# Do you believe all 16 types are "equal"?



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

nevermore said:


> I think that's problematic. Wouldn't a mentally challenged person in a wheelchair be "worth less" by that logic?


I'm sure his friends and family wouldn't think so, his particular skills would be that he serves as an emotional link. I can imagine a scenario of a worthless person by my own logic however. Say someone who doesn't have friends, and has no family left, is incubated and in a coma without chance of recovery. He is, by my definition, completely worthless.

It may be uncomfortable to arrive at that conclusion, but how could such a person be anything but?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

PistisSophia said:


> Probably not. Not much in life is fair and or equal. It's just the way things are. It's only in the eyes of "God" that we are as as equals, in any sense of "equality".
> 
> In reality, nothing is equitable at all.


And if we don't believe in any gods?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> I'm sure his friends and family wouldn't think so, his particular skills would be that he serves as an emotional link. I can imagine a scenario of a worthless person by my own logic however. Say someone who doesn't have friends, and has no family left, is incubated and in a coma without chance of recovery. He is, by my definition, completely worthless.
> 
> It may be uncomfortable to arrive at that conclusion, but how could such a person be anything but?


Yes, but in all fairness a person like that is not really a "person" anymore.


----------



## PistisSophia (Jan 2, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> And if we don't believe in any gods?



If one doesn't believe in Gods.....well, equality is in the eye of the beholder. I just don't think that equality, as such, occurs in our lives. 

Look at Cheney, that *ss-hole; is he not getting the best of care, that isn't available to anyone else, but himself? Who else would still be alive, amongst us, who had 5 heart attacks and the kind of coronary disease that he has had? 

No one.....we'd all be pushing up daisies, were any regular folks to have heart disease such as him. Thus, no one is equal to the care that he has gotten.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

nevermore said:


> But now that I think about it I agree that teddy was a bit unclear (perhaps he can clear us up:happy. Was he asking "are some types more important than others?" Or "are some skills associated with type "worth more" than others?" Or perhaps, "are some types more diversely talented?"


See, this is why I almost didn't make the thread....I actually had the idea of this thread weeks ago, but I didn't make it because I wasn't exactly sure what "equal" meant myself. I finally gave in and just made the thread, to see what people would say and ask, in hopes it might clarify it for me some.


It's hard because there are so many details to try to look at and analyze. I think what I was aiming at more was the first one you mentioned "Are some types more important than others?"

But I think when one is answering yes or no to that, one probably tends to think about the skills and attributes of each type and will try to compare them.

But who's to say if one skill is more important than another? A lot of it is subjective, particularly subjective due to one's own type. Is being an artist more, less, or equally important to being able to run a company? You could probably have people argue all three.

And that's assuming you can list out all of the strengths and weaknesses of each type and have them be the same. It's not like we can all objectively create such a list. One person might come up with 10 ISFP strengths, and another comes up with 20. The same thing would be done with the strengths and weaknesses of any type.

So even if we got all of PerC together, sat down and made these grand lists of every single type, that still wouldn't mean that we could compare them...because we're still a limited group of people.

So the whole thing is immensely complex to me. Being the stubborn ISFJ I am, I still hold the belief that all 16 types are of equal importance, even without this objective list and comparison. I believe that if we were to list all of the strengths and weaknesses of each type, and compared them, then they would all be exactly equal...even though I have absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. But it's just a personal belief that I hold, almost like a religious faith, and if that notion got shattered for me, I would probably abandon PerC and the MBTI altogether, because that's a huge part of the appeal of it all to me.



So no, even I don't know what I'm really asking either. :tongue: I've just been too mentally lazy to give it even further analysis before making the thread to hear others' thoughts.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Well, this world needs both artists and CEOs. Which one is more important? Well, that too is subjective. To the world of finance and business, a CEO is definitely more "important" than artists; but to the world of art, poetry, and creative imagination, the artist is king. 

Same applies to type, and this is even more elusive. Type is not the sum of a person's parts. Each person exceeds the limitations and boundaries of their type. Type is not there to measure a person's worth or dictate their skill sets. This is a rough road map to understanding other human beings, and it's not completed yet. We have to fill in the blanks ourselves from our own experience. 

Even among those of our own type, each is an unique individual. No two are alike. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when we look past the labels, we are equal on a human level. Everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## PistisSophia (Jan 2, 2011)

I don't think that an INFP who is starving in say, the Sudan, would feel very equal, all things considered.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Yes, but in all fairness a person like that is not really a "person" anymore.


That's a whole other discussion I think, and I'm not sure I agree with you.

But let's say we want a better society, and we judge 'worth' in terms of the general population of the world. What types would we want to foster?
I think we need more people who are capable of pushing scientific advance, since the majority of our problems could be solved through more research. Fusion and hydrogen-driven cars could solve global warming, and longer education means fewer children which solves the possible population crisis. We would be able to colonize different planets which would lessen the risk of extinction events, and we'd basically be able to improve all the areas of our lives that is supposed to give quality of life on paper.

Clearly, I'm an INTJ - and there is no objective measure of happiness. All we can do is create the potential for it, and I think the best way of creating that potential is through science. And because I think that, I'm indirectly saying that I think the NT's are more important than the feelers, and that we would be more likely to solve the worlds problems.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I'll admit that I didn't read through the thread, so I don't know if someone already said this: but I think that the 16 types complement each other and are necessary to a functional society. Equal as in each having a function and the same rights as human beings, absolutely - equal as in the -same- mentally, well no.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

madhatter said:


> Well, this world needs both artists and CEOs. Which one is more important? Well, that too is subjective. To the world of finance and business, a CEO is definitely more "important" than artists; but to the world of art, poetry, and creative imagination, the artist is king.
> 
> Same applies to type, and this is even more elusive. Type is not the sum of a person's parts. Each person exceeds the limitations and boundaries of their type. Type is not there to measure a person's worth or dictate their skill sets. This is a rough road map to understanding other human beings, and it's not completed yet. We have to fill in the blanks ourselves from our own experience.
> 
> ...






dalsgaard said:


> Clearly, I'm an INTJ - and there is no objective measure of happiness. All we can do is create the potential for it, and I think the best way of creating that potential is through science. And because I think that, I'm indirectly saying that I think the NT's are more important than the feelers, and that we would be more likely to solve the worlds problems.



See, it's exactly these two main kinds of thoughts that I'm trying to reconcile here. I've heard viewpoints such as dalsgaard's before, and I think this is due to him being an INTJ, maybe an NT in general. And i don't really know how to respond to it. 

I think madhatter's response kind of gets into this, especially the first line describing the importance of business and art. But I still don't know how to exactly refute dalsgaard's point using this idea. I mean, of course, like madhatter said, anyone of any type can be interested in science and contribute. But generally, NT's are more likely to do this.


So I'm really glad both of these posts were made, because this is exactly the kind of thing that made me make this thread. So I'm hoping others will chime in here, because I don't really know how to respond and how to bring together these ideas.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> See, it's exactly these two main kinds of thoughts that I'm trying to reconcile here. I've heard viewpoints such as dalsgaard's before, and I think this is due to him being an INTJ, maybe an NT in general. And i don't really know how to respond to it.
> 
> I think madhatter's response kind of gets into this, especially the first line describing the importance of business and art. But I still don't know how to exactly refute dalsgaard's point using this idea. I mean, of course, like madhatter said, anyone of any type can be interested in science and contribute. But generally, NT's are more likely to do this.
> 
> ...


I think parts of both are true. The functions give us mindsets that naturally encourage us to develop certain skills. It is definitely easier for certain types to develop certain skill sets. And I think certain types are better matches to certain carers than others. But you have to remember that there is not just _one_ way to approach any career/task. You can probably find people of all different types in all sorts of fields (if not equally distributed) but they do _not _approach them the same way. There are probably NF businesspeople, SF scientists, NT social workers, and ST artists; perhaps not the top of their fields, but competent at the very least. What you can be certain of is that they approached it differently; in their own unique way best suited to their type.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> Clearly, I'm an INTJ - and there is no objective measure of happiness. All we can do is create the potential for it, and I think the best way of creating that potential is through science. And because I think that, I'm indirectly saying that I think the NT's are more important than the feelers, and that we would be more likely to solve the worlds problems.


Believing that science is the greatest means to happiness is an opinion. Some may say the arts are the greatest means to happiness. It depends on the individual.

Also, just because someone is NT does not mean they will excel at the sciences, nor will other types necessarily struggle. I am an ISFJ, and I had the highest science grade for most of my school career, even out performing the future valedictorian. So by you standards, a feeler would have been the most important in this case.

You place value in the sciences, and thus you see a person's worth based on how they perform in the sciences. However, this opinion is based on what you value, and not an objective view.


----------



## darksoul (Jul 17, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> That's a whole other discussion I think, and I'm not sure I agree with you.
> 
> But let's say we want a better society, and we judge 'worth' in terms of the general population of the world. What types would we want to foster?
> I think we need more people who are capable of pushing scientific advance, since the majority of our problems could be solved through more research. Fusion and hydrogen-driven cars could solve global warming, and longer education means fewer children which solves the possible population crisis. We would be able to colonize different planets which would lessen the risk of extinction events, and we'd basically be able to improve all the areas of our lives that is supposed to give quality of life on paper.
> ...


I'm not sure how science could solve problems such as discrimination...


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Even Jung himself thought so.

I think everyone can contribute in different ways. If it wasn't for discovering typology I wouldn't appreciate or understand each way an individual can be useful and where.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> You place value in the sciences, and thus you see a person's worth based on how they perform in the sciences. However, this opinion is based on what you value, and not an objective view.


Can't it be both objective and subjective? I didn't generalize, nor did I claim what I was saying is the gospel truth.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

darksoul said:


> I'm not sure how science could solve problems such as discrimination...


Do you think that is the biggest problem society faces?


----------



## gumisgreat94 (Dec 22, 2010)

Yes, although cartain types do not "agree" with the way other types live their lives this does not mean they are inferior. I believe that humans were divided into 16 different types for a reason. Each types hold their own strengths and weaknesses, which means excelling in areas other types struggle with and accepting that other types will excel in areas which you yourself have a hard time with. 

