# Cognitive function "social hierarchy"... impacts what people fake their types to be



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

*Cognitive function "social hierarchy"... impacts what people fake their types to be*

*(1) Ni* - this trait that makes INTJ's "so smart" and makes INFJ's "so mystical." People love talking about this, giving themselves subtle compliments in discussion- _"My Ni is just too much! I just pick things up SO much faster than everyone else. It's hard talking to *lesser beings* who just aren't as fast as me"_

*(2) Ti* - I rarely see Ti complaints on the forums, and a lot of the ENTP's on here love to brag about it.

*(3) Ne * - Some people find Ne annoying, but it's still higher than any S function on the social hierarchy. Because, of course, it's what allows the NP's to brag about..... everything (especially in the ENTP's case... the ones on here love to brag). 

*(4) Se * - Se isn't talked about on the forums very much. But it's not an N function so it's not ranked as high up on the scale of forum-acceptability. 

*(5) Fi * - A lot of people complain about Fi, but people seem to have some strange vendetta against J types (unless it's xNxJ), so Ti and Fi are on a higher social plane than Te and Fe. 

*(6) Te* - As per what I said above... also, people complain about Te a lot, but nowhere near as much as Fe.

*(7) Fe* - Fe is only acceptable if the user is an INFJ, apparently. 
SO much complaining about Fe. _"Ugh I hate it when Fe people smother me!"_ and _"Oh you're offended by what I said? Stupid Fe user!"_ 

*(8) Si* - Last but not least... (or actually.... Si IS least in the eyes of the people on here... for some reason. *(i.e. like when we voted for "favorite subforum" and all the SJ ones were downvoted to oblivion even though they're not even popular in comparison to the other ones)*). 
_"Omg SJ's are so annoying!"_ 
_"SJ's always miss the point"_
_"I hate talking to SJ's... they're so boring!"_
_"My mom is SUCH an SJ_
_"SJ's just don't get it. They have reading comprehension issues or something..."_
_"Your Si is annoying me. Stop taking things so literally!"_ *Proceeds to, ironically, take the Si-users post literally in order to accuse them of taking something literally*
_"SJ's are really close-minded"_
_"In Big-5 tests, open-mindedness correlates to N whereas SJ correlates to close-minded"_
*People making threads begging for ways to find out how they're not an SJ*
etc.

---------------------------------------------------------




My rankings may be a little off, but the general trend is sound from what I've observed..... 
*Why does the "are you an INFJ" thread have 637,000 views whereas the "are you an ESFJ" thread has only 68,000 views...? *


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ti complaints do exist on these forums, usually along the lines of complaining that Ti users nitpick and overindulge in arguments of semantics. 
SJ hate is annoying as hell.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

All types suck but mine.


----------



## Sybyll (May 9, 2009)

*gasp* how could anyone find Ne annoying? 'Tis the best function. :wink:

No but seriously, I agree that this is a thing. There was a typeme-thread a while back where someone, who was pretty clearly a dom Fe user of some sort, more or less stormed off the forum when people said she was most likely an ESFJ... With Fe being very concerned with social hierarchy/order, I can see how a lot of Fe doms might not want to be (known as) that.

I feel like it used to be worse, though? The whole forum seems much more friendly to both S and F types than it was when I first joined. Maybe I'm just reading different kinds of threads now.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

What annoys me is how a lot of people on here will subtly imply that intuitives are better than sensors, and then when you try to call them out on it they're "just joking". I've seriously seen one person who said "I'd want to off myself if I was an xSFJ", and then I remember a discussion in the MBTI forum where someone claimed that 91% of artists were intuitives, which seems astronomically unlikely, given that those same people claim that intuitives are only like 25% of the population. I remember another topic in which someone said that only 7% of sensors make it into higher education, which means that even if 100% of intuitives got into higher education, assuming intuitives are at most 30% of the population, only 34% of the population would have an associate's degree or higher, where in actuality it's 52% (at least in the US), so these people make up "facts" to try to make sensors feel badly about themselves.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> *(1) Ni* - this trait that makes INTJ's "so smart" and makes INFJ's "so mystical." People love talking about this, giving themselves subtle compliments in discussion- _"My Ni is just too much! I just pick things up SO much faster than everyone else. It's hard talking to *lesser beings* who just aren't as fast as me"_
> 
> *(2) Ti* - I rarely see Ti complaints on the forums, and a lot of the ENTP's on here love to brag about it.
> 
> ...












Can you please _define what you mean by social hierarchy_?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

> My rankings may be a little off, but the general trend is sound from what I've observed.....
> Why does the "are you an INFJ" thread have 637,000 views whereas the "are you an ESFJ" thread has only 68,000 views...?


ESFJs are probably out doing shit in IRL and don't have much interest to come to forums about MBTI.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Yeah, stereotyping happens, especially when it comes to typing people. I die a little inside whenever someone insinuates that a particular person cannot be X type because that person doesn't fit Y behavior that they _have to fit_.

Too many people walking around with "bad experience with X type" wanting to find a way to blame it on something that they can give a name to.

Of course, legitimate miscommunication can happen because of perception barriers and we shouldn't discount that entirely.

Anyway, as an Ni-dom, I'm proud to say that Ni gives me average abilities to do average things. Though it would be cool as hell if it was a superpower.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Yeah, stereotyping happens, especially when it comes to typing people. I die a little inside whenever someone insinuates that a particular person cannot be X type because that person doesn't fit Y behavior that they _have to fit_.
> 
> Too many people walking around with "bad experience with X type" wanting to find a way to blame it on something that they can give a name to.
> 
> ...


Good shit man. Well said.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I agree that is probably the hierarchy, but I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. People look more at type descriptions, or dichotomies, than functions. Most people are not even interested in cognitive functions. One doesn't approach a problem from its smallest part.... They look at the outer whole. It is only after the outer whole bores them, do they go further. But most people are not interested in this kind of reductionism. Like I mentioned that most people on another site, totally unrelated to MBTI, tested INTJ. They have no idea what Ni is. Perhaps, there are actually a lot of INTJ and INFJ, and they just champion their functions, and it laid the foundation for "institutional" bias.


----------



## Sybyll (May 9, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree that is probably the hierarchy, but I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. People look more at type descriptions, or dichotomies, than functions. Most people are not even interested in cognitive functions. One doesn't approach a problem from its smallest part....


