SJ's are best at sports

[redbaron]

I've probably derailed this worse than if I'd just ignored Ink.

The "worst" seems right to me. If we follow the 8 function model, the INTP would be Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi. The Ni and the Se are the 3rd and 2nd to the least preferred(or perhaps least familiar) functions. If Se and Ni are related to excellence in sports, then it sort of makes sense. Other possible combinations for low Se-Ni include the reverse, Ni being 4th and Se being 1st and the reverse of this. Close to the INTP would be the Je types that have Si-Ne as their main perception functions and the INFP.

I actually liked this, because the distinction is strange - yet seemingly accurate, that being an Se or Ni-dom isn't necessarily beneficial, because it means one of them ends up on the bottom of the stack.

It makes sense that a Je/Ji-dom, augmented by a strong Se/Ni would excel in team sports. I'll think about this and try to elaborate later, but I think you made a pretty good point.

 

[Ink]

I never claimed INTPs are LIKELY to enjoy team sports, I'm just saying it's not necessarily that they don't. And yes I used an example of myself and other actual INTPs I've personally seen as part of an argument, because we're actual people in actual reality, it holds relevance. If you doubt my typing ability that's fine, but it's not like I've seen one guy and based my conclusions on that.

 

[Ink]

I guess my problem is that I don't understand that there's a huge distinction between team and solo sports. You can be a lonewolf in a team and still work together succesfully. It depends on the sport and your position in the team I guess.

 

[Duxwing]

You played Under 16's soccer at a 'pretty serious' level. Wow, how incredibly elite! Surely it's obvious to everyone now that INTP's are definitely great at team sports! Honestly, why even bring this up?

The love of sport that I've seen in my days in the U16 league, even on the D team, have been great. And when we had practice with all the teams, A, B, C, and D? Their faces lit up when they saw the ball, and they were off, faces, stern and eager. So yes, one can play U16 at a 'pretty serious' level.

As for being an INTP and so doing, if he is an INTP, then he did so. But you are right to conclude that single examples are statistically irrelevant.

But let's assume, for a moment, that you're about the first premise--that playing U16 is nothing. What, exactly, is the point of all this fur and loathing over a logic error?

I think this has already been brought up elsewhere before, but I don't think you're an INTP. I think you really like to think of yourself as INTP (when in reality you aren't) and therefore see people with similar traits to you as, 'likely INTP' because of their similarities when in fact you're probably not even INTP.

I can't speak to this.

Right.

INTP's excel in team sports because you once played little league soccer at a, 'pretty serious' level and you were 'good'. Oh and there's also a sentence somewhere on an MBTI website that says INTP's, 'may' make good athletes - note: 'athletes', no mention of, 'team sports'.

I think that his point was that INTP's can excel in team sports, not that they do or must.

Honestly.

Fuck.

Honestly.

Chill.

Rage ruins discourse.

-Duxwing

 

[Architect]

I guess my problem is that I don't understand that there's a huge distinction between team and solo sports. You can be a lonewolf in a team and still work together succesfully. It depends on the sport and your position in the team I guess.

I wonder why this point won't die, and why it's such a hotbutton for Ink.

I'll give two examples I've played, running and basketball. Running is a sport that I enjoyed before my feet gave up. Long distance runs out in the countryside, I'd just put my body on autopilot and my mind would roam free. Running in the rain was always interesting, the constant raindrops hitting me had the effect of seemingly turning my body sensations off, or off in the distance, because they were so constant. It was a great way to clear my mind and mull through issues.

Basketball is the penultimate team sport, and probably about as "sensor" oriented as it gets. The action is so fast you can't think with your mind in a strategic sense very well, it's all kinesthetic thinking. You practice until you can react automatically, like an animal, to the ball, court and players. On the last bit you are very much a part of a team, you have to mentally hook up with your teammates on that instinctual level, you have to know what the other guys are doing as much as they are. My observations is that the people who play professionally, and the most avid fans (Jack Nicholson) rate very high on the sensation functions (Si/Se).

