# Non-SJs, do you feel like you understand SJs?



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

teddy564339 said:


> Yeah, the whole idea of understanding other types is tricky. It's hard to know how much you're able to understand someone else because the entire way they perceive life can be very different than the way you do.
> 
> Communication is a key factor. I do think it's helped me a lot to try to understand how other people work, at least on a general level, though...it's interesting how learning about other people can actually help you to learn more about yourself.
> 
> ...


Yeah, just the general authority complex that's then hurled at SJ's.

There will be SJ's who don't experience it in real life if they don't seem 'obvious'.

The most talk l see about ''SJs'' comes from the NFP lands, more specifically INFP territory.

l can also to that attest after witnessing the endless misunderstanding and bitter upheaval my INFP mother purposefully creates with my ISxJ grandma.

l'll admit to bonding with her over that as a teenager, but now l cannot understand how a grown woman could be such an unrelenting shitkicker :crazy:


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> The most talk l see about ''SJs'' comes from the NFP landa, more specifically INFP territory.


I think this is due to the fact that we feel the biggest disconnect from SJs in general. And having Fi running on a perpetual inner loop can tend to inspire little desire to build a bridge. But I think it's imperative for all of us to identify these tendencies in ourselves for self-improvement and better external relations. A smart INFP, or anyone for that matter, would do well to take their knowledge of their own type and apply it to reality. Or I should say, that would be the smart thing to do. Self knowledge of your own strengths and weaknesses can be powerful if you use it towards that end, or else you just end up like your mother in a continuously bitter relationship with your grandmother.


----------



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

AlliG said:


> I think this is due to the fact that we feel the biggest disconnect from SJs in general. And having Fi running on a perpetual inner loop can tend to inspire little desire to build a bridge. But I think it's imperative for all of us to identify these tendencies in ourselves for self-improvement and better external relations. A smart INFP, or anyone for that matter, would do well to take their knowledge of their own type and apply it to reality. Or I should say, that would be the smart thing to do. Self knowledge of your own strengths and weaknesses can be powerful if you use it towards that end, or else you just end up like your mother in a continuously bitter relationship with your grandmother.


lt could be that the INFP feels like can't 'help' in the way SJ types are sometimes looking for.

lt isn't to say that they're incapable, but it seems like with those two, my grandma wants everything to be as simple as possible and somewhat immediate. 

My mom seems to get frustrated with it because she likely feels out of place doing ''Fe''ish things, and gets ignored or questioned when she tries to do...what she thinks is good.

She tries to go for something bigger, but my grandma is initially frustrated with her ''asking too many questions'' and seeming to disrupt all the mini-systems she has in place.

The only difference between us being, l've accepted the reality of letting my grandma boss me around but my mother will not succumb to it lol.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

I think I understand xSFJs pretty well, because that's my father and brother. I feel I understand them well - if they understand _me_ is a different matter, because I don't think they really do. I'm not too well acquainted with xSTJs, though - unless my mom is one. In which case...I understand them, but yikes, they are like the opposite of me, and we can really clash.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> lt could be that the INFP feels like can't 'help' in the way SJ types are sometimes looking for.
> 
> lt isn't to say that they're incapable, but it seems like with those two, my grandma wants everything to be as simple as possible and somewhat immediate.
> 
> ...


Ah, yes. You must pick and choose your battles wisely. I have somewhat the same dynamic with my mom and grandma (dad's mom, not her mom). My mother (ISFP) was always very stubborn with her and never let her grudges go. I mirrored my mom when interacting with my grandma when I was a kid, but as an adult I'm like, hey, I can't deny that she's my elder so let's show her some respect. Turns out, she's a really hip ol' lady!!! My mom still complains about things that happened 30 years ago. But me? I have a great time going to visit Gramma and trying unsuccessfully to beat her at Wii bowling 

If I had to guess, I'd say my grandma is ESTJ.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> lt could be that the INFP feels like can't 'help' in the way SJ types are sometimes looking for.
> 
> lt isn't to say that they're incapable, but it seems like with those two, my grandma wants everything to be as simple as possible and somewhat immediate.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's interesting how this can happen with SJ and N types sometimes. Sometimes they both want different things or are focusing on different parts of a problem. If they can't get on the same page, it'll oftentimes feel like each one is fighting against what the other wants.




candiemerald said:


> I think I understand xSFJs pretty well, because that's my father and brother. I feel I understand them well - if they understand _me_ is a different matter, because I don't think they really do. I'm not too well acquainted with xSTJs, though - unless my mom is one. In which case...I understand them, but yikes, they are like the opposite of me, and we can really clash.



I've had some very long discussions recently with an other INFJ on this issue. 

In this first thread, there was actually a good bit of clashing for a while, but we eventually reached a good point of understanding (after a long number of pages):

http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/172313-infj-isfj-dynamic.html



But it turned into this thread, which I think gives a much better explanation of how it works between the two types:

http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/178237-infj-isfj-dynamic-2-a.html



Of course, the difference is that in both of those cases, both of us knew about the MBTI. I think when an SJ knows nothing about the MBTI, they're going to have more trouble understanding N types in general.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

AlliG said:


> My mom still complains about things that happened 30 years ago.


30 years? Holy shit! I can't keep a grudge up for a whole week. How do people keep that going? 

I have a half sister some years older than me who didn't grow up with me. Was nasty to me from the day we met. In general, I get the impression she resents the part where I was born. My bad that our Dad moved on. I've defended myself. I forget what a bitch she is until the next encounter and off we go again. I really wish she would just be pissed off with our Dad and stop taking it out on me. How she can keep a grudge for 30 years is beyond me.


----------



## Sneaking (Oct 22, 2013)

I believe that my dad is an ISTJ, as is one of my close friends, and I think I understand them quite well, though I don't think they really understand me.

They are very loyal, structured people who love to learn. They are often extremely knowledgeable within certain subject areas, though have broader interests as well. They have deeply-held values and care greatly for their family and friends and they have a 'problem-solving' approach to help out - they try to help people by thinking of a plan and then implementing it, though they often overlook things, particularly when it comes to feelings or problems of an abstract, intangible nature. 

Ostensibly, they don't think of themselves as being authoritarian, but they seem - almost instinctively - to gravitate towards hierarchical structures and power. They are amongst the most dependable and responsible people I have met. My father particularly likes to keep himself busy, and he always follows through on his various responsibilities and projects. He is someone who makes things happen, and does so with great efficiency.

Due to my NP tendencies and my inferior Fe, my father views me as thoughtless, irresponsible, passive and lazy. He is impatient with my divergent thinking and abstract inclinations. He thinks I am self-centred and a poor communicator.

We used to have frequent arguments for these reasons until finally I understood the source of our disputes. He claimed that he wanted me to behave more like an independent adult, so I assumed he wanted our relationship to be more equal. As soon as I realised that he subconsciously had a need for a hierarchical relationship with me, I realised that I needed to subtly treat him as a superior. I stopped finding my own solutions to my problems and started pretending to defer them to his great fatherly wisdom; he took great pleasure in guiding me. I stopped standing up for myself when he put me down, and I started agreeing with everything he said. I started inventing structures and routines so that he would perceive me as more organised. It worked and we stopped arguing so often.


----------



## Pianoasis (Nov 10, 2011)

As an xNTx, I can say that I somewhat understand SJs. I have a pretty good understanding of the Si function, even though I don't quite understand how it works with the support function Te and even less so Fe. Also, while I don't relate to it, I can comprehend the "it is what is it" idealism that SJs tend take on.

But I find interactions with them difficult at best. I tend to simply to mess with them because their sense of humor is way different.


----------



## LostDude (Jan 8, 2014)

Do I understand SJ's? Yes. 
Do I like them? Yes, alot of people I know are SJ's. My brother and step sister included. They are very diligent, hard working and decent people. They actually don't procrastinate and get the job done ( unlike me lol) The world needs SJ's. Without them, society would crumble. There would also be no cultural stability as well. No traditions, no decent moral code leaves our society to invaders. We would be soulless and over individualized as we are now. No real structure to live by creates confused people like me and others



The unhealthy ones can be a real pain, though. (Sorry if I come across as rude) I known a few that always think there right, are pigheaded and actually think there so smart when there not. For example, I tried to ( I do have really weird tics, such as hitting myself, on my stomach, werid nosies etc) and my stepmother thinks Im being defiant or doing it for attention lolz. I tried explaining it to her that I don't do for attention or defiance and she just never go it


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

When I was younger I felt like I could have easily been deemed a sensor because I had sensor interests and intuitive interests that didn't conflict much at that point. As I grew up some more I took up preferences for being an N and the SJ ideas seemed more and more ridiculous. But there was a time when I acted like more like an SJ and I was happy with it. I just moved away from that and became more individualistic and became more open to ideas. So yes I somewhat understand what it means to be an SJ and I'm not against that lifestyle because I feel that I lived it for some time.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Sneaking said:


> *I believe that my dad is an ISTJ, as is one of my close friends, and I think I understand them quite well, though I don't think they really understand me.*
> 
> They are very loyal, structured people who love to learn. They are often extremely knowledgeable within certain subject areas, though have broader interests as well. They have deeply-held values and care greatly for their family and friends and they have a 'problem-solving' approach to help out - they try to help people by thinking of a plan and then implementing it, though they often overlook things, particularly when it comes to feelings or problems of an abstract, intangible nature.
> 
> ...


I was actually thinking I would have a lot of responses like the bolded part of your post when I made this thread. 

A lot of this has to do with the fact that there are so many non-SJs on PerC and so many SJs IRL. I don't think learning about the MBTI tells you everything about a person...but it does tell you a whole lot of information that you wouldn't know otherwise. So I think it makes sense that through learning about the MBTI, a non-SJ on PerC would understand an SJ in their lives much more than the SJ would understand them.

But I also think a large part of this is because SJs typically have a harder time understanding how others are different than they are due to Si. I've read it in a few MBTI books, and I keep going back to it because it seems like it pops up time and time again. 

Even though SJs don't have perfect and easy lives, if they feel happy in life, they tend to stick to what works for them rather than deviate from it. So if an SJ feels confident with where they are in their lives, they're going to think they're doing things right and not feel a need to alter it. 

In addition, if they know what works for them well and they don't see a need to change it...they're going to believe that this also is what would work best for someone else. So if they see another person having problems, they're probably going to assume that if that other person just did what the SJ did, than the other person would fix their problems. I really don't think most SJs (especially ISJs) would think that this simply wouldn't work for someone else. This isn't true across the board, but I think it's generally true.


But I think this is at its strongest when the SJ is a parent. A parent, no matter their type, is typically going to want their child to be successful and happy. So an SJ parent will tend to try to teach their children to be exactly like they are, thinking that if the child follows in their footsteps, the child will be just as happy as they are. 

I know there are cases where SJ parents can realize that this is not the case for children of different types....but from what I've seen on PerC, this is most often not the case.

I think this is particularly strong in ISJ parents. Because ISJs have inferior Ne, they tend to over-worry about things and think about all of the worst case scenarios and how to avoid them. They tend to be very cautious and keep as much under their control as possible.

Parents in general worry a lot about their children...so when you take an ISJ's natural worry and combine it with worry for their children....you get a super controlling situation.


So I do think your case is compounded by your father being an ISJ and your parent. 


It's times like this when I really wish I could talk to all of the SJs in the world and explain and get them to buy into at least some of the aspects of the MBTI. I wish I could get them to understand just how naturally different other people are. I really don't think most SJs believe that because it's not convenient. I think it would make them change the way they think about a lot of things in life. But, like I said, I think a lot of SJs feel like what they're doing in life is fine, so it's easier for them to believe that there's something wrong with what other people are doing. It can be very difficult for SJs to see just how different other people are.

I'll talk about this a little more in my response to the post below.




LostDude said:


> Do I understand SJ's? Yes.
> Do I like them? Yes, alot of people I know are SJ's. My brother and step sister included. They are very diligent, hard working and decent people. They actually don't procrastinate and get the job done ( unlike me lol) The world needs SJ's. Without them, society would crumble. There would also be no cultural stability as well. No traditions, no decent moral code leaves our society to invaders. We would be soulless and over individualized as we are now. No real structure to live by creates confused people like me and others
> 
> 
> ...



Before I learned about the MBTI, I think I was a lot like the SJs that a lot of people describe. I think I was genuinely more caring than a number of them and I tried to understand people...but I was also afraid of being suckered into lies and people taking advantage of others.


I believed that the reasons for people being different were all due to environment and the way people were raised. I truly believed that if people adopted some of the more disciplined habits that I had, that they would be much happier people and they would solve a lot of problems in the world. I believed it was a matter of effort and willpower, and that due to my own life experiences, I just had more will than a lot of people.

I think I ultimately put the responsibility and blame on others. I think I felt like they could do these things but chose not to. I believed that they were seeking instant gratification, that they never thought things through, that they didn't listen to reason, and that they let their laziness override a resolve to actually solve problems.

I don't think I wanted to believe this...but I couldn't think of another explanation. I couldn't think of why someone else just didn't do what I did. 

But I also just assumed that all of the problems that I had were things that everyone had and that everyone lived with.



So the MBTI has been extremely eye-opening for me. It really has amazed me to learn how completely different other people are from me. It's blown me away how their complete purpose of living is completely different than my own. It's amazed me how the things that give me joy and peace are things that stress out others, and the things that they strive for are the things that I can't stand. 

Again, I really wish sometimes I could let all of the SJs in the world learn what I've learned (even though I know a lot of them would scoff and just think it's an excuse for people's behavior). I wish I could get them to see how fundamentally different so many people they know are from themselves.




Pianoasis said:


> As an xNTx, I can say that I somewhat understand SJs. I have a pretty good understanding of the Si function, even though I don't quite understand how it works with the support function Te and even less so Fe. Also, while I don't relate to it, I can comprehend the "it is what is it" idealism that SJs tend take on.
> 
> But I find interactions with them difficult at best. I tend to simply to mess with them because their sense of humor is way different.



I've the the "it is what it is" conversation with many Ns before, and I think it's hard for SJs and N types (especially Ne users) to understand the experience for what it's to be like on the other side. I think we do understand the overall vibe of the other side, and I think we can imagine what it generally feels like. But I don't know if I've ever been able to truly convey to N types just how difficult and draining it is to try to do what they do on a continual basis. It's very taxing on my mind to focus on things that aren't there and to try to constantly change things up. It's so much easier to focus on what I do know and to find the best way for me to work through it. It's so stressful for me to commit to anything that I don't feel confident will work. For me, I think these things are much bigger risks than they are for N types.

And I don't think I'll ever truly grasp what it's like for them to be the exact opposite. The best I feel I grab onto is taking what I feel and imagine if everything were flipped around the other way exactly.





sole observer said:


> When I was younger I felt like I could have easily been deemed a sensor because I had sensor interests and intuitive interests that didn't conflict much at that point. As I grew up some more I took up preferences for being an N and the SJ ideas seemed more and more ridiculous. But there was a time when I acted like more like an SJ and I was happy with it. I just moved away from that and became more individualistic and became more open to ideas. So yes I somewhat understand what it means to be an SJ and I'm not against that lifestyle because I feel that I lived it for some time.


Would you be willing to describe what you mean when you said you became more individualistic? That's the one part of what you're saying here that I don't quite see. I guess it's partly because I see being less individualistic as playing out differently with Fe compared to Te. 

It's interesting too because I think Si can be a very individualistic function....but I see how it can appear not so because it latches onto personal experiences. I can see that if people in a culture all have similar experiences that they can all happen to latch onto very similar ideas. I can also see the idea that an Si user could latch onto things they learned at a young age and feel like they don't deviate from it, making it seem like they're not being themselves....but it's actually a pretty individual process.


So I don't know if you're referring to these things or something else, so I am curious about that.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

@teddy564339
All very well said. It confirmed my notion of the way SJs view the world.
My xSFJ brother and I pretty much always get along fine. Problems arise when he becomes irritated at me for doing something differently than what he would do, by being confusing. Then I end up feeling irritated that he doesn't seem to try to see me as I am, but tries to see me as he is - because it is so natural for NFs to try to get into other people's minds and see the world as they see it, sometimes the fact that other people don't frustrates us. Your post helped me to understand how exhausting it can be for other types to force themselves to do what I do by default.
I have introduced him to MBTI, and he has been very supporting. I feel I oft ramble too much about different types to him and my theories, but he's always willing to lend an ear. I think it has helped him see that I am vastly different from him, and that we can get along even better if we comprehend and accept these differences. Also, he often has some input which I find invaluable - be it his observations of me, himself, or other people, which I might have missed or wasn't sure how to express.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

monemi said:


> 30 years? Holy shit! I can't keep a grudge up for a whole week. How do people keep that going?
> 
> I have a half sister some years older than me who didn't grow up with me. Was nasty to me from the day we met. In general, I get the impression she resents the part where I was born. My bad that our Dad moved on. I've defended myself. I forget what a bitch she is until the next encounter and off we go again. I really wish she would just be pissed off with our Dad and stop taking it out on me. How she can keep a grudge for 30 years is beyond me.


I think the grudge holding is more an Fi thing than anything else. I notice ISFP and INFP both have an inclination towards this tendency because the Fi is running on this constant, perpetual loop on the inside. I can catch myself doing the same thing so I try to tame the Fi back as much as I can with rationalism. And hurt feelings might take a really long time to completely go away even if I continue to have that person in my life. But if we've made our peace and there's still some hurt Fi lingering around inside, I just remind myself that that's my problem, not theirs.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

I always see SJ's as misunderstood, humble and hard-working people that go through the motions of life unnoticed. They feel like they could use some sort of gratitude for where they have contributed, but they are too humble to even enter the competition, and this means that most of the gratification, rewards and attention SJ's receive is because some other temperaments (NJ, NP or SP) have just said "you're gonna go and enter that contest, end of story".

SJ's are the kind of people who nobody appreciates enough, but without them, the great mastermind plans of NJ's, the visionary ideas of NP's and the incredibly talented performances of SP's would fall apart on the most fundamental levels of basic logistics.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

teddy564339 said:


> Would you be willing to describe what you mean when you said you became more individualistic? That's the one part of what you're saying here that I don't quite see. I guess it's partly because I see being less individualistic as playing out differently with Fe compared to Te.
> 
> It's interesting too because I think Si can be a very individualistic function....but I see how it can appear not so because it latches onto personal experiences. I can see that if people in a culture all have similar experiences that they can all happen to latch onto very similar ideas. I can also see the idea that an Si user could latch onto things they learned at a young age and feel like they don't deviate from it, making it seem like they're not being themselves....but it's actually a pretty individual process.
> 
> ...


In a sense as I child I was much more conformist, but for a different altogether. As you may know, in my case of an INTP, the Ti function begins develop earliest. Personality page talks about how this affects our development, in this case I would be an ITP child, because only thing that is certain and developing at that young age is Ti hence ITP. The perceiving function comes next, since it hasn't developed yet we cannot know where it is going for sure yet, but a Ti dominant is either ISTP or INTP so there two different paths to go through from that point Se or Ne as an auxiliary. At this point in development the auxiliary function is not developed enough for us to make an conclusions. So that leaves us with Ti. Now even though it is an introverted function it still affects us. A young Ti dominant will draw conclusions very quickly, like a typical J type that has developed. In theory as a young child this would have meant that I was quick to make choices and decisions. So given an SJ environment and no adequately developed perceiving function, I would almost instinctively follow those SJ values like being traditional and perhaps conformist to those around me because they were the only source of information at the time. As I grow up I begin questioning those things, Ne begins to develop, uncertainty in previous choices is created and novel thinking emerges alongside big picture thinking. That's when there is a fundamental with withdrawal from previously accepted ideas. For example when I turned around 13 or so I began questioning the ideas of my religion and broke traditions. That's what I mean when I say individualistic. I won't disagree that other functions can create individualism. What I'm referring to is the breakaway from tradition as the second function Ne develops, not really individualism in general so much as becoming novel and creating your conception for yourself at that point. Some people don't like that theory however. I don't claim to have invented it but personality page has this information if you wish to find it.


----------



## tpwoof (Feb 1, 2014)

I have an ISFJ friend and MBTI and this forum have helped me communicate so better with her. I had actually typed her as an ISTJ, and while we could effectively exchange information like this, she always seemed anxious in conversations. When I finally REALLY paid attention, I realized she was ISFJ, and I had been doing all the wrong things to communicate with her. It's amazing, but after a short while of doing all those things that teddy564339 and other XFXJs suggested, like making the effort to validate her ideas, compliment her on the little things, ask her for input instead of overwhelming her with my opinions, and avoiding bluntly disagreeing with her position; we now get along really well and we are both much more relaxed in communications. It has helped me become a better communicator and I come across as a "nicer" person overall (or so I've been told). As a result, I am more confident in my ability to communicate with non-NTs, and I really like and appreciate the SJs, which I disliked when I was younger because they always ratted on me in school for not following the rules to the letter. 

I still have a long way to go in figuring out how to respond to her, however, as when she says something I haven't thought about, my Ti takes over and pushes aside my inferior Fe as I begin to work her thought into my mental map. Then she gets insecure again because I forget to say what a great idea that was, or thank her for thinking of something new, and if I've processed it, then I bombard her with questions about how she thought of it and why she thinks it is a good idea, which makes her more insecure because she can't explain her Si connections any more than I can explain how my Ne leapt from bubble gum to whether the snow is as high as the Fenway Park green monster after the last snowstorm

In general, once I figured out how to connect with them, I love SJs. They ground me and keep me on task, and in the present, and the xSFJs exude genuine love and concern for others, which I think is awesome.


"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." Ambrose Redmoon


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

candiemerald said:


> @_teddy564339_
> All very well said. It confirmed my notion of the way SJs view the world.
> My xSFJ brother and I pretty much always get along fine. Problems arise when he becomes irritated at me for doing something differently than what he would do, by being confusing. Then I end up feeling irritated that he doesn't seem to try to see me as I am, but tries to see me as he is - because it is so natural for NFs to try to get into other people's minds and see the world as they see it, sometimes the fact that other people don't frustrates us. Your post helped me to understand how exhausting it can be for other types to force themselves to do what I do by default.
> I have introduced him to MBTI, and he has been very supporting. I feel I oft ramble too much about different types to him and my theories, but he's always willing to lend an ear. I think it has helped him see that I am vastly different from him, and that we can get along even better if we comprehend and accept these differences. Also, he often has some input which I find invaluable - be it his observations of me, himself, or other people, which I might have missed or wasn't sure how to express.



I can't speak for ESFJs, but I know for ISFJs, the key thing is for them to learn how to use their Fe to support their Si rather than letting their Si dominate. 

I don't think ISFJs can see the inner workings of others as well as INFJs can, at least not as quickly. Dom Si can make it difficult to understand others. However, this doesn't mean that it can't happen. ISFJs can still use their Fe to understand others...they just have to make a strong effort and learn to trust in others instead of always assuming what their Si is telling them. They have to kind of put some trust in other people, which can sometimes be difficult when our Ne is telling us to be scared to do that. 

I really think that this article has helped me out a lot in that regard:

https://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISFJ_per.html


So for ISFJs, it's kind of a tough battle. I think we generally want to make others around us happy and we want to understand them. But we also are constantly weighing everything we hear against all of our past experiences. 




KraChZiMan said:


> I always see SJ's as misunderstood, humble and hard-working people that go through the motions of life unnoticed. They feel like they could use some sort of gratitude for where they have contributed, but they are too humble to even enter the competition, and this means that most of the gratification, rewards and attention SJ's receive is because some other temperaments (NJ, NP or SP) have just said "you're gonna go and enter that contest, end of story".
> 
> SJ's are the kind of people who nobody appreciates enough, but without them, the great mastermind plans of NJ's, the visionary ideas of NP's and the incredibly talented performances of SP's would fall apart on the most fundamental levels of basic logistics.


I like what you said in the second part because it shows that when all of the temperaments learn to work together, awesome things can happen.

As for the first part...I think there's a good bit of diversity among the SJs. ESTJs in particular tend to be "take charge" people..I think they tend to focus more on changing other people too.

I also think a lot of it depends on whether or not an SJ is in an authority position. When an SJ is, they usually feel more of a need to exert their control. I know for me, it's really important for me to feel like I'm in control of things in my life. Part of the reason why I have trouble being in authority is that I don't like controlling others, but in those situations there is a certain need for it. So I think it's difficult for SJs to loosen that sense of control when they're in a position of authority because they have such a desire to be in control of their own personal situations.




sole observer said:


> In a sense as I child I was much more conformist, but for a different altogether. As you may know, in my case of an INTP, the Ti function begins develop earliest. Personality page talks about how this affects our development, in this case I would be an ITP child, because only thing that is certain and developing at that young age is Ti hence ITP. The perceiving function comes next, since it hasn't developed yet we cannot know where it is going for sure yet, but a Ti dominant is either ISTP or INTP so there two different paths to go through from that point Se or Ne as an auxiliary. At this point in development the auxiliary function is not developed enough for us to make an conclusions. So that leaves us with Ti. Now even though it is an introverted function it still affects us. A young Ti dominant will draw conclusions very quickly, like a typical J type that has developed. In theory as a young child this would have meant that I was quick to make choices and decisions. So given an SJ environment and no adequately developed perceiving function, I would almost instinctively follow those SJ values like being traditional and perhaps conformist to those around me because they were the only source of information at the time. As I grow up I begin questioning those things, Ne begins to develop, uncertainty in previous choices is created and novel thinking emerges alongside big picture thinking. That's when there is a fundamental with withdrawal from previously accepted ideas. For example when I turned around 13 or so I began questioning the ideas of my religion and broke traditions. That's what I mean when I say individualistic. I won't disagree that other functions can create individualism. What I'm referring to is the breakaway from tradition as the second function Ne develops, not really individualism in general so much as becoming novel and creating your conception for yourself at that point. Some people don't like that theory however. I don't claim to have invented it but personality page has this information if you wish to find it.



Oh ok...I"m understanding you better now. What I didn't catch before was that you felt like you were adopting an SJ way of thinking because your parents were SJs and you were just adopting what they thought. 

Before I thought you meant that you were believing what others told you and that that in itself was more of an SJ way of thinking, even if your parents hadn't been SJs.

So now I see what you're saying. It's interesting....I do think a lot of people go through a similar process during adolescence as they learn to tell where they believe what they learned as children and what they believe from other sources. I think to some degree everyone feels this, but some a lot more than others. It doesn't always happen in the exact way that you're describing (which is unique to aux Ne users), but I'd be interested to see how it plays out with different types developing their aux functions. I can actually see something similar happening with ISJs where they learn to use their Fe or Te to supplant what their Si has told them up to that point....I know that happened to me growing up.





tpwoof said:


> I have an ISFJ friend and MBTI and this forum have helped me communicate so better with her. I had actually typed her as an ISTJ, and while we could effectively exchange information like this, she always seemed anxious in conversations. When I finally REALLY paid attention, I realized she was ISFJ, and I had been doing all the wrong things to communicate with her. It's amazing, but after a short while of doing all those things that teddy564339 and other XFXJs suggested, like making the effort to validate her ideas, compliment her on the little things, ask her for input instead of overwhelming her with my opinions, and avoiding bluntly disagreeing with her position; we now get along really well and we are both much more relaxed in communications. It has helped me become a better communicator and I come across as a "nicer" person overall (or so I've been told). As a result, I am more confident in my ability to communicate with non-NTs, and I really like and appreciate the SJs, which I disliked when I was younger because they always ratted on me in school for not following the rules to the letter.
> 
> I still have a long way to go in figuring out how to respond to her, however, as when she says something I haven't thought about, my Ti takes over and pushes aside my inferior Fe as I begin to work her thought into my mental map. Then she gets insecure again because I forget to say what a great idea that was, or thank her for thinking of something new, and if I've processed it, then I bombard her with questions about how she thought of it and why she thinks it is a good idea, which makes her more insecure because she can't explain her Si connections any more than I can explain how my Ne leapt from bubble gum to whether the snow is as high as the Fenway Park green monster after the last snowstorm
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's a lot tougher when the ISFJ isn't also putting in the effort from their side. There's all kinds of things ISFJs can do to help with their own growth. 

