Intellectually curious SJ's

[ajblaise]

What separates the intellectually curious SJ's from the non-intellectually curious SJ's?

SJ's, on average, seem to be one of the least intellectually curious of the types, but some break this stereotype.

Do you think extroversion vs. introversion has to do with it? Maturity? Intelligence? Upbringing?

[Jack Flak]

It's a good thing for you there aren't many SJs on the board. Did I mention LOL? LOL.

[Bella]

I don't know but I hope you're going to give your opinion.

[ajblaise]

It's a good thing for you there aren't many SJs on the board.

psshhh...

[Cimarron]

Upbringing was an interesting thing to mention. It might have heavy weight in this case, since if an SJ is raised to value curiosity and intellectual pursuits, and if SJ's feel best when they uphold their values, then they would try hard to be curious and grow up to be "intellectual". Does that sound plausible?

[ajblaise]

I don't know but I hope you're going to give your opinion.

I think an SJ will have to have some conditions favorable to intellectualism, more so than the other types, for them to be of the intellectually curious breed. Like introversion, IQ, an upbringing where free thought was encouraged, and/or intellectual parents who could answer all of their "why" questions.

And also, since SJ's are goal oriented, if they happen to have a goal of understanding the world, finding themselves, attaining wisdom..etc. this will of course help.

[ajblaise]

Upbringing was an interesting thing to mention. It might have heavy weight in this case, since if an SJ is raised to value curiosity and intellectual pursuits, and if SJ's feel best when they uphold their values, then they would try hard to be curious and grow up to be "intellectual". Does that sound plausible?

Very.

[Bella]

I think an SJ will have to have some conditions favorable to intellectualism, more so than the other types, for them to be of the intellectually curious breed. Like introversion, IQ, an upbringing where free thought was encouraged, and/or intellectual parents who could answer all of their "why" questions.

And also, since SJ's are goal oriented, if they happen to have a goal of understanding the world, finding themselves, attaining wisdom..etc. this will of course help.

And if you're T...not so?

[ajblaise]

And if you're T...not so?

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that one.

[Cimarron]

And then how would those pursuits be different for an SJ than they would for a more naturally intellectual type? Assuming the SJ does not continue these intellectual pursuits for the sole (or main) reason of obligation, and develops a true liking for them (is that possible, deep-down?)...would the only difference be in how they found the path that led them to that enjoyment?

You started out with the question, and now we're all asking you questions...:D Pardon us.

[ajblaise]

And then how would those pursuits be different for an SJ than they would for a more naturally intellectual type? Assuming the SJ does not continue these intellectual pursuits for the sole (or main) reason of obligation, and develops a true liking for them (is that possible, deep-down?)...would the only difference be in how they found the path that led them to that enjoyment?

You started out with the question, and now we're all asking you questions...:D Pardon us.

They might go about and think about intellectual pursuits in a more deliberate, practical, and clear way, rather than welcoming fuzzy abstractions.

And since they are more group orientated, they might enjoy having others come along with them for the ride rather than go about it in a strictly solitary way... such as joining forums like this or joining book groups.

[Cimarron]

Okay, I see how it's meshing together. Your general idea might work.

[Bella]

They might go about and think about intellectual pursuits in a more deliberate, practical, and clear way, rather than welcoming fuzzy abstractions.

And since they are more group orientated, they might enjoy having others come along with them for the ride rather than go about it in a strictly solitary way... such as joining forums like this or joining book groups.

Yes, I don't think intellectualism (is that a word?) is such a "pursuit" for us. It's something I enjoy here (and only when I know what the heck someone is talking about) but I don't go to bed with all of this. Not like er..Bluewing and the like.

[ajblaise]

Not like er..Bluewing and the like.

Yeah, there's a 98% chance Bluewing isn't even human. Some kind of android.

[Bella]

Geez, that boy never comes out for a little light hearted somethin' somethin'.
Ah well, whatever blows your hair back, huh.

[MEC]

What separates the intellectually curious SJ's from the non-intellectually curious SJ's?

SJ's, on average, seem to be one of the least intellectually curious of the types, but some break this stereotype.

Do you think extroversion vs. introversion has to do with it? Maturity? Intelligence? Upbringing?
Well Iam introverted, mature and according to my IQ test intelligent SJ.:reading: I am intellectually curious about things that interest me, I think that's what makes the difference.