Diversity among people is what brings a sense of balance in this world. we all need each other whether we like it or not.
Overall I think it is important to accept other types for what they are:happy:

Of course that's not say that there are not conflicts among types.:shocked: We don't have to like every type, but we do have to learn to accept every type.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I think the word you wanted to use was 'Balanced'.

If so, they are balanced. They excel at tasks where they're expected to use their strenghts. Thinking this way, every type is balanced.

For example, it would be far more uncomfortable for a ISFJ to do an impersonal analysis regarding something abstract than it would be for a INTP. But the opposite rings true, the INTP wouldn't feel comfortable if they had to respect and support a group social traditions.


----------



## talemin (Jul 4, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I know that there's no real objective "measurement" to measure the value of a type, just like you can't really measure the value of a person. So if you feel this is an impossible question to answer, then simply don't respond. :wink:.


uh...actually, this is exactly why I think they are equal! :crazy:


----------



## Awakening (Nov 30, 2010)

I hardly ever see people in terms of their 'type'.

But pretty much what everyone else has been saying, we all have a place in society. It doesn't really matter which kind of society, either.. My mind is its own little society. :crazy:


----------



## sumi (Dec 13, 2009)

If all personality types are truly equal, then how come there are more people (higher percentages of the population) of some types than of others?

IMO, the current percentages of each type is not well-suited to long-term survival on an Earth with a population of ~7 billion and growing.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

I don't arbitrarily believe all 16 types are equal. However, I think they should be treated as such.

What is this "equal" you speak of, anyways? What are the 16 types "equal" at?


----------



## darksoul (Jul 17, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> Do you think that is the biggest problem society faces?


I didn't say the biggest problem, though discrimination leads to a lot of social problems the world faces today. And these are, at the very least, pressing issues.


----------



## NeedMoreKnowledge (Nov 2, 2010)

I believe every single type has value in this world, and if one magically dissapeared off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be a noticable change in the way the world functioned because of this. Each type has it's area of strength that other types aren't able to perform as easily. The more common types may typically get a bad rap because of how negative we tend to think this world is so it seems ideal to put the blame on the personality types with the biggest percentages in the population. But... if you get over that bias annd realize this world still functions and has its' positives as well, while also realizing alot of the negative human influences are represented by unhealthy people, who aren't functioning as humanely as a healthy person of their type would,than yes, I do believe no type is better than the other.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

The percerption of inequality is no doubt shrouded in bias. Often the criticisms I hear of certain people regarding different types then their own, seem to originate in their lack of clarity in sight or understanding of the other. It often (though not at all times) seems to be coming from a place of immaturity, like it is their less developed functions speaking, even though the person has no clue of their own short sightedness. 

In theory, and in reality, I fail to see how types can not be seen to be equal. Each with their own relative strengths, weaknesses, and "all bound up in an intricate and delicately balanced pattern of co-existence". How can you place them in a hierarchy if you take into consideration all the variables?


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

All types are equally important, I agree with Teddy and most other posters.

Back in the tribal days it must've been very important to have every role present on your team, to go out hunting for example. I, being intuitive, would very much need some sensors around me in order to survive. People who see the world as it is, on the other hand, could very well use someone who sees beyond that, to introduce them to the realm of possibilities. We both would need E- and F-types to spread the word, to have everyone agree and make a bond.

The difference lies in sheer numbers: a couple of NT's and FP's would do for an army of SJ's.

But it's like with human reproduction: a woman can have, say, one pregnancy per year, while a man is practically unlimited in that sense. Are they equally important? I think so.


----------



## PistisSophia (Jan 2, 2011)

Yes, let's do talk about "equality" and what the parameters of this equality are.......


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

I read it somewhere in this thread, and it is very wise: Some are more equal than others. Wise, because it doesn't mean anything, and yet you know what it means.

When hunting, I'd better keep a low profile, do as the others and not distract anyone from doing their jobs. Interfere only when things are about to go very wrong indeed. Or maybe not hunt at all. A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

I don't understand how so many people here can say they're not equal. I bet if the question was "do you think all races are equal" most of us would say yes - because that's politically correct.

Learn to think for yourself - this is the same thing.

Every single person has worth and value. None of us choose how we're born, to me this is the indication of us all being equal. Even if more are better people or achieve more in time some behaviour etc is forgiveable or explainable for not being a better person or achieving - they're just not admirable. Someone being less admirable than another does not make them a lesser person. By this logic even admirable people aren't equal to those who are even more admirable. Plus there's a lot of bias involved, too much to say whether anyone is better than another person.


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

Agree totally with the OP. The beauty of MB is that you realise that others have skills you lack, and the you have skills that make up for the ones that you lack. So you forgive yourself your own weaknesses, and respect others for their strengths. That's how it was for me when I discovered it, anyway.
As for evolution, well, our society has evolved because of who we are collectively, and you could argue that this means that the way we think and behave fits our current society as well as it did in teh stone age.

Except that evolution works on a rather different timescale to human societal development: the stone age was about 5 minutes ago in evolutionary terms.....I still believe that all functions have their uses, and society is complex enough that we all fit in somewhere.


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

Learn to think for yourself - this is the same thing.

Thank you, I will. In the process I hope to get to know more about 'making my point' as well.

Races are equal, but not the same... when it comes to running fast at the Olympics, or becoming 'the leader of the free world'. Maybe so.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Mokum said:


> Learn to think for yourself - this is the same thing.
> 
> Thank you, I will. In the process I hope to get to know more about 'making my point' as well.
> 
> Races are equal, but not the same... when it comes to running fast at the Olympics, or becoming 'the leader of the free world'. Maybe so.


I don't understand what you're trying to say but if I quote someone that means I'm replying to someone (meaning just because I posted below you doesn't mean I'm directing what I'm saying at you). You should probably do the same (not highlight a part of what I was saying).


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I find hard to consider the idea of "fundamental worth" as, well, of much worth. I believe everyone has basic human rights and has a certain basic value because they exist, sure. But that's background. It's problematic if it's _not _there as an assumption, but its presence is just, well, normal background to me. Stating the obvious, as it were. What I _care_ about is application - specific skills for specific tasks. And that changes everywhere, with some skills more common in certain types than others - ditto faults. So I might be less likely than a Feeler to emphasise "equality" in _those_ terms, because it is _those terms_ that I consider marginal, often irrelevant -_ not_ because I think that, by that particular metric, we are unequal.

I guess I just don't see the value in a metric that gives everyone exactly the same result. What do you _do_ with that?

In terms of skills, I know it is a pretty idea that everything balances out, but I doubt that's entirely true. It just sounds nice. It is, however, a bit of a pointless comparison - too many variables both to keep track of, and too many to lead to a useful conclusion. And it will inevitably fall into the realm of comparing them on specific things, albeit a multitude of them, rather than some fuzzy concept of general worth, anyway. We're likely to value the types good at the skills we value - hence often we will value our own type more, albeit not always. I've definitely run into instances of the fetishizing of other types to oneself though, and other situations where people don't value their mbti preferences as high as some others, which seems to me a bit of an awkward dichotomy to live with.


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

Aßbiscuits said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say but if I quote someone that means I'm replying to someone (meaning just because I posted below you doesn't mean I'm directing what I'm saying at you). You should probably do the same (not highlight a part of what I was saying).


Oh sorry, and thanks for the hint. I'm new at this and a) not completely aware of the mores on this forum and b) trying to figure out how it technically works.

What I meant was that I got your point that we're all equal. But a term like 'politically correct' usually sets me on alert (as it often is a sign for an upcoming contradictionary statement). Toward the end of your post you made another twist, but I see what you mean.

Hope I replied like you expected me to do.


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> See, I believe that too, but I'm always afraid some people will think certain types are outdated. For example, someone might believe that Fe was really important originally for survival, because in old tribes people needed to depend on each other to live, and that Fe was extremely important in having people get along and co-exist, because otherwise they would die. But now since society has become so advanced, we're not as directly dependent upon one another for survival.
> 
> Of course, I would love to hear someone defend Fe in the modern sense. :happy:


Of course, I would love to hear someone defend Fe in the modern sense.

I would say Fe is what binds us all together, it makes us a group rather than a bunch of individuals. For billions of years now, and into the future. Make it happen! Make the right group, the world needs you!


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> This has popped up in a couple of different threads. This is actually a really complicated question, and it's hard to word, but I'll do my best.
> 
> When I ask if you think all types are equal, I don't mean equal in the mathematical sense...equal meaning exactly the same. Obviously all 16 types are different. What I mean is do you believe that all 16 types have equal value, or are equally important.
> 
> ...


All types have an equal value in reality. Without one type we essentially lose a perspective, an aspect of information, a piece of reality as we know it. We may not all perform certain tasks the same way and some types will excel in areas where others will not but ultimately we all have our own importance. We might conflict with other types and have our own unique goals related to our type and perspective but ultimately those types roles in society are important. We don't have to all agree or really even get along but I think it's important to recognize that their perspective is important and can be used to your advantage in some cases.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Mokum said:


> Oh sorry, and thanks for the hint. I'm new at this and a) not completely aware of the mores on this forum and b) trying to figure out how it technically works.


You'll get used to it. You can also click on the blue speaker and put someone's name in it (mention) there to get someone to reply. This is more effective because it sends them a notification.



> What I meant was that I got your point that we're all equal. But a term like 'politically correct' usually sets me on alert (as it often is a sign for an upcoming contradictionary statement). Toward the end of your post you made another twist, but I see what you mean.


I think racism is in nature but lethal with nurture, nurture being exposed to what's "politically correct". If things hadn't changed, if our views weren't changed, I believe we'd still be prejudice today if it wasn't how most of us were brought up not to. What's socially acceptable though stops people from being this way because what's "politically correct" is accepted without thought (I'm using different phrases here I know, blame my Ni, word meanings are very flexible and subjective to me). 

