# "Survivor MBTI" pilot episode



## thunder999 (Oct 15, 2010)

I think we should just do this and figure out that way.
There are definitely some people in this thread who I think it would be entertaining to see actually try what they said they would do, anyone have a spare island?


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

FreeSpirit said:


> ISTP survives.


My thought as well.


----------



## AkiKaza (Jun 1, 2010)

I like how all the Fs are asking, "But why do we have to kill each other?" lol


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

AkiKaza said:


> I like how all the Fs are asking, "But why do we have to kill each other?" lol


F´s are right, absolutely no point doing so.


----------



## Valiums (Aug 29, 2010)

Okay, looking again at the first post, *why are we killing each other*?

It says


darknight0522 said:


> (no rules..anyone can kill other)


 not


darknight0522 said:


> EVERYBODY KILL AGAHGAHGHAAGHAGAHGA




As a T, this is _stupid_. We stand a better chance of surviving if we don't just go around killing each other. That is a waste of time, energy, and resources.

If we _are _all killing each other, wouldn't the question be something more like "Which psychopathic MBTI survives?"


And for the record, I'd carve my name into a smooth mountainside before anyone killed me.
You'd live a few years, but I'd live on _forever_.




Also, whoops. Totally overlooked Absent Air's post.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

absent air said:


> wait wait wait, don't chicken out yet.
> working with others fine, but what you described is* commanding others.*


When a group of people work together, there is always at least one that leads. Leading does not mean commanding people. I know I originally said "ordering people" and that was a really bad choice of words, but if nobody takes the lead, I'll be the one that does. (That just means I'm not interested in being the leader for the sake of being a leader, but for the sake of solving the problems.)

Leading in a case like this just means focusing on the solutions for the problems at hand and talking to people about what to do. It's a joined effort and there is no need for everybody to agree on who the leader is and then following blindly. It's a natural process where some people will lead small groups of other people. The larger the group is, the more need there is for somebody to organize all efforts. In a small group of 16 people, there will probably be 3 or 4 people that will be leading the rest. Among these 3 or 4, one will be the leader of that group. But not a leader as in giving orders, but a leader as in one of them will start to make final decisions.

It's a pretty normal process.


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

Peter said:


> When a group of people work together, there is always at least one that leads. Leading does not mean commanding people. I know I originally said "ordering people" and that was a really bad choice of words, but if nobody takes the lead, I'll be the one that does. (That just means I'm not interested in being the leader for the sake of being a leader, but for the sake of solving the problems.)
> 
> Leading in a case like this just means focusing on the solutions for the problems at hand and talking to people about what to do. It's a joined effort and there is no need for everybody to agree on who the leader is and then following blindly. It's a natural process where some people will lead small groups of other people. The larger the group is, the more need there is for somebody to organize all efforts. In a small group of 16 people, there will probably be 3 or 4 people that will be leading the rest. Among these 3 or 4, one will be the leader of that group. But not a leader as in giving orders, but a leader as in one of them will start to make final decisions.
> 
> It's a pretty normal process.





> but if nobody takes the lead, I'll be the one that does.


I´m pretty sure the people have other worries than ´´who is taking the lead´´, how about surviving? all you talk about is leading.



> (That just means I'm not interested in being the leader for the sake of being a leader, but for the sake of solving the problems.)


The sake for LEADING is not for the sake of solving problems, but to secure that the group will survive, you do it for the sake of the group. You already missed the boat here.



> Leading in a case like this just means focusing on the solutions for the problems at hand and* talking to* people about what to do.


Wrong, again. 
You do not talk TO people, but you talk WITH people, you discuss matters with OTHERS. Everyone will be focused on finding a solution, but that does not make you leading a case. You're a leader when people listen to you, not when you focus on problems. 


> It's a joined effort and there is no need for everybody to agree on who the leader is and then following blindly.














> It's a natural process where some people will lead small groups of other people. The larger the group is, the more need there is for somebody to organize all efforts.


If it's a natural process, it will contradict this saying of yours:


> if nobody takes the lead, I'll be the one that does.





> Among these 3 or 4, one will be the leader of that group. But not a leader as in giving orders, but a leader as in one of them will start to make final decisions.


I will repeat this again and again, till you understand.

*WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A LEADER?*

Think of this question as a CV that displays your skills and that will convince *others to be leaded*.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

You know, just let it be. You´re just being a moron now.


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

Either ESTJ or ESTP, I would say.


----------



## cranberryplains (Aug 1, 2011)

How appropriate that an INTP and an INTJ are battling it out while everyone ignores them.  Anyway, I believe that most of the time, killing is a waste of time, energy, and resources, just as Valiums said. However, there may come a time when someone needs to die or be expelled from the group, if they are just wasting food and not helping the group. So, killing may be a necessity, although in most situations it would be disadvantageous. So, here goes with the MBTI analysis for this scenario.

In a situation like this, I believe that Es have a greater chance of survival (or at least staying in the group), due to the fact that Es are more people-concerned, motivating them to save others' skins, and doing work for the group, making people not want to kill them or expel them from the group. Is are more concerned about themselves and thus may be more likely to be killed or expelled, but have a better chance of survival if expelled. But, it makes sense to keep some Is in the group because they are less likely to be concerned with what others are doing, rather than the task on hand.

I think that Ss are more likely to survive than Ns, for the reason that the are concerned abput what's happening and needs to happen _now_, and are concerned about what is happening in the real world. Ns are more concerned about what needs to happen in the future, and more about analyzing hypothetical problems than real world problems. However, there is reason for keeping a few N's in the group if one of these problems which they need occurs (like the classic wolf, chicken, corn scenario).

I believe that Ts are more likely to survive that Fs, due to the fact that they are concerned with things, rather than people, and are more willing to kill or expel others if necessary. Also, Fs are more likely to kill another off out of a grudge, even if that person is vital to the group's survival. However, if a T kills another off, rather than expel them (as I believe they would be more inclined to do in order to savor the resources on the island), I believe others will want to kill or expel that T, out of fear of their own life, creating a chain of Ts killing other Ts for their own survival. So I believe it makes sense to keep some Fs in the group just to keep the Ts in line.

Lastly, I think that Ps are equally likely to survive as Js, for the reasoning that both are equal in their advantages and disadvantages. Ps may procrastinate more, but that is generally with something like essays or projects, and not as much as things required for survival. They do have the advantage of being open for ideas, but have the disadvantage of being more likely to dilly-dally and not do what needs to get done. Js may have a harder time adapting to the island, but once they are adapted, they are fairly well off. They have the advantage of knowing what needs to get done, but have the disadvantage of not going through with another's idea of it goes against their personal plan. So, overall, I believe the likelihood of survival go in this order:

1. ESTX
2. ISTX
3. ENTX
4. INTX
5. ESFX
6. ISFX
7. ENFX
8. INFX


----------



## TAHTGUY (Jun 19, 2011)

Absolutely it has to be sensor, Se dom or Se secondary to fight off wild animals'n'stuff.

So 

ESTP
ESFP
ISTP
ISFP

check out the feelers and there you have it, ESTP and ISTP.


----------

