# List of smart sensors



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

*List of smart sensors, made because intuitives are assholes*

This thread is not meant to say that sensors are stupid, and that these guys are the exception. In fact, this thread is made to promote a more balanced view towards sensors than the ones commonly seen on personality forums, and to deter people from falsely typing themselves as intuitive for reasons of either misidentifying with stereotypes or avoiding ostracism.

Here's a list for everyone. They all happen to be STJ, but that was simply a coincidence. And I only have three people, but that's more due to laziness. So, seriously, people, post more. I'm not gonna want to have to do all of the work.

Also, pictures make this thread look nice. Use them.

Twilight Sparkle









Hermione Granger









Minerva McGonagall


----------



## JollyBard (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm pretty sure Hermione is INFJ, she just developped her Fe a bit late (yes, she has a lot of Fe). Rowling says she kind of made her in her own image, and she's also totally INFJ.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Me.




10char


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

JollyBard said:


> I'm pretty sure Hermione is INFJ, she just developped her Fe a bit late (yes, she has a lot of Fe). Rowling says she kind of made her in her own image, and she's also totally INFJ.


Hermione is clearly an Si dominant. It's practically her defining characteristic. Massive absorption of every single detail, her studious concern for the literal context of things. Her matching of previous readings and absorption of literal information, in order to be used in a future context.


----------



## JollyBard (Feb 19, 2012)

Torai said:


> Hermione is clearly an Si dominant. It's practically her defining characteristic. Massive absorption of every single detail, her studious concern for the literal context of things. Her matching of previous readings and absorption of literal information, in order to be used in a future context.


 Ha, yeah, that's kind of mind-boggling. Oh, well, I'm pretty sure Rowling didn't know about the MBTI, much less about functions. I think she fits INFJ more than ISFJ, in general, though.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

JollyBard said:


> Ha, yeah, that's kind of mind-boggling. Oh, well, I'm pretty sure Rowling didn't know about the MBTI, much less about functions. I think she fits INFJ more than ISFJ, in general, though.


Probably because Keirsey hates Sensors and describes them as boring stiffs. Many people borrow their theoretical information from him, even though his personality theories are better used as toilet paper, in my opinion.


----------



## JollyBard (Feb 19, 2012)

Torai said:


> Probably because Keirsey hates Sensors.


 Who doesn't? They're all so stupid, _no exception_.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

Are we really going to list smart sensors? xD I didn't realize there was any shortage of them.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

JollyBard said:


> Who doesn't? They're all so stupid, _no exception_.


Was that a joking statement?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

dejavu said:


> Are we really going to list smart sensors? xD I didn't realize there was any shortage of them.


More of a shortage of people on personality forums who don't realize how smart a lot of sensors really are, and thus many people mistype themselves as intuitive, just because they don't want to be a sensor.


----------



## JollyBard (Feb 19, 2012)

Torai said:


> Was that a joking statement?


 I dunno, use your awesome mind-reading powers you're supposed to have.

...yes, it was.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

Torai said:


> More of a shortage of people on personality forums who don't realize how smart a lot of sensors really are, and thus many people mistype themselves as intuitive, just because they don't want to be a sensor.


I can get behind that, I guess. The thread just seemed to be sending the opposite message.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

@_Stephen_ (i bet you didn't see this one coming)
@_Fizz_ 
@_KuRoMi_ 
@_Functianalyst_ 
@_Aßbiscuits_ 
@_WickedQueen_ 
that teddy ISFJ guy with impossible to remember numbers in his username o_o
@_NekoNinja_ 
@_Luftkopf_ 
@_dizzygirl_ 
@_madhatter_ 

There are so many sensors on this forum whose intelligence I think highly of. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of names (it's late here), please don't get mad at me o_o


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

dejavu said:


> I can get behind that, I guess. The thread just seemed to be sending the opposite message.


Yeah, I kinda figured I'd be seen that way, and now that I looked at the original post, I can definitely see how it would be perceived as typism. I'll try and make the intention clear through the magical power of editing.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Bob Dylan
Leonard Cohen
Marylin Monroe
David Bowie
Prince 

A few awesome ISFPs who are/were extremely intelligent


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

@_Torai_ I see what your intention is (and I appreciate it thank you), and at the same time I also see the more sinister implication that can be read into this thread (as suggested by @_dejavu_ )..

I think what I mean to say is that it sucks that you have to explain yourself to protect yourself from those who will misunderstand/read the negative implications where it isn't meant and then attack you based on it..but i guess this is what happens in forums. *shrugs*


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

Kayness said:


> I think what I mean to say is that it sucks that you have to explain yourself to protect yourself from those who will misunderstand/read the negative implications where it isn't meant and then attack you based on it..but i guess this is what happens in forums. *shrugs*


<_<

I wasn't trying to attack anybody.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Kayness said:


> @Torai I see what your intention is (and I appreciate it thank you), and at the same time I also see the more sinister implication that can be read (as suggested by dejavu)..
> 
> I think what I mean to say is that it sucks that you have to explain yourself to protect yourself from those who will misunderstand/read the negative implications where it isn't meant and then attack you based on it..but i guess this is what happens in forums. *shrugs*


Well, I can see how I could have come off, since my original post was highly ambiguous in its interpretation. Considering typism against sensors is a big thing in personality forums, partially due to the heavy reliance on Keirsey to understand personality theory. I really didn't take it personally, because it was simply an issue of tact and diplomacy on my part. People are generally more responsive if you know the proper way to present yourself.

Also, @dejavu didn't use fighting words. I didn't think he was trying to be offensive.


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

Ernest Hemingway
Danielle Steel
Simon Cowell


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Kayness said:


> @_teddy564339_


Fixed. ...Though I did have to look at my friends list for the numbers. XD
Also, @fourtines. ^_^


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

I would like to be one of the smart sensors; alas, sensing is my last function. As I type this, I barely sense at all. It's all numb.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Self-deprecating thread title is self-deprecating :tongue:


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> Self-deprecating thread title is self-deprecating :tongue:


Please explain.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

@_dejavu_ and @_Torai_ , I know dejavu isn't trying to attack anyone...I thought I worded it to sound as neutral as possible...apparently it doesn't come across that way.

what I'm saying is:
- the OP is well intentioned but can be taken the wrong way
- torai didn't make the intention clear
- deja vu pointed out how the OP can be taken the wrong way
- torai goes back to edit the OP to clarify
- I said that it sucks how this is made necessary, due to the way some people on this forum (not talking about anyone in particular) misinterpret/misunderstand the intention of the posts and attack due to their misunderstanding
- what I'm implying is that this shouldn't have been necessary, because people, when not sure, really should ask questions to make sure that their understanding aligns with the poster's intention before going further with the discussion.
- I was trying to sympathize because I'm no stranger to being misunderstood (like now).

I don't know how I can make this more clear. Now I don't know whoever's going to read this is going to tell me that I'm being condescending because I put my points in a list. I'm just trying REALLY, REALLY HARD to communicate in a way that minimizes misinterpretation.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Vat aboot dis gai? Possible ISTP


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Kayness said:


> Functianalyst


Wouldn't he be considered a Thinker? (Ti primary)


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Flatlander said:


> Wouldn't he be considered a Thinker? (Ti primary)


Too bad, we claimed him first!


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

KuRoMi said:


> Vat aboot dis gai? Possible ISTP


No one can agree on his type for some unknown reason. The fucking guy who made this shit up is apparently untypeable.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

KuRoMi said:


> Vat aboot dis gai? Possible ISTP


Jung? I think he was intp/intj or even possibly infj.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> Jung? I think he was intp/intj or even possibly infj.


What @Fizz said. I thought it would be interesting to point out that the creator of the system might actually be a Sensor.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

@Kayness oh you flatterer! You're one of the smartest Sensors on this site, but not that @Stephen fellow...yuck.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

@KuRoMi Typically, sensors stay to the script that has already been written. Intuitives extend beyond that, I think the real shakers and movers of progressiveness have been intps.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> @KuRoMi Typically, sensors stay to the script that has already been written. Intuitives extend beyond that, I think the real shakers and movers of progressiveness have been intps.


Hmmm, while I'm not arguing that he is or isn't, but I do know _no one_ is clear on what he is. Not every Sensor stays to the script, some of us like to improve what already is, it's just that it's for reasons of practicality more often than not. Like say, if a given theory needs work (ahem...) then we'd be more content to find a way to make it actually work rather than stick with what doesn't work. Besides, if indeed ISTP, tert Ni could be a big influence on him, no?


