# Do you agree with this guy's type intelligence analysis?



## LonelyTylenol (Jul 28, 2011)

The link to the full post is below but tl;dr someone ranked the types by intelligence in the order of:


INTP/INTJ
INFP/INFJ
ENTP/ENTJ
ENFP/ENFJ
ISTP/ISTJ
ISFP/ISFJ
ESTP/ESTJ
ESFP/ESFJ
Do you guys agree? 
Which Is The Smartest MBTI Type? | Slayerment


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

inb4lock
.........


----------



## LonelyTylenol (Jul 28, 2011)

My only regret was not knowing what I did.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

What is this guy's basis other than his own inclinations?


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Oh gee, I wonder if the person who made this list was an INTP or INTJ*makes obnoxious masturbation motions with hand*

It's entirely possible he isn't but the INTJs in particular are known for not being modest about their intelligence, the INTPs as well but in a more roundabout way.

I don't give a shit, honestly. If he based it on IQ scores it's probably correct, although if I had to choose between being a gifted INTP or a gifted ENTP I think I would choose the latter, or even ENFP. I really like both of these types and having a high IQ along with these personality traits is the full package imo.


----------



## KneeSeekerArrow (Jan 8, 2012)

If he's talking about IQ scores then he is backed up by most of the literature out there. Repeated studies have shown N, and to much lessor degrees I, T and P traits are associated with higher IQ scores, c.f. The Relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ Level and the Fluid and Crystallized IQ Discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). 

However does IQ score equal intelligence? I think there's evidence that it does, but the jury is still out.


----------



## very bored (Jul 6, 2009)

I question his decision to completely ignore P/J











I just want to see where this thread goes


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Damn, I feel like an idiot now, I just posted a thread similar to this guys idea but in the sense of Heirarchy but I didn't see this till afterwards, basically the same idea.

I agree only if we're going off of majority vs minority in every type. What I mean is that the majority of INTPs in comparison against the other types majority would be smarter. So, statistically speaking based off of the definition he gave us, I do agree with that list. If I was to make a list though comparing which types are more intelligent I would go off of potential. The majority of a group just shows the average intelligence for that group of people. Potential is more important because it shows where a types max limit could potentially take them.

The list he created was based off of concrete definitions instead of abstract theoretical possibilities. He obviously has more information to back up his theory and help most people understand it in a logical format. I would assume he is an INTJ going off what I just described.


----------



## FuzzyLittleManPeach (Aug 29, 2011)

Lol INTJ - ESFP are on opposite ends. 

All influence takes is building rapport, or having cash money.


----------



## JackInTheBox (Apr 12, 2011)

Fuck intelligence, that doesn't matter, it's just a thing that people who "have it" can stroke there ego's with. Reality is that everyone has different strengths, put an INTP or INTJ in charge of counselling people 7 days a week, just being empathetic with them and making them feel better, they wouldn't look as intelligent as, say, an ENFP. Put an INTP in charge of administration and getting things done to the exact minute under the orders of higher management, the INTP would look nearly as intelligent as an ISTJ in that regard.

It's like superpowers, there isn't a "top" one, because it all depends on the situation. The person in OP's post needs to grow the fuck up, and I'm a 19 year old.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Apparently Ns are the innovators and "If you really look around you will see this all over". See what all over? Innovators? If you are looking for people who are innovators and call them Ns, I think you just might have a wee bit more "innovative Ns". And so I look to his "Ns are smarter than Ss" article. He says that sensors get their information from the material/external world and intuitives, the mind/internal world. I disagree with the definitions he uses, but hey, as long as he follows his conclusions logically from this, he's doing nothing wrong. So, let's see his train of log-what? Suddenly he switches gears, and states that (via google) there are more influential intuitives. He apparently doesn't give a shit that the majority of his sources use different definitions of intuition (like if he went to any Jungian source he would find out that Charles Darwin is Te dominant and sensing auxiliary, or ESTJ to use MBTI terms). The only way he correlated this part to intelligence is stating that "influential people are probably smarter than other people". GREAT ARGUMENT GUIZ. 



