MBTI type best attuned to noticing beauty

[Tactical Panda]

From your experience or understanding, which MBTI type is best attuned to noticing beauty or focusing in onto the element of beauty in things?

Feel free to discuss.

The poll question was meant to read "Which MBTI type is best attuned to noticing beauty?"

[IcNjThJ]

true beauty at its finest

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 012662270

[Calica]

I think we all are, we just find the beauty in different places. What`s bland and ordinary to one is beautiful to another. Just depends on your perspective.

[MrFlaneur]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say IXFP in general but INTJs are pretty good at it also. Ni finds and perceives the rarest beauty which feeds into the Se which can get overwhelmed and awestruck. Ive often been out and about in the country and looked at a beautiful scene on a spring day with the light just perfect and started crying like a baby, knowing that one day its all gonna end.

"DOUBLE RAINBOW!!! OMG"

Here we are. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Paul Siraisi]

In order of preference for Fi:

INFP/ISFP
ENFP/ESFP
ISTJ/INTJ
ESTJ/ENTJ

[davai]

Not type specific. Beauty in different things, seen by different people.

[Hariar]

After reading this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) description of the INFPs, it seems natural to suggest INFP, without knowing more of this personality type.

[Polymath20]

Beauty is subjective.

[sentientbeing]

Physical - ESFP
Artistic - ISFP
Poetic - INFP
Mechanical - ISTP
Mathematical - INTP

[Owfin]

Darn it, should have voted ESTJ to show it doesn't matter...

[davai]

Darn it, should have voted ESTJ to show it doesn't matter...

But it doesn't matter if you didn't because it doesn't matter anyway? :)

Seen some great art from ISTJs myself, paintings, photography etc. If art is their interest they can master it to perhaps even a greater degree than other types, but it will be specialized to them. i.e reality sensory stuff. Not so much abstract.

[Owfin]

But it doesn't matter if you didn't because it doesn't matter anyway? :)

Seen some great art from ISTJs myself, paintings, photography etc. If art is their interest they can master it to perhaps even a greater degree than other types, but it will be specialized to them. i.e reality sensory stuff. Not so much abstract.

Well, type can influence the way they appreciate beauty but not the talent for appreciating it.

Si dominants like ISTJs and ISFJs might focus on their own perception of the world around them. Jung typed Van Gogh as an ISXJ, after all.

[davai]

Jung typed Van Gogh as an ISFJ, after all.

I never knew that. Guess my bias always made me think he'd be a N type.

[Peace of Mind]

I put ISFP based on a hunch. Always nice to be vindicated by the poll results.

Oh, wait -- I'm an INTJ; I don't care what others think.:laugh:

[DrCiao]

I never knew that. Guess my bias always made me think he'd be a N type.

Reading Van Gogh's Letters to Theo- he is definitely not an ISFJ. He strikes me as an NT type, and I am not being biased here. Although I think there is a possibility that he could be an INFP. In his writing style, he utilizes more Fi characteristics than Fe.

I question the validity of the ISFJ typing.

---------- Post added 03-28-2012 at 08:10 PM ----------

Well, type can influence the way they appreciate beauty but not the talent for appreciating it.

Si dominants like ISTJs and ISFJs might focus on their own perception of the world around them. Jung typed Van Gogh as an ISXJ, after all.

Si-dominants like to work with their hands. A lot of ISFJs are magazine book/ editors and copywriters because of their attention to detail and rules in grammar.

ISTJs I think are more attracted to sculpture or programming, in which they can utilize their preference for kinesthetic learning. If you read Van Gogh's Letters, you will notice that he is very much aware of the external world, and not just focused on his own.

As for his ear troubles, I imagine there might've been psychotropic drug usage involved. Also I'm not sure if you've ever had an ear canal completely blocked by wax, but it can drive some people crazy.

Hallucinogenic drug usage + blocked ear canal + social alienation + living in near poverty =
Billion dollar valuation of his paintings by Sotheby's.

[davai]

Reading Van Gogh's Letters to Theo- he is definitely not an ISFJ. He strikes me as an NT type, and I am not being biased here. Although I think there is a possibility that he could be an INFP. In his writing style, he utilizes more Fi characteristics than Fe.

I question the validity of the ISFJ typing.


