mbti types and cognitive functions and general intelligence

[Anarchist420]

NTPs are the smartest because they're the most creative overall and they're the most eloquent due to the precision of Ti combined with the creativity of Ne.
The world wasnt created by deductive reason, it was created by inductive reason.

Next up would have to be NFPs.

Then a tie between NTJs and STPs. Then NFJs and SFPs. SJs are not only at the bottom they are nowhere close to NFJs and SFPs. SJs cant observe or understand reality.

Functions that are masters for intelligence are Ne, Ti, Se, and Fi (in that order). Ne dominance or auxiliary means that you see all the possibilities and so they always get one right. Those with dominant or aux Ni are often wrong because they make premature judgement. Ni would be the slave function between those two.

Ti is independent thinking which I dont have... auxiliary or dominant Ti never embarasses themself and never hurts themself by accident when it comes to making choices.

When taking an iq test, photographic memory is equal to retention because the iq test has questions that you havent studied for. however, Si is the slave to Se because Si retains information (but not more than Se does and that's because Si organizes) while Se observes naturally.

Fi is independent feeling as it understands everyone's feelings. Fe does not. Fe sacrifices and SFJ women like to be dormats, while NFJs cant make up their mind about whose dormat they wish to be.

anyway, what do you agree with in this post and why? what do you disagree with in this post and why?

 

[mmntech]

Who shot who in the what now?

 

[brianmanahan]

my advice is to stop thinking about this crap and do something more productive

 

[olds]

OP, you ever get outside?

 

[IronWing]

MBTI is quackery. Like astrology or ouija boards, there is no need to fret or dwell on it.

 

[mundane]

MBTI is quackery. Like astrology or ouija boards, there is no need to fret or dwell on it.

<gasp> - next you'll claim that phrenology is bunk! Of course you'd say that; you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!

 

[Anarchist420]

OP, you ever get outside?

I am an unwelcome person so i try not to go places. thank you for your polite reply

my advice is to stop thinking about this crap and do something more productive

You should know that I cant be net productive. I lack the ability to reason. I am not rational. I would become even more like a mr. hanky if i was out in the sun. my mom's gas tank will get hit and i hope it kills us right away while no one else is harmed but i think physicians will make money off of me for "care" that i do not want and i worry that the cops, doj, or fbi will give the pretty lady who hits us a myocardial infarction.

 

[phucheneh]

MBTI is quackery. Like astrology or ouija boards, there is no need to fret or dwell on it.

No, it really isn't. It's quackery from the standpoint of applying it to 'career tests' and some of the silly shit people use it for, I'd say. Although still some validity...if we were able to say things like 'no, you dumbshit, you don't have the thought processes to be an engineer, go find a different job'...holy hell would the world be a much better place. Lots of people in jobs that they do not have the cognitive abilities to execute.

Anyway...as a tool for understanding the inborn traits that make people alike/different...it's pretty enlightening. And pretty goddamn spot-on.

I'm not sure what the OP is really trying to get at. He's right about intelligence and NTP's, but it's probably tied with NTJ's and to some extent, NFP's- but their emotionality can cloud things.

Anyone with an 'S' is a dumbass.

 

[IronWing]

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is. If the separation of trait categories is based on an arbitrary line drawn through a single normal distribution curve reflecting a single underlying population as opposed to drawing from two distinct underlying populations (bimodal distribution), it's bunk.

 

[Anarchist420]

No, it really isn't. It's quackery from the standpoint of applying it to 'career tests' and some of the silly shit people use it for, I'd say. Although still some validity...if we were able to say things like 'no, you dumbshit, you don't have the thought processes to be an engineer, go find a different job'...holy hell would the world be a much better place. Lots of people in jobs that they do not have the cognitive abilities to execute. Anyway...as a tool for understanding the inborn traits that make people alike/different...it's pretty enlightening. And pretty goddamn spot-on. I'm not sure what the OP is really trying to get at. He's right about intelligence and NTP's, but it's probably tied with NTJ's and to some extent, NFP's- but their emotionality can cloud things. Anyone with an 'S' is a dumbass.

Thank you for not being rude. I agree with about 90% of what I have quoted in this post but only SJs are dumbasses. SPs immediately experience things exactly as they look, sound, smell, taste, and feel all at the same time, so they are smart.

I hate being a guardian, as guardians are the village idiots. You are obviously a rational.

Yes, it really is. If the separation of trait categories is based on an arbitrary line drawn through a single normal distribution curve reflecting a single underlying population as opposed to drawing from two distinct underlying populations (bimodal distribution), it's bunk.

MBTI alone doesnt tell everything, but Myers, Briggs, and Keirsey made understanding people a lot easier. it has connections to genetics and anthropology and anything else a genius can want. example would be all apes are sensing judging types.

not trying to sound like a dick, but do you think the statistical rule you cite is a universal law of nature?

 

[Anubis]

INTP so im good

thanks for reassuring me of that

 

[pete6032]

delete

 

[Thebobo]

Interesting but I had to look up what this was all about and it took me a bit, am I stupid?

