Myths on Social Life + "nerds"

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

I know it. I've done several tests throughout the past, and each time had completely different results.

You may be fluctuating on your borderline traits. With your kind of scores, you could easily show up as any form of Extroverted Intuitive.

society's, ideas of what personality traits one is supposed to have, just because of a few archetypes and personality tests :P

True. Main thing is that you should appreciate that people's personalities are just different ..... and when you don't want, like or dislike the same things as most other people seem to want, like or dislike, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything inadequate or wrong with you.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

True. Main thing is that you should appreciate that people's personalities are just different ..... and when you don't want, like or dislike the same things as most other people seem to want, like or dislike, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything inadequate or wrong with you.

Which is the reason why I also advocate diversity in the perception of social life standards (i.e. the point of this thread)

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

I don't know... I identify with some of the things they say, and not with others. For example, I don't understand why spending "time alone with oneself" ought to be mutually exclusive from "often going to nightclubs and parties".

Not sure if I understand the above point. It seems to me that nightclubs and parties are not optimal places to be alone. I mean, if you wanted to be alone,, would you go to a nightclub/party?

And there are other things which, in my view, seem to be unjustly "dualized", have a "natural opposite", etc. (I can be organized, follow a plan and - when I find something really nice - I can immediately break free from the schedule and pursue what I want randomly).

That's because the "P" score in your Myer-Briggs score is borderline. Extreme P's would have difficulty following a detailed, thought-out, rigid plan. Extreme J's would have difficulty breaking free and deviating from a detailed, thought-out, rigid plan. Whereas you're borderline.

[Michael Chui]

I have never seen a person who's borderline everything. That's amazing.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Where do you get this? I've never heard such descriptions for introversion and extraversion.[/url]

Ehrrrrrrrrrrrrrm... actually, from the link NotesMaeve posted
I paraphrased a bit, but it's the same message.

Jung's Theory of Temperaments

Extroverted attitude
[...]
b. sociable and confident in unfamiliar surroundings, less cautious, less fearful,
[...]
Introverted attitude
[...]
b. prefers reflection to activity.
[...]

I mean, I know people who would conventionally be tagged as "extroverts" who really fear unfamiliar surroundings, who never break relationships and often criticize themselves (but have most of the other characteristics of conventional "extroverts").

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There is no such thing as an "introvert" or an "extrovert". Those aren't people; those are specific parts of people.

ehrrrrrm... tell NotesMaeve

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

I don't strive, baby. I'm an introvert, but I know what's going on and how to get along. And that is the greatest secret of them all.

I originally didn't use the words in the psychoanalytical-Jungian meaning, but simply in the conventional sense.

Anyway, Michael, I understood what you mean.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I have never seen a person who's borderline everything. That's amazing.

I hope Jung didn't say that such people have "personality disorders"
But even if... so what. Unity in diversity

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not sure if I understand the above point. It seems to me that nightclubs and parties are not optimal places to be alone. I mean, if you wanted to be alone,, would you go to a nightclub/party?

I was trying to say that I enjoy parties or other situations with lot of people as much as I enjoy meditating all alone under the stars on the hill of a mountain.
I'm not addicted to either.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

For example, I don't understand why spending "time alone with oneself" ought to be mutually exclusive from "often going to nightclubs and parties".

I've never read the results of such tests like that and I don't think they are intended to be viewed in such a way. Rather than stating A is mutually exclusive with B, the tests are designed to illustrate whether you are dominated by A or B.

So, you if enjoy the occasional nightclub, but spend most of your time alone, I'd expect the result of the test to reflect that you spend most of your time alone.

Jim.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I've never read the results of such tests like that and I don't think they are intended to be viewed in such a way. Rather than stating A is mutually exclusive with B, the tests are designed to illustrate whether you are dominated by A or B.

Okay, maybe I used a too strong word by saying "mutually exclusive"...

What I'm asking is, which criteria did Jung use to separate all those features (A, B, C, D, ...) in two different polarities (intro, extro)?

How is "a. motivated by outside factors and greatly influenced by the environment," correlated to "(2) easily making and breaking relationships,"?
And how come is the latter opposed to "(1) They are not interested in facts per se but are interested in abstract ideas. Facts are not collected for their own value."?

Why is the dominance between A and B looked for, instead of the dominance between A and C, for example?

Statistics? Oo

[JimOfferman]

Yes, it's all based on a bunch of statistics. I haven't read Jung, but I expect that he is looking for A versus B, rather than A versus C, because of how he interpreted the results of his studies.