It's pretty much guesswork with reading letters and not being able to see them in action. Jung was about 15 at the time of Van Gogh's death, so it's debatable how much he knew also. I'd be more likely to believe him but it's not something I'd bet much on. Same with when people type both Shakespeare and Homer as INFP. Why, because they wrote stories? What else are they going on? Especially in the case of Homer. I don't buy it. Just seems like stereotyping people based on their activities if you ask me. Oh such-and-such was a mathematician/scientist back in 690 BC? Must've been an NT! Bollocks.

[followthehippos]

I tried to mentally evaluate which function would best identify beauty in the world around us. To me it would seem either an Se function or the Ne function. Additionally, I would have to note which co-function one of those two are utilized with for how the noticed beauty is conceptualized. In that regard, I assumed Fi would be the function to interpret emotional appeal and desire towards the world around us, or beauty. Hence, I'm left with ESFP, ISFP, INFP, and ENFP. I choose Ne to be the best because of it's usage of intuition. I would expect Se to be a practical approach to beauty whereas Ne would be more symbolic, metaphorical. In that regard I chose ENFP because Ne is their primary function, and they often express love for many things in the world around them and seem capable of identifying beauty with almost anything or anyone. I think all 4 of those types present a very good case though.

[davai]

In that regard I chose ENFP because Ne is their primary function, and they often express love for many things in the world around them and seem capable of identifying beauty with almost anything or anyone. I think all 4 of those types present a very good case though.

Just cause some hippies blather on about 'beauty' all the time doesn't mean shit in my book. Some people might not even use the word beautiful or even talk about it, but they know what they like.

---------- Post added 03-29-2012 at 11:32 AM ----------

In any case, yours and Paul Siraisi's fixation on Fi means INFJs notice beauty less than STJs. Really? Think about that. I don't think this assumption has any validity.

[Owfin]

Si-dominants like to work with their hands.

Oh, do we? Wasn't aware of that.

Si dominance is all about your own perception of the world. The fire isn't comforting to the Si dominant because that's a good word to describe the sensation on their skin-it is comforting because it is warm, and warmth as known to them, is a comforting thing.

If you still aren't seeing the connection, here's a very nice description I have found:

To that end Introverted anything is simply the referencing of the self first. With the perception functions it is inner archetypal content that is being referenced. Introverted Sensing is the projection of your own manifestation of an archetype onto an object so that in essence your own personal perception of the object (the fire is inviting - an archetypal reference relating your own manifestation of what inviting is) becomes more important than the intrinsic qualities of the object (the fire is hot or orange). Extraverted Sensing simply sees the object as it is, without projecting anything more into it. So introverted sensing becomes a highly impressionistic perception, wherein how an object comes across to you takes precedence. So for example Ansel Adams would likely be a Se-type capturing the object as is, where Monet or Van Gogh would most certainly be Si-types (in fact Jung uses Van Gogh as a reference for Introverted Sensing).

[masterpeach]

According to a theory on which the ViQ (visual identification questionnaire) is based, the appreciation of certain forms depends on type.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


But who's to judge what's "beautiful"?

As long as there's no coherent definition of "beauty" (same for intelligence), there's no relevant answer to the question. Are "style" and "aesthetics" part of the definition of "beauty"?

What about the beauty of a piece of music, or fabrics, or a meal, or languages, or coherent theoretical models, or...?

[followthehippos]

Just cause some hippies blather on about 'beauty' all the time doesn't mean shit in my book. Some people might not even use the word beautiful or even talk about it, but they know what they like.

---------- Post added 03-29-2012 at 11:32 AM ----------

In any case, yours and Paul Siraisi's fixation on Fi means INFJs notice beauty less than STJs. Really? Think about that. I don't think this assumption has any validity.Taking my explanation personally? Keep in mind that by stating the type best attuned to noticing beauty must utilize Ne and Fi I developed a toss up between ENFPs and INFPs. I chose Ne because Ne is the noticing function whereas Fi seems to be more of an appreciating or placing value to that beauty. However, the OP asked which type notices beauty, not which type appreciates it most or whatever else. Also, my logic doesn't extend in the way you are implying it. I would point out that INFJ's notice beauty quite well do to their Ni-Fe combo, making me believe that ENFJs and INFJs do quite well themselves. Also STJs and NTJs utilize Fi as their two weaker functions which I characterize as being weaker than a Fe-Ni combo or an Fe-Si combo. When the OP asks about noticing beauty I think in terms of the world around us, hence I believe Ne is best at noticing beauty. If the question was tweaked and involved developing a more metaphorical/symbolic development of beauty, I would choose INFJ or ENFJ.