> S's love their senses because their senses are their teacher. But once you learn the basic dynamics behind the physical world you start to move onto the more abstract and deep things. You move out of the physical and into the mind. You move out of the shallow everyday things and into the more philosophical. It doesn't mean that you don't appreciate or understand the immediate, physical things -- it just means that you're past that.


Apparently nothing to do with the real world is deeeeeeeep.



> So as children we don't have to worry about money or growing or taking care of ourselves or leading or anything like this for the most part. Most of our life is taken care of by our parents or the socialist government. Young people look good, their bodies work good and hardly any effort is needed to get by in life. They have everything given to them and don't need to develop themselves. But as reality kicks in we either wise up or become a slave. Most choose to become slaves and collapse under the fold of tradition and authority. But every once in a while you will get that solitary, free spirit that has the need to venture into the unknown and leave the crowd, despite the whole bunch of S's trying to pull them back down as hard as they can. This is the evolution away from group-rule into self-rule. This is the evolution from animal to human -- a truly sovereign, capable human being.


This follows the previous paragraph how? Or are you saying that not seperating yourself from reality means that you don't think for yourself. Because that follows logically, right?

And in the comments he was in a debate with a guy who actually knew his shit. This was how it went:

"MBTI is not about ability."
"Hoo hoo hoo imma be all Socrates. Foolish mortal, surely you realise that some people are smarter than others? Do you propose that nobody is better than another?"
"I never said that nobody is better than another person, I said that MBTI doesn't measure that."
"Sorry you can't deal with the fact that some people are better at certain things than others."

I wouldn't be annoyed with this guy if he simply thought that intuitives were smarter than sensors, via his own definition of the two. What is annoying is his smug attitude, utterly unecessary shoving of his dislike of socialism into it, and treatment of anybody who disagrees with him as just not accepting the truth. And also, though this is a more subjective gripe, I am disgusted his use of personality theory as a tool for hate, instead of one of understanding. I know, that sounded really sappy, but its true. I hate corruption in all its forms, and turning something enlightening into something derogatory is terrible.


----------



## Ikari_T (Apr 10, 2012)

It's amazing how ESFJs are the stupidest type, yet they manage to have the THIRD HIGHEST INCOME. Click here --> Demographics from The Personality Questionnaire


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Apparently Ns are the innovators and "If you really look around you will see this all over". See what all over? Innovators? If you are looking for people who are innovators and call them Ns, I think you just might have a wee bit more "innovative Ns". And so I look to his "Ns are smarter than Ss" article. He says that sensors get their information from the material/external world and intuitives, the mind/internal world. I disagree with the definitions he uses, but hey, as long as he follows his conclusions logically from this, he's doing nothing wrong. So, let's see his train of log-what? Suddenly he switches gears, and states that (via google) there are more influential intuitives. He apparently doesn't give a shit that the majority of his sources use different definitions of intuition (like if he went to any Jungian source he would find out that Charles Darwin is Te dominant and sensing auxiliary, or ESTJ to use MBTI terms). The only way he correlated this part to intelligence is stating that "influential people are probably smarter than other people". GREAT ARGUMENT GUIZ.





The basis of his point of view is that intuitives are more influential than sensors. The only definition you need to use for intuition is the one the mbti is based off of, which happens to be Jungs. In no way is he stating that it is impossible that a sensor can be more influential than an intuitive, he is simply stating that the "majority" of intuitives are more influential than sensors. Going off of history, and where the world is currently at and how it initially progressed here proves that. Let me correct myself real quick, I don't want to say "more influential" but rather "influentially more powerful". Intuitives influence on an average scale in conparison with sensors shows that the influence that intuitives have, are "often" longer lasting in the grand scheme of life. 



> Apparently nothing to do with the real world is deeeeeeeep.


