Does this work well to separate Alpha and Gamma NT
Alpha NT
Creativity and new ideas
Gamma NT
Common sense and a step by step approach
NT
Does this work well to separate Alpha and Gamma NT
Alpha NT
Creativity and new ideas
Gamma NT
Common sense and a step by step approach
I don't think so. Neither of those is at all exclusive to NTs, let alone alpha NTs vs. gamma NTs.
NiTe | Socionix
I don't think he intends that to be an absolute, exclusive definition for those types, but rather, a description of tendencies relative to the opposing possibility, much like the temperment sorting question on his type test.Originally Posted by sarah
Based on my limited experience with, I think that it might work.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, gaypog is using a stereotypiccal "IxxJ" approach of generalizing, which at first is foreign to "IxxPs" (such as me and sarah).I don't think he intends that to be an absolute, exclusive definition for those types, but rather, a description of tendencies relative to the opposing possibility, much like the temperment sorting question on his type test.
Based on my limited experience with, I think that it might work.
I've tried to learn, however.
he never said that an ENTp can't use a step by step approach or that an INTp couldn't be creative
Common sense and step by step are contradictory of NT.
So, wrong.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Wow, talk about hypocrisy.Yes, gaypog is using a stereotypiccal "IxxJ" approach of generalizing, which at first is foreign to "IxxPs" (such as me and sarah).I don't think he intends that to be an absolute, exclusive definition for those types, but rather, a description of tendencies relative to the opposing possibility, much like the temperment sorting question on his type test.
Based on my limited experience with, I think that it might work.
I've tried to learn, however.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Well as an Alpha NT, I'd say that "Creativity and new ideas " sounds a lot more like than "Common sense and a step by step approach".
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Though i think at least some Gamma NTs would think the same. I agree with FDG and i'd say NTs in general are more "Common sense and a step by step approach" wannabes who actually are more about "Creativity and new ideas ". I mean that the former is not primary as often as the latter.
Yes, I realize that he doesn't mean it to be absolute or exclusive. I agree that generalizations like this can be useful; I just don't think this particular generalization works well. I suppose I should go into more detail about why I think so:
1) The word "creativity" is too broad. There are different kinds of creativity, which could perhaps be somehow attributed to different quadras, but the word "creativity" itself is an umbrella term. Many members of both quadras will relate to it, because they will be thinking of their own kind of creativity. (Yes, I know, the question is "Will Gamma members relate to it more than they would relate to "Common sense and a step-by-step approach"? I believe the answer is yes, but we're getting to that.) Creativity is a universal human value, not a quadra value.
2) As FDG pointed out already, "Common sense and a step-by-step approach" is not the most accurate stereotype for NTs. I don't know if it's out-and-out wrong, and perhaps it's true for some NTs. But it's not accurate enough to be useful, and it's certainly not the one evocative phrase I would choose to describe half the NTs in the socion, especially when there are better phrases available. I personally relate far more to the Alpha phrase than the Gamma one, and I suspect that many other gamma members would as well.
3) Parallel structure. "Creativity and new ideas" and "Common sense and a step-by-step approach" are different types of things. If the phrases are meant to refer to how Alpha NTs approach problem-solving vs. how Gamma NTs approach problem-solving, they fail to compare, because all four elements apply to different parts of a problem-solving process, and often work together in various combinations. If, instead, the phrases are only supposed to evoke some kind of "feel" for each quadra, they are still not well matched---one is describing an innate attribute and an independent noun, while the other is referring to a cumulative attribute and an active process. It would be more useful to contrast two phrases that deal with the same kind of cognitive entity.
("Creativity and new ideas" sounds like it came out of a stereotypical description of Ne, and "common sense and a step-by-step approach" sounds like it came out of an (even less good) stereotypical description of Te. Perhaps a judging vs. judging or perceiving vs. perceiving contrast would be more successful.)
4) Connotations. For me, at least, the phrase "creativity and new ideas" has more positive connotations than the phrase "common sense and a step-by-step approach," which sounds a bit unimaginative compared to the first. Your mileage may vary. It's true that people may find a phrase more positive when they identify with it, and less positive when they don't, which could be a useful tool. But if one phrase has more negative connotations than another because the concepts or the words themselves have negative connotations (for whatever reason, be it widespread social stereotypes or cultural values), many people will identify with the more "positive" phrase regardless of its accuracy.
