[miyukisama]

Yep, well, I guess the main problem here would be how we define 'realistic'. Or what did the OP meant when he asked.

I personally disagree with all the descriptions of the xSxx types that use the word 'realistic' just because they stay 'grounded'.

To me, to be realistic, you have to consider what is there but also what could be behind it. And INTJ does both without too much influence from its peers and at the same time seeking to give it usability.

But if you define the word 'realistic' as in ignoring the possibilities and just go with what you see and what you know, then xSxx would get that.

I guess I dislike the use of the word when others use it to imply that we're 'fantasizing' or 'over-thinking' - specially when we have a lot of logic to back things up (if we take the time to). :P

Not saying that I'm ALWAYS right, no type is always right, but the INTJs natural skepticism and need for logical understanding as well as taking into consideration the values and then the application, in my opinion, makes them a bit closer in chances to be aware of things as they really are.

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 07:02 AM ----------

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

Yes, that is how I see it. Well put! I'm sure some people see me as having bad social skills because I don't have a lot of friends and come off as a bit cold. However, I feel that I understand social interactions and people in general a lot better than many that are in the middle of the crowd. In fact, I've had many people come to me for explanations about why so-and-so is acting a certain way and sometimes it seems so simple to me that I wonder how they can't see if they are such popular people, the sort of people that others see as having great social skills. But I've learned that there is a great difference between understanding people and actually being the sort of person that the average person likes to hang out with. I know what I'd have to be like to be more popular, I just don't have the stomach to suppress who I "am" that much just to have more "friends" who like how I act but don't really like me as I truly am.

Yeah, exactly, the same happens to me.
I'm often face-palming at what people do because it 'seems' so obvious to me, yet they overlook it completely.

[Merak]

	Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	ehhh, I think the whole "realistic" factor has more to do with life experience than with those differences.

This. I don't think realistic can be attributed to a specific personality type.

Even though P's, in general, don't care to apply anything they do to the real world, it doesn't mean what they do cannot be applied.

[emma4enriquexx]

I think ENTJs because beign extraverted they are more in touch with the world and percievers tend not to be particularly realistic.

[Nikita]

I think that being realistic ultimately comes down to a person-by-person consideration. I'm the most realistic person I know because I consider all options and don't narrow my actual field of vision to something that seems to be right in the moment, but may prove faulty as things progress. A lot of people call my brand of reality "pessimism" or "negativity," but that just highlights their inability to deal with reality as reality, and not as a product of ponies shitting rainbows and butterflies burping glitter.

I think that a lot of the ultra practical people that are considered cornerstones of society and generally heralded as realists are, in fact, less realistic because they are less open to anything contrary to the accepted point of view projected by their egos. Practical is not the same as realistic.

[True Rune]

In arguments, INTJs would be the most realistic. They typically don't argue to be right or for fun like the extroverted NTs do, and tend not to get caught up in semantics like INTPs do.

[Jeremy]

INTJs make their own reality.