Human behavior is not really an exact science. All those models are just that: models, approximations of a problem that is too complex and has too many variables for us humble humans to solve. Maybe some day a very smart mind (human or otherwise) will be able to discern the exact algorithm that defines all human behavior and help us explain humanity's every single quirk... until that day, crude tools like Jung's models will have to suffice.

[Michael Chui]

Oh, heh. I missed that because I was running a word search to check rather than reading it in detail, since I'm not really trying to increase my knowledge of Jungian types. And I think NotesMaeve is using the word incorrectly. I need to think about it a little.

I'll try to remember to make a response later tonight, but JimOfferman is explaining the distinction fairly well.

[NotesMaeve]

Eh, I kind of doubt I'm using it incorrectly. I said I was using it in the Jungian sense. Perhaps you mean you're NOT using it in that sense?

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

On Jung, extroversion, introversion, personality models, etc.



Okay. I understood that. But how, in first place, does define A and define B?
Why in the world should a person who is "usually more open to new situations and dangerous environments" necessarily have the other features that Jung would categorize under the tag "extrovert"?
And why would a person who usually "thinks rather than acting" be an "introvert"?
Where did Jung take the freedom to make those connections/correlations?

Because people don't have "features" people use to act in some certain ways more often that others... and that's all. You can be open to certain situations and closed to others, if you remain closed to every new situation... you'll probably die or so... and if you remain open for every new situation too... you'll probably die too... there are people more risky and people less risky. And the skill to risk or not is in everyone. It's like temperature... it's not "Cold or Hot"... there are degrees... and it changes... or "Black or White"

I don't see any correlation... he's just describing personality... he chooses four traits that can go to 0 from 100 in everyone, and observes how people is if they are 60-40-20-90 or other thing... If you are 60 whatever it does not mean much... but if you're 90 (or 10) whatever it means much because you have a trait very intense on you. That defines you the most.
I'm very perceiver instead of judging. I'm supposed to be an ENFP... today, or the last day I took some test... but my E is not very intense compared to the P. Every combination of the four traits intensities are different personalities. And even the same! because obviously I don't think it's all so simple but Jung wanted to talk about 4 traits only, if he used 100.... with his percentages... the test would be so long that no-one will do them... He tries to simplify...
Are you tall or short? It's not a binary thing.... "Yes, absolutely tall/short" "old/young", it's the same thing but not in physical traits but personality...

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

I don't know... I identify with some of the things they say, and not with others. For example, I don't understand why spending "time alone with oneself" ought to be mutually exclusive from "often going to nightclubs and parties". And there are other things which, in my view, seem to be unjustly "dualized", have a "natural opposite", etc. (I can be organized, follow a plan and - when I find something really nice - I can immediately break free from the schedule and pursue what I want randomly).

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

What I'm asking is, which criteria did Jung use to separate all those features (A, B, C, D, ...) in two different polarities (intro, extro)?

...

Why is the dominance between A and B looked for, instead of the dominance between A and C, for example?

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Yes, it's all based on a bunch of statistics. I haven't read Jung, but I expect that he is looking for A versus B, rather than A versus C, because of how he interpreted the results of his studies.

Human behavior is not really an exact science. All those models are just that: models, approximations of a problem that is too complex and has too many variables for us humble humans to solve. Maybe some day a very smart mind (human or otherwise) will be able to discern the exact algorithm that defines all human behavior and help us explain humanity's every single quirk... until that day, crude tools like Jung's models will have to suffice.

Like Jim I don't know the details of Jung's personality models, but I recently learned a little about the Big Five personality traits, and I suspect the method used could have been similar. Or if not, at least it could help understand Jung's categories.

None of the categories of personality type are prescriptive. They're mostly determined by sub-categories which correlate with each other. This is where the Big Five grouping of personality traits came from; an analysis of the correlations between large numbers of personality traits in large numbers of people.

A few different researchers worked on an understanding of personality traits over many years. One psychologist Gordon Allport, and his colleague H. S. Odbert searched through a list of 550,000 words to put together a list of 18,000 words which could be used to describe a person. They then whittled that list down to 4500 proper personality traits (defined as observable, i.e., not related to cognitive function, non-physical, i.e., words like 'tall' were out, and non-transient, i.e., they had to describe a relatively permanent aspect of personality, so something like 'embarrassed' was out).