One of the toughest things for me (and probably ISFJs in general) is to learn to not be so dependent upon others for validation. Ideally, you wouldn't have to feel like you have to constantly go against your natural instincts just to make her feel better. Ideally both of you would do it equally so she was adapting just as much as you are. 

I really do think it helps ISFJs to learn to control their emotions, to feel confident, to not take things personally, to be ok with others disagreeing, and to value the way other people live.


So I'm really glad to hear that your friendship has gotten better. At the same time, it would be a lot nicer if your friend was putting in as much effort as you are so that you weren't the one doing all of the work. But unfortunately, this is the way it is sometimes when only one person knows about the MBTI and uses it to grow.


My best friend is actually an INTP and I have a number of online INTP friends. I tend to get along with INTPs very well. :happy:


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

I spent a great amount of time in the ISFJ forums trying to learn their functions and understand how they work. Although I came out of there feeling like I understood more than I did previously, I must admit it was a tiring process (my ISFJ research break is coming very soon). Although I feel like I learned more out of the experience, I do feel as if I failed to help them understand where I was coming from, and I don’t really know if that’s possible.

The ISFJs who researched the functions and learned about INFJs (or maybe even Ni) were able to have an open conversation with me for the most part, and I felt that’s where I made the most progress, but there were a lot who didn’t bother to understand the functions. They cared more about defending their position than to understand from both positions, which I understand this is a weakness with Si and a strength for Ni. It’s most likely silly of me to expect them to theorize, seeing as it drains them just as much. I am thankful for the ISFJs who came forward and were very open minded, and wanted to learn about my own type as well. I'm pretty sure that I wore Teddy out!

I think the biggest thing I have a hard time understanding is how they’re truly blind to how they can’t see both sides of the coin, and they really do think there is a right and wrong way to living, and anything outside of that will be rejected (such as intuition). I got the vibe during this research that I was the one that had to change, and they were going to comfortably do their own thing. It’s actually pretty rare to see an ISFJ say, “I understand where you’re coming from.” Rather you hear, “This is how it should be. You need to watch how you talk to me. INFJs don’t understand how…” To an INFJ, that feels foreign to me to think that way. It may not be true, but on my end it felt like they were saying, “You need to change and I don't, because my way is the right way. Be just like me so we can be friends and talk.” 

Because of that, it made communication on my end feel fake, because I was walking around eggshells and not being true to myself. It was really exhausting for me to change the way I normally talk to try not to offend them without knowing I was. It really halted the progress many times. Only a few of them were interested in seeing my perspective. I used to question why I didn't have an ISFJ friends in real life, and I think I found out why. They think I'm an asshole, and they most likely think I live a hectic life.

I know my post may sound negative or like I don’t like ISFJs, but I really do like them. I just have a hard time getting close to them for a long amount of time, because they come off as very judgmental without meaning to. I know it’s not their fault. Everything they kind of stand for goes against my Ni, and I know that mine goes against their Si. I met some really awesome people out of this experience, but I also made some enemies as well, but I can't sit and dwell on that. Haha.

Also, I was really surprised to see how many lump Ni and Ne together, but I can't complain in this area, seeing as people do the same thing with Si/Se.

In the end, I guess you could say Ni and Si both take turns offending each other.

I would have talked about more types, but I could seriously write a novel about ESTJs. Lol They're just like the ISFJ but in your face.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, most of this doesn't apply to you Teddy, and some other ISFJ members who went out of their way to explore both types. Just mentioning some patterns I noticed with a number of ISFJs while being in the forums. I am more grateful for your time and help more than you know.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

RunForCover07 said:


> I spent a great amount of time in the ISFJ forums trying to learn their functions and understand how they work. Although I came out of there feeling like I understood more than I did previously, I must admit it was a tiring process (my ISFJ research break is coming very soon). Although I feel like I learned more out of the experience, I do feel as if I failed to help them understand where I was coming from, and I don’t really know if that’s possible.
> 
> The ISFJs who researched the functions and learned about INFJs (or maybe even Ni) were able to have an open conversation with me for the most part, and I felt that’s where I made the most progress, but there were a lot who didn’t bother to understand the functions. They cared more about defending their position than to understand from both positions, which I understand this is a weakness with Si and a strength for Ni. It’s most likely silly of me to expect them to theorize, seeing as it drains them just as much. I am thankful for the ISFJs who came forward and were very open minded, and wanted to learn about my own type as well. I'm pretty sure that I wore Teddy out!
> 
> ...



I forgot if I ever showed you this article or not, but it's funny because if you read the bullets under the "potential problems" section, they sound just like what you're describing here.

https://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISFJ_per.html

I know we've talked tons and tons about ISFJs in other threads, but I think it's tough because in the end it really takes an ISFJ to truly make themselves change for the better. It's a hard thing to do, and sometimes it can feel like it's a negative loop you can't get out of. In the end I really think it boils down to an ISFJ loving themselves and not being dependent upon others for their happiness. This is probably my biggest problem area as a person, and I have to continually work at it.


It's funny because I remember showing this article to a number of ISFJs and a lot of them rejected it. I can see why, because at first I rejected it too. At first I thought it was the exact opposite of what ISFJs needed to do. I think a lot of times ISFJs feel taken advantage of, and at first glance I think an ISFJ will think that doing what this article says will just open the door to let people take advantage of the ISFJ even more.

But what I think an ISFJ won't realize is that the reason they get taken advantage of is that they care too much about what other people think. They don't focus on being self-reliant for their happiness and confidence.

I think once an ISFJ has that down, they can then completely follow what the article says. That's to allow one's Fe strongly support their Si. This allows ISFJs to be empathetic and to understand where others are coming from. It allows the ISFJ to trust in others and believe what they say instead of being scared of the other person lying.


It's a matter of learning to let go of previously held notions and to consider alternate possbilities. This is hard for ISFJs to do because of their really weak Ne, but their Fe is strong enough that they can do it...but they have to completely embrace their Fe while disregarding their Si.



So it's a tough thing. As much as I've grown, and as much as I've learned, I still have to work hard to do this. But I really believe I've gotten better and better at it, and the more of these kinds of conversations that I have, the more I feel like I'm becoming stronger.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> I believed that the reasons for people being different were all due to environment and the way people were raised. I truly believed that if people adopted some of the more disciplined habits that I had, that they would be much happier people and they would solve a lot of problems in the world. I believed it was a matter of effort and willpower, and that due to my own life experiences, I just had more will than a lot of people.
> 
> I think I ultimately put the responsibility and blame on others. I think I felt like they could do these things but chose not to. I believed that they were seeking instant gratification, that they never thought things through, that they didn't listen to reason, and that they let their laziness override a resolve to actually solve problems.


That whole post was perfect. The quoted portion in particular describes my experience with my parents. 

My household growing up consisted of my ISTJ dad, my ESTJ mom, my ESFP brother, and me the ISTP. Two SJ parents combined with two SP sons was about as disastrous as it sounds. Like you said, I feel we understood where our parents were coming from but they had no clue how my brother and I processed the world. Especially my Ti. They kind of got my brother because he was the stereotypical free-spirited, get's along with everyone, jockish rebel. But my Ti completely blindsided them and they had no way to comprehend it. And they still don't. Ti is a beast of a function and when it's in the dominant position, it can really take over and make someone appear quite lazy from the outside. And if there's one thing STJ's don't like, it's perceived laziness.


----------



## moonlight_echo (May 15, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> I do think this idea does make sense, because I've read in a few MBTI books that Si is a function that makes it difficult for Si users to understand how other people are different than they are. It strives for consistency and order, and it can be difficult for an SJ to see or believe that other people are naturally different and have different needs. This often leads to an SJ believing they can and should change a non-SJ to be more like themselves.


This sums up the main issue I continue to have with SJ types in every day life. The individuals I've encountered seem unaware that other types of people even exist, and other ways of seeing the world exist as well. While I struggle to see their perspective too, I at least want to understand it. I find it interesting in many ways. 




> Now, I believe a lot of this is due to them not knowing about or believing in the MBTI. I always hope that SJs on PerC are much more open to understanding non-SJs.


I wish more people were aware of personality theory. It has flaws, of course. But overall it helps to achieve greater self understanding and the understanding of others. I've lived through the experience of being written off as strange and even abnormal by SJs (and SPs), and even started to believe it myself until I discovered personality theory.






> But my question is the opposite....do you feel like you truly understand SJs, or do they still mystify you? I've noticed that some non-SJs I've talked to are very fascinated by some of the things I've told them about how I function and they never would have guessed....they view it as a very foreign way of looking at life.


I have a greater understanding and appreciation for them now. I would even say that MBTI has helped me in *some* of my interactions with SJs. It has also helped me to see why some of them have disliked me. 
Overall they're still a puzzle to me and probably always will be on some level. 






> If you do feel like you understand SJs, what have you learned about them through the MBTI? Do you feel like you have a better understanding of the SJs in your life because of the MBTI? Do you feel like it's helped you in any way in terms of making your relationships better with them?


While MBTI has helped my understanding there's still conflict with some of the SJs in my life. I suspect that might always be the case, at least until they are made aware of differing types. The reason why it's difficult to apply MBTI knowledge when it's one-sided is because the SJ hasn't had any change of perspective or opinion, and they still see me as odd or misguided. I even wonder if that would be the case regardless. 
I will say that MBTI awareness has probably allowed me to keep more of my sanity when interacting with SJs (in reality, not to be confused with the SJs here).


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

dinkytown said:


> That whole post was perfect. The quoted portion in particular describes my experience with my parents.
> 
> My household growing up consisted of my ISTJ dad, my ESTJ mom, my ESFP brother, and me the ISTP. Two SJ parents combined with two SP sons was about as disastrous as it sounds. Like you said, I feel we understood where our parents were coming from but they had no clue how my brother and I processed the world. Especially my Ti. They kind of got my brother because he was the stereotypical free-spirited, get's along with everyone, jockish rebel. But my Ti completely blindsided them and they had no way to comprehend it. And they still don't. Ti is a beast of a function and when it's in the dominant position, it can really take over and make someone appear quite lazy from the outside. And if there's one thing STJ's don't like, it's perceived laziness.


This reminds me a bit of a type interaction video I did with the ISTP PerC Member @Celebok It was a really fun chat and he was laid back and easy to talk with. He mentioned how he had some difficulty growing up with SJ parents because they didn't really teach him things in ways that he could apply it, and he felt like if he had had an SP role model it would have been easier for him to see how to apply his strengths. He even typed himself as an ISTJ for a long time because it was so ingrained into him what he felt like he "should" be like. 

I can PM you the link to the chat if you're interested.



moonlight_echo said:


> This sums up the main issue I continue to have with SJ types in every day life. The individuals I've encountered seem unaware that other types of people even exist, and other ways of seeing the world exist as well. While I struggle to see their perspective too, I at least want to understand it. I find it interesting in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more people were aware of personality theory. It has flaws, of course. But overall it helps to achieve greater self understanding and the understanding of others. I've lived through the experience of being written off as strange and even abnormal by SJs (and SPs), and even started to believe it myself until I discovered personality theory.


Yeah, I agree that sometimes you have to take it with a grain of salt and it's easy to sometimes over-analyze things due to type. But I really think it's a great tool to learn about others and yourself, as well as to make some personal improvements.






moonlight_echo said:


> I have a greater understanding and appreciation for them now. I would even say that MBTI has helped me in *some* of my interactions with SJs. It has also helped me to see why some of them have disliked me.
> Overall they're still a puzzle to me and probably always will be on some level.
> 
> 
> ...



One thing that I think does help with SJs is to appeal to their Fe or Te to help balance out their Si. I think if you can get them to see concrete examples of people feeling better or getting along (Fe) or external logic (Te), they tend to be more open to accepting things. I know for me, even before I ever learned about type, what usually convinced me to consider new ideas is when I could see how one of my current ideas was hurting people. 

It also helped if someone could make a connection to one of my past experiences or something that I was already feeling. If I could explain some of my feelings deeply, and someone else could come up with an example very similar to that that supported their point....it would make me understand more where they were coming from and to consider their ideas.


So I think that's where sometimes you can help SJs see new ways of thinking things. I know this isn't a particularly strong area for N types, since they usually can imagine concepts and ideas in their heads and understand or accept them simply from that. But if you can somehow come up with concrete, physical proof of your points, or if you can connect it with something an SJ already believes, it helps a lot in convincing them.


I think one of the biggest areas concerning this is the example of an SJ parent who has a child who has still become an adult but is still living with the parent. I think for SJs, financial security is one of the most important things. An SJ will often feel like that will trump just about anything else. So I think an SJ parent will have a hard time respecting the opinion of their children if the child is still dependent financially on them....because no matter how completely rational the argument is, the SJ will think "Well, I know better because I know how to support myself and you financially." 

It's interesting because they're too completely separate areas....but I really think that this is what matters most to SJs, having that security. They like knowing that people can take care of themselves and not have to be reliant upon future unknowns.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> I can PM you the link to the chat if you're interested.


That would be absolutely great. Thanks!


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

dinkytown said:


> That whole post was perfect. The quoted portion in particular describes my experience with my parents.
> 
> My household growing up consisted of my ISTJ dad, my ESTJ mom, my ESFP brother, and me the ISTP. Two SJ parents combined with two SP sons was about as disastrous as it sounds. Like you said, I feel we understood where our parents were coming from but they had no clue how my brother and I processed the world. Especially my Ti. They kind of got my brother because he was the stereotypical free-spirited, get's along with everyone, jockish rebel. But my Ti completely blindsided them and they had no way to comprehend it. And they still don't. Ti is a beast of a function and when it's in the dominant position, it can really take over and make someone appear quite lazy from the outside. And if there's one thing STJ's don't like, it's perceived laziness.


As an INFP with two S parents, my saving grace was that they were both SPs. My brother is ENTP, which made for an interesting family dynamic, though not a bad one. Well, you can imagine a houseful of disorganized perceivers, but it was at least a harmonious one. Probably the biggest question that MBTI answered for me was this known, but undefinable "disconnect" my brother and I felt from our parents. It was so subtle because it's not like there's these glaring divides between sensors and intuitives, especially all of us being perceivers. It was just one of those "I can't quite put my finger on it..." kind of feelings.

But as an adult, it seems the only types that baffle me are SJs. I can relate to intuitives and SPs, but SJs... befuddled, I am. I try to learn what I can on here, and encourage the SJs in my life, but I'm usually met with the same resistance that Teddy was talking about with SJs not believing in it. It's a shame because there's many I'd like to connect with, but aside from the good folks here who engage in mutual understanding, they seem averse to meeting me halfway so I just relegate them to an arm's length, cordial communication in passing and avoidance beyond that.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

AlliG said:


> As an INFP with two S parents, my saving grace was that they were both SPs. My brother is ENTP, which made for an interesting family dynamic, though not a bad one. Well, you can imagine a houseful of disorganized perceivers, but it was at least a harmonious one. Probably the biggest question that MBTI answered for me was this known, but undefinable "disconnect" my brother and I felt from our parents. It was so subtle because it's not like there's these glaring divides between sensors and intuitives, especially all of us being perceivers. It was just one of those "I can't quite put my finger on it..." kind of feelings.
> 
> But as an adult, it seems the only types that baffle me are SJs. I can relate to intuitives and SPs, but SJs... befuddled, I am. I try to learn what I can on here, and encourage the SJs in my life, but I'm usually met with the same resistance that Teddy was talking about with SJs not believing in it. It's a shame because there's many I'd like to connect with, but aside from the good folks here who engage in mutual understanding, they seem averse to meeting me halfway so I just relegate them to an arm's length, cordial communication in passing and avoidance beyond that.


At least you can keep SJs at arms length. Difficult to do that when they're your parents.

They are entirely focused on creating structure, order, and convenience in life so they're absolutely befuddled when I am more than wiling to toss those things to the wind on a whim.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

dinkytown said:


> At least you can keep SJs at arms length. Difficult to do that when they're your parents.
> 
> They are entirely focused on creating structure, order, and convenience in life so they're absolutely befuddled when I am more than wiling to toss those things to the wind on a whim.


Yeah, I did date an ISTJ over the summer with disastrous results. This was before I knew MBTI. He was a nice enough guy, but he always told me what to do, which I just can't handle. To his credit, I'm sure my way of seeing the world also frustrated him, which having a dominant Fi would probably do that to most thinking types, though I'm very un-dramatic with mine. But out of the two of us, he was unwilling to compromise and instead took the approach of "I've made up your mind. We're going to talk about this and see things my way."

On a humorous note, my father being an ISTP mechanic (like, an actual mechanic, not the label) I picked up some tradecraft from him doing projects and fun stuff we would build. The ISTJ was little interested in these things and as such, when something would break in his house, he would just leave it broken. I would go around fixing stuff, dishwasher, garbage disposal, changing circuit breakers and other minor stuff because I liked the challenge of figuring out how to do it. I don't know why, but that would really set him off. He would be particularly snarky to me after I did stuff like that. I think that was just him, though, but I still chuckle about it


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

No.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

If I grew up with Sjs, I think it would've been very beneficial with the structure yet stagnating to my inner development. It depends how balanced they were. I could definitely appreciate the structure and stability, but not the lack of freedom. Ones that would've given me more freedom the more I showed to be honest and responsible, I think that is a great way to raise kids but I couldn't deal with a military style mentality. I could also see that Me, in a young age, not understanding why there are all these rules. I imagine that if I broke them, my freedom would be limited and the only way that I would react is with frustration and a feeling of alienation. It would have to depend on the individual Sj. I do kind of get worn out by them, even now, but I appreciate learning from them.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

SJs mystify me. It amazes me how structured their lives are. I am the polar opposite and don't even place my things in the same place in the morning, I have no set bedtime and no set lunchtime, infact I have no set time for anything. And once I do begin to develop some accidental semblance of a routine, my subconscious flighty nature ruins it, like I'll have perfected going to class on time but then I'll see my physics instructor and he'll say hi and then I wind up doing equations in his research lab. True story. No bit of my day is planned, everyday is like a new day.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> No, I get what you meant, an I do think you've started a good dialogue.
> 
> I just envision all those young and somewhat misinformed users who are convinced every authority figure in their lives is some sort of SJ responding, "well of course I understand SJs. They're so dumb and retarded and straightforward."
> 
> But maybe I'm being a cynic.


I hate to say it.... but I worked 15 years side-by-side with an ISFJ guy. I didn't learn anything about MBTI until after he had been gone for a year or more, so I can guarantee you that there is no typology bias in this case. Besides him, I know couple that are ESTJ and ESFJ. 

Here's my experience. They were all open books to me. My ISFJ friend always felt a bit awkward at how fast I could read through what he said, but he learned to just accept it, but more importantly, we had each others implicit trust. He and I were like twins with a different mother. Actually, we were, on the surface, alike to most people, but scratch the surface, and it was obvious that we were, in some ways, total opposites. We tended to approach everything from the same direction, but from opposite perspectives. I always felt it was weird, and MBTI actually explained it for me. I could never ask for a better friend or coworker, and wouldn't trade our 15 years of work and friendship for the world. But I do fear that, in the end, he got the worst of the relationship. I know I kept him a bit "off kilter" too much of the time, and I also know that the fact that I could read him, but I was a total mystery to him made him feel awkward--because he actually mentioned it on occasion. Plus, his "cooperative" style really took a hit from my pragmatic, even confrontational style of getting things done. We are still friends, and share some things with each other that we don't share with anybody else besides our wives, but he's thousands of miles away, and very busy, so we don't talk a lot. 

The SJ couple I'm friends with--well... I don't know how to say it, but they are also open books to me, but they are totally oblivious to it. I have to confess that I don't have much in common with them, plus, while I think the husband is interesting and a good conversationalist, she isn't my type, I guess I could say... Don't get me wrong. They are nice people, and they don't really match all the horrible pictures that tend to be perpetuated here on Perc. However, like with my friend, I get them entirely, but they absolutely do not get me. Worse, they think they do, but they are always entirely wrong. Again, this is just one couple, and in no way a sample of the whole, and I can say that my ISFJ friend was _nothing_ like them. In fact, IIRC, he was less impressed with them than even I was. ;-) Unfortunately, these are my closest relationships with SJ types, so I can't give a fuller picture. I would say this, though, I would never hesitate to be friends with an ISFJ.


----------



## Ummon (Jun 16, 2014)

I only know a confirmed ESTJ and ISTJ, but yes. With my ESTJ friend, I've found that we often have the same values and goals, just different ways of going about things. We are also both very organized. In a sense, we complement each other, as the ESTJ is more practical and I am more idealistic, and we would both like to learn from one another. The ISTJ I know is a little more set in their ways, but I can understand their perspective on life.


----------



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

I understand how they are predisposed to be the way that they are... but no, I don't get why they are that way. I cannot fathom why they value security and stability over a blaze of glory or a rush of novelty. I just don't get it.

I still like them, though.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

teddy564339 said:


> I don't think this is uncommon with Si doms in areas they're interested in. I've read about how *Si doms like to collect physical things and can go back again and again through their collections either counting them or organizing them*.


? why do you do this

? what do you get out of it


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> I always see SJ's as misunderstood, humble and hard-working people that go through the motions of life unnoticed.
> 
> SJ's are the kind of people who nobody appreciates enough, but without them, the great mastermind plans of NJ's, the visionary ideas of NP's and the incredibly talented performances of SP's would fall apart on the most fundamental levels of basic logistics.


SJs don't stand out on the big stage. There are no SJ rock stars, genius scientists, messiahs, and so on. But as a society, we recognize their contributions through holidays like Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, etc. And in our private lives, we thank our family and friends for what they mean to us. So they are not unrecognized or unappreciated.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I hate to say it.... but I worked 15 years side-by-side with an ISFJ guy. I didn't learn anything about MBTI until after he had been gone for a year or more, so I can guarantee you that there is no typology bias in this case. Besides him, I know couple that are ESTJ and ESFJ.
> 
> Here's my experience. They were all open books to me. My ISFJ friend always felt a bit awkward at how fast I could read through what he said, but he learned to just accept it, but more importantly, we had each others implicit trust. He and I were like twins with a different mother. Actually, we were, on the surface, alike to most people, but scratch the surface, and it was obvious that we were, in some ways, total opposites. We tended to approach everything from the same direction, but from opposite perspectives. I always felt it was weird, and MBTI actually explained it for me. I could never ask for a better friend or coworker, and wouldn't trade our 15 years of work and friendship for the world. But I do fear that, in the end, he got the worst of the relationship. I know I kept him a bit "off kilter" too much of the time, and I also know that the fact that I could read him, but I was a total mystery to him made him feel awkward--because he actually mentioned it on occasion. Plus, his "cooperative" style really took a hit from my pragmatic, even confrontational style of getting things done. We are still friends, and share some things with each other that we don't share with anybody else besides our wives, but he's thousands of miles away, and very busy, so we don't talk a lot.


The primary difference is you didn't create some sort of superiority complex about it. 

There's nothing wrong with people being an open book; my ex-INFJ was a complete open book to me (although she never got me). It's how you handle that knowledge (and in this context, how you relate it to type) that matters. 



> The SJ couple I'm friends with--well... I don't know how to say it, but they are also open books to me, but they are totally oblivious to it. I have to confess that I don't have much in common with them, plus, while I think the husband is interesting and a good conversationalist, she isn't my type, I guess I could say... Don't get me wrong. They are nice people, and they don't really match all the horrible pictures that tend to be perpetuated here on Perc. However, like with my friend, I get them entirely, but they absolutely do not get me. Worse, they think they do, but they are always entirely wrong. Again, this is just one couple, and in no way a sample of the whole, and I can say that my ISFJ friend was _nothing_ like them. In fact, IIRC, he was less impressed with them than even I was. ;-) Unfortunately, these are my closest relationships with SJ types, so I can't give a fuller picture. I would say this, though, I would never hesitate to be friends with an ISFJ.


I'm sure you've met more than three people...have you never met anybody who wasn't an SJ who was also an open book?


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

GundamChao said:


> I understand how they are predisposed to be the way that they are... but no, I don't get why they are that way. I cannot fathom why they value security and stability over a blaze of glory or a rush of novelty. I just don't get it.
> 
> I still like them, though.


Well I'm not going to go base jumping without a parachute, if that's what you mean by "blaze of glory."


----------



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

Marlowe said:


> Well I'm not going to go base jumping without a parachute, if that's what you mean by "blaze of glory."


Nope, not in a crazy way like that. That'd be a Craze of Glory.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> The primary difference is you didn't create some sort of superiority complex about it.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with people being an open book; my ex-INFJ was a complete open book to me (although she never got me). It's how you handle that knowledge (and in this context, how you relate it to type) that matters.


Well, I have a lifetime habit of working to relate well to all people--long before I learned about type. I find that understanding things like CF helps at times to separate a person's apparent behavior or manner of speaking from the situation, and see things more objectively--which is important for me, as I tend to be quite subjective. ;-)



> I'm sure you've met more than three people...have you never met anybody who wasn't an SJ who was also an open book?


Yes, in fact, most people are relatively easy to understand, insofar as what motivates them, what they are thinking about others, even when they say something opposite, when they are lying or trying to pull my strings, etc.


As to other types, I think that INJs and ITPs are the hardest for me to read--they take longer, and I am more likely to be wrong with them than with other types. But both of these types are, in my experience, really good at playing the game, and worse, manipulating it to their advantage. ENs are even better, but aren't hard for me to read. SPs are simple enough for me to read (I are one), but they tend to be aware, but they also do not care, and it can become a game of trying to work around each other--but it's always just play.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> ? why do you do this
> 
> ? what do you get out of it



it's hard to explain completely, but I get a certain sense of satisfaction and security. It's almost like Si is a chain...it connects one thing from the past to the next thing to the next all the way up to the present, and I enjoy looking back on the chain to see how it's grown.

i guess it's kind of like growing or building something....you feel accomplished by creating something, kind of like you're responsible for it. And it's nice to look back on where you started and how you created each step of the way.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> Since this discussion has taken a detour, I thought I would steer it back, even if only temporarily, by saying that I don't think SJs are the types who sit around inventing new theories, especially radically new ones that depart far from conventional notions. Likewise, I don't think SJs are the types who invent new religions and get out in front of audiences to proselytize their ideas. These are two ways I view SJs.
> 
> So to veer right back off course again, I'll reiterate that I don't believe Freud or Mohammed were SJs. I stand to be corrected.


Well, let's see if I'm following your logic here. In your mind, SJs are not the type to be visionaries or creative, so if someone is creative or visionary, they cannot be SJ. Correct? Sounds like the no true Scotsman argument to me


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Sounds Si dom to me. ;-)


How does this "sound Si dom" to you?



> BTW, if you want to understand why celebtypes typed him such, pay the money and read the two articles behind the paywall. It's easy to do, and it's a one-time payment for lifetime access to the site. Well worth the money if you are interested in these things.


If _you_ have actually shelled out money then why don't you save us the trouble and expense and share that analysis?



> And to repeat what someone else said, I much more trust the folks there than someone like you, who, to be frank, has said nothing to give me confidence in anything you say. These guys are reasonable, and willing to listen to detractors who offer solid input, and have changed their typings for various people when offered good information. In fact, they changed their type for Freud from INTJ to ISTJ, not just because, or for no reason, but because they became convinced after reading hundreds of pages of not just his writings, but what others say of him. They spend more time reading more material about and by the people type, and more time watching videos than probably every other site that bothers typing people. They are nearly purely Jungian in their philosophy, and very careful about how they go about things. You seem very quick to dismiss people you know little about, and show no initiative in actually trying to read further.