 

[Anarchist420]

Interesting but I had to look up what this was all about and it took me a bit, am I stupid?

No

 

[MongGrel]

I used to be married to a Psychotherapist with a Masters years ago, and I have no fucking idea what all that was.

Must be some new bullshit.

I'd vote complete drivel though.

As much as I'm not a Scientology fan, I half agree with them on a few things.

Some go to idiotic extremes in both directions.

NM I guess it is an anthropogly thing.

All related a bit I guess.

 

[Anarchist420]

INTP so im good thanks for reassuring me of that

if you are thanking me, then thank you for thanking an idiot like me.

i like ntjs, but they arent as smart as and are meaner than ntps. ntps are smart enough to get the best out of every clash with every TJ myself included. i used to kick the asses of at least 2 ntjs that were older than me when i was in my 2nd decade of life. but i like them now. they are better people than me.

 

[MongGrel]

if you are thanking me, then thank you for thanking an idiot like me.

i like ntjs, but they arent as smart as and are meaner than ntps. ntps are smart enough to get the best out of every clash with every TJ myself included. i used to kick the asses of at least 2 ntjs that were older than me when i was in my 2nd decade of life. but i like them now. they are better people than me.

You'd probably get you're butt kicked just for referring to real people that way in person

 

[phucheneh]

I used to be married to a Psychotherapist with a Masters years ago, and I have no fucking idea what all that was.

Must be some new bullshit.

You must be one old fuck if Myers-Briggs, which was formulated somewhere in the realm of the 1940-1960's, based upon the work of Carl Jung from the ~1920's, is 'some new bullshit.'

Yes, it really is. If the separation of trait categories is based on an arbitrary line drawn through a single normal distribution curve reflecting a single underlying population as opposed to drawing from two distinct underlying populations (bimodal distribution), it's bunk.

Ah, a statistician. You must be a hoot at parties.

Without knowing it, you have completely illustrated the point. Of course you won't see bimodal distribution. It would be silly to expect such. It's all shades of grey. The key in having something like be effective is knowing where to draw the line and what the importance of said line is.

People have tried to do more complex personality typing. And it fails. What you see as a dumb, simplistic assessment is actually completely the opposite. Making the groupings more detailed would not make them more valid; less, actually.

 

[MongGrel]

I wasn't the Psychotherapist.

Most of the things she thought were rational I guess I didn't.

Hence is a former wife I guess.

 

[phucheneh]

Anyone ever tell you that you take the 'the' out of 'psychotherapist?'

:wub:

 

[MongGrel]

Not even worth the time anymore.

 

[TecHNooB]

is it bad that I enjoy acting stupid on a regular basis? it's quite cathartic.

 

[IronWing]

Without knowing it, you have completely illustrated the point. Of course you won't see bimodal distribution. It would be silly to expect such. It's all shades of grey. The key in having something like be effective is knowing where to draw the line and what the importance of said line is.

The lack of a bimodal distribution demonstrates that the method has no power to differentiate personality traits. The method is either asking the wrong questions or is weighting the responses inappropriately to answer the question asked. It is like trying to determine the difference between a tree and a rock by asking favorite color and finding that all the responses center around silence.

 

[mmntech]

MBTI is quackery. Like astrology or ouija boards, there is no need to fret or dwell on it.

The scary thing is it seems to be a new HR trend. We had to to an MBTI test last year at work. I was told no wasn't an option. Supposed to give your manager a better grasp on "how you work". I did the test but refused to attend the group session with the "expert". Some days I wish my studios locked from the inside. I scored INTJ by the way. ^_^

 

[darkswordsman17]

You must be one old fuck if Myers-Briggs, which was formulated somewhere in the realm of the 1940-1960's, based upon the work of Carl Jung from the ~1920's, is 'some new bullshit.'



Ah, a statistician. You must be a hoot at parties.

Without knowing it, you have completely illustrated the point. Of course you won't see bimodal distribution. It would be silly to expect such. It's all shades of grey. The key in having something like be effective is knowing where to draw the line and what the importance of said line is.

People have tried to do more complex personality typing. And it fails. What you see as a dumb, simplistic assessment is actually completely the opposite. Making the groupings more detailed would not make them more valid; less, actually.

It's "new" in that its becoming really fucking prevalent and being used by people that don't understand fucking anything about this stuff (or most things in general), but they've been sold that it's a "scientific" way of labeling people even though that's total bullshit. But, like a ton of "psychology" from back then, we're finding out how completely fucking atrociously stupidly bad it really is, but despite that it's gaining popularity which is just fucking things up.

Ah yes, because this thread was a party...seriously what the fuck kind of response is that?

That's kinda his point, their lines are wrong and thus they're not even on the greyscale. Add in the misuse by people that don't understand the point you're trying to make (about psychological factors being a spectrum and needing a comprehensive look versus singling out a specific aspect), and it's a recipe for complete horseshit.