[substitute]

My ISTJ is very intellectually curious. He's often fascinated by things he encounters and wants to know more about them.

The difference seems to be that when his interest is triggered, he makes a mental note to research/look it up when he has time. Whilst I'll just tend to think about it myself right there and then and want to discuss it and theorize about it and then only later maybe look it up and see if my theory was right. He doesn't join me in this, I'll propose a thought in connection with this thing that's just captured both of our curiosities, and rather than consider it and talk about it with me, he'll just sorta say "Well, that might be a point, we'll have to look it up later". It's like nothing is a point to him until a published authority corroborates it lol

[Recoleta]

Yes, I don't think intellectualism (is that a word?) is such a "pursuit" for us. It's something I enjoy here (and only when I know what the heck someone is talking about) but I don't go to bed with all of this. Not like er..Bluewing and the like.

This is well-said, and I completely agree. I pursue things that interest me, or things that make me curious. If I have no interest whatsoever in something, the chances of me bothering to explore it are slim-to-none. Perhaps ISTJ's come off as "intellectuals" because we can be so painstakingly thorough. Once something has our interest we put lots of effort into researching and practicing whatever it is, which in turn makes us seem incredibly competent about our areas of interest.


The difference seems to be that when his interest is triggered, he makes a mental note to research/look it up when he has time.

Lol...I do this too. I have a long list of things I want to know more about, do, and books I want to read. I think for me, the reason I like doing research first is that I like to read different perspectives than my own, see what others have to say (to see if they match or go against what I think), and then draw my conclusions. Before doing research I might have my own ideas and theories, but I know I bring my own experiences, biases, and notions into the mix, so I think it's nice to see how other people approach the same thing.

[substitute]

yeah I think the same thing Recoleta, that's why I instantly want to talk about my own theories with other people :laugh:

I just figure y'know, published stuff is only the result of other people knowing stuff and writing about it, but lots of people know lots of stuff that they haven't written about or published, so I don't get why your fellow human being, whom you know to be intelligent and to have knowledge in many areas, isn't just as viable a source of information as the library. Then you can always check up later if you missed anything or got anything wrong that way :)

I guess it's the thing where we don't trust our inferior functions or don't think they're any use... in his case he won't trust his intuitive connections made from his own knowledge in order to talk about things without physical evidence (which he regards books to be, never mind how regularly they're debunked, disagreed with etc by rival authors), whilst I don't see any point in going straight to the authorities without having a go myself. It's a strange pairing, an ISxJ and an ENxP! :)

[Uberfuhrer]

I've got a better suggestion. How about intellectually incurious NTs?

[proteanmix]

^^^I was getting there. I need to unleash my Monday Morning Fury.

Of course the default for Ns is intellectually curious.
Smart S=average N.

[substitute]

Proteanmix - I don't see this being about intelligence/smartness, but curiosity... perhaps you equate the two and perhaps they are often associated, but they're not the same thing entirely, so it doesn't necessarily follow that someone not seeing the one in a person would automatically assume the other to not be present.

Perhaps ajblaise in the OP is falling victim to simply not recognizing or understanding these different manifestations of intelligence and curiosity; considering how as I described earlier, I find it very difficult to get my SJ friends and relatives to engage in speculative conversation triggered by sheer curiosity, I can see how it would be easy for me, and has been in the past, to assume that this is because they have no curiosity. This I've begun to realize is a false impression, and this thread could be a positive attempt to fully expose this fallacy and address the root causes of the prejudices upon which it's built - i.e., the different ways in which people manifest similar qualities and the lack of recognition of the fact that something simply not being noticed by certain people does not equal it not existing.

But I don't know how anything constructive is going to be discussed or how ajblaise is going to realize the errors of his impressions if this thread descends into another witch hunt, (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sj-guardhouse/3402-all-esfjs-like.html) started by a rather thinly veiled ad hominem attack against someone for simply being young and tactless, even though the very existence of his question, however tactlessly worded, shows that he is QUESTIONING the false assumptions upon which it hangs - surely a good thing?

[Bella]

I thought this thread was going okay....

[mlittrell]

this thread smells like generalizations ...

[Bella]

Uhm, this was a very nice middle-of-the night converstion, thank you very much....I'm an SJ and wasn't offended by it.

[proteanmix]

Proteanmix - I don't see this being about intelligence/smartness, but curiosity... perhaps you equate the two and perhaps they are often associated, but they're not the same thing entirely, so it doesn't necessarily follow that someone not seeing the one in a person would automatically assume the other to not be present.

