What types do you like/dislike the most?

o_q said:
I find that there are more assholes lumped up into more specific types. I'm sure with more statistical recording, we'd have a nice bar graph.
Click to expand...

I put little belief in statistics since interval estimation, like confidence intervals or random variables, can be too subjective. Besides, Socionics is a better theory anyway.
 
o_q said:
I find that there are more assholes lumped up into more specific types. I'm sure with more statistical recording, we'd have a nice bar graph.
Click to expand...
this i can agree with. the type i've had the most problems with is estj, and even then, the mature ones i have no problem with. the two ive had a problem with made me want to resort to violence to solve the problem, if only to get them to shut the fuck up.
every other type is fine, as long as theyre mildly conscious. istjs can be little bitches if theyre unhealthy (as with any type) or immature. i know a lot of them who are awesome people as well.
uberrogo said:
You are right. Sticks and rocks turn into hammers that SJs would use to beat you over the head.
Click to expand...
what are you gonna do against guns and bombs?
bionic said:
I put little belief in statistics since interval estimation, like confidence intervals or random variables, can be too subjective. Besides, Socionics is a better theory anyway.
Click to expand...
what isnt subjective?
 
Last edited:
Kmal said:
Objective reality = Subjective evaluation of what it should be.
Click to expand...

Oh, great... another anti-realist ...

"Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.). Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states. Subjective reality would then include anything depending upon some (broadly construed) conscious awareness of it to exist. Particular instances of colors and sounds (as they are perceived) are prime examples of things that exist only when there are appropriate conscious states. Particular instances of emotions (e.g., my present happiness) also seem to be a subjective reality, existing when one feels them, and ceasing to exist when one’s mood changes."

“Objective knowledge” can simply refer to knowledge of an objective reality. Subjective knowledge would then be knowledge of any subjective reality.There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person."

Thus, Objective reality does not always include subjective existence since it exists on a different plane of realism. In other matters, subjective reality can be accounted for like so:

"The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object. From this experience, it seems to follow that two different perceiving minds could have clearly differing impressions of a single object. That is, two people could put their hands into the bucket of water, one describing it as cold, the other describing it as hot. Or, more plausibly, two people could step outside, one describing the weather as chilly, the other describing it as pleasant."

So alas, in response to Promethus Rising, your argument has some loopholes since it never denounces the existence of objective reality and only discusses the idea of UFOs from a metaphysical and reality tunnel perspective. That is where RAW is coming from in lieu of his point. He has never denounced the idea of an objective reality. His quote of "Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality. – Robert Anton Wilson", doesn't necessarily imply that there is no objective truth. Instead, he constitutes that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. For example, fundamentalist Christians, ontological naturalism, anti-realists, all operate from their reality tunnels but the objective reality is, that despite the clash and paradox of beliefs, the reality tunnels still exist.

Links:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel
 
Last edited:
I tend to despise working with INTJs. Mostly because the ones I've met I feel have a tendency to be rather domineering and any input they give is redundant and condescending for an INTP. Its as though they are completely blind to an INTPs competency. INTPs hate to be thought of as inadequate.

Another type I have a hard time getting along with is the ESFJ. I feel this stems from the fact that an INTPs main drive is to seek and understand the truth through clear and logical analysis. The ESFJ on the other hand can tend to be very difficult and stubborn in the face of concise logic, especially when aimed toward their behavior. ESFJs can have difficulty grasping a complex idea and so will use their Fe to reject it entirely.

The type I work really well with is the ESTP especially one in a leadership type roll. They're just generally fun to be around and their uncanny ability to recognize an INTPs hidden talents allows a sense of mutual respect to be shared. They know how best to put our skills to good use for the sake of getting things done.
 
I know several ISTP's. One of them I like very much, he's really interesting. I'm not keen on the others. A couple are o.k., but I detest a couple more. It's fascinating how similar their way of speaking is.

I have difficulty with ISTJ's. I find them to be rather pedantic. Also, I hate to say it, but of all the 10+ ENFJ's I've known I only think highly of two of them. The rest...um, no. Also, ESFP's can drive me absolutely INSANE.

On the other hand, my favourite sensor is the ESFJ. I find them to be quite delightful and easy to get along with.

I think INTJ's are adorable, even though they probably don't want anyone to think they're adorable. Tough toenails. I wish I knew more/wish there were more. Same with INFJ's. ENTJ's are very interesting, but I'm not ready to say that I like them/dislike them. They're just interesting.

I think INFP's are really sweet and very likable and creative. I usually like ENTP's, although they can certainly be trying. Whatever their flaws, they certainly aren't boring.

I think I'm done, for now.
 
bionic said:
"Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.).
“Objective knowledge” can simply refer to knowledge of an objective reality. Subjective knowledge would then be knowledge of any subjective reality.There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person."
Click to expand...

