Typical SJ response?

[Steve]

I was talking with a friend about which school subjects each of us has strengths in and how we have different learning styles. I then brought up personality type differences and I brought up the idea that some people are naturally better than other people at certain things, and vise versa.

He then tells me that by working hard he can be good at anything.

When I bring up how different types are natually inclined towards certain things and are better at some things than others, he says that he wants to be good at both preferences (both S and N) or be both a global and analytical learner and that he'll work to be that way.

Obviously he seems to completely misunderstand the abstract description and that someone's natural qualities do not become changed simply by working hard at them. I tried to clarify it and was very clear but he kept seeing it in concrete terms.

Sometimes it can even get annoying when I run into people who only get where they've gotten by "working hard" and putting in the time; not coming up with anything fresh, unique, or even know the true purpose in the grander scheme of things of why they're doing what they're doing.

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

Are my friend's responses typical SJ responses, specifically ESTJ or ISTJ?

[Gilly]

If anything I'd say it sounds ESTj (Ne hidden agenda)

[Ms. Kensington]

yeah ESTj over ISTj.

word to the wise: you might want to think twice before you talk about being naturally better at something 'round these parts.

[FDG]

I was talking with a friend about which school subjects each of us has strengths in and how we have different learning styles. I then brought up personality type differences and I brought up the idea that some people are naturally better than other people at certain things, and vise versa.

He then tells me that by working hard he can be good at anything.

Just point out the differences in top-earning athletes. Point also out the athletes that are known to be genetic freaks without a training as appropriate as the others. Point him also out that no matter how hard he tries, he won't:

- Become female by working hard on it
- Become taller by working hard on it

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

Actually, he was spot on right. You can't use your imagination to get a result like that, you need at least some data, otherwise the numbers are just random. I challenge you to provide some meaningful numbers just by your imagination. Moreover, your joke was incorrect, since apprasing is rationally-based (fortunately), not imagination-based, and a rational approach like the one of your friend is much more valued than an imaginative one, and rightfully so.

[Raver]

Wouldn't appraising require lots of factual data in order to enable your imagination to produce a more accurate conclusion?

[Rocky]

I might respond in a similar way that your friend did. My ESFJ sister didn't want to be put in a box either (she claimed that she was both a "Thinker and a Feeler" and things along those lines). I'm not going to go into it now, but to believe that the type "preferences" are distinctly seperated, static, and limiting, is childish. I think one of the problems with this stuff is that people start to "play into the stereotype" and exxaaagggggerate their personality once they "know" their type. Maybe you should also consider that sometimes you can be wrong, and that everyone else is not always wrong.

Obviously he seems to completely misunderstand the abstract description and that someone's natural qualities do not become changed simply by working hard at them. I tried to clarify it and was very clear but he kept seeing it in concrete terms.

First, I don't believe types change either, however they certianly are not static. You seem to be forgetting that the "type" does not measure the developmental level of the funcitons or their relation to each other in strength. This means that people in the same four-letter acronymed "type" can still have different function strengths amongst themselves, and this is something that we have not and cannot quantify.

Second, stop the mentally-masturbating and try and think for yourself for once.

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

Wrong. You can't just "guess" at something like that. Appraising can't be done other than a rational, factual, or specific method, otherwise it obviously doesn't get you anywhere (as FDG said). I could say I have 500 million dollars in my bank account, but if I go to an auction to buy a franchise, and I only have five thousand dollars, they won't let me auction for anything, no matter what I say. I could say that you are actually a tiny, white, retard mouse tapping at the keyboard instead of a person, but than I'd probably be wrong about that (well, maybe).

[Steve]

As far as the appraising goes, when someone first looks at your car, they can give you a rough estimate based on the typical cost of the parts goes and the labor. That's kinda what I was asking for when I asked him to guess the value of NYC. I made a guess based on roughly what each building and skyscraper goes for, and how many are in the city.

He was contradicting me more on the fact that the city could never be for sale at one time, and that the laws of economics would prevent one from coming up with a number. It's more the literalness I'm referring to.

My only use of imagination was in guessing how many buildings or property there was in the city, not coming up with it out of thin air. It was based on things like the World Trade Center being worth 2 billion, the Empire State Building roughly 70 million, etc. He just wasn't willing to imagine a situation where all of NYC would be for sale at once, which he said would go against supply and demand and all this jargon which I'm very well aware of but was trying to put aside for this imaginary situation.

My estimate was not on sentimental value, but of average property value, just used in a hypothetical situation in which his rigidity was unwilling to let him delve into.

[FDG]

As far as the appraising goes, when someone first looks at your car, they can give you a rough estimate based on the typical cost of the parts goes and the labor. That's kinda what I was asking for when I asked him to guess the value of NYC. I made a guess based on roughly what each building and skyscraper goes for, and how many are in the city.

He was contradicting me more on the fact that the city could never be for sale at one time, and that the laws of economics would prevent one from coming up with a number. It's more the literalness I'm referring to.

My only use of imagination was in guessing how many buildings or property there was in the city, not coming up with it out of thin air. It was based on things like the World Trade Center being worth 2 billion, the Empire State Building roughly 70 million, etc. He just wasn't willing to imagine a situation where all of NYC would be for sale at once, which he said would go against supply and demand and all this jargon which I'm very well aware of but was trying to put aside for this imaginary situation.

My estimate was not on sentimental value, but of average property value, just used in a hypothetical situation in which his rigidity was unwilling to let him delve into.

1) Your example is so wrong that I don't know where to start. Knowing the worth of a car is unlike knowing the worth of the whole NYC.

2) You did not clarify the procedure on how to guess how many buildings there were in the city; how much was worth a building as average - you only mentioned the 3+ SDs from the mean; how you could handle mutiplying such numbers in your head.

Shorty, he was just as rigid as you were being off-base.

[Steve]

I might respond in a similar way that your friend did. My ESFJ sister didn't want to be put in a box either (she claimed that she was both a "Thinker and a Feeler" and things along those lines). I'm not going to go into it now, but to believe that the type "preferences" are distinctly seperated, static, and limiting, is childish. I think one of the problems with this stuff is that people start to "play into the stereotype" and exxaaagggggerate their personality once they "know" their type. Maybe you should also consider that sometimes you can be wrong, and that everyone else is not always wrong.

Obviously he seems to completely misunderstand the abstract description and that someone's natural qualities do not become changed simply by working hard at them. I tried to clarify it and was very clear but he kept seeing it in concrete terms.

First, I don't believe types change either, however they certianly are not static. You seem to be forgetting that the "type" does not measure the developmental level of the funcitons or their relation to each other in strength. This means that people in the same four-letter acronymed "type" can still have different function strengths amongst themselves, and this is something that we have not and cannot quantify.

Second, stop the mentally-masturbating and try and think for yourself for once.

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

Wrong. You can't just "guess" at something like that. Appraising can't be done other than a rational, factual, or specific method, otherwise it obviously doesn't get you anywhere (as FDG said). I could say I have 500 million dollars in my bank account, but if I go to an auction to buy a franchise, and I only have five thousand dollars, they won't let me auction for anything, no matter what I say. I could say that you are actually a tiny, white, retard mouse tapping at the keyboard instead of a person, but than I'd probably be wrong about that (well, maybe).

I agree with what you said about how people aren't locked into any function or limited because of them. I was never implying that. Infact I told him fundamental things he was good at that I wasn't. I think this was an extreme case with my friend. I know other SJ's who are not that way at all, and we even acknowledge differences for fun, and work with one another so that together we'll be a powerful team.

Again you're taking me very literally when I say imagine. When I imagine, I take into account all the real-world variables at play in their actual physical condition. What he couldn't do was synthesise those variables into one big picture. He had to take it all linearly and sequentially (which i'm not saying there's anything wrong with, but it's not necessarily the way I do things EVERY TIME).

But even if what I was asking was to come just one small step out of the laws of financial reality, it shouldn'tve have been a big deal. I was just asking casually for my friend to come into my domain for just one minute. I am always very willing to go into his domain and be very literal, factual, and taking into account the laws of finance, so just out of courtesy, he should do me a favor just for my own small enjoyment, and come into my arena, whether it follows the rules of factual logic or not.

And Rocky tiny doesn't quite cut it and I don't even like cheese.

[Steve]

1) Your example is so wrong that I don't know where to start. Knowing the worth of a car is unlike knowing the worth of the whole NYC.

2) You did not clarify the procedure on how to guess how many buildings there were in the city; how much was worth a building as average - you only mentioned the 3+ SDs from the mean; how you could handle mutiplying such numbers in your head.

Shorty, he was just as rigid as you were being off-base.

All I was asking for was a rough estimate, like 5 trillion, 10 trillion or 20 trillion, one that does not require much calculation, one based on speculation. I was intending it to be the same kind of thing where someone would ask "How many grains of sand do you think are on the beach?" It was not meant to be literal at all. It was meant purely for fun. And infact, if too much thought and literalness goes into a casual, fun, conversation, the fun and the overall idea gets destroyed.

And it seems that many, not just you are taking a lot of what I say completely literaly, which is fine, but you may misunderstand some of what I'm trying to say. (Don't worry, I'm working on trying to be as concrete and verbally concise as I can lol.)

And a lot of why I complained of my friend's reaction was because in college, I have to do his kind of thinking all the time, and I feel that I can't bring a different angle into things and be creative much, given a lot of what I've taken are accounting and finance courses. So I have a need every so often to just think a little bit irrationally; imaginatively, to just be a little less rigid, and I think there's nothing wrong with that.

[cracka]

I was talking with a friend about which school subjects each of us has strengths in and how we have different learning styles. I then brought up personality type differences and I brought up the idea that some people are naturally better than other people at certain things, and vise versa.

He then tells me that by working hard he can be good at anything.

LOL, your friend is probably another version of me from what I've seen from the few posts you've posted in the past couple days, since your friend has been what most of the posts I've seen from you were about.
If I was involved in the conversation you had then i would have responded pretty much the same way...
He's not saying he's going to be the BEST at anything, but that he can be good at anything with some hard work, practice, and if he's taught the right way. Don't get me wrong, there's still natural Ability that some have and most don't, but that's not exactly the same argument. Also, you have to look at what was being talked about during this conversation. As an ESTJ, I can learn any sport, pretty much any trade/job that I am taught, how to fix something as long as I have a reference or instructions, etc. etc.
BUT... There are some things that wouldn't have entered his mind in the conversation because of his lack of imagination and more of the big picture... For example, had you been talking about him being an artist, singer, dancer, etc. he probably would have agreed, though it would have taken a bit. (I put Etc. because I actually can't think of any other things to put.) I know there are things out there I can't do, I just don't know what they are. :wink: I dunno if this makes much sense but oh well...

Sometimes it can even get annoying when I run into people who only get where they've gotten by "working hard" and putting in the time; not coming up with anything fresh, unique, or even know the true purpose in the grander scheme of things of why they're doing what they're doing.

I personally think the same way as he does about getting everywhere in life by working hard at what I needed to get to where I'm at. When you think about it the way he does (probably the way I think of it), everything has happened because of something else that he made happened before.
As far as knowing the true purpose in the grander scheme of things of why they're doing what they're doing... In his thinking he doesn't need to know everything, he'll do his part of what has to happen and what he's told or what society manipulates him to think he needs to do.

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

It's true, give him enough of the right info and I'd say he'll give you an estimate closer than most since he'll probably go into WAAAAAAY more detail than he'd really need to. In the case you pointed out, i'd say I would have given the same response.

[cracka]

I was just asking casually for my friend to come into my domain for just one minute. I am always very willing to go into his domain and be very literal, factual, and taking into account the laws of finance, so just out of courtesy, he should do me a favor just for my own small enjoyment, and come into my arena, whether it follows the rules of factual logic or not.

He won't jump into your domain with you because to him, it doesn't make much sense and there's no reason for him to try to make sense of it. To him, if there's no logic to it it must be wrong.

[Steve]

LOL, your friend is probably another version of me from what I've seen from the few posts you've posted in the past couple days, since your friend has been what most of the posts I've seen from you were about.
If I was involved in the conversation you had then i would have responded pretty much the same way...
He's not saying he's going to be the BEST at anything, but that he can be good at anything with some hard work, practice, and if he's taught the right way. Don't get me wrong, there's still natural Ability that some have and most don't, but that's not exactly the same argument. Also, you have to look at what was being talked about during this conversation. As an ESTJ, I can learn any sport, pretty much any trade/job that I am taught, how to fix something as long as I have a reference or instructions, etc. etc.
BUT... There are some things that wouldn't have entered his mind in the conversation because of his lack of imagination and more of the big picture... For example, had you been talking about him being an artist, singer, dancer, etc. he probably would have agreed, though it would have taken a bit. (I put Etc. because I actually can't think of any other things to put.) I know there are things out there I can't do, I just don't know what they are. :wink: I dunno if this makes much sense but oh well...

