|
Post by learjet on Jun 26, 2014 5:06:27 GMT
My take on the blow-by-blow J/P debate
Lee
P statements: I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens. – MAYBE - DOESN'T HE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE UNEXPECTED IN HIS LINE OF WORK ◦I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum. NO I THINK HE VALUES PLANS WRT WORK. HE TELLS AMANDA OFF FOR RELYING ON THINGS FALLING INTO PLACE FORTUITOUSLY IN ALLA AND SAYS THAT AGENTS SHOULD PLAN EVERYTHING CAREFULLY. ◦I like to approach work as play or mix work and play. NO. I THINK HE TAKES HIS WORK V SERIOUSLY. I DON'T CONSIDER HIM 'MIXING' WITH THE STENO POOL, FRANCINE ETC FOR BACKGAMMON AS MIXING WORK AND PLAY (JUST ILL-ADVISED) ◦I work in bursts of energy. YES FOR SCARECROW. NOT SO SURE ABOUT LEE. ◦ I am stimulated by an approaching deadline. YES - BUT ISN'T THIS THE NATURE OF THE JOB ◦ Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed. NO. I THINK HE'S PRETTY DECISIVE
J statements: I like to have things decided. YES - NEW HOUSE PRE-WEDDING (OR EVEN TELLING THE FAMILY ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP), ◦I appear to be task oriented. YES ◦ I like to make lists of things to do. I DON'T THINK HE'S A LIST-MAKER. AND HE'S NOT GOOD AT ADMIN (NEVER HAS HIS REPORTS DONE) ◦ I like to get my work done before playing. YES. THE ONLY TIME WE EVER SEE THAT HIS SOCIAL LIFE GETS IN THE WAY OF HIS WORK LIFE IS THE INFAMOUS INSOMNIA IN OTL ◦ I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline. WE DON'T SEE HIM PLANNING OFTEN - BUT AGAIN THE TAG OF ALLA WHERE HE GIVES AMANDA A TALKING TO, AND HIS PLANNING IN BAD TIMING (THAT HAD A DEADLINE - LITERALLY! - BUT NOT BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN SLUGGISH ABOUT GETTING A JOB DONE ◦Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information. I THINK POSSIBLY. I SEE LEE AS FOCUSED ON HIS GOAL (WHATEVER THAT IS). I AGREE AMANDA HELPS HIM TO SEE NEW INFORMATION
Amanda –
P statements: ◦ I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens. I AGREE WITH BJO. SHE CAN DO IT BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS HER PREFERENCE ◦I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum. I THINK SHE IS A PLANNED PERSON AND A LIST MAKER ◦I like to approach work as play or mix work and play. NO. SHE IS VERY FOCUSED ON WORK AS WORK ◦I work in bursts of energy. NO. I SEE HER AS WORKING CONSISTENTLY ◦ I am stimulated by an approaching deadline. I THINK SHE CAN WORK TO A DEADLINE BUT SHE'D PREFER TO GET IT DONE SOONER ◦ Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed. NO
J statements: ◦ I like to have things decided. YES ◦I appear to be task oriented. YES SHE WANTS TO GET IT DONE AND MOVE ON ◦ I like to make lists of things to do. SHE MADE LISTS WHEN SHE WAS GOING AWAY (I THINK IT WAS FOR DOTTY IN DO YOU TAKE THIS SPY). ALSO WHEN DOTTY AND THE BOYS GO AWAY, SHE APPEARS TO HAVE MENTAL LISTS THAT SHE GOES THROUGH ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO TAKE ◦ I like to get my work done before playing. YES ◦ I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline. Yes – I think so. ◦Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information. I don’t think this describes Amanda fully. She seems very open and perceptive.
I think on balance I'm getting J for both of them. But I don't think either of them are extreme cases of J'ness. I'm getting increasingly confused. Give me more raw data! (said Learjet the strong ST)
BJo, I watched the tag for Billy's lost weekend
IWSOD alert!!! Don't read further Iwsod!
I am not sure I see the J/P significance in the tag - I can see that in an earlier scene (I think in the same episode) it sheds some light on this discussion - I mean the scene where Lee is giving her about 5 options about where to go for the weekend as he wants it to be perfect and she says she doesn't care as that any holiday with him will be the best.
|
|
|
Post by BJo on Jun 27, 2014 3:00:21 GMT
I also think that Amanda's involvement in the PTA is not indiciative of E/I. I was very involved in my kids' school PTA and my church community. I hated the meetings, and signed up for volunteer activities where I was able to volunteer with the few women I was friends with. I also chaired one committee year after year, but was basically a committee of one and delegated. Actually, I think the fact that she is so involved in the PTA's and her community (MFSE) and lots of people know her (middle school principal Alma Dennis in TWWHome) but she never does anything with them or talks to them on the show makes me think that she is more I than E. Like you said learjet, Dotty seems to fill that role just fine. That's it for now, gotta run! I see your point about the PTA, BJo. I think she is a decent, community-minded person person, wanted to be a good mum by involving herself in activities to do with her boys etc. I think your involvement may be partly related to being an ISTJ - feeling that you should contribute, that is your duty to help out and that they need people like you that they can rely on (since I don't know you, I might be totally wrong here, so I apologise if I'M off!). I tend to commit to helping out because I think someone needs to do it and then wish I hadn't because I would rather stay at home with a book or TV when the time comes to go (but I always go anyway). Nope! You're right on, learjet!! I did have the added benefit though of having my two best friends being involved in the PTA with me. So it made it much more fun and easier to go when my PTA stuff involved just me and one or both of them.
|
|
|
Post by BJo on Jun 27, 2014 3:07:38 GMT
DUH!!! Head slap!!! I totally had the wrong scene. Learjet, the scene you're referring to with this is the scene I meant:
BJo, I watched the tag for Billy's lost weekend
IWSOD alert!!! Don't read further Iwsod!
I am not sure I see the J/P significance in the tag - I can see that in an earlier scene (I think in the same episode) it sheds some light on this discussion - I mean the scene where Lee is giving her about 5 options about where to go for the weekend as he wants it to be perfect and she says she doesn't care as that any holiday with him will be the best.
I'm trying not to watch ahead, and pace myself with the blog...but gosh, I don't know how on earth I said to watch the tag. Gah!
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Jun 27, 2014 3:19:25 GMT
I'm trying not to watch ahead, and pace myself with the blog...but gosh, I don't know how on earth I said to watch the tag. Gah! So am I . So it's your fault that I watched that tag!! (lol - I'm an ISTJ, I have loads of self-control when I want to have it!) BTW what is adult Sunday School? You said you did a session on MBTI for your adult Sunday School. Is it a Bible Study but on a Sunday? I actually had a book on MB a few years back relating it to (Christian) spirituality. It got left with lots of other books when we immigrated.
|
|
|
Post by BJo on Jul 1, 2014 2:18:23 GMT
I'm trying not to watch ahead, and pace myself with the blog...but gosh, I don't know how on earth I said to watch the tag. Gah! So am I . So it's your fault that I watched that tag!! (lol - I'm an ISTJ, I have loads of self-control when I want to have it!) BTW what is adult Sunday School? You said you did a session on MBTI for your adult Sunday School. Is it a Bible Study but on a Sunday? I actually had a book on MB a few years back relating it to (Christian) spirituality. It got left with lots of other books when we immigrated. ROFL!! Yep, it's totally my fault!!! And yes, adult Sunday School in my church was essentially a Bible Study. It is common for churches to have Sunday School for kids on Sundays before church and Adult Sunday School is where the adults go while the kids are in their Sunday School. Even thought I'm not watching ahead, it's only going to last so long. I am Morley's beta for her stories and she is almost done with season 2. So at some point in the next few months I'll be watching ahead so I can be a good beta for her.
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Jul 29, 2014 9:15:19 GMT
My results to the test were actually pretty similar to yours. It occurs to me that, besides some answers being based on what's happening in your life at the time you take the test, part of it might also be learned behavior. When you think about it, the N side (which seems to be about imagination and big ideas) needs the S to provide details, information, and practicality to build on those ideas and make them reality. It could also work the other way around, with imagination providing uses for practical information. Developing the T side of your personality could also help balance out the F side and vice versa. It might be a nature vs. nurture thing. I think we might be born with leanings one way or the other, but we can shift over time, depending on things that happen to us and which sides of our personality we choose to develop. Some people may also be naturally between two qualities with only slight leanings in either direction, like people who are ambidextrous but slightly favor one hand over the other. It has occurred to me that everyone who has posted on this thread is a I**J. Which made me think: 1) Does this mean I**J's are the type of people interested in MBTI? 2) Or can we generalise to assume that followers of JWWM tend to be I**J's These are, admittedly, huge leaps and generalisations (and based on flawed logic), but it was an interesting observation (worthy of a case study as opposed to a case-control study ) I'm also agreeing with Jestress these days that we may be born with leanings to one, but be affected eg by how our biological families function to compensate by developing a preference for the opposite characteristic. Eg in a family fill of strong Fs, someone might be a weaker F but develop into a T as it's needed for the family to function
|
|
|
Post by Khell on Jul 29, 2014 19:54:35 GMT
I guess for my part, I'm just into a different kind of "categorization" as far as TV characters go. And as far as I go - I absolutely HATE to be "categorized" so I more likely than not won't try to figure out what type I am. It doesn't really matter to me either. Plus that MBTI-stuff seems a lot less widespread here in Europe (or at least in Germany) than where you folks live. First time I ever heard about it was actually here in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by jestress on Jul 31, 2014 4:39:36 GMT
I was thinking the other day about something that I heard in a documentary about people during the 1700s (I think that it was either about Colonial America or Revolutionary America, but I can't remember exactly now. Close enough!). At one point, they were talking about how the tendency in modern times has been to assess someone's character or your now character by figuring out "who you are" or your natural tendencies, but in the 18th century, the emphasis was on "who you want to be" or "who you make yourself." In other words, if a man wanted to be a "gentleman", he would have to learn or decide how a gentleman ought to be and make himself fit that image. That's not quite the same as the personality assessment here, but I thought it was interesting because someone earlier mentioned people's desires and expectations skewing the results of the test. Here, there's an emphasis on people's desires influencing their behavior and actually defining who are they are.
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Jul 31, 2014 6:40:49 GMT
I was thinking the other day about something that I heard in a documentary about people during the 1700s (I think that it was either about Colonial America or Revolutionary America, but I can't remember exactly now. Close enough!). At one point, they were talking about how the tendency in modern times has been to assess someone's character or your now character by figuring out "who you are" or your natural tendencies, but in the 18th century, the emphasis was on "who you want to be" or "who you make yourself." In other words, if a man wanted to be a "gentleman", he would have to learn or decide how a gentleman ought to be and make himself fit that image. That's not quite the same as the personality assessment here, but I thought it was interesting because someone earlier mentioned people's desires and expectations skewing the results of the test. Here, there's an emphasis on people's desires influencing their behavior and actually defining who are they are. For me, it's about understanding my natural preferences so that I can: a) Develop the other "half" of the characteristics to make me a more rounded person b) Understand the people close to me, and so being slower to judge their behaviour by the way I would behave But I agree about the 18th view - effectively, it was about building character, not just accepting how you were. And that is a noble ambition which has been lost in modern society. It's interesting how different character types are viewed differently in different cultures. Has anyone read "Quiet" by Susan Cain. She talks about how quiet, reserved people are considered to be intelligent in Chinese society, whereas in the US (she wrote from the US so this is her prespective, I don't know) "selling" yourself was highly desirable. She also talked about how this has changed since the mid-twentieth century. I need to finish it....
|
|
|
Post by jestress on Aug 1, 2014 2:26:19 GMT
For me, it's about understanding my natural preferences so that I can: a) Develop the other "half" of the characteristics to make me a more rounded person b) Understand the people close to me, and so being slower to judge their behaviour by the way I would behave But I agree about the 18th view - effectively, it was about building character, not just accepting how you were. And that is a noble ambition which has been lost in modern society. It's interesting how different character types are viewed differently in different cultures. Has anyone read "Quiet" by Susan Cain. She talks about how quiet, reserved people are considered to be intelligent in Chinese society, whereas in the US (she wrote from the US so this is her prespective, I don't know) "selling" yourself was highly desirable. She also talked about how this has changed since the mid-twentieth century. I need to finish it.... I agree. I think that there are advantages to both getting to know your own natural tendencies and deciding who you'd like to be. Sounds like a fascinating book. Let me know what you think when you finish it.
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Aug 1, 2014 2:29:20 GMT
Unfortunately I'm in the middle of too many books - as usual
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Aug 7, 2014 1:24:39 GMT
Sounds like a fascinating book. Let me know what you think when you finish it. OK, so I'm actually trying to finish reading "Quiet" by Susan Cain. I came across as fascinating paragraph (Chapter 2, 18% into the Kindle versioin - how do you reference that??): "Studies have shown that, indeed, introverts are more likely to express intimate facts about themselves online that their families and friends would be surprised to read, to say that they can express the "real me" online, and to spend more time in certain kinds of online discussions. They welcome the chance to communicate digitally. The same person who would never raise his hand in a lecture hall of two hundred people might blog to two thousand, or two million, without thinking twice. The same person who finds it difficult to introduce himself to strangers might establish a presence online and *then* extend these relationships into the real world"I'm interested in what people here think about this. Some of this certainly resonates with me - not the intimate facts bit, but more expressing a part of myself that doesn't normally get "aired" in RL
|
|
|
Post by jestress on Aug 7, 2014 4:01:31 GMT
Sounds like a fascinating book. Let me know what you think when you finish it. OK, so I'm actually trying to finish reading "Quiet" by Susan Cain. I came across as fascinating paragraph (Chapter 2, 18% into the Kindle versioin - how do you reference that??): "Studies have shown that, indeed, introverts are more likely to express intimate facts about themselves online that their families and friends would be surprised to read, to say that they can express the "real me" online, and to spend more time in certain kinds of online discussions. They welcome the chance to communicate digitally. The same person who would never raise his hand in a lecture hall of two hundred people might blog to two thousand, or two million, without thinking twice. The same person who finds it difficult to introduce himself to strangers might establish a presence online and *then* extend these relationships into the real world"I'm interested in what people here think about this. Some of this certainly resonates with me - not the intimate facts bit, but more expressing a part of myself that doesn't normally get "aired" in RL I'd definitely agree with that. I'm definitely an introvert, and I've often felt better expressing myself in writing than by speaking. In real life, I'm pretty quiet. When I get deep into talking about something, I sometimes trip over my own words or sound like Amanda on one of her rambles (I've actually got a couple of theories about those rambles). However, when I write, I can take my time, sort through ideas and organize them, and change any part that doesn't sound right, so I have more confidence while writing, online or otherwise. It also has occurred to me recently that I've talked about things here that I haven't talked about much with people I know where I live, at least not as many people as I've talked to here. It's largely a matter of knowing something about the audience. The topic of SMK doesn't interest many of my friends, to begin with, but some of the other things I've mentioned here wouldn't get much of a reaction from them, or at least not the best kind of reaction. For instance, not many people I talk to in person are interested at all in personality types, and probably the one who would have the most to say on it would be more interested in talking about his own theories than hearing what I'd have to say. It's okay to talk about it here, though, because you're actively inviting opinions on the topic. My friends know that I went on the trip to Jerome, but I've really only talked about the ghost-hunting part with a couple of friends I knew were interested (one of them had an uncle who used to be into that kind of thing and the other is kind of like me -- just curious, enjoying the adventure, and speculating about the possibilities, but not taking it too seriously). The ones I haven't discussed the ghost hunting with are the ones who would be most likely to tell me how silly I was for even going on the tour. One of them even said as much when I mentioned it before I left. There's just no point in talking much about something when you're sure someone isn't interested. But, I decided to post the pictures here because people were talking about vacations, and I figured that even if people weren't interested, they would be more likely to just skip over the post than to criticize. One of the nice things about talking to people online is connecting with a receptive audience, and I do appreciate you guys for that.
|
|
|
Post by learjet on Aug 7, 2014 4:49:44 GMT
I'd definitely agree with that. I'm definitely an introvert, and I've often felt better expressing myself in writing than by speaking. In real life, I'm pretty quiet. When I get deep into talking about something, I sometimes trip over my own words or sound like Amanda on one of her rambles (I've actually got a couple of theories about those rambles). However, when I write, I can take my time, sort through ideas and organize them, and change any part that doesn't sound right, so I have more confidence while writing, online or otherwise. It also has occurred to me recently that I've talked about things here that I haven't talked about much with people I know where I live, at least not as many people as I've talked to here. It's largely a matter of knowing something about the audience. The topic of SMK doesn't interest many of my friends, to begin with, but some of the other things I've mentioned here wouldn't get much of a reaction from them, or at least not the best kind of reaction. For instance, not many people I talk to in person are interested at all in personality types, and probably the one who would have the most to say on it would be more interested in talking about his own theories than hearing what I'd have to say. It's okay to talk about it here, though, because you're actively inviting opinions on the topic. My friends know that I went on the trip to Jerome, but I've really only talked about the ghost-hunting part with a couple of friends I knew were interested (one of them had an uncle who used to be into that kind of thing and the other is kind of like me -- just curious, enjoying the adventure, and speculating about the possibilities, but not taking it too seriously). The ones I haven't discussed the ghost hunting with are the ones who would be most likely to tell me how silly I was for even going on the tour. One of them even said as much when I mentioned it before I left. There's just no point in talking much about something when you're sure someone isn't interested. But, I decided to post the pictures here because people were talking about vacations, and I figured that even if people weren't interested, they would be more likely to just skip over the post than to criticize. One of the nice things about talking to people online is connecting with a receptive audience, and I do appreciate you guys for that. Interesting that you mention "rambling". I remember vividly when I was doing my undergrad degree 20 years ago how I would often find myself babbling away to people I knew quite well, and then leave and think to myself "what did I just say? Where did that come from" - I think it was a coping mechanism for not feeling comfortable - I either said absolutely nothing or babbled total nonsense and felt sick afterwards (apparently I appeared normal as no-one treated me strangely; but it wasn't the "inner" me talking, just my external "mask"). Do share your ramble theories.... I think that online you can potentially meet people who have some interests that no-one in your "physical" life shares. I was actually saying this to my mum the other day - I tend to mix with people that either I work with or mums of kids the same age as mine. Lovely people, but books, music etc don't ever come into those relationships, and nor does introspection. We're very lucky here at Neds that people are intensely curious and have great senses of humour, but also very kind and respectful (not the case on a lot of forums I gather)
|
|
|
Post by KC on Aug 7, 2014 4:56:57 GMT
Well, looking at the chart on wikipedia (not having taken the test) I think I'm I**J (probably ISFJ; possible wobble on the F/T), but I haven't posted on this thread before now. I'm slightly interested in the discussion of MBTI but not overly so --> I vote for option 2. (Oh, wait? This is supposed to be statistically driven? Proper sample sizes, control groups, and randomness? My bad!)
|
|