----------



## Enormous Hatred (Jul 29, 2011)

The extreme low end of intelligence is usually characterized by a deficiency in one's capacity for abstract thought. This is highlighted in the wrong way by the common perception of typology in that the main indicator seems to be a quantification of abstract thought. This makes no sense when you really start to understand what type means. Even if we were to assign a value that meant "abstract power level" (to put this in DBZ terms) someone with a high score there could still defer to Sensation in his cognitive processes.

Keep in mind that we live in the information age where a lot of what you hear is probably accurate and verifiable. But when you try and type "great minds", reliability of your assessment is going to wane as you go further back in time. This isn't helped by the fact that most of the minds we consider today to have been great were prominent before the advent of widespread recording and media availability.

So, when you take a figure like Voltaire for example and see him typed ENTP, this is pretty much just someone going off his writing and tidbits about his life or behavior, all of which comes from the 18th century, and therefore is entirely questionable in terms of its authenticity (note that I am not making any particular statement about Voltaire; any one person from centuries ago can be inserted here). There's really no way of telling if his basic mindset really fit that of Ne/Ti.

This is not to say any judgement made about a person today is far less prone to this error, just that there is much more data available to us nowadays. Nor am I saying "quacks like a duck" methodology doesn't even produce the correct result—it seems almost universally accepted that Albert Einstein was INTP, and for good reason, really. But this typing and the notion of his brilliance still arguably are not entirely coincidental.

I agree that this thread was almost certainly made with good intentions. We can't really help that some people are going to inevitably see it as "Look, the dummy group has _some _smart people!"


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

There is a benefit to being seen as "not smart." People don't get mad if you don't live up to their unreasonable expectations of constant perfect performances if they think that you are somewhat less than clever. And, if you do something smart, they are so astonished that they're ready to eat their hat (which is very nice to watch). On the other hand, being treated as borderline brain dead does get old fast. 
So. What makes a person smart?
Don't we all have different definitions of intelligence?
Feel free to discuss.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

KuRoMi said:


> Hmmm, while I'm not arguing that he is or isn't, but I do know _no one_ is clear on what he is. Not every Sensor stays to the script, some of us like to improve what already is, it's just that it's for reasons of practicality more often than not. Like say, if a given theory needs work (ahem...) then we'd be more content to find a way to make it actually work rather than stick with what doesn't work. Besides, if indeed ISTP, tert Ni could be a big influence on him, no?


You sure you are an S? You come across as an infp to me? Just a guess though...........


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> You sure you are an S? You come across as an infp to me? Just a guess though...........


Interesting, though I just see myself as an iNtuition-friendly Sensor.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> @KuRoMi Typically, sensors stay to the script that has already been written. Intuitives extend beyond that, I think the real shakers and movers of progressiveness have been intps.


Oh so you've _changed_? Not really, it seems you still hold the same prejudices you did before. So much for being _progressive_


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

@Fizz, I just want to give you a hug. <3


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> @Fizz, I just want to give you a hug. <3


Don't touch me.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

my father (an ESTJ) - he's known at the large company where he works as the smartest guy in his department, among engineers, no less. they comment (unelicited) about how smart he is. i'm an intuitive (INFJ) and i can't match up to his level of intelligence. 

thank you for this thread. the anti-sensor bias around here is not only based on inaccurate assumptions, but it is also hurtful and disturbing to the sensors on this site (which is why i took up a sensor type label for the time, so that when people ask about my type change i can tell them why and spread the anti-bias message). _no type owns the sole proprietorship of intelligence._ there are brilliant sensors and there are brilliant intuitives, and the perceiving function itself is not determinative of anyone's level of intelligence.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

emerald sea said:


> my father (an ESTJ) - he's known at the large company where he works as the smartest guy in his department, among engineers, no less. they comment (unelicited) about how smart he is. i'm an intuitive (INFJ) and i can't match up to his level of intelligence.
> 
> thank you for this thread. the anti-sensor bias around here is not only based on inaccurate assumptions, but it is also hurtful and disturbing to the sensors on this site (which is why i took up a sensor type label for the time, so that when people ask about my type change i can tell them why and spread the anti-bias message). _no type owns the sole proprietorship of intelligence._ there are brilliant sensors and there are brilliant intuitives, and the perceiving function itself is not determinative of anyone's level of intelligence.


Normally I'd be in Fe ballbusting mode, but I can't say I disagree with most of this. I can't speak for everyone, but I would bet a good deal of the "sensors FTL" rhetoric on these sites is a result of displacement from IRL. I can see many iNtuitives in predominantly sensor families, work environments, schools etc. being treated with condescension and disdain (similar to how some college students are treated by closed-minded people with no college education) due to the inherent and notable differences between the two perceiving types, and use the internet as their refuge and/or medium for acting out frustration and distress. In my experience, these attitudes are not only contagious, but they generally emanate from psychological injury, for example my completely conscious bias against Fe users based on the torment at the hands of several FJs with various psychological abnormalities. We all have our coping mechanisms.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Normally I'd be in Fe ballbusting mode, but I can't say I disagree with most of this. I can't speak for everyone, but I would bet a good deal of the "sensors FTL" rhetoric on these sites is a result of displacement from IRL. I can see many iNtuitives in predominantly sensor families, work environments, schools etc. being treated with condescension and disdain (similar to how some college students are treated by closed-minded people with no college education) due to the inherent and notable differences between the two perceiving types, and use the internet as their refuge and/or medium for acting out frustration and distress. In my experience, these attitudes are not only contagious, but they generally emanate from psychological injury, for example my completely conscious bias against Fe users based on the torment at the hands of several FJs with various psychological abnormalities.


i understand where those people are coming from, because there have been sensors who have misunderstood and mistreated me. (but, for the record, there have also been intuitives who have done the same, so if i were to complain about types, i'd have to complain about both intuitives and sensors.) it's neither accurate nor fair to project one's bad experiences with a few sensors upon all sensors in the world - everyone in a class of people shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of the few. 

my best friend is a sensor (ISTP) and she understands me better than most people - she's explained to me how she thinks, and i've explained to her how i think, and it is VERY different, yet we respect each other's differences. interestingly, we manage, quite often, to come to the same conclusions about things. she impresses me often with her insight. 

and, my apologies for the FJs who treated you badly. no one should treat you that way.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

emerald sea said:


> it's neither accurate nor fair to project one's bad experiences with a few sensors upon all sensors in the world - everyone in a class of people shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of the few.


Of course not, but an attitude against sensors for the reason mentioned earlier may be due to a strong subconscious asserting itself when he feels threatened. I still haven't met a single sensor that I can get along well with for more than a few days, but I know there could be one out there. It just depends on the individual. Nonetheless, my experiences give me a bad feeling about the whole thing, and I can't guarantee that I can really overcome that bias when faced with someone I subconsciously 'see' as a sensing-dominant individual.

All that being said, there are various forms of intelligence. S-doms have the sort of intelligence that tends to impact the immediate reality of their lives rather than the potential futures N-doms might focus on. One is more fact-based by it's very definition, and the other is far more theoretical. Not to say that S-doms can't use theory or N-doms can't use fact; it's just that one is used to develop the other (fact developing theory, or theory developing fact). That's why there's an assumption that S-doms are more detail-oriented: they search for what their theory is saying, and if it exists, they'll find it and establish fact with it. An N-dom will take those facts and forge theories from it that can be developed and proven later (possibly by another S-dom). 

In summary: it seems the S-doms would be better at finding specific facts that give the N-dom a springboard for developing theory, while N-doms are best at developing a theory the S-dom can use as effective search perimeters/tools in their quest to search for fact.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

NovaStar said:


> In summary: it seems the S-doms would be better at finding specific facts that give the N-dom a springboard for developing theory, while N-doms are best at developing a theory the S-dom can use as effective search perimeters/tools in their quest to search for fact.


i think, like you said, that both types should work together. neither type independently perceives all of reality, so invariably some information is missed by each. sensors have a zoomed-in view of reality, while intuitives have a zoomed-out view. when put together, you have the full picture. therefore each needs the other's perspective.

and each have different natural strengths that are also interdependent - intuitives tend to be ideas people, while sensors tend to be application people. (i said "tend to be" rather than "are" on purpose.) without ideas, there would never be new technological inventions, for instance; and without applications, that invented technology would never be built, run, or maintained. 

the very fact that the types are interdependent in this way should reveal the critical necessity of each perceiving method, that both types are equal in their contributions.


----------



## snapdragons (Feb 1, 2011)

Seriously, did something precipitate this anti-sensor bias or something? First I saw that INTJ's are not God, are sensors simple, now this. What the heck?


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

emerald sea said:


> i think, like you said, that both types should work together.
> 
> the very fact that the types are interdependent in this way should reveal the critical necessity of each perceiving method, that both types are equal in their contributions.