You and those other people don't think _logically_. Imagine you have two arguments, both _flawed_, but one claiming to have more "facts". _You_ would place both arguments on some "scale of truth" and judge the one bearing more "facts" _The Truth_ simply because it _outweighs_ the other. Yet, both arguments are flawed! The _criteria_ for judging truth is not to weigh competing arguments; it is to judge _each_ argument against _objective_ criteria, such as real verifiable facts, sound reasoning, and careful thorough analysis.

It's no surprise to me you and that other guy are both Te users. No Ti user would be duped by such silly and spurious "logic".

And my comments have _all_ been to _doubt_ the claims. Rather than directly addressing any of my doubts, you have chosen to _attack me_. Again, this shows how _illogical_ you are.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Well, let's see if I'm following your logic here. In your mind, SJs are not the type to be visionaries or creative, so if someone is creative or visionary, they cannot be SJ. Correct? Sounds like the no true Scotsman argument to me


Women are not the types to have penises. If a person has a penis, he is probably not a woman.

Do you see a problem with this logic?

The confusion lies in your mind, not in my statements. 

:laughing: <-- that's my reaction to your flogic


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> If _you_ have actually shelled out money then why don't you save us the trouble and expense and share that analysis?


Put your money where your mouth is. Fork over like I did, and don't free ride.




> It's no surprise to me you and that other guy are both Te users. No Ti user would be duped by such silly spurious "logic".


Let's see, you accused me of attacking you, but you have done nothing but attack those who have disagreed with you. We call that ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy, and it's extremely funny when you accuse others of doing it while engaging in it yourself. 




> How does this "sound Si dom" to you?


Hm. So far, the only argument you have made for your case is that SJs aren't creative and innovative, therefore Freud cannot be an SJ. Like I said, the Only True Scotsman fallacy. I shall try to refrain from pointing out your superior logical skills here.

Here is a question for you. How do _you_ define/describe Si in an Si-dom? For bonus points, can you do it without resorting to stereotypes or simplistic portrayals?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Put your money where your mouth is. Fork over like I did, and don't free ride.


_You're_ the one making the claim. So the onus falls on _you_ back it up, not me. I am simply _doubting_ your claim.



> Let's see, you accused me of attacking you, but you have done nothing but attack those who have disagreed with you. We call that ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy, and it's extremely funny when you accuse others of doing it while engaging in it yourself.


I stated my objections to the claim. Rather than address these objections, you continue to attack me. 



> Hm. So far, the only argument you have made for your case is that SJs aren't creative and innovative, therefore Freud cannot be an SJ. Like I said, the Only True Scotsman fallacy. I shall try to refrain from pointing out your superior logical skills here.


_Again_, what is wrong with the following reasoning?

_Women are not the types to have penises. If a person has a penis, he is probably not a woman._ 



> Here is a question for you. How do _you_ define/describe Si in an Si-dom? For bonus points, can you do it without resorting to stereotypes or simplistic portrayals?


An Si dom is someone who relies on comparisons with existing knowledge, practices, traditions to understand and judge new information. In what way does Freud fit this description? He invented _new_ descriptions for the phenomena he observed. He invented a _new_ method to analyse and treat his patients.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

> _You're_ the one making the claim. So the onus falls on _you_ back it up, not me. I am simply _doubting_ your claim.


Let me use an analogy to make this clear for you @ferroequinologist. _You_ are the prosecutor in a trial whose job it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Freud is an SJ. I am the defence whose only task is to raise a reasonable _doubt_. I _can_ make my own case for another type, if I choose; but I don't _have_ to. I can just shoot holes in _your_ arguments and I've done my job.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> _You're_ the one making the claim. So the onus falls on _you_ back it up, not me. I am simply _doubting_ your claim.


You are attacking the messenger. I made no claims. I merely pointed you to the page that made the claim. You're mistaken if you think I made any claims. 



> I stated my objections to the claim. Rather than address these objections, you continue to attack me.


No. you merely objected to the claim, and used rather insulting language 1. against SJs, and 2. against people who disagree with your bald-faced objection. You said nothing that can be addressed--still haven't that I've read, in fact. You accuse others (me included) of attacking you, but I've not attacked you, except maybe to point our your fallacy. You seem to be taking everything I and others have said _quite_ personally. 



> _Again_, what is wrong with the following reasoning?


There's nothing wrong with that one, but that's not the same thing as what you are claiming. What you are doing is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. Here is what you are doing. 

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."Person A: "Well, no _true_ Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."You said SJs are people who are not very creative or innovative. So, if somebody is creative and innovative, they aren't an SJ. Here. I'll spell it out for you.

Person A. No SJ is creative.
Person B. I'm Freud, and I'm an SJ, and I'm creative.
Person A. You are no SJ. 

Um. Can't you see the failure of logic in that statement? 



> An Si dom is someone who relies on comparisons with existing knowledge, practices, traditions to understand and judge new information. In what way does Freud fit this description? He invented _new_ descriptions for the phenomena he observed. He invented a _new_ method to analyse and treat his patients.


See? You just did it. Thank you very much... 

I guess you forget, or are not aware that Si-doms are very, very subjective people. They create a whole reality within themselves--a reality that, in a similar, but different way from Ni, bears no resemblance to reality. But Si doms also tend to extrapolate or project that reality on the world in general. I.e. because it is true for them, they are convinced that their reality is true for everybody. They can live an a fantasy world that amazes those around them. Guess what. That describes Freud probably more than any other innovation or contribution in his life. I think one could argue that he was not even aware that what he was doing was quite so revolutionary as the rest of the world perceived it. To him, it was just how things were--but what he was doing was nothing more than projecting his own fears and fetishes, etc. onto life in whole. We know today that this was the case. His entire theory revolved around how he perceived reality--not in an Ni manner, but in a very Si manner. How much about his private life do you know about? How about how he was far to ashamed to have it public knowledge about a mistress--that is not the behavior of an Ni-dom, but an Si dom who fears being perceived as anything but "normal." His home life was quite regulated in a very SJ manner. He was regular, normal and boring in real life. His "innovations" are not what truly define him as a person--they are merely how _you_ define him. Actually, you didn't now I think about it. Here. I'll quote you:


> He invented _new descriptions for the phenomena he observed_


_

new descriptions from phenomena he observed. He took what he observed, subjectivised [sic] it, and projected it outwards. Like I said, I don't think it's obvious that he was ever aware of the true innovation in his work. From what little I've read, he thought he was merely exposing what was there for everyone, but he was just projecting outwards his own personality, and not in a very innovative way, to be honest. But it doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You would never pay attention to anything I would have to say. Like I said, spend the money. You're an adult. You are old enough to be able to spend your money where you want. It's only $14. I'm sure you can afford that much, and like I said, it is for a site that is worth the money if you are into Jung and typology. These guys know their stuff, they are level-headed, willing to listen to opposing view points, and quite logical in every way you would find not-Te.

You can continue to argue with the messenger, or you can go and check out the source. Either way, none of this whole tangent has anything to do with the original point of this thread which you have hijacked, and I've been co-conspirator in..._


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You are attacking the messenger. I made no claims. I merely pointed you to the page that made the claim. You're mistaken if you think I made any claims.


It's ironic that the person accusing others of the Scotsman fallacy is himself trying to _shift_ his own position now. If you weren't making the point that Freud is an SJ, then why did you submit that page which makes that claim? What's more, why do you _continue to make the argument that he is_? 



ferroequinologist said:


> No. you merely objected to the claim, and used rather insulting language 1. against SJs, and 2. against people who disagree with your bald-faced objection. You said nothing that can be addressed--still haven't that I've read, in fact.


Let me repeat what I've _already_ said. First, nowhere on that site is there _any evidence_ for the claim that Freud is an SJ. Rather than producing that evidence, you have only _alluded_ to it. Imagine you did this in a trial: "you're honor, there's evidence, but you have to pay a fee to see it"! How silly is that? Second, Freud does not appear to fit the commonly accepted descriptions for SJs. Third, Freud is the _only_ scientist-like figure cited. How do you explain this? Fourth, you have used nothing but silly logic to make your "arguments" and attacked me when I pointed out how silly they are. 



ferroequinologist said:


> *There's nothing wrong with that one*, but that's not the same thing as what you are claiming. What you are doing is called the Here is what you are doing.
> 
> Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."Person A: "Well, no _true_ Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."You said SJs are people who are not very creative or innovative. So, if somebody is creative and innovative, they aren't an SJ. Here. I'll spell it out for you.
> 
> ...


Um, can't you see how _confused_ you are? How is my statement 



> SJs are people who are not very innovative. So, if somebody is innovative, they aren't an SJ.


different than



> Women are not the types to have penises. If a person has a penis, he is probably not a woman.


You've already conceded "there is nothing wrong with the latter statement". So what _exactly_ is wrong with the former?

(Your problem is that you _assume_ person B's statement to be true. I don't take that statement at face value and demand supporting evidence. Without providing said evidence, you want to proceed to person A's second statement. Can't you see _you're getting ahead of yourself_?

Where's the evidence, person B?)



ferroequinologist said:


> See? You just did it. Thank you very much...
> 
> I guess you forget, or are not aware that Si-doms are very, very subjective people. They create a whole reality within themselves--a reality that, in a similar, but different way from Ni, bears no resemblance to reality. But Si doms also tend to extrapolate or project that reality on the world in general. I.e. because it is true for them, they are convinced that their reality is true for everybody. They can live an a fantasy world that amazes those around them. Guess what. That describes Freud probably more than any other innovation or contribution in his life.


Well, you make it sound like they're deranged. First, Si is supposed to be a _sensory_ function, that is, it organizes information _originally taken in by the five senses_. The subconscious, which is what Freud theorized on, does _not_ fall into the category of sensory information; indeed, the existence of the subconscious does not depend on our senses at all: it's a built-in feature of our minds. If anything, the subconscious lies closest to Ni, which is itself a largely subconscious function. Second, the Si organizing and categorizing of sensory information is _not_ the same thing as _theorizing_. If it was, there would be many more SJ theorists. But there aren't, not even by that site's standards. Si is simply a preference for using stored information to make sense of new information. Theorizing, on the other hand, is an activity that primarily uses the _thinking_ functions to manipulate that information. That's why most theorists are T-doms, like INTPs.



ferroequinologist said:


> I think one could argue that he was not even aware that what he was doing was quite so revolutionary as the rest of the world perceived it. To him, it was just how things were--but what he was doing was nothing more than projecting his own fears and fetishes, etc. onto life in whole.


Freud was a _trained_ psychiatrist. As part of his training, he _must_ have studied the then prevailing theories and been _very_ aware of the contrasts between those ideas and his own theories.



ferroequinologist said:


> We know today that this was the case. His entire theory revolved around how he perceived reality--not in an Ni manner, but in a very Si manner. How much about his private life do you know about? How about how he was far to ashamed to have it public knowledge about a mistress--that is not the behavior of an Ni-dom, but an Si dom who fears being perceived as anything but "normal."


So you have to be an SJ to understand social norms and fear public humiliation?



ferroequinologist said:


> His home life was quite regulated in a very SJ manner. He was regular, normal and boring in real life. His "innovations" are not what truly define him as a person--they are merely how _you_ define him.


IXNTs are also "regular, normal and boring in real life". In fact, _most_ people of all types are "regular, normal and boring irl". So what does this prove?



ferroequinologist said:


> Actually, you didn't now I think about it. Here. I'll quote you:
> 
> new descriptions from phenomena he observed. He took what he observed, subjectivised [sic] it, and projected it outwards. Like I said, I don't think it's obvious that he was ever aware of the true innovation in his work. From what little I've read, he thought he was merely exposing what was there for everyone, but he was just projecting outwards his own personality, and not in a very innovative way, to be honest.


See above. Also, he published his ideas. Someone who doesn't believe he has discovered anything new would not take the trouble to do that.



ferroequinologist said:


> But it doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You would never pay attention to anything I would have to say.


Another personal attack. I've already conceded there are SJ rock stars, showing I can be swayed by _evidence_. Just because you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim is no reason to make wild allegations--not, that is, if you're the least bit logical.



ferroequinologist said:


> Like I said, spend the money. You're an adult. You are old enough to be able to spend your money where you want. It's only $14. I'm sure you can afford that much, and like I said, it is for a site that is worth the money if you are into Jung and typology. These guys know their stuff, they are level-headed, willing to listen to opposing view points, and quite logical in every way you would find not-Te.


I have only _your_ word to take on this and nothing you've said makes me think it is worth my time or money. Show me their analysis or shut up.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> Let me use an analogy to make this clear for you @_ferroequinologist_. _You_ are the prosecutor in a trial whose job it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Freud is an SJ. I am the defence whose only task is to raise a reasonable _doubt_. I _can_ make my own case for another type, if I choose; but I don't _have_ to. I can just shoot holes in _your_ arguments and I've done my job.


You may be fancying yourself some kind of defense lawyer, and me some sort of prosecutor, but you are totally missing the point. Let me spell it out for you. 

I'm not playing that game. 

I don't know what gave you that impression that I was playing along. I've been trying to point out to you 1. that I'm not playing and that 2. quite frankly, you aren't doing too good a job at what you're playing. (Defense lawyer? Really? Is that what you think you are doing?)

I responded to one point of yours--your rather stereotypical and quite two-dimensional portrayal of SJ types. You made a rather blanket statement (you literally said "no" SJ). You were quite unequivocal--no SJ. I simply pointed out that your statement most certainly is false. Hint for future reference, it is not wise to make absolutist statements. They are very simple to debunk. At that point, you tried to walk your absolute statement back. I let it go for a while, because it was obvious that you are not operating on the same rules I am. I am not really that interested in playing these sorts of games, but at some point, I, in a moment of utter lack of lucidity, decided to respond. From that point forward, your replies to me have been off the charts in regards to hyperbole. I'm really not sure what you are about... Do you think you have something to prove to me? To everybody else reading the thread? I don't know what you are trying to prove, but frankly, I have this rather strong impression that what you think you are doing is not how you are coming across to others. Worse, you are dragging me down into the mire with you. I didn't join in on the discussion to get dirty. So, I shall concede the battle to you. There's no way Freud could be an SJ, because SJs cannot be smart, creative, witty, innovative or anything good or cool in your mind. I can go with that. You cannot conceive that Freud could be an SJ. Let's agree on that point, can we?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

In reference to tradition, I was born under some level of tradition and I respect that tradition because it means something to my family. I can easily question certain traditions and toss them out but there is a level of appreciation that I think an SJ would experience even if it's not in my best interest to follow the same traditions.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You may be fancying yourself some kind of defense lawyer, and me some sort of prosecutor, but you are totally missing the point. Let me spell it out for you.
> 
> I'm not playing that game.
> 
> ...


OK, so you have no counter-argument to _any_ of my points so you are conceding while trying to save face. :laughing:

Any _objective_ person following this argument can see that _you_ are trying to make the case that Freud is an SJ. Any _objective_ person can see that _I_ object to the claim _because there is no evidence_! And any _objective_ person can see that you _can't_ provide said evidence.

So my statement stands, even on _absolute_ grounds. No-one has proven that there is a genius scientist. Or messiah, for that matter.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

In my opinion, Freud is no different than Jung: they're both most likely INFJs. Ni+Ti are perfect for _theorizing_ about the subconscious. Can I prove that? No, not without doing research. But it is my belief based on said reasons. Notice that I am _not_ claiming to know the truth, like ferroboy. I'm only stating an _opinion_.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I'm not a Christian but isn't "original sin" a conscious presence in sinners' minds and hearts? Like lust? And in northern Europe where Protestantism prevailed, the Enlightenment overthrew church dogma and replaced old superstitions with the Reason and Science being propounded by Voltaire, Newton, Locke, Hume, and so on. The average guy may not have known what was happening, but anyone who was educated certainly did, and it was these people who were serving in government, crafting laws. In the US, for example, the Founding Fathers were imbued with the Enlightenment ideas which shaped the laws and Constitution of the new country.
> 
> The Influence of the Enlightenment on The Formation of the United States
> 
> ...


And there are no famous scientists you know of who are NT, or any other type. It is all speculation. So where does that leave us? See my last sentence about everything you just said being laughed out of a serious academic setting. 

This, for example:



> Intuitives are more inclined to build theories, to begin with, and are generally more comfortable with abstract concepts, including mathematical ones. Therefore, MBTI would predict there are a _disproportionately_ high number of intuitives in the sciences.


What tests have been done to confirm this statement? It's all smoke and mirrors, like your entire argument. 

And science is a hell of lot more than theory. Most scientists are not theorists. The process of thinking, is an abstraction. I guess all humans must be intuitives.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> And there are no famous scientists you know of who are NT, or any other type. It is all speculation. So where does that leave us? See my last sentence about everything you just said being laughed out of a serious academic setting.


Until someone has actually been typed then one can't be certain. _However,_ based on MBTI descriptions of the different types, it is possible to make _educated_ guesses. I've never seen _anyone_ make an _informed_ guess that Einstein was an SJ. Have you? 



> This, for example:
> 
> What tests have been done to confirm this statement? It's all smoke and mirrors, like your entire argument.


Scientific theories are abstract conceptual explanations for how the world works. Intuitives _by MBTI definition_ are more comfortable with abstract concepts than sensors. Therefore, MBTI theory predicts scientists are more likely to be intuitives than sensors. Just see any description for INTXs, for example, to see this _MBTI bias_. I didn't make up MBTI theory. It's there for anyone to read. Even you.



> And science is a hell of lot more than theory. Most scientists are not theorists. The process of thinking, is an abstraction. I guess all humans must be intuitives.


But no-one can be a scientist without studying theory. So the training naturally selects for intuitives, favoring them over sensors. And yes, all humans have intuition, intuitives moreso than sensors.


----------



## CTenvoy (Apr 18, 2013)

Hi there. 

We saw in the server logs that you're discussing our assessment of Freud.

I'd like to make you aware of these links, which all parties seem to have missed:

* An overview of what serious scholars think about Freud's type. _Yes_, our assessment of ISTJ is unique to us. _No_, it's not controversial to label Freud an S; most people have.

* Tons of Freud research, a lot of it from hard-to-find sources. 

* A two part discussion of Freud's type and why he isn't an INTJ.

By all means disagree with our assessment  But just be aware that there's more than a handful of quotes to argue our point 

Finally, remember that a lot of rank-and-file scientists _are _SJs. The famous people listed on our site are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. The celebrities are the people who are scientists _and _who are famous to boot. But from a Jung-Myers perspective, there are lots of scientists who are SJ types. It's not at all as simple as Keirsey would have you believe.

Best,
Celebritytypes.com 

EDIT: Can't post the links. But the content is there for people who want to familiarize themselves with the research.


----------



## phantom_ecstasy (Jul 24, 2012)

I didn't read all the responses, but everyone in my family is an SJ so I guess I understand them pretty well. They are all different variations of SJ, though. My little sister is an ISFJ and I understand her the best, probably because we have IF in common. I have more difficulty with my dad (ESTJ) and brother (ISTJ with aspergers). I'm really close with my ESFJ mom but sometimes I find her constant need for approval distressing. I have a similar problem, although it manifests itself in a completely different way.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

CTenvoy said:


> Hi there.
> 
> We saw in the server logs that you're discussing our assessment of Freud.
> 
> ...


MBTI is a "theory" that has not been substantiated by science and is largely, if not almost completely, ignored by academic psychologists, so what "scholars" are you speaking of? What are their credentials? A certified MBTI practitioner is one thing, and I would place their assessment over the average enthusiast, however, I wouldn't confuse the practitioner with a real scholar who does _scientific_ research that is published in respected _peer-reviewed_ journals.



> * Tons of Freud research, a lot of it from hard-to-find sources.
> 
> * A two part discussion of Freud's type and why he isn't an INTJ.
> 
> ...


Is the evidence for this claim also on your site? Have you tested most or even many scientists to know this?




> EDIT: Can't post the links. But the content is there for people who want to familiarize themselves with the research.


I'll take a look.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Finally, I also want to point out the contradiction in this PC argument that "any type is equally likely to be a scientist, messiah, rock star, and so on". If this were true, then what would be the point of MBTI and typology to begin with? If personality doesn't lead to _any_ observable preferences for work--that thing we spend most of our adult lives doing--then where does it manifest?

If you accept that there are different personalities, and you accept that these differences shape our preferred activities, including work, then you _have to_ acknowledge that each type will have _preferred_ occupations, including scientists.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> In my opinion, Freud is no different than Jung: they're both most likely INFJs. Ni+Ti are perfect for _theorizing_ about the subconscious. Can I prove that? No, not without doing research. But it is my belief based on said reasons. Notice that I am _not_ claiming to know the truth, like ferroboy. I'm only stating an _opinion_.


Ummmm... It's like your brain is related to mine on some other plane. Weird but the best description I've got.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Until someone has actually been typed then one can't be certain. _However,_ based on MBTI descriptions of the different types, it is possible to make _educated_ guesses. I've never seen _anyone_ make an _informed_ guess that Einstein was an SJ. Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it can't hold up to any type of rigor, it cannot be called an educated guess. It is not even a hypothesis.

And again, most scientists are not actually theorists.

And nobody can be a scientist, or anything else, without referencing physical facts. So, again where does that leave us? Nobody can do anything, without the two. I still don't see any logical point. Nearly every field has "theory". I guess every psych and sociology student is an intuitive. Art is also abstract. I guess that is intuitive thing too. 

It can predict what it wants. Have its predictions actually proven true? Why reference such predictions?

Your argument is a tautology. SJs aren't scientists. Is he an SJ? then he isn't a scientist. Is he a scientist? then he isn't an SJ.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If it can't hold up to any type of rigor, it cannot be called an educated guess. It is not even a hypothesis.


So what are you saying? That it's not possible to make educated guesses? That experienced, certified MBTI practitioners, for example, can't study a figure and make an educated guess?



> And again, most scientists are not actually theorists.


So what? Even if he doesn't create theories, an experimentalist is _guided_ by the theories he's trying to confirm. You can't _do_ science of any sort without knowing at least some theory.



> And nobody can be a scientist, or anything else, without referencing physical facts. So, again where does that leave us? Nobody can do anything, without the two. I still don't see any logical point. Nearly every field has "theory". I guess every psych and sociology student is an intuitive. Art is also abstract. I guess that is intuitive thing too.


Everyone has all MBTI functions. It is only a question of which functions they prefer to use. Intuitives will be drawn to fields that demand an understanding of abstract concepts, like science. 



> It can predict what it wants. Have its predictions actually proven true? Why reference such predictions?
> 
> Your argument is a tautology. SJs aren't scientists. Is he an SJ? then he isn't a scientist. Is he a scientist? then he isn't an SJ.


No, the argument is not a tautology and I've already explained why a few times, but you either ignored or didn't understand it. I'll ask you to answer the same question I asked ferroboy:

How is this statement:



> SJs are people who are not very innovative. So, if somebody is innovative, they aren't an SJ.


different than this statement:



> Women are not the types to have penises. If a person has a penis, he is probably not a woman.


Good luck!


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## CTenvoy (Apr 18, 2013)

ae1905:

1
You will find the credentials of the scholars cited listed on our site. Then you can make up your mind for yourself as to what credence you want to place in those credentials. You will also find numerous references to scientific research in respected peer-reviewed journals, though not on the matter of Freud’s type. Look around  

2
As for your other question, yes, we have tested scientists using both the official MBTI instrument and various other similar instruments. There are also various vocational databases for certified MBTI practitioners that you can reference.

3
As for the PC argument, I don’t know if you’re addressing us, but we never claimed that any type is equally likely to hold any vocation in life. In fact, we argue the opposite on our site.

4
As for your suspicion that Freud is INFJ, take a look at Roazen's "How Freud Worked."


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Actually, I'm starting to think science is totally S. And intuition held it back forever. It didn't get traction, until it went S. You had guys like Plato and Anselm, just pulling ideas out of their ass. God exists, because ideas are powerful, and were given as much credence as physical realities. Francis Bacon stomped that out. Like he said:

_"God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world."

_And that is what guys like Anselm, and Plato did. They tried to turn their dreams into reality. To displace reality with the inner psychic world. So, empiricism is very S. Like Bacon summed it up: 

"All depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed on the facts of nature."

Descartes would have been more a "theorist". Bacon was an experimentalist. And Bacon's side won. 

I could more accept the argument that philosophers are more likely to be N. Many of today's most prominent scientists are actually hostile to philosophy. Because it is so abstract, and without application.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Actually, I'm starting to think science is totally S. And intuition held it back forever. It didn't get traction, until it went S. You had guys like Plato and Anselm, just pulling ideas out of their ass. God exists, because ideas are powerful, and were given as much credence as physical realities. Francis Bacon stomped that out. Like he said:
> 
> _"God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world."
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but, it really sounds like you don't understand N at all. I can guarantee you are confused. There is plenty of literature which, if taken advantage of, might help to educate the eager mind.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> I'm sorry but, it really sounds like you don't understand N at all. I can guarantee you are confused. There is plenty of literature which, if taken advantage of, might help to educate the eager mind.


I understand it quite well. And you thinking you are special, because you are intuitive, is laughable. 



> But I'm sure we all get it. SJs are the proverbial proletariat, content to remain as they are while the intuitive is often eager for something more, to reach beyond their assigned status into the bourgeoisie





> intuitives hold something special (if highly intuitive especially) that extra something


lol. You have created an entire fantasy world to compensate for reality.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

CTenvoy said:


> ae1905:
> 
> 1
> You will find the credentials of the scholars cited listed on our site. Then you can make up your mind for yourself as to what credence you want to place in those credentials. You will also find numerous references to scientific research in respected peer-reviewed journals, though not on the matter of Freud’s type. Look around
> ...


Could you name some of the journals you have in mind? And based on your tests and the databases, what percentage of scientists (with a PhD in science) are SJs? And how do you explain the absence of any famous ones? (Even if you count Freud, it is still only _one_!) The PC argument was directed at the people here who object to the idea that intuitives are more likely than sensors to be scientists. If you don't count yourself among that number then it isn't addressed to you.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Actually, I'm starting to think science is totally S. And intuition held it back forever. It didn't get traction, until it went S. You had guys like Plato and Anselm, just pulling ideas out of their ass. God exists, because ideas are powerful, and were given as much credence as physical realities. Francis Bacon stomped that out. Like he said:
> 
> _"God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world."
> 
> ...


No, scientists ignore philosophy because the latter tries to answer different questions, ones that can't be answered by applying the scientific method. 

And your idea about Ns being philosophers and Ss being scientists is odd because INTPs are considered by some to be more philosophical than INTJs who are considered to be more scientist-like, yet the INTJs are Ni-doms while the INTPs are Ne-auxs. If you think about it, a philospher grappling with questions like what is the good life? or is abortion justified? is asking much more concrete questions than a physicist working on string theory which is completely removed from human experience.

Also your history is wrong. It was Aristotle, and not Plato, who influenced thinking on the natural world up until the Enlightenment. Aristotle _did_ look at the world and categorized and theorized on what he saw. What he failed to do was to check his theories against further observations. _That_ and the use of mathematics to describe the world were the principal innovations of the scientific method. And Bacon, by the way, is typed as an intuitive on this site. 

N's Are Smarter Than S's -- MBTI | Slayerment


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> In general after what I've read, I think it's pretty clear that no matter how nice you're all trying to be, SJs are different. Anyone with half a brain and a little bit of cognitive function knowledge knows that the intuitives hold something special (if highly intuitive especially) that extra something in the eyes or manner, what makes Michael Jackson such an icon? It really isn't just the mechanical ability to dance, it's more than that and we all know it. Was Jimi Hendrix a sensor? What makes you say so? What makes you say no? If I really have to dissect this for you then this is not a conversation worth having with you.
> 
> But I'm sure we all get it. SJs are the proverbial proletariat, content to remain as they are while the intuitive is often eager for something more, to reach beyond their assigned status into the bourgeoisie. This seems to be a result of the order in which we process information, if introverted intuition is your first function, it is the gate keeper or filter for the next function, this greatly affects a persons behaviour.