I think undeveloped Fe may accept what's politically correct (collective societal views) without further thought because without a supporting introverted function they're always looking for quick answers outside themselves (like other extroverted functions), while introverted functions like what they know and remember, they can think about things more abstractly and deeply. Without a supporting introverted function Fe can be pretty.... sheeplike in this regard. However, with Jungian theory and types, there's no possible way someone's functional attitude can be better than another's (*cognitive functions aren't a set of skills remember*). Their behaviour possibly but that isn't always a reaction to their functional attitudes and can be affected by many other factors. And as I said what makes one person better than another is subjective anyway. 

But this is a question of equality in each type's value. If the person who thought up of the theory had in mind to show how everyone had different views each with an important value then I think that pretty much answers this question. Unless you want to make your own theory and build off that theory, however in terms of this theory (I'm assuming we're talking about MB or Jungian functions but MB came from Jungian so either way it doesn't matter) every type is considered to be of value. Even ISFPs .


----------



## Mokum (Aug 28, 2010)

Aßbiscuits said:


> You'll get used to it. You can also click on the blue speaker and put someone's name in it (mention) there to get someone to reply. This is more effective because it sends them a notification.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Racism is not really the subject, but since you bring it up... Personally I'm way beyond racism and, frankly, haven't given it a thought for twenty years or so. And come to think of it: it does not exist in nature, on the contrary (to put it in a J fashion).

Many things can be said about political correctness, but in this case I'm happy it falls in that category. Racism should not be an issue, and people who have those (nurtured) beliefs should realize that. It's their problem, unfortunately so. But you might very well feel different when your freedom is limited by this nonsense. Being white, I could be prejudiced.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

Vanitas said:


> No.
> 
> 
> /snicker


Shame on you :angry:


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> Can't it be both objective and subjective? I didn't generalize, nor did I claim what I was saying is the gospel truth.


It can not really be both. You were not saying the right thing for wrong reasons; you were saying the wrong thing for wrong reasons. Your initial hypothesis is flawed, and thus creates a skewed view. NT =/= Scientist, and every type can contribute to science. Its about using what you have. Learning your weaknesses and overcoming them, as well as taking perceived weaknesses and turning them into strengths. This idea has existed before the discovery of types, and is not less applicable in type. It is the individual(regardless of type), who pushes beyond their flaws that is the one who truly excels at anything. So, with type not a consideration towards being able to advance the sciences, you then have no bases for types not being equal.


Too often people confuse their cynicism with objectivity. They believe because they are cynical, they are objective. This is not the case however. Not saying you were doing this, but this is where a lot of misconceptions form, whether it be with type or anything else. I hope this helps.


----------



## sea cucumber (Oct 14, 2010)

In the world with out question they are all equal. We need them all they all give diffrently. 
For me some have more value than others the atitude and thoughts and perceptions of other NF's and INTP and ENTP's are invaluable I collect thease people they make me feel like it I fit. The way it acutalu happens is some awsome ESFP comes into my life and makes it great thier type is irrelevent they cheer up my day and make feel feel awsome and so they are of value to me.


----------



## Balancebread (Jan 29, 2011)

nevermore said:


> though I would not choose to be INTP if type were something we could choose...


Hi to you. I would like to point out that it is indeed a choice that you have made to become an INTP, and you could probably choose to be another type, if you so wanted. 

from wikipedia: 
"The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological *preferences *in how people perceive the world and make decisions."

and no the 16 types are not equal, how can you say that a tiger, a turtle, a duck, a horse, a tree, water... etc are all equal? they surely serve important roles in nature, but equal? hardly ever.


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

Balancebread said:


> Hi to you. I would like to point out that it is indeed a choice that you have made to become an INTP, and you could probably choose to be another type, if you so wanted.
> 
> from wikipedia:
> "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological *preferences *in how people perceive the world and make decisions."
> ...


Psychological preference is related similarly to right hand/left hand preference. If your a righty it won't be easy to become a lefty and you will probably have a harder time keeping with being a lefty when you are not consciously thinking of it. So your true type is always under the surface of it all. 
It isn't exactly easy to just adopt another perspective and that, in part, is what the functions represent.


----------



## Woody (Jan 30, 2011)

I think all 16 types are equal in a human sense, as every man is equal to one another, no matter who's smarter, more attractive etc. But each type tend to has different impact on society and others' lives due to its built-on conditioning. In that case, for example "NTs" usually have bigger impact (and for that are more important) on science & technology while "SPs" are driven more to culture in order to express themselves. I think it's all good for a development of our beloved world we live in .


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Ray Mabry said:


> Psychological preference is related similarly to right hand/left hand preference. If your a righty it won't be easy to become a lefty and you will probably have a harder time keeping with being a lefty when you are not consciously thinking of it. So your true type is always under the surface of it all.
> It isn't exactly easy to just adopt another perspective and that, in part, is what the functions represent.


What if we're ambidextrous?:tongue:


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

it's just a matter of processing and evaluating information. no matter how the information is processed or evaluated it can be applied to some line of work. processing information says nothing about ones values or goals. but equals? i am not sure what that imples. equals in quantity? equals in quality? if quality, then how do you meassure such quality? if balance, then how do you meassure such balance? we can hardly meassure the quantity of each type. so to say that it is possible to meassure these types and call them equal or not equal at anything would not seem plausible at this point.


----------



## Lokkye (Dec 28, 2009)

Well they all have their own function in society.
It's kinda like an ecosystem. An ecosystem can't possibly survive without a producer. Producers keep food in production. This is like the case with all types. Without the Ns coming up with revolutionary ideas then we'd be stuck as cavemen, but then there are also ESTJs who are like generals who keep things organised. If we have a big imbalance with the types, society will probably collapse on itself


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

yeah, and ISFP's were just a bunch of jokers, while ESFP's were the whores, and INTJ's were the tyrants. pardon me, but once again these stereotypes are ludacris. i know several NF's and SP's who would outsmart and out-invent the average NT and SJ. and i know plenty of NT's and SJ's who can create far more creative artwork than any NF or SP. the way we process information- in which direction our gears are turned- has little if nothing to do with our values or interests. and most certainly not how assertive or prominent we are. and since this isn't SPAAARTAAA, and never were SPAAAARTAAAAA, no one was ever handpicked for each profession, and they never will. otherwise it would be like saying that this one personality type is a volvo stationwagon, while this other personality type is a mercedes. and since this (personalitycafe) is a public parking lot, and you're all friends, you can go around and test out each others cars. you may even buy yourself a brand new car for yourself (change your personality type with a new one). but it doesn't work that way. it is unrealistic. you have an NF president in the u.s. right now, shouldn't that be proof enough?


----------



## Lokkye (Dec 28, 2009)

MikeAngell said:


> yeah, and ISFP's were just a bunch of jokers, while ESFP's were the whores, and INTJ's were the tyrants. pardon me, but once again these stereotypes are ludacris. i know several NF's and SP's who would outsmart and out-invent the average NT and SJ. and i know plenty of NT's and SJ's who can create far more creative artwork than any NF or SP. the way we process information- in which direction our gears are turned- has little if nothing to do with our values or interests. and most certainly not how assertive or prominent we are. otherwise it would be like saying that this one personality type is a volvo stationwagon, while this other personality type is a mercedes. and since this (personalitycafe) is a public parking lot, and you're all friends, you can go around and test out each others cars. you may even buy yourself a brand new car for yourself (change your personality type with a new one). but it doesn't work that way. it is unrealistic. you have an NF president in the u.s. right now, shouldn't that be proof enough?


You misspelled ludicrous, just thought I had to point it out :tongue:
(Ludacris is a rapper)


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

i've always pronounced it ludacris, and i always will pronounce it ludacris out of habit. i wrote measure wrong in my previous post, but you didn't say anything about that. the day you can write and speak fluently in five different languages, one of them being norwegian, come back to me so i can correct your norwegian grammar, ok? anyway, i fail to see what any of this has to do with your irrational-stereotype-propaganda post on ESTJ generals and N revolutionaries.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

I believe every individual is very much 'worth' the same as every other individual. Personally I believe all the types have assets of great worth. 

I'd say that different societies value, and indeed need, certain types of people more than others. This doesn't mean that anyone is actually of less value, but that certain societies value them less. 

I also sometimes wonder if the world really needs more of the types that there are more of, and needs less of the types there are less of. Again, not that the smaller percentage is of less value (nor more) but something along the lines of you need 4 legs for every 1 table-top for it to function properly. ??? I don't know about that, nor the analogy.....just a random speculation.


----------



## Balancebread (Jan 29, 2011)

Ray Mabry said:


> Psychological preference is related similarly to right hand/left hand preference. If your a righty it won't be easy to become a lefty and you will probably have a harder time keeping with being a lefty when you are not consciously thinking of it. So your true type is always under the surface of it all.
> It isn't exactly easy to just adopt another perspective and that, in part, is what the functions represent.


yeah but with practice you can stil use your left hand proficiently, it would be up to you to choose to use/develop your left hand, even if it is hard.


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

nevermore said:


> What if we're ambidextrous?:tongue:


Hahahaha  Then your a rare breed of human.


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

Balancebread said:


> yeah but with practice you can stil use your left hand proficiently, it would be up to you to choose to use/develop your left hand, even if it is hard.


Yes, but it won't negate the fact that you were originally right handed and that your left hand will, naturally, have years upon years of usage in a multitude of situations. Anything with the left hand will be more "learned" and the left hand will be inferior to the right...and when "spur of the moment" situations arise, overall, you are more likely to resort to the right than left. 

You develop your right hand use during your *Critical Period*(<<<link) and therefore it will never *equal* that of your right even if you can gain substantial and beneficial use.

Your brain's job is to help you adapt to your environment in some way. So every skill we have be it right hand/left hand usage or cognitive function can be labeled as a type of adaptation to the environment...Jung in fact himself called the functions just that and so every adaptation the brain makes is subject to the critical period.

So i'd be very careful in telling someone that they have changed their type because it leaves them blind to who they really are and what they ultimately were good at beforehand. People can build upon their orignal type and in that they can "change". But literally just up and changing it goes against not only the theory but against reality. 

So there is no real solid basis behind the letter changing game people play here because one doesn't change from one type to the other. They merely build upon their original type.