Well, in a relationship, there can be a lot of issues. Of course, any type can work together, but some just have more probability of success than others. This stems from observable phenomenon in both individuals, especially in terms of quirks and interests, as well as goals. However, I find ISTJs and ISTPs to be stimulating debate partners, even if they SEEM to be taking more simpler approaches to our discussions; I know they're not actually 'simpler' than intuitives, but directing less attention to the possibilities and more toward a specific solution or specific, concrete details that aren't inferred from intuition almost always seems limiting to an intuitive. In the same way, an intuitive's focus on the theory and possibility can be interpreted as lacking real practicality until they (the sensing-dom) make it practical. That's how I normally see the conflicts between both types.

That said, I tend to agree. Both types need each other in the grand scheme of things, even though I rarely find any Sensing-doms I can get along with for any extended period of time. At least in terms of the greater social conscious and perhaps even the scientific community, both Sensing and Intuitive doms are necessary to make full use of the human capability of mental/physical/spiritual growth. Even religious institutions seem to have both involved, and they wouldn't work without individuals of both types. It just seems necessary for ANY system of human civilization to progress.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

It shouldn't have to proven that sensors can be "smart". That's what I find ridiculous.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Um, can I ask why did my posts get removed (or did they get removed? Im not sure)...? I mean I know the posts that I made were pretty crazy, but was it needed to get them removed? I understand if I insulted the starter of this thread, and Im sorry, but...


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

I just kinda wanted to make my own point, but Im just kinda crap at it. :laughing:
Then I find myself replying to my own posts, god damn.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Oh, but they are there! God im blind


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

firedell said:


> It shouldn't have to proven that sensors can be "smart". That's what I find ridiculous.


me too!! i'm not a sensor but i am offended by the arrogance of some intuitives in this respect. 

and i love your signature.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

we actually need to make a list for this? wtf? shouldn't it be evident on its own that sensing people are just as intellectually capable as intuitive people...? i hear what the OP was saying, but it still seems to be reinforcing this strange stereotype of simple Ss and genius Ns. i don't see any Ns having to prove themselves in threads like this... ugh. :/


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

reicheru said:


> we actually need to make a list for this? Wtf? Shouldn't it be evident on its own that sensing people are just as intellectually capable as intuitive people...? I hear what the op was saying, but it still seems to be reinforcing this strange stereotype of simple ss and genius ns. I don't see any ns having to prove themselves in threads like this... Ugh. :/


ikr


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> we actually need to make a list for this? wtf? shouldn't it be evident on its own that sensing people are just as intellectually capable as intuitive people...? i hear what the OP was saying, but it still seems to be reinforcing this strange stereotype of simple Ss and genius Ns. i don't see any Ns having to prove themselves in threads like this... ugh. :/


Should be, but you guys have a lot of bad PR in the form that you make up 75% of the population and are heavily linked with(fairly or unfairly) mainstream American culture. 

Although, it is damn good to see the proof that sensors have more sense than I thought. Makes me a bit less of a cynic.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> Should be, but you guys have a lot of bad PR in the form that you make up 75% of the population and are heavily linked with(fairly or unfairly) mainstream American culture.
> 
> *Although, it is damn good to see the proof that sensors have more sense than I thought.* Makes me a bit less of a cynic.


Why thank you, kind sir!
But honestly, mainstream American culture? What do you mean, that you arent? If a person doesnt even live in America, how can it be that a person is linked somehow with it?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

perkele said:


> Why thank you, kind sir!
> But honestly, mainstream American culture? What do you mean, that you arent? If a person doesnt even live in America, how can it be that a person is linked somehow with it?


I mean reality shows, celebrity worship, sports, etc. Yeah I don't go near that shit.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I mean reality shows, celebrity worship, sports, etc. Yeah I don't go near that shit.


Me neither. I dont watch TV, unless a good movie is on. I dont do anything else physical in a sport sense except volleyball practice at the beach once a week, and jogging. Celebrity worship? Really... Celebrities are just exactly like us "normal" people, so no need for worshiping. Your post made me trembling in fury.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

perkele said:


> Me neither. I dont watch TV, unless a good movie is on. I dont do anything else physical in a sport sense except volleyball practice at the beach once a week, and jogging. Celebrity worship? Really... Celebrities are just exactly like us "normal" people, so no need for worshiping. Your post made me trembling in fury.


But afterall, I took it personally... And yes, it is true. Some people just are doing those things, I mean worshipping some celebrities and stuff...


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

perkele said:


> But afterall, I took it personally... And yes, it is true. Some people just are doing those things, I mean worshipping some celebrities and stuff...


Yep that kind of thing is pretty nonsensical to me too.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> Should be, but you guys have a lot of bad PR in the form that you make up 75% of the population and are heavily linked with(fairly or unfairly) mainstream American culture.
> 
> Although, it is damn good to see the proof that sensors have more sense than I thought. Makes me a bit less of a cynic.


i don't know what PR means, but i am not a sensor; i am an INFJ.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> i don't know what PR means, but i am not a sensor; i am an INFJ.


Public relations. Public image. That kind of thing. And oh.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

firedell said:


> It shouldn't have to proven that sensors can be "smart". That's what I find ridiculous.


No, it shouldn't - so why are people trying to prove it?

I've been watching the anti-anti-sensor-bias movement here, and I wonder if the point needs to be made over and over again. It could be done more efficiently by just putting up a banner at the top of the site: EVERY TYPE IS INTELLIGENT.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

The anti-anti sensor thing looks like compensation when done by intuitives and that's from an intuitive perspective.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

atypeofuser said:


> The anti-anti sensor thing looks like compensation when done by intuitives and that's from an intuitive perspective.


I chalk it up to a need to be PC. One of the most deliciously ironic things about this site and others like it, is the inability of some who explicitly believe in a system of categorizing and differentiating types of people, to acknowledge that there are empirically proven quantitative differences between some of these different types of people. If there were none, why would these systems ever bother to come into being in the first place?


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

It just doesn't seem like everything that all intuitives need to feel guilty of. The sensors can speak for themselves and don't need our defense; I'm a bit unsure if pretending to be a sensor in this forum really helps people's views that much.

The changing didn't bug me the first couple days, but now it does. And why does everyone have to change their name the same minute they change their type.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

perkele said:


> Um, can I ask why did my posts get removed (or did they get removed? Im not sure)...? I mean I know the posts that I made were pretty crazy, but was it needed to get them removed? I understand if I insulted the starter of this thread, and Im sorry, but...


I dunno. I didn't remove them. It might have been that you broke the 10 post barrier, made a new page on accident, and didn't realize it.

And if a mod deleted it, they probably would have given you an infraction or something. Although, I admit I don't know how these things work.

It's usually better to click the edit button while you still can in order to merge posts. Saves space.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I chalk it up to a need to be PC. One of the most deliciously ironic things about this site and others like it, is the inability of some who explicitly believe in a system of categorizing and differentiating types of people, to acknowledge that there are empirically proven quantitative differences between some of these different types of people. If there were none, why would these systems ever bother to come into being in the first place?


This is partially why I stopped arguing about sensing bias. My standpoint was always from a purely 'how can you know?' or 'did you consider it this way?' point of view. The few times I have typed as a sensor is because I genuinely believed I was the type I assumed myself to be; from a cognitive functions standpoint.

I wouldn't argue just because it is nice, or right to do so; but because there seems to be a lack of wide consideration for other eventualities. I can no longer avoid being lumped in with the group with these views however, as this is the same way that I understand racism.

Racism is negative, clouded and I understand why, but im not going to jump into a manufactured outrage everytime some z-list celebrity utters a racial slur and then ask for their head on a platter. Yeah moral outrage at what someone SAID being used to push forth an issue for murder...that makes perfect sense.

Such people do more damage than good, as after a while the point of it all just becomes a filtered mess of nonsense so far removed from the original stances as to be unrecognisable and anyone with a view such as mine or somewhere inbetween simply becomes drowned out by the group message and you find yourself lumped in with them.

But ive stated my case far too often, people misunderstand the various theories, they dont read Jung or.....anything much and they jump to wonderful conclusions of nothing as is the curse of any undeveloped N and maybe even S type.

Biggest divider ive seen in life has always been intelligence and an intelligent mind can always understand, comprehend and consider views and modes of operating that are differing from it's own, even if they don't agree with them.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

George Washington: ISTJ
Calvin Coolidge: ISTP
Chuck Norris: XSXX (don't know his exact type.

