# Demolishing Stereotypes: Examples of Intellectuals Across Types



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

RoSoDude said:


> I don't know why, but somehow I feel like providing my typings of comedians. They're funny because they think about things, right? Because they actually have some insight, maybe? Eh, screw it. Here goes.
> 
> Typings wrong? Who cares, still awesome, courageous, intelligent, and hilarious people. And they're probably all different types, while we're at it. So it doesn't even matter.


That is the first time I've seen Bill Hicks. Fab. 

It is amusing that it reminds me that I do know of a positive drug story even though I've never done LSD myself, but my one friend told me that she decided during an LSD trip to go into philosophy which made her decide to go to University. The next day she signed up to go to the University and moved to the town I live in where the Uni is located and that is how we met. She not only is beyond brilliant she organised a national philosophical presentation where famous philosophers from around the world will come together to answer audience's questions called Veritas Forum. If you've ever heard of it, that was her baby. Strange huh?

(I don't know her type though)


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Chris Martin the furthest thing from an extrovert, so ESTJ is out of the question.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Ah I'm sorry I can't think of an example right now, but I'm aiming at being so awesomely successful someday in the future that people will be using _me_ as an example of a kickass intellectual on threads like these XD


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> Ah I'm sorry I can't think of an example right now, but I'm aiming at being so awesomely successful someday in the future that people will be using _me_ as an example of a kickass intellectual on threads like these XD


^ RIGHT THERE, PEOPLE. THERE'S YOUR EXAMPLE.

BREAKING STEREOTYPES.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Planisphere said:


> I would assume that the point of this thread is to dispel the stereotype that Feelers are too 'emotional' to be 'rational', which is, of course, entirely untrue. Though Jung describes Feelers as being driven by personal values, that does not dictate exactly what those values are, nor does it suggest they cannot have any interest in 'scholarly' subjects (like math or science). If people post based on that definition, it might make more sense.
> 
> On the opposite end of the spectrum, stereotypes of Thinkers have them being utterly devoid of emotion. This has little truth to it. The issue with Thinkers is that we're not driven by said personal values, so we seem to lack the same sort of passion/commitment that Feelers supposedly have. Get a discussion started about a topic the Thinker knows a lot about, and, according to Myers-Briggs, they will chatter their heads off with a passion that matches the best Feelers. Jung tried to make it abundantly clear that his cognitive functions were not meant to indicate the range of emotions or skills one has; rather, they are to give a clear picture of how we generally understand the world around us.
> 
> But since I rarely pay attention to the personal lives of anyone besides myself, I doubt I could accurately type any non-fiction person, besides - to a degree - the historians and philosophers I've read.


I thought you wanted to impersonate an INTJ, but then I realized that you might have been actually serious...


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think it actually bothers me more when it's thinkers that are thought of as cold, robotic beings, excluding anyone with real feeling from that arena.
> 
> There is this underlying, unspoken rule that 'thinkers' can't be swayed by emotion in their decision-making.
> 
> ...


Needs to change? But people who think that they know fuck all about MBTI. Of course thinkers and feelers both have equal amount of feelings (but perhaps feelers express emotions slightly more often), I thought it was too obvious to even make an effort at refuting it.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Needs to change? But people who think that way know fuck all about MBTI. Of course thinkers and feelers both have equal amount of feelings (but perhaps feelers express emotions slightly more often), I thought it was too obvious to even make an effort at refuting it.


Maybe those who know fuck all about MBTI will then come at it from a perspective which is a bit more enlightened than they might have, if the definitions changed.

It's easy enough to refute that you don't feel. It's not so easy to refute how you actually perceive the world.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Maybe those who know fuck all about MBTI will then come at it from a perspective which is a bit more enlightened than they might have, if the definitions changed.
> 
> It's easy enough to refute that you don't feel. It's not so easy to refute how you actually perceive the world.


I appreciate anyone having enough time and energy to do that, but judging from what I've seen going on in this forum, the amount of "Hey guys, I am an INTJ but I have lots of emotions, have I mistyped myself?" or "Hellooo, I am an ESFJ, but I very much enjoy planning and organizing events. Could that possibly make me a thinker type?" is too much for any sane person to handle.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Eudaimonia said:


> That is the first time I've seen Bill Hicks. Fab.
> 
> It is amusing that it reminds me that I do know of a positive drug story even though I've never done LSD myself, but my one friend told me that she decided during an LSD trip to go into philosophy which made her decide to go to University. The next day she signed up to go to the University and moved to the town I live in where the Uni is located and that is how we met. She not only is beyond brilliant she organised a national philosophical presentation where famous philosophers from around the world will come together to answer audience's questions called Veritas Forum. If you've ever heard of it, that was her baby. Strange huh?
> 
> (I don't know her type though)


Huh, that's really interesting. I've never done LSD (or any drug, for that matter) either, largely because it's illegal and also because I am wary of chemical substances that can alter my brain or cause addiction. But I've heard that LSD is really a mind-opening experience, and I think there should be less in the way of scare tactics around it. Drugs in general are not illegal purely for the sake of public health, but also for the sake of economic and political control, which is not always so noble. I think if we were more open-minded about these realities, we'd actually have less trouble. But that's beside the point, I suppose.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll make a contrary typing here of an N that does _not_ deal with stereotypical theory or any of the sort as a part of their job but what most people would think of quite sensory as a profession. Nigella Lawson, some N-Te type:


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think it actually bothers me more when it's thinkers that are thought of as cold, robotic beings, excluding anyone with real feeling from that arena.
> 
> There is this underlying, unspoken rule that 'thinkers' can't be swayed by emotion in their decision-making.
> 
> ...


