I like you. Always love arrogant self confident ppl.
Well, I can't find anything that thinking wasn't be optimal to use. Even the thinkers are better at people skills than a feelers (think of ESTPs or ENTPs).
My cousin is ISTP and he's good looking, he put a lot of weight in his appearance, but personally I don't find it beautiful. He has much better taste when buying clothes than me, but I can imagine better appearance and I think I could look better, but as an intuitive person I just don't care, I have more interesting things to do.
I used to draw in my adolescence and I was quite good at it, but my ISFP friend was better (ppl said that). But again... in my opinion my work was more creative, he just draw things like there were, and I was altering them. Arguing about what is more beautiful is pointless, and that was what I want to tell you. You can't convince me that Mozart was better than Bach, and you can't convince me that you're sense of beauty is better than mine.
I think you're misinterpreting me abit(probably my fault). I thought openly stating that I was "lowkey trolling" would get people to understand what I was doing but I guess not.
So let's first start by going through my thoughts as I made these comments.
My first comment was meant more as a one off joke about how INFJs are bad looking and how intuitives don't really know shit about the physical world. Then when Mr. Kitty replied to me I figured it's be fun to argue a stupid position. But once I got to my third comment I realized that according to MBTI(that's the important part) what I said wasn't really all that silly.
The reason I keep mentioning stuff like axioms isn't because I think that stuff is true but because it's logical. I've given up on trying to tell others what's "objectively true" I only care that what they say is logically consistent(or at least get them to admit that it isn't).
Since this whole thread revolves around the idea that Jungian typology is at least mostly true that's the POV I'm speaking from. That's the system which I'm operating in for the sake of this conversation. That doesn't mean I actually believe it.
But, by the standards of the system I still don't see how I'm wrong. Yes beauty or good looks or whatever is subjective but Jung made it very clear that intuitives have a distorted view of the physical world as compared to sensors because their perception is more influenced by their unconscious. And while it's true a sensors unconscious can influence their perception that's only an exception for them and happens usually in either unhealthy or stressed sensors. An intuitive however will have their physical perception distorted by their unconscious as a matter of being(according to Jung and thus MBTI). I.e. An intuitive might see an average looking person as intensely beautiful because they see something beautiful deep inside their "soul"(Ni) or they see the potential of that person(Ne).
So while it's true beauty is subjective, if we are to talk about this in a jungian context then logical progression is that a sensor(on average) will have more of a concrete understanding of the physical world that is less distorted than someone who has dominant or auxiliary intuition.
PS your comment about thinking being optimal for everything seemed to missed the point. You asked me "what is beauty" and then claimed that's an area that intuitives would handle better than sensors but the man who made up those terms would say it was thinking as well. If I'm remembering correctly Jung literally called the thinking function the thing that tells us "what is". The whole quote I believe is that "Sensation tells us something is there, thinking tells us what it is, feeling tells us what it means(or whether it matters i don't remember), and intuition tells us what it might(could?) be." I hope that's enough to help you understand why I said sensation and thinking would be the optimal functions for answering "what is beauty".
EDIT: ok I really fucked that quote up. The actual quote is:"Sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is, and intuition surmises whence it comes and whither it goes." I still think my general point still stands.
