This is an interesting conversation. Now for, another wall of text!
SwiftSpear wrote:Some guy made a comment that only positive things are mentioned on the descriptions, so I listed some negatives.
I agree that it is a good idea to know what some probable negatives are. I just don't like how this test catagorizes people. There are better ways of figuring out what a person's personality is like aside from relying on something like this. This test is too simplistic and certainly doesn't account for cultural differences.
SwiftSpear wrote:Negatives are a little tricky, since intelligent people, irrelevant of personality type, tend to work on their weaknesses so they usually aren't outright blatant.
The basic definition of an intelligent person is someone who is able to think quickly and absorb large amounts of information. I think that there are many different kinds of ways to be intelligent so this definition doesn't give you a whole lot to work with. However, it does show that an intelligent person may not work on the "weaknesses" in their personality.
SwiftSpear wrote:They show up more in extremes, people with X personality type are more likely to have problems with Y characteristic, and they are less likely to be amongst people considered gifted and talented in Y characteristic. It's not to say that an INTJ can't be highly socially active, or charismatic, and certainly they rarely miscommunicate their ideas or poorly craft things they intend to say... but...
This test is for walking, talking stereotypes as opposed to other methods of assessing a person's personality which may not be so linked to stereotypes.
SwiftSpear wrote:My post was also intended to be specific to INTJ personality type.
I know, but that didn't look that way. I was pointing out that a lot of your post could have applied to introverts in general and that the characteristics that you said were particular to INTJ could have very easily been due to some sort of disorder as opposed to being closely related to someone having an INTJ personality. That├óÔé¼Ôäós why I was saying that it was a bad idea to rely too heavily on such predictions.
SwiftSpear wrote:My source, "Please Understand Me II" by David Keirsey (great book, get it) tends to focus more heavily on the personality split between 4 major personality categories, NF(abstract cooperator) SJ(Concrete Cooperator) NT(Abstract Utilitarian) SP(Concrete Utilitarian)...
Are you planning on researching personalities and how they cause people to interact in the work place or something, like in industrial/organizational psychology?
Thank you for the book suggestion. It├óÔé¼Ôäós very thoughtful of you to suggest it, but I├óÔé¼Ôäóm not that interested in this test.
SwiftSpear wrote:Consequently, alot of things you seem to think I'm attributing to introverted personality types, are actually more general traits I'm trying to construct regarding NT personalities.
Good luck to you with that. I don├óÔé¼Ôäót see the point in you doing that (see paragraph under your 4th quote on this page). I├óÔé¼Ôäóm sure someone will pay you plenty of money if you can present something to them that they find to be exciting and compelling.
SwiftSpear wrote:From my experience introversion seems to be more a psychological construct relating to how your hormonal levels react at the subconscious level to the energies of people around you. Extroverted people are easily energized in a crowded place full of excited people, where as introverts what would more closely be described as trepidated.
Why do you think that introverts are fearful in crowds? That doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót make a lot of sense to me.
SwiftSpear wrote:Introverts seem to tie into people on a 1 to 1 level naturally, so they get drained and overstretched attempting to feed into the energy of the crowd for example.
Did you read about that in your book? So which one is it, drained, fearful, both or none depending on whether or not they are these as opposed to their levels of attachment or anxiety (I should probably point out here that anxiety, fear, and paranoia are not the same thing).
SwiftSpear wrote:That doesn't mean they can't be good public speakers though either, especially with some personality setups. NT's for example tend to be good at any speaking that is rehearsed, because they generally have an easy time breaking complicated ideas into their systemic parts, which gives them a unique ability to say exactly what they want to say exactly how they want to say it, if they are given a bit of time to think it through first. Because introverted people's energy levels recharge while they are alone, much of their best work comes when they have time to separate themselves and digest, where as extroverts seem to be the people who come up with their best ideas and their best work while other people are surrounding them.
Another, and more useful way of looking at how a person utilizes their energy would be to examine concepts relating to physics, metabolism, and mind set. I started thinking about that sort of thing when I was 14, so I guess you might be interested in it. You might like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cZB7UdljEQ
. Try not to get too caught up in the romantic and mystical aspects of it. It├óÔé¼Ôäós pretty, but these things can cause you to daydream too much and, philosophically, there may be no way to prove that kind of thing anyway.