(I'm not trying to say that a majority of people would agree with my own connotations for these phrases, and perhaps they have even the opposite idea of which phrase is positive and which is negative, but I think there is a discrepancy of some sort. It's a hard problem to solve, because words and phrases will have connotations no matter how carefully they are chosen, but I think we can at least do a little bit better than this.)
Agreed, he didn't. And like I said above, I think generalizations like this can have merit. But the wording in this one isn't good, IMO. It would be far more helpful to contrast how an Alpha NT is creative vs. how a Gamma NT is creative than to imply that an Alpha NT's distinguishing trait (or main mode of operation) is creativity, while a Gamma NT's distinguishing trait is common sense. Creativity and common sense vary greatly among individuals. The functions may provide some kind of framework for how that creativity or common sense is directed, but the traits themselves are independent of type.
Stereotypes that are too broad lose their principal value, that of quick and easy differentiation. If a stereotype applies to too many people out of two separate groups, either the groups share members (which isn't the case here), or the stereotype is inadequate.
NiTe | Socionix
Yeah, I realized after I posted that that someone would say that... but I think you misunderstood me...Wow, talk about hypocrisy.Yes, gaypog is using a stereotypiccal "IxxJ" approach of generalizing, which at first is foreign to "IxxPs" (such as me and sarah).I don't think he intends that to be an absolute, exclusive definition for those types, but rather, a description of tendencies relative to the opposing possibility, much like the temperment sorting question on his type test.
Based on my limited experience with, I think that it might work.
I've tried to learn, however.
...btw, I also disagree with gaypog's first post...
I think the gamma NT description should mention foresight
I think that Hugo distinction symbolizes Delta NF vs Beta ST.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
no. That word is the main problem why people find it difficult to identify with the idealistic descriptions of Ni.
NT is a mindset, it's a way of thinking. Both (alpha and gamma NTs) tend to distance themselves from the general society. We like to think that we are more creative, more matter-of-fact, we have common sense and we easily come up with new ideas. Smarter NT's are "super-intelligent geeks", extroverted NT's are eccentric but opinionated, etc. NTs are the most elitist of them all.(you don't really hear someone proudly saying "Shut up, I'm NF!")
There is a bunch of NT stereotypes, but they are practically the same in both quadras. All those 4 words could apply to either quadra NTs. (although I would have agreed with t"Common sense and a step by step approach" more).
It might be best to simply use quadra values.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
The most unifying trait I've observed in NTs is the stress on usage of logic.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
You are naming an exception. I said "the most unifying trait" and "observed", which means that my assertion was far from being either true, or absolute.Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well, either way... I don't think it's a good thing to put too much stress on the use of "logic". Logic is all good and well and everything... to a point. I see it as rather single-minded to think that "logic" is the only means for coming up with solutions to problems. Logic that's not checked with reality (or other things) can be convoluted.You are naming an exception. I said "the most unifying trait" and "observed", which means that my assertion was far from being either true, or absolute.Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
I definitely agree; in fact, mine was a statement of a positive nature, not normativeWell, either way... I don't think it's a good thing to put too much stress on the use of "logic". Logic is all good and well and everything... to a point. I see it as rather single-minded to think that "logic" is the only means for coming up with solutions to problems. Logic that's not checked with reality (or other things) can be convoluted.You are naming an exception. I said "the most unifying trait" and "observed", which means that my assertion was far from being either true, or absolute.Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Greatly worded!I definitely agree; in fact, mine was a statement of a positive nature, not normativeWell, either way... I don't think it's a good thing to put too much stress on the use of "logic". Logic is all good and well and everything... to a point. I see it as rather single-minded to think that "logic" is the only means for coming up with solutions to problems. Logic that's not checked with reality (or other things) can be convoluted.You are naming an exception. I said "the most unifying trait" and "observed", which means that my assertion was far from being either true, or absolute.Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
Thanks [img+http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/forum/icon_smile_cool.gif[/img]Greatly worded!I definitely agree; in fact, mine was a statement of a positive nature, not normativeWell, either way... I don't think it's a good thing to put too much stress on the use of "logic". Logic is all good and well and everything... to a point. I see it as rather single-minded to think that "logic" is the only means for coming up with solutions to problems. Logic that's not checked with reality (or other things) can be convoluted.You are naming an exception. I said "the most unifying trait" and "observed", which means that my assertion was far from being either true, or absolute.Yeah... in that case, Albert Einstein must have really been an ESFP, huh?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote