudoscience. Which is what the MBTI is, and what most of the so-called "social sciences" are. If you were to call the MBTI "science" in front of a real scientist, they would literally bust out laughing. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it.

5) You're throwing the word "theory" around, I think I should point out that there is a HUGE difference between a "regular" theory and a scientific theory. If you were to say "I think that the moon is made out of ice cream" that would be a theory. A scientific theory on the other hand has nothing to do with faith. For a scientific theory to remain valid, all evidence has to point to it being true, and there is usually a lot of evidence. There is absolutely nothing even remotely scientific about saying "Well let's believe it until it is proven to be wrong."

6) Keep the personal attacks to yourself. I honestly don't mind you telling me that I annoy you. :laughing: But that type of thing will get you in trouble here if you say it to the wrong person. :wink:


----------



## lemonade (Feb 12, 2012)

Yup. I get in trouble a lot when using non-MBTI forums. The way you wrote the last paragraph for post #20 reminds me of Twain's opening for Huck Finn. But I just looked up Twain's mbti, and it's ENFP. Different from your type.

I guess what I was trying to say was don't dismiss pseudosciences as silly. Theyre at least useful for some purpose I'm too lazy to think of.

I just remembered, your type is sarcastic and shrugs off attacks as if they're nothing.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

lemonade said:


> Yup. I get in trouble a lot when using non-MBTI forums. The way you wrote the last paragraph for post #20 reminds me of Twain's opening for Huck Finn. But I just looked up Twain's mbti, and it's ENFP. Different from your type.
> 
> I guess what I was trying to say was don't dismiss pseudosciences as silly. Theyre at least useful for some purpose I'm too lazy to think of.
> 
> I just remembered, your type is sarcastic and shrugs off attacks as if they're nothing.


But pseudosciences _are _silly. If they weren't silly, they would be science. :tongue:

Yep, doesn't bother me. But don't let "type" come into play. Some of the INTJs here are overly sensitive little bitches, meanwhile some of the other "weak"/"soft"/"overly sensitive" types are pretty cool like that. Just be careful, because as a general rule that can get you in trouble.


----------



## lemonade (Feb 12, 2012)

Typing - doesn't everyone do that? Especially with words. If we didn't type someone/something, how else would we identify something we can't explain well with words? Make up a new word? Lol?

And sorry for hurling you a personal attack with the first of my posts. And that was a personal attack? I didn't know! I try to detach myself when criticising someone, but I guess criticisms are attacks.

You're pretty cool for cooly taking my blunt criticisms. Though I don't know what you really have in mind. So what do you want to know about SPs? I'll try to help as apology for the attack earlier.


----------



## lemonade (Feb 12, 2012)

@Niccolo Machiavelli are you there? Please activate your pm please. You can be my helper!


----------

