# Typing Religious Figures



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> Wow. I think I've come across someone more pedantic than I. lol


And I would have corrected you had you said, "...more pedantic than _me_", but you didn't! And just about everybody fucks that one up. Nice job! roud:



Ingenue said:


> You're right, I probably don't know the different between Ne and Ni... and admittedly I took a cursory look over what I could quickly scour over the internet to find out what the difference is. But If I take two definitions you provided, I see no contradiction with Ne and Buddha. To make subtle connections in the external world is no different than recognizing that all the world is one. I don't see much of the Ni internal wondering and guessing--often I find that people who have this Ni are not capable of a world of possibilities, because recognizing the long-term effects of their actions actually makes them very risk-averse. I find this is especially true with INTJ and INFJ. Buddha was clearly motivated by his wonder for his external world and transformative possibility of other people (Ne).


If you don't see Ni in his writings you should probably do more research on Ni and/or Buddhist philosophy.

The risk aversion you speak of is far more characteristic of Si than Ni. That's typical for ISTJ and ISFJ, but not nearly as much for INTJ and INFJ, as the latter two are much more able to see the myriad potential benefits of calculated risk and willing to take those risks (once they have had sufficient time to plan properly for all possible contingencies) in order to achieve a much bigger future payoff.

To say that Ni is incapable of a world of possibilities is to grossly misunderstand and undervalue it. Look at it this way: Ne can see the next few steps down lots of different paths at once; Ni can see all the way to end of one path at a time. Ni users will get irritated if you bombard them with too many different options all at once, because they need time to carefully introspect and evaluate the long term consequences of each option on its own. They're not as good at immediately noticing the wide range of different immediate options as Ne users, but they're also more capable of seeing numerous contradictory models and interpretations at the same time, which gives them a massive perceptual advantage.

One INTP friend told me: "I don't like to nail down plans exactly, because then I might miss out on some interesting opportunities for action or experience." This is why Te tends to annoy Ne--it tries to place externalized structure on a function that values externalized freedom of action.

Conversely, an INTJ might say: "I don't like to nail down definitions for ideas exactly, because then I might miss out on some interesting interpretation that I might not otherwise have noticed." This is why Ti tends to annoy Ni--it tries to place internalized structure on a function that values internalized freedom of interpretation.



Ingenue said:


> Not sure about your posture about INTJs ambiguous one-liners either... I have to ponder that a bit before I make a yay or nay though. I find INTJs rather blunt, not mysterious, but they certainly have a bitingly witty sense of humor.


They can be blunt when it comes time to get something accomplished, when they are on a mission and something needs to get done--during these times you're seeing their Te side.

But if you get past that and they let you in a little closer to their real selves, you'll find that trying to look through the eyes of an Ni dom is like looking into a parallel universe. While you (assuming you actually are an INTP) see many possibilities for externalized change, they see many different fundamental interpretations of reality. They are not limited by Ti's insistence on rigid structural definition. The fact that you'd even consider describing Ni as "incapable of a world of possibilities" shows me that you have an awful lot to learn about it. (The fact that you haven't noticed them making under-the-radar ironic/sarcastic comments intended specifically to create interpretive ambiguity that others miss the humor in tells me that their strategy is probably working on you.) :laughing:

This gets into the fundamental difference between Js and Ps: Js require externalized structure (Te/Fe) but maintain much more flexible internal perspectives (Si/Ni), while Ps require internalized structure (Ti/Fi) but maintain much more flexible approaches to the outer world (Se/Ne.)

It sounds like you've only seen the external, rational, structured side of the INTJs you know. You're missing a wealth of extraordinary possibility on the inside, probably because they're so turned off by your insistence on Ti-ing everything to death that they don't want to share their deeper insights with you:



Ben Kovitz said:


> The peculiar disconnect that nearly always happens between INTJs and INTPs. From the INTJ's standpoint: "He seems awfully attached to his model, as if it's the only possible one (Ni.) There are so many possibilities he hasn't ruled out (Ni.) His argumentation is simply unfair: he is choosing observations (Te) to stack the deck to favor his interpretation over all others (Ni.) He seems oblivious to the complexity of the subject. He does not seem to know what he's doing (Te.)"
> 
> From the INTP's standpoint: "I'm trying to point things out (Ne) and draw distinctions (Ti) in order to define a vocabulary (Ti) that carves out some aspect of the subject matter. That would be forward progress (Ne.) But he refuses to look. He keeps translating everything I say into some moronic vocabulary that he's already familiar with, where what I'm saying is a trivial goof. He seems completely stuck in his box (Ne.)"


Each one's need for rational structure violates the other's need for intuitive freedom in the same realm.