I personally think the same way as he does about getting everywhere in life by working hard at what I needed to get to where I'm at. When you think about it the way he does (probably the way I think of it), everything has happened because of something else that he made happened before.
As far as knowing the true purpose in the grander scheme of things of why they're doing what they're doing... In his thinking he doesn't need to know everything, he'll do his part of what has to happen and what he's told or what society manipulates him to think he needs to do.

On a side note, I asked him to give me a vague estimate on what the monetary value of everything in New York City was, just to speculate. He told me that he would need more information and that it depended on the economic values and of the markets, and that you couldn't technically give an estimate like that because in real terms it depends on too many variables. I then asked him to simply use his imagination, just guess, and he couldn't. At this point I was getting pretty annoyed inside but didn't show it. I just jokingly told him that he shoudn't go into appraising.

It's true, give him enough of the right info and I'd say he'll give you an estimate closer than most since he'll probably go into WAAAAAAY more detail than he'd really need to. In the case you pointed out, i'd say I would have given the same response.

Cracka, that actually makes perfect sense. Once I actually try to imagine myself as the other type looking at things from a certain perspective, I can see how at times I may be too vague just as much as he's too specific.

One of the things I've found very gratifying about learning about the different personalities is that I can understand a little clearer where people are coming from and not get frustrated. I'll bet my friend can get frustrated with me at times for not being exact enough.

Many times I'll consider how what I say may seem to the other person, but sometimes when I have an idea that starts building momentum, I forget to. (Oh well lol).

Thanks for your response. This is the direction that I wanted the thread to go.

[olduser]

I think one of the problems with this stuff is that people start to "play into the stereotype" and exxaaagggggerate their personality once they "know" their type. Maybe you should also consider that sometimes you can be wrong, and that everyone else is not always wrong.

I've uncomfortably aware of exactly what you are talking about. It was the reason i tried to push trash all over the forum with many useless posts. I still believe it's a nasty habit, and that people do it out of weakness. It's basically a person finding a hero. Except that hero has no real accomplishments and exists only as career listings, vague behavioural patterns, 'information metabolism methods,' etc. Anyway, thouroughly enjoyed your perspective.

[discojoe]

If you were getting annoyed then you're being unreasonable. What's the point in guessing when the "closeness" of the guess is totally subjective? There's no point in guessing, and appraisal can be done accurately without taking crappy intuitive guesses. He was being prudent, and willing to take in the details, which in the end turns up a more complete, accurate product.

Intuition is good for creativity and salesmanship, but when it comes to giving the exact information, its use is ill advised.

[felafel]

I've uncomfortably aware of exactly what you are talking about. It was the reason i tried to push trash all over the forum with many useless posts. I still believe it's a nasty habit, and that people do it out of weakness. It's basically a person finding a hero. Except that hero has no real accomplishments and exists only as career listings, vague behavioural patterns, 'information metabolism methods,' etc. Anyway, thouroughly enjoyed your perspective.

oh, are you suggesting a hero's your identical? couldn't help noticing this post - i've posted sth on our "heroes" on the general discussion forum.
ps: yes, this post is unrelated to the topic at hand, so don't even bother pointing it out.

[Steve]

If you were getting annoyed then you're being unreasonable. What's the point in guessing when the "closeness" of the guess is totally subjective?

Because sometimes it's fun to speculate on the magnitude of things, and to be a little artistic and creative with real world situaitions. As I stated from my previous posts, I wasn't looking for an exact answer, I was just basically looking for the point that the value would be unfathomable compared to everyday standards.

There's no point in guessing, and appraisal can be done accurately without taking crappy intuitive guesses. He was being prudent, and willing to take in the details, which in the end turns up a more complete, accurate product.

You're right if you're doing real appraising and you do want an exact number or range, but again you seem to be missing the overall picture here. I was asking him to bend the rules a little bit, just for fun, be a little artistic, (blend the real with the surreal) and many people in this thread seem to be misunderstanding that entire point; maybe I didn't make that clear enough at the outset, that my intentions were not for an exact estimate but just a fun, casual speculation simply to appreciate the magnitude of the value of the nation's biggest city. I now even realize why I got the response I did from my friend.

Cracka understood what I was trying to convey and addressed it well.

Intuition is good for creativity and salesmanship, but when it comes to giving the exact information, its use is ill advised.

I agree, but again I wasn't looking for exact information, as I stated above.

[MysticSonic]

Perhaps your intent was misread, then, and you're attributing way too much to type?