That's all I've got right now.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

i need to say something, as one who is part of the anti-sensor bias campaign (an INFJ with an ESFP label) - most people on this site are not understanding the point of the campaign. 

the campaign *isn't*:
'wear a sensor label as compensation.' 
'wear a sensor label so people will realize that sensors can be smart, too.'
'wear a sensor label to make the sensors feel better about themselves despite being inferior.' (they're NOT inferior, and anyone who thinks so has a prejudice problem)
'wear a sensor label just to confuse everyone' (if i'm posting about INFJs or on behalf of intuitives, i put a note in my post that i'm an INFJ - and i depend on people to be able to read that lol). 

the campaign IS:
'give the sensors some love, instead of the hatred they usually face around this site'
'point out what we love in our sensor friends, show deserved appreciation'
'demonstrate there are intuitives who aren't biased'
'feel what the sensors feel by experiencing the venom and criticism of those who judge you based on the label you wear, so you understand what they regularly go through, around here, and personally experience the biased attitudes'

and the *main point* of wearing the label is what has been happening - get people to notice and ask about it, and then when they ask, tell them about the anti-sensor bias and the need to put an end to it. it's a means of grabbing attention for our message, so we can spread it throughout the site - since we don't have an option of posting a banner at the top of the page that everyone can see. 

after all, there IS already a rule against typism on this site. the anti-sensor bias is a form of typism...there's nothing wrong with having a lot more people finding and correcting typist statements against sensors wherever we see them, making clear where we stand in terms of the bias, or making posts that demonstrate how much we appreciate sensors (it helps restore balance on the website).

if none of the above made sense to you, think of it this way. we have Mother's Day on the calendar as a day we take out of the year to highlight our appreciation for our mothers. we may appreciate them every single day but sometimes it needs to be said, so mothers know all their contributions are acknowledged and that they are loved. we also have months like Breast Cancer Awareness Month, when we draw attention to a cause that needs support. our campaign is like a 2-week-long combination of "Sensor Appreciation Day" and "Sensor Bias Awareness Month." 

we think it's needed, because just about every day is "Intuitive Appreciation Day" around here. that's imbalanced, the balance needs to be restored.

take it or leave it, it is what it is. we're just trying to spread the message throughout the site. and apparently...that is working, because we've got enough people noticing (and as a result, hearing our message) that we're gathering critics.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Torai said:


> I dunno. I didn't remove them. It might have been that you broke the 10 post barrier, made a new page on accident, and didn't realize it.
> 
> And if a mod deleted it, they probably would have given you an infraction or something. Although, I admit I don't know how these things work.
> 
> It's usually better to click the edit button while you still can in order to merge posts. Saves space.


Yup xD I got totally lost on these pages. Damn pages, you difficult


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

SuperDevastation said:


> George Washington: ISTJ
> Calvin Coolidge: ISTP
> Chuck Norris: XSXX (don't know his exact type.
> 
> That's all I've got right now.


Chuck Norris seems like an introvert. ISTJ?

Update: Here he is talking about his life,


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Chuck Norris is all types. 

Brings up old meme. Still acts cool.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I have an ESFP professor currently who's clearly very intelligent. I've also had a smart ESFJ and ISFJ professor (the ISFJ's tests were tough). In fact, I know smart people of all of those types IRL. Equating intelligence with type is idiotic, because that's not at all what the cognitive functions are about.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I chalk it up to a need to be PC. One of the most deliciously ironic things about this site and others like it, is the inability of some who explicitly believe in a system of categorizing and differentiating types of people, to acknowledge that there are empirically proven quantitative differences between some of these different types of people. If there were none, why would these systems ever bother to come into being in the first place?


Actually, what's PC is this frequent movement around here and other places to try to give each type "special strengths" - there's no evidence that the types = multiple intelligences. I know intelligent S dominants and borderline slow Ne dominants IRL, so...why in hell does trusting the empirical over hunches make one dumber is my question...


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, what's PC is this frequent movement around here and other places to try to give each type "special strengths" - there's no evidence that the types = multiple intelligences. I know intelligent S dominants and borderline slow Ne dominants IRL, so...why in hell does trusting the empirical over hunches make one dumber is my question...


Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence.

Hunches may lead to empirical research if the right person picks up on it.

But right now it's just speculation, which is no better nor worse than an assertion based on anecdotal evidence.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence.
> 
> Hunches may lead to empirical research if the right person picks up on it.
> 
> But right now it's just speculation, which is no better nor worse than an assertion based on anecdotal evidence.


Anecdotal evidence can be empirical evidence (um, because I know how to apply type principles...um, how dare you question my abilities with NO EVIDENCE).

You're second statement makes no sense to me. Anyone can empirically research anything. What about "right person" are you talking about?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Anecdotal evidence can be empirical evidence (um, because I know how to apply type principles...um, how dare you question my abilities with NO EVIDENCE).
> 
> You're second statement makes no sense to me. Anyone can empirically research anything. What about "right person" are you talking about?


How dare I question your abilities? I believe the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim if I'm not mistaken.

The right person meaning someone motivated enough to research it at a high level(sample size) versus one who is fine with armchair application of principles.

You're pretty funny.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> How dare I question your abilities? I believe the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> The right person meaning someone motivated enough to research it at a high level versus one who is fine with armchair application of principles.
> 
> ...


Ha ha, you're so clever - not. I don't know what you're trying to prove about me, nor is much you're saying about S or N (by empirical, I mean S types tend to downplay hunches in favor of the empirical (observations, hopefully, you get the picture), while Ns play up hunches and tend to distrust what's in front of them. Just don't even talk to me and do your own research so you at least make sense in what you're talking about, (yeah, like you'll ever be able to figure out how I type people IRL if you don't know a thing or two about typing people). Goodbye, this is a wasted conversation.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ha ha, you're so clever - not. I don't know what you're trying to prove about me, nor is much you're saying about S or N (by empirical, I mean S types tend to downplay hunches in favor of the empirical (observations, hopefully, you get the picture), while Ns play up hunches and tend to distrust what's in front of them. Just don't even talk to me and do your own research so you at least make sense in what you're talking about, (yeah, like you'll ever be able to figure out how I type people IRL if you don't know a thing or two about typing people). Goodbye, this is a wasted conversation.


I think you're reading to much into what I'm saying. 

You seemed to be implying that because of your experiences in daily life, you were qualified to say something about those people with _certainty_. 
The post that I originally replied to is two separate incompatible points that do not support each other.
Your experiences from daily life are weak evidence at best, especially to someone who is not in your head(which is everyone btw).

But I guess I've lost you, since you seem to be behaving pretty irrationally at the moment.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> I think you're reading to much into what I'm saying.
> 
> You seemed to be implying that because of your experiences in daily life, you were qualified to say something about those people with _certainty_.
> The post that I originally replied to is two separate incompatible points that do not support each other.
> ...


Ok, thank you for clarifying (I apologize for my behavior - you definitely didn't come off as clear though, not gonna lie). Actually, life experiences work with this stuff, because type is consistent. You don't need statistics to prove the reliability of this stuff by-and-large, since it takes just finding evidence in individuals first to conclude with certainty that the theory is sound. You don't need statistics to prove that a theory is sound. The statistics would just prove how consistent type dynamics are and whether or not there are really 16 types.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ok, thank you for clarifying (I apologize for my behavior - you definitely didn't come off as clear though, not gonna lie). Actually, life experiences work with this stuff, because type is consistent. You don't need statistics to prove the reliability of this stuff by-and-large, since it takes just finding evidence in individuals first to conclude with certainty that the theory is sound. You don't need statistics to prove that a theory is sound. The statistics would just prove how consistent type dynamics are and whether or not there are really 16 types.


Fair enough. I am not in the same position as you with regard to the certainty of the 16 types, then. That's where the disconnect was.

Although, I also tend to think of inductive reasoning as entailing by its nature that something gained from it is never certain or consistent, thus falsifiable. 

So even though this may be unlikely, you must always allow for the possibility that type is not consistent, thus requiring something more, such as a formal sample size and systematic logging.

I guess this is where my P anti-closure shows against your J pro-closure haha (or Jungian equivalent roud.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> Fair enough. I am not in the same position as you with regard to the certainty of the 16 types, then. That's where the disconnect was.
> 
> Although, I also tend to think of inductive reasoning as entailing by its nature that something gained from it is never certain or consistent, thus falsifiable.
> 
> ...


Hah, well, my motivation here stems from having explored this stuff for such a long time and I find it convincing IRL because it's interesting for me to explore the reality of this stuff. I just have yet to really see type inconsistency.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, what's PC is this frequent movement around here and other places to try to give each type "special strengths" - there's no evidence that the types = multiple intelligences. I know intelligent S dominants and borderline slow Ne dominants IRL, so...why in hell does trusting the empirical over hunches make one dumber is my question...