SwiftSpear wrote:Introverts aren't naturally poor speakers, or socially unaware... some categories of introverts tend to personify different social weaknesses... NT introverts for example tend to miss emotional cues more, since they don't really instinctually have a feeling for emotional situations they need to be intentional and think through what they are seeing/hearing, if preoccupied they easily miss those details. However, that can be true of extroverted NT's as well, it's just less likely that an extrovert doesn't take the time to divert attention to a social situation, in otherwords, they are less likely to be caught on their heels by a social situation. Some other personality categories don't have that tendency at all, irrelevant of weather the person is introvertedly or extrovertedly expressed.
I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think you├óÔé¼Ôäóre asking the right questions and are giving unclear, over-generalized examples. If you really want to get into this sort of thing it would be helpful to organize what you are saying into some sort of chart.
SwiftSpear wrote:As another example INTX are generally fairly decent public speakers, despite their introversion, where as ISXJ are generally terrible public speakers, not because of their introversion, but because they don't really have a tight grasp on the science of language, so their lack of confidence with saying what they mean to be saying the way they want to say it, further feeds into their nervousness of being infront of a crowd. NT will tend to blot out social cues and just focus on the task at hand, which is clearly and accurately presenting the speech, nearly making it an entirely separate thing where they barely have to be aware there is a crowd at all, where as the SJ will innately cue into the crowd to the point where they have barely any brain power left to focus on remembering the words or speaking with the bravado they need.
These characteristics are all related to image maintenance which is often times used in I/O psychology. I never really got into to that too much, but I have checked it out before. I always thought that a lot of the conclusions that people drew from all of the tests that were often used to narrowly categorize people were a crock. They certainly didn├óÔé¼Ôäót appear to be very helpful when it came to getting to the bottom of an individual├óÔé¼Ôäós problem.
panda wrote:False statement. They can be great managers or teachers.
Yup, they make great managers and teachers, but that's because they have an amazing strength in focusing on results and disseminating information. Whenever possible INTJ managers and teachers will push the mood of the workplace/studyplace to that of a clear and uncomplicated place of business, where employees/students know exactly what it expected of them and exactly where they stand within the workings of the business. They are also not very likely to be the manager/teacher that heads for a round of beers with the guys after a hard days work. They tend to be extremely talented at establishing strong businesses, but they are a major contributor to why so many businesses and schools also have to hire counselors... because while the boss is VERY good at focusing on the results and the work flow, they don't have a talent for keeping moral up or social environments healthy.
Only if they have a complete lack of imagination, sense of humor, or any charming attributes (looks attractive, nice voice, friendly), and are completely without sympathy.
panda wrote:False stereotype of introverts and maybe INTJ's. They can still be very good and patient listeners (such as in a manager who speaks up for his or her workers). It's not necessarily that they miss the social cues (even though everyone does at times), they just don't tend to respond to them the way a lot of extroverts would like for them to. For example, an introvert usually would not like to be known as someone who is the "life of a party".
Yes, INTX can definitely be good an patient listeners... and fundamentally, they understand things. They aren't likely to overlook an overwhelming atmosphere of dissatisfaction in the workplace, and they are absolutely likely to be the one who attempts to put that feeling into words and let the higher up's know, in perfectly clear, respectful, and convincing language, exactly what the situation on the floor is, and why. They might not however, notice that a specific employee is annoyed with them for some reason... or if someone is being dishonest with them... or an employee flirting with them. INTX tend to hear people, and they are very good at figuring out exactly what words mean. Specifically, non verbal cues tend to confound them, and they have an incredibly hard time dealing with dishonesty from people they trust, or honesty from people they don't trust.
They lack discipline!
panda wrote:This sounds more like your describing someone who is emotionally immature as oppossed to introverted and an INTJ.
I have to agree with you there... but statistically speaking, NT personalities are far more likely to be emotionally immature. They don't tend to feel as hard as other people, and whenever possible they try to think through issues rather than feel them through. Few things are more uncomfortable to an NT personality than someone who's emotional state is causing them to be illogical.
You probably saw those statistics and thought that they were great proof of what you├óÔé¼Ôäóre saying without considering that this set up of assessing how people think, feel, and react to things is too limiting. Even if statistics aren├óÔé¼Ôäót tampered with in any way, they can be used in a manner to where they support inaccurate and unreasonable conclusions. Just because something fits into a logical pattern, it does not make it correct.
SwiftSpear wrote:This can be something as simple as hiding in your room while your mom has a fight with dad, because you know that if you talk to one of them now they're going to snap at you over something unrelated.
Not a good example, but nice try. Don├óÔé¼Ôäót get bogged down by all of this stuff, k? Living your life and growing is important. This is SPARTA!