# Mistyped Sensors and Intuitives (MBTI)



## the heart marksman (Nov 17, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> That's what they all say lol


-.- what makes me a sensor to you?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Even though it's supposed to be about 20% and most people type as N anyways. Something is obviously off. I really hate using self-assessments as evidence. Only reason it is even used is cause that's the best we have.


Well most people interested in typology theory are N types, by miles - it's not even close.
When it comes to people on forums such as this - it's probably a good idea to assume everyone is an N until proven otherwise - it's a complete reverse of the 'real world' statistics.

..and it makes sense, considering typology by it's nature is pretty abstract, there's nothing tangible here, there's nothing concrete, no real-world use for a lot of people - but it's interesting, and it's something that draws N types to it, more than S types, because it's basically a world of hypotheticals and theorising.

It's almost like a religion, in a lot of ways - for better or worse.

On top of this - I think INFJs are probably the most common type online, and we should almost start assuming people are INFJs unless proven otherwise - because no matter how you look at it, we're geared for 'typology theory'.

Introverts, so we like to spend time introspecting and mulling things over.
Intuitives, so these things will be non-tangibles.
Feelers, so these things will likely be related to people.
Judgers, so we like 'external structure' i.e the idea that people can be put into boxes - not *exactly* into boxes, but, it's a classification system that revolves around _people_ and incorporates a whole lot of hypotheticals into it, and is the ideal platform for using our 'intuition' because we don't have to worry about being 'factually correct' etc.

Typology theory lets us dive into something without any worries about tripping up over inferior "Sensor" mistakes etc.

Even bring functions in, and you can link the 'average typology nerd' straight to INFJ.

We're just made for it. We've got to be the most common type, on these kinds of forums.

I don't think it makes sense to question everyone who thinks they're an INFJ in an area that's such a perfect magnet for them.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

the heart marksman said:


> -.- what makes me a sensor to you?


That wasn't the point


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Well most people interested in typology theory are N types, by miles - it's not even close.
> When it comes to people on forums such as this - it's probably a good idea to assume everyone is an N until proven otherwise - it's a complete reverse of the 'real world' statistics.
> 
> ..and it makes sense, considering typology by it's nature is pretty abstract, there's nothing tangible here, there's nothing concrete, no real-world use for a lot of people - but it's interesting, and it's something that draws N types to it, more than S types, because it's basically a world of hypotheticals and theorising.
> ...


This is very bad reasoning, anything involving ideas is technically N and the people most obsessed with personality test ime are sensors.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> This is very bad reasoning, anything involving ideas is technically N and the people most obsessed with personality test ime are sensors.


Source?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Source?


Ideas are more of an N thing, yes? I said ime, I don't need a source for everything I say that you disagree with. You baselessly claimed more intuitives would be into typology anyways.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Ideas are more of an N thing, yes? I said ime, I don't need a source for everything I say that you disagree with. You baselessly claimed more intuitives would be into typology anyways.


Oh, my claim isn't baseless.

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/987554-why-3.html#post33629618

Forum Statistics - % Of MBTI Types - Page 22

I'd love some more recent statistics, because most (nearly all) posters in MBTI related Facebook groups are N types as well.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Oh, my claim isn't baseless.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/987554-why-3.html#post33629618
> 
> ...


Yes it is, those are self-assessments. Most people type as intuitive.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Are we assuming there's a single correct answer to whether an individual is N or S? Personally, I don't believe that there is, and so I don't really believe in "mistyping" at all. Where N ends and S begins is a theoretical line drawn in the abstract-conceptual metaphorical sand. There is no empirical way to capture it; the definitions of N and S themselves are not objective constructs. That said - what I do ascribe to is the "best fit" paradigm - that is, assuming that no one type is the "right answer", but that more than likely one type will be a _more useful_ self-identification than the others. 

In that case, a Sensor who misidentifies as an iNtuitive may likely be one who is naturally interested in foundational theory, in mysticism, in philosophy - subjects which lend themselves to N-style cognition. I suspect some confounding factors may include: Introversion (more reflective, more removed); Perceiving (more whimsical; more project-oriented); sx (more into intense immersive experience); e-types 4, 7, 9 (holistic, novelty-seeking, merging). My little brother, an ISTP 9w8 sx/sp, initially was tricky to identify between INTP and ISTP, and N-S is still probably the least clear of his preferences. He found the N-S questions on the MBTI assessment to be misleading, seeming to ask if he was a "deep" thinker (he is) instead of whether or not he is a _concrete_ thinker (he is). An ExFP 7w8 sx/so female I know - she's clearly close on the N-S preference scale too - though I believe overall S makes more sense as she mainly seems to take in, consider, and utilize concrete information.

An iNtuitive who misidentifies as a Sensor may be one who is naturally more kinesthetic, who is drawn to practical or hands-on interests, who likes being out in the real world experiencing life and/or seeing the real results of their actions. I'd suspect confounding factors to be: Extraversion (more attention to outward environment); Judgment (motivated to achieve results and closure); sp (more attuned to resources and practicalities of life); e-types 2, 6, 8 (focus on others, focus on security, preference for controlling environment). I've personally tested SFJ from time to time, I think because my P preference is mild, I prefer a fair amount of physical engagement and/or experiential learning, and my e6 perspective inclines me to be more SJish than e9 or e4 INFPs. I think an ENTJ friend of my parents' (8w9 sp/sx?) would also be easy to mistake as an ESTJ, because she's very practical, efficient, and realistic. (I suspect the N giveaway, however, is that she always immediately drills my brother and I on our long-range academic and career plans - contrast my ESTJ supervisor, also probably 8w9 but sp/so, who discusses leadership development with me and asks how I would like to expand my skillset - more concrete, immediate future consideration.)

Regarding N and S statistics - I understand that it is commonly held that there is a much greater S population than N, but I don't see that being a realistic perspective. I tend to believe that is more of a reflection of the social insecurity and exclusion experienced by the INxx who typically discuss, write, and create personality type materials. In my own experience, N and S seem relatively evenly matched. The question is ultimately moot, of course, because there's no real way of measuring, and IMO there's no real answer, anyway. But believing that N is a sort of special designation - it's just not good practice. It sets up logical fallacies like tending to ascribe "better" thinking to N, even though iNtuition is just a description of cognitive behavior, not a determinant of cognitive content.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes it is, those are self-assessments. Most people type as intuitive.


Oh - you're intimately familiar with the soul-searching journey each and every one of those individuals have embarked upon, in order to discover their type?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Oh - you're intimately familiar with the soul-searching journey each and every one of those individuals have embarked upon, in order to discover their type?


Uhh....it's pretty common for people to initially type as intuitive, only to change their minds later. You know this to be true.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Kathy Kane said:


> A lot of people think Ni is something more concrete (solid examples) and tangible. Where Ni is actually all about gathering intangible information. It has more to do with detecting energy vibes, emotions, and spiritual natures. Jung specifically relates it to the mystical. His Ni description is in the spoiler.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...




Although I don't agree with everything Kathy Kane says here, I've never read someone with a more accurate version of introverted intuition. I read her whole thread and agree that because people don't relate to these portions of Ni, they try to bring it down to the ground and make it concrete. Jung even compared the Ni user to John The Baptist which should tell us something. There is nothing concrete about Ni, which makes its inferior Se. Although Ni isn't a psychic function, this is the way it appears to observers and Ni dominants that are out of touch with psychology. What makes them odd men among society is that they do not relate the images they get from unconscious Se to themselves making them speak in a weird language, like metaphors such as "energies" which in reality are their sense perceptions that have unconsciously gathered into patterns.. but by the time it's reached the Ni dom's consciousness, it appears as an odd reality to the Ni user. The more healthy types may dismiss these visions, images and etc if they seem too bizarre but in general, the Ni dom is not concrete. All introverted functions are abstract and all extraverted are concrete, says Jung. 

By reading people's versions of what Ni is, I can only conclude that there are a lot of mistyped NTJS and NFJs. I especially am skeptical when certain "INFJs" seem too judgmental about others who claim to be their type as if it were some type of club or royalty to be one.. Your dominant is a perception not a judging-feeling or thinking one. We don't know everyone though and so it is really not worth arguing over in such a serious manner. I'm just saying. I think a lot of people have functions distorted and that is partially the cause of mistypes. The other reason is because people have unconscious attachments to what they think they are and are afraid of being "wrong" and not being that type. There is also a bias and some people enjoy being viewed as certain types so they will fight against the facts of Jung and theory in order to maintain consistency of what they think their type is. However, with some things, there is no way around it. Se things are just flat out opposite of what Jung stated about certain functions. 

Of course, not everyone will come to the same conclusions reading Jung's book but there's only so much bending one could do to make certain functions fit how they want them to fit, in order to maintain consistency of a specific type one prefers to be seen as. When it comes to personality theory, there is a lot of subconscious stuff going on I think a lot of folks don't want to admit, which makes it frustrating at times to discuss such matters. I'm never trying to piss anyone off but I just like to honestly converse about the functions but people end up upset and mad for multitude of reasons. So, it makes these things hard to discuss...


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Kathy Kane INTJ career descriptions are written as such in part due to research that has been done over many decades concerning those who are MBTI type INTJ. Most of these people would not relate to Jung's Introverted Intuitive archetype, and instead would be mainly Thinking dominants. The problem is that people try to link Jung to MBTI by MBTI stacks, when they aren't designed for Jungian function definitions.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

TornadicX said:


> Types that use Si are probably more likely to get Ni/Si mixed up as well, so I'd say ISJs. Si is abstract sensation... and as I've pointed out, those with mental disorders that use Si/Ne or Se/Ni as dominants might have a harder time being able to tell which is dom/inferior.


That's another reason I think many SJs mistype themselves as NJs. The way people talk about Si and Ni makes it sound like they are polar opposites, you know, the former being boring, predictable and routine-based, the latter being a visionary genius. But in reality they are very similar, since they are both introverted perceiving functions. But if those SJ people stopped for a second to analyze what they think is dominant intuition, they'd realize it's full of vivid mental images and bounces off their experience. In other words, Si.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

I think mistyping is really easy. I get told both, that I'm obviously an N and I'm obviously an S. I tend to be nerdy in the traditional sense than most NTs I know. I'm an engineer, and I've been spending most of my time trying to come up with a new algorithm for a bot I'm making. Imo, very few Ns on this site have anything to actually show for it, rather than claiming it be a lot more intelligent than sensors like me. 