Interesting. The last time we attempted to have this debate, you produced straw man arguments in favor
of trying to refute scientific research. In addition, I believe you used the "some INTJs are just really smart ISTJs that took one test and decided to skip actually digesting type descriptions in applying one to themselves" rhetoric that reminds me of my run-ins with frustrated posters back at INTJf. Of which the implications are numerous. I honestly hope you've brought more to the table than "I knew a very smart Se-dom and a dull Ne-dom once upon a time." Two of the most intelligent people I have known are my ESTP grandmother and ISTJ grandfather-in-law. Must mean all sensors are smarter than intuitives. /strawman


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

Torai said:


> Probably because Keirsey hates Sensors and describes them as boring stiffs. Many people borrow their theoretical information from him, even though his personality theories are better used as toilet paper, in my opinion.


Your ignorance is just on display in this qoute. Did you even research Keirsey's theories or read his books to make that fatuous of an assumption? Wherever you're getting this from it can't be extrapolated from anything sensible, only a figment of your (erroneous) perception no doubt. Ridiculous...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Interesting. The last time we attempted to have this debate, you produced straw man arguments in favor
> of trying to refute scientific research. In addition, I believe you used the "some INTJs are just really smart ISTJs that took one test and decided to skip actually digesting type descriptions in applying one to themselves" rhetoric that reminds me of my run-ins with frustrated posters back at INTJf. Of which the implications are numerous. I honestly hope you've brought more to the table than "I knew a very smart Se-dom and a dull Ne-dom once upon a time." Two of the most intelligent people I have known are my ESTP grandmother and ISTJ grandfather-in-law. Must mean all sensors are smarter than intuitives. /strawman


First off, there has never been any scientific research on IQ and type (no, grades don't reflect IQ much - there's a very weak correlation if you've consulted any resources on IQ lately, so that study's bunk - I've seen all of the studies, btw, and there was mainly a correlation between F and T and success in the sciences last I saw). Secondly, statistical correlations, if there are any, don't really matter because no matter what, you'll have an indeterminable amount of exceptions anyhow. Thirdly, those studies don't take cognitive functions into account, so they're basically not even testing for type at all and are likely testing on misconceptions of type. Fourthly, look up the definition of "straw man" arguments and get back to me. That was an illogical use of the term, because none of my arguments were bogus - only you think so, since you take statistics at face value and don't question them.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Brel said:


> Your ignorance is just on display in this qoute. Did you even research Keirsey's theories or read his books to make that fatuous of an assumption? Wherever you're getting this from it can't be extrapolated from anything sensible, only a figment of your (erroneous) perception no doubt. Ridiculous...


Well, saying that Kiersey "hates" sensors was a bit out there, but the perceptions that Kiersey conveys about sensors reflects a kind of apathy towards them though (or just rather large misunderstandings of them on his part). I doubt you'll find many people out there who don't get a boring and mindless impression of sensors from Kiersey.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> First off, there has never been any scientific research on IQ and type (no, grades don't reflect IQ much - there's a very weak correlation if you've consulted any resources on IQ lately, so that study's bunk - I've seen all of the studies, btw, and there was mainly a correlation between F and T and success in the sciences last I saw).


Strawman. You're being deliberately obtuse, and trying to pass off academic achievement as intellectual giftedness. When last I checked, GPA had absolutely nothing to do with admitting children into gifted programs. You have (conveniently) forgotten the premises, how surprising. /sarcasm



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Secondly, statistical correlations, if there are any, don't really matter because no matter what, you'll have an indeterminable amount of exceptions anyhow.


Cool. So, strength/significance of correlation doesn't matter. BRB, gonna pull apart the entire scientific community that pertains to behavioral sciences. Because you stated that statistically significant correlations don't matter because it's pretty much the closest thing to a cogent argument you have. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Thirdly, those studies don't take cognitive functions into account, so they're basically not even testing for type at all and are likely testing on misconceptions of type.


Doesn't matter. The same types are always at the top; the same at the bottom, across studies. I didn't know we were discussing individual functions here, I'll have to look into that whenever I get free time after volunteering to clean up every inch of state and interstate highways in the counry. Hopefully I will find some relevance to my claims. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Fourthly, look up the definition of "straw man" arguments and get back to me. That was an illogical use of the term, because none of my arguments were bogus - only you think so, since you take statistics at face value and don't question them.


I am quite well versed in identifying strawman arguments. Trying to reason with emotionally impetuous and anti-rational people has kind of made me an expert of sorts, TBH. BTW, in case you're reaching, I typed "straw man" because my phone autocorrected the term as it does not acknowledge "strawman." Oh, thanks for yet again applying incorrect claims about me (funny how that works - subsequently after telling me only I think your quasi-arguments are bogus). I "take statistics at face value, and don't question them." Sorry, no matter how hard you try, your denial of reality and aversion to rational thought WRT this topic will not be projected onto me. I've turned in research papers proving the fallacies and simply incorrect assertions made in peer-reviewed scholarly articles at my university's research database. Any more completely irrelevant AND thinly veiled, profoundly incorrect insinuations you want to make, let alone self-contradictory? I don't know if you can top arguing for the identical general intelligence of S/N meanwhile stating many INTJs are highly intelligent ISTJs...but you're welcome to try and surprise me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Strawman. You're being deliberately obtuse, and trying to pass off academic achievement as intellectual giftedness. When last I checked, GPA had absolutely nothing to do with admitting children into gifted programs. You have (conveniently) forgotten the premises, how surprising. /sarcasm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First off, no, gifted programs are pretty overrated because they usually test kids at an age young enough when their IQs will test higher than their permanent IQs for life (or at least within a small range) - also, tests for giftedness aren't standardized and Mensa-related, so they basically are just general aptitude tests that aren't necessarily associated with the Weschler tests (which are the real IQ tests). Also, some kids are early bloomers who don't change much after a certain point in terms of IQ, so they level off later (I've seen it IRL, where some "gifted" kids become average later on), while some kids (often the smartest ones according to studies) are late bloomers. Whether or not it has nothing to do with kids getting admitted into gifted programs doesn't matter much, because it doesn't have A LOT to do with this, depending on the test and age of the kids (and btw, I've seen S types in the gifted program anyhow, so what does that do to you're argument...).

And it's very dense of you to mentally equate IQ with behavior (um, there are intelligent people who act impulsively, etc.). I am smart enough to realize that minor correlations might exist, but major ones - that's not intelligent reasoning, because if they were so obvious, they would be noticeable enough that they don't need to be tested, since they'd be common sense. Behaviorism has been largely dead in the psychological community since the 1920s, since it isn't compatible with psychology. Go read a psychology textbook instead of pointlessly debating me on stuff you can just look up.

I am not emotionally impetuous (not even close). THAT's a strawman claim right there. You can't predict this from my response. You're the one trying to use fancy terms on me to sound like you know what you're talking about, but sorry, I'm seeing through them all. Just admit it - you have a lot to learn. Goodbye, this shall end this discussion, since there is nothing productive being said (just personal attacks and me having to defend myself from them with more).


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> First off, no, gifted programs are pretty overrated because they usually test kids at an age young enough when their IQs will test higher than their permanent IQs for life (or at least within a small range) - also, tests for giftedness aren't standardized and Mensa-related, so they basically are just general aptitude tests that aren't necessarily associated with the Weschler tests (which are the real IQ tests). Also, some kids are early bloomers who don't change much after a certain point in terms of IQ, so they level off later (I've seen it IRL, where some "gifted" kids become average later on), while some kids (often the smartest ones according to studies) are late bloomers. Whether or not it has nothing to do with kids getting admitted into gifted programs doesn't matter much, because it doesn't have A LOT to do with this, depending on the test and age of the kids (and btw, I've seen S types in the gifted program anyhow, so what does that do to you're argument...).


That has no bearing on anything. Yes, children are growing and some will experience relative intelligence adjustments as they cognitively mature. That doesn't mean that the Albert Einsteins of childhood can not gain access to gifted programs later on in childhood, or that those with mental maturity that was well ahead of the curve at a very young age can't drop out of a gifted program. You've seen S-types in a gifted program? Wow. I would certainly hope so, being that they make up roughly 75% of the population, meaning it is a mathematical impossibility for none of them to be in the 75th percentile (read: well above average - but I suppose you'll keep creating the strawman that I believe being an S = 1.00 probability of being dumb) or higher. Guess what that does to my argument? As much as the bird chirping outside my window does; absolutely nothing. Because you insist on putting black-or-white reasoning in my mouth in order to attack that because it's actually vulnerable. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> And it's very dense of you to mentally equate IQ with behavior (um, there are intelligent people who act impulsively, etc.). I am smart enough to realize that minor correlations might exist, but major ones - that's not intelligent reasoning, because if they were so obvious, they would be noticeable enough that they don't need to be tested, since they'd be common sense. Behaviorism has been largely dead in the psychological community since the 1920s, since it isn't compatible with psychology. Go read a psychology textbook instead of pointlessly debating me on stuff you can just look up.