This goes completely against the grain of the INTP type, who is most comfortable as a detached observer. There is zero detachment with basketball. If you are privately thinking to yourself in BB you are not playing the game and will get run over. This is why any INTP can certainly play basketball (I did), but are unlikely to like it. Go to a pro or college level game and you will see that it is the ultimate sensory sport. The action is fast, loud and intense. My INFJ Se inferior wife loves it, but myself and my INTP son were wrung out in about five minutes. It was no big deal to the rest of my sensor family.

I haven't played a lot of soccer but it's much like BB, just not as strongly sensory oriented.

 

[Ink]

I wonder why this point won't die, and why it's such a hotbutton for Ink.

I'll give two examples I've played, running and basketball. Running is a sport that I enjoyed before my feet gave up. Long distance runs out in the countryside, I'd just put my body on autopilot and my mind would roam free. Running in the rain was always interesting, the constant raindrops hitting me had the effect of seemingly turning my body sensations off, or off in the distance, because they were so constant. It was a great way to clear my mind and mull through issues.

Basketball is the penultimate team sport, and probably about as "sensor" oriented as it gets. The action is so fast you can't think with your mind in a strategic sense very well, it's all kinesthetic thinking. You practice until you can react automatically, like an animal, to the ball, court and players. On the last bit you are very much a part of a team, you have to mentally hook up with your teammates on that instinctual level, you have to know what the other guys are doing as much as they are. My observations is that the people who play professionally, and the most avid fans (Jack Nicholson) rate very high on the sensation functions (Si/Se).

This goes completely against the grain of the INTP type, who is most comfortable as a detached observer. There is zero detachment with basketball. If you are privately thinking to yourself in BB you are not playing the game and will get run over. This is why any INTP can certainly play basketball (I did), but are unlikely to like it. Go to a pro or college level game and you will see that it is the ultimate sensory sport. The action is fast, loud and intense. My INFJ Se inferior wife loves it, but myself and my INTP son were wrung out in about five minutes. It was no big deal to the rest of my sensor family.

I haven't played a lot of soccer but it's much like BB, just not as strongly sensory oriented.

Well, I have no experience with such sports, but as I said I played mid-defender in soccer, which means that I had complete vision over the entire field (soccer fields are large) and all the players except our own goalie most of the time. Lot of strategical thinking is necessary, from that position you pretty much control what path the game will take. While it's true you have to get out of your head in close contact I didn't have any trouble with that, probably because I was allowed to go "back int my head" so much in the position I played. I'm sure you can get similar positions in most sports if you actively seeked them out

 

[Words]

The problem with discussing jungian typology is the same problem with discussing much of philosophy and the social "sciences." There is no scientific data to mention. There is no certainty. No facts. The only thing we can do is discuss with people according to shared assumptions or discuss the experiences that brought us to these assumptions. It's just like looking for the best "math." The best deductive possibility. The assumptions that explains the most. No truths, and its kind of annoying.

 

[Architect]

The problem with discussing jungian typology is the same problem with discussing much of philosophy and the social "sciences." There is no scientific data to mention. There is no certainty. No facts.

So? It's a theory like any other scientific theory. We can discuss its merits without its experimental support, such as its predicative, explanatory powers and elegance. Einsteins gravitational theory went for years before the first experimental evidence came in.

And in point of fact there is plenty of evidence for this theory. There have been many MBTI studies (search them or look them up in the MBTI manual) and I base most of my reasoning on personal case studies.

It's as good as many other psychological theories really.

 

[Hadoblado]

- INTP's are generally less interested in sports than other types

- People do what they are interested in

- People get better at things that they do

Therefore: Personality types that are more interested in sport are likely more represented in elite athleticism.

So we've figured out that INTP's probably aren't as good at sports because they practice less. Do we have to debate this further? I hope not.

The next step is to question whether the cognitive makeup of the INTP makes for a better athlete all other things being equal (specifically practice and motivation). I would say that this is not the case, particularly in team sports. If a sport requires quick decision making, then an INTP will second guess decisions that need to not be second-guessed. They need an intuitive feel of the flow of the game. They need to process sensory stimuli into a response as fast as physically possible. These are not strengths of the INTP. If you think that INTP's are just better at everything that requires processing by the brain, you are being naive. Logic has no place in the moment, only instinct and learned responses.

Ti has its place in the post-game analysis. I had a lot more success than my physical talent should have lent me by acting on insight in sporting scenarios. But insights can be taught, the advantage insight gives is not exclusive. I could find holes in defenses, and often catch opponents by surprise, but I could have just as easily pointed out the weakness and had someone with more sporting talent land the goal.

I hated basketball as well. It takes too much attention, but requires very little thinking. I do enjoy team games in general though, but more for the complex player interaction than any sense of team glory.

I played sweeper and mid-field in soccer. The former is a largely observer role, where you are continuously adjusting the defense in accordance with the current game state, and the latter was a decisive play making position.

 

[Architect]

- INTP's are generally less interested in sports than other types

- People do what they are interested in

- People get better at things that they do

Therefore: Personality types that are more interested in sport are likely more represented in elite athleticism...

I think this is the definitive statement on the matter.

 

[Words]

And in point of fact there is plenty of evidence for this theory. There have been many MBTI studies (search them or look them up in the MBTI manual) and I base most of my reasoning on personal case studies.

I've searched for these statistical studies eons ago and while I can't find them currently, I remember them all to actually go against the theory. One study, I remember, only found adequate significance in the E vs. I dichotomy as opposed to the other dichotomies.

- INTP's are generally less interested in sports than other types

- People do what they are interested in

- People get better at things that they do

Therefore: Personality types that are more interested in sport are likely more represented in elite athleticism.

Problem: People generally do things they find that they're naturally good at, either for economic reasons or competitive reasons. Or, to make the statement less assumptive, people's interest are affected by their natural abilities (if there is such a thing as "innate talent")

 

[Hadoblado]

You are right Words, preference and ability are intercausal, but while this confounds the influence of temperament on preference, it is not mutually exclusive with my conclusion.

People do have innate levels of ability, and this will shape their interests, which will in turn shape their ability, but no matter how good at running I am, I could never develop an intrinsic interest in it. There is simply no room for innovation in running, my temperament rules out the possibility of me ever developing an interest.

 

[Words]

You are right Words, preference and ability are intercausal, but while this confounds the influence of temperament on preference, it is not mutually exclusive with my conclusion.

People do have innate levels of ability, and this will shape their interests, which will in turn shape their ability, but no matter how good at running I am, I could never develop an intrinsic interest in it. There is simply no room for innovation in running, my temperament rules out the possibility of me ever developing an interest.

The problem is the 2nd premise: "People do what they are interested in." Isn't it more like people "generally" do what they are interested in? And do people really do what they are really interested in or are they restricted by economic, social and even physical laws? What about people who are interested in flying or people who are interested in torturing others etc.? To what extent can people do what they are interested in?


-----


I think the question is whether people people act(and thus, hone their talents) more based on innate interest or economic interest. In a society where the average citizen has a great amount of career options like in developed countries, I think people will act primarily on innate interest(if it exists) as opposed to economic interest(and thus develop their preferred functions). In relatively poor societies, people will act more as economic agents and thus INTPs will develop their least preferred functions but only if the societies' economically disvalue "TiNe products".

The problem, I think, is that the INTP temperament has great advantages economically in many current places regardless of economic levels. I think as long as there's any standard of scientific education around and if there's a need for technical experts, the INTP will inevitably choose that path. Products of "TiNe" thinking are in demand in almost everywhere. There must be a situation where "TiNe" products(labor or goods) are not in demand and it must be a very poor situation.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes it is people do what they are interested in [generally].