And if you take the MBTI and see that your type changes it is merely an error that occurs with self-reporting tests and not your type actually changing. Which by the way while i'm at it I will say that most people, including myself, have probably never actually taken the real MBTI because it must be given out by a certified MBTI administrator. So none of these online tests are the real thing although they can still be helpful in finding out one's type.


----------



## Tucken (Dec 13, 2009)

Yes, I think so:happy:.


----------



## TJSeabury (Nov 23, 2010)

Dementia in Absentia said:


> All the types are equal in an overall, global sense. Each type brings its unique strengths and the world would be a worse place if one type was suddenly eliminated from the planet. On the other hand different types to tend to be better at different things. Overall INTPs will kick ESFJs butts in matters regarding logic. But when it comes to matters of feeling and things like hosting, ESFJs definitely have the upper hand. Of course I'm speaking in a general sense. Some ESFJs will be able to outscore some INTPs on a logic test. Some INTPs will make better hosts than some ESFJs. If you average it all out though, I think it becomes clear that INTPs fare better in logic and ESFJs fare better in hosting.


Hosting is irrelevant.  

No but seriously, the 16 types have their strengths and weaknesses; its all about balance.

(...but in the back of my mind I'm thinking that the types prone to advancing our collective knowledge of sciences and society have slightly more value, even if all the others are still required for society to function.)


----------



## SadLuckDame (Dec 30, 2010)

I believe we're equal. The trouble I have is noticing another type thinking their super power is more worthy, greater than mine. That's the point I like to pick them to their bones, make them crawl on their belly, mouth through the worm crap, regret their ego of their 'strength' and see mine as higher importance. 
That's all I'm saying. 

We are equal...until. 

Usually this is only a work related issue for me.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I feel like I have some mild personal bias against SJ types. They're a type that I normally have little to nothing in common with, and therefore don't understand. However, I've recently been talking to a lovely ISTJ who I seem to have quite a lot in common with, so I'm going to have to change that notion. It's always good to get a new perspective.


----------



## silverlined (Jul 8, 2009)

I really do believe that all types of are of equal value but are valuable in different ways. We can learn a lot from each other. It's a matter of taking the time to understand and appreciate the other values.


----------



## affezwilling (Feb 1, 2011)

Equality could be argued depending on your definition. Some types may seem to have greater advantages than others, but that might just be type biases also. When it comes down to it, it takes all types. Each type has its strengths and its weaknesses. It's what you do with those strengths and how you develope those weaknesses that determine your value. To dismiss any of the types to be less important is detrimental to your worth as a person. They are all just as important as the other types, they're just important in different ways.


----------



## abster (Feb 9, 2011)

i would like to think so, we all need different types but in different societies and cultures or even eras, some types definitely have more advantages compared to other types. Its not a perfect world, if it is than all types would be equal.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Djanga said:


> I think (and some people are going to attack me for this but that's okay cuz I'm an iNTX and everyone knows we have no feelings whatsoever :crazy that all types have the _potential_ to be equal, but not necessarily that they are equal. What I mean is that the members of some types are generally more likely to be smarter, more talented, more successful, etc. than those of other types, but it doesn't mean that every person of said types is more intelligent, more talented, more successful, etc. than those of the "inferior" types, and I believe that the superior members of an inferior type are equal to those of a superior type. If that makes any sense... Basically I think that value is an individual thing but that some types are superior to others in a numerical, quantity-not-quality sense.


Seconded.
Society loves NTs, and despises NFs.

The types all go off to specialize in their own fields and each would have their own personal definition of 'success', so it's like comparing apples with ESFPs.

However, as I implied before; society dictates opinions of success, and it goes in favour of the Thinkers.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

Djanga said:


> I think (and some people are going to attack me for this but that's okay cuz I'm an iNTX and everyone knows we have no feelings whatsoever :crazy that all types have the _potential_ to be equal, but not necessarily that they are equal. What I mean is that the members of some types are generally more likely to be smarter, more talented, more successful, etc. than those of other types, but it doesn't mean that every person of said types is more intelligent, more talented, more successful, etc. than those of the "inferior" types, and I believe that the superior members of an inferior type are equal to those of a superior type. If that makes any sense... Basically I think that value is an individual thing but that some types are superior to others in a numerical, quantity-not-quality sense.


Basically, you're remarking on how there are many S's and fewer N's....

hmm... That is hard to explain. I understand though, an ENFP is inherently more vital than an ESFP by means of being more rare, but both are just as good for their surroundings, provided they are both as mature.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

People are not equal in ability or usefulness, and people contribute to the world in different amounts, over different time spans, and in different resolutions.

This difference may be statistically related to type, although it also greatly differs from person to person.

For example, scientists, visionaries and philosophers (usually N types) generally contribute with large scale discoveries and principles. Those principles are the foundation of ideologies and technologies that end up changing people's lives several hundreds of years into the future. We still use the principles of Aristotle, even today. That guy is closing in on two and a half millennia of contribution.

Generally speaking, an ESFJ may for example contribute positively to the emotional lives of everyone in his/her immediate vicinity. He/she may be an incredibly nice and caring person who leaves everyone he/she knows with a lingering, warm, positive emotion.

Very nice.

However, that's still a very, very small scale, zoomed in kind of contribution. Nothing that will make space travel viable. Nothing that will cure all disease. Nothing that will redefine the morality of entire civilisations. Nothing that will change the large scale structure of human existence into something better.

_Now, of course, that's not something that most N's do either.
_
I see a lot of people on these boards who talk like they are inherently geniuses comparable to Einstein, Feynman or Sagan just because they happen to be of the same type as those people. This is completely ridiculous egocentric, narcissistic bullshit. Being of an NT type _does not_ mean you're an intellectual giant. Being of an NF type _does NOT_ mean you're Jesus. An absolute majority of people, regardless of type, will _never, ever_ do something significant with their existence whatsoever.
_
However_, most of those few who do contribute to the larger picture, I think, will tend to be of an N type.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> People are not equal in ability or usefulness, and people contribute to the world in different amounts, over different time spans, and in different resolutions.
> 
> This difference may be statistically related to type, although it also greatly differs from person to person.
> 
> ...



I think you make a fair point, but I also think that if we're looking at things on a large scale, it's also just as much about how all people work together to accomplish something and actually make it happen.

While it may be true that an N is more likely to be a person who discovers some new idea or pushes for a positive change...that in itself usually isn't enough to make a long-lasting impact. There are tons of people (who may end up being more likely to be Ss) that were just as necessary in carrying out the actual follow through of any of the ideas that may have been discovered by Ns.


Sure, Aristotle wrote philosophies that still last today. But who wrote them down and preserved them after he was gone? I imagine that there were probably some other great philosophers throughout history who never had their work preserved that we've never heard even heard of. My guess is that many historians and scribes may have been SJ types, though like you said, this will have some variation too.


Any idea that is designed needs people to implement it and make sure all of the details are in place. Someone could design the best building in the world, but if it isn't built right, with all of the proper attention given to the details, it will collapse.



I've always felt that society is best when positive changes are enacted, but also when they are upheld over a long time as well. Otherwise, how can progress be made? If a positive change is made but not sustained, then there's no actual progress, either. 


So I tend to look at it moreso as how all different types worth together to create something. If we're looking a type rather than an individual, then wherever there is a strength, there's going to be a weakness wherever that piece is missing.



So I think that's where a lot of the "ESFJ tendencies that you mentioned come in...they may not enact change, but they make the present worth having in the first place, at least for many people. 


But that's why I think there's a huge importance to understanding that different people/types value different things. I doubt there are many S types who don't value society changing and moving forward, and I doubt there there are many N types that don't want to enjoy their lives while they're still alive. But I'm willing to be there were more SJ types who would be happy with society staying where it is and more N types who value thinking about the future and big scale more than what's right in front of them. But I think this goes back to a question concerning "what's the purpose/meaning of life?"...it's going to be different from person to person.


That's what I find so interesting about progress...it we could actually measure the quality of a society, it would be interesting to hear how people from different eras felt about their own. Would someone 2000 years ago on average rate their society that much worse than someone would today? 



And that's something that I always wonder about concerning N types...let's say we ever reached utopia, where life was perfect and couldn't be improved upon. Would N types be satisfied with living? Would they be happy knowing that there wasn't anywhere else to go or grow from?


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Yep, they're all important and have their roles. But it cannot be denied that different cultures favor different types.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Yes, we are all equal under the conditions prevailing at the time. We must in the end be accountable to the same things.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I think of it like a puzzle, every piece is needed to create the whole.


----------



## EllieBear (Nov 8, 2012)

I would go with "equal but different". In this world we need different things, different ideas, views points and personalities. An INTJ may cure cancer, but they're make a lousy cancer nurse... and you can't treat a cancer patient without that.

So I think we're all intertwined, good at different things, but linked.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I think you make a fair point, but I also think that if we're looking at things on a large scale, it's also just as much about how all people work together to accomplish something and actually make it happen.
> 
> While it may be true that an N is more likely to be a person who discovers some new idea or pushes for a positive change...that in itself usually isn't enough to make a long-lasting impact. There are tons of people (who may end up being more likely to be Ss) that were just as necessary in carrying out the actual follow through of any of the ideas that may have been discovered by Ns.
> 
> Sure, Aristotle wrote philosophies that still last today. But who wrote them down and preserved them after he was gone? I imagine that there were probably some other great philosophers throughout history who never had their work preserved that we've never heard even heard of. My guess is that many historians and scribes may have been SJ types, though like you said, this will have some variation too.


True. However, this was true to a larger extent in the past, where the preservation of information, the management of society and the production of artifacts was largely reliant upon manual labor. It will also be less and less true as we approach the future, and these trends can already be seen.

For example, in a highly technological society where data can be stored and duplicated easily, there is no longer a need for a scribe for text replication. With intelligent search engines that can patch together answers from large repositories of data by themselves, the need for learned, book smart scholars is diminished. Libraries already are being abandoned in favor of web based solutions.

In a society where there are universal factories (the equivalent of Turing machines, that can do multiple material manufacturing instead of computation) there is no longer a need for manual production. This is on it's way and will probably be commonplace in just about 15 years. Check out 3d printers and rapid prototyping for examples of the earliest machines in this phylum.



> Any idea that is designed needs people to implement it and make sure all of the details are in place. Someone could design the best building in the world, but if it isn't built right, with all of the proper attention given to the details, it will collapse.


This is also correct. However, the construction of buildings will sooner or later also become completely automated as well. Actually, it is strange that this is not already the case, since it is completely doable. Just google Contour Crafting for information of movable, large scale 3d-printers that can manufacture a complete house without human aid in less than 20 hours. Just input a CAD-model into the device, turn it on, and you'll enjoy your new house tomorrow.

I understand that you meant this as an example, but so do I. The distance between idea and implementation lessens steadily in about every field, and has done so since the dawn of technology. Soon we will be in a spot where an idea may be manifested almost instantly, without a "doer" step on the way.



> I've always felt that society is best when positive changes are enacted, but also when they are upheld over a long time as well. Otherwise, how can progress be made? If a positive change is made but not sustained, then there's no actual progress, either.


What's true of computers is that every repetitive sequence of actions that can be predicted, can also be programmed into a machine. Sustaining things generally is about repetitive grinding of certain actions with certain intervals. A computer can do that. If it can't, then someone innovative will sooner or later think up a way to build a machine that can.



> So I tend to look at it moreso as how all different types worth together to create something. If we're looking a type rather than an individual, then wherever there is a strength, there's going to be a weakness wherever that piece is missing.


Generally and historically, yes. However certain weaknesses are easier to compensate for by creating tools, than others are. Machines are very good at repetitive, predictable things. It's for improvisation and ideas you will need human input in the long run.



> So I think that's where a lot of the "ESFJ tendencies that you mentioned come in...they may not enact change, but they make the present worth having in the first place, at least for many people.
> 
> But that's why I think there's a huge importance to understanding that different people/types value different things. I doubt there are many S types who don't value society changing and moving forward, and I doubt there there are many N types that don't want to enjoy their lives while they're still alive. But I'm willing to be there were more SJ types who would be happy with society staying where it is and more N types who value thinking about the future and big scale more than what's right in front of them. But I think this goes back to a question concerning "what's the purpose/meaning of life?"...it's going to be different from person to person.


Indeed. It's a subjective thing, and people are free to live their lives and contribute to each other's well being in a multitude of ways. My purpose with this isn't to step on people's right to do what they want. I am simply evaluating the contribution to society by different types. As a person, I guess I am kind of obsessed with usefulness, purpose and large time scales.

My initial perspective is automatically "What changes make the biggest difference over time", and from that perspective my statement about N's making the most difference for civilisation perceived as a single system holds true.

However, I am not particularly good at making people feel good. I am, for example, very bad at respecting people's opinions and letting them think whatever they want when I know for a fact I am right. I have alienated a lot of people by pushing _(valid and true)_ ideas down their throats against their will. Other people and other types are a lot better at handling people in general, and people with philosophies that differ from mine in particular, than I am.

I see that everyone has different qualities. I suck at stuff some people are fantastic at, such as being considerate, affectionate and respecting everyone's right to be themselves. I can be rigidly undiplomatic and sometimes I make people cry. I guess other people of my type may have similar problems. So gifts differing and all that. Of course everyone has strengths and weaknesses. 

However, some of these strengths may have large scale implications for humanity as a whole if used right. Others usually don't. Some strengths improve life for individual people. Other strengths potentially can alter the entire future of the human species. I am aware this is just me being biased, but in my eyes it's crystal clear that according to my definition of "equality", not all functional sets are equal when you look at a large time frame.

For example, without someone making space travel and terraforming of other planets viable, our entire race will be rendered extinct when the next huge asteroid hits earth. When that happens, then it won't matter who was a good host and who made people feel good. Such catastrophes are not "what if's". They are "when's", and they have happened to this planet over and over again over the course of history. Do you see my train of thought here? What's relevant on a smaller scale, really isn't on a larger scale.



> That's what I find so interesting about progress...it we could actually measure the quality of a society, it would be interesting to hear how people from different eras felt about their own. Would someone 2000 years ago on average rate their society that much worse than someone would today?
> 
> And that's something that I always wonder about concerning N types...let's say we ever reached utopia, where life was perfect and couldn't be improved upon. Would N types be satisfied with living? Would they be happy knowing that there wasn't anywhere else to go or grow from?


Well. Then I guess we'll just feel the need to build a better utopia.

On a more serious note, I think in most cases, the improvement is a side effect. Those who are actually making the discoveries that change the world do so because it's really, really fun to explore the limits of understanding - to find out how the universe works and what hilarious stuff we can do with it. As long as there is a new limit to break, then there will be someone there to break it, because hey, that's what limits are there for.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

abster said:


> i would like to think so, we all need different types but in different societies and cultures or even eras, some types definitely have more advantages compared to other types. Its not a perfect world, if it is than all types would be equal.



I would think they each have their own mix of potential strengths and weaknesses. It is up to each of us to determine the specifics.


----------



## Cristy0505 (Oct 8, 2012)

Everyone is the same, but different.

It's like an ant neast, the queen is needed to guide the workers and soldiers. The soldiers are needed for fighting the enemies and workers are needed because if there were only the queen and the soldiers then there would not be food for feeding the queen or soldiers or maggots (which I forgot to put into story).


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> True. However, this was true to a larger extent in the past, where the preservation of information, the management of society and the production of artifacts was largely reliant upon manual labor. It will also be less and less true as we approach the future, and these trends can already be seen.
> 
> For example, in a highly technological society where data can be stored and duplicated easily, there is no longer a need for a scribe for text replication. With intelligent search engines that can patch together answers from large repositories of data by themselves, the need for learned, book smart scholars is diminished. Libraries already are being abandoned in favor of web based solutions.
> 
> ...



I think it all depends on what it meant as a "doer" task. I think one of the most interesting examples that I've seen pop up in a few threads is the idea of programming. A few Ss described different types of work that have been involved in it...some involved creating new ideas for what programs can do, and others involved debugging and getting all of the details of the code straight. In the descriptions I heard, the N types favored the development processes and the Ss favored the "maintenance" ones. 

So even with improved technology, I still feel that being able to maintain and sustain what's in place is just as important as creating new ideas. The exact details of what's being maintained will change...these have changed throughout history, and yet maintenance is still present. 


Simply put...I don't believe that technology will ever be able to replace the natural strengths that Ss possess any more than it will be able to replace the natural strengths that Ns possess. To say that it would to me would imply that Ss are more like animals/robots than Ns are. The processes may change, but I don't believe that the natural "N" strengths are any harder to replicate compared to what the "S" ones are. 

(And this is all sticky anyway, since both Ns and Ss use sensing and intuition, just to varying levels.)




NiDBild said:


> What's true of computers is that every repetitive sequence of actions that can be predicted, can also be programmed into a machine. Sustaining things generally is about repetitive grinding of certain actions with certain intervals. A computer can do that. If it can't, then someone innovative will sooner or later think up a way to build a machine that can.


But again, this programming takes a lot of details and processes that must be taken care of so that it functions correctly. And, machines do break and must be fixed. As repetitive as this can be at times, it is still a process that takes a lot of investigation and analysis. I don't think a machine is any more likely to be able to "create" than it is to be able to do this sort of physical analysis. Again, to me, this would be implying that S type abilities are simply more robotic than N type abilities. 




NiDBilD said:


> Generally and historically, yes. However certain weaknesses are easier to compensate for by creating tools, than others are. Machines are very good at repetitive, predictable things. It's for improvisation and ideas you will need human input in the long run.


Again, to me this seems to imply that certain people's strengths are more robotic than others are, and I disagree with that. I think the human mind/brain is much more complex than being able to say that a natural preference is as simple as a repetitive and predictable process that is the same as the way a machine would perform.

I don't think the S fucntions, not even Si, lack improvisation, either. I don't think Si looks to simply keep on doing the same thing over and over and over again. It often looks instead to investigate and find details that aren't working right or aren't in their proper places or aren't functioning right, and it looks to see what needs to be done to fix them. 




Simply put...I don't think that N strengths are going to be necessary forever while S strengths will one day be replaced by technology. 




NiDBilD said:


> Indeed. It's a subjective thing, and people are free to live their lives and contribute to each other's well being in a multitude of ways. My purpose with this isn't to step on people's right to do what they want. I am simply evaluating the contribution to society by different types. As a person, I guess I am kind of obsessed with usefulness, purpose and large time scales.
> 
> My initial perspective is automatically "What changes make the biggest difference over time", and from that perspective my statement about N's making the most difference for civilisation perceived as a single system holds true.
> 
> ...



I think the way I always feel about this is that if someone understands that their priorities are simply their own priorities based on what their actual wants/needs are, then I'm ok with it. I think that's why type is useful...to understand that we do have our own priorities, and that this makes us all biased in terms of how we look at everything. However, I think it's important for us to look beyond our own priorities and see the value in other people in ways that may not naturally feel important to us. I think that's how we grow...by seeing the importance in things that we hadn't before.

So I think it's important to understand that lens because otherwise we get into having a sense of superiority where we start believing that our priorities are more important than the priorities of others. That's what bothers me sometimes about this topic...when people start objectively believing that other people's priorities don't matter to anyone besides those people. We are all human, and we all have an S, N, T and F function. We all have J and P functions, and introverted and extorverted ones. I think if we don't see the value in all of them, we don't really see the value in our whole selves, and it makes us imbalanced and it holds us back.

So it depends on what your defintion of "equality" is. I think it sounds like your definition of measuring equality is focused on the areas that fit in more with your natural preferences. So the problem I have is that if we all base our definition of equality on the areas that fit in with our natural preferences, we're all going to feel as though our own types are superior. And that's where I think we end up not working with others different than us and we don't see the value in our own lower functions as well as the functions that we don't possess.