It's important to remember that this theory was founded by Carl Jung and developed in his major book on the subject: Psychological Types. The definitions he brought forward are meant to be the collective essence of this particular theory. Though I agree that Jung's own definitions could use tweaking on occasion, I believe said tweaking shouldn't be influenced by changing social values; rather, they should be changed so far as empirical, neurological evidence is provided (which it has yet to do in regards to proving Jung's theory in its entirety).

Before I go on, let me be abundantly clear: 'objective' does not mean 'unbiased' or 'logical'. It means what Jung said it means.



> "The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a _relation of adaptation, _since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes. Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation, which determine the further existence of the living organism the one is by increased fertility, accompanied by a relatively small degree of defensive power and individual conservation; the other is by individual equipment of manifold means of self-protection, coupled with a relatively insignificant fertility. This biological contrast seems not merely to be the analogue, but also the general foundation of our two psychological modes of adaptation, At this point a mere general indication must suffice; on the one hand, I need only point to the peculiarity of the extravert, which constantly urges him to spend and propagate himself in every way, and, on the other, to the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external claims, to conserve himself from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, thus consolidating for himself the most secure and impregnable position."


Though complicated in his definitions, Jung seemed to argue that extroversion is 'objective' (as one is focused on the 'object'), whereas introversion is focused on the subject. If you think of it like a sentence, assume the extrovert is focused on the direct object - the end result, and/or what the subject is interacting with; on the other hand, the introvert is focused on the subject - who or what is doing the interaction. This leads to a disparity in the two forms of perception. On the other hand, he also defined Thinking and Feeling in similar terms.



> "Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not. So far as the practical thinking of the merchant, the engineer, or the natural science pioneer is concerned, the objective direction is at once manifest. But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. In such a case, before deciding, we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time."


Thinking, according to Jung, is naturally focused on 'objective data', and his description almost matches Myers-Briggs' Sensor and iNtuitive definitions (Te and Ti respectively). He 'patches up' this apparent contradiction for Ti in a rather creative way. As mentioned above, he equates Ti to the 'Philosopher', since the rationale of Ti is focused on ideas rather than objective facts. Because of that, Ti can still be strongly rooted in idealism (personal values) while rationalizing in an objective manner.



> "Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity."


From all that I've read, I don't think cognitive functions are meant to deal with emotion in almost any regard, save for how that emotion is rationalized. Thinking/Feeling are simply different ways to rationalize something. The Thinker tries to rationalize based on the external, 'objective' (not to be confused with the same word that means 'without bias') facts, whereas the Feeler primarily rationalizes based on the internal, 'subjective' facts. This means, in a way, that Jung believed the Thinker would adapt to the object, whereas the Feeler would adapt to the subject. This is why he believed that personal values changed more often in Thinkers than Feelers: the object (such as the environment) is quicker to change than the subject (the person).

In short, Introversion and Feeling both have stronger roots in the 'subjective' (value) notion than Extroversion and Thinking. This means extroverted Thinking (Te) is the most 'objective' (the most adaptable to the object), whereas introverted Feeling (Fi) is the most 'subjective' (the most adaptable to the subject). Any type can have emotion and personal values, but it's where their focus lies that dictates how they treat those values.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Planisphere said:


> It's important to remember that this theory was founded by Carl Jung and developed in his major book on the subject: Psychological Types. The definitions he brought forward are meant to be the collective essence of this particular theory. Though I agree that Jung's own definitions could use tweaking on occasion, I believe said tweaking shouldn't be influenced by changing social values; rather, they should be changed so far as empirical, neurological evidence is provided (which it has yet to do in regards to proving Jung's theory in its entirety).
> 
> Before I go on, let me be abundantly clear: 'objective' does not mean 'unbiased' or 'logical'. It means what Jung said it means.
> 
> ...


Thank you for spending so much time in your explanation and making Jung's definitions more readily available in the form of your references-- There was much I already knew, and much that I gleaned from in the reading of it.

I made a thread quite recently about renaming and attempting to describe the cognitive functions for more accuracy. My first attempt was a lengthy stab at Fi-- I spoke about an 'object', not so much in the context of objectivity, but of the focus of the user.

From what I understand, none of the cognitive functions have anything to do with emotion as much as how information is perceived and stored.

Emotion is derived from cognitive causation. It's what comes _after _the perceiving and storage of information.


----------