Sorry, you've got it all wrong if you think SJs are "content to remain as they are". Sorry. That's just... not me or any other SJ I know or have ever met. Being an SJ does not mean dimwittedly accepting everything as it is, and no description of cognitive functions has ever tried to claim so. An SJ will value how things have been done in the past if it has worked in the past. An SJ can be reluctant to try new things because we're not always very good at imagining the outcome, and we can be afraid of what it will bring. That does not mean we never do new things, or that we cannot see it when something isn't as it should be. In that situation, an SJ will figure out how to improve the situation and do what needs to be done. We're not idiots.

Intuitives hasn't got something "special" any more than sensors. Intuition is DIFFERENT from sensing. It's not better or worse. Your phrasing is incredibly arrogant and typist.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Yes, it MBTI terms.

I find that they are the easiest to see there functions working. 

I think it's because Si is so prevalent in there lives and they use it in almost everything, once you spot it you can really see when they use there other functions like Ne.

I really like SJs and think they have an interesting cognitive stack. 

Si is just really cool.


----------



## Red_Setting_Sun (Jun 20, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> In general after what I've read, I think it's pretty clear that no matter how nice you're all trying to be, SJs are different. Anyone with half a brain and a little bit of cognitive function knowledge knows that the intuitives hold something special (if highly intuitive especially) that extra something in the eyes or manner, what makes Michael Jackson such an icon? It really isn't just the mechanical ability to dance, it's more than that and we all know it. Was Jimi Hendrix a sensor? What makes you say so? What makes you say no? If I really have to dissect this for you then this is not a conversation worth having with you.
> 
> But I'm sure we all get it. SJs are the proverbial proletariat, content to remain as they are while the intuitive is often eager for something more, to reach beyond their assigned status into the bourgeoisie. This seems to be a result of the order in which we process information, if introverted intuition is your first function, it is the gate keeper or filter for the next function, this greatly affects a persons behaviour.


You are delusional.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Actually, I'm starting to think science is totally S. And intuition held it back forever. It didn't get traction, until it went S. You had guys like Plato and Anselm, just pulling ideas out of their ass. God exists, because ideas are powerful, and were given as much credence as physical realities. Francis Bacon stomped that out. Like he said:
> 
> _"God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world."
> 
> ...



Ohhh man is science ever S. 
For a theory to actually be considered fact it needs to be tested any time and have the exact same result.
The only theory to have done this is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So not even the theory of evolution isn't proven. 

So I guess when you look at it from there prospective there needs to be such attention to detail because of the dangers of there jobs as well as it not being to total truth of the matter. They can't just do a sloppy easement and say what ever they think is happening. 

Yet when you do things this way it holds us back so much because there are still things that are not explainable but are defiantly there.

But it's always been ideas that have moved us forward.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

Krisena said:


> You are delusional.


Hahaha I think everyone should be allowed their own opinion without harassment. I'm just stating the obvious.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> Hahaha I think everyone should be allowed their own opinion *without harassment*. I'm just stating the obvious.


Said the person who just stated that intuitives are more special than sensors.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> Hahaha I think everyone should be allowed their own opinion without harassment. I'm just stating the obvious.


It isn't obvious though. And that is really your goal. To make intuitives seem naturally superior, as "obvious". But is also based on lack of action. Lack of demonstration. Intuitive, for somebody like you, is a shortcut to seem special. Again, without actually doing any work. It reminds me of a martial artist, who said that a black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass, you have to cover the rest on your own. But you think being an intuitive makes you a black belt. It covers your ass. No. You have to earn that belt. 

And you are part of a larger scale problem. You are using typology as vehicle to feel superior to others, without actual demonstration of superiority. This is part of a larger culture, where people think they can be smart, by simply attaching themselves to a particular idea, or group of people. You are vicariously claiming the accomplishments of others. It is very ironic, because it is so intellectually arrogant, but at the same time, so intellectually lazy. 

You found a shortcut to make you feel special. You found the "royal road". But there is no royal road. 

*Menaechmus, who had studied with Plato and Eudoxus, was trying to teach Alexander some geometric proofs. The lesson went badly. "Master," exclaimed Alexander, "in my kingdom there are royal roads built smoothly, as short cuts for the king. Can you not make this task easier for me?"
**Menaechmus made the now famous reply, "Sire, there is no royal road to geometry."
*
Every intellectual slacker has been trying to find a royal road. They are constantly popping up in different manifestations. Intuition is yours.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It isn't obvious though. And that is really your goal. To make intuitives seem naturally superior, as "obvious". But is also based on lack of action. Lack of demonstration. Intuitive, for somebody like you, is a shortcut to seem special. Again, without actually doing any work. It reminds me of a martial artist, who said that a black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass, you have to cover the rest on your own. But you think being an intuitive makes you a black belt. It covers your ass. No. You have to earn that belt.
> 
> And you are part of a larger scale problem. You are using typology as vehicle to feel superior to others, without actual demonstration of superiority. This is part of a larger culture, where people think they can be smart, by simply attaching themselves to a particular idea, or group of people. You are vicariously claiming the accomplishments of others. It is very ironic, because it is so intellectually arrogant, but at the same time, so intellectually lazy.
> 
> ...


To be honest, typology does not make me feel superior. I don't care about that sort of thing and have no need to feel " special" as you seem to. I gave examples of intuitives so that we might better comprehend the meaning of a concept which evades concrete definition. However, there are some reeeeally obvious differences between SJs and intuitives. Just from one conversation alone, a marked difference is made known. 

I cannot talk to an SJ for more than five minutes without falling into a coma. They speak of everything physical in the actual world even discussing a new sort of laundry detergent they're using. In my mind I don't think these things warrant mention. But, I know that this individual is a sensor once the conversation takes this turn. I'm sure my style of conversation is equally dull to the SJ, too confusing and far off to warrant conversation at all. I'm just letting all of those in denial know, sensors are plain and simple, intuitives are complex and intricate. Who says simple is bad? Who's saying any of these traits are bad or good? Personally I have the belief that there is no such thing as "bad" only observations. If you disagree, lend an example of the many intuitive conversations you've had with an SJ. ( the very idea is preposterous, and the reason can be found in the term, the very meaning of the word)


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Bahburah said:


> Ohhh man is science ever S.
> For a theory to actually be considered fact it needs to be tested any time and have the exact same result.
> The only theory to have done this is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So not even the theory of evolution isn't proven.


Quantum Theory is the most tested and precise scientific theory. And the results don't have to come back "exactly" the same, only the same within the margin of error. The Theory of of Evolution has also been extensively tested and confirmed.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence

No, science is not "S". Science is more than simply gathering a lot of facts. It is building theories to _explain_ those facts. So answering the question what? is only the first step; the final goal is to answer the question why? And to answer why in a way that explains _all_ the observed facts requires theory. *Science is theory building.*


----------



## Tom Soy Sauce (Jul 25, 2013)

I understand them and how they make decisions. Like I know where they're coming from most of the time even if I don't agree. It's definitely not reciprocated though. I'm like a madman to them.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It isn't obvious though. And that is really your goal.


And, it should be obvious that I think we should share opinions without harassment. What makes that not obvious? Have I harassed you? I take part in discussion to further flush out the matter, not to get personal, because personally I don't care.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> To be honest, typology does not make me feel superior. I don't care about that sort of thing and have no need to feel " special" as you seem to. I gave examples of intuitives so that we might better comprehend the meaning of a concept which evades concrete definition. However, there are some reeeeally obvious differences between SJs and intuitives. Just from one conversation alone, a marked difference is made known.
> 
> I cannot talk to an SJ for more than five minutes without falling into a coma. They speak of everything physical in the actual world even discussing a new sort of laundry detergent they're using. In my mind I don't think these things warrant mention. But, I know that this individual is a sensor once the conversation takes this turn. I'm sure my style of conversation is equally dull to the SJ, too confusing and far off to warrant conversation at all. I'm just letting all of those in denial know, sensors are plain and simple, intuitives are complex and intricate. Who says simple is bad? Who's saying any of these traits are bad or good? Personally I have the belief that there is no such thing as "bad" only observations. If you disagree, lend an example of the many intuitive conversations you've had with an SJ. ( the very idea is preposterous, and the reason can be found in the term, the very meaning of the word)


This is better. However, I still don't agree that SJs are "simple and plain", even if you don't mean it in a condescending way. Si is very much a complex function, though extremely different from Ni. I have a very close INFJ friend, and there are times when our worldviews just clash so much that there's not really any point in taking the discussion further. So yes, Ni and Si can have communicational problems. However, that doesn't mean Si is simple. I very much feel like leaving it to someone else to explain Si better, because I'm having a horrible night and want to stop thinking about everything right now. Just hope you understand that even if it seems plain to you, that's not the way a Si user experiences it, and it's not the way Si generally is described. We have an extremely rich inner world, too.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

eclipsethesun said:


> Get it right. American or no, you speak the English language.


Heh, Bahburah's not American, though you seem to have uncovered yet another broad fallacy in what appears to be a growing list of your subjective, entirely unfounded prejudices. I can attest, though, through knowledge that I have come to have directly, that some of your detractors throughout this exchange _are_ American, some of whom have made profoundly more astute arguments to the contrary of yours.

Though I fear with this observation I have set off yet another exhaustive diatribe of an entire group of people whom you apparently also believe you are above. Have at it, if you must.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> No, Mr. ISTP you are wrong. I still have not read past the first English error.
> 
> Any argument made by said party is null and dull in my eyes. After all debate is only so interesting as the intellect of one's opponent.
> 
> This is why I try not to debate sensors here.


So what of my arguments? You've not addressed my reply to you by responding with a counter-argument, nor have you pointed out a linguistic error on my part. I'd appreciate at least one of the two.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> No, Mr. ISTP you are wrong. I still have not read past the first English error.
> 
> Any argument made by said party is null and dull in my eyes. After all debate is only so interesting as the intellect of one's opponent.
> 
> This is why I try not to debate sensors here.


Just more excuses, and being literally ignorant in it's most raw form.

You do realize that I've won this debate right because you have nothing to respond with.

Not very intellectual of yourself.

Especially the fact that you keep mentioning education? 

Education and Intellect are very different things.



lol The whole thread is against you.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

Bahburah said:


> No see this is exactly what I thought was going to happen.
> 
> You see, you saw that you were wrong and had nothing to back yourself up with, you're*


...are you serious?...I am not sure if you are able to spell or not in which case I will check out and realise this conversation beneath any literate Englishman.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> ...are you serious?...I am not sure if you are able to spell or not in which case I will check out and realise this conversation beneath any literate Englishman.


Dose it really matter?

I can't spell and I'm not the one who looks like the idiot here.


----------



## eclipsethesun (Nov 2, 2010)

Bahburah said:


> Just more excuses, and being literally ignorant in it's most raw form.
> 
> You do realize that I've won this debate right because you have nothing to respond with.
> 
> ...


In all honesty ad populum was never my forte. However, I must admit I am at work and have not read an entire post of yours after your illiteracy was made known. Tomorrow if you have corrected your grammar I might respond to the actual things you have said. My only interest has been the vehemence with which you make your claim. The point can be debated but still, the true intuitive is complex and detailed while the sensor is simple and uncomplicated. Let's hope I go back and read your posts, and that you warrant a reply.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

eclipsethesun said:


> In all honesty ad populum was never my forte. However, I must admit I am at work and have not read an entire post of yours after your illiteracy was made known. Tomorrow if you have corrected your grammar I might respond to the actual things you have said. My only interest has been the vehemence with which you make your claim. The point can be debated but still, the true intuitive is complex and detailed while the sensor is simple and uncomplicated. Let's hope I go back and read your posts, and that you warrant a reply.


:crazy:


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> So what of my arguments? You've not addressed my reply to you by responding with a counter-argument, nor have you pointed out a linguistic error on my part. I'd appreciate at least one of the two.


We can always glean more from what a person says about their own nature than that of whom they speak. A person reveals only their own truth in all things said. And at adversarial matters at hand, we can also glean the answer from their silence :ninja:


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> A statement about a group can't be directly individuated unless the group statement is absolute, and you've provide no justification for the absolute assertion "SJs are people who are not very innovative". Your logical structure is fine - with a little rephrasing, a textbook _modus tollens_ - but that says nothing of the truth of your premise. The claim is not that you cannot derive from an absolute statement an absolute conclusion, the argument against you is that you have no business making the absolute statement you did in the first place.


Scientific theories are useful in providing explanations of observed phenomena; they also prove their value by _predicting_ the outcome of new observations. Strictly speaking, MBTI has not been shown to be a scientific theory, but because we have agreed in this thread to frame the discussion in terms of MBTI theory, we are putting aside that difficulty and speaking as if the theory is valid. So the statement "SJs are people who are not innovative" is simply a rewording of the explanation MBTI theory offers for a group of people, in the same way the statement "men have penises" is an explanation biology offers for a group of people; and the statement "Freud was innovative therefore he was probably not a SJ" is a _prediction_ of MBTI theory, in the same way the statement "a person has a penis, so he's probably not a woman" is a _prediction_ of biology. 

It's been a long time since I took a personality test but I'm sure it asks questions about preferences for or comfort with innovation or change or new ideas, and _sorts_ people into types by their answers. So MBTI _defines or describes_ the types by their attitudes towards innovation (among other things) in the same way biology defines or describes a man (in part) by his anatomy. And SJs _are_ people who eschew innovation and change--they are _sorted_ and defined that way in MBTI.



> And when all you can assert is a generality - say, "the average SJ is less likely to be innovative than the average non-SJ" - then you have a statement about average members of the group, not about individual members of the group, and so can draw no conclusion about an individual SJ from that statement.


MBTI is _not_ a scientific theory and personality is complex, so it isn't impossible that there will be exceptions; however, the theory can make the statement, "if person A is innovative then he is _probably_ not a SJ". How? Because that's the way it sorts innovative people on its test! If a person shows strong innovative tendencies, he will probably not be sorted as one of the SJ types.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Post.


The questions on the accredited MBTI as well as online tests that correspond the the S/N dichotomies do in fact measure whether or not a person is comfortable with creativity, change and abstract thinking. If these things are the antithesis of S (and I'd speculate J to some degree) then I'd have to agree that SJs aren't likely to be extremely innovative or to transform the understanding of a given field they're involved in. Call me typist or whatever, but I'm convinced.

Then again, I guess I came into the thread relatively indifferent to begin with...


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

eclipsethesun said:


> In all honesty ad populum was never my forte. However, I must admit I am at work and have not read an entire post of yours after your illiteracy was made known. Tomorrow if you have corrected your grammar I might respond to the actual things you have said. My only interest has been the vehemence with which you make your claim. The point can be debated but still, the true intuitive is complex and detailed while the sensor is simple and uncomplicated. Let's hope I go back and read your posts, and that you warrant a reply.


Could you please stop this pathetic show? It's getting boring and repetitive. You're not really doing anything expect constantly repeating whatever feel-good delusion you have yourself believe. If you still insist on being like this go to 4chan or something to rave about your 'superiority' and who knows, perhaps you'll find like minded superior people like yourself there and you bunch can start a little club and be all superior together! HOORAY for all the cares in the world! 

So get your shit together or take your kids spam show somewhere else.

Thank you.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

-Alpha- said:


> The questions on the accredited MBTI as well as online tests that correspond the the S/N dichotomies do in fact measure whether or not a person is comfortable with creativity, change and abstract thinking. If these things are the antithesis of S (and I'd speculate J to some degree) then I'd have to agree that SJs aren't likely to be extremely innovative or to transform the understanding of a given field they're involved in. Call me typist or whatever, but I'm convinced.
> 
> Then again, I guess I came into the thread relatively indifferent to begin with...


I can tell you one area that the ISFJ(s) I've been in close contact with are very capable of, especially my close friend. He can take a very complicated subject and explain it is simple terms that anybody can understand, and not lose any of the complexity of the topic in hand in the process. I've listened to him time and again explain some complex topics and watched peoples' light bulbs of understanding and recognition light up, and I've just sat there in awe. Especially because on the surface he seems so simple and innocuous. The guy has a powerful brain, that belies his lack of education. He reads slowly, and, he says, with some difficulty, but when he opens his mouth--wow. I can tell you, this is not the simple mind of a person who has an uncreative mind. His mind is quite a powerhouse, but he hides it very, very well. He is very modest in every way, and I suspect he actually has no idea how truly talented and intelligent he is, simply because he doesn't have the cred of a degree. Here is what I would say about him and other ISFJs, and I suspect this is very true for a lot of SJ types, especially the introverted ones. Internally, they have very broad-ranging minds that cover a lot of territory, and love to explore many topics. But these things stay entirely in their heads. What they allow out is only the most rudimentary aspects of their life. It's like they are afraid or ashamed to show where they "step out of bounds" with their thoughts. But I am absolutely convinced that they think these things. My friend has, on occasion, shared his thoughts about some things, and he never ceased to amaze me when he did it. And when he did it, he did it in the same way I mentioned above. Simply. But you could catch glimpses of the mind inside. I believe my INTP wife will attest to that. In fact, he and she have gone off on "Ne" type discussions that surprised me (from his side, not hers). The key is that it is mostly hidden, and we only get glimpses of those insights. That is because they do find themselves compelled to show only the basic side of themselves to others. Here's a fictitious example-- Booth in Bones, the ESFJ. His ties and socks show his rebellious streak--the hidden side of who he is. Look closely at any SJ, and you are likely to find such things. And I think that the editor of CelebrityTypes - Overview could chime in here, and say that Freud was quite the conventionalist in his daily life, and quite afraid of seeming outside the norms and standards of his day. His one theory is is one big break-out from that mold. We can sit here today, looking back on that, and say "Oh, he _must_ be an N" based solely on that, but you aren't looking at the whole man when you do that, and you are doing Freud and all others a great disservice when you treat them in such a two-dimentional way. 

I've been around this world (ok, only one hemisphere) a few times, and have met a ton of people from several cultures and backgrounds, and I have found very few people who are truly simple and dull, etc. If you were to take the time to get to know the simple ones--the ones that others overlook, you would find a fascinating person inside. In fact, I've found that the ones who are the least interesting, and the least worthy of getting to know are the ones that are so convinced of themselves that they are right and everybody else is wrong, and will move heaven and earth to convince everybody else of their rightness. And yes, I'm talking about some people participating in this discussion. 

I must confess, sometimes, reading this forum, I get quite depressed about the state of mankind today, but then I remember the homeless man I met on a bench in a C. European city, or a transient I spent some time with in Florida, or the motor head I worked with in a factory, or the prim and proper elderly lady I flew with from one side of the continent to the other, and I remember that people are beautiful--even those who are the most un-beautiful on the outside, and I realize that this forum is the aberration. I heartily recommend that folks here get out there into the real world, introduce yourselves to the overlooked and under-appreciated, and get to know them. You may be surprised at the insights they have into life, and what they have to teach you (and yes, I realize that not everybody out there is like this--but the beautiful people are hiding there right in front of your face, if you'd only look) Get off your cocky backside and live, folks.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

-Alpha- said:


> The questions on the accredited MBTI as well as online tests that correspond the the S/N dichotomies do in fact measure whether or not a person is comfortable with creativity, change and abstract thinking. If these things are the antithesis of S (and I'd speculate J to some degree) then I'd have to agree that SJs aren't likely to be extremely innovative or to transform the understanding of a given field they're involved in. Call me typist or whatever, but I'm convinced.
> 
> Then again, I guess I came into the thread relatively indifferent to begin with...


I came in the middle as well, but it seems the minds failed to meet at the point when the conversation devolved from the objective observation of innovation into subjective statements that SJs are simple-minded and not complex. It can be objectively observed, and usually even self-proclaimed, that SJs do not *prefer* exploratory avenues. But it can neither be broadly stated or even argued with any extent of underlying evidence that that has any bearing on the complexity and/or simple-mindedness of an SJ. There's no relation, and to propose the contrary only reveals the narrow understanding of the maker rather than the object of their statement.

XNXP's are by nature more innovative and creative than XNXJ's, if I'm to continue the assumption of the veracity of MBTI theory as the previous two posts. But can I argue that that makes me more complex than you, or that you are simple-minded in comparison to me? Hardly.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

AlliG said:


> I came in the middle as well, but it seems the minds failed to meet at the point when the conversation devolved from the objective observation of innovation into subjective statements that SJs are simple-minded and not complex. It can be objectively observed, and usually even self-proclaimed, that SJs do not *prefer* exploratory avenues. But it can neither be broadly stated or even argued with any extent of underlying evidence that that has any bearing on the complexity and/or simple-mindedness of an SJ. There's no relation, and to propose the contrary only reveals the narrow understanding of the maker rather than the object of their statement.
> 
> XNXP's are by nature more innovative and creative than XNXJ's, if I'm to continue the assumption of the veracity of MBTI theory as the previous two posts. But can I argue that that makes me more complex than you, or that you are simple-minded in comparison to me? Hardly.


What many people are missing is that the point of typology is to understand our own preferences, strengths and weaknesses. Assuming the current MBTI model is correct (which we have to do as we're debating a set of attributes defined by the model) this places SJs as less wildly creative and revolutionary and much more stable and reliable. Which is not to say anyone is unintelligent or incapable of change, but that our natural preferences dictate that we trust and mistrust certain things.

Stating that a person from any type can do anything is one thing. Obviously we can observe that there are exceptional people from either side of the dichotomy, but saying that its likely just isn't supported by the terms that the current MBTI model sets. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can grow as people.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

-Alpha- said:


> What many people are missing is that the point of typology is to understand our own preferences, strengths and weaknesses. Assuming the current MBTI model is correct (which we have to do as we're debating a set of attributes defined by the model) this places SJs as less wildly creative and revolutionary and much more stable and reliable. Which is not to say anyone is unintelligent or incapable of change, but that our natural preferences dictate that we trust and mistrust certain things.
> 
> Stating that a person from any type can do anything is one thing. Obviously we can observe that there are exceptional people from either side of the dichotomy, but saying that its likely just isn't supported by the terms that the current MBTI model sets. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can grow as people.


These, too, are my sentiments. It's just as easy to delineate one type's strengths as it is to point to their weaknesses. And every type has both. To define one trait and make it the crux of why an entire category is above another is laughable at best, and at worst woefully misses out on the spirit of MBTI. The sentiments echoed throughout the last few pages that sensors aren't worth an iNtuitive's time are egregiously self-aggrandizing.

One only needs to peruse the SP and SJ forms to find a profound wealth of understanding among them. @ferroequinologist is exemplary. Almost everything he writes is articulate and informed and I always try to glean all the wisdom from his posts that I can. It is a fool that shuts out knowledge, but a wise man seeks it out from wherever it presents itself.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Scientific theories are useful in providing explanations of observed phenomena; they also prove their value by _predicting_ the outcome of new observations. Strictly speaking, MBTI has not been shown to be a scientific theory, but because we have agreed in this thread to frame the discussion in terms of MBTI theory, we are putting aside that difficulty and speaking as if the theory is valid. So the statement "SJs are people who are not innovative" is simply a rewording of the explanation MBTI theory offers for a group of people, in the same way the statement "men have penises" is an explanation biology offers for a group of people; and the statement "Freud was innovative therefore he was probably not a SJ" is a _prediction_ of MBTI theory, in the same way the statement "a person has a penis, so he's probably not a woman" is a _prediction_ of biology.
> 
> It's been a long time since I took a personality test but I'm sure it asks questions about preferences for or comfort with innovation or change or new ideas, and _sorts_ people into types by their answers. So MBTI _defines or describes_ the types by their attitudes towards innovation (among other things) in the same way biology defines or describes a man (in part) by his anatomy. And SJs _are_ people who eschew innovation and change--they are _sorted_ and defined that way in MBTI.
> 
> ...


I'd say the fact that we can raise what appear to be legitimate questions about the quality of test questions - be they a rudimentary online test or the official instrument - is good evidence for the assertion that what it means to have, for instance, an S-preference, is something other than simply "having those tendencies which result in a person being more likely to score as a sensor on MBTI tests". The assertion that SJs are, by definition, less innovative is, then, of a lesser order than your biological example. You're right to say that we need to assume the truth of the theory in order to have this discussion, but I don't see that we can define what it is to have an S-preference solely in terms of the attributes MBTI tests test upon, otherwise it would be true that all sensors would give the "sensor answer" to all S/N questions, and notions such as the relative strength of a person's preferences (e.g., one can have a weak preference for feeling over thinking) run against that idea. Given that, the blanket statement about SJs being less innovative becomes not a truth for all SJs but only a generalisation, and the point about individuation stands - what is generally true for members of the group is no longer sufficient as a sorting mechanism. At best, one could point to a person's innovativeness as one of many potential pieces of evidence for them not being an SJ; any further and too much stock is being taken in a fairly weak piece of information, and certainly so if one were to argue that innovativeness alone precluded a person from being an SJ.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

-Alpha- said:


> What many people are missing is that the point of typology is to understand our own preferences, strengths and weaknesses. Assuming the current MBTI model is correct (which we have to do as we're debating a set of attributes defined by the model) this places SJs as less wildly creative and revolutionary and much more stable and reliable. Which is not to say anyone is unintelligent or incapable of change, but that our natural preferences dictate that we trust and mistrust certain things.
> 
> Stating that a person from any type can do anything is one thing. Obviously we can observe that there are exceptional people from either side of the dichotomy, but saying that its likely just isn't supported by the terms that the current MBTI model sets. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can grow as people.


And the current MBTI sets aren't really supported by....anything. 

People with the same MBTI share some personality quirks, nothing more. It has nothing to do with any sort of intellectual/cognitive ability. I actually made that mistake initially, that INFJ, or Ns, were all gonna be profound people. They aren't. I just projected that on the type. But it quickly fell apart, once I observed other INFJ and Ns in action. 

People on this forum try to turn everything into functions/type. Memory, math ability, etc. These are complex mental processes that modern science has barely figured out, yet people on here can fully explain through MBTI. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can grow as people.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> And the current MBTI sets aren't really supported by....anything.
> 
> People with the same MBTI share some personality quirks, nothing more. It has nothing to do with any sort of intellectual/cognitive ability. I actually made that mistake initially, that INFJ, or Ns, were all gonna be profound people. They aren't. I just projected that on the type. But it quickly fell apart, once I observed other INFJ and Ns in action.
> 
> People on this forum try to turn everything into functions/type. Memory, math ability, etc. These are complex mental processes that modern science has barely figured out, yet people on here can fully explain through MBTI. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can grow as people.


*click* ^^ This screenshot is going to come in handy in the next INFJ/INFP showdown in the NF forum :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:





.....Just messing with you (errr.. maybe *chuckle*) :ninja:


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I'd say the fact that we can raise what appear to be legitimate questions about the quality of test questions - be they a rudimentary online test or the official instrument - is good evidence for the assertion that what it means to have, for instance, an S-preference, is something other than simply "having those tendencies which result in a person being more likely to score as a sensor on MBTI tests". The assertion that SJs are, by definition, less innovative is, then, of a lesser order than your biological example.


What kind of "questions" about the test questions do you have in mind? And if those questions don't touch on the idea of innovativeness, then your last statement is not pertinent. The problem may not necessarily be that the description of SJs is inaccurate, only that the test itself does not adequately measure those traits--ie, SJs are not innovative, but the test doesn't do a good enough job of measuring innovativeness. 



> You're right to say that we need to assume the truth of the theory in order to have this discussion, but *I don't see that we can define what it is to have an S-preference solely in terms of the attributes MBTI tests test upon*, otherwise it would be true that all sensors would give the "sensor answer" to all S/N questions, and notions such as the relative strength of a person's preferences (e.g., one can have a weak preference for feeling over thinking) run against that idea.


But these attributes are the ones described in the theory, so if you reject them you are rejecting the theory itself, at least as it now stands. Also, MBTI theory doesn't say that all SJs are identical and should give the same answers on the test. Indeed, it acknowledges that there are 4 distinct SJ types. And within each type the theory allows for individual variability of the described traits. So one ISTJ, for example may be more fastidious than another, but both are still fastidious, especially when compared to other types. 



> Given that, the blanket statement about SJs being less innovative becomes not a truth for all SJs but only a generalisation, and the point about individuation stands - what is generally true for members of the group is no longer sufficient as a sorting mechanism. At best, one could point to a person's innovativeness as one of many potential pieces of evidence for them not being an SJ; any further and too much stock is being taken in a fairly weak piece of information, and certainly so if one were to argue that innovativeness alone precluded a person from being an SJ.


The description of SJs as being conventional and staid is part of MBTI theory. The test purports to measure these traits, and inasmuch as the theory is correct and the test is accurate, identified SJs will exhibit these traits to some significant degree--ie, they will not be innovative in any meaningful way. This is partly what it means to be an SJ and _will be true for all SJs to some degree_, with the same proviso about the theory and test. 

The idea that a general statement that applies to a group does not tell you anything about an individual is not true. It _does_ tell you that the individual is _more likely_ than another individual not belonging to the group to share the group's qualities. So an SJ individual is less likely than an SP individual to be innovative. 

The problem here is that some people don't like the description of SJs as un-innovative and want to latch on to Freud as the exception that busts the rule. But which is more likely: that the whole theory is wrong about SJs and they really _are_ innovative like Freud? or Freud is mistyped? If you look at the dearth of other eminent scientists typed as SJs and the fact the list of famous SJs don't include many true innovators*, then I think the latter possibility is the more likely.

* I saw lots of politicians and some pop stars, none of whom struck me as being innovative


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> What kind of "questions" about the test questions do you have in mind? And if those questions don't touch on the idea of innovativeness, then your last statement is not pertinent. The problem may not necessarily be that the description of SJs is inaccurate, only that the test itself does not adequately measure those traits--ie, SJs are not innovative, but the test doesn't do a good enough job of measuring innovativeness.
> 
> But these attributes are the ones described in the theory, so if you reject them you are rejecting the theory itself. Also, MBTI theory doesn't say that all SJs are identical and should give the same answers on the test. Indeed, it acknowledges that there are 4 distinct SJ types. And within each type the theory allows for individual variability of the described traits. So one ISTJ, for example may be more fastidious than another, but both are still fastidious, especially when compared to other types.
> 
> ...


My point was, if "having a preference for sensing over intuition" means "having the following attributes", then everyone would be 100% S or N on tests. Unless the widespread variety of results on tests is solely the result of false/incorrect answers - and that seems an absurd conclusion to come to - it must be accepted that the traits of any type preference will not necessarily be true for any given member of that group: that the attribute of, say, innovativeness does not fit the supposed attributes of that type according to type-attribute lists. What does it mean in the theory to have a weak preference (or indeed any preference of not 100%) if not that the person doesn't fit all of the listed attributes? If type preferences are little more than the tallying of attribute checklists, it still doesn't follow that a person fitting a certain set of type preferences - SJ, ISTJ, take your pick - _will_ possesses a particular attribute. How, then, can an absolute statement be made about every member of a given type? And if type preferences are more than a tallying of attributes on tests, then we need some clarity as to what it actually _means_ to be of a particular type, or to have a particular dichotomy preference. I think the above makes fairly clear that it is either true by definition or not a claim able to made absolutely, and the fact that type preferences aren't all 100%, and that weak type preferences can and do exist within the scope of the theory, discredits the "true by definition" idea.

A general statement tells you nothing about the individual themselves. The probability of something being true about an individual is no more a facet of the individual than whether you know them to be the masked man or not - it is still a statement about the group at large, just spoken in individual terms. It is not a fact about me, for instance, that I am more likely to have haemophilia than a given female because I am male - that is not about me, that is about what you know to be true for males in general being applied to an individual case on the basis of just one item of knowledge (here, being male). No statement in that scenario is made about whether I, the individual, am a haemophiliac or not, as much more than just sex plays into that; likewise, what can really be said except that Freud was innovative (and even that's subjective in at least some ways)? You cannot derive an N-preference from innovativeness any more than you can derive whether a person is a haemophiliac from their sex/gender: there is far more at play than just the one characteristic (sex/innovativeness), so it's nothing but foolhardy to zero in on that alone rather than considering other facets of the person.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> My point was, if "having a preference for sensing over intuition" means "having the following attributes", then everyone would be 100% S or N on tests. Unless the widespread variety of results on tests is solely the result of false/incorrect answers - and that seems an absurd conclusion to come to - it must be accepted that the traits of any type preference will not necessarily be true for any given member of that group: that the attribute of, say, innovativeness does not fit the supposed attributes of that type according to type-attribute lists. What does it mean in the theory to have a weak preference (or indeed any preference of not 100%) if not that the person doesn't fit all of the listed attributes? If type preferences are little more than the tallying of attribute checklists, it still doesn't follow that a person fitting a certain set of type preferences - SJ, ISTJ, take your pick - _will_ possesses a particular attribute. How, then, can an absolute statement be made about every member of a given type? And if type preferences are more than a tallying of attributes on tests, then we need some clarity as to what it actually _means_ to be of a particular type, or to have a particular dichotomy preference. I think the above makes fairly clear that it is either true by definition or not a claim able to made absolutely, and the fact that type preferences aren't all 100%, and that weak type preferences can and do exist within the scope of the theory, discredits the "true by definition" idea.


Ideally, MBTI _should_ be able to draw clear distinctions between types so that ISTJs, for example, test as un-innovative people. The failure of _actual_ test results to conform to the theoretical descriptions is one problem with the theory. Most people actually fall in the grey area, not in the black and white. Is that a problem with the theory? Or with the test? Could be both. But a sound theory should draw clear lines that can be reliably demonstrated on tests. And _innovation_ is not a trait that is difficult to assess. Most people are _not_ innovative, and the ones who are stand out. So if innovation is an important trait in a theory, then it _should_ be possible to group people by this trait--ie, it _should_ be possible to make the _absolute_ statement, "if a person is not innovative, he belongs to this type". There's nothing _in principle_ that precludes such a statement. 

So what your pointing out is the _failure_ of MBTI theory and/or the tests, in which case there is no point even having this discussion since the premise is that MBTI is a sound theory that accurately describes the personalities of all people. It also follows, then, that Freud is _*not*_ an ISTJ since ISTJ doesn't mean anything.



> A general statement tells you nothing about the individual themselves. The probability of something being true about an individual is no more a facet of the individual than whether you know them to be the masked man or not - it is still a statement about the group at large, just spoken in individual terms. It is not a fact about me, for instance, that I am more likely to have haemophilia than a given female because I am male - that is not about me, that is about what you know to be true for males in general being applied to an individual case on the basis of just one item of knowledge (here, being male). No statement in that scenario is made about whether I, the individual, am a haemophiliac or not, as much more than just sex plays into that; likewise, what can really be said except that Freud was innovative (and even that's subjective in at least some ways)? You cannot derive an N-preference from innovativeness any more than you can derive whether a person is a haemophiliac from their sex/gender: there is far more at play than just the one characteristic (sex/innovativeness), so it's nothing but foolhardy to zero in on that alone rather than considering other facets of the person.


First, the Masked Man fallacy concerns statements of _knowing_. The statement "males have a higher chance of being haemophilic" is a statement of _fact_, not of knowing since it's true whether or not I or anyone else knows it. That you are a male is also a statement of fact. That you therefore had a higher _chance_ of being haemophilic (before your birth) is another statement of _fact_--you _did_. It's a _probabilistic_ statement about _you_ because you chose an example that has a probabilistic premise. If you start, instead, with an absolute premise, like "all humans come from earth" then you will draw a different kind of conclusion--eg, "you are a human, therefore you came from earth". In principle, there is nothing wrong with the premise "all SJs are not innovative". It _can_ apply to all SJs _if_ the theory is right and the test is properly designed to measure innovation.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Put another way, if MBTI says you can be "staid and conventional" _and_ "innovative and revolutionary " at the same time, then what does "staid and conventional" even mean? If anyone can have _any_ trait then what is the point of typology? It's _ridiculous_ that Freud can type as ISTJ. People in the MBTI community should be _embarrassed_ by that result (if it really is a result).

Anyone interested can search for a thread I started a few weeks ago discussing the question, "what scientific evidence is there for MBTI?" I came out of that thread with the same opinion I went in with, that is, there isn't much evidence to support the theory. I tried to argue from the side of the theory here, but you can see the problem you run into when Freud is typed as an ISTJ.


----------



## Harpu (Dec 1, 2013)

Maybe SJ's have the ability to make complicated things in our mind sound simple and because of that, people think we are simple minded? 

and maybe we like to talk about simple things, just because our mind is too complicated?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Ideally, MBTI _should_ be able to draw clear distinctions between types so that ISTJs, for example, test as un-innovative people. The failure of _actual_ test results to conform to the theoretical descriptions is one problem with the theory. Most people actually fall in the grey area, not in the black and white. Is that a problem with the theory? Or with the test? Could be both. But a sound theory should draw clear lines that can be reliably demonstrated on tests. And _innovation_ is not a trait that is difficult to assess. Most people are _not_ innovative, and the ones who are stand out. So if innovation is an important trait in a theory, then it _should_ be possible to group people by this trait--ie, it _should_ be possible to make the _absolute_ statement, "if a person is not innovative, he belongs to this type". There's nothing _in principle_ that precludes such a statement.
> 
> So what your pointing out is the _failure_ of MBTI theory and/or the tests, in which case there is no point even having this discussion since the premise is that MBTI is a sound theory that accurately describes the personalities of all people. It also follows, then, that Freud is _*not*_ an ISTJ since ISTJ doesn't mean anything.


Well, that's what I was asking - what exactly does one mean when they refer to a sensor, or a judger, or any other type preference? Clearly, we _don't_ mean that every typical trait from a list of attributes inheres within that person - any quick observation of reality shows that 16 very narrow types, such as those that such an approach would produce, are not sufficient for describing the reality of the matter. In such a case, then, it must be true that not every trait typical to a particular type preference is true for every member of that group. Of course there's nothing that in principle precludes the making of absolute statements within the theory, but given that it seeks to describe the reality of personality differences, it must pay attention to the reality of the situation and adjust accordingly. Nowhere in reality is the idea borne out that every sensor fulfils every "sensor trait", nor thinkers "thinker traits", nor any other preference and its supposed traits. It is not that MBTI theory is so totally wrong as to be meaningless; it makes no sense to have this discussion if we see the theory as so totally immutable that merely finding one person who doesn't fit every predicted trait renders the whole theory bunkum. To argue that "ISTJ" becomes meaningless merely because we can no longer state absolutes about the type is a false dichotomy.



> First, the Masked Man fallacy concerns statements of _knowing_. The statement "males have a higher chance of being haemophilic" is a statement of _fact_, not of knowing since it's true whether or not I or anyone else knows it. That you are a male is also a statement of fact. That you therefore had a higher _chance_ of being haemophilic (before your birth) is another statement of _fact_--you _did_. It's a _probabilistic_ statement about _you_ because you chose an example that has a probabilistic premise. If you start, instead, with an absolute premise, like "all humans come from earth" then you will draw a different kind of conclusion--eg, "you are a human, therefore you came from earth". In principle, there is nothing wrong with the premise "all SJs are not innovative". It _can_ apply to all SJs _if_ the theory is right and the test is properly designed to measure innovation.


"Males have a higher chance of being haemophilic" - factual statement, no dispute on that one.
"You, as a male, therefore had a higher chance of being haemophilic" - not a factual statement. The probabilistic assessment of the individual is about how likely it is that a member of the group will be haemophilic; the probability doesn't inhere in me, it inheres in the theoretical construct of "the average male". Much like in the masked man fallacy, it is a lack of consideration of actual individual factors - not ones about what you can know about a person, or in this case about what you know to be true for the average member of a group - that leads to false or unsubstantiated conclusions. Knowing nothing except that I am male, you know it to be more likely to be true that I'm a haemophiliac than if I were female, but the fact that the scenario doesn't differ whether I'm involved or not (I could be substituted for anything else in this scenario providing it were also male) shows up the fact that it isn't about me.

Like I've already stated in this response, it is fairly readily observable that absolute statements about type, whilst not in principle inconceivable, don't correspond to the reality of people not 100% fitting their predicted type attributes. Whether innovation can be measured wholly objectively is a different question entirely. Presupposing that it can be, innovation may correlate with a particular preference without being necessarily true for all who possess that preference - weakly or strongly correlated, who knows? - but, it being clear that MBTI is not a theory capable of describing absolute truths about type preferences, it makes no sense to dismiss a claimed type for a person on the basis of a particular trait not fitting as it is expected to.



ae1905 said:


> Put another way, if MBTI says you can be "staid and conventional" _and_ "innovative and revolutionary " at the same time, then what does "staid and conventional" even mean? If anyone can have _any_ trait then what is the point of typology? It's _ridiculous_ that Freud can type as ISTJ. People in the MBTI community should be _embarrassed_ by that result (if it really is a result).
> 
> Anyone interested can search for a thread I started a few weeks ago discussing the question, "what scientific evidence is there for MBTI?" I came out of that thread with the same opinion I went in with, that is, there isn't much evidence to support the theory. I tried to argue from the side of the theory here, but you can see the problem you run into when Freud is typed as an ISTJ.


I think you're creating a false dichotomy again. It is simply not the case that we must either accept that type defines a ridiculously limited set of attributes which all people of that type exhibit/possess, or that we must dismiss the theory in its entirety. The very notion of a "weak S-preference" or similar makes clear that "anyone [having] any trait" is possible, but that type can indicate which set of attributes a person favours. I'm not convinced that "sensing" simply means "possessing more of Set S attributes than Set N attributes", but that is at least a reading of the theory compatible with reality, unlike the reading that sees "sensing" as meaning "possesses all the Set S attributes and none of the Set N attributes". It is not that a person fits both "staid and conventional" and "innovative and revolutionary" simultaneously, but that a person can be both innovative/revolutionary and a hands-on learner, or staid/conventional and a theoretical learner - these seem fairly obviously feasible possibilities, but your reading of the theory denies this reality. In trying to make the theory more definitive in its conclusions, all you're doing is divorcing it from reality.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Well, that's what I was asking - what exactly does one mean when they refer to a sensor, or a judger, or any other type preference?* Clearly, we don't mean that every typical trait from a list of attributes inheres within that person - any quick observation of reality shows that 16 very narrow types, such as those that such an approach would produce, are not sufficient for describing the reality of the matter.* In such a case, then, it must be true that not every trait typical to a particular type preference is true for every member of that group. Of course there's nothing that in principle precludes the making of absolute statements within the theory, but given that it seeks to describe the reality of personality differences, it must pay attention to the reality of the situation and adjust accordingly. Nowhere in reality is the idea borne out that every sensor fulfils every "sensor trait", nor thinkers "thinker traits", nor any other preference and its supposed traits. It is not that MBTI theory is so totally wrong as to be meaningless; it makes no sense to have this discussion if we see the theory as so totally immutable that *merely finding one person who doesn't fit every predicted trait renders the whole theory bunkum*. To argue that "ISTJ" becomes meaningless merely because we can no longer state absolutes about the type is a false dichotomy.


The fact that MBTI only defines 16 distinct types means that no type description will completely describe each of its members; however, this doesn't mean all of the members can't or shouldn't possess all of the described traits. In fact, the existence of only 16 types means that the descriptions will necessarily be limited to the most _salient_ features of each type, so there's no reason every member should not exhibit every one of these limited attributes _if the theory is correct_. Also, such a theory would delineate the types in such a way that everyone falls clearly within a _single_ type rather than in two or more. So what you're describing as the failure of many people to be accurately described by MBTI _is_ a failure of the theory. It's not just one person (Freud) who is not adequately described. It is the _majority_ of people in each type who fall near the middle of the dimensional spectra. It is only the _minority_ who fall in the tails where the dichotomies are well defined and the descriptions apply unambiguously.



> "Males have a higher chance of being haemophilic" - factual statement, no dispute on that one.
> *"You, as a male, therefore had a higher chance of being haemophilic" - not a factual statement. The probabilistic assessment of the individual is about how likely it is that a member of the group will be haemophilic*; the probability doesn't inhere in me, it inheres in the theoretical construct of "the average male". Much like in the masked man fallacy, it is a lack of consideration of actual individual factors - not ones about what you can know about a person, or in this case about what you know to be true for the average member of a group - that leads to false or unsubstantiated conclusions. Knowing nothing except that I am male, you know it to be more likely to be true that I'm a haemophiliac than if I were female, but the fact that the scenario doesn't differ whether I'm involved or not (I could be substituted for anything else in this scenario providing it were also male) shows up the fact that it isn't about me.


Haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome. A man need only inherit the defective X chromosome from his mother to inherit the disease. A woman must inherit _two_ defective X chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father (who must be a haemophiliac), to inherit the disease. This is why haemophilia is more common in men. And why you as a member of the group of males have a higher probability of being born with haemophilia _than a female_. It's simple math. And because the statement is based on the distinction of _gender_, the pertinent comparison isn't "if you replaced you with another male, does the probability change?"; rather, the pertinent comparison is, "if you replaced you with a _woman_, does the probability change?" And the answer to the latter question is "yes, it does" because the property of being male _belongs to you_. So the statement, "you are a male, therefore you have higher chance of inheriting haemophilia than a woman" is true as it applies to _you_. Likewise, the statement "a person who is innovative is less likely to be a SJ" is also true for the innovative person vis a vis someone who is _not_ innovative, since the basis of comparison is innovativeness. 

The Masked Man fallacy would apply here only if it was known that you did or didn't have haemophilia since it would then be possible to rewrite "you have a higher chance of inheriting heamophilia" with "you, who don't have haemophilia, have a higher chance of inheriting haemophilia" which obviously doesn't make sense. But my statement refers to men about whom it is _not_ known if they have the disease, _hence the use of the probabilistic statement_. Likewise, until the innovator is tested his type is not established, so a _real_ probability exists that he may or may not come out as an SJ, and not just an uncertainty in someone's mind that can be readily replaced by a known fact about his type (an extensional statement).

So the probabilistic statement is used in my examples, not only because _I_ don't know it, but because _no-one_ knows it--ie, the facts are not established.



> Like I've already stated in this response, it is fairly readily observable that absolute statements about type, whilst not in principle inconceivable, don't correspond to the reality of people not 100% fitting their predicted type attributes. Whether innovation can be measured wholly objectively is a different question entirely. Presupposing that it can be, innovation may correlate with a particular preference without being necessarily true for all who possess that preference - weakly or strongly correlated, who knows? - but, *it being clear that MBTI is not a theory capable of describing absolute truths about type preferences, it makes no sense to dismiss a claimed type for a person on the basis of a particular trait not fitting as it is expected to*.


What you're saying is MBTI doesn't work, so if it doesn't work we shouldn't fault it for not working, and instead pretend it is working! I'm sorry, this isn't meant to be snarky, but it is the way I read that statement since I see the inability of MBTI to draw clear lines between types as a failure of the theory.



> I think you're creating a false dichotomy again. It is simply not the case that we must either accept that type defines a ridiculously limited set of attributes which all people of that type exhibit/possess, or that we must dismiss the theory in its entirety. The very notion of a "weak S-preference" or similar makes clear that "anyone [having] any trait" is possible, but that type can indicate which set of attributes a person favours. I'm not convinced that "sensing" simply means "possessing more of Set S attributes than Set N attributes", but that is at least a reading of the theory compatible with reality, unlike the reading that sees "sensing" as meaning "possesses all the Set S attributes and none of the Set N attributes". It is not that a person fits both "staid and conventional" and "innovative and revolutionary" simultaneously, but that a person can be both innovative/revolutionary and a hands-on learner, or staid/conventional and a theoretical learner - these seem fairly obviously feasible possibilities, but your reading of the theory denies this reality. In trying to make the theory more definitive in its conclusions, all you're doing is divorcing it from reality.


You open by questioning my assertion that something is wrong with MBTI, then you spend the rest of the paragraph admitting something is not right and speculating on what that may be!

MBTI defines 16 _distinct_ types into which everyone is supposed to fall. It does this by drawing a line down the middle of each dimensional spectrum and calling the people who score on one side N and the other side S, to take the N-S dimension as an example. So according to MBTI anyone who scores 49% on this scale is an N and will be one type while someone else who scores 51% is an S and will be another type, this despite the fact the two scores are nearly identical and, all else being equal, the two people have more in common with each other than with the members in their own types who lie farther out on the spectrum. The reason this problem arises is that the test does _not_ adequately distinguish between Ns and Ss _as defined by MBTI_. That's why people like you can be found on sites like this speculating about "weak Ss". This is either a failure of theory or of the test. But something is obviously wrong as anyone can tell by reading your passage above.

Freud is the most egregious example of this problem in the theory. He's the big red flag. But he's far from the only example since most people score closer to the middle on at least one dimension.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> The fact that MBTI only defines 16 distinct types means that no type description will completely describe each of its members; however, this doesn't mean all of the members can't or shouldn't possess all of the described traits. In fact, the existence of only 16 types means that the descriptions will necessarily be limited to the most _salient_ features of each type, so there's no reason every member should not exhibit every one of these limited attributes _if the theory is correct_. Also, such a theory would delineate the types in such a way that everyone falls clearly within a _single_ type rather than in two or more. So what you're describing as the failure of many people to be accurately described by MBTI _is_ a failure of the theory. It's not just one person (Freud) who is not adequately described. It is the _majority_ of people in each type who fall near the middle of the dimensional spectra. It is only the _minority_ who fall in the tails where the dichotomies are well defined and the descriptions apply unambiguously.
> 
> Haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome. A man need only inherit the defective X chromosome from his mother to inherit the disease. A woman must inherit _two_ defective X chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father (who must be a haemophiliac), to inherit the disease. This is why haemophilia is more common in men. And why you as a member of the group of males have a higher probability of being born with haemophilia _than a female_. It's simple math. And because the statement is based on the distinction of _gender_, the pertinent comparison isn't "if you replaced you with another male, does the probability change?"; rather, the pertinent comparison is, "if you replaced you with a _woman_, does the probability change?" And the answer to the latter question is "yes, it does" because the property of being male _belongs to you_. So the statement, "you are a male, therefore you have higher chance of inheriting haemophilia than a woman" is true as it applies to _you_. Likewise, the statement "a person who is innovative is less likely to be a SJ" is also true for the innovative person vis a vis someone who is _not_ innovative, since the basis of comparison is innovativeness.
> 
> ...


If, by "MBTI theory", you mean a rigid and static idea that, explicitly or by implication, asserts that "innovative" and "hands-on learner" are mutually exclusive traits, then yes, I am saying that MBTI theory is wrong, and I'd argue that anyone with a basic understanding of the people that surround them would have to conclude likewise. But I don't see that "MBTI theory" needs to be so rigidly defined for this discussion to be a valid one to have. It renders the theory weaker as a predictive tool of behaviour, given "SJ" under this understanding only means that a person typically possesses S and J attributes moreso than N and P attributes (and says nothing definitive about a person's degree of innovation), but if we seek to have an accurate theory - and if we don't, I don't see what the point of the theory is at all - then the notion of each type, or indeed each dimension, possessing a certain immutable set of traits, from which one deviation by one individual reduces the entire theory to debris, must be dispensed with, replaced by a theory - perhaps less predictive or useful - that more accurately describes reality.

You're largely right on the haemophilia/masked man point. I still disagree that the probability inheres in me, on the grounds that whether you know further facts about my chance of being haemophilic, other than my being male, is not a factor that can be said to change my status as either haemophilic or not haemophilic, but that's a semantic rather than substantial argument - in regards to what you can know based on the facts you've been presented with, I'll gladly concede this point. The problem with the assessment you made of Freud is not, as I asserted it was, that you made a claim of his innovativeness rendering him not an SJ - under the theory as you pose it, that's a valid conclusion. The problem with your assessment is that you made it within an understanding of MBTI theory that lacks any broad applicability to reality: made under a more accurate-to-reality understanding of MBTI theory, the assertion is, at the very least, too broadly made.

EDIT:


ae1905 said:


> What you're saying is MBTI doesn't work, so if it doesn't work we shouldn't fault it for not working, and instead pretend it is working! I'm sorry, this isn't meant to be snarky, but it is the way I read that statement since I see the inability of MBTI to draw clear lines between types as a failure of the theory.


The rest of my reply probably makes clear our differences on this point (about type delineation and what it means for the theory as a whole); the assumption in the part of my quote you bolded was that, the absolute version of MBTI theory being debunked, it would be replaced by a less predictive but more reality-accurate version of the theory, one in which dismissing a possible type on the basis of one trait not fitting as expected was not a reasonable move to make. Thanks for clarifying what was meant here, I essentially skimmed over it in my initial reply (pre-edit) because I couldn't see quite where your argument was coming from...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

> _the problem here is that some people don't like the description of sjs as un-innovative and want to latch on to freud as the exception that busts the rule. But which is more likely: That the whole theory is wrong about sjs and they really __are innovative like freud? Or freud is mistyped? I think the latter possibility is the more likely._






> Freud is the most egregious example of this problem in the theory. He's the big red flag. But he's far from the only example since most people score closer to the middle on at least one dimension.​




Here we go again. Let me ask you, are people who come up with junk science, "innovative"? Are these Ancient Aliens people, innovative? Any new, dumb idea that goes against common sense can be "innovative". Any ridiculous explanation. And don't say innovation has to have practical value. Because Freud's "innovation" doesn't have that either. 

You are acting like Freud's personality is a fact. That if people actually knew Freud, like you do, they would see he isn't an SJ. That isn't a fact. That is an interpretation. This whole thing is hermeneutics of the soul. You are only defending your interpretation, nothing more. And MBTI, cognitive functions, etc. are ALL interpretations. There are no facts. This is like two Christians arguing over scripture. Nobody is right. You are confusing MBTI theory, with your personal interpretations. MBTI theory says nothing about Freud, and him being typed as a sensor does not take away credibility from MBTI, it just doesn't fit with your personal interpretation. 

So, to distill: your entire argument rests on your personal interpretation of Freud, and other personal philosophies/prejudices.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm intrigued by how much a non-SJ wants to convince the rest of the world that SJs are this and that.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

Grainy said:


> I'm intrigued by how much a non-SJ wants to convince the rest of the world that SJs are this and that.


Meh, she was probably just trolling. INFPs and INFJs clash at times, but I've never known one to be so curt and vile as she was. I've always observed them to maintain decorum during opposition. Then again, she's just young. If I'm being honest, I was probably a little too self-important when I was 21 as well and I didn't know anything about MBTI at the time 

In any event, take it with a "Grainy" of salt :laughing: (Okay, bad pun, but I'm a sillypants sometimes.) SJs possess many admirable traits, the seemingly endless capacity for honor and integrity being one of them. Cheers.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

AlliG said:


> Meh, she was probably just trolling. INFPs and INFJs clash at times, but I've never known one to be so curt and vile as she was. I've always observed them to maintain decorum during opposition. Then again, she's just young.


This week, there have been three INFJ-typed individuals that I have noticed on PerC who have been over-the-top pushy and ugly. And they are such an exception that I couldn't help but notice their ugliness--and worse, their utter lack of self-perception. It's like they couldn't see how badly they were coming across--very un-INFJ-like. What's the shadow of INFJ, ESTP? Hm. they weren't acting that way either... In any case, they were so out of character that I was wondering what was up? One common point was that they all three resorted to personal insults and super-simplistic logic to make their points. It was surreal to have "conversations" with three in one weekend, though--and not all in one place. My daughter is an INFJ, and she's _never_ acted like this, nor has any other INFJ I've had interaction with on this site... But is this sort of behavior within the norm for INFJs? Is that how their inferior Se operates? It seems "off" to me somehow...


