Let's "level" about type issues

[The_Liquid_Laser]

When: Colonel Mustard is accused of murder
I feel: that he did it in the Conservatory
Because: he did it with the lead pipe, and if I were to kill someone with a lead pipe I believe the Conservatory would be the appropriate place.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ygolo

There are improper abstractions, abstractions taken too far in particular contexts, etc. But "excesses of abstraction"? That to me is an improper abstraction of abstractions.

By excesses, I do mean "too far in particular contexts," bringing at the very least bad ideas and the worst, solipsism. With your other points, I see we are closer than I first thought. I'll give you the last word.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Santtu

My apologies for what has been inadequate appreciation of your contributions to the discussions. I have indeed unfairly discriminated people based on their assumed functions. I have not adequately considered each individual, but I have been combative in order to "get even" with a group of people.

We all do it Little groups with little tags... it's a convenient way of labeling. It's a small issue, but one that grows into serious issues, like stereotypes, dismissal, etc.

"I could never date a S" was the most common type comment in the dating arena on INTPc, for example. Broad label, broad group (ie: 70% of the damn population) and completely pointless. Even I said that... *shrug*

We create groups to put people in but we have more in common than we realise. The mere grouping and association is a creation of this - for example, Ss that read S descriptions are happy with it. So are Ns reading N descriptions. But you make them read the other side and they both see it as negative - if they know that it's a different "group". It's created, not intrinsic.

This happens when people are separated by eye color even! It's a human dynamic and it transcends type.

I have especially liked your statistical analysis of various psychometric measures, among others. I had, until now, neglected to notice it. I had felt S as glamorizing for their supposed use of facts and yet, as I felt, evasive and defensive to what they accept as a fact.

But are you wrong? Ss are bad that way. Facts, but "their facts". Is it any different than the Ns, though? Theories, but "their theories". It's just people being people... we all do it, it's just how we do it!

I would not have guessed that your feelings of being ununderstood were so much like mine in such a similar manner. Why the non-understanding, then?

We are both human, we both have the same needs, we even have the same approach. Preference is weak, but it is enough to trigger conflict. Why? Because we are more the same than different.

MBTI should be used to help cross over those differences. I know that Ns like theories and all that... but there is a point where theories cease to be healthy. Likewise, I know that Ss like fixed ideas, but there is a point where it ceases to be healthy.

The approach is just different and so there will be conflict. Both gain when there is dialogue and both lose when the argument is reduced to type. Functions are supportive of each other!

Listening to what may seem unprovable and unbelievable is thus an exercise in giving the other person a benefit of doubt.

I agree, but only up to a point. For example;

N says something about Ss that isn't backed up.
S responds saying that the N is wrong.
N says S can't understand because S is stupid/something.

(This happened recently, so I'm using it as an example.)

Benefit of the doubt goes both ways, all the time. The way we deal with the conflict is what is valuable and that transcends type.

I think it is simple - if you can't answer "Why" you believe something as an N, then the N theory is unbalanced. Likewise, if the S can't answer "what does that mean?", then the S isn't balanced.

If either side reacts to that kind of a question by dismissing the other, etc, then communication breaks down, conflict starts and the groupings become a weapon.

Fortunately we have all the possibilities to master those interpersonal issues too, which opens up the chance of enriching our world views.

Absolutely, that's why MBTI exists... or why it should exist. To help us understand the other person.

Everytime MBTI is used to dismiss rather than explain, everytime MBTI uses a stereotype rather than an exploratory tool... a small part of MBTI dies and causes it to head where IQ tests headed - eugenics, dominance of traits, etc. Division for division sake.

-

I am guilty of doing what I talk about here, even though I try to control it. Everyone here that I have read does it to some degree. I'm prone to one particular type, others to others.

Oh, and to be clear... understanding why Ns think the sky is red isn't going to make me stop telling them it isn't.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I think it is simple - if you can't answer "Why" you believe something as an N, then the N theory is unbalanced. Likewise, if the S can't answer "what does that mean?", then the S isn't balanced.

People sometimes decide that the question was not answered, without hearing the other party. If that person doesn't wish to continue the discussion, it would be courteous to restrain from claims that the issue was left "unanswered".

If a person doesn't need some conclusion, he/she can take a "prove me" -attitude and be however demanding on the quality of explanation given. Now there's a practical truth that I try to remember more often.

The discussion context affects the burden of proof in other ways, too. Judical systems place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and scientifical systems place it on the one presenting hyphothesis. This is motivated by the potential damage caused by unsubstantiated claims and the needs for stability.

I may have the problem of considering some question on a whim, without understanding how question would affect the other party. If I would see that the other party would indeed suffer from adopting (or considering) erroneous views, I would recognize that the burden of proof lies on me. Having to use unfamiliar functions to solve the case can be a mild source of suffering, too.

I am starting to like the relativistic view more, in the meaning that perhaps both parties are right if neither are proven wrong. It has the practical use of maintaining a measure of peace.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Santtu

I am starting to like the relativistic view more, in the meaning that perhaps both parties are right if neither are proven wrong. It has the practical use of maintaining a measure of peace.

How horribly P of you I think this is just transferring one form of conflict to another. People will generally get just as irritated if you approach it this way (ie: "I hear you, but I think the sky is red, no matter what you say... and that's ok, because it's personal").

But that might be me. Ts would likely take it worse than Fs

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

How horribly P of you I think this is just transferring one form of conflict to another. People will generally get just as irritated if you approach it this way (ie: "I hear you, but I think the sky is red, no matter what you say... and that's ok, because it's personal").

But that might be me. Ts would likely take it worse than Fs

Wouldn't suggest that as the first option, would I? Have I?

[cafe]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

When: Ss are not atheletes. We are not mechanics. We are not insipid. We aren't conflict driven. We do analyze. We can think. We can see the big picture. We can understand you.

I feel: Not much, except sadness.

Because: Closing the mind is dangerous. Assumptions are dangerous. You hurt yourself more than others, but it is a net-negative scenario.


When: I take my time to pull up a whole lot of research, data and so forth contradicting your theory... and the response is a nice version of "you can't understand because you are <x>".

I feel: Well, you say you want to learn and grow, but if you are going to waste my time with closed minded certitude (thank you econ!), I'd rather you say that you won't consider anything that condicts your views.

Because: It wastes my damn time.

PT, I like the way you post, FWIW. I may not comment, I may not always read an entire post or thread, I may not agree with your conclusions, but I recognize the thought and effort that you put into things. I find your posts more logical and less reactionary than many of those by some of the NTs. I can see why you would find dismissive attitudes frustrating.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Santtu

Wouldn't suggest that as the first option, would I? Have I?

Well, I dunno Seriously though, I have a harder time understanding your posts, so my own limitations might be preventing me from really explaining myself. Regardless, no, I don't think you are like that at all. I have the same problem with members of my family (I'm also scandinavian), so I can't help but wonder if it is cultural too!

Originally Posted by cafe

PT, I like the way you post, FWIW. I may not comment, I may not always read an entire post or thread, I may not agree with your conclusions, but I recognize the thought and effort that you put into things. I find your posts more logical and less reactionary than many of those by some of the NTs. I can see why you would find dismissive attitudes frustrating.

Awwwwww Thanks.

It's alright though, I'm not really complaining... In most cases I don't mind people not responding.

The two irritations that I do have are stereotypes that just won't go away, no matter how many times I attack them... and the extension of that, the dismissal of words based upon type/other unimportant factors (but that's pretty rare overall... although I realise it's not as rare as I thought before). A lack of response to me indicates reflection or a dead end... an empty response is a disjointed dialogue. It means I didn't get through, it means it was a waste of time - a for sure waste of time.

[lastrailway]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

.... A lack of response to me indicates reflection or a dead end... an empty response is a disjointed dialogue. It means I didn't get through, it means it was a waste of time - a for sure waste of time.

Well, being the person wasting your time lately, in these IQ related threads...
I think I have generally a hard time on understanding psychology things, for one, and a complete ignorance on IQ stuff for another.
I don't do it because I don't read through your -and anyone else's- posts

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I have a harder time understanding your posts, so my own limitations might be preventing me from really explaining myself.

Well, I write contrived sentences automatically and I sometimes get the word order incorrectly. I am also not sure about always using the most proper word to convey my message.