Your own subjective opinion of anothers subjective states is objective? By definition, sure. I understand where youre coming from, dont get me wrong.

Thus, Objective reality does not always include subjective existence since it exists on a different plane of realism. In other matters, subjective reality can be accounted for like so:
"The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object. From this experience, it seems to follow that two different perceiving minds could have clearly differing impressions of a single object. That is, two people could put their hands into the bucket of water, one describing it as cold, the other describing it as hot. Or, more plausibly, two people could step outside, one describing the weather as chilly, the other describing it as pleasant."
Click to expand...
Are you saying objective reality is the space and time? I can dig that. As the old saying goes, life goes on with you, or without you.

So alas, in response to Promethus Rising, your argument has some loopholes since it never denounces the existence of objective reality and only discusses the idea of UFOs from a metaphysical and reality tunnel perspective. That is where RAW is coming from in lieu of his point. He has never denounced the idea of an objective reality. His quote of "Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality. – Robert Anton Wilson", doesn't necessarily imply that there is no objective truth. Instead, he constitutes that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. For example, fundamentalist Christians, ontological naturalism, anti-realists, all operate from their reality tunnels but the objective reality is, that despite the clash and paradox of beliefs, the reality tunnels still exist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I certainly have a subjective idea of what an objective reality is.

Links:
Click to expand...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel
Click to expand...
 
subwayrider said:
ENPs are a lot of fun, in my experience.
Click to expand...

Cool, but you know the OP asked which type you dislike

Daniel Swift said:
Its as though they are completely blind to an INTPs competency. INTPs hate to be thought of as inadequate.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Two of my INTP friends, I regard them as inadequate because they don't see that there's truth beyond logic. And yesterday I was debating with a very narrow-sighted INTP who disregarded everything that didn't fit into his Ti. You know the sort of people who think that science fiction is wrong because there's no sound in space and every sci-fi should be hard science fiction.
 
I like the types who can discuss things openly and reasonably. Passionately for the trifecta.

I dislike the types who try to impose their bullshit on me.
 
swing said:
You know the sort of people who think that science fiction is wrong because there's no sound in space and every sci-fi should be hard science fiction.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean kids?

All types are blind outside of their primary function when they are young.

You find them inadequate simply because you do not value what they are capable of, in the same manner they don't value your "garbage" ability.
 
Last edited:
It all mostly depends on the general feel I get from the person. MBTI types mean little to me. I mean, maybe if I managed to find out the MBTI of all my favorite people there might be a trend, but I wouldn't care enough to note it. If you're an ignorant jerk, I won't like you. That pretty much sums it up, other minor details excluded. I guess it would also be accurate to say that I prefer people who have backbone and can take a joke, but can also be empathetic and sensitive at the "appropriate" times.
 
o_q said:
Oh, you mean kids? All types are blind outside of their primary function when they are young. You find them inadequate simply because you do not value what they are capable of, in the same manner they don't value your "garbage" ability.
Click to expand...

No, he was actually almost 40 years old. Uh, and no. I find them inadequate because holding Ti as the only valid benchmark for insight is simply narrow-sighted... which is THE signature of the INTP.
 
swing said:
And yesterday I was debating with a very narrow-sighted INTP who disregarded everything that didn't fit into his Ti. You know the sort of people who think that science fiction is wrong because there's no sound in space and every sci-fi should be hard science fiction.
Click to expand...

Lol, this is why INTPs have a hard time making friends. I do tend to have a natural drive to point out minute discrepancies like that. I learned a long time ago that its better for the sake of my social well-being to just say "Fuck it" most of the time. I still have my moments though.
 
Vict said:
I like the types who can discuss things openly and reasonably. Passionately for the trifecta.

I dislike the types who try to impose their bullshit on me.
Click to expand...

Hey, man, chocolate ice cream is the ONLY way to go.
 
I dislike a**holes in general, unfortunately, ENTP's usually end up falling into that group most often.
 
Honestly, I don't know about MBTI types. I don't know if I can identify one individual of each type based on the people I know...
Anyhow, I take issue with certain personality traits regardless of type. They may be found in some types more than others, or they may be expressed more strongly by some types or in particularly annoying ways by some types more than others, but all in all, I like and dislike being around people for their traits. I can see positive and valuable qualities in most people, but some people's less favourable qualities stand out more distinctly to me than their positive qualities when it comes to me interacting with them. It also depends on what I'm trying to get out of the interaction. Most people are valuable in many ways; there's something that can be learned or ascertained from many people. Then again, sometimes I just want to enjoy myself, and not everyone's good (for me) for that. *shrugs* It depends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top