Ingenue said:


> Rather than breaking it down variable by variable, I still think it matters more to take a holistic view of Buddha's suggested MBTI. I do know an N when I come across one... and INTPs and ISTPs are not really that similar.


This (no offense) only reveals your poor grasp of Jungian psychology. MBTI sucks because it leads you to frequent misinterpretations like this. Learn functions if you want to get good at this kthx.

You don't "know an N when you come across one"; what you see as "knowing an N" just means you know the person seems to display more use of his N function than his S function. Note that *this doesn't necessitate that that person is an N type*.

A number of INTPs have crappy Ne and just display Ti+Si almost nonstop. If we went by your method, we'd see T+S and mistakenly label them as ISTP. That's why we need to understand the different orientations of each function and the implications thereof.

Also, INTP and ISTP are much, much more similar than you think. Learning more about functions will make this clearer. If you are indeed INTP, you are far more similar to ISTP than you are to INTJ, for instance.



Ingenue said:


> However, if I were to second-guess Buddha's type, I would possibly think he's an INFP instead of INTP... definitely not an ISTP though.


INFP is even worse than INTP, because both are Ne types and you've still shown no evidence of Ne whatsoever. Also I thought we already agreed he was Ti dominant, so I don't know where you're getting Fi all of a sudden.

The only thing other than ISTP that might make sense is INFJ, since they share the same functions. The Buddha's writings show very clear evidence of strong Ti and Ni, and neither INTP nor INFP has both of those functions--but ISTP and INFJ do.

For a real life example, look at functianalyst, currently member of the month here. Reading his posts, if you didn't know function attitudes and only had MBTI at your disposal, you would see a ton of T and ton of N, and on this basis you'd probably assume he must be an NT. But you'd be wrong. He's an ISTP who emphasizes tertiary Ni over secondary Se. What you are seeing in him is Ti+Ni, which is *not* indicative of an NT type. In order to be an NT type, one's N and T functions must be oriented in _opposite_ directions.

Your error here is in your failure to differentiate between the different orientations of each function attitude. You think "Sensors are like this and this and that" but you fail to account for Sensing types who place stronger emphasis on their iNtuitive functions.

INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe

INFP = Fi Ne Si Te

ISTP = *Ti* Se *Ni* Fe

INFJ = *Ni* Fe *Ti* Se

A lot of what MBTI has taught you about typology is, frankly, wrong and highly inefficient in evaluating the psychological types of others. You assume that he's "definitely not an ISTP" because you have preconceived notions of what ISTPs are like based on MBTI's erroneous and oversimplified definitions.

If you want to learn more you can check out these articles that may be helpful to you:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...iled-descriptions-each-function-attitude.html

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...nt-five-common-functional-misconceptions.html


Or you can PM/wall post me and I'll be happy to help. I see that you're new to this and it's very common for new people to depend on MBTI. In truth, MBTI is a good "training wheels" introduction to Jungian typology, but it's riddled with problems that make more complex/accurate type reads nearly impossible.

Time to trade up! :laughing:


----------



## Antithesis (May 10, 2010)

I always thought Jesus was a T. I think there is a confusion between his tendency to forgive those who break the rules ("_go, but do not sin again_") and subjectivity.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Antithesis said:


> I always thought Jesus was a T. I think there is a confusion between his tendency to forgive those who break the rules ("_go, but do not sin again_") and subjectivity.


Why would subjectivity be indicative of an F type?




Ingenue said:


> Funny you mention this. I generally come out pretty balanced on the P/J dichotomy. I think it's because on a superficial level I am somewhat J... relatively organized in my workspace, don't like clutter... although I have a bad habit of being late all the time. lol. But on a deeper level I am wholeheartedly a P.
> 
> Same with the T/F dichotomy. I would say I'm a T, but not a strong one.
> 
> The others variables are pretty strong in what they are.


I'd advise you to stop looking at personality types in terms of sliding scales with two extremes and start learning function attitudes. Once you understand the huge differences between the introverted and extroverted forms of each function N/S/T/F, you'll realize how inferior and rudimentary the MBTI method is.

Having an organized workspace, while more common for Js than for Ps, doesn't really have much to do with the meaning of what it is to be a J type. That's just a superficial consequence of a much deeper and more complex cause.




Ingenue said:


> You, however, are definitely an E... trying to influence me, the reserved and self-contained I, to agree with your Buddha assessment.


You've got this backwards too. Extroverted doesn't mean "trying to influence others"; on the contrary, it means "influenced _by_ others." Introverted functions derive their viewpoints subjectively from the internal self, while extroverted functions derive them objectively from the external world.

