The NT



How many rationals have I known in my travels? As a layperson in the field of psychology, I would be to first to admit a limited knowledge of Jungian psychology and psychological types. And yet, as a lay, I know more than most of my lay-brethren on the topic. And again, if you are to peruse the drafts of the DSM-5, – I would argue more than some of the specialists.

The Rational has always been a creature of fascination for me. And even more so, the high number of false positives.

People who, somehow, arrive at the conclusion that they are intuitive thinkers. To this date, in all my travels I have not met one rational...

I have met extroverted guardians, and introverted artisans who believed they were rationals, because he or she took an online test. (I also met plenty of Feeling artisans who thought they were idealists.)

And yet, there is clearly no intuitive cognisant present in the thought process. At least, it is not present on the surface. It may be a rather superficial, and admittedly hypocritical, to type others from surface conversation, but people are not books. Actions, more so than words will betray a persons Modus (or modi) operandi far more clearly than a character test of multiple choices, especially more so than what someone tell you.

It is only in YouTube that I have discovered true rationals. All women. Only three. Out of countless videos, people have uploaded about themselves and what it is like being rational, none show the hallmark of any type of intuitive thinking, (I could also argue that they show no thinking whatsoever.) The false-NTs talk about: how they hate small talk, or how they have problems in romantic relationships, and one makes prank phone calls and loves internet blowhard Alex Jones (the poor man's Bill O'Reily, and believe you me I am no fan of any political pundit [often SPs] from the gamut of the political spectrum regardless of the category.) 



Everything these false-NTs talk about, engage in, and think (oft incoherently) about is S. Everyone has trouble with romantic relationships, no one likes saying they want to belong, everyone thinks of themselves as an individual, and people don't like the federal reserve, taxes, government, and/or anything else. Has one ever heard?: I am good with the opposite (or same-sex). I want to belong to a group, and be well liked. I will compromise my own thoughts, feelings, and goals just to be accepted by others. I support all government and would like to pay more in taxes for any programs and/or salaries of politicians.

However, that which is painfully obvious to me, is completely oblivious to the video makers. They have picked out a few personality quirks and made a slapdash video, thinking this typographic some how justifies their (I am guessing here) ramshackle and (painfully) ordinary existence. Yet, the quality they do share is that all of these false-NTs are utterly devoid of any inherit merit to the study of the psychological aspects of being. Something, I think, a NT would be veracious on.

It is as if Jungian psychology is a horoscope to these people. And it is the very same people, who go out and propagate such misinformation, as a pathetic justification for: inabilities, lack of talent, awkwardness, or intelligence (or lack their of) or in a bigger sense his or her mediocre existence. To them, Myers-Briggs typology is the beginning and end in and of itself, a puerile exercise in self-examination that lasts in toto maybe 15 minutes.

I do not wish to draw to many analogies and comparisons, but it would a kin to looking at Bill Gates bank account, then looking at mine. And promulgating this less-than-eloquent statement:

I have 1's and 0's in my bank account too. I guess I am also the worlds richest man. Wow we are 1% of the world. Hey did you hear that Bill Gates eats Tacos? All billionaires like tacos, and guess what? I like Tacos too!

An infinite gulf separates the S and the N,
and never shall the twain meet



Hence, my curiosity is only heightened to find that all three rationals I have ever come across are women. I can't imagine it being particularly easy for them, as I cannot imagine it to be particularly easy for any Rational (or Idealist) in a world populated by guardians and artisans. For the abstract connection is simply not present; S types have a plethora of concrete possibilities for relationships. “See the game last night?” “I only paid 15 for this!” “Einstein had Asperger's” “Tax is 8%”. “Van Gogh cut off his ear” “How much memory is in the computer?” “Did you see American Idol last night?” “I'm a Virgo.” The abstract is severed from the sensory, and what real relationships can flourish in which everyone speaks with the same words, and yet does not speak the same language. To put it another way, the NT hears the music, while others are just reading the words (guardians) or worse (and sometimes not) are faking it (artisans).

And here is the point where my sexism is shaped by experience. (Reader be warned). Women shouldn't be thinking!. They belong in the kitchen! (Kidding! I just had to. I couldn't resist. Wouldn't it have been funny if I wrote this whole thing to QED that!? I mean, I must leave some room humor, it can't all be brevity.) Alright my real sexism: In my experience, women are far less prone to philosophical discourse, than that of the male Artisans, who might get a kick out of seeing someone worked up by seeming nonsense. Artisan women, on the other hand, like to dress-up, be fashionable, and like to shop. Or, to be fair, build things. I have known several artisans “shop-girls” who build either furniture or electronics, and are also completely sexually charged. Guy and/or girl crazy would be the more socially apropos verbage. Whilst, in my experience with the same sex, even the most limited T artisan would entertain a rudimentary intuitive question. Something as simple as: What would you do if....

Guardians on the other hand really see that kind of thing as nonsense or a waste of time. Guardian women will think a person “weird” if they are posed a question. Guardian men would probably think the same thing. At least the Artisan will answer. More so, if it breaks the tedium of routine; interest is add to that and compounded, if it is during flirting.