In all honesty each type notices beauty in their own way. With an INTJ mind I can tell you some amazing epiphanies I have had that I consider adding true color to both my internal and external world. :-)

[hi5yourface]

It's pretty much guesswork with reading letters and not being able to see them in action. Jung was about 15 at the time of Van Gogh's death, so it's debatable how much he knew also. I'd be more likely to believe him but it's not something I'd bet much on. Same with when people type both Shakespeare and Homer as INFP. Why, because they wrote stories? What else are they going on? Especially in the case of Homer. I don't buy it. Just seems like stereotyping people based on their activities if you ask me. Oh such-and-such was a mathematician/scientist back in 690 BC? Must've been an NT! Bollocks.

More than likely Shakespeare is typed as an INFP because of his attention to deep character introspection leading to full character development....and the tragic bent in nearly all of his stories.

Never read Homer but epic poetry sounds very NF to me.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all scientists would be NT but I would guess that Leonardo Da Vinci probably was.

[reckful]

Jung typed Van Gogh as an ISXJ, after all.

I Googled this and couldn't find anyone citing a source. (Jung doesn't mention Van Gogh in Psychological Types.) Do you know if Jung really said this? I suspect it may be one of those internet "facts" that gets passed around from forum to forum.

Jung's conception of Si was quite different from most modern characterizations of IS_Js (including the ones by cognitive functions theorists), so I wouldn't rule it out, but it still sounds unlikely to me.

[Atamagahen]

"Beauty" is subjective.

[davai]

In all honesty each type notices beauty in their own way.

Oh so now you're being honest? What was your previous comment, a pack of lies? Did you vote just out of interest?

More than likely Shakespeare is typed as an INFP because of his attention to deep character introspection leading to full character development....and the tragic bent in nearly all of his stories.

If that's true it's as bad as I thought in the MBTI typing world. Guesswork. A probability of him being whatever, in which case I would wipe all guesses from famous people lists. Certainly all those who've never had the test or known anything about it. If they really have to list people I would make it clear that their type is just a possibility, though I spose even that is enough to make some people jizz in their pants over and over.


Never read Homer but epic poetry sounds very NF to me.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all scientists would be NT but I would guess that Leonardo Da Vinci probably was.

Exactly, we don't know. I wish people would stop pretending they do because it makes me fucking angry.

!!!!!!!!!1

[hi5yourface]

If that's true it's as bad as I thought in the MBTI typing world. Guesswork. A probability of him being whatever, in which case I would wipe all guesses from famous people lists. Certainly all those who've never had the test or known anything about it. If they really have to list people I would make it clear that their type is just a possibility, though I spose even that is enough to make some people jizz in their pants over and over.


Exactly, we don't know. I wish people would stop pretending they do because it makes me fucking angry.

!!!!!!!!!1

This made me laugh, hilarious! I guess it does make you angry.

Just a side point though it's all in a bit of fun and not to be taken completely seriously but if there were no observable patterns in behavior there wouldn't be any personality theory to hang nasty pants on haahaha.....

[followthehippos]

Oh so now you're being honest? What was your previous comment, a pack of lies? Did you vote just out of interest?Wha..? 'in all honesty' is a phrase. I'm not using it to mean literally that my previous statements weren't being honest. I'm saying it to illustrate that this whole conversation is dependent upon what we mean by noticing beauty. This thread can't be addressed without defining beauty, so, I used my own definition of beauty (each person who posts must do the same). Basically, everyone's answer to this thread is subjective (ie according to their own eyes). Additionally, I don't think ENFPs are hippies, if they are I would assume INFPs are hippies too, just that they aren't so open about their hippyness (in the case that ENFPs are hippies like you said).

Anyway, yes, I'm taking a light hearted approach to this thread and I don't believe my views are 100% accurate, it's just a quick observation into this whole discussion of beauty.

[davai]

(in the case that ENFPs are hippies like you said).

It's not what I said. I was refuting your point about those who 'express' it are most likely to notice it. Although, it probably is the case that there's more hippy ENFPs than most other types.