So Fe doesn't mean "I try to push my feelings on others", but rather, "I adjust my feelings and moral viewpoints to the cultural standards of the groups I am connected to emotionally." Introverted functions are actually _more_ likely to try and push personal ideas on others because they deliberately block out external influence in the construction of their perspectives. They stick to what makes sense internally and subjectively, ignoring the opinions of others as much as possible.


----------



## Antithesis (May 10, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> Why would subjectivity be indicative of an F type?


Because T types are always described as more naturally objective and F types more naturally subjective due to their focus on people and their reactions?


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Antithesis said:


> Because T types are always described as more naturally objective and F types more naturally subjective due to their focus on people and their reactions?


Let's get on the same page about what "subjective" and "objective" mean in the context of typology.

Subjective means derived from the subject, the internal self. Objective means derived from the object, the external world or non-self.

While these terms are sometimes used to mean "personal" or "impersonal", those aren't really their original definitions.

So introverted functions are subjective while extroverted functions are objective.

Therefore, it is quite possible to have subjective Thinking (in the form of Ti) or objective Feeling (in the form of Fe.) I would argue that Jesus had both, making his preferred judgment function both objective and personal (Fe.)

I imagine this is easier to notice for Ti/Fe types, though! :wink:


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> And I would have corrected you had you said, "...more pedantic than _me_", but you didn't! And just about everybody fucks that one up. Nice job! roud:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You really don't think that Buddha had Ne?


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

NatetheGreat said:


> You really don't think that Buddha had Ne?


Not even a little bit. Everything about his philosophy--liberating the internal perspective from the constraints of external limitations in order to reach personal enlightenment. That's ridiculously Ni.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

For starters, the Buddha was a xxxx. :happy: Seriously.


Also, a piece of information worth consideration is that Siddhartha lost his mother in childbirth, so he grew up with a profound sense of lack and loss. What type would this suggest? 

It's also important to think about big B before and after his awakening. I think you will find different types on either side.


----------



## Ingenue (Jul 16, 2010)

Okay. I've brushed up on my cognitive theory and ready to re-join the battle!

Buddha=ISTP seems fairly sound. Se is reasonable. He sees an old man and says, "You are an old man" yadda yadda. Latent Ni is there, though later in life.

I would also suggest ISFP, particularly when examining his early life once he was exposed to the Four Sights. He became very concerned with the suffering of others. It doesn't seem that he led with a Ti dominant function so much, but instead an Fi dominant function. I don't see much of an Fe function... he abandoned his family to pursue his fanciful ideas, Gaugin-style. Only much later in life does he develop a Te that allowed him to maintain a rigid, ascetic life and find the "middle way".


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

It should be noted that early in his life, Siddhartha Gautama lived a life of pure sensory pleasure, as a prince with no worries but having fun. Only when he began to mature and consider the deeper implications of life did his Ni take control and start to drown out his Se, leading him to reject the physical world he had lived so completely in before.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> It should be noted that early in his life, Siddhartha Gautama lived a life of pure sensory pleasure, as a prince with no worries but having fun.


This is most certainly a myth.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> This is most certainly a myth.













P.S.,

The prodigious irony of someone with a fucking _Zeitgeist_ quote in his signature telling me about how "that's a myth" is absolutely killing me.

That thing is the most laughable pile of paranoid conspiracy theorist garbage produced in the last decade.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> P.S.,
> 
> The prodigious irony of someone with a fucking _Zeitgeist_ quote in his signature telling me about how "that's a myth" is absolutely killing me.
> 
> That thing is the most laughable pile of paranoid conspiracy theorist garbage produced in the last decade.


Oh, no. No. Please. Tell me you didn't just bust out a wiki-fuckin'-pedia article as supporting evidence. 

Check out this "reliable source." I think you will find that it gives a _slightly_ more in depth analysis of the Buddha's life than wikipedia.

Gotama Buddha, Hajime Nakamura, Book - Barnes & Noble


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Oh, no. No. Please. Tell me you didn't just bust out a wiki-fuckin'-pedia article as supporting evidence.
> 
> Check out this "reliable source." I think you will find that it gives a _slightly_ more in depth analysis of the Buddha's life than wikipedia.
> 
> Gotama Buddha, Hajime Nakamura, Book - Barnes & Noble



Funny how everybody hates on Wikipedia only when someone he's arguing with cites it as support.

btw, Wiki has been shown in studies to have accuracy comparable to so-called "official" knowledge resources:

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts

Access : Internet encyclopaedias go head to head : Nature

Can you trust Wikipedia? | Media | The Guardian

Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness



> So far, 50 respondents have evaluated a Wikipedia article in an area of their expertise. Of those, *76% agreed or strongly agreed that the article was accurate* and 46% agreed or strongly agreed that it was complete.
> Of the 50, 18 compared the article they reviewed to the article on the same topic in the Encyclopedia Britannica. *Thirty four percent of those people found the Britannica more or substantially more accurate *and 39% found the Britannica article to be more or substantially more complete.




This is from the last link above, where experts in various fields are surveyed regarding their opinions on the accuracy of Wikipedia vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica. If I'm not mistaken, 34 is less than half--and that's the percentage who found the Britannica superior. roud:


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> Not even a little bit. Everything about his philosophy--liberating the internal perspective from the constraints of external limitations in order to reach personal enlightenment. That's ridiculously Ni.


Well at least you agree that he's intuitive. I'm going to study his writings a bit more and try to type and try to see where you are coming from.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> Funny how everybody hates on Wikipedia only when someone he's arguing with cites it as support.
> 
> btw, Wiki has been shown in studies to have accuracy comparable to so-called "official" knowledge resources:
> 
> ...


Hmmm... how can I say this succinctly. Buddhism was deliberately retro-fitted with family friendly mythology in the 4th century, C.E. in order to make it more approachable. You will not find any of the silly myths in the original collection (Nikayas) of the Buddha's teachings. Also, research, like the research of Nakamura that I noted, carefully looks at the Nikayas, later Buddhist texts, historical records and the writings of ancient Chinese visitors to the India/Nepal area, to flush out what most probably happened. By doing so, he paints a very clear picture of what happened. Although the life of the Buddha has been lost in time, Nakamura most certainly demonstrates that the Buddhist myths only emerge nearly 1000 years after the death of the Buddha and can be found nowhere in the original texts. For example, Sid's father, Sudodhana, was most certainly not a king, as historical records show that the small nation of the Buddha was a republic, so his father was a senator. All of the mumbo jumbo of the Buddha being hidden from suffering is utter rubbish too as in the nikayas, the Buddha tells stories of sitting in a field during harvest time and watching people harvesting crops. The "four sights" are also most assuredly deliberate fiction that resonates well with children. This is not to say anything of Sid's conception and birth stories.

The links you provided are pointless in this case. Knowledge is not a democracy. I was taking a college course and in the context of the course, I mentioned that Luxembourg was a country. The other 19 people in the class disagreed and said that it was a city in either Germany or Belgium. That day, Luxembourg got voted off the island by a 95% margin. Thankfully, this is not how knowledge works. In this case, the tiny minority was right.

I have a lengthy critique of wikipedia that I'll spare you at this time, but I stand firmly that the information found in wikipedia in this case is flawed as it does not reflect such scholarship. I encourage you to read Nakamura's book, or at least read about it, and you will find that I am right. As far as I am concerned, this issue isn't even debatable. The life story of the Buddha is 80% or more myth with the same certainty that Luxembourg is a country.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Hmmm... how can I say this succinctly. Buddhism was deliberately retro-fitted with family friendly mythology in the 4th century, C.E. in order to make it more approachable. You will not find any of the silly myths in the original collection (Nikayas) of the Buddha's teachings. Also, research, like the research of Nakamura that I noted, carefully looks at the Nikayas, later Buddhist texts, historical records and the writings of ancient Chinese visitors to the India/Nepal area, to flush out what most probably happened. By doing so, he paints a very clear picture of what happened. Although the life of the Buddha has been lost in time, Nakamura most certainly demonstrates that the Buddhist myths only emerge nearly 1000 years after the death of the Buddha and can be found nowhere in the original texts. For example, Sid's father, Sudodhana, was most certainly not a king, as historical records show that the small nation of the Buddha was a republic, so his father was a senator. All of the mumbo jumbo of the Buddha being hidden from suffering is utter rubbish too as in the nikayas, the Buddha tells stories of sitting in a field during harvest time and watching people harvesting crops. The "four sights" are also most assuredly deliberate fiction that resonates well with children. This is not to say anything of Sid's conception and birth stories.


I'm not sure people harvesting crops counts as any sort of extreme suffering, but point taken. Where can I find this Nakamura?

In any event, regardless of the details of his upbringing, the point stands that he lived his early life in relative ease, indulging in worldly pleasures, and then chose to reject all of that in order to seek internal enlightenment. Whether he was a prince or a senator's son hardly seems to matter to my original point that this change represents a transition from an Se to an Ni focus.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> The links you provided are pointless in this case. Knowledge is not a democracy. I was taking a college course and in the context of the course, I mentioned that Luxembourg was a country. The other 19 people in the class disagreed and said that it was a city in either Germany or Belgium. That day, Luxembourg got voted off the island by a 95% margin. Thankfully, this is not how knowledge works. In this case, the tiny minority was right.


What a wholly irrelevant example. The people in your college course are not veritable experts in anything. The people in the study cited above are experts in their fields, and therefore qualified to assess the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles regarding those fields.

I can't see how your anecdote applies to anything here.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I have a lengthy critique of wikipedia that I'll spare you at this time, but I stand firmly that the information found in wikipedia in this case is flawed as it does not reflect such scholarship. I encourage you to read Nakamura's book, or at least read about it, and you will find that I am right. As far as I am concerned, this issue isn't even debatable. The life story of the Buddha is 80% or more myth with the same certainty that Luxembourg is a country.


That may be true, but it doesn't establish that Wikipedia is any less consistently accurate than other reference materials, nor does it contradict my original point that the Buddha's early life was pleasure-focused before he changed his attitude and sought spiritual enlightenment through asceticism.

As for Wiki, the big thing everyone always complains about is that anyone can edit it, but bear in mind that millions of people constantly go over it and fix errors and vandalism all the time. Also, they ban the IP addresses of people who repeatedly vandalize articles or post clearly wrong information, and certain articles on sensitive topics are locked and can only be edited with the permission of moderators. It's a self-correcting process.

Of course it won't always be accurate, but if studies show that its accuracy is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica, I'm willing to give it a decent amount of credibility.

P.S.,

You have a quote from the creator of ZEITGEIST in your signature and you're complaining about _lack of scholarship?_ srsly? Let's see your scholarly evidence that the US government was responsible for 9/11. What's your source for that, Loose Change? And how about that whole section dedicated to showing how the Federal Reserve is a nefarious conspiracy designed to bankrupt the people? Except, oops...the Fed returns whatever profits it's made from interest to the national bank at the end of the year, meaning it actually profits nothing.

You'd think someone of a _scholarly_ background would bother to do a little research and find this out before making the worst jumble of paranoid conspiracy theorist babble of the lack decade, but...wait, no. Actually you wouldn't.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> I'm not sure people harvesting crops counts as any sort of extreme suffering, but point taken. Where can I find this Nakamura?


I put a link to his book on BnN a few posts back. His book is pretty definitive in the field. 



> In any event, regardless of the details of his upbringing, the point stands that he lived his early life in relative ease, indulging in worldly pleasures, and then chose to reject all of that in order to seek internal enlightenment. Whether he was a prince or a senator's son hardly seems to matter to my original point that this change represents a transition from an Se to an Ni focus.


Point taken.



> What a wholly irrelevant example. The people in your college course are not veritable experts in anything. The people in the study cited above are experts in their fields, and therefore qualified to assess the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles regarding those fields.
> 
> I can't see how your anecdote applies to anything here.


I have never met a single person in academia who thinks that wikipedia is anything but junk, so pardon me if I am skeptical about the statistics and sources you provided. I could go through the entire Buddhism section on wikipedia and i can assure you I would find a number of contentious points that are contestable. 



> That may be true, but it doesn't establish that Wikipedia is any less consistently accurate than other reference materials, nor does it contradict my original point that the Buddha's early life was pleasure-focused before he changed his attitude and sought spiritual enlightenment through asceticism.


 With more reliable references, you get one person writing from one perspective so you can engage in dialog with that persons position. In wikipedia, I have found the various voices to be highly ineffectual as they spear the bias around and then present the illusion that there is some sort of consistency to it all. 




> You have a quote from the creator of ZEITGEIST in your signature and you're complaining about _lack of scholarship?_ srsly? Let's see your scholarly evidence that the US government was responsible for 9/11. What's your source for that, Loose Change? And how about that whole section dedicated to showing how the Federal Reserve is a nefarious conspiracy designed to bankrupt the people? Except, oops...the Fed returns whatever profits it's made from interest to the national bank at the end of the year, meaning it actually profits nothing.
> 
> You'd think someone of a _scholarly_ background would bother to do a little research and find this out before making the worst jumble of paranoid conspiracy theorist babble of the lack decade, but...wait, no. Actually you wouldn't.


An excellent point, but I think you are reading into how much I endorse the zeitgeist movement. The conspiracy theories are junk, the anti-religious stuff is absurd. I'll give you that. What I like about the movement is that they are looking for ways to move beyond the monetary system and find a better relationship between people and the planet. This I think is the most important focus for our species' future, thus I advocate it, in part. 

I didn't think that such a quote would give the impression that I advocated the nonsense that you mentioned. Perhaps I'll look into changing it to something that more accurately renders my beliefs.


----------