Perhaps ajblaise in the OP is falling victim to simply not recognizing or understanding these different manifestations of intelligence and curiosity; considering how as I described earlier, I find it very difficult to get my SJ friends and relatives to engage in speculative conversation triggered by sheer curiosity, I can see how it would be easy for me, and has been in the past, to assume that this is because they have no curiosity. This I've begun to realize is a false impression, and this thread could be a positive attempt to fully expose this fallacy and address the root causes of the prejudices upon which it's built - i.e., the different ways in which people manifest similar qualities and the lack of recognition of the fact that something simply not being noticed by certain people does not equal it not existing.

But I don't know how anything constructive is going to be discussed or how ajblaise is going to realize the errors of his impressions if this thread descends into another witch hunt, (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sj-guardhouse/3402-all-esfjs-like.html) started by a rather thinly veiled ad hominem attack against someone for simply being young and tactless, even though the very existence of his question, however tactlessly worded, shows that he is QUESTIONING the false assumptions upon which it hangs - surely a good thing?

I think you are exactly right, Sub! When these questions are posed on the forum there is a definite failure to distinguish between intelligence and (intellectual) curiosity and which types have it and which ones don't. It seemed to me that he was insinuating that SJs more often err on the side of not having intellectual curiosity which is what took issue with. Since you've teased that nuance maybe this thread can move in a more productive direction. Given ajblaise's bumptious posting style (how's that for thinly veiled ad hominem?? :cool:) it's good brought up that very pertinent point. :)

[substitute]

this thread smells like generalizations ...

I think it smells more like EXPOSING generalizations and dispelling them through respectful discussion...

Let's not go all strawman now, please! I'd love if the topic could remain the differing expressions of intellectual curiosity and not descend into discussions over whether ajblaise is or isn't evil and nasty for asking the question...

*sees first ever successful contact/communication between self and Proteanmix*
*faints*
:9436:

[Bella]

I think when you're not there when a thread starts you could miss the atmoshere of it when you read it later.

[proteanmix]

I think when you're not there when a thread starts you could miss the atmoshere of it when you read it later.

Who you tellin?

[mlittrell]

I think it smells more like EXPOSING generalizations and dispelling them through respectful discussion...

Let's not go all strawman now, please! I'd love if the topic could remain the differing expressions of intellectual curiosity and not descend into discussions over whether ajblaise is or isn't evil and nasty for asking the question...

*sees first ever successful contact/communication between self and Proteanmix*
*faints*
:9436:

it's a lot faster and more fun to expose it lol

[Bella]

Not you. I used "you' instead of 'one'. Bad English.

[proteanmix]

Not you. I used "you' instead of 'one'. Bad English.

Yes, context makes a big difference. But that kinda makes it hard to jump in on a lot of threads too.

Many of the SJs on the thread seem to be saying that they only investigate things that trigger their interest. I also notice that of those that have answered so far, most are introverts. Do you think that an ISJ is more likely to pursue fewer interests in depth and than an ESJ? How is that any different from any other introverted type?

[Bella]

I don't know about the I/E question you're asking.
But about only investigating things that trigger our interests? That's not such an un-noble thing, how many people really investigate things they're not drawn to.

[substitute]

Maybe it's different methods of pursuing interests. As I said earlier, I tend to pursue things initially the very moment they occur to me by talking about them with whoever i'm with. My ISTJ friend pursues things by looking them up and researching them, and when he considers that he's finished pursuing it, then he discusses it. This isn't necessarily an SJ thing though anyway because ptgatsby described himself doing exactly the same process and he's an SP. He also said he doesn't like theorizing and discussing before researching, either. For me the discussion constitutes part of the research. Is that NP, or just general E? I don't know...

But obviously if your main method of pursuing your curiosity is not through discussion, it's gonna be easy for people to not notice that you have any! Meanwhile if you're doing the ENxP thing of randomly throwing out your random thoughts, associations, connections and questions, it's obvious that you're going to be seen as a more curious sorta person.

Could also be an IT thing - that the curiosity is expressed inwardly and pursued non-personally, whilst perhaps E's and F's are more likely express it outwardly and interpersonally?

Just a few observations there :)

[Bella]

Maybe it's different methods of pursuing interests. As I said earlier, I tend to pursue things initially the very moment they occur to me by talking about them with whoever i'm with. My ISTJ friend pursues things by looking them up and researching them, and when he considers that he's finished pursuing it, then he discusses it. This isn't necessarily an SJ thing though anyway because ptgatsby described himself doing exactly the same process and he's an SP. He also said he doesn't like theorizing and discussing before researching, either. For me the discussion constitutes part of the research. Is that NP, or just general E? I don't know...

But obviously if your main method of pursuing your curiosity is not through discussion, it's gonna be easy for people to not notice that you have any! Meanwhile if you're doing the ENxP thing of randomly throwing out your random thoughts, associations, connections and questions, it's obvious that you're going to be seen as a more curious sorta person.

Could also be an IT thing - that the curiosity is expressed inwardly and pursued non-personally, whilst perhaps E's and F's are more likely express it outwardly and interpersonally?

Just a few observations there :)

Yes, I dont discuss anything with anybody. I find something interesting, I read about, that's it. I don't tell anyone, because if I had to turn around and tell someone how interseting sardines are they'll probabaly choke on their lunch. Anyway, I hardly FEEL a need to share my new found information.

[Recoleta]

Just to add a couple more things, I don't only and exclusively research things that I find interesting...the research is much more pleasant when that happens to be the case, but I also force myself to learn about and research things that I don't particularly care for, but that I would consider to be useful and practical for me to know.

For instance, auto mechanics does not really interest me in the least, but I can check and change my oil, rotate/change my tires, check and add air pressure to the tires, jack up my car, and do a couple of other things on my own. I don't enjoy it all that much, but I'm glad I know how to do such things.

Also, I think I don't like to talk about things at the initial point of my curiosity, because usually if I'm curious about something, it means that my prior background knowledge is probably limited. Often times reading allows me to make connections to things I already know, and then make analogies in my head in a way that makes sense to me. I'm the kind of person where I don't like to open my mouth if I'm not sure about something. When I speak I prefer to be concise and accurate. I don't speak just for the heck of filling silence.

[pure_mercury]

I engage in long, bizarre, speculative conversation a good amount of the time. My sense of humor is very off-kilter and transgressive, as well. My intellectual curiosity is also quite strong, but it's more about trying to learn as much relevant information about a given topic as I can (and, believe me, I get obsessive about it), as opposed to learn the underlying principles that make it work. I enjoy reading about cosmology, for instance, but I couldn't stand to do the simplest equations in Survey of the Universe class at college.

[substitute]

Yeah, so E and F seem to play a big part in how much external manifestation there is of intellectual curiosity...

Recoleta, I totally admire that you learned about car maintenance even though you don't enjoy it. I hate it too, and I have to admit I'm quite ashamed of the fact that I use this as an excuse to not bother learning about it, and say things like "If it means I have to pay a mechanic to not have to waste my time learning something I'm not interested in, then it's money well spent", and I'm ashamed of that because to think that any knowledge is a waste of time is sorta against my credo. I've kept on meaning to learn that exact thing, but have put it off and put it off because I just find it so difficult to motivate myself through anything other than genuine curiosity and interest. "Mere" practicality just isn't a motive for me... perhaps equally shamefully, because I rely on being able to persuade others to do practical stuff for me :blush:

[ajblaise]

Proteanmix - I don't see this being about intelligence/smartness, but curiosity... perhaps you equate the two and perhaps they are often associated, but they're not the same thing entirely, so it doesn't necessarily follow that someone not seeing the one in a person would automatically assume the other to not be present.

Yeah I thought I made the difference obvious, I mean, I made the distinction.

It seemed to me that he was insinuating that SJs more often err on the side of not having intellectual curiosity which is what took issue with.

I was doing more than just insinuating it...:)

SJ's seem, on average, to have less intellectual curiosity than NT's... is that statement really that surprising and controversial? I'm not saying they are less intelligent.

[Mondo]

To be a typist snob, how would you define an 'intellectually curious SJ'? If it is someone who gets straight A's in high school and college- then that person isn't necessarily intellectually curious.
Especially for the SJ- there are other reasons to do well in school besides acquiring knowledge and exploring.
I say this as someone who is in a college that's probably at least 50% SJ.. you need to be an excellent student to get into Duke but not necessarily an intellectually curious one.
In fact, some of the people I know who are the most intellectual often didn't have so hot high school grades because they didn't care about doing mind-numbing homework assignments when they could put their focus elsewhere.