I'd say the system still holds, even if you look at if from the dichotomies: I over E, N over S, T over F, I'm not sure if it would be J over P or the other way around though. Percieving over judging, I think (if we count the types with dominant Px as percievers).


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Pretty much. And now it's getting more exclusionary with lame "ONLY XXX TYPE CAN POST IN THIS THREAD". I'm embarrassed for them.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Read the comment while listening to the clip

i've made an anthem for it, see as the song progresses how at the final momentum the esfj throws himself to the inmense tasteless void space where all his desires have sex with his own body and give birth to repugnant melodies whose twisted bodies dance happily with the obssene glowing morning sight. 

Playing: ESFJ Broken Pysche Mastered.mp3 - picosong


----------



## Sybyll (May 9, 2009)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> i've made an anthem for it, see as the song progresses how at the final momentum the esfj throws himself to the inmense tasteless void space where all his desires have sex with his own body and give birth to repugnant melodies whose twisted bodies dance happily with the obssene glowing morning sight.
> 
> Playing: ESFJ Broken Pysche Mastered.mp3 - picosong


Are... are you sure you posted in the right thread?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

SELF PROMOTION hahaha


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sybyll said:


> I'd say the system still holds, even if you look at if from the dichotomies: I over E, N over S, T over F, I'm not sure if it would be J over P or the other way around though. Percieving over judging, I think (if we count the types with dominant Px as percievers).


It may hold, but it is a false cause. We agree on the ends, we disagree on how it happened. 

Take INFJ for example. First, we must understand who the typical MBTI hobbyist is. They aren't the people on this forum, who can recite Jung off the top of their head. They aren't "hardcores". If you are posting in this subforum, you are a hardcore. Or at least, a wannabe hardcore. But these wannabes, and hardcores, make up such a small fraction of the community, they can't be said to represent it. This is a problem many hardcore hobbyists don't recognize, that there is a much larger "casual" perspective out there. Most people on this forum don't even have an interest in cognitive functions. 

Cognitive function elitism does not spread far beyond this forum. Yet, the internet is still filled with a disproportionate amount of INTJ/INFJ. My explanation, is type description. The appeal of INFJ is not Ni. It is being rare, and whatever else. INFJ is the shine on the INFJ brand, not Ni. INFJ sells itself. There is no need to add Ni to the package.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Can you please _define what you mean by social hierarchy_?


Bad meme - CHECK
Forced, unfunny joke - CHECK
Condescending Attitude - CHECK
Self-appointed "ENTP" -CHECK
Forced joke for a profile picture... desperately trying to play into the "ENTPs are funny" stereotype - CHECK





You are the type of person my thread is targeting.
Either stop responding or change. 
Your choice.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It may hold, but it is a false cause. We agree on the ends, we disagree on how it happened.
> 
> Take INFJ for example. First, we must understand who the typical MBTI hobbyist is. They aren't the people on this forum, who can recite Jung off the top of their head. They aren't "hardcores". If you are posting in this subforum, you are a hardcore. Or at least, a wannabe hardcore. But these wannabes, and hardcores, make up such a small fraction of the community, they can't be said to represent it. This is a problem many hardcore hobbyists don't recognize, that there is a much larger "casual" perspective out there. Most people on this forum don't even have an interest in cognitive functions.
> 
> Cognitive function elitism does not spread far beyond this forum. Yet, the internet is still filled with a disproportionate amount of INTJ/INFJ. My explanation, is type description. The appeal of INFJ is not Ni. It is being rare, and whatever else. INFJ is the shine on the INFJ brand, not Ni. INFJ sells itself. There is no need to add Ni to the package.



On the cognitive function subforum.
I'm not talking about the general public.


The people on here is what I mean.



I can't tell you how many times I've seen people say something along the lines of my Si list/examples in my OP




*EDIT: But I agree with you that, for the general public, INFJ sells itself as a common type to want to be. (Though there are still a disproportionally large amount of INxJ's on these forums)*


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Man now out of the jokes i'm sure lots of people think of INTJ as complete assholes who sit in their self-made thrones of ivory, the same happens with INFPs in some way and ESFJs, etc, it's not just about SJ, society is like that, there are jews and there is the aryan race, maybe you want to change the world i dunno. For me this is definitely a part of the game, i certanly have x grade of distrust about this big typology world, but if i'm playing here in this arena i'm gonna try to play as if i trust it 100%. 
What i mean is that everyone can be an asshole and that types doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Sybyll (May 9, 2009)

Oh, yes, race certainly affects nothing about how people view you:laughing:
If type means nothing, why are you here, @DonutsGalacticos?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

reckful said:


> If somebody else looks at that data and turns up their nose at some of the lists and says they think the people who choose those careers are _inferior people_ ("lower status" people, or "boring and mediocre people," or whatever), then that somebody else is demonstrating a "bias" (IMHO) and — as I told one of those somebody elses earlier in this thread — could probably benefit from an attitude adjustment.


I believe the point in question had to do with society elevating certain professions (such as the PhDs and so on) and people in turn saying that sensors are largely not present in those fields.

In that regard, whether _I_ think a policeman is the best thing ever, or the same as any other profession, is irrelevant. It's that _culturally_, society doesn't see the policeman as a particularly prestigious or vaunted profession, nor does it hold the intelligence of the average police officer in high regard. It is even more so this way with the position of a janitor, which society portrays as the lowest rung of inadequacy and failure; one of the "fallback" positions for those who were not competent enough to do better. 

And again, in case someone tries to twist my words here, this is not _my_ opinion of police officers or janitors that I am talking about. It is how we as a culture tend to view them.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I believe the point in question had to do with society elevating certain professions (such as the PhDs and so on) and people in turn saying that sensors are largely not present in those fields.
> 
> In that regard, whether _I_ think a policeman is the best thing ever, or the same as any other profession, is irrelevant. It's that _culturally_, society doesn't see the policeman as a particularly prestigious or vaunted profession, nor does it hold the intelligence of the average police officer in high regard. It is even more so this way with the position of a janitor, which society portrays as the lowest rung of inadequacy and failure; one of the "fallback" positions for those who were not competent enough to do better.
> 
> And again, in case someone tries to twist my words here, this is not _my_ opinion of police officers or janitors that I am talking about. It is how we as a culture tend to view them.