Thank you for calling me dense. BTW, you're welcome to discuss behaviorism with the various behaviorists in my school's faculty (this isn't 1920, either). You'll probably find as many flaws in the theories as I have. So you're saying scientific studies have never been done to prove or disprove beliefs that are regarded by some as common sense. You're welcome to take a Social Psych course and discover just how many fallacies are held to be common knowledge by a great many people - and why they are. BTW the professor of social psych 260 at my university is an ESFP.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I am not emotionally impetuous (not even close). THAT's a strawman claim right there. You can't predict this from my response. You're the one trying to use fancy terms on me to sound like you know what you're talking about, but sorry, I'm seeing through them all. Just admit it - you have a lot to learn. Goodbye, this shall end this discussion, since there is nothing productive being said (just personal attacks and me having to defend myself from them with more).


It's a strawman (argument)? Perhaps you're the one who needs to do some investigating. #1. I didn't state you were emotionally impetuous, simply stating a seemingly requisite mental state I've noticed is a trend when dealing with strawman arguments from various debaters over the years. #2. Sorry, but ignoring the vast majority of a paragraph in order to construct something like this is the quintessential form of a strawman. Of course I have plenty to learn. Every human being, even an elder with an eidetic memory has a lot he can stand to learn. There is plenty of productive things to be said. However, I believe listening to them is the main issue at hand.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> That has no bearing on anything. Yes, children are growing and some will experience relative intelligence adjustments as they cognitively mature. That doesn't mean that the Albert Einsteins of childhood can not gain access to gifted programs later on in childhood, or that those with mental maturity that was well ahead of the curve at a very young age can't drop out of a gifted program. You've seen S-types in a gifted program? Wow. I would certainly hope so, being that they make up roughly 75% of the population, meaning it is a mathematical impossibility for none of them to be in the 75th percentile (read: well above average - but I suppose you'll keep creating the strawman that I believe being an S = 1.00 probability of being dumb) or higher. Guess what that does to my argument? As much as the bird chirping outside my window does; absolutely nothing. Because you insist on putting black-or-white reasoning in my mouth in order to attack that because it's actually vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Social science isn't the same thing as behavioral science. Anyhow, stop being a hypocrite and acting as if I'm the dense one here. If a correlation between S and N and intelligence can't be demonstrated in the context of Mensa IQ tests with cognitive functions, I'm not going to believe it. End of discussion. We're not going to get anywhere here, because you want me to "lose" to your reasoning - this is not an intellectually productive discussion.


----------



## BeauGarcon (May 11, 2011)

My penis is a very smart sensor.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Social science isn't the same thing as behavioral science. Anyhow, stop being a hypocrite and acting as if I'm the dense one here. If a correlation between S and N and intelligence can't be demonstrated in the context of Mensa IQ tests with cognitive functions, I'm not going to believe it. End of discussion. We're not going to get anywhere here, because you want me to "lose" to your reasoning - this is not an intellectually productive discussion.


I've never said you are dense. Reread when I said you could probably poke as many holes in hardline behaviorism as I have, which means I either don't believe you're dense, or believe I am dense by association. 

I don't want you to "lose" to my reasoning. My strong Te usage does come off that way, but it is what it is. Believe me there are others out there that make me look like Bob Marley in comparison, in that regard. 

Links to unsuccessful attempts to study Mensa membership and cognitive functions? I'm honestly curious, not just skeptical that a legitimate study has been done that involves both. 

You can end the debate if you'd like. However I'd like you to know I appreciate the idealism and enthusiasm that you display on this topic. I think it's admirable that you stand up for what you believe in, it's just not something that meshes with my beliefs and knowledge. I do not think you are illogical or dense or anything else permanently negative, I would like to apologize for creating the perception that I think those things about you. Like I mentioned, the problem here is the conflict between beliefs and observations, and has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of either one of us.


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

Has anyone mentioned a list for dumb intuitives yet?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

corgiflatmate said:


> Has anyone mentioned a list for dumb intuitives yet?


I bet there would be zero opposition to it.


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I bet there would be zero opposition to it.


You'd think that.. but I'm sure someone will find a way to be offended or to chastise me for promoting unhealthy attitudes yada yada yada.


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, saying that Kiersey "hates" sensors was a bit out there, but the perceptions that Kiersey conveys about sensors reflects a kind of apathy towards them though (or just rather large misunderstandings of them on his part). I doubt you'll find many people out there who don't get a boring and mindless impression of sensors from Kiersey.


I don't detect malicious intent or thinly-veiled vendetta against sensors from Keirsey. It borderlines on ridiculous to assume so. When loosely categorized, sensors don't seem to be the most "exciting" group (for lack of a better word), but I'll bet my money on the fact that the things "intuitives" concern themselves with won't seem exciting to every self-identified sensor. The S/N dichotomy is used to mark differences in perception and communicative styles and is one of the more divisive of the dichotomies, moreso than the Introvert/Extrovert clash that is currently promoted by every well-meaning psychologist with something to prove and every opiner with an axe to grind. Could Keirsey's prejudices toward "sensors" (grouped as if they are _all_ the same) seeped in to his descriptions of sensor dom and aux types? It's far-fetched but possible. Perhaps there is some obscure back story of Keirsey harboring deep-seated resentment towards sensors and decided to conduct _50 years of _observation, theorization and research just to slam them singularly, but such an assumption would be unlikely. All of his data and descriptions were gleaned from observing other people. No, he did not constantly lavish SPs and SJs with praise but noted both groups have a firm place in society, along with NFs and NTs. I had no idea that sensors were wounded and in need of care from the big bad "iNtuitives". And this thread is the final assault. How anyone could take this thread as means to unify is hard to believe. It's patently offensive in my opinion. The intention might have been good, but you measure the worthiness of a gesture by its end result and this thread just devolved into a troll fest.


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> First off, there has never been any scientific research on IQ and type (no, grades don't reflect IQ much - there's a very weak correlation if you've consulted any resources on IQ lately, so that study's bunk - I've seen all of the studies, btw, and there was mainly a correlation between F and T and success in the sciences last I saw).


Numerous studies can be found on the correlation between MBTI, IQ and other intelligence assessment tests. Just Google it.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Secondly, statistical correlations, if there are any, don't really matter because no matter what, you'll have an indeterminable amount of exceptions anyhow...


Doesn't mean that conclusive data can't be drawn from those statistical correlations.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Thirdly, those studies don't take cognitive functions into account, so they're basically not even testing for type at all and are likely testing on misconceptions of type. Fourthly, look up the definition of "straw man" arguments and get back to me. That was an illogical use of the term, because none of my arguments were bogus - only you think so, *since you take statistics at face value and don't question them*.


Typing through cognitive functions alone does not gaurantee absolute validity. Misperceptions can abound in those instances where one tries to classify themselves with a cognitive function that they don't even use. And wasn't MBTI based on Jungian theory to begin with? I also agree that statistics should not be taken at face value, but a dismissive attitude shouldn't be taken toward them either or toward any attempt at verifying hypotheticals with empirical data.


----------



## Narcotic (Jun 20, 2012)

I find the idea of intelligent sensors appealing, but in a way, it's not fair that they get the smarts and the social skills. I get the feeling that introvert sensors would be a bit more likely to be involved in intellectual endeavors, and thus be more likely to improve on what they have in those heads of theirs. Depending on the temperament, they may be more inclined to waste that intelligence in a secure job that contributes little to the world. I think that might be the main consideration. 

I don't think it's necessarily better to be an intuitive than a sensor. 

Being intuitive is a bit like looking at life as a giant fishbowl that I'm on the outside of. I can do various attention grabbing things, like feeding the fish or moving around rapidly near them to catch their eye, but I'll never actually be a fish and interact with them in the same way that the fish interact with each other. 

NP types seem to have this sort of 'pick up and play' sort of mentality to life, where they'll be plodding along, possibly oblivious to their smarts until someone notices and gets them to try a task or job out and figures out that they're quite competent just because they can quickly figure out methods, or quickly get a feel for how things work. 

I feel like sensors can achieve this level of competency at tasks, but it's sort of a learned talent, in the same way that intuitives have to learn to properly socialise from the bottom up because it doesn't really come naturally, due to the difference in manner or thinking, possible disregard for social norms and just a bit of good old fashioned obliviousness.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Brel said:


> I had no idea that sensors were wounded and in need of care from the big bad "iNtuitives".