But....as I've learned in other threads, when Fe and Te try to convince each other to change their own view of "equality" it just ends up leading to resistance (and this involves Fi vs. Ti as well). So I don't know if going any further in that area of the topic will be very beneficial. 



NiBDild said:


> For example, without someone making space travel and terraforming of other planets viable, our entire race will be rendered extinct when the next huge asteroid hits earth. When that happens, then it won't matter who was a good host and who made people feel good. Such catastrophes are not "what if's". They are "when's", and they have happened to this planet over and over again over the course of history. Do you see my train of thought here? What's relevant on a smaller scale, really isn't on a larger scale.


I don't see it as a matter of anyone believing it's not important for people to think about these large scale problems, and if someone does, then I think they're highly confused. But I also believe it's equally important for other pieces to be involved. This goes back to our earlier discussion...I think it's not simply enough to know about a problem and how to fix it, but it's equally important to actually take the actions to fix it, including all of the details along the way. 


But the other area that I have trouble discussing matters with many NTs is involving emotional ones, because it's hard to discuss them without getting personal. The way you describe "making people feel good" makes it seem like it's of no importance to you personally, like it's only important to some people but not to everyone. I think that perhaps is my issue with the whole idea of "equality"...if someone views some functions as important to everyone but other fucntions as only important to those that use them....then I have a very hard time understanding that. But again, that's where the emotional states of some NTs are mysteries to me, in somes partly because they may not feel comfortable discussing it or may not be willing to share it openly. 




NiBDilD said:


> Well. Then I guess we'll just feel the need to build a better utopia.
> 
> On a more serious note, I think in most cases, the improvement is a side effect. Those who are actually making the discoveries that change the world do so because it's really, really fun to explore the limits of understanding - to find out how the universe works and what hilarious stuff we can do with it. As long as there is a new limit to break, then there will be someone there to break it, because hey, that's what limits are there for.



This is true, and I think that people of all types can enjoy expanding their understanding of things. Sometimes I think the scope and placement of it can be different, though...science and psychology have a lot of different areas, and I think studying different aspects of them appeal to different people in certain ways too.


However, I also think it's fair point to make that not every new discovery or new idea is always completely positive. Without senses or morality and being in tune with the needs of all life, even brilliant minds and logic can lead to more suffering than good. 

And that's part of the issue too...it's not as though all creative and exploratory minds always agree on what should be done. People still have personal interests, and people still sometimes work to achieve personal power rather than look for sake of all humanity. And even people with good intentions can still disagree about which actions to take. 


Simply put, it's not as though every "N" idea has always only had positive effects.


----------



## Foibleful (Oct 2, 2012)

I do think that all the types are equally important, equally valuable. The world needs all 16 types to go around, so to speak. The loss of even one type would be detrimental to humankind as a whole.


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

Yes, I thin roughly all types are equal. Of course, some types are better equipped for more certain things than others. 

Like in general, if you were trying to fill a position of a scientist, would you be more likely to go with an INTP or an INFP? Both types have three letters the same but that one letter, T or F, makes a big difference. I will admit, us INFPs are not always the most rational when we are feeling very emotional and cannot always deal with hard logic. INTPs generally are better at using reasoning and logic. Not saying always, just in general.

But then again, let's say you were wanting someone to hire someone to write a script for a movie dealing with people living in poverty. You might chose an INFP over an INTP (in general). INFPs get into the more emotional, personal side of things and are often highly abstract in their thinking. INTPs would be more inclined to give an objective view on the topic. Not saying this is true for everyone, just in general.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

INTPs and INFPs certainly aren't equal to say the least LOL (anyone who's familiar with the notorious mistypings between those types will get what I'm getting at). These types really couldn't be from more different "mentality universes," although to Jung, they might have similar complexes about being misunderstood. One is a super abstract thinker (I'm not insinuating high IQ, btw - could be the contrary), while the other is a pretty concrete thinker - also, one exists from the perspective of evaluation while the other is primitive around evaluation (they can do it, but the way they go about it can be rather weird from the psychological perspective or even sinister when negative). Fi and Fe make a huge difference in these types - the inferior Fe types are pretty much dependent on the outside world in verifying their feelings for them, while the Fi doms oppose this rather vehemently and tend to hold everything up to very high inner ideals.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

I would say that theoretically, yes, every type in its own way has strengths and weaknesses that are equal in brilliance, but not all humans are equal. There are other factors that contribute to an individual's behavior and thoughts: culture, social, biological, psychological.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Yes. All of the 16 types have different qualities and each give different contributions. One has to know what kind of role to play, so one has to be self-fulfilled and satisfied, and happy.

But in real life, and this goes on and on, society favors the extroverts (more outspoken, and always heard) and the sensors (greater in numbers). In reality, there is some bias to those who are successful, powerful, rich, and famous, because society is wired that way, and so externally focused, that's why other types may be seen as less of worth.

MBTI was created so we could understand the different personalities of each person, to know the strengths and weaknesses, to create union instead of division. If we have to apply this knowledge, then conflict can be avoided, and self-actualization can be reached.


----------



## ToxicatedRose (Apr 18, 2012)

Everyone is going to be drawn to one type – what do you like in a person – is it empathy? Creativity? Loyalty? Efficiency? Objectivity? Intellect? — we all have preference in people, and are all therefore going to be drawn to some types more than others. ESTJ's sound really harsh, cold and boring to me (that doesn't mean you guys are!) but they're great for allowing the cogs of society to spin and turn. And as an INFP, an ESTJ may just think I'm a little too procrastinating and head in the clouds. We all have preferences, but in answer to your question – *Yes. *All types are equal, no doubt about it


----------



## Nicole Hobbs (May 31, 2012)

I think that we are all of equal value.
But I think that we are different, as in, having different needs, hopes, wants, and desires that we want/need to fulfill. 
We also have different ways of doing things, but it all works out in the end.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

The 16 types are clearly not "equal". You haven't even defined a metric yet for measuring equality.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think they're equally capable of anything (no one's even BAD at their inferior - they can be great (e.g. good artist and inferior S, or good at math and inferior T, etc. - inferior just means less adaptable to conscious expectations - it has its roots in certain kinds of academic thinking), which is beside the point of type anyway (I kind of think MBTI's emphasis on abilities and special traits in type is way off base - NO, BEING GOOD AT MATH AND SCIENCE IS NOT AN NT - NO, BEING EMPATHETIC IS NOT AN NF - NO, BEING FUN-LOVING AND CAREFREE IS NOT AN SP (uh, how about Ne doms? are they not a bit notorious for getting lost in their imaginations and having fun that way?) - NO, BEING CONSERVATIVE AND TRADITIONAL IS NOT AN SJ). MBTI, the original "theory" (or the spin-offs that get credited to Myers and Briggs, perhaps - I really can't say for sure, since the information is so screwy online) is really annoying in a lot of respects, not gonna lie.


----------



## Azure_Sky (Oct 9, 2012)

If you mean equal in the sense that not one is better than the other, yes. Each type has its own strengths and weaknesses. If someone claims that one is better, it is simply personal opinion. What traits might be better to some may not be better to others. Also, we shouldn't feel limited because of something like typing. Even if some things come easier for someone, it doesn't mean they do not have the ability to do things that do not fit what they were sterotypically typed as.


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

NiDBiLD said:


> For example, without someone making space travel and terraforming of other planets viable, our entire race will be rendered extinct when the next huge asteroid hits earth. When that happens, then it won't matter who was a good host and who made people feel good. Such catastrophes are not "what if's". They are "when's", and they have happened to this planet over and over again over the course of history. Do you see my train of thought here? What's relevant on a smaller scale, really isn't on a larger scale.


This is definitely true, but I think you're ignoring things which allow you to look at the big picture. Who watches over and nurtures the people who end up creating technology for space exploration and defense? Who pushes them to believe in their dreams, that they can make a difference? I'm not saying it's the sole factor for why a person ultimately chooses what they do in life, but it is a small one with big implications about their future. Even though the machine may be more important than its parts, if a screw goes missing and the machine stops working, does it really matter how important the function is? 

Everything builds up to that greater whole. So while being warm to a person is visibly lesser than space exploration, in certain ways it's just as vital. Especially now that we're becoming outdated. When it seems like machines will be able to do everything, a lot of people are going to need that motivation to keep going. Maybe not you since you understand your place in everything, but the illusion that we're more than cold efficiency is necessary to keep pushing forward.


----------



## Buffy (Oct 22, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> This has popped up in a couple of different threads. This is actually a really complicated question, and it's hard to word, but I'll do my best.
> 
> When I ask if you think all types are equal, I don't mean equal in the mathematical sense...equal meaning exactly the same. Obviously all 16 types are different. What I mean is do you believe that all 16 types have equal value, or are equally important.
> 
> ...


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

I think this question may be unanswerable because of the limits of human experience.

"Equal" implies measurement, which necessitates a standard for measurement. If we frame this question as the ancients did, then the standard for measurement will be "happiness" (or what the Greeks called Eudemonia). Then we are left with some questions -

Are there different happinesses? Are some happinesses better than others? What is the yardstick by which we measure different happinesses? 

Anyone who hopes to show one type is better than another may have to attach different types to different happinesses, and show which happinesses are better than others.

For example, some types are more contemplative than others for reason (x). The contemplative life produce a happiness that is greater than a non-contemplative life for reason . Solve for (x) & . 

The problem here is obvious, (although you may be able to find (x), the intp's are literally dubbed "the thinkers"), finding a  would be empirically very difficult. How could you test any such reason you came up with? 

The possibly insurmountable obstacle as I see it, is you could never experience anyone else's happinesses, only your own. & if you can't experience it you can't compare and judge it. And if you can't judge it, you can't conclude anything. 

So it may necessarily follow that we empirically can't know whether the types are equal or unequal.


----------



## Belovodia (Sep 12, 2011)

OK, so we're all equal, but..........who actually _feels _equal?


----------



## Zonr (Nov 10, 2012)

Equal within their temperaments. Id say the skills each temperament carry are balanced and are equally important


----------



## shmiddy.plant (Oct 30, 2012)

I wouldn't call it being equal, being +/- equal implies that someone will be superior to another as a type and this is obviously not a positive mindset. However, I find that some types are balenced it a different way to others. By balence I mean the negitives of the type in comparison to the positives in the type.

Take for instance INFP, their type has a tendency to being incredibly artistic and emotionaly expressive, perhaps one of the most attractive traits in life. On the other hand their type has a tendency to be overwhelmingly depressed and off themselves, one of obviously the most unattractive traits in life. Big gain, Big loss

But take my type, I consider myself lucky for being (I have tried to think of this objectively) one of the more positively balanced types going. THe positives in most of the descriptions usually outweigh the negatives (at least in my mind, Other types will see this differently).

I don't think any of the types are perfectly balanced, Just another card game in the casino of life though I guess
LOL CORNY


----------



## infinitely nothing (Nov 5, 2012)

a perfect example to use is the human body, where we have something like 50 trillion cells, all elements of one structure

are all cells equal? No

They are distinct, and while a human body can survive without a *group of certain cells,* it can't survive without others, for example no heart, no brain, and survival comes to an end, no arms, no legs, can still survive

While the cells actually exist, as a rule they interact and co-operate for the benefit of the whole

so, it doesn't matter if you are equal or not equal, what matters is to do the best with what you've got for the whole, and not be so self-focused

cancer is an example of a self-focused approach

it kills not only every other cell eventually - but it also kills itself


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

All the 15 types are equal except for ESFJ's.


----------



## WILDFL0WER (Nov 15, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> The distance between idea and implementation lessens steadily... *Soon we will be in a spot where an idea may be manifested almost instantly, without a "doer" step on the way.
> *
> It's for improvisation and ideas you will need human input in the long run.
> 
> ...


God!! I can Not wait for that day, it simply can't come soon enough for me, and I'm hoping this 12/21/12 thing will have something to do with ushering in that era...

And I'd say, I'd hate to break this lil' tidbit to ya', but after reading your post, I'm actually not hating it at all.... but FYI once that day comes, when 'I' don't need someone to go through the drudgery of paperwork, schedules, managing a workforce, etc...'you' will also become obsolete.

The majority of this world may not be slaves building pyramids for kings, but believe me, you're still slaves even if you're not being physically whipped to build triangular pyramids.

And although every type does indeed serve a purpose, I cannot wait for the time when the TESLA's of this world don't have the effin' ROCKEFELLER'S and other money changers demanding that free energy cannot be free for the masses, come up with a way to charge for it or we'll remove our funding.

Free energy, no more bullshit wars, no more working like a slave til' you die, freedom for people to experience life and be who they were truly meant to be. Fkn Utopia, and I can't wait!


----------



## WILDFL0WER (Nov 15, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> . Obviously all 16 types are different. What I mean is do you believe that all 16 types have equal value, or are equally important.
> 
> I know that there's no real objective "measurement" to measure the value of a type, just like you can't really measure the value of a person.
> 
> ...


Okay... well taking into account that I'm very new (like found out on Tues. that I was an ENTP) to the MBTI, this board, and am very interested to delve deeper into it all because what I've learned so far is (dare I say) life changing. I haven't had time to read much on these boards, or learn how I get along with other types etc... But I believe I understand your questions.

I do believe all types have equal value, and I think the objective value is for people to understand just how important and how much we need the other types. Speaking for myself, whichever type 'likes' to organize & do whatever it is that needs to be done, to bring my idea's to fruition, is actually almost invaluable to me. 

The people that keep in touch with me, even though I seem not to care enough to make the effort to call them, are god sends. 

The people that plan the social events and just tell me where to be when... omg! I Love them because all I have to do is show up and let loose my 'normal' eat, drink, dance & be merry self. And there are many more examples I could give.

I think possibly (and like I said I don't know since I'm just learning this $hit) some of us are just naturally more egotistical, well actually I know that, I'm thinking that that may also relate to our MBTI's.

Actually, we are all egotistical in some way, just different ways of expressing it, at different levels. When I read about ENTP's ... yeah, in a way hehehehe I am being egotistical in saying I wouldn't trade my type for any other, so obviously that implies I think 'mine' is the best... BUT I am not intentionally mean nor do I like to hurt anyone's feelings. Sometimes I just don't believe I've said or done anything TO hurt anyone's feelings, even when it's explained. 

And even if I did, my thought process, is ... 'okay already, get over it.. I didn't call you stupid, I just said all that work you were doing was stupid ' Which probably comes off as an air of superiority, but just because I see discussing your hurt feelings as wasting precious time, doesn't mean I don't care, because if you would stop bugging me, I could go finish creating the contraption that is about to make your life a whole lot easier  

So I think sometimes we can come off thinking we are better than others, intellectually I know that's not true, but in reality, I don't really care if other's think of me negatively, if that's what it takes to get my point across, or if it will more efficiently extract me from a conversation or situation I don't want to be in. 

On the other hand, I did find that last post I commented on from the ENTJ as him thinking he was better than others, and by no means am I a 'feeler' but c'mon dude, get over yourself! We ALL have feelings, and I bet I could make him cry... sure it would of course be in private and he'd never admit it, but I really do not like that dismissive, looking down on people air. Not sure if we're both saying the typical things, but it would be interesting to know.

... And I don't even know if this made sense to anyone else, as usual ... but right now I have more important things to do then reflect


----------



## Mr. Limpopo (Oct 7, 2011)

Only in rights (please dont play semantics and ask "what about freedom or opportunity?"). I find it hard to believe they can be equal in anything else... but the same species


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

I believe that our personalities evolved to create a perfect system amongst us humans. If we were to "remove" certain types, we would collapse as a society. We need T's because we need people to understand the complex nature of the world. We need F's to help our fellow humans. We need J's because they help keep us all in order. Every type has something extremely valuable to contribute to us all.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

MyNameIsTooLon said:


> All the 15 types are equal except for ESFJ's.


Yes, fuck all ESFJ's. They can go rot in a hole. lol


(JUST KIDDING! I love ESFJ's. ;-))


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Yes. we all have something to contribute. However, if you want to look who does best in modern day society, that is another story.

I always felt like I would have lived a more fulfilling but much harder life about 150 years ago as an SP. Like I would be more suited to it than modern day. The Wild West would have been great!

I feel that naturally as society has evolved the focus and importance has shifted between types or functions. some have had their time, and some have yet to have it yet.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

People are equal. People represent types. Therefore, types are equal.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

This is a complex question. My first thought has to do with who is most capable of performing society's essential functions. If everyone were an introverted intuitive, I think we may all starve and die. If everyone were an SJ, things might go well for a while, but fall apart when they faced an unexpected change in conditions. I definitely think an all-extrovert society would fare better than an all-introvert society. Most importantly, it would actually be a society because everyone would stay connected. What about Ts vs Fs? Ps vs Js?

I think what it comes down to is makeup. What percentages do we have of each type? Being Christian, I believe God has decided how many people of each personality type we should have. It's our job to make sure they're all doing what they're designed to do. So the fact that extroverted sensory judgers outnumber introverted intuitive feelers probably means they are more important, as a whole.


----------



## Echoe (Apr 23, 2012)

I feel like we're all "equal" on this inherent level, as in none of the 16 personality types are accidents of mother nature and we were collectively supposed to bring a certain balance in a group format. Desire for innovation and improvement, preferring the safer tried and true, easy-going'ness and adaptability, structure and maintenance of predictability, emotional support, emotional removal, etc. They all have their pros and cons and are here for a reason. 


I think you could find criteria for a definition of successfulness in a certain society (like American society) and pick a type that can and tends to meet this definition better than others.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

All types are equal. Some types are more equal than others.
In other words, there are equal types and then there are the two equally magnificent types: isfp and esfp. :kitteh::wink::happy:


----------



## LookingforNarnia10L (Nov 14, 2012)

I believe that all types are equal. I don't believe there is such thing as an inferior personality or a superior personality. I try to tell my mom that but I'm not sure she believes me.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

LeaT said:


> People are equal. People represent types. Therefore, types are equal.


Good logic. Bad premise.

How and why are people equal? What do you base that upon, and how do you measure it?


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> Good logic. Bad premise.
> 
> How and why are people equal? What do you base that upon, and how do you measure it?


We are all equally important. Where would society be without all of the amazing NF's or NT's or whatever other types there are? Some things in life are simply not measurable...

(P.S.) Your profile picture is creepy! What movie is that from?!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> Good logic. Bad premise.
> 
> How and why are people equal? What do you base that upon, and how do you measure it?


We are equal because we are all people. There's absolutely nothing intrinsic about humans that would make one human less valued than any other human. Whatever limitation imposed on groups of people e.g. race, sex, political/religious affiliation and so on that we use to separate ourselves and create power clusters are social instituations we create. They are only true if we believe them to be true.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

LeaT said:


> We are equal because we are all people. There's absolutely nothing intrinsic about humans that would make one human less valued than any other human. Whatever limitation imposed on groups of people e.g. race, sex, political/religious affiliation and so on that we use to separate ourselves and create power clusters are social instituations we create. They are only true if we believe them to be true.


Humans are not equal in knowledge or competence. Not equal in intelligence. Not equal in capacity.

In what way, exactly, are we equal? There are clearly humans of higher and lower quality. There are stupid, ugly and mean people, and there are beautiful, intelligent and kind people. And everything in between.

However, the extremes still exist.

There are high quality humans, who happened to win the genetic lottery. They are beautiful, intelligent and kind, and everyone is a bit jealous, because they are so obviously awesome.

There are also low quality humans, who just look and acted as if someone took a dump in their end of the gene pool.

Where is that equality? I just don't see it. It just sounds like politically correct bs loaded with values.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> We are equal because we are all people.


You describe perfectly the extent to which people are equal. In that we're people. Any further analysis clearly shows this not to be true. It seems quite easy to assess that their are grades of individuals out there. While no individual is perfect, and all results must be subjectively valued on top of whatever objective data exists, surely we can say that some are better than the "norm", than the general average, in many, if not most metrics. 