Would you say the average issue of, say, _People_ magazine has more news and features about N's than S's?

Would you say the mainstream culture treats somebody with, say, a sociology Ph.D as a high status person?

If a sociology Ph.D and a police chief were running for the same congressional seat, do you think the Ph.D's "high status" would give him a significant advantage?

If Gallup asked Americans to name their top ten "heroes," do you think the top 50 vote-getters would be an N-dominated list?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

reckful said:


> Would you say the average issue of, say, _People_ magazine has more news and features about N's than S's?
> 
> Would you say the mainstream culture treats somebody with, say, a sociology Ph.D as a high status person?
> 
> ...


What does political office have to do with the prestige we ascribe to certain professions? The common elected officials are the ones who are good at espousing views and policies that people are largely in favor of, and, when possible, illustrating that they have some relevant experience. Politics is largely just a game of becoming what the majority wants you to become and sticking to it firmly enough that they don't accuse you too badly of flip-flopping.

I don't see what that has to do with the point as I was describing it.

Have no idea what relevance People magazine is supposed to have in this context.

High status and prestigious are not necessarily the same meaning. If you're going to flip rhetorical questions at me, at least use the words I'm using.

Your question about a Gallup poll makes no sense in reference to what I was saying.

I know the irresistible urge to spout rhetoric when encountering something that you find absurd all too well, but it doesn't give us anything to talk about. If you have an argument to make, then make it. I may be sleep-dazed in the wee hours of the morning, but it doesn't make me blind to leading questions.


----------



## jcatenaci (Mar 28, 2014)

Pelopra said:


> oh, honey
> i went to see his post
> i know full well janitor wasn't on it
> way to miss the point
> ...


I'm in agreement, having read the list. Nursing was the only higher degree career on that list. The rest were various trades, which implies that N's get the high prestige jobs, minus CEO which ESTJ shares with ENTJ, while S's get the blue collar jobs. Kind of a shitty deal, tbh.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Can we just stop referencing those career lists? They are misleading at best. They can be useful to some degree if a person is totally lost and hopeless in finding some occupation that fits them or if he/she has some special circumstances or limitations. In other cases mind and heart are much better advisors than any made-up lists.
My profession is nowhere on those SJ lists but I'm totally happy with it.

I don't think it's a secret that majority of people are not fascinated by not-so-prestigious work and there is a shortage of specialists in area of blue-collar jobs. Labour market needs much more accountants and technical workers than, say, artists. So, the only correlation I can see here, is that SJs can be more willing to tackle such jobs because of totally practical reasons (they'll be able to earn a crust) or innate responsibility for getting things done and making the world go round. But it doesn't indicate any real cognitive preference for those jobs or that majority of sensors would enjoy them.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

Have you considered the possability that people may have decided what kinds of people they dislike BEFORE knowing anything about MBTI and simply found the best fit type after the fact? Before coming to this forum I had always been typed as INTJ by tests, before reading up on it at all (with few INTP exceptions). Before knowing anything about MBTI, I knew extremely traditional people were annoying to me, as are extremely impulsive people. These two traits TEND to correlate to SJ and ESxP more-so than other MBTI types.

So, I'd say MBTI helps explain likes and dislikes that exist before knowledge of MBTI. Cognitive functions can actually make a mess of that, if only viewed superficially. Si isn't necessarily the culprit, nor Se, so much as their position. Even then, people are not "just" their type. Some NP's behave much like SJ stereotypes too, due to upbringing and such. Etc..


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

@UglierBetty and others -

This is a function of our ignorance about the brain and how it works. We are dealing with a pseudoscience, at best, when we delve into personality typing. With an incorrect initial self-typing rate that is approaching 70%, the truth of the matter is that people don't understand MBTI, Jung, or cognitive functions, and they therefore try to type themselves based on patterns of behavior, rather than focusing on how they arrived at their conclusions (their thought processes) and what their motivations were for behaving in a certain way. This is what leads to mistyping.

We look at intelligence as (roughly) being able to quickly grasp a concept and being able to make intuitive leaps. When we bring this working definition into personality typing, it is natural that those utilizing intuition are going to be viewed as more intelligent and deem those traits to be more desirable. Our failure is in not differentiating between intuition that we all use on a daily basis, and intuition as a thought process or manner of interacting with the object. 

Then, when reading the tests, it becomes easy for an intelligent sensor to see things that are applicable to how they are, since we are asking about behaviors. They then will likely mis-type as an intuitive because of a break down in understanding of what is actually being asked or sought by the test question(s), confusing intelligence with intuition.

Eventually, this results in intuitors being seen as white collar professionals and sensors as blue collar tradesmen; Intelligent vs. less intelligent; Upwardly mobile vs. stagnant; Explorers of ideas vs. closed minded.

As for sites like this one, there is little doubt that many are mis-typed. Intuition as a thought process is relatively rare and while it may drive some to explore personality typing, the general trend is that we are too busy to spend a lot of time with this idea - sensor or intuitor, so there has to be some mis-typing skewing the numbers.
@UglierBetty, in effect, you are trying to change the way people think. I wish you luck with that.

I'll close with this:

I don't care if your name is Keirsey, Denning, Briggs, Myers, Jung, or anything else, when you start merely citing statistics about behaviors, intelligence, careers, etc., in relation to type and treat data as information, you are a fool and will steer many people wrong. It is incumbent on those claiming to be professionals, to seek out the motivations, the "why" of the behavior, and to not just fall back on statistics that say, "83% of NHS members self-identify as intuitors." To do this is the height of willful ignorance.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

niss said:


> I don't care if your name is Keirsey, Denning, Briggs, Myers, Jung, or anything else, when you start merely citing statistics about behaviors, intelligence, careers, etc., in relation to type and treat data as information, you are a fool and will steer many people wrong. It is incumbent on those claiming to be professionals, to seek out the motivations, the "why" of the behavior, and to not just fall back on statistics that say, "83% of NHS members self-identify as intuitors." To do this is the height of willful ignorance.


The "why" of behavior vs. "statistics." There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Virtually all the well-known type theorists — from Jung to Myers to Keirsey to Thomson and on and on — spend lots of time analyzing and describing what they view (or speculate might be) the ultimate "why's" behind the myriad of personality characteristics and behavior that they associate with the various types.

And in trying to have the best handle possible on what the attitudinal/behavioral _facts_ are that they're seeking to categorize and explain, they _also_ pay attention to whatever respectable statistics are available.

In referring to people who "merely cite statistics" and "just fall back on statistics," you're just ranting at a straw man. Isabel Myers was not a "fool," and taking into account the many sources of statistical data she pointed to — while simultaneously grappling with the "why's" behind them — was not an exercise in "willful ignorance."

In one sense, this entire thread revolves around statistics. The OP has pointed to the _very_ disproportionate number of N's on this site. And he's offered an explanation for "why" he thinks many of those people have typed themselves N. And others of us have offered competing explanations for "why" we think PerC has a disproportionate number of (self-labeled) N's.

To the extent that there are respectable statistics that arguably bear on the issues under discussion, why would anyone want to ignore them? Any data that's type-related is going to be _imperfect_ data to a greater degree than, say, hard science data. But what's the alternative? Anecdotal "data"? Assuming you have _some_ interest in taking the facts into account, it makes sense to look at the best sources available, imperfect though they may be.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> What does political office have to do with the prestige we ascribe to certain professions? The common elected officials are the ones who are good at espousing views and policies that people are largely in favor of, and, when possible, illustrating that they have some relevant experience. Politics is largely just a game of becoming what the majority wants you to become and sticking to it firmly enough that they don't accuse you too badly of flip-flopping.
> 
> I don't see what that has to do with the point as I was describing it.
> 
> ...


Well, the main issue under discussion in the thread is "social status" and the extent to which a desire for higher "social status" would lead someone — and potentially _very large numbers_ of someones, per the OP — to fake being an N. So that's why the questions in my post weren't restricted to just job prestige.

The post of yours that I was replying to talked about our society "elevating" certain professions, and not holding the "intelligence" of policemen "in high regard," and viewing people who hold certain jobs as "failures" — and unless you think that all ties in to an overall frame where _N's in general_ have a sufficiently higher "social status" that lots of S's are driven to be _fake N's_, then I don't really see how it's relevant.

If you're saying you don't think members of Congress have high status jobs, I'd certainly disagree with that. And if a sociology Ph.D (you'd previously mentioned "Ph.D's" as high prestige) is running for office against a police chief (and you've been pointing to the police as a career that _isn't_ well regarded), why wouldn't you expect the Ph.D to have the advantage if we accord them sufficiently higher "status" and hold them in "higher regard"?

I'd say being the President is arguably the highest-status job in America and, as I understand it, one of the reasons Bush beat Gore is that Gore was viewed as an intellectual smarty-pants and Bush was viewed as a practical, down-to-earth regular guy. I think N's trying to get elected in America are more likely to try to portray themselves in more S-ish terms than S's are likely to try to seem more "intellectual."

I don't disagree that, as previously noted, the _average_ N ends up with more years of education than the _average_ S — which is not to say there aren't as many S doctors as N doctors (for example). And I don't disagree that there's probably _some_ correlation between the "prestige" associated with a job and the number of years you have to spend in school before you can do it. So that would potentially argue for _some_ tendency for the average N to have a somewhat more "prestigious" job than the average S. But we're not talking about really large differences (I think I vaguely recall reading that the average N ends up with around one more year of school) and, more importantly, I question whether, as a more _overall_ matter, American society — which is supposedly _more than 70% S_ — really accords substantially higher "social status" to N's than S's.

And when I say _substantially_ higher, it seems to me you'd have to be talking about a pretty large status differential if you wanted to use that to explain why large numbers of PerC members are purportedly "faking" their type.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Gosh, this is boring.

Honestly, is anti-S bias or anti-N bias a phenomenon that even exists in the real world or is it just something that happens on forums?

In real life, you'll find the media alternately slagging off different professions or groups of different employment status. One year it's "Teacher's are overpaid and lazy." Then it's "Students are useless because they just party all the time, they should work instead of studying for a degree." Then it's "Scientists should be more ethical." or "All politicians are corrupt." or "Should women work full-time or part-time." or "There are too many benefit scroungers." etc. Then they get bored of it and pick on another group.

You'll find professors whining about how nobody understands their genius and they are sacrificing their life for humanity and then you'll also find shop-assistants saying that research is useless and professors should do more practical work. Many people just don't have any respect for anyone who does a job that is different than what they do, but personality doesn't get mentioned in this context.

Have you ever heard anyone in real life discriminate against Ns or Ss?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Gosh, this is boring.
> 
> Honestly, is anti-S bias or anti-N bias a phenomenon that even exists in the real world or is it just something that happens on forums?
> 
> ...


As has already been pointed out, this thread is about personalityCafe not real life.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> As has already been pointed out, this thread is about personalityCafe not real life.


Hum.. yeah, but why are we getting so heated up about geeky stuff that doesn't have any relevance to real life anyway?

I'd be far more interested in collecting our own statistics like "What is your type and job/ field of study?". Never mind whether people are mistyped. 
Alternatively, we could compile a list of typing questions that doesn't include reference to jobs or interests. Actually, even the free online MBTI tests don't ask any questions about your job or "creativity", so if anyone mistypes themselves in a roundabout way by thinking about what kind of jobs might have a high status in society, there isn't much that can be done about it.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Hum.. yeah, but why are we getting so heated up about geeky stuff that doesn't have any relevance to real life anyway?
> 
> I'd be far more interested in collecting our own statistics like "What is your type and job/ field of study?". Never mind whether people are mistyped.
> Alternatively, we could compile a list of typing questions that doesn't include reference to jobs or interests. Actually, even the free online MBTI tests don't ask any questions about your job or "creativity", so if anyone mistypes themselves in a roundabout way by thinking about what kind of jobs might have a high status in society, there isn't much that can be done about it.


I imagine some people are here because of unpleasant experiences (and just because it's online doesn't mean it can't be a real unpleasantness.) 

I'm here because I want more S perspectives to enrich the discussions here, and if they keep being turned off and offended by certain people here on the forum, I won't be able to have that. 

Plus, I have a dislike of pretentious prigs.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> it was an analogy



Ahhh. I was in "literal mode" for some reason.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Ahhh. I was in "literal mode" for some reason.