Yeah, this fallacy that you've concocted doesn't take away from the fact that the very premise of this forum is based on the implication that there's something "queer" about intelligent sensors, and that they are somehow different from the rest of the sensors. Otherwise, why ask about smart "sensors"? That's like making a thread about smart blacks. Notice how no one ever makes a list about smart white people, or smart iNtuitives? Let's not pretend that there isn't such a thing as a micro-aggression. Paying special attention to someone's intelligence just because it subconsciously (or consciously) deviates from the stereotype you have of their personality brand, IS a micro-aggression, and it is a negative implication against their character, and abilities.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> I've been watching the anti-anti-sensor-bias movement here, and I wonder if the point needs to be made over and over again.


It's a cycle under a different name or context.

First, people subscribe to the stereotype (since top Google searches are the first sources of reference.)
Next, they find a community to find shared sentiments and experiences.
Afterward, they either (a) hold on to their conceptions, or (b) realize that the stereotypes are untrue.
(a) They then spread the bias - but tend not to go very far with it...
...because some of group (b) will eventually headbutts with them.
(Some of group (a) may then successfully convert to group (b).)

The group (b) people then split into these directions, possibly having some overlapping:
(i) veterans who make it a point to educate and point newcomers in the right direction
(ii) people who just sit back, relax and observe
(iii) the new anti-anti movement activists
(iv) elitists
(v) the hidden type: the ones who don't realize they still have biases hidden from even themselves

There are anti-stereotype movements everywhere on this forum - some of them are valid and bring to light interesting issues, while some are just rehashing of the same old thing.

Right now, breaking and eliminating misconceptions is the popular thing. Who knows what the new popular thing might be? It could be defending newcomers who are the unfortunate victims of "oh not you another one who believe in stereotypes (just based on questions like: 'I've heard you guys are such - are you?')!" It could be picking apart some of the people in group (b). It could be encouraging people to accept that they have biases, and, instead of rejecting them or persecuting biases, learn to understand the source of the biases. The possibilities are endless.

Is there a need for the point to be made over and over? I don't know either, but the responses are often a pretty good sense of the community's sentiments, so I guess threads like these aren't exactly wasted in the end.


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Yeah, this fallacy that you've concocted doesn't take away from the fact that the very premise of this forum is based on the implication that there's something "queer" about intelligent sensors, and that they are somehow different from the rest of the sensors.


 I don't know what part of my quote seemed fallacious to you, but I didn't intend to detract attention from the very reason why this thread was made. In fact, if you read or pay attention to the rest of my comment, I was merely questioning it. To ask others to formulate a list of smart sensors, is, in my opinion, to imply that sensors, entirely are not the smart ones to begin with. So this list actually implies that the supposed sensors listed are the exception. The whole premise (if you want to call it that) that sensors are on the whole, dumber than intuitives is nothing but a fabrication based on misconception and blatant ignorance. It has no basis whatsoever. To entertain that lie, is to forget the very purpose of the MBTI, was created for: that everyone have gifts differing, that every type has strengths and weaknesses.



KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Otherwise, why ask about smart "sensors"? That's like making a thread about smart blacks. Notice how no one ever makes a list about smart white people, or smart iNtuitives?


 You are treading dangerous waters with this ill-fitted, ignorant and if I may say so, fallacious claim, and you unwittingly illustrated the point I made early about how offensive this thread is. You add insult to injury, outright stating that making this thread is like "making a thread about smart blacks". How can a group be a minority, when they are the majority? Lead sensors make up roughly 75% of the population. I highly doubt that you can't make a list of smart people without listing at least one, two, or three. Or ten for that matter. You adding a racial connotation to the subject of smart sensors taints the discussion and in the same breath you equate intuitives with inherent elitism, something that cannot be proven true and thereby isn't true.






KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Let's not pretend that there isn't such a thing as a micro-aggression. Paying special attention to someone's intelligence just because it subconsciously (or consciously) deviates from the stereotype you have of their personality brand, IS a micro-aggression, and it is a negative implication against their character, and abilities.


 Let me ask you this: What the hell does race have to do with personality? There is no strong correlation between either of these. To make the argument otherwise, is to give leeway toward classically racist stances, ascribing character traits to physical attributes. Cognitive processes are inherently a mental entity. Therefore the comparison you made fails as it does not coincide with the issue at hand here. They are two different things. Psychological type is mental blueprint so you are able to predict what pattern of behavior that individual is likely to display based on their type. From this temperamental hard-drive you are able to firmly predict the development of their character, their communication style, what subjects they may or may not gravitate toward in school or college later on. I will repeat myself: that is not the same as looking at someone's race and making judgments of that. That being said, to say that a person whose inclined to use intuition as their first or second function is on average more likely to be placed in the top 2% of the population in IQ is not a promotion of micro-aggression. That's stating an empirically verified fact. To say that an INFP is more likely to be a philosopher than an ISFP is not a promotion of micro-aggression, nor is it inaccurate stereotype. It makes sense based on the hierarchy of cognitive functions that the two types are associated with. The term "micro-aggression" is not even relevant to this discussion, though you tried your hardest to pretend as though it was.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

Really..this depends on what you define as intelligence. I don't see MBTI being about skills, but rather preferences. Still, tell a Sensor they are stupid, and they will not fail to be so.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Brel said:


> I don't know what part of my quote seemed fallacious to you, but I didn't intend to detract attention from the very reason why this thread was made. In fact, if you read or pay attention to the rest of my comment, I was merely questioning it. To ask others to formulate a list of smart sensors, is, in my opinion, to imply that sensors, entirely are not the smart ones to begin with. So this list actually implies that the supposed sensors listed are the exception. The whole premise (if you want to call it that) that sensors are on the whole, dumber than intuitives is nothing but a fabrication based on misconception and blatant ignorance. It has no basis whatsoever. To entertain that lie, is to forget the very purpose of the MBTI, was created for: that everyone have gifts differing, that every type has strengths and weaknesses.


Oh okay, I see what's going on here. We're actually agreeing with one another, however from your previous post that I quoted, it sounded as though you were invalidating the fact that many sensors are stereotyped as stupid, or lesser intelligent.



> How can a group be a minority, when they are the majority


Sensors are the majority in the world, but not on this website. That is why I compared Sensors to being stereotyped as lesser intelligent, to that of blacks being stereotyped as lesser intelligent: Because both groups are automatically assumed to be "not as smart".



> I will repeat myself: that is not the same as looking at someone's race and making judgments of that. That being said, to say that a person whose inclined to use intuition as their first or second function is on average more likely to be placed in the top 2% of the population in IQ is not a promotion of micro-aggression


Re-read what I wrote. We are agreeing with each other. But even so, I'm still not sure where you got most of the shit you're saying to me...??? 

It looks like we both misinterpreted each other. I apologize.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Being sensor and smart is not mutually exclusive? :shocked:


* *














Well, before reading this, that's what the title sort of implied.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

It's so obvious sensor aren't the shit this forum try to promote... There is many really insightfull ESFP, ISTJ... 
The stuff about sensor and intuitve is too that they can sometime be inverted... At some time of life, some ESTJ can become really geeky and jumpy with highly develloped Ne, while INFP lose all their sight for a overdevelloped Si... (seen in real life)


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

um yeah, those arent real people. how about you post some real people.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

I think you get it

For ESFP I was thinking about a candidate of election in France, Melenchon. While not all can agree with his ideas, his book (writed by himself) have some really good stuff, even if after a while in interview he become a bit repetitive

The 'most intelligent guy in the world' was likely ISTJ, I don't remember the name

edit : Chris Langan


----------



## Praesepe (Dec 4, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> It looks like we both misinterpreted each other. I apologize.


 I looked at my comment, I even realized just how simpatico or views were actually, I just assumed and rightly so, that you were attacking me for the very same thing I hate: prejudice. Apology accepted.


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

@Torai Hermoine is a intuitive and a pony really???


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

Smart Sensors: William Shakespeare, Sarah Palin,Dr Phil, Michelle Obama, Donald Trump,Hilary Clinton, Natalie Portman.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

YOLOsodie said:


> Smart Sensors: William Shakespeare, *Sarah Palin*,Dr Phil, Michelle Obama, Donald Trump,Hilary Clinton, Natalie Portman.


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

benr3600 said:


>



Yes the joker, is that an ENTP joke? XD


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

YOLOsodie said:


> Yes the joker, is that an ENTP joke? XD


No, it's a "Sarah Palin = smart? Not sure if serious" joke :tongue: 

That and I believe Clinton is an INTJ


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> No, it's a "Sarah Palin = smart? Not sure if serious" joke :tongue:
> 
> That and I believe Clinton is an INTJ


OK but the rest are correct surely.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

YOLOsodie said:


> OK but the rest are correct surely.


Probably. :tongue:


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Probably. :tongue:



What is this an INTJ acting goofy?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

YOLOsodie said:


> What is this an INTJ acting goofy?


 

I'm not goofy, I'm just ahead of the curve :tongue:


----------



## YOLOsodie (Jun 26, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> I'm not goofy, I'm just ahead of the curve :tongue:


I'm 10 miles past the curve. :kitteh:


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

I always thought JCF was more about perspectives of life than use of functions... 
My propensity to ambiguity makes me think about the obsolescence of the theory...


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

James Randi and Peter Schiff, ESTPs both of them, are two of the ever-rarer voices of sanity these days.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I've never said you are dense. Reread when I said you could probably poke as many holes in hardline behaviorism as I have, which means I either don't believe you're dense, or believe I am dense by association.
> 
> I don't want you to "lose" to my reasoning. My strong Te usage does come off that way, but it is what it is. Believe me there are others out there that make me look like Bob Marley in comparison, in that regard.
> 
> ...


Well, thank you anyhow. Sometimes, it's hard to tell what the attitude of people arguing online is, so I probably kind of fell victim to this. I don't think you're wrong either - it became clear to me that we were arguing from very different standpoints, which is fine, really. Bob Marley, heh. I can believe it. I quit the debate largely because I didn't want this thread to get derailed needlessly, but we can perhaps speak over PM about this if you'd like.


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

Hermione f-ing Granger


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Carl Jung


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Carl Jung


Throwing that out there, will get you in trouble.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Dr. John Beebe types Alfred Hitchcock as an ISTJ (the "psycho-thriller" guy with a philosophical background). I would guess a ton of musicians are S dominant.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I can buy someone like Peter Schiff being inferior Ni.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Carl Jung


Much doubt it, he was way to much interested in mysticism, mythology, symbolism etc. Possible that Freud was a sensor though.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

firedell said:


> Throwing that out there, will get you in trouble.


Well, truth hurts 



Eos_Machai said:


> Much doubt it. Possibly Freud though.


Actually, I saw a video of him. He's a sensor.
I believed ISTJ, but I believe it was @JungyesMBTIno who said ISTP.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Well, truth hurts
> 
> 
> Actually, I saw a video of him. He's a sensor.
> I believed ISTJ, but I believe it was @_JungyesMBTIno_ who said ISTP.


Freud strikes me as an unhealthy Fi. I'm not sure what his type is, but there you go. I think Jung is Ti>Ni from reading his writing style.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Freud's a great example of the rough inferior Te Jung was talking about (he based his schema on Freud anyway, based on their break-up).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Georgii Zhukov


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Freud's a great example of the rough inferior Te Jung was talking about (he based his schema on Freud anyway, based on their break-up).


I had seen him been typed as a Fi dom before. ISFP in particular. But I didn't want to say it, just in case I misread what you said.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ah. Yea, ISFP's possible (like Fi-Ni). Hard to know though what his intuition was.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

haha, I'll just be honest. There's no way I could believe Freud is an Fi-dom.


no way.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

And I'll argue, there is so a way. He was noted for being authentic and gregarious, albeit, had a cold thinking side.


----------



## azalia (Feb 26, 2013)

Sensors seem damn smart to me. (I suspect I'm an intuitive, but I have some hardcore sensor envy.)


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

azalia said:


> Sensors seem damn smart to me. (I suspect I'm an intuitive, but I have some hardcore sensor envy.)


Nah. I wouldn't necessarily peg relying on hunches or empirical data as necessarily being more intelligent then the other, though I'm surprised that Ss aren't considered smart. A lot of what people find to be intelligent seems to be based on sensory knowledge and experience then hunches anyways. As in that I am usually said to be intelligent, because I bothered to memorize something that would be helpful or whatever and I just shrug and roll my eyes, because simply knowing something doesn't necessarily means that one is intelligent.

I don't necessarily find a lot of Intuition types to be that intelligent to be honest. As in that I can easily understand where a lot of them are coming from (at least Ne types). Outside of Jung's work, but that's probably because I'm uneducated than a lack of intelligence (even though I think I'm profoundly average as far as smarts go).

I mean, a good deal of scientists are likely Sensation dominants anyways. I mean, it's not like intelligence is something that can't be trained and honed anyways. I personally find that intelligence is like a muscle in that some people are more apt to being more intelligent, but I don't think that people with low intelligence are necessarily doomed to be stupid.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

lol this thread is funny. as if there are smart sensors...

JK GUYS JK!!!!!!!!!!

Burton Guster is intelligent.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Lol this is such a bad thread title.

was there ever a "dumb intuitives" thread? [not that it would likely fly due to the rules]


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

atypeofuser said:


> Lol this is such a bad thread title.
> 
> was there ever a "dumb intuitives" thread? [not that it would likely fly due to the rules]


There would be an upheaval of angry intuitives. It's easier to pick on sensor types because the forum lacks people who type themselves as sensors. But we know sensor's aren't cool.


----------



## SherlyDEDUCE (Jul 25, 2012)

Everyone in my immediate family is a Sensor, and I’d consider them all to be “smart.”


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I tend to find that they might be described as the "smart people who aren't exactly dreamers or intellectuals." There of course may numerous examples to the contrary as well though (not all intuitives are intellectual at all - you might come across a lot of Ni doms who live that function in secret - Jung talks about what a pain it often is for them to actually reveal their perspective to the world, unless perhaps, the person can hide behind a talent or skillset or an ambition). I can guarantee you'll find plenty of Ne doms who might be able to pass off as pseudo-intellectuals, but might not be.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> And I'll argue, there is so a way. He was noted for being authentic and gregarious, albeit, had a cold thinking side.


Gregarious? Have you read a Fi description? Authenticity is just lack of Fe :X (tongue in cheek, I promise).

I think Freud is ESTJ. It's inferior Fi, not inferior Te. He viewed introversion as some kind of psychological problem, whereas Jung didn't. That was a big point they differed on. 

In Jung's description of Te, he spends half his time defending Ti against Te, and it reeks of resentment. I think this is connected to his break with Freud /speculation & reading between the lines.

----

A few more famous smart/talented sensors (sorry for any repeats):

Alfred Lord Tennyson - ISFJ
Picasso - ISFP
John Malkovic - ISTJ
F Scott Fitzgerald - ISFP
Hemingway - ESTP


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

It's more "depth" that's the issue with S doms, not intelligence or intellect. With N doms, the issue is being superficial (some of these might actually be super down-to-earth (maybe too much), in spite of their dominant orientation - I find this often the case with Ni doms, who tend to more-or-less live in the secrecy of their dominant - they might be super interesting on some level people can almost never put their finger on). You might get someone who people don't really know how to approach, yet has perhaps a larger than life presentation that commands attention anyway (the person always has the aura of knowing exactly what they're doing, until they fall into the grip of inferior sensation, when they then might look like they drank something bad out of the toilet). With S doms, you might get that person who is hard to impress, yet is welcoming of the impressive - the person who has trouble seeing the "soul" into the object - everything is more-or-less the same to them, which makes for someone who can easily adapt to the demands of anything realistic that comes their way, but the person might mistrust the object too much if it isn't resonating with past experience. I mean, with inferior functions, with inferior Ni, you moreso get the person who appears to distrust another person's ideas, while with inferior Ne, you get a person who appears to distrust another person's motives. Inferior Si and Se would be distrusting evidence at face value, either in ideas (I) or the object/motives (E). In the grip, you might get an inferior Se type who gets tormented by silly realizations they repress that emerge from the unconscious about perhaps how people "realize" facts (there would be an emphasis on real facts). With inferior Si, it's more like dealing with how real ideas impact them that might make them unsettled.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> Gregarious? Have you read a Fi description? Authenticity is just lack of Fe :X (tongue in cheek, I promise).
> 
> I think Freud is ESTJ. It's inferior Fi, not inferior Te. He viewed introversion as some kind of psychological problem, whereas Jung didn't. That was a big point they differed on.
> 
> ...


I buy Fitzgerald and Hemingway and maybe Picasso...I have no idea about the rest though.

Nah, Freud was definitely intuitive by all accounts. In fact, it was his thinking that was very much the reason he probably said that about introverts (he might've lived out his thinking a lot - still doesn't make him a dominant thinking type - he could easily be an inferior thinking type). I mean, self-depreciation is possible for introverts - remember, no one really knew what to make of introversion before Jung came along - Freud might've had his own reasons for saying this, such as the fact that in his system, he tied inner psychology to the sex drive.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Raichu said:


> lol this thread is funny. as if there are smart sensors...
> 
> JK GUYS JK!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Burton Guster is intelligent.


You used to be a stupid sensor with us...how dare you. HOW DARE YOU LEAVE US


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Madonna (one of my faves): ESTP in Mensa with an IQ of 140 (excelled in school/scholarship despite admittedly never caring to study)
Sharon Stone: ESFP in Mensa with an IQ of 155 (thought the test was silly)

two that people wouldn't generally associate with such


----------