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Grainy said:


> I'm intrigued by how much a non-SJ wants to convince the rest of the world that SJs are this and that.


Lack of knowledge+understanding can go hand in hand with lack of self-awareness. If someone's not very intelligent, they don't really know the extent of their own unintelligence. I'm referring to the people who insist on making rude and unfounded generalizations, of course. It doesn't matter how bad someone's logic is if they're already wrong. Like you can't swim badly if you never even made it into the pool when you jumped off the diving board, ya feel?

You guys are swell. Personally I'm waiting for an ISTJ to sweep me off my feet. In her own ISTJ way. I know they don't really do sweeping off feet. But someone needs to get shit done around here and make sure the NJs don't drastically shift the direction of the world every ten minutes, and that the NPs make some sort of concrete contribution, and the SPs have some sort of focus and direction in their life. I say that jokingly. Maybe.



AlliG said:


> In any event, take it with a "Grainy" of salt :laughing: (Okay, bad pun, but I'm a sillypants sometimes.)


Even bad puns are good puns. I really dig this.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> This week, there have been three INFJ-typed individuals that I have noticed on PerC who have been over-the-top pushy and ugly. And they are such an exception that I couldn't help but notice their ugliness--and worse, their utter lack of self-perception. It's like they couldn't see how badly they were coming across--very un-INFJ-like. What's the shadow of INFJ, ESTP? Hm. they weren't acting that way either... In any case, they were so out of character that I was wondering what was up? One common point was that they all three resorted to personal insults and super-simplistic logic to make their points. It was surreal to have "conversations" with three in one weekend, though--and not all in one place. My daughter is an INFJ, and she's _never_ acted like this, nor has any other INFJ I've had interaction with on this site... But is this sort of behavior within the norm for INFJs? Is that how their inferior Se operates? It seems "off" to me somehow...


I definitely wouldn't say it's the norm. But, ya'know, Ne doesn't like to make assumptions because there's too many possibilities, and it's hard to call balls and strikes over the internet. Could be a mistype. Could be trolling. Could be immaturity. Could be a bad day. Could be venting. Could be misguided projection. Could be self-deflection. Could be just plain idiocy. Could be a twisted need for reassurance in the form of self-glorification. Could be an alien from another planet testing our fortitude and endurance while brushing up on their English skills (ya never know....). 

Could be one of those moments when someone just gets a squirrely itch up their butt and breaks character. Secret confession: Sometimes breaking character just.... satisfies some deeply-seeded belief that playing the villain now and then proves you have a spine.

But I'm going with the alien theory, personally :tongue:


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

AlliG said:


> In any event, take it with a "Grainy" of salt :laughing: (Okay, bad pun, but I'm a sillypants sometimes.) SJs possess many admirable traits, the seemingly endless capacity for honor and integrity being one of them. Cheers.


Haha! Silly puns are the best.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

I understand SJs perfectly. Unfortunately, most intuitives in particular do not understand SJs and like to pick on them. Read the comic Dilbert and see how he and Wally tease their ESTJ boss. It's fortunate SJs are solid and handle criticism well. Imagine if you were INFP and assumed everyone thinks you suck without them saying anything. haha


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

HarpFluffy said:


> I understand SJs perfectly. Unfortunately, most intuitives in particular do not understand SJs and like to pick on them. Read the comic Dilbert and see how he and Wally tease their ESTJ boss. It's fortunate SJs are solid and handle criticism well. Imagine if you were INFP and assumed everyone thinks you suck without them saying anything. haha


Why don't you come over here and say that!






Now go over there and say that!






Now go over THERE and say that!





Heh heh.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

AlliG said:


> Why don't you come over here and say that!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What? Are you taunting me? I knew an INFP would have something to say about my comment. haha For what it's worth, you don't suck...


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

HarpFluffy said:


> What? Are you taunting me? I knew an INFP would have something to say about my comment. haha For what it's worth, you don't suck...


I must defend me honor!

But.... Yeah, when Ne runs a muck without Fi supervision, very, very strange conclusions can be drawn sometimes. It's already a function that juggles many possibilities under the assumption they can all be true, but pure, unfettered, unadulterated Ne without a parent, there's no difference between the possible and impossible. I mean, like the kind of stuff people who wear tinfoil on their head dream up. I was once convinced (temporarily) that everyone could read my mind. Extroverted intuition without the harness of a judging function = paranoid delusional anxiety attack. We just have to learn how to recognize the signs


----------



## CorrosiveThoughts (Dec 2, 2013)

SJs aren't quantum theory, for me to have trouble understanding them. After all, the idea that individuals have different thought processes and motivations in life, is a simple, self-evident abstraction. If this is beyond your grasp, it begs the question, why do you identify as an intuitive? It seems obvious from some of the posts here, that members on the forum, through absurd self-deception, strengthened by the confirmation that the forum sentiment offers, have come to see sensors as something less than human, forgetting the fact that we're the same species. Any distinction here is purely the making of a personality theory, based on subjective traits and self-reporting.


----------



## grandpa2390 (Apr 19, 2011)

Bahburah said:


> No...
> 
> You see asking questions is quite the intellectual activity, and doing what your doing is what stifles intellectual creativity.
> In other words it's people with attitudes like yourself that are holding the world back.


It's not worth it bro. She doesn't understand. When you say "it depends on how you define intp" you are absolutely right. those of us who actually think about these things understand that definitions vary. Honestly, once a person says you're an idiot because you call into question a widely debated definition, that's when you should just throw your hands up and be like, this person is an idiot. especially if they are typists. One of the smartest guys I know is an SJ. 

oh and you're right. Even intps aren't that nit-picky about grammar. as long as what you typed can be understood by someone with reasonable intelligence (which it could), there is no reason to distract from the matter at hand. unless of course said person was not intelligent enough to understand writing unless it is a grammatical and syntactical masterpiece.


----------



## grandpa2390 (Apr 19, 2011)

eclipsethesun said:


> See that's the difference between us. I would never and have never discussed laundry detergent in the entire course of my 21 years living, and the fact that we are discussing it right now and that you had nearly a paragraph written on the subject, I find rather troubling.


I've talked about laundry detergent before, what does that make me?



Krisena said:


> You are delusional.


I agree. I have an SJ friend who is an engineer, very intelligent, and very ambitious.



eclipsethesun said:


> I cannot talk to an SJ for more than five minutes without falling into a coma. They speak of everything physical in the actual world even discussing a new sort of laundry detergent they're using.


lol, I have an ENFJ friend that I was talking about laundry detergent with. She decided she wanted to start making her own and was explaining the process of making it, the reasons why she likes to make her own, etc. Nothing wrong with talking about laundry detergent in and of itself.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Of course I understand SJs...


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Antipode said:


> Of course I understand SJs...


How did you get footage of me?!?!???? I thought this forum was anonymous!


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> How did you get footage of me?!?!???? I thought this forum was anonymous!


I found a picture of you floating on the internet, and I Google Reverse Imaged it... be afraid.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

HarpFluffy said:


> I understand SJs perfectly. Unfortunately, most intuitives in particular do not understand SJs and like to pick on them. Read the comic Dilbert and see how he and Wally tease their ESTJ boss. *It's fortunate SJs are solid and handle criticism well.* Imagine if you were INFP and assumed everyone thinks you suck without them saying anything. haha


Perhaps most SJs, but as an ISFJ, I have a habit of taking criticism personally. Maybe it's just me?


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Antipode said:


> I found a picture of you floating on the internet, and I Google Reverse Imaged it... be afraid.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I understand ESTJ and ISTJ to a fairly high degree having worked with them for years. I don't understand, or even want to understand ISFJs and ESFJs, although I can tolerate ISFJs more than ESFJs. ESFJ is just the overload of Fe with Si that makes me want to climb a bell-tower.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

I feel like SJs are much more confused by me than I by them.


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

People saying "I can't talk to SJs because they talk about trivial things" are just trying to justify their lack of social skills by claiming superiority over a larger group of people to justify their issues and feel okay with themselves. 

I'm an ENTP, and my ENFJ friend and I talk about trivial stupid things ALL the time. Granted, sure, we may talk about them in a more "N" way (not so focused on the physical properties, but the holistic action/idea), but the topics are trivial none-the-less. My ENFP friend and I are the same way - we're the worst gossipers ever. I mean, maybe it's a bit different from the Ss (we talk about potential tv shows we can create using gossip as the plot points), but in the end it's trivial and stupid, and no better or worse than the way SJs talk about shit.

Granted, yes, I find having "philosophical" conversations with SJs taxing, and their routineness can be annoying, but it's not like we're any better with our inability to properly put on clothes and our general lack of follow-through.

Also, I think it's worth considering that you (you meaning anyone who mindlessly hates on SJs, and granted, I've been guilty of it in the past (though I generally try and specify to individual SJs I know instead of generalizing)) could have just as easily been born an ESFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ, or ISFJ.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

I am troubled by people, regardless of type, who think that they understand another group of people, based on the pseudo - science of personality theory. I find people to be complex, interesting and not easily defined by any theory - especially one with sixteen boxes.

MBTI has a place in the discussion, but it is not the end all descriptor of something as complex as an individual. 

Anyone asserting that "<insert type here> are <insert trait here>, which is what defines them and is why my type is superior," have revealed much about themselves and their lack of understanding, concerning people.

MBTI and other personality theories are actually better suited to the understanding of self and improving our interactions with others through new found self awareness, than it is trying to pigeonhole others in some misguided attempt to create a false dichotomy, thereby stroking our vanity.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

An ESTJ-ESTJ conversation I had with a roommate a few years back:

Me: (sitting on the floor, her at a desk) Suppose I turned into a black hole.

Her: What?

Me: Wait, here me out. So I turn into a black hole tomorrow. But instead of sucking you and everything into a pit of darkness, I simply slow down time in our room. So basically, for every three days in our room, only one day passes outside.

Her: So you're a black hole in the room.

Me: Yes. And you have the option to continue living with me and take advantage of my time slowing powers. Think about it, you get three days for every one. That's extra time to learn a bunch of new things. Also, you technically get a room to yourself, since I'm a black hole now.

Her: Okay, so what's the question?

Me: Would you chose to keep living with a black hole for the time advantages? Even if it meant you couldn't move around?

Her: No.

Me: Really? Why not?

Her: I want to live in Burbank. There's less traffic to work.

Me: So you'd sacrifice the chance of a lifetime to save time on traffic.

Her: I don't like traffic.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Marlowe said:


> An ESTJ-ESTJ conversation I had with a roommate a few years back:
> 
> Me: (sitting on the floor, her at a desk) Suppose I turned into a black hole.
> 
> ...


Two things about your post, based on the discussion I've observed in this thread:

By using the incorrect homonym, possibly due to autocorrect, you've demonstrated a lack of intellectual ability and should not be taken seriously...

And, by having a philosophical discussion, you are an obviously mis-typed intuitive.



Of course, this is written in jest - I have a great deal of respect for you. I would never stoop so low as to call you an intuitive


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

niss said:


> I am troubled by people, regardless of type, who think that they understand another group of people, based on the pseudo - science of personality theory. I find people to be complex, interesting and not easily defined by any theory - especially one with sixteen boxes.
> 
> MBTI has a place in the discussion, but it is not the end all descriptor of something as complex as an individual.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for others, but I don't think that's what the question is about. For myself, I lived 48 years without knowing about MBTI. I have always looked at people as individuals. Yet, even then, I have noticed similarities between people, and there are certain people who are open books to me. My closest friend for 15+ years used to get spooked by how well I could read his mind and motives, and learned very quickly not to try to ever pull one over on me. He was very honest with me in a way that he never was with anybody else. I have always tried to be honest and up front with everybody regardless, so that was not an issue from my side--but he repeatedly said that I was a mystery to him, and that he could never truly understand me--even though I tried my hardest to be transparent and open with him--he could never truly understand my motives, etc. That was just how our relationship was. Oh, and he is very smart--no "official" education, but that means nothing. He was self-taught in many subjects, and most subjects interested him, and I say that because I never thought lowly of him. I respect him far more than I do most people. He is an awesome guy... but he has always been an open book to me. In fact, there were times when he would be away, and not write an email to update me, and I somehow, just knew _why_, so I'd write him, and mention this reason, and give my thoughts, and he'd reply, "How'd you know?" That's just how I was with him--but there were other people I knew. Most of these people are SJs. My friend is ISFJ... At the time, I knew _none_ of this stuff. I think, though, that I understand what makes most people tick, and how to understand them, get inside their mind, and dig out what is necessary--what I lack, on the other hand, is social skills. ;-) But anyway, it has nothing to do with me trying to guess what somebody is like by viewing them through any MBTI or typology lens. It has to do with the fact that I'm an observant student of human nature, and have been my entire life. I cannot help it if SJs tend, for me, to be easier than other types to suss out. It is what it is, and has nothing to do with any kind of theory of typology nor prejudice of any sort. In fact, I hate prejudice in any form, including and right now, especially typology prejudice. 

Like I said, I can't speak for others. This is just me, but I do write this, because I suspect that I am not alone in this thinking... So I write. Critique away...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> I don't doubt there are people claiming icons here, on _both_ sides, but I meant any_ legitimate_ analyses? And the highlighted statement is presumptuous since you have no basis for making that assertion. If you can show me _real_ evidence that Mohammed or Freud are SJs then I will accept it. I already conceded that there are SJ "rock stars", like Sarah Palin and Kim Kardashian.


What about Jung's analysis of Charles Darwin as an ESTJ (Te-S)? In fact, I may argue that most scientists are more likely STs than NTs, given how the scientific principle is all about validating that which can actually *be observed* as opposed to what it cannot be. 

Then from the top of my head, there are people such as Anold Schwarzenegger who is an ESTJ, Bill Maher as another plausible ESTJ, Jung himself would likely be more correctly typed as an ISTP based on his own self-observations (Ti-Ni), Napoleon represents the archetypal SEE (ESFP) in socionics and I may argue that a lot of military leaders and generals in general were very likely Se types, Brad Pitt also comes to mind as an SP and the list goes on.


----------



## MrCynix (May 31, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> What about Jung's analysis of Charles Darwin as an ESTJ (Te-S)? In fact, I may argue that most scientists are more likely STs than NTs, given how the scientific principle is all about validating that which can actually *be observed* as opposed to what it cannot be.


I am in favor of your theory, sir. I am speaking out of personal observation though, so I cannot back it up with hard facts, however, I do not think I have ever encountered an NT scientist. I have most certainly encountered ST ones. Bold statement? Sue me.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

Hmm I'm able to understand istj and estj (the friends I have) especially istj who aren't too high on the J- I get along really well with them

Now Esfj - I don't understand but I love  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> What about Jung's analysis of Charles Darwin as an ESTJ (Te-S)? In fact, I may argue that most scientists are more likely STs than NTs, given how the scientific principle is all about validating that which can actually *be observed* as opposed to what it cannot be.


Jung speculated on many things, most of which have not been scientifically verified, so why should I think his musings on Darwin are any different?

someone already mentioned Francis Bacon who said that science must be grounded in facts...that person thought Bacon was denouncing theory and putting facts in its place...he wasn't, Bacon was simply saying theory has to be _confirmed_ by facts, not that the facts would supplant theory...science _is_ theory building...a theory is a description of nature that explains a large number of disparate facts by a small number of concepts...it's these concepts (or theories) that are the ultimate goal of science...so science _is_ a theory-building activity, albeit one that has to remain grounded in scientifically observed facts



> Then from the top of my head, there are people such as Anold Schwarzenegger who is an ESTJ, Bill Maher as another plausible ESTJ, Jung himself would likely be more correctly typed as an ISTP based on his own self-observations (Ti-Ni), Napoleon represents the archetypal SEE (ESFP) in socionics and I may argue that a lot of military leaders and generals in general were very likely Se types, Brad Pitt also comes to mind as an SP and the list goes on.


my comment was confined to SJs since it is well-known many athletes and entertainers are SPs...that's why I specifically mentioned _rock stars_ as a class of people where you wouldn't expect to find SJs...and when some examples of SJ "rock stars" were cited, I conceded there may in fact be some SJ rock stars...so they probably exist, but here's the question to you: SJs make up the largest temperament in the population: why, then, are there so relatively few SJ rock stars, famous scientists, messiahs, etc?

the point of typology is to describe _differences_ in personality...if those differences have _no_ effect on our choice of work, something that occupies a huge part of our adult lives, then where exactly do these differences manifest themselves?...what is the point of typology if it predicts no observable differences in career choice and even success between temperaments?

every time someone points out an apparent deficiency in a type or temperament, the PC police come out and argue that it's wrong to discriminate based on type...but _discriminating_ on the basis of type is _exactly_ what MBTI and other typologies do!...so if you don't like the idea that people are different, then don't call _yourself_ different by claiming to be a type


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> I can't speak for others, but I don't think that's what the question is about. For myself, I lived 48 years without knowing about MBTI. I have always looked at people as individuals. Yet, even then, I have noticed similarities between people, and there are certain people who are open books to me. My closest friend for 15+ years used to get spooked by how well I could read his mind and motives, and learned very quickly not to try to ever pull one over on me. He was very honest with me in a way that he never was with anybody else. I have always tried to be honest and up front with everybody regardless, so that was not an issue from my side--but he repeatedly said that I was a mystery to him, and that he could never truly understand me--even though I tried my hardest to be transparent and open with him--he could never truly understand my motives, etc. That was just how our relationship was. Oh, and he is very smart--no "official" education, but that means nothing. He was self-taught in many subjects, and most subjects interested him, and I say that because I never thought lowly of him. I respect him far more than I do most people. He is an awesome guy... but he has always been an open book to me. In fact, there were times when he would be away, and not write an email to update me, and I somehow, just knew _why_, so I'd write him, and mention this reason, and give my thoughts, and he'd reply, "How'd you know?" That's just how I was with him--but there were other people I knew. Most of these people are SJs. My friend is ISFJ... At the time, I knew _none_ of this stuff. I think, though, that I understand what makes most people tick, and how to understand them, get inside their mind, and dig out what is necessary--what I lack, on the other hand, is social skills. ;-) But anyway, it has nothing to do with me trying to guess what somebody is like by viewing them through any MBTI or typology lens. It has to do with the fact that I'm an observant student of human nature, and have been my entire life. I cannot help it if SJs tend, for me, to be easier than other types to suss out. It is what it is, and has nothing to do with any kind of theory of typology nor prejudice of any sort. In fact, I hate prejudice in any form, including and right now, especially typology prejudice.
> 
> Like I said, I can't speak for others. This is just me, but I do write this, because I suspect that I am not alone in this thinking... So I write. Critique away...


So, is it the SJs that are easy to read, or are the ones you find easy to read thought of as SJs?

Cognitive functions, better described as how we process information, is just a part of what makes an individual who they are - probably somewhere in the area of 20-25%. To say we can accurately read someone based on so little is rather arrogant. Much more is at play than just the processing of information.

As other aspects of a person becomes familiar to us and we find shared values, experiences, culture, etc., then we become more likely to understand them and "read" them. People with whom we share little are more likely to be difficult for us to "read."

Honestly, I find it amusing when people claim to know people beyond what that person allows them to see. Knowing myself as I do, the face I present to the outside world is very different from my internal world. *I often play into the stereotype associated with being an ISTJ as a method of coping with the world at large, keeping internal world rather private*. So when I tell someone what I am thinking and feeling, it is true, but only insomuch as I choose to reveal to them at that time. Another person's subjective beliefs about me do not impact my subjective beliefs about anything; honestly, I like it that way.

I'm an SJ. Think you know me? Think again.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> someone already mentioned Francis Bacon who said that science must be grounded in facts...that person thought Bacon was denouncing theory and putting facts in its place...he wasn't, Bacon was simply saying theory has to be _confirmed_ by facts, not that the latter would supplant the former...science _is_ theory building...a theory is a description of nature that explains a large number of disparate facts by a small number of concepts...it's these concepts (or theories) that are the ultimate goal of science...so science _is_ an intuitive theory-building activity, albeit one that has to remain grounded in scientifically observed facts


Define intuition because I think your definition is removed from the original Jungian meaning.


> my comment was confined to SJs since it is well-known many athletes and entertainers are SPs...that's why I specifically mentioned _rock stars_ as a class of people where you wouldn't expect to find SJs...and when some examples of SJ "rock stars" were cited, I conceded there may in fact be some SJ rock stars...so they probably exist, but here's the question to you: SJs make up the largest temperament in the population: why, then, are there so relatively few SJ rock stars, famous scientists, messiahs, etc?


I honestly don't think SJs actually do compromise the majority of the population as the statistics conducted on type demography have always been poor in methodology. I think the types are much more evenly distributed than most people would be willing to admit, and when types are distributed they come in their socionics quadra groups with certain quadra values dominating others but beyond that, no, I do not think INFJs are less than 1% of the population or INTJ 2%. That's ridiculous. My personal observations of reality go against this. 



> the point of typology is to describe _differences_ in personality...if those differences have _no_ effect on our choice of work, something that occupies a huge part of our adult lives, then where exactly do these differences manifest themselves?...what is the point of typology if it predicts no observable differences in career choice and even success between temperaments?


1. I do not subscribe to the idea of temperaments
2. I do not think typology is about personality
3. I never suggested that type does not play a role in the occupations we may prefer



> every time someone points out an apparent deficiency in a type or temperament, the PC police come out and argue that it's wrong to discriminate based on type...but _discriminating_ on the basis of type is _exactly_ what MBTI and other typologies do!...so if you don't like the idea that people are different, then don't call _yourself_ different by claiming to be a type


Differences are just that, but that doesn't say anything about value in itself. No one is against type as a tool to suggest differences between people, but what people are reacting against is when people ascribe values based on those differences. It's not PC to suggest there are differences between sensors and intuitives - that's a fact supported by the theory. People will fully admit as much on this site and as do I. There is a great difference between how I conceptualize reality as opposed to my ESFP girlfriend and I should add that there is also a pretty darn obvious difference in where our skill sets lie. 

However, when you start creating a system of value by suggesting people are such and such and therefore better at such or such or should be doing such and such or think such and such based on the type you perceive them to be, then you have a problem that is clearly discriminatory. Then you are creating a hierarchial system of value and worth where some groups are clearly more valuable than others. It is no surprise that this hierarchy is very much in line with all other social systems we've seen in the past, trying to separate people based on their merits where the lowest or least valued group are the unskilled workers and the most valued the intellectuals. 

Your idea of type is no different than the Indian caste system or the Roman aristocracy of its time, and you clearly don't seem to understand why that _is_ a problem or why it offends the people who you are delineating as belonging to the lowest or least valued category. 

I would suggest to think about that instead of falling back on this position of yours that anyone who opposes the idea that SJs are such and such are just expressing a PC opinion.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> someone already mentioned Francis Bacon who said that science must be grounded in facts...that person thought Bacon was denouncing theory and putting facts in its place...he wasn't, Bacon was simply saying theory has to be _confirmed_ by facts, not that the latter would supplant the former...science _is_ theory building...a theory is a description of nature that explains a large number of disparate facts by a small number of concepts...it's these concepts (or theories) that are the ultimate goal of science...so science _is_ an intuitive theory-building activity, albeit one that has to remain grounded in scientifically observed facts
> 
> my comment was confined to SJs since it is well-known many athletes and entertainers are SPs...that's why I specifically mentioned _rock stars_ as a class of people where you wouldn't expect to find SJs...and when some examples of SJ "rock stars" were cited, I conceded there may in fact be some SJ rock stars...so they probably exist, but here's the question to you: SJs make up the largest temperament in the population: why, then, are there so relatively few SJ rock stars, famous scientists, messiahs, etc?
> 
> ...


You're over-extending the theory again, just as in the discussion we had a few pages back. I don't think anyone here is claiming that people aren't different; what you are seeking to do is to establish differences where there either aren't any or where the differences are tendencies of the group at large, and not necessarily of any individual within that group. Like I said before, the fact that preferences aren't 100% for any individual means that some part of their personality does _not_ match up to what you might "expect" from a member of that type. The fact that people more often tend towards the middle on preferences, rather than to the extremes, means most people will exhibit a significant number of traits supposedly "atypical" within their type. The mere existence of meaningful personality differences between people doesn't necessitate that the conclusions the theory reaches about any given function preference will be true for all who possess that preference.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> But it does not say anything about what people think of the character trait innovation. All it says about the person is how successful they are at innovating which is very different. Successful innovation is unrelated to the interest in being innovative. You can be a hobby artist as opposed to a professional one. Are you going to suggest people think that the character trait artistic/creative is not valued because a major bunk of the population that are artists are hobby artists and they make little to no money as artists? And before you discredit this argument just because it doesn't fit you fancy yes, this is a valid analogy to make because both deal with character traits that can be used for economic output.


How successful someone is at innovation is an indication of how useful his innovation is since no-one _pays_ for something that has no value to him. So success is a valid measure of the _*value*_ society places on innovation.

Edit: see post below responding further to this point.



> Yes, the offense is clearly real because someone feels offended. The feeling itself is real. Whether you held an intent to offend or not is a different matter. The offense however, is real.


You deliberately *misinterpreted* the word "real" in the same way you've been trying to _misinterpret_ my statements on SJs. "Real" here means "justified". This is _clearly implied_ since I asked you if you understood what "misinterpretation" means--ie, do you know that people can feel offended when they _misunderstand_, when they _misinterpret_ the message?

You're just playing games, INTJ. Or you're not very bright. Take your pick.



> Abstract concepts are not necessarily unique to the realm of intuition but can very well be situated within the realms of judgement (both thinking and feeling).


Who said "abstract concepts are unique to the realm of intuition"?! Show me where I wrote that the judging functions don't also manipulate abstract concepts? 

*This is yet another example of how you misinterpret my words. YOU are trying to read meanings where those meanings don't exist. YOU are creating strawmen against which you are spewing all this gibberish, and fucking wasting my time in the process*.



> You are advocating for the theory and has taken a positive stance towards it so of course I'll argue it through you. You have made little to no effort in disassociating yourself in the first place.


Somewhere near the top of this thread, I stated that MBTI is _not_ a scientific theory, and that I participate in this thread only because I accept the theory has some _operational utility_--ie, that is, it appears to describe some aspects of personality. But _yet again_, you ignore my words and argue instead to whatever your Ni tells you is my meaning, even when the words themselves contradict your intuitions.



> Yes, but does it mean you _must _take that at face value?


Did I not say testing needs to be done to _confirm_ the initial judgment? 

*INTJ, why don't you try reading and understanding my words for a change? It would make everyone's life so much easier.*



> Therefore the actual definition of an SJ is someone who prefers Si as a cognitive function, and from this vantage point it becomes quite meaningless to look at SJs because they are say, less innovative than NPs because a trait such as innovation does in itself not indicate for or against Si nor Ne.


Please show me a description of any of the SJ types as innovative? I can find plenty of descriptions of INTP, for example, that describe that type as "creators of new thoughts and theories", etc.



> See my paragraph in the above.


I would write "see all of my posts above", but if the first reading didn't help you then another one (or more) probably won't, either.



> Does not mean a theory should not be modified when new data occurs or that theory cannot be fallible in its ability to describe reality.


*So show me the evidence SJs are just as innovative as the other temperaments?*



> You do? Show me where I have applied Jungian theory incorrectly in my exchange with you and maybe I'll believe you.


Show me the evidence Jung's theories are scientific and I'll address your "applications". Until then, I regard them as pure speculation.



> And how are you going to test that? And no, if you think that's what Si is then you don't understand Si. That's actually not an accurate portrayal or Si. You focus too much on traits but traits do not a type make. You are creating stereotypes and caricatures.


The description of Si as a preference for comparing new information to old in order to make sense of it was made by an ISTJ who claims to be a long-time student of typologies, including MBTI. Do you think _you_ understand Si better than he does? Of course you do. You're a Ni-dom INTJ!



> How many times do I need to tell you? METHODOLOGY.


Are you serious, INTJ? Do you really think merely writing "METHODOLOGY", even in large-caps is an _explanation_? Tell me in detail what exactly is wrong with the methodologies of _each and every_ study you dismiss. Explain to me _why_ each is wrong. Simply saying "METHODOLOGY" is not an argument. Faith, yes. Rational argument, no.



> Do you want my list of credentials?


Sure, where did you graduate Kindergarten? Or did you?



> Why should I bother to show you evidence when you are so hell-bent on always proving the contrary?


There you go again, INTJ, ignoring the evidence. Did I not concede that there are SJ rock stars when that evidence was presented?



> I also pointed out that Charles Darwin is an ESTJ. How is the theory of evolution *NOT *innovative?


Just because you _claim_ he is an SJ doesn't _mean_ his is, INTJ. Can you see the difference? Most sites, in fact, disagree with you and type Darwin as an NT. Should I believe most sites? Or you? 



> Of course I do because I'm an INTJ. I prefer Ni over Te. Doesn't mean I'm not logical though. I am, unfortunately for you, which is why you felt the need to come up with this post.


Unfortunately for me, you start and _stop_ with Ni. But that just makes it easy for me to shoot you down. Now, *for the third time, INTJ: where is the evidence SJs are just as innovative as the other temperaments? You keep side-stepping this demand, hoping no-one will notice, but I notice you can't adduce the evidence to support your Ni blarney. Show us the evidence, INTJ: 

PUT UP OR SHUT UP*.



> If you absolutely want to know, but I'm an atheist. I don't believe in faith. The reason why I have that quote in my signature is entirely unrelated to any opinion or stance I have regarding faith and has a much more personal and symbolic meaning in my life. Do mind though, it has nothing to do with faith.


You have a lot of _faith_ in your Ni, faith that is not supported by your Te.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> But it does not say anything about what people think of the character trait innovation. All it says about the person is how successful they are at innovating which is very different. Successful innovation is unrelated to the interest in being innovative. You can be a hobby artist as opposed to a professional one. Are you going to suggest people think that the character trait artistic/creative is not valued because a major bunk of the population that are artists are hobby artists and they make little to no money as artists? And before you discredit this argument just because it doesn't fit you fancy yes, this is a valid analogy to make because both deal with character traits that can be used for economic output.


If you were to ask most people what they thought of _innovation_, they would think of innovations they are _familiar_ with, that is, cell phones, the internet, pharmaceutical drugs, and so on. But there is a problem that you failed to see. All of these innovations are the _successful_ ones. The vast majority of innovations are _unsuccessful_ and therefore _unknown_. So the question "what do you think of innovations?" is really the question "what do you think of _successful_ innovations?--ie, the question is _biased_, it isn't really asking about _innovation_, per se. So to ask the question properly, facts and statistics must be presented to each respondent so this bias is removed. So the problem as _you've_ posed it is flawed, like your conclusion.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

I've heard of self-described INFJs who believe they can see spirits and the like, and they usually attribute this ability to their dominant Ni. I strongly suspect INTJs have similar _visions_, probably not of the same supernatural sort, but nevertheless strange, but they don't talk of them because they have enough Te sense to realize how irrational they would appear. So I don't think INTJs are anywhere near as _rational_ as they are made out to be. In fact, some can be downright weird, at least to my rational eyes.

In fact, you can describe an INTJ as an ENTP, only turned inside out. The ENTP will spout a fount of possibilities but not spend enough Ti-me thinking them through to sort the good from the bad--and most will be bad. Likewise, the INTJ will intuit a bunch of insights, but won't spend enough Te-time thinking them through, and like the ENTP possibilities, many, if not most, of the INTJ insights will be wrong or flawed. *Yet both ENTP and INTJ will believe every one is a great idea or great insight!* 

So the ENTP is a bit of a nutcase on the _outside_; the INTJ is a bit of nutjob on the _inside_. But both are a little nuts.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> I've noticed that N-dom "rationals" have a tendency to put their intuitions ahead of logic when those intuitions are strong enough. This makes me think that INTJs and ENTPs are _incorrectly_ categorized as _rationals_ since they don't value reason above all else. Rather, they would be more accurately described as _intuitives_; and I'd lump INFJs and ENFPs in with them. _Rationals_ should comprise all the T-doms, namely, INTPs, ENTJs, ISTPs, and ESTJs. _Feelers_, then would be the F-doms, that is, ENFJs, ESFJs, INFPs, and ISFPs. Finally, _sensors_ would consist of the S-doms, viz, ESTPs, ESFPs, ISTJs, and ISFJs. This classification makes sense inasmuch as cognition is dominated by the leading function.



That is, indeed, one way of slicing and dicing the various groups. I don't think there is only one way of doing so. Keirsey's system works, Socionics has several different groupings as well, and various amongst MBTI, I believe, at least on this site, have also chopped and pigeon-holed the various types into different groups. It's all part of the fun, if you ask me.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> *
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP*.


I suspect I speak for a lot of people when I say this. I'd rather that you would follow your own advice. You are getting strident, and offensive, and quickly turning probably the vast majority of people against you--regardless of any "good" you may have had to say at the start. You have become quite boorish. I'd more rather that you stop than anybody else I've seen on this forum... and that's saying a lot. I never, ever say such things, but you have gone way over the top here. I only speak up, because I suspect that a whole bunch of people are wishing somebody would say it, so I'm saying it. You've had your say, let others have the floor now.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I suspect I speak for a lot of people when I say this. I'd rather that you would follow your own advice. You are getting strident, and offensive, and quickly turning probably the vast majority of people against you--regardless of any "good" you may have had to say at the start. You have become quite boorish. I'd more rather that you stop than anybody else I've seen on this forum... and that's saying a lot. I never, ever say such things, but you have gone way over the top here. I only speak up, because I suspect that a whole bunch of people are wishing somebody would say it, so I'm saying it. You've had your say, let others have the floor now.


INTJ has done nothing but repeatedly misinterpret what I've written, yet, rather than ask him to stop you would rather chide me. Yes, perhaps I have become exasperated with INTJ for repeating the same nonsense. Perhaps it is a weakness of mine that I quickly grow impatient with people who twist my words and make unfounded allegations. But there is a simple solution: read, comprehend, argue *logicallly*. Do you have a problem with this?

Please note that ferroboy has also ignored my repeated request to *produce evidence*.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You've had your say, let others have the floor now.


Ahem, in what way have I prevented anyone else from posting on this thread?!

This is just another example of the *nonsense* that comes from you and some others here.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> But there is a simple solution: read, comprehend, argue *logicallly*. Do you have a problem with this?


Nobody else has told somebody else to shut up, nor used the profanity you have used. Well, I gave you your chance. Goodbye...


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Nobody else has told somebody else to shut up, nor used the profanity you have used. Well, I gave you your chance. Goodbye...


No-one else has had his words consistently twisted or been accused time-and-again of writing things he didn't write.

And if you thought I gave a hoot about "your chance", let me take this opportunity to disabuse you of that quaint notion. I don't.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Abstract concepts are not necessarily unique to the realm of intuition but can very well be situated within the realms of judgement (both thinking and feeling).


If what you are saying is true and intuition imparts no special advantage in theory building, then ISTPs who are dominant Ti thinkers would be just as likely to be theoreticians as INTPs. Is that true? Why are ISTPs called "the Mechanics" then? The primary difference between these two types is the auxiliary functions: INTPs have Ne, ISTPs have Se. See what that single difference makes? *How do you explain this?*


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> So simply put....I don't have a problem with people saying that Ns understand SJs better than SJs understand them, and I'm not willing to write the idea off. But if we're going to explore it, I think it should be done in a way that doesn't create a sense of demeaning SJs.


Thank you for doing this thread, it's a good one.

NJs and SPs tend to understand themselves and other people better than SJs and NPs. Introvert intuition is powerful for seeing a person's reasoning, explaining and predicting their behavior. Extrovert sensing is excellent at picking up the subtle cues people give off and using those to understand their emotional state, desires and apprehensions. This is why NJs dominate the counseling professions and SPs dominate sales professions.

Hopefully, this will help un-derail your thread from all the flaming the last couple pages.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

HarpFluffy said:


> Thank you for doing this thread, it's a good one.
> 
> NJs and SPs tend to understand themselves and other people better than SJs and NPs. Introvert intuition is powerful for seeing a person's reasoning, explaining and predicting their behavior. Extrovert sensing is excellent at picking up the subtle cues people give off and using those to understand their emotional state, desires and apprehensions. This is why NJs dominate the counseling professions and SPs dominate sales professions.
> 
> Hopefully, this will help un-derail your thread from all the flaming the last couple pages.


I disagree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Hey, ted. Great way to start off an amazing thread. We love you SJs. All of us depend on you for our every day lives. You guys are the kids that make up the majority of Santa's Nice Children List. I think we all understand SJs because of how concretely they deal with their lives. It's quite true that they are rather relatively close-minded than any other type due to the fact that SJs rely on their experiences to reach a judgment. NPs and SPs, on the other hand, are wholly open to new experiences. They are born to seek and experience, explore possibilities, create products. On the other side of this spectrum lies those who are hesitant to do those things. They would rather stick with the familiarity because they are more comfortable with the known than the unknown. They like consistency, predictability, and security. That's applicable to every SJ. Their personalities are concrete, so it is easier to understand SJs than NJ, for example. NJ is the hardest realm of MBTI types to grasp. Ni is still largely misunderstood, threads about Ni constantly appear. Ni is a very abstract cognitive function. We'll never understand it fully.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

HarpFluffy said:


> Thank you for doing this thread, it's a good one.
> 
> NJs and SPs tend to understand themselves and other people better than SJs and NPs. Introvert intuition is powerful for seeing a person's reasoning, explaining and predicting their behavior. Extrovert sensing is excellent at picking up the subtle cues people give off and using those to understand their emotional state, desires and apprehensions. This is why NJs dominate the counseling professions and SPs dominate sales professions.
> 
> Hopefully, this will help un-derail your thread from all the flaming the last couple pages.


Unfortunately, this isn't actually true. If it were, I'd still be friends with an INFJ I grew up with.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I'd like to understand Si dom better, but socionics Si dom instead of mbti. If any socionics Si dom cares to let me pick their brain, hit me up. : P


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

HarpFluffy said:


> TIntrovert intuition is powerful for seeing a person's reasoning, explaining and predicting their behavior.


How does Ni do all these things, particularly "seeing reasoning"? Can you give an example of how each of these works?


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

@teddy564339

Please allow me to commend you on your grace, lest your detractors, in all their supposed complexity, miss out on the sheer profoundness of it.

In unraveling the failings of humanity, I always find that the writing on the wall speaks louder than the "text in the forums", for lack of a better phrase. A message which you neither deliberately expressed or implied, yet was still so finely intimated for anyone willing to hear.

My friend, of all the information exchanged throughout this thread, yours was the only one worth learning from.

Cheers 

EDIT: To the other N's still quibbling about Ni and complexity and all your little arguments that you continue to look at in a vacuum: Something big just happened. Right in front of you. And you missed it.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

I liked most of your post, @teddy564339, so I feel like commenting on a few things!



teddy564339 said:


> The first is that it may just be that everyone feels misunderstood. This thread was focused on the opinions of non-SJs, but it may be that SJs have a different opinion about how well they're understood and how well they understand others. *It may be that non-SJs think that they understand SJs more than they actually do.*


Yep. Reading this thread I get the feeling that a lot of the people who claim that they understand SJs don't actually understand me. They might be able to see a pattern that makes them able to predict more easily how the average SJ will react to things, but there is SO MUCH MORE to a person.




> The second possibility is that there could still be some mid-typing going on. It's possible that a non-SJ May type someone they understand well as an SJ and may not be as apt to type a more "complex" person as an SJ, leading to some misconceptions.


I kind of suspect this as well. Obviously not every non-SJ, but I definitely think some people do this.




> However, for the sake of the conversation, from here on let me assume the next possibility, which is that there is truth to the idea that *non-SJs understand SJs better than SJs understand them*. I know it's an assumption, so this is all conjecture....I know a lot of SJs would probably be irritated just by discussing this idea. But I want to look into it some just because it seems to be prevalent on PerC anyway.
> 
> 
> I'm still kind of curious why this would be true. Why would it be that an SJ would have such a barrier?


Now, I cannot agree with this. That is not to say that I claim to understand anyone unless they tell me specifically that they feel like I understand them. But saying that SJs are easier to understand than other types simplifies us a lot more than we deserve. A lot of the SJs I know, including me, also care a lot about trying to understand other people. We do not always succeed, but honestly, neither do other people I know.



> I want to try to find an answer that doesn't seem to demean SJs. I think that's the reason why it can be frustrating for an SJ to even consider this idea...because it seems like the answers are over-simplified in a way that makes SJs out to be lesser beings.


How about communication issues being the main problem, with both parts responsible?




> I've mentioned before that I've read in a few MBTI books that Dom Si users can sometimes have trouble understanding how others are different than they are. Some SJs think this is completely untrue and has no bearing. For me, I think there is at least some truth to it, if for no other reason than that it's been true for me. I don't view it as an overall negative judgment, just an area of difficulty that can be overcome.


This has some truth to it for me as well. It is something I am aware of and work with. I absolutely know that people are different from me, but I still sometimes struggle to understand why.

At the same time I sometimes get the impression that some people (N types?) might try to understand other types on the principle that they are fundamentally _different_ from them. And I'm not sure that's better, to be honest.




> The other main avenue to go down is the idea that N types in particular are difficult to understand anyway because of their complexity. This is the topic that was discussed in a lot of detail in this thread, and it's one that has been discussed in tons of detail in other threads....the whole "are sensors simple and intuitives complex" discussion. I'm not going into full detail on this because it's such a long topic and it's been talked about so much.


Like I said earlier in the thread, S types are also complex. I wonder what people even mean when they talk about complexity like it's something some types have more of than others. I do not for one second doubt that every single iNtuitive on this forum is extremely complex, but ALL people are complex. We all have experiences, values, interests, strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps some N users have trouble understanding the complexity of S users due to communication differences, and vice versa. Some people seem to have trouble understanding how something they can't understand can be complex, as we have seen previously in this thread, but that just goes to show that being narrow-minded never was limited to SJs. 



> And an N saying "there's nothing wrong with being simple" doesn't help at all and is very patronizing. Because all of the time being simple has negative connotations....it goes along with being boring, unoriginal, and incapable of understanding things that have more depth.


It is patronising AND it's also an untrue claim about SJs.



> I've had some detailed conversations about this in the past, and even though every situation is different...I think that SJs do have a form of depth that is just different than that of Ns. This doesn't mean they're always going to get along or be compatible, and that's fine....but I think sometimes it comes across as an N feeling like their own preferences are the ones that matter. I understand that plenty of SJs do the same exact thing IRL all of the time, and tons of Ns on PerC never do this. But sometimes I think these barriers can be influenced on both sides.


Yes, I agree. Many individuals from all types often need to open their minds. You don't have to understand everyone you meet, but it does not mean their values are less valuable than yours. Goes for S and N users alike.

(I will be working every single day the next week so might not be here much to answer.)


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@ae1905 - by setting up your argument on the premise that MBTI theory has so much it can definitively tell us about each type or type group, you've already divorced it from reality. When discussing the types people have or don't have, or what particular types can and can't do, I think it fairly implicit in the discussion that the theory is only to be used insofar as it actually pertains to reality: you needn't believe in the theory's scientific validity in order to be capable of adjusting it to fit that reality. I highly doubt there is a great deal of support for the theory as you've characterised it in this thread, precisely because the "operational utility" is diminished so greatly by your rigid adherence to the multitude of descriptors/labels that have become tethered to discussions of each type - why bother producing any evidence of an SJ who is highly innovative if the formulation of the theory you're working from isn't willing to permit it anyway? It's a fruitless discussion because there's no agreement between the parties on what necessarily constitutes, say, an SJ, which you'd think was fairly fundamental to such a discussion - you want to include things like "SJs are prone to following tried and true methods and are thus not highly innovative" as _definitionally true_ (why else would you have considered it alone a valid refutation of a given SJ typing?), whilst, for instance, I'd take them simply as ephemera, supposed observations about a type group that might be true but are not definitionally relevant to whether someone is an SJ or not. Until people are on the same page with regards to what's true and what isn't, how can the discussion really be meaningfully had?

In some vague semblance of contributing to the original topic, rather than this side discussion which has since developed:


teddy564339 said:


> The first is that it may just be that everyone feels misunderstood. This thread was focused on the opinions of non-SJs, but it may be that SJs have a different opinion about how well they're understood and how well they understand others. It may be that non-SJs think that they understand SJs more than they actually do.
> 
> The second possibility is that there could still be some mid-typing going on. It's possible that a non-SJ May type someone they understand well as an SJ and may not be as apt to type a more "complex" person as an SJ, leading to some misconceptions.


I'm apt to think these are both significant factors here. The former was always a possibility, simply because people are likely to know what they are able to cognise but not necessarily what others do - how well they think they know others is something a person will be more aware of, necessarily, than how well others know them. The latter is something I've seen so commonly around here - people deducing something to be true about a type, then using it as a tool for typing others, thus giving the appearance of greater "truth" to their initial suppositions - that I wouldn't be surprised if it also played a significant part in the understanding non-SJs have largely, in this thread, perceived themselves to have of SJs.

Discounting these two possibilities, if we suppose that SJs are better understood by non-SJs than vice versa, the best explanation I could think of would be the one in @ferroequinologist's post: a combination of SJs' preference for establishing how things work by experience and the relative lack of exposure SJs will have to less common types.

This point bears repeating as well, not because I have anything to add to it but because it can't be stated enough:


ferroequinologist said:


> So, the presumption of "complexity" is rather bunk. The only difference is the nature of the complexity, not the quantity of it.





Grainy said:


> Like I said earlier in the thread, S types are also complex. I wonder what people even mean when they talk about complexity like it's something some types have more of than others. I do not for one second doubt that every single iNtuitive on this forum is extremely complex, but ALL people are complex. We all have experiences, values, interests, strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps some N users have trouble understanding the complexity of S users due to communication differences, and vice versa. Some people seem to have trouble understanding how something they can't understand can be complex, as we have seen previously in this thread, but that just goes to show that being narrow-minded never was limited to SJs.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

@ferroequinologist


I think I agree with most of what you're saying. Some of it I hadn't thought about before, and some of it I've also posted about in a lot of past conversations I've had. I don't agree that these are simple answers, especially because there are so many details that come into play in different situations...but I don't have any problem with anything you said.





ferroequinologist said:


> As to why SJs may not "understand" how others can be different. Well, SJs are extroverted judgers. They apply their judging function to the external world. What this means in fact, and I've seen this in my SJ friends is that they don't really care what you think on the inside--think what you want--but they'd prefer if you at least conformed on the outside. But extroverted judging, by its nature, means that it doesn't judge internally, but externally. It doesn't delve deeper into things. And, BTW, this is true for all extroverted judgers, both SJs and NJs. As such, all extroverted judgers are "open books" to all introverted judgers. SJs are not unique to this.


This makes sense. I can't say for sure how much I agree with it, I'll have to think about it some more. It's funny, though, because here you're saying that P types have an easier time understanding J types, whereas a poster after you ( @HarpFluffy) said it was Ni/Se users (NJs and SPs) are the ones who understand Ne/Si users more easily (NPs and SJs). (though it sounds like a number of people disagree with him). 

I do agree with the idea that Je (or at least Fe...I can't comment as directly on Te) cares more about what people express on the outside rather than convincing them at the core. I know that for me I care more about people getting along and co-existing than I do all of them agreeing on deep principles, where it seems like Fi users feel very passionately about their beliefs and fight for them more. 



ferroequinologist said:


> The problem with extroverted judgers is that all their complexity is hidden--and may even be hidden from themselves--but it is certainly hidden from others, because Je is about clarity and conciseness--cutting to the chase, if you will. It's not that the complexity isn't there--your complexity is in your perceiving function, which is introverted, but because it's a perceiving function, it is, by its nature, irrational, and not easily tamed or described, so your complexity remains hidden from view, so to speak.


This is very interesting. What I like about it is that to me, it suggests the idea that someone may think they understand someone when they only understand part of them, making people seem simpler than they are. Going back to your earlier point, maybe a P type could recognize patterns they see in Js, and may be able to predict their behavior more easily (due to this "open book" idea you described earlier). So they may feel this means they understand them easily. But they may not understand how the introverted perceiving function feeds all of this information into the J type and truly understand the reasons why they operate the way they do.

I think this aspect of my Si is very deep and extremely personal. I think that's why I feel like when I'm told that SJs are easily understood, I feel like others' are completely writing off the center of my core that they have no idea about. I have so many images stored in my mind that make up my memory of everything in my life, and I feel like I'm the only one who has that full picture.

But I can understand how because this is so deeply hidden inside me and how it would take extremely long for me to share it (and in some ways it wouldn't even be possible), someone else may not have any idea how it affects me and think that they can still understand how I function because I can be very predictable. But I think that would lend itself to the idea that someone might think I'm easy to understand when I feel like I'm really not.


The funny thing is like you mention below, this can even happen between NJs and SJs. I have along conversation with an INFJ where it seemed like he felt like he understood ISFJs just fine but that they never (and maybe could never) understand him. A few ISFJs popped in that he wasn't really understanding the full picture of them, and they had trouble expressing why. It almost seemed like both sides felt like they understood the other but that the other side didn't understand them, and they could never make the other side see why they were misunderstood. It was kind of a crazy thing.



ferroequinologist said:


> In this, the only difference between SJs and NJs is that SJs tend to revel in the concrete side of things, while ignoring or losing sight of the patterns, while Ns revel in the patterns, while ignoring or losing sight of the concrete. Both of those are flawed or incomplete. Ni is not more "complex" than Si. It's just different. In fact, due to its focus on the patterns, it loses site of the basis of the patterns, and, as a consequence, has a poor memory of what actually happened, which frequently means that the Ni type will create their own "memories" to fill in the blanks--and frequently, those memories are rather fantastical, and when they express their "memories" and get called on the rug for their lack of veracity, they can quickly get offended. SP types suffer from the same problem, only to a different degree, and the quality is different, because for us, Ni is lower in the stack, so we have sensory information we can bring to bear to help, whereas Ni-types are more vulnerable in this area.
> 
> So, the presumption of "complexity" is rather bunk. The only difference is the nature of the complexity, not the quantity of it.


I really like your points here and how you describe them. If they're true then I think they help explain a lot. I fear that Ni types would dispute this. But I do think it helps explain how Si and Ni are very balanced.




ferroequinologist said:


> Another point that I think bears mentioning, and is probably the most significant, is the simple fact that SJ types make up the greatest plurality of people on this planet. This would necessarily mean that since they are in greater numbers, that they would understand each other more, simply due to exposure. So, those types that are least common receive the least exposure, and are the least familiar to others, and so, are harder to get to know, and since it seems that especially for SJ types, repeated exposure is essential to mastery, that they would be at a disadvantage at recognizing and understanding those least common types. That's simple enough.
> 
> Another point connected to this, and helping to understand the "irritation" among SJs at even considering the possibility of not understanding others--the fact that there are so many of them, and so few of some other types would lessen any desire to "search out" those least frequent just to understand them. Such thinking would be counter to their extroverted judging.
> 
> ...



Yeah, these are all of the points that I've heard before and even described myself in a number of posts in the past (except for the part about Ni users manufacturing their unique view of the world). I do think there is validity to them. 

In general, I do try to be as patient as I can be regarding this. I know that SJs are in the majority and I know that SJs can get into comfort zones. I've told many people in the past (particularly SJs who get tired of SJ bashing like I do) that most of the time other types are talking about SJs in their lives who know nothing about the MBTI and are less apt to be open to considering the "weird" viewpoints of the N types. I've described how an SJ might view the "SJ way" as the normal way because they're surrounded by it so much. 

I really do try to be as understanding about this as I can be. I just think that it's like you said...sometimes it spills over in a bad way onto this forum where people start making over-simplified statements and assumptions. They think of one SJ in their lives and start describing all SJs in this way. And I think that's why the "easy to understand" aspect of SJs can be frustrating to me...because it adds onto the idea that just because they see "SJ patterns" in some people they know that means they know things about me or other SJs on PerC that aren't true. 


I don't mind this happening to a degree, but sometimes it becomes too much for me. 






Finally, I will apologize a bit about my last post not really talking about SPs. Sometimes I get very focused on Ns vs. SJs without taking SPs into account as much because I feel like the interactions with SPs are so different. There seems to be an N/S divide on PerC a lot of times, but from the N side it seems like the conflicts pop up more with SJs and SPs kind of get ignored. So sometimes I would start talking about non-SJs, but only issues I've seen pop up with Ns will kind of make me deviate away from SPs.

So in that regard, I've seen the SJ/SP dynamic be pretty unique. I think it's really fascinating and I've had some great conversations about it in the past. But what I think is interesting is that I don't ever really seem to see SPs saying "I'm really complex and hard to understand." That seems to happen a lot more with Ns. It seems like SJs and SPs tend to get each other more but just disagree on what they value and how they live.


So that's why my last post focused more on Ns instead of SPs.


----------



## Schmosby (Jul 26, 2014)

Well my mom and my grandpa are both SJs (both ISTJ) aaaannddd no I don't understand them at all.

The way they go about things, it's too formulaic. I can't help but feel like they're being cold by doing such.

For example, my grandpa straight up hates to show love. It's not terrible to be shy about it, but he quite literally never shows it. I mean, even finding a unique way to show your love, that's fun, but no he doesn't really do that.


----------



## olias (Jul 19, 2014)

teddy564339 said:


> I've talked to a few different friends about the MBTI, and even though it was hard to pin down their types for sure, it seems like a variety of types can find the whole thing to be silly and limiting, while for others it's very helpful and fascinating.


You're looking at the wrong letters and thinking backwards. You can think of N as being idea people. You can think of S as being salt of the earth, get it done, focus on the moment now people. You can also think of S as meaning tradition and cultural norms, as well as meaning personal experience. J simply means a person has a preference for making decisions, for closure. P means the person has a preference for keeping an open mind and continuing to wait and watch and see what else might come next. 

An NJ would then be a person with a preference for coming to conclusions about things based on their ideas. An SJ is a person who has a preference for coming to conclusions based on their personal experience, as well as tradition and cultural norms. 

SJ doesn't like MBTI because their personal experience can't tell them anything about it, and because they've never heard of it before from a source of authority. NJ lurves MBTI because it's an abstract framework that allows them to put their observations into a context and start to make sense of them. NJ loves to start from the model and use it to understand reality. SJ focuses on reality and understands reality, and if it's not real to them then it's not valid.


----------



## olias (Jul 19, 2014)

Schmosby said:


> Well my mom and my grandpa are both SJs (both ISTJ) aaaannddd no I don't understand them at all.
> 
> The way they go about things, it's too formulaic. I can't help but feel like they're being cold by doing such.
> 
> For example, my grandpa straight up hates to show love. It's not terrible to be shy about it, but he quite literally never shows it. I mean, even finding a unique way to show your love, that's fun, but no he doesn't really do that.


Think of ISTJ as the most traditional, conservative of the types. They decide if something is true, or right, or appropriate, or trust worthy, based on social rules, cultural norms, the things they were taught when they were growing up or at church. They also make decisions based on their personal experiences and memories. 