By going off of the definition "depth" for the word deep than no nothing in the immediate sensory perspective of world is deep. Intuition is about depth and being broad on a large scale. Sensing on the other hand is what is or what was, but there is no depth in sensory perception. That's not to say that who you are naturally as a sensor isn't an individual with layers, it's just not abstract layers.

Update: By the way I could also argue in favor of your point of view, that the world can be looked at as deep, if we're saying deep= abstract. That would be what an extraverted intuitive does. When in comparison, intuitives have more, and strive to understand more depth than a sensor would.



> This follows the previous paragraph how? Or are you saying that not seperating yourself from reality means that you don't think for yourself. Because that follows logically, right?


You have a conscious mind, correct. That conscious mind makes decisions which can take multiple directions to different places, correct. The statement he is presenting is that as a sensor you are bound to reality, there's nothing else to it. Everything you get "complete", as in max, enjoyment from life is based on concrete reality. As intuitives we are not bound by reality but we chase after or enjoy to the max, the abstract. We are free and comfortable to create decisions that aren't easily noticed by sensors. I can play devils advocate though and state that as intuitives, we are bound to chase the abstract, which by the definition of "bound" means that we also aren't capable of thinking for ourselves. He was looking at it from more of an outside perspective looking at individual being studied. By the perspective he was showing, sensors are noticeabley more likely to seem like they can't think for themselves.



> And in the comments he was in a debate with a guy who actually knew his shit. This was how it went:
> 
> "MBTI is not about ability."
> "Hoo hoo hoo imma be all Socrates. Foolish mortal, surely you realise that some people are smarter than others? Do you propose that nobody is better than another?"
> ...


I agree with you that he acted immaturely which to a lot of people if not most would assume everything he has claimed before hand was invalid now. He obviously couldn't explain it in such a way that was easily understood by the masses. While explaining, he focused (probably unintentionally) it more for the understanding of intuitives. He has flaws, like everyone else (with the exception of ENTPs, I kid I kid), and with time he'll probably work on that.

Talking about flaws though is you like "most" (not all) SJs I have come across throughout my life when explaining things. Immediately you make a judgement call, but the judgement call is based off a vertical model. The top is superior, the bottom is inferior model of what is being explained. By doing that, you focus on specific words/concepts but in the negative sense, even though he pretty much made it easy for you to pick up on each if those negative parts. He used words/concepts such as "slave", or "basic dynamics" which helped you categorize internally that the whole point he is making is to demeanor sensors. You looked past every other valid point, or tried to understand where he was coming from or how he came up with that conclusion.

To give a greater understanding, use keirsey temperament sorter. NT's are the intellects, we study and look for answers that either apply to our plan or love for knowledge. The "majority" (not all) of the greatest intellectual minds were intuitives who changed the world in drastic ways, not only did they change the world, they altered the direction reality was heading or sped it up. SJ's are overseers, they are great at managing, but managing isn't progress. Overseers make sure everything goes according to the plan, which isn't really influential on a world scale in comparison to altering where reality is. 

If you want, I can even play devils advocate with the last sentence I said by switching the perspective up. Overseers could be looked at as more influential as a whole by realizing they maintain order, that is socially acceptable by the masses, on the present life/world grand scale. Managing as a whole could be looked at as more influential than the "once in a blue moon" NT coming along making reality changing effects on the world that will change or speed up the course of life. That depends on a linear or non linear mindset though. Laws, morals, and values on a, what is present day socially normal was even socially acceptable in the first place because overseers managed the masses to follow and obey what the majority agreed on. Throughout time it became the "normal, or "right" morals, values, and laws.

So basically all he was stating that he sees intelligence and reality changing influence much more influential than influence through managing. You can't blame him though, society made it the "norm" to strive to be an intuitive while at the same time saying "follow and obey what we say or perish". Society created an underlying oxymoron, and basically fucked the system up. Hence why we all have our strength, weaknesses, and gifts and some are more favorable than others, but the whole "everyone and everything is equal and can be whatever you want to be if you put your mind to it" mindset which also fucked up the situation. So talking about logic, everything society is making the social norm isn't logical, it's an oxymoron. Maintaining the oxymoron is just stumping the progress that the world could be at. No wonder people are comfortable with circular reasoning, and holding contradicting viewpoints and just accepting it.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

A note: I was pretty immature in my post myself. A touch hypocritical, I was.



Michaeldh0589 said:


> The basis of his point of view is that intuitives are more influential than sensors. The only definition you need to use for intuition is the one the mbti is based off of, which happens to be Jungs. In no way is he stating that it is impossible that a sensor can be more influential than an intuitive, he is simply stating that the "majority" of intuitives are more influential than sensors. Going off of history, and where the world is currently at and how it initially progressed here proves that. Let me correct myself real quick, I don't want to say "more influential" but rather "influentially more powerful". Intuitives influence on an average scale in conparison with sensors shows that the influence that intuitives have, are "often" longer lasting in the grand scheme of life.


MBTI was based off of Jung, but Myers Briggs made some of her own changes to the theory and other people get mixed in too (Whenever you, for example, use the NT, NF, SP, SJ terms you aren't really dealing with Jung at all but some terminology from Myer's Briggs, cribbed by Keirsey.).

Why would an intuitive make more of an influence on the world than a sensor, though? Lists of intuitives are brought up, but why have these people been typed as intuitives? If I wished I could define intuitive as "He who likes steak rare" and classify a fair number of random people as intuitives. The label is meaningless without foundation for its application.



> By going off of the definition "depth" for the word deep than no nothing in the world is deep. Intuition is about depth and being broad on a large scale. Sensing on the other hand is what is or what was, but there is no depth in sensory perception. That's not to say that who you are naturally as a sensor isn't an individual with layers, it's just not abstract layers.


Why can't understanding what is not be deep? Scientists spend years trying to figure out exactly what is going on in the universe and they are not nearly done. Philosophers debate sharply over abstract concepts. "What is" and "Depth and broadness on a large scale" are not mutually exclusive things. Your last sentence is puzzling. Are you relating abstraction with depth? In my mind abstraction is the highest form of simplicity (in a good sense).



> You have a conscious mind, correct. That conscious mind makes decisions which can take multiple directions to different places, correct. The statement he is presenting is that as a sensor you are bound to reality, there's nothing else to it. Everything you get "complete", as in max, enjoyment from life is based on concrete reality. As intuitives we are not bound by reality but we chase after or enjoy to the max, the abstract. We are free and comfortable to create decisions that aren't easily noticed by sensors. I can play devils advocate though and state that as intuitives, we are bound to chase the abstract, which by the definition of "bound" means that we also aren't capable of thinking for ourselves. He was looking at it from more of an outside perspective looking at individual being studied. By the perspective he was showing, sensors are noticeabley more likely to seem like they can't think for themselves.


I have intuitive ideas just as you do sensing- but we both do not consider the other to be as fruitful as our dominant. Intuition to me comes across as fixating upon guesses and ignoring or dismissing what is actually there. You see sensation as shallow and limited, and I am inclined to the same towards intuition. But in my difficulty in trying to conjure up a intuitive thought process in my head while the dominant types describe it with perfect lucidity, my true limited knowledge comes to light. But the intuitives likewise do not have the readiness I have at formulating an example sensor line of thinking. Only a very few on this forum are extremely adept at describing both, and I imagine it took them very hard thinking over quite a long time. I'm of course shooting for that level of understanding. And I think everyone who is here for the theoretical areas is too.



> Talking about flaws though is you like "most" (not all) SJs I have come across throughout my life when explaining things. Immediately you make a judgement call, but the judgement call is based off a vertical model. The top is superior, the bottom is inferior model of what is being explained. By doing that, you focus on specific words/concepts but in the negative sense, even though he pretty much made it easy for you to pick up on each if those negative parts. He used words/concepts such as "slave", or "basic dynamics" which helped you categorize internally that the whole point he is making is to demeanor sensors. You looked past every other valid point, or tried to understand where he was coming from or how he came up with that conclusion.


I was on the negative side, that was true. But I was partially trying to see his logic for his explanations. I know that his point was really that some people are better than others. I didn't have a problem with that point (although I did with that smarmy socialist comment). What I was picking apart was how he related it to MBTI.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Owfin said:


> A note: I was pretty immature in my post myself. A touch hypocritical, I was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They may have organized the functions in order based off of objective analyzation of people. They did create a formula, but the formula, never the less was, is, and always will based off of Jungs cognitive functions. All Myers and Briggs did was analyze people, created a model from what they gathered and what they learned before from Jungs teachings. Afterwards, they created a formula that matched the model. By doing that many questions were answered, and the system was almost fully understood in a way where most people could grasp. What started it all though, were the principles, which happened to be the functions Jung founded. So there is a definition already created and used, to describe what is intuition, no matter how you look at it, the definitions are there. 

Now yes you can go around creating any definition you want and calling it an intuitive but thats why your a Te user and not a Ti user. The Ti user understands and accepts that the world, the universe, and reality is a system. In order to have a system that works it must have a foundation, the foundation is being able to define what certain things. Than the Ti categorizes what it is already defined, and the thing about definitions is they are created to describe what already is, what was, or what could be. It respects the importance of being able to define things clearly. If the system is built off of these foundations which starts at defining what those foundations are and the system works, than that more than likely validates the definitions. 

Now, by looking at this guys system we have to assume that mbti is an efficient system. It may or may not be but once you started reading what he had to say, you indirectly agreed to the unspoken terms that for now, for this theory alone, that mbti is 100% factual. So changing definitions now is just irrelevant, because he is saying is "if Myers and Briggs system is considered to be 100% factual than I will create this system using the mbti theory (now looked at as fact) as my foundation to what I'm about to describe". Now moving on...



> Why can't understanding what is not be deep? Scientists spend years trying to figure out exactly what is going on in the universe and they are not nearly done. Philosophers debate sharply over abstract concepts. "What is" and "Depth and broadness on a large scale" are not mutually exclusive things. Your last sentence is puzzling. Are you relating abstraction with depth? In my mind abstraction is the highest form of simplicity (in a good sense).


Yes you're correct but you're missing the point. Those who are defined as intuitive by Carl Jungs description are, on the greater scheme of things, with the greater scheme being "potential reality altering", to be more influential than than those defined as sensors under the same system, whose influence is most of the time, >50%, only present moment. The sensors influence is only around for as long they live most of the time. Intuitives who make it up on the scale to influence others do it in ways which change life in drastic ways from Edison to Steve jobs, these people influence in ways that the world as a whole has to adapt to now. Most sensors (not all) don't have the potential capabilities that influence the world to change, maybe a region but not the world. In the world as we have defined as earth, the greater scheme is what affects it as a whole not a part. 



You see abstract thoughts as simplicity because you have it at its negative, most simplicitic nature. To prove what is more in depth between intuition and sensing I'll use the personality types as a whole. We, as intuitives, understand, respect, and accept that Sensors do exist as what they are defined by Jung and MBTI. Sensors on the other hand, more so for SJs (not all), do not accept that intuitives exist for the most part. Sensors due to the lack of their intuitive side do not grasp the true nature of what intuition as a leading function does. You say it's just a "fixation upon guesses and ignoring what is actually there". That proves your lack of understanding intuition because you can only go off of what you know.

Update: I think what you mean, is that the product created by the process of the intuition helps simplify what is? The process itself though is where the depth comes into play.

Intuition for me are not guesses, as it is my main function I use it to a much greater degree than you. Extraverted Intuition is seeing an object with the approach of changing what is by thinking "what ifs?". For instance I look at a computer I imagine what if I could be in the computer, to be in the database. Than I get more into it thinking I could read Wikipedia pages all day at a faster rate. I could see porn from a different perspective. Wait, how would I perceive what I usually see on the computer screen from the inside of the Internet. It couldn't look like a screen because I'm in side the network. Maybe by going through the network I'll naturally absorb all the information in binary code but my brain will translate it all in a way I can understand it best. Maybe I absorb the binary code and it just stays binary and I gained no insight at all just dumb images of 1's and 0's continuously.

That is what Extraverted Intuition does by itself, it just keeps going and going and going. Now if our computer software was at the point where I could show it from it's true nature, which is that wasn't the only thoughts going through my head, I had many other thoughts flowing through my mind while I was typing that, true extraverted intuition as a leading function is a possibility generator with many layers of continuous thoughts (that may not be directly related) being processed simultaneously. Depending on our second function is how we filter the thoughts, how we refine it to make it much more accessible for our needs. Extraverted Intuition has many more things it can do and be used for but I would be going into a very very very long detailed explanation of all of its capabilities. 

As an Intuitive though I do understand that introverted sensing doesn't constantly think about theories but about past moments. I understand that once an Si user walks in a room they may notice many things wrong (wrong being determined due to what they know) but after the seen the room, after it has been stored in their mind it's much more clearer in their head than when they were there present moment. That goes for any sensor organ being used, you know exactly when someone changed a subtle ingredient in a meal they have cooked multiple times before. You notice a smell in a place where it shouldn't be. Si is sensory perception absorption and storage room. Si will compare and contrast the present moment, absorbing it through sensory perceptions with what was already stored. Depending on the Si users second function it'll change how the express what they know from their past to the objective world. Hence why Si users are great managers and maintainers because once you learn how a system "should" work at the present moment you'll make sure it stays that way, because to you, that's way it should be.

Proof enough that abstract thinking is more in depth than concrete thinking.



> I have intuitive ideas just as you do sensing- but we both do not consider the other to be as fruitful as our dominant. Intuition to me comes across as fixating upon guesses and ignoring or dismissing what is actually there. You see sensation as shallow and limited, and I am inclined to the same towards intuition. But in my difficulty in trying to conjure up a intuitive thought process in my head while the dominant types describe it with perfect lucidity, my true limited knowledge comes to light. But the intuitives likewise do not have the readiness I have at formulating an example sensor line of thinking. Only a very few on this forum are extremely adept at describing both, and I imagine it took them very hard thinking over quite a long time. I'm of course shooting for that level of understanding. And I think everyone who is here for the theoretical areas is too.


Read what I said before this paragraph. 





> I was on the negative side, that was true. But I was partially trying to see his logic for his explanations. I know that his point was really that some people are better than others. I didn't have a problem with that point (although I did with that smarmy socialist comment). What I was picking apart was how he related it to MBTI.


To what I first said in this response, all he was doing was creating a system based off of the assumption that the definitions brought about by mbti were factual. Mbti is a theory, but for theoretical purposes you have to assume temporarily, "if" mbti is factual and this new system being presented before me is based off of mbti than would this new system be correct? You must decide that by starting at the foundations of the new theory, which is mbti, and the assumption that it is 100% factual for theoretical purposes only.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

LonelyTylenol said:


> The link to the full post is below but tl;dr someone ranked the types by intelligence in the order of:
> 
> 
> INTP/INTJ
> ...



What kind of smart?
From what ive read









those "super smart" types could be rather dumb in these areas


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Owfin said:


> This follows the previous paragraph how? Or are you saying that not seperating yourself from reality means that you don't think for yourself. Because that follows logically, right?


Sigh.

I really agree with what you're saying and I think it's so easy for intuitives to think of sensors as just "undeveloped intuitives".

Two different animals. A smart sensor will continue to develop as a sensor, a person doesn't need to detach from reality to maximize their potential IMO.

Major psychiatric disorders also began to develop when one moves "past the immediate world and into their own mind", that's basically the hallmark of schizophrenia and there's a reason that intuitives are so rare, I don't think our type is ideally suited for the real world. 