But, MBTI, being a statistical model, should be approached with exactly such hypotheses. If there is an influence of interest on behaviour, then it doesn't matter how big the effect is, it is reason to believe that on average, people will end up doing sports more if they are interested in them, which is a trait that is defined at least partially by temperament.

Social, economic, and physical laws are all an assumed constant. If any of them give reason to believe that INTP's will be better at sport than other types, then we can compare them to the effect of interest levels across type.

I guess I don't actually disagree with anything you say, but fail so see how it detracts from the truth value of my second premise in any way significant to my conclusion.

 

[Words]

I guess I don't actually disagree with anything you say, but fail so see how it detracts from the truth value of my second premise in any way significant to my conclusion.

Your conclusion is: Personality types that are more interested in sport are likely more represented in elite athleticism.

What is a "likelihood"? you can have a positive likelihood, and you can have a negative likelihood. But if a likelihood can be 0 or in the middle(due to barriers, say physical or economic), then can you still call that "likely more"? If a particular item is released at the same time as another item at the same height, but with the two items having different masses, do they have the likelihood of reaching the ground at the same time? No, it depends on whether there's air resistance or of the difference of the surface area of the two items. In the same way, personality types that are more interested in sport are only more likely to be represented in elite athleticism given other conditions.

I think the problem is "What is the "constant" social condition"? and "What is the "constant" economic condition"? In what context is the conclusion being made? and does that context allow for the truth of the conclusion? Because likelihood intimately depends on this.

Or I don't know. Maybe I've confused myself.

 

[Hadoblado]

Regardless of these other factors, the claim that "INTP's are the best at sport" is a positive one for which there is little proof. I have given one reason why this is not the case. You question the extent to which this interest is a factor, but so long as it has an effect above zero (which is something I can guarantee), it is still a reason to believe they are not the best at sports.

This in combination with the probability of INTP's taking first place with all things being equal (1/16), we have very good reason to assume the alternative conclusion: that INTP's are not the best at sports.

If you can think of some reason that would make them the best at sports, that isn't just potential limitations on the magnitude to which INTP's are less often elite athletes, then we can reconsider our conclusion. It needs to be a positive claim, not just a potential partial negation.

 

[Words]

Regardless of these other factors, the claim that "INTP's are the best at sport" is a positive one for which there is little proof. I have given one reason why this is not the case. You question the extent to which this interest is a factor, but so long as it has an effect above zero (which is something I can guarantee), it is still a reason to believe they are not the best at sports.

This in combination with the probability of INTP's taking first place with all things being equal (1/16), we have very good reason to assume the alternative conclusion: that INTP's are not the best at sports.

If you can think of some reason that would make them the best at sports, that isn't just potential limitations on the magnitude to which INTP's are less often elite athletes, then we can reconsider our conclusion. It needs to be a positive claim, not just a potential partial negation.

Is it possible that INTPs hate sports and yet be really good at it innately? If this situtation is possible, then can you really say that it's likely that INTPs are not well represented?

 

[Hadoblado]

It's possible, but there is no evidence for such an assertion. As my statement is one of probability, I don't need to rule out every mere possibility.

 

[Words]

It's possible, but there is no evidence for such an assertion. As my statement is one of probability, I don't need to rule out every mere possibility.

The state of you're probability depends on another probability. It is only a probability if the situation allows it. There is no probability to speak of if it does not allow it. Since we cannot determine the state nor the probability of the required state that the state of you're probability requires in order for it to be considered a probability, it is undetermined if it is truly a probability or not.

 

[Hadoblado]

I feel as if we're being bogged in semantics.

- Sport is not an option that is taken over less pragmatic options while ignoring interest levels. Nobody ever gave up a career in physics or biology because of circumstance, only to pick up a sporting career in which they have little interest.

- I'm not trying to prove a logical formula here. If people don't attend to interests, then we would have zero evidence of the interests of other people. People generally do things which interest them, and while it could be argued that this effect is small (though there has been no actual evidence for this assertion), you cannot sincerely argue that this effect does not exist.

- I'll restate that on top of the argument from interest, there is also the fact that all things being equal, it is only a 1/16 chance INTP's come out on top. There is also no evidence to suggest INTP's would be good at sport.

 

[pjoa09]

Topics like these really make me wonder if I am ISTP or INTP.

I used to be addicted to basketball and as Architect pointed out it is a lot of brute force really. Not much strategy just skills honed to perfection and the muscle definition to overcome resistance from other players.

I hated the running part but I always enjoyed the sensory aspect. But of course 11 people on a court was sensory overload for me. A two against two at a half court seemed the most enjoyable as there wasn't much time for the mind to wander.

 

[Architect]

Topics like these really make me wonder if I am ISTP or INTP.

I used to be addicted to basketball and as Architect pointed out it is a lot of brute force really. Not much strategy just skills honed to perfection and the muscle definition to overcome resistance from other players.

I hated the running part but I always enjoyed the sensory aspect. But of course 11 people on a court was sensory overload for me. A two against two at a half court seemed the most enjoyable as there wasn't much time for the mind to wander.

It's hard to distinguish between the INTP and ISTP because they share so much in common. Most frequently I think ISTP's type themselves as INTPs, rather than the opposite. If you were addicted to basketball I'd strongly suspect ISTP, as every ISTP I've known (a lot since I work as a programmer) are sporty types, while no INTP I've ever known was.

ISTP's like thinking just as much as INTP's do because they are Ti dominants.

 

[Hadoblado]

The ISTP's I know are all into working out, but generally in a less formal manner than in the gym. One of them goes off to a friends with both drink and weed, then gets inebriated and exercises all day. From my perspective, it's not a particularly effective strategy, but it bloody worked for him (he lost 40 kg in a year or so).

 

[pjoa09]

It's hard to distinguish between the INTP and ISTP because they share so much in common. Most frequently I think ISTP's type themselves as INTPs, rather than the opposite. If you were addicted to basketball I'd strongly suspect ISTP, as every ISTP I've known (a lot since I work as a programmer) are sporty types, while no INTP I've ever known was.

ISTP's like thinking just as much as INTP's do because they are Ti dominants.

The ISTP forum nearly thought I was ENTP when I posted there. I also haven't bothered playing basketball since 3 years ago.

Really confusing stuff. ISTPs are awesome though, they take their fun seriously and that is a really good thing.I wonder where that takes them.

Do your ISTP coworkers enjoy working out? I try to work out because I want to look a bit better but I don't enjoy the work out so much.

There are a lot of ISTPs programming? How do they perform?

 

[Architect]

Do your ISTP coworkers enjoy working out? I try to work out because I want to look a bit better but I don't enjoy the work out so much.

They all have a sport of one type or another. Skiing is popular, as is baseball.

There are a lot of ISTPs programming? How do they perform?

A lot of ISTPs, ISTJ's, and believe it or not ISFX's too. The S allows them to handle the programming part. They're pretty good for the most part. To a person they can't stand it when I bring up abstraction in software though (architecture and modeling). For them it's all about the practicalities, which has a lot going for it.

 

[pjoa09]

They all have a sport of one type or another. Skiing is popular, as is baseball.



A lot of ISTPs, ISTJ's, and believe it or not ISFX's too. The S allows them to handle the programming part. They're pretty good for the most part. To a person they can't stand it when I bring up abstraction in software though (architecture and modeling). For them it's all about the practicalities, which has a lot going for it.

I guess that makes programming an introverted activity for the most part. Can't see how Te would be good at it.

I would have presumed they are best suited as managers.

Skiing and baseball are far too dangerous for my taste.