So, for your grandpa, I'm guessing he's a certain age and raised at a certain time in the past when it was not ok for men to show affection. He will not break what he learned about how men should act, no matter what. You will not convince him with arguments, or facts, or anything else. You will need to learn how to recognize how HE shows he loves you, not wait for him to show you the way YOU want. 

He's not being stubborn. It's not because he doesn't care about your feelings. He can't do anything different. I'm not joking. 

The best you can do is show him by experience what you'd like. Keep telling him in an informative but non-pressuring way how you'd like him to show you affection. Keep an eye out for when he finally does it. Then, show him that it meant a lot for you IN THE WAY HE LIKES, not how you like. 

That's about the best you can do. He is who he is, and you're gonna have to accept him or not accept him on his own terms.


----------



## crumbs (Dec 17, 2013)

olias said:


> Think of ISTJ as the most traditional, conservative of the types. They decide if something is true, or right, or appropriate, or trust worthy, based on social rules, cultural norms, the things they were taught when they were growing up or at church. They also make decisions based on their personal experiences and memories.
> 
> So, for your grandpa, I'm guessing he's a certain age and raised at a certain time in the past when it was not ok for men to show affection. He will not break what he learned about how men should act, no matter what. You will not convince him with arguments, or facts, or anything else. You will need to learn how to recognize how HE shows he loves you, not wait for him to show you the way YOU want.
> 
> ...


^ This. All of this. Compromising a bit is key. My best friend is an ISFJ, and before I really got to know her, I used to think she was cold and unfeeling. That is probably the last description I'd want to use about her now because 1) she's definitely not, and 2) if anyone said that about her, she'd feel confused, hurt, and guilty. She's not trying to be that way - that's just her being 100% herself. To some people, she may look "cold" because she isn't expressive emotionally in the way that's stereotypically expected of teenage girls, but it doesn't mean she's unfeeling. She can seem inflexible to me sometimes, but I know for sure that I am chaotic to her as well. I've compromised a bit, and when she saw the effort, she compromised, too. Specifically in an NP/SJ relationship, once Ne figures out what the "norm" is and Si internalizes how the other person works (it can take a whiiiillle sometimes, but it's worth it), they can get along pretty well. So now she thinks it's funny that I don't know which street to turn on to get to my own house, I think it's funny that she knows the exact location of streets she's never even driven on. We've just accepted that we're two incredibly different people and value our friendship because of that, not despite it.


----------



## olias (Jul 19, 2014)

crumbs said:


> So now she thinks it's funny that I don't know which street to turn on to get to my own house, I think it's funny that she knows the exact location of streets she's never even driven on. We've just accepted that we're two incredibly different people and value our friendship because of that, not despite it.


This is, to me, the greatest gift of Jung to humanity - a tool to help us see what we're each *trying* to do, rather than focusing on what the person is actually doing. When you see what a person means, and respect them for their intentions, it opens up so many new ways to understand how they tell us about themselves. 

It also helps us to see that there are other ways of doing things that are just as valid as the way we do it, if not better. A thorough understanding of MBTI *ought* to make us a lot more humble and tolerant of differences, if not downright appreciative!


----------



## Schmosby (Jul 26, 2014)

olias said:


> Think of ISTJ as the most traditional, conservative of the types. They decide if something is true, or right, or appropriate, or trust worthy, based on social rules, cultural norms, the things they were taught when they were growing up or at church. They also make decisions based on their personal experiences and memories.
> 
> So, for your grandpa, I'm guessing he's a certain age and raised at a certain time in the past when it was not ok for men to show affection. He will not break what he learned about how men should act, no matter what. You will not convince him with arguments, or facts, or anything else. You will need to learn how to recognize how HE shows he loves you, not wait for him to show you the way YOU want.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. I'm trying to thing of ways he shows affection, I think he does it through silence. Usually he's pretty talkative, he'll always be telling stories when he's at the bar and around friends, but when he's with the family he's very quiet, content I would call it. He likes to simply enjoy our company and I think that's enough a sign of love as any.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Would it make sense to you if I said a little bit of both? I've been with an SJ for 18 years (married for 15) and there are times when I read her like a book, and there are times when she confounds me even to this day. I like the mix.


I actually think this makes the most sense, because everyone is complex. There are a lot of things you can see and understand about a person, but there's probably a lot that only they will ever truly know...which goes back to some other things that were talked about in this thread.



olias said:


> You're looking at the wrong letters and thinking backwards. You can think of N as being idea people. You can think of S as being salt of the earth, get it done, focus on the moment now people. You can also think of S as meaning tradition and cultural norms, as well as meaning personal experience. J simply means a person has a preference for making decisions, for closure. P means the person has a preference for keeping an open mind and continuing to wait and watch and see what else might come next.
> 
> An NJ would then be a person with a preference for coming to conclusions about things based on their ideas. An SJ is a person who has a preference for coming to conclusions based on their personal experience, as well as tradition and cultural norms.
> 
> SJ doesn't like MBTI because their personal experience can't tell them anything about it, and because they've never heard of it before from a source of authority. NJ lurves MBTI because it's an abstract framework that allows them to put their observations into a context and start to make sense of them. NJ loves to start from the model and use it to understand reality. SJ focuses on reality and understands reality, and if it's not real to them then it's not valid.




First off, let me reiterate that this is what I thought back when I first came to PerC, not what I've come to think now. Over the last four years I've definitely seen the differences between how many more N types seem to be much more open to the idea of the MBTI rather than the SJ types. While there might be a number of reasons for this, I think the main one does line up with what you're talking about here with NJ types...the idea that SJs tend to need more concrete proof of something before accepting it while N types like kicking around different abstract ideas and imagining the possibilities of them.


But I still stand by my point that people of all types can accept the MBTI and people of all types can reject it, so it's nothing definite.

I also think that what you said about P types is true in the aspect that they'll be more open to considering the MBTI...but I also think it could possibly make them less likely to accept it fully, since it takes a certain amount of commitment.

Which brings me to SJs. What you said here is true in the aspect that an SJ tends to accept something that is real to them or matches up with their experiences, and that might make them reject it. However, with someone like me...once I looked into the MBTI, I found that it matched up heavily with who I was as a person, and it made me very interested in it...it made a lot of sense to me. So when that happens, an SJ can definitely believe in the idea of it...and like with so many other things, an SJ can become very committed to it, perhaps even moreso than other temperaments. 

So it's very dependent upon the past experiences of the SJ, like with just about anything else. Maybe SJs like me are more of the exception in terms of the ideas matching up with my experiences...but I find it really interesting to see that difference come into play.



crumbs said:


> ^ This. All of this. Compromising a bit is key. My best friend is an ISFJ, and before I really got to know her, I used to think she was cold and unfeeling. That is probably the last description I'd want to use about her now because 1) she's definitely not, and 2) if anyone said that about her, she'd feel confused, hurt, and guilty. She's not trying to be that way - that's just her being 100% herself. To some people, she may look "cold" because she isn't expressive emotionally in the way that's stereotypically expected of teenage girls, but it doesn't mean she's unfeeling. She can seem inflexible to me sometimes, but I know for sure that I am chaotic to her as well. I've compromised a bit, and when she saw the effort, she compromised, too. Specifically in an NP/SJ relationship, once Ne figures out what the "norm" is and Si internalizes how the other person works (it can take a whiiiillle sometimes, but it's worth it), they can get along pretty well. So now she thinks it's funny that I don't know which street to turn on to get to my own house, I think it's funny that she knows the exact location of streets she's never even driven on. We've just accepted that we're two incredibly different people and value our friendship because of that, not despite it.


That is very fitting for me. I'm very similar. Sometimes people have mistaken me as an ISTJ because I can be pretty quiet and not very open about expressing my emotions. But once I feel safe and secure with someone, I'll lighten up a lot...and when I do this, people tend to find me quirky, funny, friendly, nice and likeable. Not everyone, of course...some people might find me to be too weird or nerdy or awkward, which is why I'm not always open to everyone. 

But you're exactly right that compromising among different types is very key.



olias said:


> This is, to me, the greatest gift of Jung to humanity - a tool to help us see what we're each *trying* to do, rather than focusing on what the person is actually doing. When you see what a person means, and respect them for their intentions, it opens up so many new ways to understand how they tell us about themselves.
> 
> It also helps us to see that there are other ways of doing things that are just as valid as the way we do it, if not better. A thorough understanding of MBTI *ought* to make us a lot more humble and tolerant of differences, if not downright appreciative!


Yep, I totally agree with you there.



Schmosby said:


> That's interesting. I'm trying to thing of ways he shows affection, I think he does it through silence. Usually he's pretty talkative, he'll always be telling stories when he's at the bar and around friends, but when he's with the family he's very quiet, content I would call it. He likes to simply enjoy our company and I think that's enough a sign of love as any.


If you haven't already, you might be interested in looking into the 5 Love Languages Theory. It's hard to say how valid it is, and I only have looked into it a little...but it makes general sense to me, even though it's pretty vague.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

eclipsethesun said:


> To be honest, typology does not make me feel superior. I don't care about that sort of thing and have no need to feel " special" as you seem to.


That sounds like a load of bullshit. I mean all I had to do was look at your profile and I figured out everything I needed to know. You have a picture of yourself as your avatar and as your profile picture, so obviously you values your looks to the point that you desire to share them with everyone else, but of course you're NOT trying to feel special pfft. Secondly, INFJ type 8 don't make me laugh. There are so many INFJ and type 8 wannabees on this site, why the hell should you be any different. You probably read how INFJ was 1% of the population and the rarest type and firmly decided that was what you wanted to be, or what you were which is of course not accurate. As for choosing type 8 most likely the same thing. I'm pretty sure you're not a type 8, I'm pretty sure you're just making these "I'm superior" judgments because you want to try and validate to everyone else on here that you are a type 8 when in reality you are most likely a type 3.



eclipsethesun said:


> I'm just letting all of those in denial know, sensors are plain and simple, intuitives are complex and intricate. Who says simple is bad? Who's saying any of these traits are bad or good? Personally I have the belief that there is no such thing as "bad" only observations. If you disagree, lend an example of the many intuitive conversations you've had with an SJ. ( the very idea is preposterous, and the reason can be found in the term, the very meaning of the word)



This is all pandering bullshit. Even here you are still pushing your "I'm superior because I'm an intuitive" spiel. Just admit it at then end of the day your end goal is this: If I'm an intuitive then I'm great, but if I'm a sensor than I suck.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> That sounds like a load of bullshit. I mean all I had to do was look at your profile and I figured out everything I needed to know. You have a picture of yourself as your avatar and as your profile picture, so obviously you values your looks to the point that you desire to share them with everyone else, but of course you're NOT trying to feel special pfft. Secondly, INFJ type 8 don't make me laugh. There are so many INFJ and type 8 wannabees on this site, why the hell should you be any different. You probably read how INFJ was 1% of the population and the rarest type and firmly decided that was what you wanted to be, or what you were which is of course not accurate. As for choosing type 8 most likely the same thing. I'm pretty sure you're not a type 8, I'm pretty sure you're just making these "I'm superior" judgments because you want to try and validate to everyone else on here that you are a type 8 when in reality you are most likely a type 3.
> 
> 
> This is all pandering bullshit. Even here you are still pushing your "I'm superior because I'm an intuitive" spiel. Just admit it at then end of the day your end goal is this: If I'm an intuitive then I'm great, but if I'm a sensor than I suck. [/COLOR]


Somebody woke up on the *grumpy* side of the bed today...:crazy:


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

I feel like I understand SJ's,but I think it needs to be said that a person isn't lacking in intelligence just because they're an SJ. Sj's are smart and honestly they are pretty complex when your really think about it. They perceive the whole entire world that SPs see based on reflections of themselves. What I mean is they see the world from the details they've gathered in reflection kind of like how Ni sees the world from the patterns they've gathered in reflections. So basically SJs use their past experiences and collected information to trot down the path to the present and the future. SPs do this too but they don't consciously consider all the details from a personal point like the SJ's do. They consider the details as they are with less of an emphasis on how the details affected them internally and more on how the details affect them externally this is why the SP's are known for having honed senses and natural kinesthetic abilities. Alas I would say SJ's are definitely one of the most interesting types in my opinion because they can hold all the information they've gathered from their lifespan (granted they don't have dementia) and pretty much embody that point in history that of which the particular SJ lived in. This is why in my opinion SJ's (and to some extent NPs) make the best story tellers. Especially if the story is based on a real experience. And with so many SJ's being in existence there are so many stories about the past to learn and share. 

I feel like I got off topic. I love SJ's and yes I understand them.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Somebody woke up on the *grumpy* side of the bed today...:crazy:


I know just wandered in the thread and my bigotry sense went off.


----------



## krimzon (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm an SJ, so what I say for SJs is true. SJs are simply not innovative. Once an SJ graduates into a scientist, he actually transforms into an ENTP

and all you sjs who think you're all innovative, and deep with your intellectual thoughts and shit.. you ain't an SJ! Fix your type in your profile promptly and get on the right side fools


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

krimzon said:


> I'm an SJ, so what I say for SJs is true. SJs are simply not innovative. Once an SJ graduates into a scientist, he actually transforms into an ENTP
> 
> and all you sjs who think you're all innovative, and deep with your intellectual thoughts and shit.. you ain't an SJ! Fix your type in your profile promptly and get on the right side fools


You heard it here today folks. The spokesperson for all SJs. Self-directed typism is not a thing, so this statement must be true. Anyone capable of innovation is actually an NT in disguise. MBTI is perfect for telling people what they are capable of and limiting certain traits to people only with certain letter combinations. We have all now seen the light. SPs btw are incapable of being organized. If you're organized you must definitely be a J. This is what MBTI is about.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

krimzon said:


> I'm an SJ, so what I say for SJs is true. SJs are simply not innovative. Once an SJ graduates into a scientist, he actually transforms into an ENTP
> 
> and all you sjs who think you're all innovative, and deep with your intellectual thoughts and shit.. you ain't an SJ! Fix your type in your profile promptly and get on the right side fools



You sir, are clearly no SJ, because it's impossible for SJs to have any shred of a sense of humor.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

I'll say it depends on the type of SJs.
ISFJ..
I can, but I prefer to stay a bit further from them. They are too emotional and sensitive for me.
ESTJ...
Maybe. However, I can't see myself growing too close to one since they seemed controlling in general. (Not all, but still.) I will try to be nice, but I'll run the moment they attempt any form of control.
ISTJ...
I like those guys. They have the funniest way of picking someone apart, and they seemed more easy going than ESTJs. However, I can't handle those with high Js. I met an ISTJ guy with a really strong J and he irritates me in a sense that he is hardly open to new ideas, and want pure, absolute stability.
ESFJ...
They seemed nice. They are kind, but their emotional moments unnerved me. They can be sad and emotional, but sometimes, they are just a tad bit /too/ sensitive about things. I feel like I must constantly be on my toes and watch all my actions. However, I did meet ESFJs that are pretty easygoing, nice and funny. (Thought their jokes get too common, sorry)

Conclusion:
It depends on the individual that I am interacting with. Even with the same MBTI, two people can still act and think rather differently.


----------



## olias (Jul 19, 2014)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> I feel like I understand SJ's,but I think it needs to be said that a person isn't lacking in intelligence just because they're an SJ.


Yes, YES! SJ's are not less intelligent or capable, and intelligence is not the domain of any one type. Intelligence is an underlying capacity expressed in a number of ways. Too many people mix up the talents of abstraction and generalizing the NJ has with intelligence. I think this is because we associate academic performance with intelligence, academics require strong abstraction ability, and NJ's therefore have a natural advantage in academic environments. 

Let me tell you, my gf is STRONGLY SJ. She can't abstract for shit. But she remembers damn near everything, and she applies her knowledge and personal experience to make quick, accurate decisions. I have learned she is not one to be trifled with. She doesn't spend all day talking out loud and theorizing, but she is just as able to process information as I am. Her spacial and navigation ability is frankly amazing. All signs of high intelligence with a focus on concrete, present tense contexts.


----------



## olias (Jul 19, 2014)

teddy564339 said:


> If you haven't already, you might be interested in looking into the 5 Love Languages Theory. It's hard to say how valid it is, and I only have looked into it a little...but it makes general sense to me, even though it's pretty vague.


Agreed. It's an easy read and quite helpful as a model to understand how someone might show affection in a way we can't appreciate. It's not, say, backed up by double blind studies (like you said), but if you accept it for what it is and don't get dogmatic about it, it's pretty useful.


----------



## unblossom (Jul 24, 2014)

I have an ISFJ mother and although we constantly come into conflict, I understand her more than my ESFP father. Being an INFP I am ditzy and dreamy sometimes but I mostly hide behind a serious exterior, whilst my father just comes across as an idiot to me. I can rarely get along with any extroverted type.


----------



## lazydaisy (Jun 20, 2013)

My dad is an ESFJ and he drives me crazy. I'm a very sarcastic person and I joke around about basically everything but he takes everything far too personal and is way too sensitive about it. He's not very understanding either. He doesn't get why I have trouble talking to people and always belittles me and makes fun of me. He doesn't understand why I cannot sleep at night, why I'm a messy person, etc. It's a difficult relationship.

One of my good friends - who is also my roommate - is an ISFJ and it's hard to deal with her sometimes as well. She's very emotional and bossy and needy and never pays attention to anyone's feelings besides her own. She treats people the way she wants to and throws a temper tantrum if things don't go her way.


Example: She, my other roommate who's also an INFP, and I were all in the car and we were in a hurry to make it to a restaurant to get dinner before it closed and she forgot her phone so we had to go back to our dorms so she could get it. She asked if anyone wanted to go with her but we didn't want to because for 1) it'd be much faster if she just did it her self and for 2) then we'd have to find parking (which is nearly impossible), find our IDs to get into the building, go up 5 flights of stairs and then help her look - which we do nearly everyday and we just get tired of it. She stormed off into the building and after nearly 20 minutes of us waiting on her, my friend decided to go see what was taking her so long. When she went into her room, she was just sitting on her bed on her computer and made a snarky comment about how we didn't help her so we would have to wait for her. It was childish, made me waste gas, and the restaurant closed before we could get there. 
Very infuriating.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

lazydaisy said:


> My dad is an ESFJ and he drives me crazy. I'm a very sarcastic person and I joke around about basically everything but he takes everything far too personal and is way too sensitive about it. He's not very understanding either. He doesn't get why I have trouble talking to people and always belittles me and makes fun of me. He doesn't understand why I cannot sleep at night, why I'm a messy person, etc. It's a difficult relationship.
> 
> One of my good friends - who is also my roommate - is an ISFJ and it's hard to deal with her sometimes as well. She's very emotional and bossy and needy and never pays attention to anyone's feelings besides her own. She treats people the way she wants to and throws a temper tantrum if things don't go her way.
> 
> ...


Hardly sounds like ISFJ behaviour at all, are you sure about her type? I've never met an ISFJ who was that inconsiderate of people's feelings, and rarely heard of ISFJs who threw "temper tantrums" without a very good reason. If anything, it has nothing to do with her being ISFJ and everything to do with her being really immature or having issues of some sort. I hope you've confronted her about this behaviour.


----------



## lazydaisy (Jun 20, 2013)

@Grainy, she's just really immature. I've confronted her, but she gets very offended and will just start insulting you. Honestly, when she's not like that, her behavior is much like an ISFJ - or an ISxJ. I was just focusing more on the negative aspects.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

lazydaisy said:


> @_Grainy_, she's just really immature. I've confronted her, but she gets very offended and will just start insulting you. Honestly, when she's not like that, her behavior is much like an ISFJ - or an ISxJ. I was just focusing more on the negative aspects.


Yeah, that sounds right to me. The behavior you described is inexcusable IMO, no matter the type. I can picture an immature ISFJ doing that.


I got the vibe that she was kind of spoiled from your description of your behavior. But if that's not her usual behavior and it's just something that comes out sometimes, then I would imagine there would be some reason that this would be a weak spot for her. Sometimes ISFJs have a tendency to be insecure and start feeling like no one likes them, and it sounds like this is kind of a weird manifestation of that. 


It is kind of weird, but I can see it in an unhealthy ISFJ.


It's funny, though, because kind of like Grainy said...for me at least, one of my bigger problems tends to be the opposite. I tend to be too agreeable and tend to please others too much.


----------



## lazydaisy (Jun 20, 2013)

@teddy564339, yes she's really spoiled so I'm sure that explains a lot. After doing a lot of research on unhealthy ISFJs, she seems to fit the descriptions perfectly. To be fair, when I first met her, she was very friendly and upbeat and smiley. When I was sick she would take care of me, when I ran out of money she would pay for me (both of her parents still send her a large amount of money every month), but when we became very close I guess she stopped trying to be nice and she's just been very emotional and intense to the point where if it weren't for my other two roommates (an INFP and an ENFJ), I would probably move out.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

lazydaisy said:


> @_teddy564339_, yes she's really spoiled so I'm sure that explains a lot. After doing a lot of research on unhealthy ISFJs, she seems to fit the descriptions perfectly. To be fair, when I first met her, she was very friendly and upbeat and smiley. When I was sick she would take care of me, when I ran out of money she would pay for me (both of her parents still send her a large amount of money every month), but when we became very close I guess she stopped trying to be nice and she's just been very emotional and intense to the point where if it weren't for my other two roommates (an INFP and an ENFJ), I would probably move out.


I hate to say this, but if she feels like she's doing all the giving, and giving, and you are just taking, this would also result in the behavior you are experiencing. I would highly recommend trying to talk to her and ask her if she feels like this. The key is, of course, to do it in a non-threatening manner--be open to criticism as well. But you might find out some surprising things about your relationship. It seems to me to be worth it, rather than just live in misery. The worst thing is that there would be no improvement in your relationship.


----------



## lazydaisy (Jun 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I hate to say this, but if she feels like she's doing all the giving, and giving, and you are just taking, this would also result in the behavior you are experiencing. I would highly recommend trying to talk to her and ask her if she feels like this. The key is, of course, to do it in a non-threatening manner--be open to criticism as well. But you might find out some surprising things about your relationship. It seems to me to be worth it, rather than just live in misery. The worst thing is that there would be no improvement in your relationship.


This could make sense - though I find it very unlikely because as an INFP I am constantly catering to her needs and trying to make the relationship work, and I'm always doing things so I don't have to experience her outbursts, but maybe she doesn't see what I do for her. (Once she was mad at me for weeks because she took Adderall recreationally and was bouncing off the walls and I wouldn't stay up with her all night because I was very sick with an 102 degree fever.) I am open to any suggestions on how to confront her and speak to her about this. I am horrible with confrontations and the mere thought of it is already making me uneasy.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

lazydaisy said:


> This could make sense - though I find it very unlikely because as an INFP I am constantly catering to her needs and trying to make the relationship work, and I'm always doing things so I don't have to experience her outbursts, but maybe she doesn't see what I do for her. (Once she was mad at me for weeks because she took Adderall recreationally and was bouncing off the walls and I wouldn't stay up with her all night because I was very sick with an 102 degree fever.) I am open to any suggestions on how to confront her and speak to her about this. I am horrible with confrontations and the mere thought of it is already making me uneasy.


I suppose I should have mentioned, I have an ISFJ friend, and I have the same "problem" as you. The things I do tend to be missed by him. Fe types tend to view things upside down from us Fi types, and I suspect that their Si tends to "interfere" with how they perceive our actions. We Fi types like to "hide" our deeds, but they want/need us to be open about them--which, if you are like me, is well-nigh impossible. Also, Si-Fe types also seem to have a need for affirmation of their feelings in a way that makes us feel awkward. I hate to say it, but we tend to leave them lacking in that department, and I just don't have a solution for that... esp. because, for me, that kind of behavior feels very manipulative, and whether I like it or not, I just can't bring myself to respond in ways that they like... But in any case, it can't hurt to try talking.


----------



## Forget (Jun 26, 2012)

Yes, I think that I do understand them (the ones I know IRL) at least on some level.


----------



## Lunaena (Nov 16, 2013)

I have never been the type of child who hates her parents.

Yet I have had trouble feeling understood by my mother, an ISFJ. My father is an xNTJ who claims I am exactly like him. I think it is our Fi connecting. He says he understands me the most in the world - and I feel like he understands me when I tell him my true thoughts.

I think my mother has often felt misunderstood by me. We are so different in mentality, and we have different ways of showing love. After understanding her functions, Si Fe, I have gotten closer to her because I can understand her way of thinking (if I follow the stereotypical Si Fe, of course) and I understand how she will feel if I do this and that. If I do things she thinks is weird (painting disgusting paintings and writing disgusting poetry, claiming it is my inner emotional life), she will not feel... welcomed, or happy in my presence. I have stopped exposing my creative outlets to her.

I feel like I really have to avoid hurting her because I have hurt her in the past, and she does not show it. I can tell she is still wounded inside by it, but she won't tell me. I know she has felt a lot of guilt. 

Being an SJ does not say anything about your intelligence or how you ACTUALLY are as a person, soul and living being. I could simply say I do not believe in MBTI, that all humans are different, but my mother does use Si Fe mostly. She often feels frustrated when no one wants to help her in the kitchen, no one offers to walk the dog daily, and no one tells her she looks good in that new dress. She loves curtains, dresses and beautiful things in the house and she always needs our point of view when she shows us these things. I always try to smile and tell her it is beautiful, or she is beautiful.


----------



## Sharpnel (Aug 3, 2014)

I border ISFJ/INTP/INTJ but I feel more like ISFJ, honestly. I can definitely relate to:


> I do think this idea does make sense, because I've read in a few MBTI books that Si is a function that makes it difficult for Si users to understand how other people are different than they are. It strives for consistency and order, and it can be difficult for an SJ to see or believe that other people are naturally different and have different needs. This often leads to an SJ believing they can and should change a non-SJ to be more like themselves.


Whether or not due to my OCPD, I do feel like I'm walking a tight-rope most of the time, and I have high expectations on everyone I ever meet. I understand people who don't understand the reason behind the things that I do, mainly because I don't understand them in return. If that makes any sense. They get frustrated. See me as some kind of wall, even though I listen to them more than I listen to myself.

If I had to try to describe my SJ side, well, it is kind of difficult seeing as I barely understand myself at all. I know I do things based on this "moral code" latched inside my subconscious with which I basically compare everyone to. I also make decisions based on what I feel would be the next best thing for certain individuals, minimizing the collateral damage. SJs, I guess would be predictable for people who understand how the mechanism works. But I've been told it is also unpredictable and erratic to the eyes of the spectator. Logical, since we are the ones who have our thoughts to ourselves.  Talking about introverts, of course. <.<

Has any other ISFJ been called a _manipulator_? I have been told I sound manipulative. That kind of hurt.

Apologies for derailing. Sometimes I just can't help myself. This topic seems interesting and insightful and many thoughts spring to my mind. :tongue:

Anyhow, from reading this thread, I can tell there are misunderstandings from every side. Understandable, we are all different.


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

I think I do, for the most part, understand SJs. Both of my parents are SJs (ESFJ and ISTJ) and most of my extended family are also SJs (a lot of XSFJs). Granted, this annoyed the hell out of me growing up - my heavy Ne confused my father (ISTJ) to no end (he doesn't understand why you'd take a job that pays less but you enjoy more, because "you work for the security of money.") 

I rebelled enough that they know that I'm not SJ-esque, and as much as they pushed me to be the "perfect SJ kid" they realize I'm not. 

SJs are given a lot of shit, but they aren't awful people, they just value security and, yes, can be kind of mind-numbing for heavy N users. All in all they are nice to have around because they can help sort your life out. It only becomes and issue when they are uber outspoken about "this is how it should be period," but that only really seems present in unhealthy SJs.

Generally speaking I can get along great with healthy ISTJs, ISFJs, and ESFJs. ESTJs on the other hand kind of consistently annoy me. I find them nice because they are pretty thick-skinned, but I find they express their opinions with zero tact and are incredibly obnoxious and closed-minded - even the healthy ones


----------

