What are good professions/occupations for an SLE-ESTp?

[Kristiina]

ESTps are good at making things more fun. There's this one ESTp in my D&D group and people usually take him for granted and try to stop him from getting everyone killed with his reckless ideas, but when he has to work and can't attend the game, the game session is very slow and boring. He is very intense and this has also caused many fights between me and him. lol, just like with FDG.

The ESTp works in health-care and seems he is very competent. He wants to work with kids and I think it would be great, because kids love him! (or they run away crying and in panic, but later they still want to play with him. ). He is very successful, because he has no problem with occasionally working a couple of months in some other country.

[Kirana]

what type is your mom?

i think, ISTj. both my brothers go to her with their problems much more than i do.

[implied]

do you think this actually happens or could be a career path for an ESTp? i'm serious. i'm actually pretty sure my ex-roommate's shrink was an ESTp (looked just like goldberg.)

[implied]

Actually, I think it certainly could be, as long as it was an interest of that particular ESTp.

Granted, you probably won't see as many ESTp psychologists as say, ENFp ones, for example, but it's possible you'll encounter some.

well it seems like they'd be good with being straight-up about whatever your problems are. i agree that i don't see many ESTps being attracted to psychology, but i somehow think they'd probably be good ones for a certain type of person.

[Rocky]

Psychology's for people who can't handle the real subjects.

[olduser]

psychology can examine complex topics and subjects. But it lacks the deeply theoretical and mathematical base of hard sciences and it's technological contribution is nearly zero(there are psychologists who work with robotics people trying to mimic human interactions, stuff like that, though). Also, unlike Chemistry, or other 'hard sciences', it is a subject on which everyone has something to contribute and that may make it seem 'dumb'. There are plenty of 'useless' subjects, especially if you view the world in a highly highly rational manner. I conflict with this thought a lot.

[Blaze]

yeah psychology may be soft, but ya know what guys? somebody has to take care of the addicted, mentally ill, and strife-ridden. otherwise they'd be wandering the streets causing even more chaos than they already do.

plus when you go through something terrible in your life you better bed you'll be glad there's someone understanding for you to talk to. :wink:

[Animal]

Psychology is as systematic an approach one can take to completely subjective phenomena. It makes no sense to either judge psychology in purely quantifiable terms or to make a differentiation between the subjective and quantifiable values (neurobiology, endocrinology, linguistics, and psychology are all closely related).

[Ezra]

Law, if I'm SLE.

People I've spoken to told me I'd be a shit psychologist, and others have told me I'd be brilliant. I think I'd be quite good to be honest, until I lose my patience. I can't be bothered sitting around with non-committal retards who speak shit for hours on end, even if I am being paid.

[Rocky]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

[Animal]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

While it may be possible to pick up those sorts of things on your own it's just a lot easier to get everything all in one place. Music, for instance - it's possible to teach yourself the mechanics of an instrument (although, ideally, you need a good teacher for that - specifically with things like opera singing, and period/less common instruments), theory, composition, etc. but it's much easier in an environment where you have access to specialists, other musicians, performances, lecturers, practice halls, etc. You would think it would be easy to figure it out on your own, but I've met so many incompetent musicians who can't read music, can't even understand simple terminology (not to mention, don't understand what's expected of them in a professional setting, where they're being paid to work) to make me somewhat skeptical in this respect.

Philosophy is different. You don't pursue a degree in Philosophy because you want to be paid for your services, as you would a psychiatrist or a musician. You pursue it because you, presumably, enjoy the subject. Sure, Philosophy majors could pick up the fundamentals of the subject on their own, but for whatever reason, they prefer to do so in an environment with other philosophers, and structured, subject-specific classes and curricula.

[Blaze]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

there's actually a lot to know and learn. when you are providing therapy to people there's tons of liability with this. you'd better know what you are doing or you're gonna end up in a world of shit. when you press on people's issues, they react. not everybody can take it on the chin like here at the forum.

it may not be as scientific in the Te sense as other things, but psychology/social work/counseling/whatever, is something one has to know about in order to do.

it's kind of like i could intuitively grasp something high tech....but i can't do it and get paid for it unless i'm trained.

[Rocky]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

While it may be possible to pick up those sorts of things on your own it's just a lot easier to get everything all in one place. Music, for instance - it's possible to teach yourself the mechanics of an instrument (although, ideally, you need a good teacher for that - specifically with things like opera singing, and period/less common instruments), theory, composition, etc. but it's much easier in an environment where you have access to specialists, other musicians, performances, lecturers, practice halls, etc. You would think it would be easy to figure it out on your own, but I've met so many incompetent musicians who can't read music, can't even understand simple terminology (not to mention, don't understand what's expected of them in a professional setting, where they're being paid to work) to make me somewhat skeptical in this respect.

Some of the best musicians didn't go to school. Some don't know music theory past what a note/chord is called. There's nothing wrong with that. The arts aren't something that are taught in a lechture. If you're going there to learn how to be a good musician, then you're a lost cause. It's one of those things you can't try to be.

Philosophy is different. You don't pursue a degree in Philosophy because you want to be paid for your services, as you would a psychiatrist or a musician. You pursue it because you, presumably, enjoy the subject. Sure, Philosophy majors could pick up the fundamentals of the subject on their own, but for whatever reason, they prefer to do so in an environment with other philosophers, and structured, subject-specific classes and curricula.