Anyway, yes, I'm taking a light hearted approach to this thread

It didn't seem that light hearted, especially after accusing me of taking it personally because I disagreed with your view.

[Moxiie]

Hey!! ENFP's aren't hippies! Those words will get you a rare punch in the head from this hippy loathing ENFP.

1) I firmly believe in bathing
2) The Grateful Dead make me feeling like punching something
3) That twirly hippy dance? Poke a sharp stick in my eye please
4) Dreadlocks on the children of upper middle class yuppy families? Hot stick in Eye.
5) Patchouli? OMG. KILL. ME. NOW.

[hi5yourface]

Hey!! ENFP's aren't hippies! Those words will get you a rare punch in the head from this hippy loathing ENFP.

1) I firmly believe in bathing
2) The Grateful Dead make me feeling like punching something
3) That twirly hippy dance? Poke a sharp stick in my eye please
4) Dreadlocks on the children of upper middle class yuppy families? Hot stick in Eye.
5) Patchouli? OMG. KILL. ME. NOW.

couldn't resist.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[followthehippos]

It's not what I said. I was refuting your point about those who 'express' it are most likely to notice it. Although, it probably is the case that there's more hippy ENFPs than most other types.

The portion of my text that you originally quoted:

In that regard I chose ENFP because Ne is their primary function, and they often express love for many things in the world around them and seem capable of identifying beauty with almost anything or anyone. I think all 4 of those types present a very good case though.I say, ENFP's notice beauty more and express it more.

To which you responded with these words:

Just cause some hippies blather on about 'beauty' all the time doesn't mean shit in my book. Some people might not even use the word beautiful or even talk about it, but they know what they like.Since I was referring to ENFPs and you quoted it, then your description of being hippies applies to ENFPs. You may not have intended it to mean that, but that's how you stated it. I'm assuming your discomfort comes because I've placed ENFPs at the top as if somehow the statement is personally lessening towards types like the INFPs or the INFJs. Which it doesn't.

Then you further illustrate your dislike here:

In any case, yours and Paul Siraisi's fixation on Fi means INFJs notice beauty less than STJs. Really? Think about that. I don't think this assumption has any validity.Your wording here further supports your personal disliking behind my reasoning.

---------------

It didn't seem that light hearted, especially after accusing me of taking it personally because I disagreed with your view.I wasn't accusing you of taking it personally because you disagreed but because of the way you responded to both my text and Hi5's. You're using phrases like:

...If they really have to list people I would make it clear that their type is just a possibility, though I spose even that is enough to make some people jizz in their pants over and over.

Exactly, we don't know. I wish people would stop pretending they do because it makes me fucking angry.You tell me, you've established that this discussion makes you angry and your language proves that. I was pointing out that you're taking this personally because you resulted in insulting ENFP's and then proceeded to criticize me for fixating on Fi, as if my reasoning infers something less towards INFJ's (which was not the case). After pointing out that you're taking it personally you had this response:

Oh so now you're being honest? What was your previous comment, a pack of lies? Did you vote just out of interest?Further illustrating that you were taking it personally. Why would you even use phrases like, "was your previous comment a pack of lies?" I think Hi5 pointed out that the discussion makes you angry as well because you don't feel anyone can adequately figure this out and is all based on assumptions. That's fine and dandy, but I've learned not to get caught up in other peoples response because I believe that most people (on this site and elsewhere) get a lot of their reasoning wrong. Typically in these conversations I just give a light hearted response, excluding in situations where a person really wants to know about their type. Then, I'll take the conversation seriously and try to offer what is most probable for their type according to my understanding of MBTI and personality theories, and I'm very careful that I explain it all as accurately as possible to avoid confusion. Does that make sense?

[Haumea]

Undoubtedly ISFP. I have a cousin who works as a graphic designer...OMFG, is she good.

[sentientbeing]

Reading Van Gogh's Letters to Theo- he is definitely not an ISFJ. He strikes me as an NT type, and I am not being biased here. Although I think there is a possibility that he could be an INFP. In his writing style, he utilizes more Fi characteristics than Fe.

I question the validity of the ISFJ typing.

---------- Post added 03-28-2012 at 08:10 PM ----------



Si-dominants like to work with their hands. A lot of ISFJs are magazine book/ editors and copywriters because of their attention to detail and rules in grammar.

ISTJs I think are more attracted to sculpture or programming, in which they can utilize their preference for kinesthetic learning. If you read Van Gogh's Letters, you will notice that he is very much aware of the external world, and not just focused on his own.

As for his ear troubles, I imagine there might've been psychotropic drug usage involved. Also I'm not sure if you've ever had an ear canal completely blocked by wax, but it can drive some people crazy.

Hallucinogenic drug usage + blocked ear canal + social alienation + living in near poverty =
Billion dollar valuation of his paintings by Sotheby's.

He was a regular drinker of Absinthe, and that may have caused some of his hallucinogenic symptoms. Most biographers agree he was probably severely bipolar. I agree with the ISFJ type, his lifestyle does not strike me as that of an NT and his paintings lack the idealism of the NFs.

[Dru]

i feel any answer i could provide based on the options given would be, at best, superficial, because the concept and recognition of beauty are not determined by type, but individual myriad preferences. different people see beauty in different things, and even amongst similar minds what it is that they find beautiful about it varies. to say that any one person has more of an eye for it implies that there is any objective, universal measurable standard - which there is not.

[reckful]

I agree with the ISFJ type, his lifestyle does not strike me as that of an NT and his paintings lack the idealism of the NFs.

I agree. I don't understand how anybody could mistake van Gogh for an idealistic NF...

Van Gogh's religious zeal grew until he felt he had found his true vocation. ... In January 1879, he took a temporary post as a missionary in the village of Petit Wasmes in the coal-mining district of Borinage in Belgium. Taking Christianity to what he saw as its logical conclusion, van Gogh lived like those he preached to, sleeping on straw in a small hut at the back of the baker's house where he was staying. ...

Van Gogh, known for his landscapes, seemed to find painting portraits his greatest ambition. He said of portrait studies, "The only thing in painting that excites me to the depths of my soul, and which makes me feel the infinite more than anything else." ...

Of painting portraits, van Gogh wrote: "in a picture I want to say something comforting as music is comforting. I want to paint men and women with that something of the eternal which the halo used to symbolize, and which we seek to communicate by the actual radiance and vibration of our coloring." ...

In a letter to Theo, [Van Gogh wrote:] "[R]eal painters do not paint things as they are...They paint them as they themselves feel them to be."

[truegrid]

i feel any answer i could provide based on the options given would be, at best, superficial, because the concept and recognition of beauty are not determined by type, but individual myriad preferences. different people see beauty in different things, and even amongst similar minds what it is that they find beautiful about it varies. to say that any one person has more of an eye for it implies that there is any objective, universal measurable standard - which there is not.

I think the mistake in the idea that there is no objective beauty is not understanding that within an objective set people can and rightly do have subjective preferences. Maybe a good analogy to illustrate this is food. Of ten healthy meals, perhaps you like five and I like four different than you. But there's no denying that all ten meals are healthy. Likewise of ten junk meals, you may like two and I may like all ten. But there's no denying all ten of these meals are objectively crud (and ultimately will make you sick). There is objective beauty and there is objective crud. I would say however that when it comes to people objective beauty is the ones you love.

[Ambra]

My sense of beauty has always been noticing when the stars align. When for no other reason everything just makes perfect sense. As though this moment had been happening forever before, in the foundation of its very core.

Speaking of which, I need to check the lottery numbers tonight. Someone bought me a ticket randomly.

Edit: I did not win the lottery.

[davai]

I'm assuming your discomfort comes because I've placed ENFPs at the top as if somehow the statement is personally lessening towards types like the INFPs or the INFJs. Which it doesn't.

You assumed wrong. My 'discomfort' came from faulty assumptions in the first place, not whether X or Y type is this or that.


Your wording here further supports your personal disliking behind my reasoning.

If you must call it personal because it came from a person then so be it, personally I'd drop the personal and just call it a disagreement.


I wasn't accusing you of taking it personally because you disagreed but because of the way you responded to both my text and Hi5's. You're using phrases like:

You tell me, you've established that this discussion makes you angry and your language proves that.

This particular point had nothing to do with what you said. This was about mis/typing famous people and then passing that off as truth.

you resulted in insulting ENFP's

No insults as far as I can see.

and then proceeded to criticize me for fixating on Fi, as if my reasoning infers something less towards INFJ's (which was not the case).

But it is the case, which was my point to begin with.

After pointing out that you're taking it personally you had this response:

Further illustrating that you were taking it personally. Why would you even use phrases like, "was your previous comment a pack of lies?"


Because I questioned your faulty reasoning and you slipped up.

I think Hi5 pointed out that the discussion makes you angry as well because you don't feel anyone can adequately figure this out and is all based on assumptions.

Again, this wasn't directly related to the thread topic. Ultimately your issue is my over zealous disagreements, which if you look at most of my posts on this forum, isn't that uncommon. It is perhaps you whose taken me too personally, but I won't cry about it if you don't.

[followthehippos]

But it is the case, which was my point to begin with. This is the heart of the issue. You believe that by stating ENFPs are best attuned to noticing beauty that the statement alone is somehow lessening towards INFJs. But it's not. I'll attempt an analogy to illustrate why:

Lets say in a city lives a wealthy man who is worth 30 million. Everyone knows the man is wealthy and worth 30 million. Now, lets say another man moves to that city worth 40 million. Just because the second man is worth more, would that mean that the first man is less wealthy? Would it change that he is worth 30 million?

That's why I am saying. If an INFJ notices beauty to a degree of 85% and I say an ENFP notices to a degree of 90%, would that mean that now INFJ's notice beauty less?

One last thing, I don't believe STJ types notice beauty more than INFJs. I think I already cleared that up. Also, I think the kind of beauty each type notices is different.

[davai]

This is the heart of the issue. You believe that by stating ENFPs are best attuned to noticing beauty that the statement alone is somehow lessening towards INFJs. But it's not.


We were talking about Fi in particular. You said,

I assumed Fi would be the function to interpret emotional appeal and desire towards the world around us, or beauty

Which means that since Fi is a lesser used function in INFJs than it is in in STJs (agree with this?), then it follows that your assumption means INFJs notice beauty less than STJs.

One last thing, I don't believe STJ types notice beauty more than INFJs. I think I already cleared that up.

Anything but. If you still believe that Fi is the function to interpret beauty, then these statements surely contradict each other.

[followthehippos]

I tried to mentally evaluate which function would best identify beauty in the world around us. To me it would seem either an Se function or the Ne function. Additionally, I would have to note which co-function one of those two are utilized with for how the noticed beauty is conceptualized. I said that Se or an Ne function notices beauty best (bolded portion), then I said Fi conceptualizes beauty, or, in other words, Fi appreciates and places value upon what is being noticed (underlined portion). Fi places value upon the external beauty noticed by Ne and Se.

However, my reasoning did not go beyond that. In short, my reasoning is that NF types and SF types are best at noticing beauty because they use feeling as a means to appreciate the beauty they notice, whether it be Fi or Fe. I do not think Fi is superior to Fe. Any type with Fi or Fe as their dominant functions notices beauty better than any type with Fi or Fe as one of their inferior functions, that is my reasoning.

[davai]

However, my reasoning did not go beyond that. In short, my reasoning is that NF types and SF types are best at noticing beauty because they use feeling as a means to appreciate the beauty they notice, whether it be Fi or Fe. I do not think Fi is superior to Fe. Any type with Fi or Fe as their dominant functions notices beauty better than any type with Fi or Fe as one of their inferior functions, that is my reasoning.

Well now you're amending your reasoning because of our discussion. I'm still not in agreement with it, but at least it's prompted some critical thinking on your assumptions.

[Dru]

I think the mistake in the idea that there is no objective beauty is not understanding that within an objective set people can and rightly do have subjective preferences. Maybe a good analogy to illustrate this is food. Of ten healthy meals, perhaps you like five and I like four different than you. But there's no denying that all ten meals are healthy. Likewise of ten junk meals, you may like two and I may like all ten. But there's no denying all ten of these meals are objectively crud (and ultimately will make you sick). There is objective beauty and there is objective crud. I would say however that when it comes to people objective beauty is the ones you love.

you're saying i was mistaken in saying there is no objectivity because there is subjectivity.

whatwhat?

... anyway, i don't see how your post does anything but bolster my point, because i disagree with you and i'm sure there are others that do.

[followthehippos]

Well now you're amending your reasoning because of our discussion. I'm still not in agreement with it, but at least it's prompted some critical thinking on your assumptions.It wasn't my reasoning. It was your attribution of what my reasoning meant. You concluded/stated that by my reasoning STJs appreciate beauty more than NFJ/SFJ types. You concluded/stated that my reasoning was this: Fi in any form is better than Fe in all forms. But, that was never my reasoning. So, here I am illustrating that an Fi function in the dominant position is superior to the Fe function in an inferior position just as much as an Fe function in the dominant position is superior to the Fi function in an inferior function. I never stated otherwise.

Here was my second response to this thread. Which would be my first response to your inquiry, clarifying that I did not think STJs valued beauty more than NFJs and SJFs:

Also STJs and NTJs utilize Fi as their two weaker functions which I characterize as being weaker than a Fe-Ni combo or an Fe-Si combo.I clarified in my second response that an INFJ/ENFJ/ISFJ/ESFJ would notice beauty more than STJs. I never thought otherwise, nor did I ever state otherwise.

If you like, you can quote me saying STJs notice beauty more than NFJ/SFJ types. But, I'm certain it doesn't exist.

[Antares]

I don't know why ISFP gets the pick. There are many beautiful things that are not just skin deep and as far as I'm aware, the ISFPs I know tend to go for pretty things like designs and crafts (their hands can't stop making them). None of them, however, dig what I perceive to be truly phenomenal beauties such as epic poetry, Mahler symphonies, Charles Dickens novels, a mathematical equation, etc. That said, I do appreciate that they have a good sense of what makes good decór, but even in this aspect I wouldn't consider them superior to me. When I bother, my sense of style is always highly rated by others, both in my room's interior design and my dress, and I have a sixth sense of picking out the beautiful. I have, however, absorbed very good examples. My ISFJ mother has a fine eye for beauty and the houses she decorate (she's not a professional) are highly sought after. As much as I don't want to attribute my preferences to her, her influence is undeniable.

The types of people I know whom I judge to have a best sense of aesthetics, on the superficial level or otherwise, are INFJ, INTJ, INFP, INTP and ISFJ.

[davai]

Here was my second response to this thread. Which would be my first response to your inquiry, clarifying that I did not think STJs valued beauty more than NFJs and SJFs:


Alright. I'll quit bustin' your chops about it.

[followthehippos]

Alright. I'll quit bustin' your chops about it.Thank you :-) Enjoy your day, it's almost summer.

[Harmony]

I don't know why ISFP gets the pick. There are many beautiful things that are not just skin deep and as far as I'm aware, the ISFPs I know tend to go for pretty things like designs and crafts (their hands can't stop making them). None of them, however, dig what I perceive to be truly phenomenal beauties such as epic poetry, Mahler symphonies, Charles Dickens novels, a mathematical equation, etc. That said, I do appreciate that they have a good sense of what makes good decór, but even in this aspect I wouldn't consider them superior to me. When I bother, my sense of style is always highly rated by others, both in my room's interior design and my dress, and I have a sixth sense of picking out the beautiful. I have, however, absorbed very good examples. My ISFJ mother has a fine eye for beauty and the houses she decorate (she's not a professional) are highly sought after. As much as I don't want to attribute my preferences to her, her influence is undeniable.

The types of people I know whom I judge to have a best sense of aesthetics, on the superficial level or otherwise, are INFJ, INTJ, INFP, INTP and ISFJ.

:thumbsup: I love poetry, I drive my husband crazy with classical music, and I definitely appreciate timeless novels. Mathematical equations are not quite my thing, while I'm good at math, I prefer other subjects.

Then again... Perhaps I have an appreciation for these things because I've been reading poetry and novels since I was 7 years old (nothing epic or Charles Dickens related back then!). I've been writing short stories, poetry, etc. since I was 9. And I've been playing flute and piccolo since I was 10. So I've got some pretty deep roots into those areas of interest.

[kaer]

Broadly, whoever has developed/ good use of their Se function.

For MBTI types, mostly looking at those:
- with Se as their dominant function (i.e. ESTP & ESFP); or
- with Se as their auxiliary function (i.e. ISFP & ISTP);
- who are actually Perceiving types using a perceiving function (S or N) as their dominant

> Will give my vote to ESFP