[substitute]

OMG INTP's really know how to run a smooth discussion eh? :doh:

Haha... well, don't pick your pitchforks up yet people - see bold below.


SJ's seem, on average, to have less intellectual curiosity than NT's... is that statement really that surprising and controversial? I'm not saying they are less intelligent.

He is allowing after all, for it just being a surface appearance...

*whinces*

[pure_mercury]

SJ's seem, on average, to have less intellectual curiosity than NT's... is that statement really that surprising and controversial? I'm not saying they are less intelligent.


It could be a different type of curiosity.

[mlittrell]

all types can be intellectually curious but they all go about it in different ways. its too hard to narrow down if SJs are more or less intellectually curious then say NTs because that depends on the person not the type. the type will change how you go about being intellectually curious

[ZiL]

I engage in long, bizarre, speculative conversation a good amount of the time. My sense of humor is very off-kilter and transgressive, as well. My intellectual curiosity is also quite strong, but it's more about trying to learn as much relevant information about a given topic as I can (and, believe me, I get obsessive about it), as opposed to learn the underlying principles that make it work. I enjoy reading about cosmology, for instance, but I couldn't stand to do the simplest equations in Survey of the Universe class at college.

This is the way my ISFJ friend does things. He gets a big kick out of finding information and trying to remember it so that he can pull it out like a big compendium at a later date and blow you away with it. He's curious, but not usually about the same types of things as me, and he expresses the curiosity in a totally different way. I remember we were in AP European history together, and he got the biggest kick out of learning all the details about an event or historical period, while I preferred to find historical patterns that interested me and only research details relevent to the pattern I had found. He could memorize easily by date, while I needed concepts to help with memorization.

[dnivera]

SJs perhaps seem less intellectually curious to you than NTs because we are systematic thinkers. We don't challenge your ideas or do the sparring back-and-forth like NTs do. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're less intellectually curious, capable, or intelligent than NTs. SJs tend to think "inside the box" and accept things as they are, incorporating ideas into universal belief systems, rather than challenge mainstream ideas and look for hidden meanings and connections.

So maybe it seems like we're not intellectually curious, but we're just not interested in testing ideas with you or engaging in debates or sparring. I'm not a confrontational person, so if someone tries to provoke me, I'm going to give my (differing) opinion, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. When I get attacked by people I tend to ask them questions about why they believe what they belive, rather than challenge their position. This is IRL face-to-face conversations - in writing, I will tear you apart. But I'm a really curious person who is more 5ish than SJ. I want to know about everything and anything.

[Cimarron]

So maybe it seems like we're not intellectually curious, but we're just not interested in testing ideas with you or engaging in debates or sparring. I'm not a confrontational person, so if someone tries to provoke me, I'm going to give my (differing) opinion, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. When I get attacked by people I tend to ask them questions about why they believe what they belive, rather than challenge their position. This is IRL face-to-face conversations - in writing, I will tear you apart. But I'm a really curious person who is more 5ish than SJ. I want to know about everything and anything.
This kind of resonates with me. What do you think about asking "why"?

Do SJ's see no need to ask the question "Why?", or maybe we pass it through the "Why should I care?" and "Does it really matter/make a difference?" filter before bothering to ask "Why"?

[ajblaise]

This kind of resonates with me. What do you think about asking "why"?

Do SJ's see no need to ask the question "Why?", or maybe we pass it through the "Why should I care?" and "Does it really matter/make a difference?" filter before bothering to ask "Why"?

Perhaps so to not disrupt harmony and tradition? Perhaps because of valuing functional groups and rules more than the need for change and questioning things?

Or simply just a lack of caring about issues that to them are so removed and abstract and have nothing to do with them and what they do care about.

[dnivera]

I'm not interested in arguing because I don't think it's worth the energy, especially if it's something that seems cut-and-dried or black-and-white to me, but not to other people who want to debate it to death. I have other things I could be doing! You can try to engage me, but I'll refuse, unless it's something I'm passionate about. (like defending SJs, apparently....)

[ajblaise]

I'm not interested in arguing because I don't think it's worth the energy, especially if it's something that seems cut-and-dried or black-and-white to me, but not to other people who want to debate it to death. I have other things I could be doing! You can try to engage me, but I'll refuse, unless it's something I'm passionate about. (like defending SJs, apparently....)