Yeah, but to me that's laziness.

[Mea]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

I actually agree with this. But many jobs nowadays require a person to actually HAVE some form of paper qualification. And even if you're way better than those who have a degree, it might still be harder for you to get a job.

[mustachio]

I just think psychology is one of those subjects you shouldn't have to go to school for. It's something you could understand by yourself, just by, you know, being alive.

Other subjects like that are music, languages, and philosophy. These are things that aren't supposed to be taught in a formal education. They're easy enough to figure out by yourself.

I actually agree with this. But many jobs nowadays require a person to actually HAVE some form of paper qualification. And even if you're way better than those who have a degree, it might still be harder for you to get a job.

this is exactly why i'm still in university! i HATE school, and everything i was taught i could have learned on the job.

[Animal]

Some of the best musicians didn't go to school. Some don't know music theory past what a note/chord is called. There's nothing wrong with that. The arts aren't something that are taught in a lechture. If you're going there to learn how to be a good musician, then you're a lost cause. It's one of those things you can't try to be.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. That sort of musician is not the type of musician that goes to a conservatory. The type of people who go to school to study music are people who are entering a very specific professional environment where a specific set of skills will be required of them. These are people who will need to be able to read music, dictate music they hear, need to have some practical knowledge of theory, and need to understand obscure and esoteric conventions because these are tasks they will be asked to carry out and a knowledge-base they will be asked to draw upon, on the job. There is a distinction here between music as art (which cannot be taught), and music as a career (which can, provided one already has at least passible qualifications in music as an art).

Yeah, but to me that's laziness.

Is it laziness if a person genuinely likes learning philosophy in a Socratic setting that is impossible to gather if left to his own devices? It seems to me that, if these people are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and four years on a degree that will basically qualify them to work at Starbucks, there has to be at least SOME genuine incentive - presumably that they enjoy Philosophy and enjoy a collegiate environment. It would actually be easier, and much cheaper, to study Philosophy on one's own.

Look, we can all agree that academia is far from perfect and that many college and universities are not doing their job in preparing students for their ultimate release into the "real world" in a timely, efficient, and logical manner. But the fact is, there is a reason these institutions caim into existence, and these reasons still exist today. Blaze pointed out a very important reason: the necessity for a standard of quality in the knowledge-base one has upon entering a career in a given field. Standardized certification is really the only practical way we have of ensuring that our therapists, musicians, doctors, lawyers, personal trainers, nutritionists, etc. have gained a knowledge of their subject on at least a lowest-common-denominator level. Obviously, this system is far from perfect. There are loopholes, academic corruptions and bureaucracies to contend with, and quacks and other incompetent people manage to land jobs anyway. The fact is, there is simply no practical way to remedy this.

[Rocky]

Some of the best musicians didn't go to school. Some don't know music theory past what a note/chord is called. There's nothing wrong with that. The arts aren't something that are taught in a lechture. If you're going there to learn how to be a good musician, then you're a lost cause. It's one of those things you can't try to be.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. That sort of musician is not the type of musician that goes to a conservatory. The type of people who go to school to study music are people who are entering a very specific professional environment where a specific set of skills will be required of them. These are people who will need to be able to read music, dictate music they hear, need to have some practical knowledge of theory, and need to understand obscure and esoteric conventions because these are tasks they will be asked to carry out and a knowledge-base they will be asked to draw upon, on the job. There is a distinction here between music as art (which cannot be taught), and music as a career (which can, provided one already has at least passible qualifications in music as an art).

OK

Yeah, but to me that's laziness.

Is it laziness if a person genuinely likes learning philosophy in a Socratic setting that is impossible to gather if left to his own devices? It seems to me that, if these people are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and four years on a degree that will basically qualify them to work at Starbucks, there has to be at least SOME genuine incentive - presumably that they enjoy Philosophy and enjoy a collegiate environment. It would actually be easier, and much cheaper, to study Philosophy on one's own.

That's the point. That's why I said it's the kind of thing that people could/should do on their free time if they're interested. I think people feel a need to go to college. But if you're spending all that money on a formal education, it's just waste to do it for something that deosn't actually get you a job. I think some people may also do it because it's easy for them, but they don't realize it's not going to get them any where.

Look, we can all agree that academia is far from perfect and that many college and universities are not doing their job in preparing students for their ultimate release into the "real world" in a timely, efficient, and logical manner. But the fact is, there is a reason these institutions caim into existence, and these reasons still exist today. Blaze pointed out a very important reason: the necessity for a standard of quality in the knowledge-base one has upon entering a career in a given field. Standardized certification is really the only practical way we have of ensuring that our therapists, musicians, doctors, lawyers, personal trainers, nutritionists, etc. have gained a knowledge of their subject on at least a lowest-common-denominator level. Obviously, this system is far from perfect. There are loopholes, academic corruptions and bureaucracies to contend with, and quacks and other incompetent people manage to land jobs anyway. The fact is, there is simply no practical way to remedy this.

Of course I didn't say it was worthless. Just silly for certain subjects.

[olduser]

i haven't peed inside all day!!

interesting thoughts on college.

Formality is a necessity in education.

[astralsilky]

do you think this actually happens or could be a career path for an ESTp? i'm serious. i'm actually pretty sure my ex-roommate's shrink was an ESTp (looked just like goldberg.)

Definitely.

Now that I think of it, I've known at least one who was a great guy, compassionate, and certainly knew his material.