# do you find the "intellect" label problematic?



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

cactus_waltz said:


> Possibly. At least "intellects" and "dreamers" seem unequal neck-to-neck, in my very subjective view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





lirulin said:


> It kind of seems like you _should_ value what is your own more. I mean, it's part of who you are. It's what you live by. If your own label doesn't reflect what you really value, what is most important about you, then I would see that as an issue.





lirulin said:


> I've seen it before though, this perception that "thinking" is valued so much more. I hear it a lot from Feelers and occasionally from arrogant NTs, or people who type themselves as NTs because they want to be thought of as smart. But if you think about it - we don't exactly have the best stereotypes on our side. Think of INTJ - a cold heartless organised obsessive evil genius scientist who will never get laid and doesn't understand feelings. Intelligent is one of the few good things we _have_ in our stereotype. People think we're smart - but they _like_ you. Intellect is not usually a quality that helps others relate to and get along with you.





Nitou said:


> What are you doing here? If you perceive that someone is "better" than you, is your solution to try to take them down a notch so everyone is "equal"? Why not go to the NF forums and try to improve your label if you don't like it?



Ha ha ha...I find this all so fascinating because to me, it is the *exact* same thing that popped up in the "INTJ's = Assholes?" thread, the same issue that we hashed out for pages and pages and pages. The same exact situation is now popping up here.


As lirulin pointed out, this notion popped up in that thread:



> 4. The global and American economy is driven by science and technology and modern business methods -- in other words, by Thinker values. Political and artistic considerations are not as significant as financial and technological issues for achieving wealth and power. This tends to give Thinkers a higher prestige status than Feelers in the public perception.
> 
> 5. To describe a Thinker as a Thinker is both honest and affirming (because of #4 above), but to describe a Feeler as a Feeler is often felt to be disaffirming or demeaning, for the same reason. Feelers therefore wish to imagine themselves Thinkers, regardless of the facts. Just as there is only one answer to the question, "Are you lying?" (No), regardless of whether the respondent is telling the truth or lying, so also everybody wants to tell you they are a Thinker: the actual Thinkers follow their own values by telling the truth, and the Feelers also affirm their own values in lying about it -- but in doing so they violate the values they falsely claim of themselves.
> 
> 6. Feelers tend to see an insult in every remark except those that are clearly complimentary -- and in some of those too. Thinkers tend to find truth in every remark except those that are clearly lies -- and in some of those too.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/3629-thinker-feeler-differences.html



Simply put, feelers are often intimidated by the status of thinkers. I don't mean to speak for cactus_waltz, but to be honest I think this is just personal insecurity. I know that for me this what happens in these situations...it's what causes me to feel this way, but it's very hard to admit that because of personal pride.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> Simply put, feelers are often intimidated by the status of thinkers. I don't mean to speak for cactus_waltz, but to be honest I think this is just personal insecurity. I know that for me this what happens in these situations...it's what causes me to feel this way, but it's very hard to admit that because of personal pride.


Insecurity might be part of it. I'm not feeling it but I won't dismiss the possibility of it either. More than anything, I think the labels are slightly misleading, semantically speaking. As it appears though, I'm clearly in the minority on this issue.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Well, even though I'm not an NF, I guess it's just that for me, I don't see "Dreamer" having any more negative connotations than "Intellectual". 

When I think of Dreamers, I think of the creators of all of the great works of literature throughout history. Even though they weren't all NF's, I think of any famous poet or writer of literature as an NF. I also think of those who are passionate for political change out of the concern for people...I know it's a stereotypical example, but I always think of Gandhi when I think of NF's.

When I think of Intellectuals, I think of the great scientific minds that discovered all of the breakthroughs that have led to our advanced society of today.

Really, I see the two going hand and hand...NT's coming up with the all of the brilliant impersonal solutions to problems to make life easier, NF's coming up with ways of making them fair and just to all people. I don't see the Dreamer and Intellectual labels misconstruing this. Even though literature is intellectual, I always picture it as being more emotional, personal and imaginative...created out of someone's dream. Yes, the scientific ideas of NT's are also dreams, but usually NT's dreams involve solving problems in general...the personal and people aspect of them seems to be a sort of sidebar.

The thing is, we're speaking generally here anyway...no label is going to be perfect. I can't really think of better ones to describe NF's or NT's. "Rationals" may be a slightly better term, but the distinction isn't very strong for my perception personally.



If anything, as an S I would be jealous of the abilities of all of you N's. Yes, Sensors dominate society, so we do get plenty of everyday benefits...but this site is all you need to see that N's vastly outnumber S's in terms of making their mark on history (assuming these types are correct).

ENTP - PhilosopherTypes

(there are more than just ENTP's on there, that was just the default page).


EDIT: Of course, right after posting this I just realized Gandhi's quotes on that page are quite unflattering, so maybe I just looked really stupid in defending NF's with that example...but oh well, hopefully you understand what I was going for :wink:


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> Well, even though I'm not an NF, I guess it's just that for me, I don't see "Dreamer" having any more negative connotations than "Intellectual".
> 
> When I think of Dreamers, I think of the creators of all of the great works of literature throughout history. Even though they weren't all NF's, I think of any famous poet or writer of literature as an NF. I also think of those who are passionate for political change out of the concern for people...I know it's a stereotypical example, but I always think of Gandhi when I think of NF's.
> 
> ...


In terms of literature (film, and other forms expressive art), I think NFs excel at drama and NTs excel at comedy/satire.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Magnificent Bastard said:


> In terms of literature (film, and other forms expressive art), I think NFs excel at drama and NTs excel at comedy/satire.


Indeed. A perfect quotation to go with that:

"This world is a tragedy for those who feel, but a comedy to those who think."
*
*

-Horace Walpole


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

rationality and importance of the feeling function? 


i beg you ...expound


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

I despise the "Intellect" label. I'm not in Harvard, so I don't need it constantly rubbed in my face.

I also hate the ENTP labels - "Entrepreneurs" (omggg DUH u can't spell ENTREPRENEUR without ENTP!!!1 and "Inventors".

Why? Because I'm both those things, and I don't like seeming so predictable like that.

lol. I'm "feeeeeling" rather ENFP tonight.


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

Let me remind you:
Some of the most important words in recent history of mankind were "I have a dream".
Not "I have intellect!"


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Either way, equality that is preserved by taking something away from others - when we're hardly talking a limited resource here - doesn't seem the best solution to me. Almost mean-spirited. Dragging others down rather than bringing yourself up to meet them.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

I don't see it necessarily as bringing anything _down_, but rather levelling the field.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

cactus_waltz said:


> I don't see it necessarily as bringing anything _down_, but rather levelling the field.


By taking away something good from one person, ie a positive label, rather than giving something good to another, ie a better label.

I don't mean you intend it in a mean-spirited way. Just that this strategy makes me very uncomfortable.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

In any which case, I was more interested in simply knowing if I was alone in experiencing this or not.


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

cactus_waltz said:


> In any which case, I was more interested in simply knowing if I was alone in experiencing this or not.


I think you were, and to remedy the situation a many INTJs offered you options. And also called your bullshit.
It's what we do, the curse of Fe and Fi being nothing else than ugly remainders of our former humanity.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

There was no bullshit, only curiosity. You don't have to leave maturity at the door.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think they should have used titles at all. I think that some people choose a type specifically because of the title/connotation.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

timeless said:


> I don't think they should have used titles at all. I think that some people choose a type specifically because of the title/connotation.


And that's a shame. I can't speak for all types, but I find a lot of the titles to be kind of silly, especially my own. I'm not saying I don't have any nurturing qualities, but I certainly don't view myself as a "nurturer" first and foremost.

But it's never bothered me because I just don't take any of the titles that seriously.


----------



## Seventree (Jan 12, 2010)

Cognitive functions are like tea biscuits and honey. Slap on a biscuit, roll some honey dip it in tea. Sit for the crumbs, make yourself another cuppa, roll around in hay, read a few good books, complain about the internal translator, confiscate a portion of time space reality, transform a zombie brain into a Frankenstein brain and walla brainy intelligence. Fold the napkin and lick that red ketchup, its good for you.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

... That's a quote from Jung, right?


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

cactus_waltz said:


> There was no bullshit, only curiosity. You don't have to leave maturity at the door.


What part of this is curiosity:


> It bugs me since it grants NT's a certain something that at least superficially goes against the everybody-are-equal thinking that the MBTI is based on.


A hypothetical question. And then onwards we go to your second point, which I need to highlight and issue now that you have displayed a clear deficit of critical thinking.


> In other places I've seen the temperament labeled as "rational" rather than intellectual, which does seem to be a more balanced phrasing.


Now to use this title to classify NT type would be far more patronizing than "intellectual" and it quite frankly just defeats me how you fail to see connotations of "rational" applied only to one group. It by nature refers to other types being irrational or prone to irrationality. And if you need me to explain you the concepts at least allow me to assume you know to further yourself to Wikipedia article on irrationality after this link provided: Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather than defining NT by dominant aspect you are suggesting to title them as the ones capable of rationality and some how this levels a playing field?
Sometimes it just strikes me speechless at how thoughtless statements people manage to pull out of their ass. And then try to stand by that statement digging the hole they are in only deeper.
But my aghast aside let's dig a bit deeper.



> Let me put it this way: if you had a thousand people (without knowledge of MBTI) rank the temperaments from most to least desirable, which do you think would come out on top? Do you think it would be an even distribution?


What you suggest here is as absurd as asking people to put diseases in the order of severity based on their names without prior knowledge of medicine.
Do you just go by the label of things in your everyday life? No, of course not.
Words have meanings but it is context that actually provides them content.
And you are the one here calling out a maturity checks? If I had the Fe enough to feel amused I might feel that about now.



> Still though, I can't help but feel that the labels fail to communicate that all temperaments are equal. You have to dig in and get more knowledge of the dreamers to see what their strengths are, the label itself doesn't.


And this comes to you as a surprise? Or in some how it is news that a deeper look into things is required to understand them? This is where the "calling your bullshit" comes in. You had plenty of reserved nice comments trying to outline how you are trying to hit a bowling ball with a putter here.



> * Of course, I do encourage people to read up on the temperaments no matter what. I just think the labels should be able to convey the message properly.


No, labels are there to label things. 
label: a slip of paper, cloth, or other material, marked or inscribed, *for attachment to something to indicate its* manufacturer, *nature*, ownership, destination, etc.
2.
a short word or phrase *descriptive of* a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
3.
a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification: The following definition has the label “Archit.”​
And here we go: Label is not there to be fair and equal, that's what the content is there for. You are asking too much from a single word, it is English, not Sanskrit.



> I don't see it necessarily as bringing anything down, but rather levelling the field.


I already covered this a little and so did others here but let's add to the expounded.
You think one title being more socially valuable than others means that it inherently leads to favoritism and unfair conclusions? And you think that leveling playing field is then done better by steamrolling everyone down to gray mass instead of elevating the rest to match the "best". Only because it is easy to bring others down does not make it the best option, thinking like that is what is wrong with the society today. The few bright ones get crushed down and treaded into the dirt with the rest of the "worms" just so that nobody even dares to think that they can account for anything or change things.

And you have jumped on that party wagon and gleefully go around stomping down the different just to feel a bit better about your own mediocrity which you accept at face value? I hope not. That is a sad way to live.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Sanskrit said:


> A hypothetical question. And then onwards we go to your second point, which I need to highlight and issue now that you have displayed a clear deficit of critical thinking.
> 
> Now to use this title to classify NT type would be far more patronizing than "intellectual" and it quite frankly just defeats me how you fail to see connotations of "rational" applied only to one group. It by nature refers to other types being irrational or prone to irrationality. And if you need me to explain you the concepts at least allow me to assume you know to further yourself to Wikipedia article on irrationality


"Rational" in the Jungian sense is different than rational in the everyday sense of the word.

"_Thinking_ uses rational processes, and its own laws or models, to bring elements of both internal and external experience into conceptual connection with one another. _Feeling_ uses rational processes to recognize the _value_ of an experience or situation. Thinking relates experience to a conceptual framework in which internal consistency and coherence are primary. Feeling relates experience to a framework of what is valuable or important." Jung's typology

So either type can be rational. Jung considered the N and S functions to be irrational. However, I still wouldn't like NT to be called rational since it wouldn't fit in that sense. 

There's also the rationals in the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, which I think was the subject of reference earlier in this thread. The KTS has Rationals, Artisans, Idealists, and Guardians. But that doesn't imply that non-rationals are irrational, or that non-idealists can't be idealistic, etc.


----------