As for S things, yes my main goal in life is to make a lot of money so that I can take care of my family, so I work hard for that. I'm also deeply religious and I enjoy, and crave the occasional social interaction. I'm an enneagram 2, I go out of my way to take care of people. Those who know me well enough tell me I'm sweet, kind and hardworking. Sensor traits and ESFJ traits. 

Also at the same time, I've been told that ESFJs are the worst type ever, they probably will not like me because I'm an ESFJ. I have been told that I have no right to vent about being misunderstood, because I'm no special snowflake like the NFs who are the only people ever, who feel different or misunderstood. I could try telling them that we S types are not a hive mind. S in sensors does not stand for stupid. 

Or I can just go from ESFJ to ENFJ. That also seems to work.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Stevester said:


> That's another reason I think many SJs mistype themselves as NJs. The way people talk about Si and Ni makes it sound like they are polar opposites, you know, the former being boring, predictable and routine-based, the latter being a visionary genius. But in reality they are very similar, since they are both introverted perceiving functions. But if those SJ people stopped for a second to analyze what they think is dominant intuition, they'd realize it's full of vivid mental images and bounces off their experience. In other words, Si.


Yeah. When I first was dating my ISFJ I thought he was actually ENFP because his cognitive runs seemed to be what you just said - vivid imagery bouncing around. Eff anything that purports that Ni is somehow better; when my ISFJ described how he perceives it was deep and haunting and beautiful.



Blue Ribbon said:


> I think mistyping is really easy. I get told both, that I'm obviously an N and I'm obviously an S. I tend to be nerdy in the traditional sense than most NTs I know. I'm an engineer, and I've been spending most of my time trying to come up with a new algorithm for a bot I'm making. Imo, very few Ns on this site have anything to actually show for it, rather than claiming it be a lot more intelligent than sensors like me.


Haha yeah that's true. 

My ISFJ also tends to be nerdy in an NT-ish way and spends a lot of time reading about car specs, about old features of cities and abandoned buildings, and so on. His knowledge storage is impressive and he can seem N when he's quickly unloading it because the listener hasn't sat with him for the hundreds of hours he spent collecting the details.



> Also at the same time, I've been told that ESFJs are the worst type ever, they probably will not like me because I'm an ESFJ. I have been told that I have no right to vent about being misunderstood, because I'm no special snowflake like the NFs who are the only people ever, who feel different or misunderstood.


Ugh I apologize for "my people".


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

When I see descriptions such as:

Ni: Narrows a billion possibilities into one or Ni wants to know who, what, when, where, and why

Ne: Takes one possibility and turns it into many; Reads possible meanings for silence

I'm pretty certain folks who describe auto-irrational functions as if they're consciously evaluative, are probably mistyped. If you don't understand the functions, you are at risk by default of mistyping. Yes, N functions may work something similar but it's done unconscious before it reaches the conscious as an image or many. You don't sit around, ponder & "think up" possibilities nor do you try to tie ideas down to one, with N functions, alone. 

Secondly, was the MBTI created for career placement? I actually think Jungian theory supports the stack...but that's just me..and I have observed plenty of INTJ spiritual gurus who lean towards Universal Law, like the 'religious whatever' Kathy Kane has mentioned. IMO, it's wrong to call INTJs T dom. IMO, if one wants to get in another's head, they'd utilize the functions while researching type theory, as it gives a deeper look into another's psyche.

Jung even spoke of the dogmatic Te dominant , who could look like a religious, self-righteous tyrant during inferior Fi moments. This tells me xNTJ has the capacity as Kathy Kane stated to go in this direction. (Not that all of them will.) I actually think Jim Jones is mistyped as ENFJ but really he is the exact replica of what Jung described as the unhealthy Te dominant. (I think Jimmy was an ENTJ.)

Mistypes can be blamed on poor studying of the functions/being out of touch with one's self...but at times, I'm uncomfortable saying 'mistype' even when I know better, (meaning I've literally read the facts).. Because this is still a theory.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Ideas are more of an N thing, yes? I said ime, I don't need a source for everything I say that you disagree with. You baselessly claimed more intuitives would be into typology anyways.


I ran a poll on Facebook overnight in an MBTI group, asking what types everyone was - to see which preference - N or S - is more likely to be interested in typology.

As it stands, the poll is 60 for N types, 15 for S types.
4-1 ratio.

It's not a massive sample size, but it's made up of people who are interested enough to join an MBTI based Facebook group in the first place - N types are definitely more interested in typology and personality theory than S types.

Fact.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Stevester said:


> That's another reason I think many SJs mistype themselves as NJs. The way people talk about Si and Ni makes it sound like they are polar opposites, you know, the former being boring, predictable and routine-based, the latter being a visionary genius. But in reality they are very similar, since they are both introverted perceiving functions. But if those SJ people stopped for a second to analyze what they think is dominant intuition, they'd realize it's full of vivid mental images and bounces off their experience. In other words, Si.


Jung even stated Ni/Si were cousins just as Ne/Se are very similar. All of the introverted functions are abstract and Xe is considered concrete. 

Si = Subjective impressions one is getting from the immediate reality 

Ni = Subjective impressions one is getting from the patterns/visions made via unconscious Se.

These are very easy to mix but the difference is Si is discouraged by change , since it is still being dragged by the tangible while Ni seems to auto-detect change regardless of an obvious shift in form.

Si : Looks at a red ball & gets an odd impression from it, so puts ball in its room. Ball turns orange. Si user devalues it. 

Ni : Looks at a red ball, gets an impression about what it represents, (symbolism), predicts the ball will turn orange, ball may or may not turn orange...but if it does, Ni was prepared by default. 

This is also why Ne is inferior to Si & vice versa. Ne loves to transform. Ni for sees the transformation. Both are working with what has not yet come or happened. Both are on auto-pilot when in the dom position. Si / Se are working with what you can see but Si goes deeper because an impulsive sensual-feeling is made on the dom Si user...which makes them a tad more stubborn towards change & especially sudden change. 

I also think people forget that there are feelings/thoughts attached to perceptive functions but they're not ethical or systematic. For example, an ESTP looks at a mountain & immediately thinks to ride off of it -- this isn't Ti but an impulsive idea , generated by Se. Or an ESFP riding a bike for adrenaline "feels nice" from the rush. The ISFJ "feels" nice due to the mood-impression a song without words has on them, and the ENFP "feels excited" about the possibility they can win a prize by playing the lotto...

There is Intuitive-Feeling, (Ne/Ni) -- I get the feeling I'm going to win tonight or I'm getting the feeling my dog is dead.

Emotional-Feeling, (Biological, could be used to develop Ethical Feeling/Deals with emotional moods) - You hurt my feelings or I hurt your feelings, They are in a bad mood or I am in a bad mood

Ethical-Feeling, (Fi/Fe) - It isn't appropriate to say "bad luck" to a teammate or "I feel like cheating on a test is wrong." 

Sensory-Feeling/Mood (Si/Se) - I am feeling horny, I am in the mood for sex or I am feeling alive.

Huge difference but I often see all of these being intertwined...Ethical feeling isn't irrational. It is evaluating. The same goes for thinking...although thinking is easier to identify....I guess...


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I ran a poll on Facebook overnight in an MBTI group, asking what types everyone was - to see which preference - N or S - is more likely to be interested in typology.
> 
> As it stands, the poll is 60 for N types, 15 for S types.
> 4-1 ratio.
> ...


Dude, MOST people think they're intuitives when they're not. So no, your dinky poll doesn't mean anything, sorry.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

the heart marksman said:


> -.- what makes me a sensor to you?


That wasn't the point. You say that you're different from all the other people who self-type as intuitive. Saying 'I know I'm intuitive' or 'I'm an actual intuitive' is a similarity between you and those people. They all say that. So what do you see as the difference between you and them?



Turi said:


> I ran a poll on Facebook overnight in an MBTI group, asking what types everyone was - to see which preference - N or S - is more likely to be interested in typology.
> 
> As it stands, the poll is 60 for N types, 15 for S types.
> 4-1 ratio.
> ...


The fact is "the poll is 60 for N types, 15 for S types." You then interpret that fact to mean that N types are more interested in typology. @Aluminum Frost could just as easily interpret that as proof for his statement that people prefer to self-type as intuitive. It's a useless fact because it doesn't even slightly cover the point of contention between you two.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AZH said:


> The fact is "the poll is 60 for N types, 15 for S types." You then interpret that fact to mean that N types are more interested in typology. @Aluminum Frost could just as easily interpret that as proof for his statement that people prefer to self-type as intuitive. It's a useless fact because it doesn't even slightly cover the point of contention between you two.


Right now it's 70 to N and 19 to S.

It's not a useless fact in the slightest.

It's made up of people who are not only interested in typology (N) but people who are into enough to join a Facebook group about it *and* interested enough to place their vote on the question I asked.

You can dismiss it, idgaf - fact is it supports what we _already know_ which is that N types are more likely to be interested in typology i.e more likely to join forums about it etc as I've already posted up earlier.

There is a clear correlation between N types and interest in personality theory.

Fact.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Right now it's 70 to N and 19 to S.
> 
> It's not a useless fact in the slightest.
> 
> ...


I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Back up your claim, prove they're not mistypes.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Back up your claim, prove they're not mistypes.


I don't think you understand my claim - it makes sense that they're NOT mistypes due to personality theory being something N types are more likely to be interested in. 

I don't need to prove they're not mistypes.
I'm using the only facts we have.

You need to prove they're mistypes - by default we should assume people who are into Typology, enough to join FB groups and internet forums - are N types.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I don't think you understand my claim - it makes sense that they're NOT mistypes due to personality theory being something N types are more likely to be interested in.
> 
> I don't need to prove they're not mistypes.
> I'm using the only facts we have.
> ...


1. This is circular-reasoning
2. Yes you do, cause if they're mistypes than it's not a fact.
3. Most people self-type as intuitive initially


----------



## remarkable_remark (Apr 28, 2017)

It is rather more common to have sensors being mistyped as intuitives, because of the "bias" for the intuitives in most MBTI tests.
Not to mention descriptions of sensors are dull and very shallow in comparison with the "N" types. Although there are of course some true intuitives who think that they're sensors.
There is no general rule which tells us what "S" type are most likely be mistaken for "N" type. However, from my own experience I've noticed that a lot of ISTJs are mistyped as INTJs, as well as ESTJs for ENTJs.
For the reverse, I know one ISFJ who is mistyped [from my point of view], I think she might be an INFP with just wild Si, but like I said the opposite is much more common.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. This is circular-reasoning
> 2. Yes you do, cause if they're mistypes than it's not a fact.
> 3. Most people self-type as intuitive initially


Please, explain in detail, why in the actual _*fuck*_ people who prefer Sensing would be MORE INTERESTED in something that is not tangible, abstract and full of hypotheticals than an Intuitive.

I'm right, you're wrong - Merry Christmas.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Please, explain in detail, why in the actual _*fuck*_ people who prefer Sensing would be MORE INTERESTED in something that is not tangible, abstract and full of hypotheticals than an Intuitive.
> 
> I'm right, you're wrong - Merry Christmas.


It's not that abstract and like I said by this logic everything is an N topic because it has to do with ideas. Your logic is just bad. It's like saying feelers are much more prone to listening to music cause it's emotional.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> It's not that abstract and like I said by this logic everything is an N topic because it has to do with ideas. Your logic is just bad. It's like saying Fellers are much more prone to listening to music cause it's emotional.


Ugh, christ - you sure you're a T dom, bro?

Please feel free to rejoin the conversation after you learn a bit about what you're talking about.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ugh, christ - you sure you're a T dom, bro?
> 
> Please feel free to rejoin the conversation after you learn a bit about what you're talking about.


All you've done is come up with terrible logic, act like your conclusions are self-evident and throw a temper tantrum when you're asked for proof of your claims and/or someone pokes holes in your logic. Nothing you've said has made any sense. You don't know how to think critically at all so stop pretending. You're the result of teaching a know-nothing anything whatsoever. You're getting too full of yourself.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Aluminum Frost what is an intuitive and what is a senser to you? How are you supposed to determine such a thing? Or is it all just what we are in your judgment?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Aluminum Frost what is an intuitive and what is a senser to you? How are you supposed to determine such a thing? Or is it all just what we are in your judgment?


Intuitives look more to the future, sensors live in the present moment. Sensors interpret things more literally, intuitives theorize and look for patterns. And no, it doesn't have to do with depth of thought. Being into mbti doesn't make you an intuitive. I'm tired of this bs definition of intuition which is basically anything that remotely involves using your brain or thinking for yourself means intuitive.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

...You know, To bridge the gap here, Ti is very analytical and I can see Ti doms liking to pick their brains apart as reason enough to be into Typology. I also see how Ni doms, since this deals with the psychological makeup could be interested as well. 

Either way, it is all still speculative theory...and we are all going by our own observations....


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Lol, does this actually have to be formalised so that everyone sees the argument?

Assertion 1: Intuitives are more into MBTI than sensors.
Proof: Forum/groups/polling/statistics.

Counter argument: But how do we know they are Intuitives?
Assertion 2: A lot of Intuitives are mistyped Sensors.
Proof: ???

Counter-counter argument: No.
Assertion 3: We know they are Intuitives.
Proof: They are more into MBTI.


... so that, indeed, is circular logic. You can't prove one assertion with the other. Now to be fair, there's no evidence for the second assertion either. And it also has the added benefit of being of the no-true-Scotsman variant -- it's always possible to claim they are no _true_ Intuitives, as long as what "Intuitives" are isn't really nailed down. But in any case, citing statistics when the point of contention is the validity of the reports in the first place obviously goes nowhere. I thought @AZH made that pretty clear. But maybe not.

Incidentally, this also means it's impossible to resolve the argument here. But I'm sure everyone knew that. Yes?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> Lol, does this actually have to be formalised so that everyone sees the argument?
> 
> Assertion 1: Intuitives are more into MBTI than sensors.
> Proof: Forum/groups/polling/statistics.
> ...


People always complain about the tests and say they wrongfully typed as intuitive because the tests don't define S and N very well.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

The problem is that intelligent S-types that find themselves curious with, and interested in typology read into the stereotypes and quite easily relate to N descriptions (and considering this is in the realm of abstact theory, we can guess this field of interest will attract a higher level of intelligence); therefore--although not factual--reasoning would allude to many S-types mistyping as N's within this particular interest and within these forums facebook groups, etc. Logic would point in this direction, so @Aluminum Frost can't prove his assertions but, I'd argue, and agree, that many proclaimed N-types are sensors, but of course it's all circular arguments and pointless. So everything I just said is pointless, similarly to life. Bong!


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> People always complain about the tests and say they wrongfully typed as intuitive because the tests don't define S and N very well.


Well, it's been ages since I bothered answering tests, but I don't recall it being _that_ much of a problem. Not a problem in particular, anyway. As long as you were offered a sliding scale, that is -- what indeed is stupid is being forced to pick one, when you feel very "it depends", "both", "neither". I never bothered with those tests. (And indeed, my own S/N split comes out fairly 50/50 when all's said and done, but it's perfectly clear what I am. Which might be a point in your favour -- but then keep in mind ISTPs _are_ somewhat hybride-y. I feel closest to INTPs of all other types; there are types where the S/N difference is much more pronounced.)


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> .
> 
> Incidentally, this also means it's impossible to resolve the argument here. But I'm sure everyone knew that. Yes?


This is basically what I was trying to imply with my last statement but with more "tact" & subtly.


----------



## Vickysworld (Jul 1, 2017)

So the reason why a sensor might have mistyped as an intuitive could be based on the answers that the person WANTED not necessarily what could be true for him/her. So therefore that's the most common way of mistyping in general. However there are other reasons. 

1. That person only based their type on dichotomies. (Introvert or Judging for example)

2. Afraid of being judge by (normally unhealthy) intuitives so they mistype themselves as an intuitive for the sake of belonging and not being slammed on the ground because that person is a sensor and that person may say "sensors are fucking boring, unoriginal and stupid." 

3. Did not look up cognitive functions. (Which ties to my first reason)

4. Took very unreliable tests such as 16personalities (or similar tests) which divides you based on your level of creativity and only test on your dichotomies (Which also ties into my first reason above) (If you aren't then you'll likely get sensor which is unfair since there are plenty of creative sensors out there like intuitives, it just might be a tad harder to find them)

- all stated by a "very bored but also a girl who likes to explain why" INTP


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

TornadicX said:


> This is basically what I was trying to imply with my last statement but with more "tact" & subtly.


Yes, well. Like I said, ISTP XD
The last time I tried "subtle", people started to laugh. I kinda gave up. WYSIWYG it is.


*Edit:*
@Vickysworld, I think it's possible enough just to type yourself with the dichotomies. I said this in the thread next door; I think the number one source of mistypes is actually not knowing yourself well _before_ you type yourself. If you do know yourself, the type will tell you nothing that's really new, and you will be that type. People would just have to let go of the idea of somehow "discovering themselves" through tests and typing.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> All you've done is come up with terrible logic, act like your conclusions are self-evident and throw a temper tantrum when you're asked for proof of your claims and/or someone pokes holes in your logic. Nothing you've said has made any sense. You don't know how to think critically at all so stop pretending. You're the result of teaching a know-nothing anything whatsoever. You're getting too full of yourself.


??

I've provided you links to the statistics for the percentage of types of PerC and Typology Central members, which demonstrated a clear N preference as far as joining typology related forum go.

I created a poll on an active MBTI based FB page that is sitting currently at 75-19 N over S, which demonstrates further, that N types are more likely to be into typology than S types.

There is _nothing_ I've provided you, that is just straight from my head - I've gone way out of my comfort zone, and actually sought out - and linked you - to things that *prove my point*.

In other words, what I'm saying to you, @Aluminum Frost - is that you're talking _clean out of your arse_ and are _making shit up_ for no reason other than to continue arguing, to get the last word - you have been given ample proof that N types are more likely to be interested in typology - this is a conclusion anyone, who even has the vaguest understanding of personality theory, could come up with - but not you, for some ungodly reason.

Everything I've said makes complete sense.

You've been backed into a corner, the evidence is against you - however, in typical SP fashion - you're not going to admit it.
When caught red-handed, SP types have a _very_ difficult time admitting they've been found out, or are wrong - it's due to an inner need/want to be seen as 'impressive' - and of course, admitting to any wrong-doings, or being 'caught in a lie', is going to hardly feed into this need - I understand why you're acting the way you are, I truly do.

Obviously - you're free to continue down this path if you like - it doesn't affect me - you're free to dig yourself further and further into the sands of denial if you want - it's entirely your choice.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> ??
> 
> I've provided you links to the statistics for the percentage of types of PerC and Typology Central members, which demonstrated a clear N preference as far as joining typology related forum go.
> 
> ...


I and 2 other people had to explain it to you already. You're simply not intelligent enough to understand. And now your using ad hominem arguments. Your arguments shouldn't be predicated on logical fallacies.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Turi said:


> ??
> 
> I've provided you links to the statistics for the percentage of types of PerC and Typology Central members, which demonstrated a clear N preference as far as joining typology related forum go.
> 
> ...


All you've _proven_ is that more _self-typed_ N's are into typology than S's. These are not facts, rather arbitrary statistics based around many possibilities. Similarly to the fact that @Aluminum Frost can't prove that these N's you speak of in a random facebook group are actually S's, you can't prove that a few, some, or many aren't mistyped. 

And with your "typical SP fashion," jab, you can surely look into a mirror, because the reflection is quite apparent.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

For the record, yeah I believe most people who type as N are mistypes. Based on anecdotal experiences and the fact that the tests are pretty shitty, but I'm not asserting that it's definitely the case. My point was more that statistics can't be used as evidence because the people typing themselves as N might not even be N in the first place.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Intuitives look more to the future, sensors live in the present moment. Sensors interpret things more literally, intuitives theorize and look for patterns. And no, it doesn't have to do with depth of thought. Being into mbti doesn't make you an intuitive. I'm tired of this bs definition of intuition which is basically anything that remotely involves using your brain or thinking for yourself means intuitive.