No worries. I know the feeling.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

^ you both are intuitives you must be in unliteral mode AKA paranoidal mode all the time.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

reckful said:


> Well, the main issue under discussion in the thread is "social status" and the extent to which a desire for higher "social status" would lead someone — and potentially _very large numbers_ of someones, per the OP — to fake being an N. So that's why the questions in my post weren't restricted to just job prestige.
> 
> The post of yours that I was replying to talked about our society "elevating" certain professions, and not holding the "intelligence" of policemen "in high regard," and viewing people who hold certain jobs as "failures" — and unless you think that all ties in to an overall frame where _N's in general_ have a sufficiently higher "social status" that lots of S's are driven to be _fake N's_, then I don't really see how it's relevant.
> 
> ...


I'm going to try to be brief because I really am not up for another text-wall-war right now. 

1) Police officers are not held in the same regard as police chiefs. I'm not sure if you're being straight up dishonest with the modification of wording there, or if you genuinely aren't paying attention.

2) Again, politics is irrelevant to the point I talking about and I already explained why. I'm not saying that members of Congress don't have high status jobs. I'm not sure how you extrapolated that.

3) Ok fine, "social status." I don't feel like dissecting the point.

4) You seem to be adding a layer of complexity to what I originally said that was not present there. Let's take the words "N" and "S" completely out of the picture here for a moment and just look at the jobs alone. Extreme example: Garbage collector vs. college professor - which one does society hold in higher regard? 

Shouldn't be tough to answer. Now we get to bring back in N and S. Which of the jobs are people more likely to ascribe to N? Which one more likely to S? 

Well, some would say, higher education has significantly more intuitives than sensors, so if you're an intuitive you're more likely to be a college professor than a garbage collector.

Where does this leave the sensors? In a ditch, recognized as the unintelligent dregs of society. 

Do you see now how this works? The statistical position doesn't even have to be extreme. The statistics could say, "Intuitives are 60% of the people in higher education and sensors are 40%," and people could easily extrapolate "significant difference" from it, resulting in a bias when talking about different career choices. A bias that then bleeds into how we view sensors as a whole - at this point in the thought process, it's not hard for people to proceed to saying that sensors are not in the more prestigious jobs because they are dumber.

So the point (at least the one that I was communicating) is not whether American society as a whole considers intuitives to be higher status than sensors. It's that the career/status-based ranking inherent in American society offers the perfect template for people to look at a few statistics and run away with the idea that intuitives are more commonly holding the prestigious positions. Which then leads to "sensors must be dumber and that's why they don't have these positions as much."

Savvy?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> So the point (at least the one that I was communicating) is not whether American society as a whole considers intuitives to be higher status than sensors. It's that the career/status-based ranking inherent in American society offers the perfect template for people to look at a few statistics and run away with the idea that intuitives are more commonly holding the prestigious positions. Which then leads to "sensors must be dumber and that's why they don't have these positions as much."


I don't disagree that certain career statistics could _theoretically_ provide what somebody or other might wrongly consider a "perfect template" to "run away with" various ideas.

I had thought the point was more "whether American society as a whole considers intuitives to be higher status than sensors" (as you put it) to a _sufficient degree_ for that to seem like a plausible explanation for the OP's claimed phenomenon of large numbers of PerC members "faking" N types.



LostFavor said:


> 1) Police officers are not held in the same regard as police chiefs. I'm not sure if you're being straight up dishonest with the modification of wording there, or if you genuinely aren't paying attention.


Since the comparison was with a sociology Ph.D (not somebody with a B.A. or master's degree) and both hypothetical candidates were running for Congress, I thought it made sense to posit a police chief as the Ph.D's opponent. When you said "society doesn't see the policeman as a particularly prestigious or vaunted profession," you didn't make any distinction between new hires and high-ranking veterans. So, in response to your "I'm not sure if you're being straight up dishonest with the modification of wording there, or if you genuinely aren't paying attention," I'd say I wasn't being dishonest and I was genuinely paying attention, but I accept that I may have misunderstood what you meant when you referred to the police "profession."



LostFavor said:


> Savvy?


I like to think so. :tongue:


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

reckful said:


> I don't disagree that certain career statistics could _theoretically_ provide what somebody or other might wrongly consider a "perfect template" to "run away with" various ideas.
> 
> I had thought the point was more "whether American society as a whole considers intuitives to be higher status than sensors" (as you put it) to a _sufficient degree_ for that to seem like a plausible explanation for the OP's claimed phenomenon of large numbers of PerC members "faking" N types.


To be honest with you, I'm not sure what the larger point was, if there was one. I honed in on something specific that stuck out to me and went with it, but I'm not well-versed in what the larger argument at work may be (again, if there is one). It's what happens when I jump into a discussion trying to support points that did not originate from my own mind. 



reckful said:


> Since the comparison was with a sociology Ph.D (not somebody with a B.A. or master's degree) and both hypothetical candidates were running for Congress, I thought it made sense to posit a police chief as the Ph.D's opponent. When you said "society doesn't see the policeman as a particularly prestigious or vaunted profession," you didn't make any distinction between new hires and high-ranking veterans. So, in response to your "I'm not sure if you're being straight up dishonest with the modification of wording there, or if you genuinely aren't paying attention," I'd say I wasn't being dishonest and I was genuinely paying attention, but I accept that I may have misunderstood what you meant when you referred to the police "profession."
> 
> 
> 
> I like to think so. :tongue:


Fair enough. :happy:


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> To be honest with you, I'm not sure what the larger point was, if there was one. I honed in on something specific that stuck out to me and went with it, but I'm not well-versed in what the larger argument at work may be (again, if there is one). It's what happens when I jump into a discussion trying to support points that did not originate from my own mind.
> 
> 
> Fair enough. :happy:


This might help:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...t-people-fake-their-types-14.html#post7026985

Since it only presents one side, perhaps @_reckful_ can make a similar post for his stance in the argument.

Edit:
To further clarify:
It is my opinion that the discussion here was about people on this forum implying that Ss are intellectually inferior. To me, the entire conversation about prestige of celebrities vs PhDs was a derail, deliberate or not, so that people would be distracted from the offensive implications of the posts that started this argument. 
The derail, to a large extent, was successful. Witness how a thread about the culture here on personalityCafe turned into a comparison of various jobs and whether or not we appreciate them. Witness how multiple participants have expressed confusion as to whether we're discussing the real world (we're not) .


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

reckful said:


> Just to take a stark, simple example because it makes it clear how errors in the data tend to reduce reported correlations. Let's suppose that it turned out that E/I preferences corresponded to some truly hardwired underlying biological thing that we could measure, just like we can look at XX and XY chromosomes in connection with biological maleness and femaleness. And assume, just because it makes things simple/easy, that there was something that correlated _100%_ with somebody's _real_ E/I preference.
> 
> But now assume that we don't have access to any biological markers and we're conducting a study of correlations between E/I and that 100%-correlated something, but we're typing the subjects on the basis of a test where, on average, 15% of the _real_ E's mistype as I and 15% of the _real_ I's mistype as E.
> 
> ...


After reading this closely, I think I get what you're saying a lot better now. 

That said, in terms of pointing out actual problems with statistics, I feel it's largely outside of my scope of knowledge at this point. I just read up on Common Method Variance, which was mentioned in the paper monemi linked somewhere in this thread, and it can apparently both inflate or deflate correlation between variables. Beyond that, I've not much to say, unless/until I read up more on statistical research and studies on MBTI.

Here's a helpful breakdown of Common Method Variance: Common Method Variance | mayday28


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

@-Alpha-

Some jobs are obviously better than others. I think someone on here earlier compared psychologist and janitor. Who the hell really wants to be a janitor? I feel like he's trying to make sensors feel badly about themselves and it makes me feel like I'm going to be a failure in life because I'm a sensor, like I don't feel like enough of a failure already.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

john.thomas said:


> @-Alpha-
> 
> Some jobs are obviously better than others. I think someone on here earlier compared psychologist and janitor. Who the hell really wants to be a janitor? I feel like he's trying to make sensors feel badly about themselves and it makes me feel like I'm going to be a failure in life because I'm a sensor, like I don't feel like enough of a failure already.


What does "better" even mean? I'm intuitive, dominant no less. I work at wal Mart and I wash dishes part time andI like both off my jobs. I've worked at banks and supervised, worked at theatres and out in the cold. "Better" isn't an objective statement. It's based on your interpretation of the information you're given.

Do I have to tip badly because others that share a race with me do? As an intuitive, do I have to go into science or politics or start a business? Do these things have to be because the majority is a certain thing? Where is the line drawn between what statistics say and what we are? I'm INTJ. I've spoken to a practitioner and been verified by basically every member of thid site, have tens of testimonials to my credit and I don't intend to do any of the things INTJ are "likely" to do. I wanna long board and play video games and travel. Why the hell can't you do what you wanna do?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> @reckful
> 
> You really believe that intuitives get better jobs than sensors, don't you?


What's a "better" job? Those Career Report statistics correlate types and jobs based on the relative number of types who _both_ had the particular jobs _and_ reported that they were "satisfied with their jobs."

After you boldly asserted that "there are no correlations between ... type and career," I pointed out that lots of studies have found substantial correlations between type and career, including the 92,000-person sample used in the MBTI Career Reports. I never said anything about any particular types having "better" jobs. If you like any particular job list "better" than any other, that's your prerogative.

And FYI, and as I've also pointed out, nobody's posted any lists with "janitors" in them — not that it isn't pretty fucking obnoxious (IMO) to go around feeling superior to people who choose to make an honest living that way.

You asked me earlier...



john.thomas said:


> So you're saying I'm stupid and close-minded because I'm a sensor?


I don't even know if you're a sensor — and, as I've noted elsewhere, I think there are quite a few N's mistyped as S's at PerC, partly because of bad "cognitive function" analysis — and I also don't claim to know how smart or stupid you are. But I would say that you've planted some fairly stupid posts in this thread, and it seems to me that, as @-Alpha- has noted, you're not even really trying to engage me in good faith. The issues we're talking about are far from rocket science, and I have little doubt you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying and not saying _if you wanted to_.


----------



## Kyora (Mar 17, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> *(1) Ni* - this trait that makes INTJ's "so smart" and makes INFJ's "so mystical." People love talking about this, giving themselves subtle compliments in discussion- _"My Ni is just too much! I just pick things up SO much faster than everyone else. It's hard talking to *lesser beings* who just aren't as fast as me"_
> 
> *(2) Ti* - I rarely see Ti complaints on the forums, and a lot of the ENTP's on here love to brag about it.
> 
> ...


Well I don't think I'm particularly hated... Or devalued though I'm a SiFe user since I'm a ISFJ... Maybe they are more devalued because there are less of us on websites? When I think about it, what is less known is more than often rejected, since FeSi and SiFe tend to not make up the majority of PerC, they might feel rejected... Well that's my view, take it or leave it 
I don't really care if I'm hated or not as long as I still find people that are nice  (I've never been wronged or felt it by the way...)


There is just one thing I don't understand, I've read that most sensor are not apt to study but why? Is there a reason? By the way I'm a university student in her 5th year, hasn't failed yet, not even one year... Well anyway, stereotyping is not good by the way my Bestie is a INTJ...


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

Kyora said:


> There is just one thing I don't understand, I've read that most sensor are not apt to study but why? Is there a reason? By the way I'm a university student in her 5th year, hasn't failed yet, not even one year... Well anyway, stereotyping is not good by the way my Bestie is a INTJ...


That's a myth made up by some intuitives who want to feel superior so they make up "facts" to make sensors feel badly about themselves.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

I wonder if part of the problem is the fact MBTI was created by intuitives who without fully realizing it put an anti-sensor bias into the system. This could also be mixed in with more generalized cultural biases. And if this where not enough, forms like these probably over represent INXX types some of whom perpetuate sensor-hate.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Kyora said:


> There is just one thing I don't understand, I've read that most sensor are not apt to study but why? Is there a reason?





john.thomas said:


> That's a myth made up by some intuitives who want to feel superior so they make up "facts" to make sensors feel badly about themselves.


I actually took Kyora's question in a completely different way than John.Thomas. I assumed it was referring to "study" as in the need to "cram" for tests, not a general lack of interest in academic studies.

If it's the former, then I definitely fell into that category. I almost never studied and was a straight A student. In fact, I rarely (if ever) took notes in class that would ever be useful for studying. I preferred to concentrate on what the teacher was teaching, forcing myself to create real-world analogies/models in my mind that made sense to me. This allowed me to understand things rather than memorize things. Once I understood the rules, I was able to naturally apply them as needed. 

Math, science and even grammar lent themselves to this method for me. History (at least as it was taught to me... with rote memorization of dates and facts) did not lend itself to this type of learning and was much more of a struggle for me. The little bit of studying I ever did was to get through those tests... after which I promptly forgot every last bit of it. 

Literature courses were anathema to me... no amount of studying would ever bestow me with the ability to pull interpretations out of my ass like it seemed everyone else was doing, so I never even bothered (but somehow I was able to "fake it" and still pull A- in those classes).

Now... if the question was referring to the latter case... a general lack of interest in academic studies... then I would agree with John.Thomas.


----------



## Kyora (Mar 17, 2013)

jcal said:


> I actually took Kyora's question in a completely different way than John.Thomas. I assumed it was referring to "study" as in the need to "cram" for tests, not a general lack of interest in academic studies.
> 
> If it's the former, then I definitely fell into that category. I almost never studied and was a straight A student. In fact, I rarely (if ever) took notes in class that would ever be useful for studying. I preferred to concentrate on what the teacher was teaching, forcing myself to create real-world analogies/models in my mind that made sense to me. This allowed me to understand things rather than memorize things. Once I understood the rules, I was able to naturally apply them as needed.
> 
> ...


Well it was actually both x) I'm a student and well it's not that I don't want to study, it's just that reading one "study book" doesn't satisfy me... It's not enough... I need to have multiple perspective so as to really understand. Memorizing, well my memory is good but I feel like a parrot, just giving the answer I was told to...

I was bad a math, good at geometry... But I just didn't grasp it. History... I don't seem to link events to another. I fail that link.
Literature is my major at university x) But I hate it... I just don't understand why my interpretation is always said to be wrong... I mean come one it's an interpretation so it's never right or wrong it's subjective...
But I love course like linguistics, languages, psychology, business (my favourite  )

Well also think it's a myth


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Kyora said:


> I was bad a math, good at geometry... But I just didn't grasp it.


By far, geometry was the easiest (and easiest to understand) class I ever took. I got 100% on every quiz/test/exam the entire year... but, unfortunately, ended up with an A- overall grade because the teacher collected and graded our notes and they counted 10% of the overall grade. Of course, I had virtually no notes to submit. Boy, did THAT piss me off (but not enough to motivate me to take notes, apparently). 

When I tried to talk to him about it... explained to him that I learned in a way that if I was busy writing notes I would almost certainly not understand what he was teaching as well as I currently was... he essentially told me that he really didn't care and that me sitting through class without taking any notes set a bad example for the class.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

jcal said:


> By far, geometry was the easiest (and easiest to understand) class I ever took. I got 100% on every quiz/test/exam the entire year... but, unfortunately, ended up with an A- overall grade because the teacher collected and graded our notes and they counted 10% of the overall grade. Of course, I had virtually no notes to submit. Boy, did THAT piss me off (but not enough to motivate me to take notes, apparently).
> 
> When I tried to talk to him about it... explained to him that I learned in a way that if I was busy writing notes I would almost certainly not understand what he was teaching as well as I currently was... he essentially told me that he really didn't care and that me sitting through class without taking any notes set a bad example for the class.


Same exact thing happened to me. He always assigned homework for us to do in our notebooks. He didn't collect it until the end of the year. I took a few notes and did about half the homework - and kept an 98% in the class. But at the end of the year, he collected the notebooks and nailed me for one full grade, so I ended up with a high B. Hacked me off to no end - I knew the material. Geometry was an absolute breeze to understand. But I worked hard in Algebra 1 & 2, Trig, and Physics.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Teachers like that are a disgrace to the system, honestly. It's one thing to not compose your course around different learning styles, but to actively discourage them is just asinine.

Good teachers understand that the whole point is to be able to show that you learned what was intended. How you go about doing that is not really important. God, it gets on my nerves at the thought of it.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

niss said:


> But I worked hard in Algebra 1 & 2, Trig, and Physics.


Those weren't quite as easy as geometry for me, but still relatively easy and low effort classes. 

On the other hand, calculus and (especially) differential equations really kicked my ass in college. The concepts weren't quite so easy to translate into concrete models. It also didn't help that the D.Eq. instructor faced the board for the entire lecture, writing with his right hand and almost immediately erasing it with his left hand. Hardest class I ever had. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could stay with him for an entire hour-long lecture, let alone this poor dumb-ass sensor. (Remember... this was in 1975... no computers, no portable voice recorders, no video libraries of lectures to access after class. Just your own wits.)


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Teachers like that are a disgrace to the system, honestly. It's one thing to not compose your course around different learning styles, but to actively discourage them is just asinine.
> 
> Good teachers understand that the whole point is to be able to show that you learned what was intended. How you go about doing that is not really important. God, it gets on my nerves at the thought of it.


Well, in defense of the teachers, the system developed by administrators, school boards, bureaucrats, and legislators is seriously flawed. In most cases, the teachers have to have X number of grades entered in the grade book for each subject, where X is some arbitrary number dreamed up by someone that has little understanding of what actually goes on in a class room.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

niss said:


> Well, in defense of the teachers, the system developed by administrators, school boards, bureaucrats, and legislators is seriously flawed. In most cases, the teachers have to have X number of grades entered in the grade book for each subject, where X is some arbitrary number dreamed up by someone that has little understanding of what actually goes on in a class room.


Very true. It's not always easy on the part of the teachers. 

I have just seen the difference between ones who make the most of the system and ones who are dependent on the system. I am thinking of college though - going by what I've heard, it's worse for high school, elementary, and so on. 

I recall one teacher explaining to the class (with a preceding "if you say I said this, I'll deny it *wink wink*") that she wanted us all to do well but she needed to be able to show justification for the grade, in case the department head (I think that was who) pulled a gradesheet out at random and asked her to explain it (I guess that's something they do to "audit" the class). So the idea was, if we did really well on the tests but not on the exercises (or vice-versa) she could justify giving us a good grade. But if we did well on neither, she would have no justification for bumping up the grade at all.


----------



## ENTPenis (Feb 2, 2014)

Well, I'm going to try something and I'm expecting everyone to jump at me with torches and pitchforks. 

This is a forum based around *theoretical discussion* about a couple of *theories*. I've been lurking for years and what I've found is every type engages in the theoretical discussion AKA THE POINT OF THE FORUM. 

SJ's don't do it as often... They talk about their experience with this type and that type and how lame intuitives are for thinking SJ's are stupid. 