Later Raymond Cattell took the list, and by taking out synonyms, worked it down to 171. This was further reduced to 45 groups, then those 45 were used in tests to determine what traits people actually possessed. Next a statistical method called factor analysis was applied, which found correlations between sub-groups within the 45, producing a list of 16 personality factors. That is, specific personality traits tended to cluster into specific groups, so that the words used to describe people could, on average, be divided into 16 groups.

Further work was done on larger groups of people, and more factor analysis allowed the factors to be reduced to five. Eventually a consensus was reached on what those five should be named, and the Big Five is the result.

There are of course issues with the Big Five, but I'm not arguing for it, just giving a summary of how it, and possibly other measures of personality, were determined.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Eh, I kind of doubt I'm using it incorrectly. I said I was using it in the Jungian sense. Perhaps you mean you're NOT using it in that sense?

Well, I thought about it and this isn't something I can argue. I'll take your word, Maeve. The idea of introversion has been argued in this forum a couple of times (run a search and you'll find'em), by the way, for those interested.

Here's what I think:

To be an introvert simply means Jungian introversion dominance of personality along the extroversion-introversion scale, saying nothing about the rest of your personality. Thus, it's inherently inaccurate, because it doesn't even pretend to completely flesh out the very model it's a part of, but it's a useful abstraction despite that.

I have a feeling you'll agree with me, but I'll leave it anyways.

[AddictiveX]

There are no such things as nerds, nerd is just a state of your life where you have not yet developed your full and best social skillset.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by AddictiveX

There are no such things as nerds, nerd is just a state of your life where you have not yet developed your full and best social skillset.

I've always associated the word 'nerd' with 'guy or girl who is mainly interested in computers/technology'. That all nerds have social phobia is as much a stereotype as that all blonds are dumb - both are far from true.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I've always associated the word 'nerd' with 'guy or girl who is mainly interested in computers/technology'. That all nerds have social phobia is as much a stereotype as that all blonds are dumb - both are far from true.

That's nicely put

BTW I also noticed that each country has different people who fit the "unsocial-ness" label.

In Italy there was a time when everyone who had red hair was considered as having a poor social life. And then there are many racial/national one's as well ("Chinese guys very socially inconfident", "Typical Indian geek", etc.)

[CBlokland]

Sorry didn't read the whole thread.

Just wanted to comment that learning social skills is one of the most important things to do in life and that online socialising (games, forums) is a poor subsitution.

You know the saying 'It's not what you know... but who you know'. That's why social skills in real life are important.

Stereotypes arise for a reason. Yes I know that not everybody who plays games is socially awkward. But there must be a significant awkward gamers for the stereotype to exist all over the world.

[robertanthony]

Have you seen the Doctor Laura Video on utube about web addiction.

I had a friend who was on a very low income. His dream was to become a web-designer and to get a music contract. He would not go to college and was teaching himself how to create websites through trail and error. To this day he still cant create a functional website. When his computer broke one day he was in a complete emotional mess. He felt that his life was over until he could get the money for a new computer. He sat crying having panic attacks. Had nothing to talk about or any reason to get out of bed. He felt as if his days were empty. He had no contact with the people he called friends because without the computer they did not exist.

I have had problems with internerds as regards communication - when I have asked for something specific they give me something else. I have spoken to some people who are not internerds and they have had similar problems and we call it emotional social autism.

The tragedy is that my friend is known as unemployable. He sits at home alone everyday on the computer...living in virtual reality full time.

[Michael Chui]

I built a grounding for all of my current social skills through playing online games with people I'd never seen nor met. It made it possible for me to look at people as pure minds: not black or white or brown or yellow, not male or female, not obese or anorexic, none of these things. It let me understand what it meant to lead, and what it meant to facilitate. It let me understand power, and being without it. It let me speak with people who were interested in conversations ranging into the metaphysical; such people are rare. And it also let me understand why it wasn't enough, because when a friend of yours is crying and you don't even know what they look like, you realize you need to see them, touch them, and hold them.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I built a grounding for all of my current social skills through playing online games with people I'd never seen nor met. It made it possible for me to look at people as pure minds: not black or white or brown or yellow, not male or female, not obese or anorexic, none of these things. It let me understand what it meant to lead, and what it meant to facilitate. It let me understand power, and being without it. It let me speak with people who were interested in conversations ranging into the metaphysical; such people are rare. And it also let me understand why it wasn't enough, because when a friend of yours is crying and you don't even know what they look like, you realize you need to see them, touch them, and hold them.

What powerful words Michael.