Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Teybo

I vs E, N vs S: definitions and heuristics

A type-me thread was being thoroughly derailed, so I'm volunteering to make this thread the new home of the offshoot discussion. The topic is about I vs E and N vs S. @Kisai has questioned why @reckful often comes to conclude that creators of type-me threads are often IN types (rather than IS, ES, or EN types). In my opinion, the most straightforward, helpful, and intellectually honest way that Kisai could raise critiques would be for him to address the conceptual substance of reckful's perspective on MBTI - what makes an I an I, an E an E, an N an N, or an S an S - separate from the particular type of any single person. So, I invite posters to this thread to have a discussion about how these different personality dimensions are defined. Additionally, I encourage posters to discuss how they make heuristic judgments about these two personality dimensions when considering the personality categorization of type-me thread subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view I vs E as basically being do you prefer to be alone, or one-on-one; or do you prefer to be with others, or in groups.

As for S vs N, I see S as being focused on physical reality and N being focused on ideas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introversion and extraversion, you can tell from these abstract words that they were never intended as definitive personality components, rather they are a blueprint for the remaining 3 dichotomies. Not by coincidence, I/E precedes all other dichotomies in MBTI type notations, which further suggests that they prelude.

Introversion and extraversion is like yes or no, true or false. These conditions are blank, the substance is missing, contrary to intuitive and sensing suggesting a sensory bias (reflecting or observing), like thinking and feeling suggest a mental bias (perpetual or volatile), and judging and perceiving suggest a limbic bias (restrained or free). "sensory-mental-limbic", "receive-experience-respond". It remains so that I/E has no bias except old Latin syntax (in vs. out), its a trojan horse, a deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any moment now, I'm sure @Kisai will explain his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teybo said:

Any moment now, I'm sure @Kisai will explain his position.

The topic has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  My point was about bias, and how it comes naturally to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For there to be bias, there must first be a criterion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Teybo said:

For there to be bias, there must first be a criterion.

Bias crosses over many fields.   I shall start a thread in Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about a specific instance or instances of bias, not a general concept of bias. Bias is a systematic deviation from an expected result. Before you can talk about systematic deviation, you need to establish what the expected result is. Start whatever thread you want in philosophy, but unless and until you can respond to the ideas here, you're out of luck making a specific case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bias suggests a standard of interpretation, an angle, possibly without consensual approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Teybo said:

You're talking about a specific instance or instances of bias, not a general concept of bias. Bias is a systematic deviation from an expected result. Before you can talk about systematic deviation, you need to establish what the expected result is. Start whatever thread you want in philosophy, but unless and until you can respond to the ideas here, you're out of luck making a specific case.

Says you.  One starts with the general and moves towards the specific.  Otherwise, nothing can be claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Says you.  One starts with the general and moves towards the specific.  Otherwise, nothing can be claimed.

Literally I gave you a general definition of bias and asked you to start fleshing things out. If you can't start there, you don't got much, do you? All that bluster and certainty you showed before somehow fizzles. This thread will wait for whenever in the future you feel the need to spout blustery stuff about bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Teybo said:

I gave you a general definition of bias

SImple for fools.  Keep your useless thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now