If you look at it from a socioeconomic standpoint, in general, the more educated, intelligent, creative, and fit tend to rise to the top of the ladder. I don't think this is merely social/cultural influence, though admit it certainly plays a role. 



> There's absolutely nothing intrinsic about humans that would make one human less valued than any other human. Whatever limitation imposed on groups of people e.g. race, sex, political/religious affiliation and so on that we use to separate ourselves and create power clusters are social instituations we create. They are only true if we believe them to be true.


Agree and disagree. I agree that it is value dependent, though disagree that there are not objective markers which can be shown to give rise to a superior human being. How many people want to be a pro athlete as a child? How many give it their all for over a decade, yet fail? Sure, we value football, but the metrics are value independent. If civilization collapses, the one who is most fit simply is, and procreates and their young survives. Not because they were more valued, but because they were better. It may be more difficult to assess this in our PC world, but it's still out there.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> Humans are not equal in knowledge or competence. Not equal in intelligence. Not equal in capacity.
> 
> In what way, exactly, are we equal? There are clearly humans of higher and lower quality. There are stupid, ugly and mean people, and there are beautiful, intelligent and kind people. And everything in between.
> 
> ...



I think there are a couple of issues here that make the topic pretty complex. 

The first is distinguishing between nature vs. nurture...what qualities are people born with, and what qualities they attribute over time due to their environment. Since it's so hard to tell which part determines the make-up of a person, it makes comparing people much more difficult. I think it's very arguable that if you took two people of the same overall genetic make-up and had them grow up in two different environments, the type of person they would end up being could be drastically different.

So when we look at areas such as "kindness" and "intelligence", these are very much based on environment just as much as, if not moreso, than someone's in-born genetic make-up.

I think this is why in the US, the phrase "All men are created equal" from our Declaration of Independence is a big part of many Americans' cultural values. The logic of it can be argued, but I think the word "created" in there is extremely important. 

This is why for me, if we assume that type is an in-born trait, that discussing equality of types is very different than discussing equality of individuals. 




The other issue that we've talked about is the subjectivity of the "quality" of a person. For me, I always tend to feel that there are strong reasons for why people are the way they are and make the decisions that they do. I often feel like if I view them in a negative way, there's likely something about them that I don't understand or don't know about. I think this might be a bit of a Ti vs. Te difference...for me, I prefer to constantly gather information about someone as much as I can before I make a decision about them.


So I think for me at least, I tend to make the assumption that all people are inherently of equal value, even if I don't see their value. For me, this has helped me learn more about people because I don't close the book on them and make a decision about them before learning more details.

So I think that's what makes this conversation so difficult...is determining what's subjective and what's objective. Even words such as "kindness" and "intelligence" are very subjective words...one person could view someone as a kind and another view them as unkind. People value different actions and traits in different ways, and I think it's hard to objectively measure what's more important, which goes back to our earlier conversation.


Then there's the value of the traits themselves. One person may always view high intelligence as a positive, but another may feel like it's better for someone to have less intelligence and strong moral intentions than it is for them to have high intelligence and weaker moral intentions. 


When talking about equality of people or types, I don't think it's possible to prove everyone to be equal. I mentioned this in the OP, and few people in the thread felt the need to reiterate it. I think what it's down to is whether or not someone is willing to make the assumption that people are equal despite the lack a definite proof of it. 

Some might view it as a positive to make this assumption, and others may view it as a negative. But that's where the subjectivity of the topic makes everything more complex, and I think that's what this thread has shown...that whether or not someone views all types as equal is based on that personal subjectivity. 

To me, equal value is a value judgment in itself and not a logical one, just because value is so subjective anyway.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> Humans are not equal in knowledge or competence. Not equal in intelligence. Not equal in capacity.
> 
> In what way, exactly, are we equal? There are clearly humans of higher and lower quality. There are stupid, ugly and mean people, and there are beautiful, intelligent and kind people. And everything in between.
> 
> ...


Even if we look at it like that (and do note that you are the one ascribing these differences, apparently you got troubles seeing equality the way I do), then are we not equal in our differences? It it not our uniqueness that separates us but similarly unite us? We belong to the same species, **** sapiens. I am looking at it universally. You are making arbitrary differences. We all possess the same quality of being human and that makes us equal. We are equal because we are all human. If you have troubles grasping that concept it's perhaps because your scope is too narrow-minded.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> Agree and disagree. I agree that it is value dependent, though disagree that there are not objective markers which can be shown to give rise to a superior human being. How many people want to be a pro athlete as a child? How many give it their all for over a decade, yet fail? Sure, we value football, but the metrics are value independent. If civilization collapses, the one who is most fit simply is, and procreates and their young survives. Not because they were more valued, but because they were better. It may be more difficult to assess this in our PC world, but it's still out there.


But to become a pro athlete is a social value judgement we create as something deisreable or good. There's nothing in the human nature that says that one becomes more attractive and successful if you are an athlete. 

I definitely feel my background in the social sciences and most specifically anthropology is clashing a lot with people's natural science approach here. To me, there's absolutely nothing that says that one human is better than another. You can take such an abitrary measurement and compare height and say that those taller are better than those that are shorter. You might justify this by saying that the natural environment supported people to become tall so those are more successful. But do note that again, you are making a value judgement that being tall is better than being short. You might say, but I am just stating what reality is like, but then you overlook the fact that the fact people are still born as short suggests they have an equal natural advantage but in ways tall people do not.

This is like saying extraverts are better than introverts. Exactly the same. And you don't need to look further than Susan Cain's book and lectures to realize how this is false. People are of equal value. 

Whatever value you attach to a quality is indeed a value you attach. It's not instrinsic or naturally given. Nature does not ascribe humans different values. Either we live or die, that's as simple as it gets. Again, you construct the value of human worth. Being human has no instrinsic inherent value. You just are.


----------



## toffee (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm gonna agree with a few other people that people are equal in rights (or should be), and should be given equal access to advancement. However, I do not believe people are equal in intellect, beauty, usefulness, or capability. I do believe there are some people who are powerhouses and some people who are pretty much useless to overall society.

I do think that all personality types are useful overall, but I think that the more intellectual people are more likely to end up in certain types, the more athletics in other types, the utilitarian people in other types. So I think types are useful but not people aren't necessarily useful. I've known some pretty useless NT types and powerful SP types.


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

I absolutely love this thread, from what I've read people are ready to thoroughly appreciate each other, and each of the types. On the road to 'self actualization' however I do think some types have it more easy than others, but that's not because of something intrinsic to them it's because of the way others treat them I think. For example, and I'm not entirely clued up on types so I'm going to use anecdotes. I am an ENFJ, it's hard for me to truly be myself because although I am fawned over, I never feel as though I am taken seriously. An ENTJ however, being a natural person that people turn to for guidance (whom I know some of the loveliest most caring people) are often not allowed to show their caring side and are told 'what do you know about that?'. So I feel we all can reach a healthy place, but we're all also put down and have our own struggles.  So what I mean is, we should all look out for each other and be open to each others ideas.


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> There are high quality humans, who happened to win the genetic lottery. They are beautiful, intelligent and kind, and everyone is a bit jealous, because they are so obviously awesome.
> 
> There are also low quality humans, who just look and acted as if someone took a dump in their end of the gene pool.
> 
> Where is that equality? I just don't see it. It just sounds like politically correct bs loaded with values.


I don't really like the term politically correct, I feel like politically correct is people not wanting to accommodate themselves to other peoples value systems and not caring about offending other people so ridiculing their very 
need to be accommodated.

Furthermore, I heard the definition that a genius is simply what a society needs. It really spoke to me. I think there are times when certain people are seen as stupid or ugly or 'low quality humans' and there are other times when they simply would not be. 

I think that by saying someone is a low quality human and is not equal to others you're in fact belittling them to the point where they're almost dehumanized.. 

You of course don't have to agree with me though, I just wanted to say why I found that whole paragraph to be quite against me.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I believe that all people are equal in value. But they are not the same. They have different gifts and different challenges. Society values some people over others but that is a cultural thing that has nothing to do with intrinsic value. 
In A Wrinkle in Time, IT told Meg that all people in Camazotz were alike and were, therefore, equal.
Meg responded that identical and lacking in individuality did not mean the same thing as equality.
It is OK to be different. It was an important lesson for Meg because she was frustrated by her own difference from the other kids, including her twin brothers Sandy and Dennys.
For sure, an ENTP is way different than an ISFJ but they both have gifts that are needed to make our world a better place. The world is a better place because of the great diversity of personalities and of people.


----------



## NuthatchXi (Jul 18, 2012)

Yes, I believe all types are equal in value.


----------



## LookingforNarnia10L (Nov 14, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> As if we needed further proof that Napoleon is an NT. :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't mean to sound like a jerk but that was actually written by George Orwell. Sorry, you got to give credit where credit is due


----------



## LookingforNarnia10L (Nov 14, 2012)

But yeah I totally believe that all types are important and equal in value. Each contribute to society in a different way from each other


----------



## LookingforNarnia10L (Nov 14, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> As if we needed further proof that Napoleon is an NT. :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Never mind I realize that came from someone else who actually has a username called jack london. Really sorry!!


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

LookingforNarnia10L said:


> I don't mean to sound like a jerk but that was actually written by George Orwell. Sorry, you got to give credit where credit is due


I think you misinterpreted my joke...I wasn't referring to Napoleon Bonaparte, I was referring to the character Napoleon (the boar/pig) in Animal Farm. Yes, Orwell did write the actual dialogue, but I was joking that Napoleon, who orchestrated the animals' take-over, was an NT..actually, in a very similar way to Bonaparte, which if I remember right, is why Orwell chose that particular name. 


Of course, I know I may have been mistaken in that Napoleon may have not been the character who said that particular line, since I didn't look it up. But I couldn't think of another character who said it.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

essentially, no. a feeler is better than a thinker in regards to other people, yet the same thinker is better when it comes to mathematical/logical problems. an introvert is better on a stranded island, yet an extravert is better in a crowded ship. so forth and so on, each has certain strengths, so thus, none can be equal. all will fit certain jobs/scenario's better than the other ones, forever and ever. so again, none are ever equal.


----------