Of course most intuitives are not going to develop a disorder, I'm just saying that you when see how closely the intuitive "inner world" resembles mental illness and how deficient we can be in other areas it becomes clear that we aren't a super race of humans. 

Probably easier for me to do because there is a high rate of mental illness in my family and I see how similar all of the sane intuitive family members actually are to the crazy ones e_e


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

L'Empereur said:


> inb4lock
> .........



Smells of summer in here...


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Michaeldh0589 said:


> You see abstract thoughts as simplicity because you have it at its negative, most simplicitic nature. To prove what is more in depth between intuition and sensing I'll use the personality types as a whole. We, as intuitives, understand, respect, and accept that Sensors do exist as what they are defined by Jung and MBTI. Sensors on the other hand, more so for SJs (not all), do not accept that intuitives exist for the most part. Sensors due to the lack of their intuitive side do not grasp the true nature of what intuition as a leading function does. You say it's just a "fixation upon guesses and ignoring what is actually there". That proves your lack of understanding intuition because you can only go off of what you know.
> 
> Update: I think what you mean, is that the product created by the process of the intuition helps simplify what is? The process itself though is where the depth comes into play.
> 
> ...


The whole point of my post was to show my own prejudices and lack of understanding about intuition to highlight yours against sensing. The point was to show that you are predisposed towards thinking sensing is shallow and I'm predisposed towards thinking intuition is shallow. Note how I constantly used words like "predisposed", "inclined", etc. That's because I intellectually don't believe that, but it is my first reaction to intuition.

And, um, I constantly think about theories. What do you say to that? Si types reside in their heads, surely one would expect at least some theoretical playing? If you say this makes me not an SJ, the base you were arguing on is ruined. I very strongly disagreee with the notion that Si is in the past, it works outside of time in the language of concepts.



> To what I first said in this response, all he was doing was creating a system based off of the assumption that the definitions brought about by mbti were factual. Mbti is a theory, but for theoretical purposes you have to assume temporarily, "if" mbti is factual and this new system being presented before me is based off of mbti than would this new system be correct? You must decide that by starting at the foundations of the new theory, which is mbti, and the assumption that it is 100% factual for theoretical purposes only.


I'm not exactly sure how this argues against my original paragraph?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Owfin said:


> The whole point of my post was to show my own prejudices and lack of understanding about intuition to highlight yours against sensing. The point was to show that you are predisposed towards thinking sensing is shallow and I'm predisposed towards thinking intuition is shallow. Note how I constantly used words like "predisposed", "inclined", etc. That's because I intellectually don't believe that, but it is my first reaction to intuition.
> 
> And, um, I constantly think about theories. What do you say to that? Si types reside in their heads, surely one would expect at least some theoretical playing? If you say this makes me not an SJ, the base you were arguing on is ruined. I very strongly disagreee with the notion that Si is in the past, it works outside of time in the language of concepts.
> 
> ...


Yea that's my fault, sorry about that I misinterpreted. The last part was less arguing against your point, more clarifying why he ended up with the theory that he did, and how there no longer is a point of trying to change definitions because we accepted that possibility that the definitions used to build a theory may be factual just so we could see that his theory was founded upon the other theory.

I'm curious though, you say you constantly think of theories using Si? and it's not based off of the past? If you may, explain how you use Si, include examples of the theories you think of if you don't mind also? There's no need for me to make a judgement call yet on if you're an SJ or not, all you simply said was my description of Si was wrong, which is a possibility. That's why I'm asking for you to show me through your perspective what you see and how you use Si.

Edit: if you did turn out not to be an SJ by any chance I wouldn't see it as the base of my argument being ruined but I need to reformulate what I previously thought with the new information I am given to answer questions that fit the system. I believe that each personality type can come off as another due to how functions play out and what situation the person is in. Like how Ne-Ti can at times resemble Ni, or how Ti-Fe tertiary loop can resemble Fi.


----------