Is there some sort of threshold that you are imagining for this? I could imagine that someone (let's say you) sets the cutoff point at a different place and then says that a lot of S's are actually N. A large majority of people in the general population are S though (as determined by official MBTI tests), so at least we can say that the threshold is not skewed to the S side for the official MBTI Form M?

The problem is once you start thinking about typology too much you can't even take the test honestly anymore so I don't really know how to sort of create an objective assessment of type. It is kind of stuck in this subjective realm where people on both sides will say that people should be typed one way or another but they all have slightly different ideas of what should be the defining criteria and where to draw the line. I don't think anyone would look wise denying that there are borderline cases no matter where you draw the line.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Knave said:


> All you've _proven_ is that more _self-typed_ N's are into typology than S's. These are not facts, rather arbitrary statistics based around many possibilities. Similarly to the fact that @Aluminum Frost can't prove that these N's you speak of in a random facebook group are actually S's, you can't prove that a few, some, or many aren't mistyped.
> 
> And with your "typical SP fashion," jab, you can surely look into a mirror, because the reflection is quite apparent.


They're as close to "facts" as we're going to get, without scanning everyones brain and pinpointing their 'type' beyond and all doubt using measures we haven't even created yet.

I couldn't care less about this - as far as I'm concerned, it's more than evident that I've provided everything required to convince even the dopiest shit.
But, apparently not. 
Not my problem.

I know fully well, that I'm right. 
N types are more likely to be interested in typology - an abstract, non-tangible, non-concrete topic - than an S type.
It's truly that simple.

Btw, that wasn't a jab - I specified where I sourced that information from. I didn't just make it up to be insulting.

As for me, no, you'll be pleased to find I'm actually playing the NF/Idealist game of "Mind Reader" (same book, check it out, it's awesome) - in which I claim to know what others are thinking/feeling (but, I made a poll and am able to support this half-decently!), trying to repel everybody that's "out to get me" when this is just me projecting *my own* negative thoughts and emotions onto others (hence the aggressive defense with regards to what is clearly insufficient 'evidence' to build a 'case' with), and taking everything far too personally (ties in to the others).

So.. those are things I'm aware of.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Okay this is seriously annoying now. The problem here is, a lot of you think that MBTI is fixed and unchangeable. That's not true at all. While it is true that one person has only one type, it would not necessarily mean they are incapable of showing traits of other types. The truth is, it would be more accurate to say "I _prefer_ ESFJ" than "I am ESFJ" 

The proof for this is very simple. According to type definitions, and what certain N types will tell you, ESFJs are stupid. There are even NTs who will link IQ to their type and insist they are somehow smarter(???) than the average sensor. But if we were really stuck in one type description, I shouldn't be good, or even have a preference for engineering or any other heavy science fields. Because S types aren't into that stuff right? 

True, I may not be able to become an NT type, but I sure can show certain traits of NT types at certain times, if I experience the need for it. The same goes for N types who are good at S type things like, let's say, cooking. This can go for F vs T as well. 

I think the reason so many people mistype is because the typology community kind of expects you to fit into one box. And people are a lot more than what 4 letters say they are. Ironically, it's the supposedly stupid "sensors" who understand this better, and possibly why we don't show that much of an interest in typology. People on forums, who are biased, who are trying to promote their superiority over other people, have very little understanding of reality and that is concerning. Both N and S types play vital roles in keeping our society alive.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> They're as close to "facts" as we're going to get


So...they're not facts. Got it. You both can conjecture all you want but you dont have actual facts. People mistyped themselves...a lot. A self-reported poll is simply not accurate. This is a very valid point to make when speaking on this subject.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

soop said:


> So...they're not facts. Got it. You both can conjecture all you want but you dont have actual facts. People mistyped themselves...a lot. A self-reported poll is simply not accurate. This is a very valid point to make when speaking on this subject.


No, they're the closest thing to a "fact" as we're going to get.

I'm not sure which part of this you boiz are failing to comprehend - personality theory is abstract - there is nothing tangible here, nothing concrete - it is literally hypothesising over something abstracted from reality.

It makes sense that this would be something an N type would prefer - but, more than merely making sense - I've provided links to support this as well as created a poll to help support it - and, lo and behold - mostly N types.
And it's not even close. It's like 4 to 1.

Sensors are the minority in the typology community.
Fact. Get it through your heads.

No, most of them likely are not mistyped as far as the S/N preference is concerned.

What we're seeing here, folks, is a clear S/N divide, btw - Sensors requiring literal proof - probably wanting like, every single individual to be professionally typed and even then, double checked with a brain scan before their "vote" is considered valid - and the N type, me, simply seeing a clear pattern and that being enough "evidence" to feel convinced by.

Refer to my smokescreen example, because it's playing out right now.

I'm happy to grab little bits of information, and flesh out the rest of it in my head.
They're wanting to remove the smoke altogether in order to understand the big picture, as long as there's smoke - they won't accept it, it's not complete.


Pretty cool.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> No, they're the closest thing to a "fact" as we're going to get.


So they're not facts. Got it. 


> I'm not sure which part of this you boiz are failing to comprehend - personality theory is abstract - there is nothing tangible here, nothing concrete - it is literally hypothesising over something abstracted from reality.


We don't get the part where you keep presenting something as fact when you've admitted its not. No matter how close you think it is to accurate, if its not accurate its just not, and self-reported polls for mbti type are not. Don't see how that is a complicated concept.


> It makes sense that this would be something an N type would prefer - but, more than merely making sense - I've provided links to support this as well as created a poll to help support it - and, lo and behold - mostly N types.


A self-reported poll is not a fact, and you stating something makes sense doesn't make it true. 


> And it's not even close. It's like 4 to 1.


+ or - 100% of the results.


> Sensors are the minority in the typology community.
> Fact. Get it through your heads.


You keep saying its a fact but you have yet to prove it as such. 


> No, most of them likely are not mistyped as far as the S/N preference is concerned.


Are you really gonna use this BS argument after how many times you've mistyped yourself. Doesn't seem very self-aware.



> What we're seeing here, folks, is a clear S/N divide, btw - Sensors requiring literal proof - probably wanting like, every single individual to be professionally typed and even then, double checked with a brain scan before their "vote" is considered valid - and the N type, me, simply seeing a clear pattern and that being enough "evidence" to feel convinced by.


Almost all my professors were N types, they all required accurate information as proof. Its not an N or S thing, its just a thing. 




> I'm happy to grab little bits of information, and flesh out the rest of it in my head.


Good for you,but if you are going to post it in a public forum, don't wig out when people ask for proof and arent impressed by the bs youve posted so far.


> They're wanting to remove the smoke altogether in order to understand the big picture, as long as there's smoke - they won't accept it, it's not complete.


Simply not true. However, if you are going to make a claim you can't really back up people are not required to accept it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

soop said:


> So they're not facts. Got it.
> 
> We don't get the part where you keep presenting something as fact when you've admitted its not. No matter how close you think it is to accurate, if its not accurate its just not, and self-reported polls for mbti type are not. Don't see how that is a complicated concept.
> 
> ...


I dismiss everything you just posted as complete crap, I've already provided you with more than enough to support the FACT that N types are more likely than S types to be into personality theory.

Which part of this, do you not comprehend?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

INTPaul said:


> How can you differentiate between a sensor who has been mistyped as an intuitive, AND an intuitive who has been mistyped as a sensor? Also, which sensor types are most likely to be mistyped as intuitives, AND which intuitive types are most likely to be mistyped as sensors, and why?


A (breakdown) analysis of (X)-functions, to my mind, demonstrates "overlaps" between internal/external cognitive-functions

Ex; 1

(Si) - (Ni) - (Fi) - (Ti) || Rotate on the same axis 


(Se) - (Ne) - (Te) - (Fe) || Rotate on the same axis 


Ex; 2

(Se) is more like (Te) than any other function.

Understanding (Se)-users gives strong insight into (Te) users: (both are on the same axis; thus utilizing the same attributes in _distinct _ways).

ENTJ and INTP are nothing alike || but INTJ and INTP are almost twins.

____________

The "strongest" distinctions, with more noticable similarities are among (Si + Fi + Ti + Ni)

The "strongest" distinctions, with more noticable similiarities are among (Se - Te - Fe - Ne)

____________

The "strongest" most* important * noticable differences are among (*T - F*): (F - fixates on subjects - (re: anatomic-well being || T - fixates on non-subjects (re: abiotic structures / object / properties of non-subjects)
____________


Rather than separating functions from the "whole" or breaking them down as 'individual' brains which is where the sense-making begins to deterioriate, keep them together as "one brain" with distinct parts :: 


It is best determined utilizing non-'perceptive' functions to determine 'distinctions' among the perceptive-functions - it is best to first, pin-point the (logical-processing units), and where their attentions are directed - (Si/Fe) axis will be fixation on (*X, Y, Z*): The (Ni/Te) axis will be fixated on (*A, B, C*). 

Like any "diagnoises" certain side-effects / symptoms will be present.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

The other reason people seem hesitant to type themselves as sensors is that they figure all it is is seeing ''what is''. A red balloon is a fickin' red balloon, end of story. That's kinda lame and they don't want that to be the primary way they see things. But in actuality it's much more than that. For starters sensing ultimately works in tandem with intuition, so everything a sensor sees and experiences will end up taking on a unique form through their lower intuition, even if it's inferior.

Likewise, Intuitives can't intuit anything if it's not based on some form of concrete reality or experience. Otherwise they'd be living in a blank void.

The only difference is which one takes precedence over the other when you filter information. At first glance, yes, it seems like Intuitives have it made because they immediately go to creative mode first. But that can also cause them to needlessly see a mountain behind a mole hill when in reality there isn't any.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Turi said:


> Ugh, christ - you sure you're a T dom, bro?
> 
> Please feel free to rejoin the conversation after you learn a bit about what you're talking about.


Pot, meet kettle.

You have spent a lot of time pretending that facts aren't to be picked apart - even though that's completely normal and a huge part of science. You also pretend that interpretation and perspective don't exist. Again, a part of science. You'd fail university in an instant with such a reasoning process.

You also avoid all reason and just say "I dismiss everything you just posted as complete crap" without addressing a single point. It's pretty obvious that you're in way over your head.

Yet you're claiming other people don't know what they're talking about?