To me, certain kinds of argument and debate are just one of the many kinds of ways intellectual curiosity expresses itself.

Maybe you could list some ways you see average SJ's expressing their intellectual curiosity? Hmmm, but you did just say you don't like to argue... but don't think of this as arguing.

[Cimarron]

To me, certain kinds of argument and debate are just one of the many kinds of ways intellectual curiosity expresses itself. Then what about listening to other people debate/argue? That would provide an SJ, as an audience, with the exploration of ideas, but wouldn't be using too much energy and wouldn't be getting personally and actively involved in challenging traditions.

[ajblaise]

Then what about listening to other people debate/argue? That would provide an SJ, as an audience, with the exploration of ideas, but wouldn't be using too much energy and wouldn't be getting personally and actively involved in challenging traditions.

Do you do this? It definitely shows an intellectual curiosity, especially if the issue being argued/debated over is an especially intellectual matter.

[Cimarron]

Well, isn't that part of reading this forum?

I don't know. For whatever reason, it's kind of hard for me to discern these things about myself. That's why I'm trying to always keep a neutral stance on these boards, or something...

(Not sure about relevance: )
Sometimes I listen to others debate, but even that can get tiring after a while. And I guess there is some desire to avoid conflict, so especially with friends, I put myself into the conversation to try to reach a compromise, or get them to understand the other's point. In the process, I suppose I gather some info from both sides, since as I explain it to myself, I explain one side to the other. Of course, my reason for listening to the argument in the first place was to hear some thought about the topic.

Hmm, now that I think of it, there may be another reason for this, if your logic follows. In regards to the last paragraph, maybe if an SJ is taught to value balance of opinions and to shun bias, is taught to value open-mindedness in the sense that it is "good" to consider more than one possibility for a thing, then those values direct the SJ to build those habits. Not a conclusion I like, but it might fit with your train of logic, here.

[Mondo]

You know what- I think I learned something today.
The Guardian simply feels less of a need to rock the boat than other temperaments.
The Guardian can still be curious about acquiring knowledge of course.
Rationals rock the boat because they are assholes- same with Artisans.
Idealists will rock the boat when they think that people aren't being cool with ideals.
Then why does everyone associate Guardians as not being very laid-back at all, haha!

[Bella]

That sounds about right....

[Hmm]

I'm sorry, I'm not intellectually curious enough to read this thread.

[Kai]

I'm not very intellectually curious. These are the only explanations I could come up with for myself...

Ne is a weak point.
When I'm interested in something. I like to find out as much as I can about it, listening to other people's opinions before coming to my own conclusison. To an extent, it could be said that I don't trust my own understanding of something because I feel that I lack the knowledge in that area.

Alot of my time is spent collecting information from various sources. It's not that authority is absolute, but I've got more assurance that they know what they are talking about. I'd expect a book to be reasonable in it's positions, that it can't be countered so easily. To me, a book is someone who has thought through their ideas, rather than being in the process of it. Although it'd make sense that these writers are constantly redoing their works.

Playing on the stereotype. It's all about whether I'd find the information valuable to myself. Most information I find difficult to apply in real life, the idea of knowing knowledge for the sake of knowing doesn't appeal to me. I don't get a kick out of that. However I could see that some might see value in having this information for their own entertainment.

It's all about Si collecting his own world. :D
I'll come up with theories later on what the big picture is with all the current information. Lots of people probably think my opinions come from somebody else, I wouldn't be surprised when I'm building my world on this data. "Creating within the box" - Though occasionally I look at the box and suddenly it looks completely different. It's turned inside out :O

If you don't collect the information first. You are free to explore since you don't have preconcieved ideas, which can sometimes lead to the out of box thinking appearance.

Theorising is just exhuasting for me, I'm trying to understand rather than coming up with as many possible alternatives and ultimately screwing myself over with knowledge overload.

But I've got to admit, that I'm a pretty lazy SJ.

[MEC]

You know what- I think I learned something today.
The Guardian simply feels less of a need to rock the boat than other temperaments.
The Guardian can still be curious about acquiring knowledge of course.
Rationals rock the boat because they are assholes- same with Artisans.
Idealists will rock the boat when they think that people aren't being cool with ideals.
Then why does everyone associate Guardians as not being very laid-back at all, haha!

:yay:about the SJ and NF but I think
NT like the mental stimulation and SP the excitement of a debate