*SJ's are not less intelligent than the rest, they just don't engage in the theoretical discussions here and when they do, it's only to prove a point, not actually build on the concepts and broaden their understanding. STOP TRYING TO PREVENT THE CONFRONTATION THAT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY OCCUR*

A poll on Bodybuilding.com found a majority of users as xxSJ. I wouldn't be caught dead there. If I did make an account. I would NOT expect my opinions and posts to be respected. The difference is, on this forum everyone wants to defend the POOOOOOOR ESSSJAAYYYSSS... They're just people... If you don't want to have theoretical discussion in a theoretical forum, fuck off! Just more shitty arguments for me to scroll through to get back to the discussion. If you want to develop your "theoretical side" you're awesome and I'll give you a cookie.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ENTPenis said:


> Well, I'm going to try something and I'm expecting everyone to jump at me with torches and pitchforks.
> 
> This is a forum based around *theoretical discussion* about a couple of *theories*. I've been lurking for years and what I've found is every type engages in the theoretical discussion AKA THE POINT OF THE FORUM.
> 
> ...


I'd say most people on this site, SJ or otherwise, are here to, at least in some respects, discuss the theory, and it's an unjustified generalisation to assert that the distinction between those who discuss the theory and those who largely don't is linked so specifically to "SJs, and the rest". To claim that SJs on this site largely don't engage in the theoretical discussion (or only do when proving a point) is an assertion without basis.


----------



## ENTPenis (Feb 2, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I'd say most people on this site, SJ or otherwise, are here to, at least in some respects, discuss the theory, and it's an unjustified generalisation to assert that the distinction between those who discuss the theory and those who largely don't is linked so specifically to "SJs, and the rest". To claim that SJs on this site largely don't engage in the theoretical discussion (or only do when proving a point) is an assertion without basis.


Any judgment of a group of people is an assertion without basis, that's why I didn't bother to go into specifics. I'm honestly just tired of people apologizing for recognizing patterns in different types behavior. Saying that a type isn't very theory-oriented isn't any more "unjust" than saying an intuitive IS theory-oriented. 

If I'm not correct in my original assumption, then why don't we boil all human personality down to a singular function?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ENTPenis said:


> Any judgment of a group of people is an assertion without basis, that's why I didn't bother to go into specifics. I'm honestly just tired of people apologizing for recognizing patterns in different types behavior. Saying that a type isn't very theory-oriented isn't any more "unjust" than saying an intuitive IS theory-oriented.
> 
> If I'm not correct in my original assumption, then why don't we boil all human personality down to a singular function?


It's a fine line. There's nothing wrong with recognizing behavior patterns in theory, but it gets iffy when those patterns are an observation of what people don't, or can't, do. When approached from the negative, it opens the door to bigoted views of certain types and then people start assuming that "if X person is Y type, then X person can't be Z, or can't do Z."

This kind of thinking would seem to make sense, at first; for example, you could argue that an Ni-dom can't intentionally use Si. But the moment it delves into behavior, i.e. "sensors are less prone to discussing theory," it starts breeding this idea that if a sensor is into theory, then they are 1) mistyped 2) an anomaly 3) less skilled at discussing theory than the type who "naturally" desires to discuss it.

So I guess the bottom line is that in principle, there's nothing wrong with the practice, but in reality, we end up encouraging some unwanted side effects.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ENTPenis said:


> Any judgment of a group of people is an assertion without basis, that's why I didn't bother to go into specifics. I'm honestly just tired of people apologizing for recognizing patterns in different types behavior. Saying that a type isn't very theory-oriented isn't any more "unjust" than saying an intuitive IS theory-oriented.
> 
> If I'm not correct in my original assumption, then why don't we boil all human personality down to a singular function?


There's nothing wrong with saying that certain behaviours correlate with one type more than they do another, provided you can support your assertion in some way. Most of your statements were about the group (SJs) as a whole, not about tendency, which is far too wide-ranging a statement to make, unless you could in some way demonstrate its truth. 

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only alternatives are "generalised statements of truth about the whole of a type/type group" and "not discerning and distinguishing those factors which do correlate to type". Correlations say little about the entirety of the class, and more that individuals within that class are more likely to act/behave in a certain way: overstating such correlations, especially by implying that the whole group shares that trait or that only members of that group possess that trait, creates, and can lead to the perpetuation of, generalised falsehoods, such as the ones LostFavor highlighted.


----------



## ENTPenis (Feb 2, 2014)

Pelopra said:


> is this supposed to be some sort of sock puppet troll account?


It may seem that way, my communication style is sort of stream of conciousness and I just look like a jackass online


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Mikasa said:


> I read the first 20 pages and admittedly skipped ahead. Below are just some of my thoughts as I was reading. It's long, so I put most of it in a hidden quote:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Everything I wish I could have said - you put it so much better than I have been (unsuccessfully) attempting so far  
Thanks for the input!!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> *(1) Ni* - this trait that makes INTJ's "so smart" and makes INFJ's "so mystical." People love talking about this, giving themselves subtle compliments in discussion- _"My Ni is just too much! I just pick things up SO much faster than everyone else. It's hard talking to *lesser beings* who just aren't as fast as me"_
> 
> *(2) Ti* - I rarely see Ti complaints on the forums, and a lot of the ENTP's on here love to brag about it.
> 
> ...


Basically, the judging functions (save for one) are on the bottom four, and the perceiving functions (save for one) are on the top. So people prefer the lead perceivers more than lead judgers. The lone judging function on the top is Ti which is seen as a theoretical thinking judging function and is associated with intelligence, a highly-valued trait. The lone sensing function on the bottom is Si. Si is seen as the most boring cognitive function so no surprise it is the least favored.

PerC has many younger people. People this age are still developing, defining their identities, and finding their places in society. Because of this, they are more susceptible to social pressures and may knowingly or subconsciously "fake" their identities. Their choices will also be influenced by their normal rebellion against their parents and other authority figures. Since many people have SJ parents, and parenting itself is characterized by SJ values, SJs will be the least liked temperament, the one these people would like to stand out _against_. So it's no surprise that Si is the most disliked function on PerC. It's also no surprise Te and Fe are right there with Si at the bottom: ESTJs and ESFJs are probably the two most disliked types, for all of the reasons cited here.


----------

