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
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.