Stevester said:


> The other reason people seem hesitant to type themselves as sensors is that they figure all it is is seeing ''what is''. A red balloon is a fickin' red balloon, end of story. That's kinda lame and they don't want that to be the primary way they see things. But in actuality it's much more than that. For starters sensing ultimately works in tandem with intuition, so everything a sensor sees and experiences will end up taking on a unique form through their lower intuition, even if it's inferior.


It doesn't help that literally everything positive is ascribed to intuitive types. Like "INTJs the scientists."

Jung ascribed the scientific mindset to STs. I.E. Concrete, observable reasoning processes that reject abstraction.


----------



## Mez (May 3, 2017)

The more introverted answers a person gives on tests, the higher is the chance of him getting an N result.
Most people who spend their life away on internet forums, social networks, and reading into psychology theory will be prone to greater introversion, hence many of them will mistype as N's.

Unless there is a single, unified, world-wide accepted method/test to identify a person's type, and for as long as people will keep getting typed or keep typing themselves by using a selection of random methods/books/theories, none of the statistics will be true or in any way verifiable.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AZH said:


> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> You have spent a lot of time pretending that facts aren't to be picked apart - even though that's completely normal and a huge part of science. You also pretend that interpretation and perspective don't exist. Again, a part of science. You'd fail university in an instant with such a reasoning process.
> 
> ...


No, not "pot meet kettle".

He didn't make any points worth addressing, and yes - I am in over my head - I'm being met with complete and utter boneheadedness - what more does it take?

I've provided links that prove there are more N types than S types on PerC and TypologyCentral - by miles - and I created a poll on Facebook that's currently at 93-24 in favour of N types as well, that's almost a ratio of 4-1.

How in the actual fuck, does this _not_ prove - when coupled with the fact that personality theory is an abstract topic in the first place - that N types are more likely than S types to be interested in typology?

I've done my part, and been met with absolutely nothing but "oh b-b-b-but how do you know they're not all mistypes, bro? :smug:"

That's it. That's literally what I've been met with, which is absolutely hilarious considering the topic.

I'm over it - it's not my problem if people want to be the worlds dopiest pricks.
Straight up not my problem.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Mez said:


> The more introverted answers a person gives on tests, the higher is the chance of him getting an N result.
> Most people who spend their life away on internet forums, social networks, and reading into psychology theory will be prone to greater introversion, hence many of them will mistype as N's.


Ah, but why are they mistypes?
Internet forums about what?
Psychology theory.. does this sound like the land of concrete, tangible, real-world verifiable sensing? No.
The people who spend their time on these kinds of things, are most likely to _be_ intuitives.
It makes no sense to just fight everyone as if they're "not really intuitives" unless they provide evidence to the contrary - almost half the population - 39.4% - are intuitives.

It's not exactly "rare" and it makes perfect sense, and has already been proven - that N types are more likely to be interested in typology.

It's a bit like being interested in football, joining a football team, and then accusing everybody who likes football that they're not a sensor.
Why the fuck would they be mostly N types? They wouldn't.

It's literally the exact same thing here, just the other way around.



> Unless there is a single, unified, world-wide accepted method/test to identify a person's type, and for as long as people will keep getting typed or keep typing themselves by using a selection of random methods/books/theories, none of the statistics will be true or in any way verifiable.


Well, there is - here's the link:
https://www.mbtionline.com

That's the test with over 50 years of research behind it.
There's nothing remotely related to random methods, books and theories with regards to that test.
It's foundations are solid, it's proven the test of time, it's relied upon by about a bajillion companies around the world, it produces accurate results, it's *the test* to take, to accurately identify your type.

If you haven't taken it, it's worth the $50. imo.

It helped me clear up my type - I dick around with other types and pretend to be types other than INFJ due to what feel like no more than 'technicalities' (cognitive functions) but, no, official results are INFJ, and the way it lays out what the preferences actually mean is brilliant.

It kicks the shit out of every other online test, I don't care what anyone says.
Also, you then have an account to access loads of legitimate, credible information i.e statistics - which is awesome, because you can clearly see all the blogs who say "INFJs are less than 1% of the population" are written by people who don't know what they're talking about and are relying on information from like 20 years ago (2.8% of the population are INFJs, fwiw).


----------



## Mez (May 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ah, but why are they mistypes?
> Internet forums about what?
> Psychology theory.. does this sound like the land of concrete, tangible, real-world verifiable sensing? No.
> The people who spend their time on these kinds of things, are most likely to _be_ intuitives.
> ...


Not gonna waste money on a con scheme


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Mez said:


> Not gonna waste money on a con scheme


Cool, so why are you here?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> No, not "pot meet kettle".
> 
> He didn't make any points worth addressing, and yes - I am in over my head - I'm being met with complete and utter boneheadedness - what more does it take?
> 
> ...


This is an appeal to the stone fallacy and multiple people had to explain to you why you're wrong. Yet you still bulldoze through, repeating your claim as if it's evidence. You don't know what you're talking about Turi, it's blatantly obvious.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Is there some sort of threshold that you are imagining for this? I could imagine that someone (let's say you) sets the cutoff point at a different place and then says that a lot of S's are actually N. A large majority of people in the general population are S though (as determined by official MBTI tests), so at least we can say that the threshold is not skewed to the S side for the official MBTI Form M?
> 
> The problem is once you start thinking about typology too much you can't even take the test honestly anymore so I don't really know how to sort of create an objective assessment of type. It is kind of stuck in this subjective realm where people on both sides will say that people should be typed one way or another but they all have slightly different ideas of what should be the defining criteria and where to draw the line. I don't think anyone would look wise denying that there are borderline cases no matter where you draw the line.


You could say that about anything and I'll admit, S/N seem to bleed into one another more than other dichotomies. I just think it should be realistic, it should describe actual people. The bar is set incredibly low to be N, which is why many people wrongfully believe they're N. Some of the S descriptions are just ridiculous and fit virtually nobody, so it's no wonder most people don't resonate much with them. The N descriptions are a lot less one-dimensional. Whereas it's pretty much implied if you're S that you can't think, only act. The ISTJ description is especially bad. Is this describing a person or a robot? "ISTJs are organized and like to work" is a lot of the descriptions. "ISTPs fix things" ISTPs can be analytical, but only when it has to do with fixing stuff. It's just bad.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ah, but why are they mistypes?
> Internet forums about what?
> Psychology theory.. does this sound like the land of concrete, tangible, real-world verifiable sensing? No.
> The people who spend their time on these kinds of things, are most likely to _be_ intuitives.
> ...


Awesome, @Turi, so will you gift us, and all the facebook people, this foolproof test. This is it, guys! The one. You're the one, Neo, I mean, Turi. And there's no way to mistype on this! No way! The fact that you scored INFJ on this test gives me pause, when I think of you as an ISxP, but that's beside the point--you could surely be an INFJ.

Anyway, you've been digging in the wrong bag for like five pages now. I don't think anybody has argued that intuitives won't be more likely to be interested in personality theory, and find themselves on this forum or facebook groups related to typology, but your _proof_ is not factual, where you expect people to peer through the mist and agree these are "facts". We've only argued that you can't prove these people aren't mistyped, so your _facts_ are nothing but pencil marks, easily eraseable. Obviously we can't prove they are mistyped, but our vision reaches that perspective as well, whereas yours is like a beam from cyclops, stuck in a linear trajectory.

First you've claimed "facts," then "basically facts," and now you're hurling insults because we're all too dumb to realize how dumb we are, when you're the one being overly stubborn, narrow-minded in perspective, pinning us all as sensors because you think we're unable to pull the curtain aside. We could just as easily, and immaturely, say, "Well, it's obvious who isn't the _Thinker_ in this thread," because you've been pissing on the same tree for pages, missing the point. Nobody is arguing that intuitves wouldn't be more prevalent within this field of interest, we're just poking holes in your lack of logic in how you're deeming this _factual_.

BTW isn't there links for free to the official MBTI test somewhere? Who would pay for that?


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Mez said:


> The more introverted answers a person gives on tests, the higher is the chance of him getting an N result.


And this is another super valid point. Seems like the second a question hints to you having your own thoughts, you are N. Like what?? EVERYONE has their own thoughts and perspective. This can literally be linked to any function. Especially Fi and Ti since it's subjective, personal _judgements_. And it just happens that everyone has one of these in their stack.

Hell, sometimes even my Te, which is supposed to be super objective, can feel really personal to me, like _''Am I the only one here who thinks this reeks of bullshit??''_ That's not intuition. Seeing something different than everyone else is not intuition. Having ''rebellious'', non-conformist thoughts is not intuition. 

And it's only human nature to want to think of ourselves as independent thinkers (and we all are). Yeah, even ESFJs for one.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Idk, but most sensors I know take a lot of pride in living in "reality", especially after 25, except maybe if they are EPs and want to party.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Back on page 2, Turi linked to a January post of mine that has a lot of what follows, but I've tweaked/expanded it significantly, cuz it's Christmas and you've all been good.

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

I've been at INTJforum for eight years, and PerC for five years, and Typology Central for four years, and one of the lamest memes that regularly pops up at these forums is the notion that there are lots of _fake N's_ around because _it's cooler to be an N_, or because those silly _dichotomy-based tests_ are full of items where, duh, anybody's obviously going to choose the N stuff, bla bla bla — or lots of _fake INTJs_ around, because everybody wants to be a _Mastermind_, bla bla bla.

Below are some membership stats for Personality Cafe and Typology Central. For each type, the first percentage is the percentage of that type at the forum, the second percentage (in parentheses) is the estimated "general population" percentage from the official MBTI folks (from this page), and the final number on the right is the self-selection ratio for that type — i.e., the ratio of the forum percentage to the general population percentage.

November 2014 membership stats for Personality Café:

INFJ — 9133 — 15.7% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.5
INTJ — 7307 — 12.6% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.0
INFP — 11865 — 20.4% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.6
INTP — 7825 — 13.5% (3.3%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 3709 — 6.4% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.0
ENTJ — 1681 — 2.9% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.6
ENFJ — 1904 — 3.3% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFP — 4915 — 8.5% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.0
ISTP — 1926 — 3.3% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.6
ISFP — 1986 — 3.4% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.4
ISTJ — 2094 — 3.6% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.3
ESTP — 635 — 1.1% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.3
ISFJ — 1374 — 2.4% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.2
ESFP — 620 — 1.1% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 573 — 1.0% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 542 — 0.9% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1

November 2014 membership stats for Typology Central:

INFJ — 1782 — 16.1% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.7
INTJ — 1437 — 13.0% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.2
INTP — 1958 — 17.7% (3.3%) — ssr: 5.4
INFP — 2016 — 18.2% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 781 — 7.0% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.2
ENTJ — 298 — 2.7% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.5
ENFP — 1156 — 10.4% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFJ — 321 — 2.9% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.2
ISTP — 304 — 2.7% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.5
ISFP — 256 — 2.3% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.3
ISTJ — 278 — 2.5% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.2
ESTP — 100 — 0.9% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.2
ISFJ — 181 — 1.6% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFP — 84 — 0.8% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 74 — 0.7% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 65 — 0.6% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.05

Looking at the PerC stats (the larger sample): 62% of the members are INs (as compared to 11% of the general population), and 83% of the members are N's (as compared to 27% of the general population).

Every S type has a self-selection ratio of 0.6 or lower, and no N type has a self-selection ratio below 1.0. And the _lowest_ self-selection ratio for the IN types is _13 times higher_ than the _highest_ self-selection ratio for the ES types.

The stats suggest than an average MBTI IN is something like _40 times more likely_ than an average MBTI ES to join a personality-related internet forum.

And the stats for Typology Central are _strikingly similar_ to the ones for PerC.

All four of the IN types are way overrepresented at the all-types forums. And what's more, the self-selection ratios of all twelve of the other types are also strikingly consistent with a type-related explanation that says that (1) an N preference has a very large impact on the likelihood that someone will participate in personality-related internet forums, and (2) introversion also has a substantial impact (but not as large as an N preference).

And anybody who thinks that a large percentage of forum N's are mistyped S's because it's _cooler to be an N_, or because the S/N items on the MBTI (or on "online tests") erroneously skew people in the N direction, is hereby advised that S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't close to 50/50 — and _the skew is in the S direction_. Less than 30% of people come out N, according to official MBTI statistics.

And I don't buy the idea that there's a big N skew in "online tests." I've been participating in type-me exercises for over eight years now — including seeing lots of people's results on the _official_ MBTI — and it's pretty rare, in my experience, for an MBTI forum member to come out N on HumanMetrics or one of the other unofficial online tests and come out S on the official MBTI.

Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.


If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?
N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?!

But again... around 70% of the U.S. population prefers the S responses to those items. Because they're S's.

As for INTJs specifically... Did Keirsey call INTJs the "Masterminds"? Yes, he did. And he called INTPs the "Architects," and INFPs the "Healers," and INFJs the "Counselors." And if those INTJ self-selection ratios largely result from the fact that it's so damn cool to be a freaking _Mastermind_, well, I guess it must be almost twice as cool to be a Counselor, eh? And pretty damn cool to be a Healer or an Architect, too.

It may also be worth noting that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all — can you guess? — INs.

Returning to the PerC stats... 58,000 members is a _very large sample_. And when you're dealing with correlational stats, the larger the sample, the more meaningful dramatically lopsided results are — because the probability that it's just a random, flukey outlier sample goes way down (or in the case of a 58,000-subject sample, _waaaaay_ down).

Are there mistypings? Of course there are mistypings. But if you want to assume that the magnitude of those mistypings could be sufficiently ginormous to mean that the _40-to-freaking-1_ ssr ratio between IN's and ES's doesn't really reflect some relatively dramatic degree of lopsidedness between IN's and ES's, then you'd _also_ have to assume that it's much, much, much more common for an extraverted forumite to mistype as an introvert than _vice versa_, and much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more common for an S forumite to mistype as a N than _vice versa_.

If the ratio of IN ssr's to ES ssr's in a _200-subject_ sample was 40-to-1, you could potentially hope to explain that away without having to twist yourself into a pretzel to accomplish it, especially if they're subjects who've typed themselves in an uncontrolled variety of ways. Buuut if the ratio's 40-to-1 in a _58,000-subject sample_ and you want to claim that there are a bunch of, uh, _extenuating circumstances_ that could mean that hell noes, IN's aren't _substantially more likely to be interested in personality_ than ES's, then you should be prepared to look foolish in the process.

And it's important to stress that it would be fair to say that IN's are _substantially more likely to be interested in personality_ if the ssr ratio was just, say, 10-to-1. So you could twist yourself into a pretzel and sound tin-foil-hatty and convince somebody that the lopsidedness was only _a quarter as great_ as those stats indicate (10-to-1 rather than 40-to-1) and... so what?

I don't care that much if it's 40-to-1 or 25-to-1 or 10-to-1, and I'm certainly not presenting those stats to say, hey, folks, it's _exactly 40-to-1_ (rather than 25-to-1 or 10-to-1). I'm presenting those stats because, given the very large sample size, and given the huge lopsidedness, I'd respectfully suggest that somebody would probably have to be wearing some kind of ideological blinders to think it's even _remotely_ likely that IN's aren't — shall I say it again? — _substantially more likely to be interested in personality_ than ES's.

As a final note, it's also not uncommon to hear people say that there are a lot of S's mistyped as N's because they're N's _by the dichotomies_, but they're S's if you analyze their _cognitive functions,_ man.

So reckful is here to remind everyone that there's a technical term for people who are _dichotomy N's_ but _cognitive function S's_.

They're called _N's_.

Thanks for listening, and enjoy the holidays — abstractly, concretely, or through some festive abstract/concrete, conscious/unconscious, and possibly inebriated mix.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> Back on page 2, Turi linked to a January post of mine that has a lot of what follows, but I've tweaked/expanded it significantly, cuz it's Christmas and you've all been good.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


idk, I think this just shows that INs are more likely to join a personality forum, but not necessarily that they take more interest in general
most personality polls I've seen in other big places on the net, like reddit and 4chan, INs along with ENPs are pretty much almost everyone who goes there
so there's a chance it's just because of the internet, since INs live here


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

@reckful, you don't know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Kidding, and at least Turi has someone to bring a bit more _factual_ evidence in what he was tying to get across, but we all agree that more N's will be found on this forum, interested in typology, etc. Turi was just being a turd to a few members in this thread. 

Anyway, do you have a link to the questions of an official MBTI test? I know I've seen them before.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Knave said:


> Anyway, do you have a link to the questions of an official MBTI test? I know I've seen them before.


Here's an online copy. It doesn't score you automatically, but it shows which preference corresponds to each response.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> idk, I think this just shows that INs are more likely to join a personality forum, but not necessarily that they take more interest in general
> most personality polls I've seen in other big places on the net, like reddit and 4chan, INs along with ENPs are pretty much almost everyone who goes there
> so there's a chance it's just because of the internet, since INs live here


???

You're literally saying "idk if I agree but I definitely agree and have seen this play out on other forums as well".


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Knave said:


> @reckful, you don't know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Kidding, and at least Turi has someone to bring a bit more _factual_ evidence in what he was tying to get across, but we all agree that more N's will be found on this forum, interested in typology, etc. Turi was just being a turd to a few members in this thread.
> 
> Anyway, do you have a link to the questions of an official MBTI test? I know I've seen them before.


I wasn't being a turd to anyone, I provided everything necessary and was met with a god damn brick wall of ignorance.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> ???
> 
> You're literally saying "idk if I agree but I definitely agree and have seen this play out on other forums as well".


No you didn't read it right


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I wasn't being a turd to anyone, I provided everything necessary and was met with a god damn brick wall of ignorance.


Dude you threw a temper tantrum when people didn't mindlessly swallow your bullshit.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

reckful said:


> Back on page 2, Turi linked to a January post of mine that has a lot of what follows, but I've tweaked/expanded it significantly, cuz it's Christmas and you've all been good.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


N isn't defined well is what the problem is. Anything remotely involving using your brain gets you typed as an intuitive which is just stupid. Dichotomy S/N is too black and white. Functions do a better job of explaining it, sorry. As for mistypes, I bet if you grabbed random people off the street and had them take a test they'd mostly type as N. As a whole yeah, Ns are probably more interested in mbti. But not to the degree people make it seem. Seriously, go to any of these "What's my mbti type? take the test yourself" videos and read the comments. Especially the Catrific ones, the comments will be around 90% of people claiming to be intuitives and 60% claiming to be INxJ. And this isn't a deep interest in mbti. It's just some randoms online that took the test and wanted to see what they'd get.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> N isn't defined well is what the problem is. Anything remotely involving using your brain gets you typed as an intuitive which is just stupid. Dichotomy S/N is too black and white. Functions do a better job of explaining it, sorry. As for mistypes, I bet if you grabbed random people off the street and had them take a test they'd mostly type as N. As a whole yeah, Ns are probably more interested in mbti. But not to the degree people make it seem. Seriously, go to any of these "What's my mbti type? take the test yourself" videos and read the comments. Especially the Catrific ones, the comments will be around 90% of people claiming to be intuitives and 60% claiming to be INxJ. And this isn't a deep interest in mbti. It's just some randoms online that took the test and wanted to see what they'd get.


No, you're wrong - stop talking shit.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> No you didn't read it right


lol, then rephrase it. 

Because it is "idk if that's right".. and then you provide an example that supports it being right.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> No, you're wrong - stop talking shit.


Not an argument, sit down kid.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> lol, then rephrase it.
> 
> Because it is "idk if that's right".. and then you provide an example that supports it being right.


Like I said, if the internet has over representation of INs it only gives an image of who is more likely to participate in online communities for MBTI, it doesn't necessarily show true interest.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Like I said, if the internet has over representation of INs it only gives an image of who is more likely to participate in online communities for MBTI, it doesn't necessarily show true interest.


What would you estimate is the population of people who don't have the internet, yet are interested in typology?

I'll tell you.
It's about 3.

What about Facebook? My poll is at 102-26 in favour of N.
Everybody uses FB. It ain't the "realm of N" in any way.
Yet, who's joined a typology group and shown enough interest to vote on my poll?

Mostly N types.

Everyone who disagrees with me is being a total dope.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> What would you estimate is the population of people who don't have the internet, yet are interested in typology?
> 
> I'll tell you.
> It's about 3.
> ...


You haven't proven they're not mistyped so it's not evidence.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You haven't proven they're not mistyped so it's not evidence.


Anyone know what kind of thickheadedness this is?


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

mp2 said:


> ...


Glad to see you settled on ISFJ. I remember people doubting your choice on the INFJ forum some time ago, but at that time, I had a feeling you were on the right track. Perhaps ISFJ wasn't quite the best match yet, but it was close.

And @Jewl, very insightful posts as usual!


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

I have been thinking about Ni and Si for a long time and I have only recently began to take Si into some more refined research territory and I am beginning to think that I am actually an Si Aux and not Ni as I have believed myself to think for a long time. 

I understand the confusion between ESXJ and ENXJ as both the sensing and intuition functions are beside each other and they can look and behave in very similar ways at times. 

Both processes can be hard to dissect from a far away view, but until you begin to understand things, then you can see the discreet differences between both processes. 

Sometimes you really need to zoom in and study everything in more depth to know the differences between processes that appear similar to each other. 

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

VirtualInsanity said:


> I have been thinking about Ni and Si for a long time and I have only recently began to take Si into some more refined research territory and I am beginning to think that I am actually an Si Aux and not Ni as I have believed myself to think for a long time.
> 
> I understand the confusion between ESXJ and ENXJ as both the sensing and intuition functions are beside each other and they can look and behave in very similar ways at times.
> 
> ...


When you're next to an ESFJ you really see the differences between the two.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Yeah, I guess that I seem more detached and quiet; like I am still there talking, connecting and socializing, but I'm not. If that makes sense? 

There are three versions of me and one of me is there in the moment, one in the future and the other lost in the past. 

I think people tend to view ESFJs as being more present in a sense. More grounded. Less abstract and more attentive to the needs of the people around them and let the atmosphere affect them in a different sense. 

I think that ENFJs are still there and connected to the environment and atmosphere via the Fe+Se combo, but are somewhere else in their minds. Less grounded. More abstract. Attentive in a different way, if that makes sense? 

They are more concerned with what will happen in a sense rather than with what is happening. 

I guess if we imagine a hard bouncy ball as being Fe and Pi combos, we could say in a sense that ESFJs are the inner layer. They are protecting what is there and what has been there. 

ENFJs are the outer layer. They are protecting what is there and what will come. Hard rubber shell. 

I know that sounds weird (and probably not 100% correct) but that is how I visualize it. 

The way I view it is that ENFJs aren't any better or worse than ESFJs are, they just preform different tasks in different areas using a similar concept. 
@Xcopy (forgot to tag you, sorry lol)

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Re: ExFJs - what happens when you think of the 'tertiary' function being the same direction as the 'auxiliary' and inferior?
I.E ENFJ - Fe-Ni-Si-Ti and ESFJ Fe-Si-Ni-Ti.

That makes way more sense to me.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

VirtualInsanity said:


> Yeah, I guess that I seem more detached and quiet; like I am still there talking, connecting and socializing, but I'm not. If that makes sense?
> 
> There are three versions of me and one of me is there in the moment, one in the future and the other lost in the past.
> 
> ...


Well, I think it would be extremely safe to say, that an ESFJ would definitely be much further on the extrovert scale than an ENFJ would be. I've worked with one before, she was a very nice and polite person, loved to talk to anyone nearby, but because I was usually nearby, I was a particular favorite. She would constantly talk to me about her life, ask about mine, talk to the random customers politely, then talk about some of them behind their backs, and express her actual thoughts on the scenario privately. Yet, she still cared enough to help the customers. I on the otherhand was also polite, and while I did not talk to a lot of customers to such an extent, I always went above and beyond to help them. I always was quite earnest about helping other people out, while she would try more for me as opposed to trying as hard for the customer. ESFJ's genuinely care about the people in their daily lives, people they know, and can be talkative and polite to people they don't know. ENFJ's on the otherhand tend to inwardly dive into themselves and focus on more than just the people in their daily lives, but people in general are faced with their sincerity. Se isn't a very verbal function, it''s a focus towards interacting with what is around you. I find myself both, inwardly reflecting while I walk and talk and work at the same time. However, I don't tell as many stories as the ESFJ, nor can I relate to people as well as she could. I know what I can say to get by, but what I focus on isn't apart of the common consensus. 

However, then comes the ESFJ ENFJ problem. We both are aware that a lot of conversation is ridiculous, but I'm aware that I have to watch what I say around her, as she enjoys gossip and would tell me about what other people would say. Whenever someone does this about someone else, I immediately make the assumption that I am not off limits from this as well, so I then proceed with caution about what I say exactly. This is a natural process I have with talking to others, whereas I get the feeling she doesn't take the same into consideration as often.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Turi said:


> Re: ExFJs - what happens when you think of the 'tertiary' function being the same direction as the 'auxiliary' and inferior?
> I.E ENFJ - Fe-Ni-Si-Ti and ESFJ Fe-Si-Ni-Ti.
> 
> That makes way more sense to me.


Why would that make sense?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Xcopy said:


> Why would that make sense?


Well, it's the official stance with regards to the direction of the functions, for a start.


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

@Xcopy @VirtualInsanity

do you believe an ENFJ with high preference for Se could easily mistype as an ESXP type? I certainly have.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Snowdori said:


> @Xcopy @VirtualInsanity
> 
> do you believe an ENFJ with high preference for Se could easily mistype as an ESXP type? I certainly have.


At first glance, I think so, but if they were to seem close to any type it would be ESTP, and even then it isn't as likely due to the varying levels of Fe. Tert Fe and Dom Fe wouldn't appear in the same manner.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Turi said:


> Well, it's the official stance with regards to the direction of the functions, for a start.


Ah.. Had a slow moment, lol.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Xcopy - I don't know if the gossip thing is necessarily an ESFJ thing. I highly doubt it, actually. My mother-in-law is an almost stereotypical ESFJ... she cares a lot for family, loves getting everyone together, loves playing the host. Genuinely and sincerely loves seeing everyone together sharing stuff. But she also has probably the best boundaries of anyone I know. Overbearing she is most certainly not. Respects peoples' privacy and autonomy and would consider it horrible to gossip. Goes above and beyond for everyone whose life she touches. She's very open minded, not closed at all. 

She's actually a fantastic example of an ESFJ who everyone would agree is an ESFJ - but also defies all the negative connotations that comes with the ESFJ type. And it's not because she's older and wiser. I've known other ESFJs who are younger and the same. 

Also two of my besties identify with the ESFJ type, and I never have to be careful what I say around them. They respect people. They take individuals seriously. 

I feel like gossip... and what types engage in gossip probably isn't necessarily a type related thing. That and passive aggressive behaviors, favoritism, and going behind peoples' back. I don't know why people think of these traits and relate them with the ESFJ type. Actually, I do - it stems from very poor descriptions of Fe, and then mixed with a general idea of "SJness".


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Northern Lights said:


> That's not the point, though. The question was not whether it appeals to anyone in an intellectual way, but precisely whether it does an "impressive" job in sorting. I don't doubt that the questions were carefully chosen. The question is whether that is enough.
> 
> Yes, and I call it -- for me -- nonsense. I didn't mean "only slightly more preferred", I meant literally both. I have no preference. Both. One isn't slightly more fitting than the other. That both. The result is that I skip the question -- or the entire test, while I'm at it. It doesn't do anything for me, I have no idea what to do with that. I'll just keep staring blankly at the paper. I guess I could toss a coin.
> 
> ...


I kinda totally forgot about this. 
@Northern Lights - you mean saying that thinking abstractly or the ability to abstract isn't something only those with a preference for Intuition can do? I think it is stating the obvious. Unfortunately, I do think it needs to be stated, because there is this association in peoples' minds between thinking about "abstract" things and Intuition. Usually what is "abstract" or thinking "abstractly" is never defined, making it even more confusing. 

Legitimately all the Ti-doms, including the ISTPs, do a lot of "abstracting". This is because Ti is essentially defining/categorizing things subjectively. Wanting to categorize/define stuff in a way that fits in to how you, the subject, understand the world. I don't think means Ti-doms are just all automatically intelligent. Just because your go-to way of thinking is to define/categorize things doesn't mean you do it well.  

I also think that people often mistake Thinking for Intuition... forgetting Intuition is a _perceiving _function. Jung called the perceiving functions the irrational functions. It does not sort out information. It just takes in. It sees. I feel like this could be part of the reason why you feel so caught between S/N. 

Something that characterizes the conversations between me and my Ti-dom husband is that he likes to think in order... he takes his time to sort through things, to form what I think is this chain of reasoning. Very much like your "let's consider this theory of X in order to understand why X isn't working". 

I don't do this. When we talk, there's a lot of defining things. We connect on that level. Where we differ is just how associative I am. I find relationships and meanings between ideas, which then remind me of other things. According to him, I'd make connections between things faster than he could realize them, and only later would he find they were valid. And I laughed, because over half the time I don't care whether the connections I make are valid. It's all in the fun of pursuing ideas. Plus, I think my dominant Ne has less to do with how I associate ideas, and is much more about the excitement of chasing after the next closed door - the next "could be". Perceiving as many possibilities in the external world as possible, getting inspired and feeling the subjective significance of them (Fi), and chasing after them... endlessly. 

My INTP husband has much more in common with ISTPs than with me, I think. His S/N axis is also much less clear than his Thinking/Feeling. Jung thought it would be this way too. Doesn't surprise me you have a hard time relating to one or the other. I think that is probably when typing by MBTI dichotomy gets dicey.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Jewl said:


> @Xcopy - I don't know if the gossip thing is necessarily an ESFJ thing. I highly doubt it, actually. My mother-in-law is an almost stereotypical ESFJ... she cares a lot for family, loves getting everyone together, loves playing the host. Genuinely and sincerely loves seeing everyone together sharing stuff. But she also has probably the best boundaries of anyone I know. Overbearing she is most certainly not. Respects peoples' privacy and autonomy and would consider it horrible to gossip. Goes above and beyond for everyone whose life she touches. She's very open minded, not closed at all.


Oh no, I wasn't being negative when I said that, though I can see how it would be taken as such. I mean, my co-worker was especially funny, she made me laugh a lot. She was also respectful of my privacy. She just tends to be more interested in other people outside of herself.



> She's actually a fantastic example of an ESFJ who everyone would agree is an ESFJ - but also defies all the negative connotations that comes with the ESFJ type. And it's not because she's older and wiser. I've known other ESFJs who are younger and the same.


Fair enough, but I've known ESFJ's on the opposite end of the spectrum and they also show traits similar to the ones you're describing. So I suppose, I am saying that I tend to come across some *not* fantastic examples.



> Also two of my besties identify with the ESFJ type, and I never have to be careful what I say around them. They respect people. They take individuals seriously.


That's an interesting trait to me, because a lot of the ones I've dealt with only tell other people things someone else said behind their back, because they believe that it's important to be open. If the social atmosphere is already open, then why would you need to worry about it to begin with? I believe it is probably more or less the case that you as an individual most likely believe in speaking matters between you and someone else should be focused upon you and the other person. Whereas I, usually talk to someone else about the other person and because I seek their input and then will figure out how to proceed with them.




> I feel like gossip... and what types engage in gossip probably isn't necessarily a type related thing. That and passive aggressive behaviors, favoritism, and going behind peoples' back. I don't know why people think of these traits and relate them with the ESFJ type. Actually, I do - it stems from very poor descriptions of Fe, and then mixed with a general idea of "SJness".


As much as I would like to deny it, there is always some truth in stereotypes, and I wouldn't equate it to an SJness either. However, I would agree that it is important for the more favorable highlights of a personality type to be brought to the light as well, because I would not be surprised if many people specifically dislike the idea of being SJ types due to lackluster descriptions that spend more time establishing what place in society an SJ type is rather than establishing what they are and the good and the bad aspects of them as they should for all personality types.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Xcopy said:


> Well, I think it would be extremely safe to say, that an ESFJ would definitely be much further on the extrovert scale than an ENFJ would be.


Definitely. My Mother (who I suspect is an ESFJ) can go all day around people and not need a break. I guess this is in part because of her job, but she does find social interaction a lot easier than I do and her socializing seems to run smoother than mine does. 



> I've worked with one before, she was a very nice and polite person, loved to talk to anyone nearby, but because I was usually nearby, I was a particular favorite.
> 
> She would constantly talk to me about her life, ask about mine, talk to the random customers politely, then talk about some of them behind their backs, and express her actual thoughts on the scenario privately.
> Yet, she still cared enough to help the customers.


Yeah. Definitely sounds very ESFJ. Sounds a lot like my Mom. 

Sounds very tiring after a while too xD



> I, on the otherhand was also polite, and while I did not talk to a lot of customers to such an extent, I always went above and beyond to help them. I always was quite earnest about helping other people out, while she would try more for me as opposed to trying as hard for the customer.


Yes. I have no problem helping other people out and being polite when it comes down to things, but I don't do it always but when I do those things, I do it earnestly. Especially when it comes to loved ones or good friends.



> ESFJ's genuinely care about the people in their daily lives, people they know, and can be talkative and polite to people they don't know. ENFJ's on the otherhand tend to inwardly dive into themselves and focus on more than just the people in their daily lives, but people in general are faced with their sincerity.





> Se isn't a very verbal function, it''s a focus towards interacting with what is around you. I find myself both, inwardly reflecting while I walk and talk and work at the same time. However, I don't tell as many stories as the ESFJ, nor can I relate to people as well as she could. I know what I can say to get by, but what I focus on isn't apart of the common consensus.


This I totally agree with. I do A LOT of unconscious mind surfing and always find the answers when I am in the moment. I don't tell a lot of stories either. And I say and do what I need to get by. I prefer ideas over people. 



> However, then comes the ESFJ ENFJ problem. We both are aware that a lot of conversation is ridiculous, but I'm aware that I have to watch what I say around her, as she enjoys gossip and would tell me about what other people would say.


Whenever someone does this about someone else, I immediately make the assumption that I am not off limits from this as well, so I then proceed with caution about what I say exactly. This is a natural process I have with talking to others, whereas I get the feeling she doesn't take the same into consideration as often.[/QUOTE]

Yup. I don't tend to over share what I say/think because of gossip. Don't want it all coming back to around to me or having my words taken out of context. 







Snowdori said:


> @Xcopy @VirtualInsanity
> 
> do you believe an ENFJ with high preference for Se could easily mistype as an ESXP type? I certainly have.


Yes. Especially when the ENFJ is in a loop and not introverting using Ni. I also think that it's more prevalent amongst younger ENFJs to come across as more ESXP like to keep up with their peers/things around them and to fit in more with their environments and adapt. 

It's not a very healthy way to live, tbh. It's super stressful and demanding. 

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

angelfish said:


> Are we assuming there's a single correct answer to whether an individual is N or S? Personally, I don't believe that there is, and so I don't really believe in "mistyping" at all. Where N ends and S begins is a theoretical line drawn in the abstract-conceptual metaphorical sand. There is no empirical way to capture it; the definitions of N and S themselves are not objective constructs. That said - what I do ascribe to is the "best fit" paradigm - that is, assuming that no one type is the "right answer", but that more than likely one type will be a _more useful_ self-identification than the others.
> 
> In that case, a Sensor who misidentifies as an iNtuitive may likely be one who is naturally interested in foundational theory, in mysticism, in philosophy - subjects which lend themselves to N-style cognition. I suspect some confounding factors may include: Introversion (more reflective, more removed); Perceiving (more whimsical; more project-oriented); sx (more into intense immersive experience); e-types 4, 7, 9 (holistic, novelty-seeking, merging). My little brother, an ISTP 9w8 sx/sp, initially was tricky to identify between INTP and ISTP, and N-S is still probably the least clear of his preferences. He found the N-S questions on the MBTI assessment to be misleading, seeming to ask if he was a "deep" thinker (he is) instead of whether or not he is a _concrete_ thinker (he is). An ExFP 7w8 sx/so female I know - she's clearly close on the N-S preference scale too - though I believe overall S makes more sense as she mainly seems to take in, consider, and utilize concrete information.
> 
> ...


*slow clap*

Literal angel(fish) of my life

This post makes me want to cry tears of joy :crying:


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

Turi said:


> Why are you 'pretty positive' you're an S type?
> If you return over 70% N results on tests, and have done so for the last decade - which part of this, has you believing yourself to be an S type?
> 
> Are you able to describe your Si, to me - especially in relation to how you feel it plays into your interest in theoretical ideas over practical interests, as well as being more interested in abstract topics and making connections/seeing patterns.
> ...


So I too believe I'm likely an ISFJ, who has mostly tested as an intuitive all my life. Heck, to this day I still test as an ENFP/INFP consistently.

BUT honestly _your_ post about cognitive functions really drove home the point for me that I am Si-dom (or at least high Si-user). And while xNFP is still in the cards for me, I relate less and less to the idea that I primarily perceive information through abstract concepts and impressions. I _love_ abstract theories and discusings the hypothetical and symbolic all day, but it's one thing to be able to talk about abstract things (and I do so readily, and with much joy and enthusiasm) and another to think in an abstract way.

I hate that people think because I can study theoretical physics and actually enjoy it, I _must_ be an N because duhhhh no sensor could be smart enough to comprehend such intellumectual and edumucational stuff. When on the other hand, I see intuitive types on here either having no interest in the stuff or (more annoyingly and more commonly) having a complete utter lack of understanding in it, but _think_ they understand it, when really they're just blabbering pseudoscience.

If I'm looking at a red ball, I'm not thinking of the million and one things that ball represents or symbolizes to me. I'm thinking about the color and texture and hue and how that impacts me. And then after that I can start to think about what a weird thing shapes are, and what it means to me/us/humanity at large that something is "round" vs "not round" or some other weird ~abstract~ concept.

So to go back to the original point -- many people think Si is mindlessly following traditions or being stuck in your routine bc you're too closed minded to try something new. When in reality it's about your own subjective impression and perception of the world - similar to Ni - except focused on the _concrete_ things that give you those inner impressions (I think). Si in itself is abstract, I think. I tend to think abstractly about my Si impressions. I am moved and captivated by my sensual experiences and abstract them to deeper meaning for myself, and may even begin to use them as sensual metaphors for thoughts, feelings, and concepts. But you see, my perception is still firmly rooted in the concrete stimulus that gave me these impressions. 

There are still ISFJ's on this fourm who have yet to actually type as ISFJ (myself included). But after actually reading about Ne, Ni, Si, and Se, we began to actually see ourselves mirrored back in a sensor type. 

I think to be interested in typology you must be somewhat introspective and interested in abstract theory, which usually tends to make you type as an N regardless of whether you are one or not (I can talk more about how these self assessment tests practically make me type as N and how I know why I keep testing as an xNFP regardless of whether that's true or not).

Edit: @Turi dang you liked this post while I was still editing...I hope you somehow got to read the final masterpiece and not the ~in the works~


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

inregardstomyself said:


> If I'm looking at a red ball, I'm not thinking of the million and one things that ball represents or symbolizes to me. I'm thinking about the color and texture and hue and how that impacts me. And then after that I can start to think about what a weird thing shapes are, and what it means to me/us/humanity at large that something is "round" vs "not round" or some other weird ~abstract~ concept.


If your idea of what an N is like is that they're somebody who, when they see a red ball, tends to "think of the million and one things that ball represents or symbolizes" to them, approximately what percentage of the population do you think are N's?

You go on to say that _after_ first taking in the ball's "color and texture and hue," you may then "think about what a weird thing shapes are, and what it means to me/us/humanity at large that something is 'round" vs 'not round' or some other weird ~abstract~ concept." But that's what S's do, right? If you were an N, you'd think about the "weird abstract stuff" _first_, and prolly never even "take in" the ball's "color and texture," right? Cuz "weird abstract stuff" is pretty much all N's think about. And again, those N's are around what percentage of the population, in your estimation?


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> xSTPs and xNTJs seem the most balanced on S/N ime. So I see people of these types being confused about what they are rather frequently. Also it makes sense if we use functions. Se and Te look more S and Ti and Ni look more N.


I was going to say the same thing 

I also must disagree with the person above who said SFPs don't care about creativity, I think many of them are artistic.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aelthwyn said:


> I was going to say the same thing
> 
> I also must disagree with the person above who said SFPs don't care about creativity, I think many of them are artistic.


Disagree all you like, ISFPs themselves question their "creativity" - do a Google search on it, lol.

I personally don't see the connection between artistic and creativity.


----------