Now, I do not think this type of thing is strictly limited to sex, but rather gender. However, in my experience with the opposite sex, women seem to be less likely to interact with other females in an abstract way. I could be completely off base here, and will correct such a brazenly sexist attitude at once, if others inform me of a show like "Sex in the City", in which the main characters discuss mythology, arts, and sciences.

Ergo, I should be clear in my statement. I know all people posses an inkling of the rest of the personality types, as every person can use a writing implement in his/her appendage or orifice to draw a picture. And some will be more adept at drawing that picture than others using the chosen appendage/orifice. A rational female may like going shopping the mall, every now and then. But to subscribe to the “retail-therapy” or other countless female stereotypes the American woman willingly marches under the banner of must be, at the very, least baffling to a rational female. Equally off putting, I suppose it could also be said, of the female executive, who smashes through glass ceilings and only cares about the bottom line. Woman in power-suits, who want to know, and only know, how this effects their cash flow, income, or quarterly earnings. 

This is all superimposed, imaginary logic —armchair anthropology — in the truest sense of the words. It may turn out to be a completely useless venture, although it was quite entertaining whilst it lasted. It's not often we get to mix gender with personality types.


Comments

  1. I would certainly agree that being an NT female...well...sucks in so many ways. Being an NT girl in the 15 - 24 age bracket sucks that much more.

    I do think that many more females are Rationals than we are led to believe at a purely behavioral level. There's a book I read a few years ago in 8th grade entitled "Reviving Ophelia". It basically addressed this phenomenon in which many girls purposely suppress any outward expression of critical thinking and intellectual discourse because the societal counter-pressures are so strong. It's a well-documented phenomenon that girls' self-esteem and assertiveness remain identical to boys until they hit adolescence. At this point at about ages 12 - 14, there is a dramatic drop in girls, but not boys. This difference will - statistically speaking - most likely never be adequately repaired for the rest of her life. This gender-based divergence in developmental trajectories is well-supported and generally accepted in the research community. I personally don't find it mere coincidence that internalizing/ruminating disorders such as anxiety and depression are: 1) several times more common in females, and 2) also begin to appear in early adolescence.

    I'm not denying that there is a significant biological basis as to the relative rarity of NT females. It is clear now in contemporary study that, whether it's politically correct or not, girls are boys are predisposed to view the world differently and to interact with their social environment in different ways. Girls are naturally more concerned about social harmony, and will take greater measures to conform. Accordingly, this pressure to conform peaks in early adolescence, which correlates well with the drop of self-esteem I mentioned. I can't quite remember who said this, but a woman on TED talks mentioned something rather poignant that remains with me to this day. She pointed out that for women (especially girls), being liked and being respected are mutually exclusive. That is, women - especially those in positions of power - are faced with the decision of personal satisfaction vs. sense of belonging. That they are forced to make that choice is rather disgusting, but such as it is.

    A common misconception people have are that the females who do retain their eccentric, intellectual "quirks" and sense of intellectual assertiveness are those who are stronger or somehow more able. I'm not sure if I agree with that. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but from my experience I find that those who prevail through the materialistic, "retail-therapy", boy-crazy developmental gauntlet are those who - conversely - care less rather than more.

    I care very little for societal norms and what people think about me in general, and this has always been true. Societal pressures to conform and "dumb down" only carry weight if you believe that societal conventions are worthwhile.

    I know what you mean in terms of these "faux-Rationals". I can think of a few within my social circle. But I adopt a more compassionate stance towards them because I understand that they do so out of insecurity rather than spite. I think that a central feature to NTs is the drive to question. For instance, if a non-NT was asked the question "Are you happy?", they would mostly likely respond in a manner reflecting the loved ones they have and their material success in life.

    Honestly, I would argue that a NT may have such difficulty with the question itself that they would never get around to answering it. Having been asked this question before, my immediate reply was: "Define 'happy'". There is, quite frankly, no question or concept as to defy definition of terms.

    To this end, Rationality really describes an orientation rather than overt behavior. There are plenty of individuals who would, say, engage in philosophical discourse, but do not need it nor depend on it like NTs. True Rationals behave what they think, not think as they behave.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really insightful. It's nice to have an intelligent view, such as yours own on this.

    "She pointed out that for women (especially girls), being liked and being respected are mutually exclusive." Good point to bring up, I never had that thought before, but now I see it - makes sense.

    "For instance, if a non-NT was asked the question "Are you happy?", they would mostly likely respond in a manner reflecting the loved ones they have and their material success in life."

    viz.

    "Define 'happy'".

    This, is the biggest problem Rationals have in debates. Debates are primarily the realm of facts, and playing by strict rules, however NTs know that "facts" or "examples" can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and can also be misrepresented. Combine that with not following "norms"

    Your videos have this really nice fluidity about them and you really handle this topics brilliantly. Yet, I see the sensory-type has a problem with your words. It's as if they cannot grasp all you are saying, and only focus on one thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't even begin to insert myself into your discussion. Still trying to process it all. Very insightful post.

    http://ficklecattle.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts