# "Everybody wants to be an N"



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

So I almost entirely agree, but one small point --



Octavarium said:


> It's also true that those things in and of themselves do not make someone an N. However, if imaginative and intellectual pursuits are the central focus of someone's life, you can safely say you're dealing with an N.


I'm an ISFJ who may as well have been born in a math department library, so "intellectual pursuits" have always been the focus of my life -- and I've actually had a number of people who know me, and who are (slightly) familiar with type, consistently disbelieve me when I tell them I'm a Si-dom. They seem to feel that those are creatures of spreadsheets and washing machines, and because I read books on difficult / abstract stuff and can fluently discuss / apply their contents, then I must be an N even if I tell them otherwise. 

To be fair "N" imagination / intellectualism does seem to have a much more freewheeling character than mine does -- my ideas / theories "arise" more or less "organically" from the intellectual disciplines / projects / practices that I'm reading / developing / practicing, whereas they seem to... extrapolate more freely? Ideas appear to me to ramify differently inside their heads, in ways I have to work to understand, and don't trust as easily as they do.  (Maybe I can see why you'd want to call that "extrapolation / ramification" "intellectualism," but for my part I think it's worth sticking to "intuition." )

---

EDIT: Actually, technical persnickety revision -- perhaps it only seems to me that my ideas / theories "arise" "organically" from my experience, because I'm good at keeping track of my thought process and rationalizing everything in retrospect. People's reaction to my ideas certainly doesn't validate the hypothesis that "anyone could see what I see given what I know," no matter how much it may seem to me that such should be the case. 

(It's honestly not very clear to me how Si works, and I keep underestimating its "value added" because it feels so automatic / routine / boring, even when it's profoundly individualistic / idiosyncratic / novel.)


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

I mistyped myself as an N, because I kept getting that on the tests, so for a while there I was in the N threads and I could relate pretty well, especially because my first function is Ti, so I analyze everything and I like talking about theories. I couldn't relate to sensors because they wanted to talk about "surface" things, and at that time in my life I was going through my Ti-Ni loop where I would just sit there and analyze everything. 

I have no idea why Ns think that sensors want to be iNtuitives, I personally just wanted to find myself, not to be someone else. Who would want to come here and pretend they're someone they're not...on purpose. If they do it because that's who they think they are, it's only because they're still trying to figure themselves out. No idea why iNtuitives think they're better or smarter then sensors (well, some...not all, but I've seen that around this forum too), but I would't want to be anyone but myself. We can never be sure if we typed ourselves correctly anyway because we go through so many different phases in life... it's difficult. We're here to support each other not attack each other. People need to chill out about this typing thing... not that they will, but they should.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I've actually seen it go both ways: having spent quite a bit of time on the ISTJ forum, there have been members who later identify as something like INFP or INTP, or give off strong vibes of being another type. In my case, the members I got along with best have at some time been suspected as being mistyped (one as ISFJ, another as ISTP), so it goes all ways. It doesn't seem too unrealistic to postulate that certain intuitive members might identify as a sensor for something like admiring the type, feeling 'guilty' over typing as intuitive, or even because they might doubt themselves as being someone in the minority, among others.

Though, it does make sense that you'd see less ESxx types spending hours on a typology forum discussing personality theories, so I'm not sure how much a difference there would be if everyone were magically typed correctly, assuming MBTI has the potential to describe everyone, after we've seen many who don't feel attached to any one type or description...

Take my post with a grain of salt, though, since this is coming from a person who has gone from INTJ->ISTJ->IXFP


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

SputnikExperiment said:


> Goodness gracious, people want to be ENTP?
> 
> I'm touched. I'm flattered and I really need to change the oil in my heart. I love how we're singled out; the one type that's most likely to conceive of every possibility of why we are and why we are not ENTP, and provide a reasonable argument for both. And people call us trolls ... :frustrating:
> 
> What is there's some fundamental truth to personality; people of different types have different interests and therefore gravitate into different fields, associate with different friends and have different hobbies and pursuits. How many NFs do you see joining the military because they enjoy the rigour, the training or the duties involved? There are reasons why my neighbour is a police officer and I'm not. There are also reasons why the distribution of type on personality forums is the how it is.


Exactly. l do see more scragglers now like, "HAI, my friend told me about this MBTI thing. ls this like Facebook?" but generally l think most people with a sustained interest will have similar traits if only because they were drawn to MBTI for similar reasons.

And that doesn't even imply they will type as N. l see ISTPs as at least one S type that becomes very interested in the system simply for what it is and l've never been surprised to see them around. 

lt isn't just ESxx types l don't expect to see here, l wouldn't expect some of the EnXX types to have a sustained interest either though some of us do. l was mistyped as an introvert, anyway.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

As a person who very much is of the opinion that a lot of people (I don't know percentages, but enough to be noticeable but not overwhelming) on this forum and outside it mistype N... essentially placing me in the OPs war path. I want to say that this:



Marlowe said:


> Many users I've encountered want to be N's because they buy into the stereotype of N = smart and S= dumb. When you believe that tripe, of course it makes sense that you'd want to be an N. Most people don't volunteer to be "the dumb one."


and this:



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I mistyped myself as an N, because I kept getting that on the tests, so for a while there I was in the N threads and I could relate pretty well, especially because my first function is Ti, so I analyze everything and I like talking about theories. I couldn't relate to sensors because they wanted to talk about "surface" things, and at that time in my life I was going through my Ti-Ni loop where I would just sit there and analyze everything.
> 
> I have no idea why Ns think that sensors want to be iNtuitives, I personally just wanted to find myself, not to be someone else. Who would want to come here and pretend they're someone they're not...on purpose. If they do it because that's who they think they are, it's only because they're still trying to figure themselves out. No idea why iNtuitives think they're better or smarter then sensors (well, some...not all, but I've seen that around this forum too), but I would't want to be anyone but myself. We can never be sure if we typed ourselves correctly anyway because we go through so many different phases in life... it's difficult. We're here to support each other not attack each other. People need to chill out about this typing thing... not that they will, but they should.


and this:



spectralsparrow said:


> There's a lot of S-bashing among iNtuitive MBTI enthusiasts. I originally learned about the model from an "N" who is very... anti-sensor, and it took awhile for me to weed out my biases against sensing. In fact it's something I still struggle with from time to time, mainly out of insecurity. I think it does have something to do with the fact that our society is pretty geared to accommodate sensors, so it's gratifying to have a model that appreciates my more intuitive skill set, and it can be tempting to turn that around and say... See? Who needs so much sensing anyway? If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
> 
> But I think that's not a very healthy or correct way of looking at s vs n. The world would not go round without sensors. One of my good friends is an ESFJ, and she's one of the strongest and most lovely people I know. I may not really end up discussing too many abstract concepts with her, but that's okay. We have fun and she offers some very down-to-earth perspectives on my real-life problems. She's incredibly caring, gentle, practical, funny, and determined. She's also very shrewd. I adore her to pieces and wish I could be more like her in a lot of ways.
> 
> So anyway, not sure what point I'm trying to make here. Seems to me that if this is really a thing... erybody just needs to chill out 'cause we're all cool.


and definitely this (I think I need to consider that I am guilty of the latter part):



OMG WTF BRO said:


> So, there are a few different things happening. Handing out the "N' to everyone who seems in any way noteworthy is inaccurate. Refusing to give anyone the N if they aren't Christ himself is also faulty but l tend to see sensing more easily for what it is now.


...are all really the point. I am not trying to exclude S types from an N 'club' - I actually rather tend to see Ni vs Ne and Se vs Si as the more coherent dichotomies (focusing on the Attitudes of each, which is a real dichotomy, instead of N vs S, which is not). Instead, I have come to realize that due to natural bias and the apparent fact that the major purveyors of this system over the years being N types have created an inherent descriptive bias in much of the literature and certainly much of the consensus comprehension of the system. Also, I think that the Se penchant for seeing reality as a fluid and relative thing creates a perfect storm. The Se type is aware that they are intelligent and very imaginative and random and interested in ideas, the biased descriptions fail to note this... and the Se brain tends to blur those Si groupings and systems anyway. Mistypings are absolutely inevitable. Usually, it seems like they work themselves out but it's still a bit of a scab I can't help but pick at. I think the S stereotypes are the first thing that needs to go. 

We just typed a really cool girl in the What's my type? forum who saw her most distinct and particular trait as her imagination and love of fantastical fiction. Her type? General consensus was ISFJ in the end. That is because she, like me, is an Ne type (if the typing is correct, of course). Saying an ISFJ lacks imagination is like saying I lack values and feelings. I don't think anyone questions that 'T' types possess values and feelings. The notion is absurd... and yet S types are described as 'seeing the surface of things' 'being afraid of possibilities'. It's true, just like it is true that I work heavily in the realm of logic... but the entire motivation for this post is to express my feelings and values. That it may be difficult to see is irrelevant to the question of what drives me and what I value or seek to develop in myself. Everyone is an N, everyone an S, everyone a T, and everyone an F. Once we understand that, we can work to figure out what type you are - based off the Attitudes and conscious development/usage.

Oversimplification and stereotyping have caused a real problem, and N mistypings seem to have resulted in some cases. Diagnosing and fixing that up, should we choose to bother, is going to hurt feelings and probably come across badly more than once. That's why I try to keep my crusading to the appropriate forum. I wince at a few comments I've made all the same. It's a touchy subject for sure.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

meltedsorbet said:


> So it's about feeling misunderstood or devalued.


With some people, but generally I don't find people to be hostile to intuitives unless either party is an emotional retard. Don't get me wrong, there are more than a few retards(I offer my services).

But in general, I think it's kind of the reverse. Intuitives, on paper, have all the things that people in general find to be attractive traits: they can see the big picture(people read: they are not ignorant about the world), they can see patterns(people read: they see things others can't), and they grasp information quickly(people read: damn they smart as fuck).

It's just as simple as that, I think. There's a bias against sensors because sensors don't want to think of themselves as stupid. It's not so much supremacy-seeking by intuitives, but by everyone.


----------



## Choice (May 19, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> the type tests can't always recognize Se as being a sensing function.


Any idea how this works / why that might be the case?


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

Everyone's a sensor and everyone's an intuitive. Just think of it in pairs.

Ne/Si - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. Something grabs their attention and they check against the storehouse of information. Won't get me killed, sound like I've been smoking too much crack. Good, moving right along.

Si/Ne - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. Pondering their studies, reality and other boring surface stuff they run out of their bathtubs screaming eureka. 

Ni/Se - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. Few brain cells go snap, crackle and pop. Weird things happen, patterns form and the result is checked externally against the real world.

Se/Ni - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. They throw themselves at the world realizing how amazing it really is. This overstimulates the brain and new connections are made. Patterns; more patterns. Sweet.

I honestly expected ISFP; I spend a lot of time alone practising piano, reading, etc. It is something hands on, very concrete. Physical. I can be pretty moody, I like to brood and unleash the gloom and doom at times. Yeah, surprised I got ENTP; raved about it to dad. He read the description said it was spot on and told me to just suck it up.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

I just think the anti-sensor bias by N's or at least those who have been studying the system long enough is a bit exaggerated. I don't think sensors are being persecuted as much now as what it used to be like say in this forum alone. But this does make a lot of assumptions about N's that we tend to be elitist which propagates the stereotype that N's and S's are in entirely different leagues. I have never bought in to the whole superior intuitive as a whole, only in certain sections of the intuitive population e.g N description writers, immature N's, those that are not well read etc that this function elitism takes place.


----------



## specsofwings (May 6, 2013)

Conclusion said:


> Octavarium said:
> 
> 
> > It's also true that those things in and of themselves do not make someone an N. However, if imaginative and intellectual pursuits are the central focus of someone's life, you can safely say you're dealing with an N.
> ...


Me, on the other hand-- I'm an ISFJ (if I'm not mistyped) whose life revolves around imagination and fiction. Si and Fe sounds more like me than Ni and Fe. I think. I love any kind of fiction, I write fiction, I love "feeling" with fiction.

And "intellectual pursuits", here I am learning about MBTI in English which isn't my first language XDD I've loved atronomy since I was a kid, I read about physics on my free time when I was in junior high. I love to learn new stuff and I'm interested in how and why. 



arkigos said:


> We just typed a really cool girl in the What's my type? forum who saw her most distinct and particular trait as her imagination and love of fantastical fiction. Her type? General consensus was ISFJ in the end. That is because she, like me, is an Ne type (if the typing is correct, of course). Saying an ISFJ lacks imagination is like saying I lack values and feelings.


Are we talking about me here or is there another cool newbie ISFJ? 8DD

And indeed. T types don't lack values and feelings, S types don't lack imagination. Everyone's a T and an F, and an S and an N. Just that some are N dominant and some are S dominant, and so on.

Also, like someone said, MBTI doesn't define your identity or personality. It's about _how_ you do and think and function, right? Not _what_ you do.

The person who made me really interested in MBTI made sure I understood that S doesn't mean dumb and N doesn't mean smart right from the beginning, so thanks @_Tove_


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Generally speaking the internet is largely comprised of two things - very generally speaking, in fact I'm basically making this up, deal with it - miscommunication and bitter teenagers. Whatever N bias there is is coming from one of two places: the ill-considered phrasing of someone who neither believes or means to imply that N's are better or the angry mind of someone frustrated by their position in a world they can't find a place in. Being offended by either of those things just isn't worth it.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Because people attribute Theorizing (Thinking) and Meaning-Seeking (Feeling), for Intuition. Which is largely just perception, which brings the unconscious to the conscious. Maybe you'd get some more theorizing N types than not, but one can easily create a theory based off of physical and tangible objects. Sensation is generally more useful than things outside of "practicality". It's practically what the sciences are made out off. Finding proof for something, and believing that it's real until more proof can discredit it. Intuition can be incredibly banal. Such as making a quick educated guess as to which football team is more likely to win, without a stat sheet or whatever.

So it's fairly easy to find that once you realize what you are talking about, that there is no real supremacy over which style of living is the best.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Statistics from CAPT: 
Sensors: 66-74%
Intuitives: 26-34%


Realistically speaking there's about a 30% probability of a person being an intuitive.

Considering also how majority of online sources talk about sensors as if they were junkies or drones and intuitives as if they were super intellectual or the source of forward-thinking then it is not hard to guess why people would be more likely to type themselves as an intuitive.

And it's not wrong to assume that someone is a sensor as intuitives are a minority.



> B) You're not *likely* an "N"


This is a perfectly honest and accurate statement @_Octavarium_. (look back at the statistics above or those below)

Here is the gender specific statistics for S vs N:

Females:
Sensors
70-75%
Intuitives
25-30%

Males:
Sensors
65-72%
Intuitives
28-35%

It is however true that intuitives are generally more drawn to forums such as this, but it is a well known fact that many people think they are intuitives when they are not.

Speaking about N vs S being singled out. Here are the function statistics of all dichotomies:

Extroverts - 45-53%Introverts -47-55%Sensors - 66-74%Intuitives - 26-34%Thinkers - 40-50%Feelers - 50-60%Judgers - 54-60%Perceivers - 40-46%







As you can see then the N vs S is the only one that is really unbalanced and thus there's no need to point out the other dichotomies as there is about an equal chance to be either.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Statistics from CAPT:
> Sensors: 66-74%
> Intuitives: 26-34%
> 
> ...


I took all the legitimate large scale studies and parsed them into an aggregate. The results were actually pretty consistent, with Si types consistently floating to the top, Se/Ne types consistently roaming the middle, with Se just edging out Ne, and Ni types consistently on the bottom. There was no such discrepancy for T or F functions... which were generally diffuse. 

It doesn't make sense that Si would be so common, Ni so rare, and Se/Ne boiling around in the middle. Another interesting thing, I think very telling, is how relatively unstable and varied the typings for Se and Ne types were in the studies. ENFP would be 12th in one and 5th in another. However, no such variance could be seen in Si/Ni stats.... Si were always in the top 5 or 6, and Ni was always in the bottom 5-6. At most, then, a Pi type could vary 5-6 rankings, strongly center weighted at an average of 2. Ne/Se types could vary as much as 10 rankings with much less consistency, probably an average of 4 or 5. 

It makes no sense!!! 

Actually, it makes perfect sense if you assume that there is a general diffuse tendency to mistype and if you accept that Se types are slightly more likely than average to mistype Ne. As long as the 'exchange rates' are stable, they don't actually affect the numbers that much. An INFJ mistypes ISTP, an ISTP mistypes ISTJ, an ISTJ mistypes INFJ and the statistics stay stable... as long as the scale of the study is sufficient for the law of averages to iron out anomalies. 

I did a little calculating, and at any general mistyping rate within reason (as high as 30%)... if under 10% of Se types mistype Ne above and beyond that general rate (and Ne does not reciprocate above the normal rate), the stats stabilize to about 20% N 80% S. It's even more plausible if you consider that Ne types are LESS likely than average to mistype Se. If so, they can be just 5% under the general average, and Se just 5% above, and you still get those numbers. This is definitely consistent with my experiences on these forums and in real life. Mistypings happen all around, but it seems that many Se types chafe particularly under the descriptions and Ne types are definitely definitely NOT inclined to type Se. I don't think I have ever seen an Ne who insisted they were an Se. On the other hand, an Se insisting they must be an Ne is relatively common. A conversation correcting the stereotypes ensues and usually gets them where they are going. I am inclined to think that this happens MORE often than usual on these forums, because of those things that tend to motivate people to look into some relatively abstract theory. In the general populace it's probably less pronounced, but I still think it's enough to explain the numbers.

Also, note how online tests result in statistics that are much more skewed to N, generally speaking. I think that is pretty telling.

To be honest, I calculate percentages as I walk around and interact with people over the years and my impression is that 20% is a bit high for N types in general... I've wondered if living in arguably the most staunchly conservative region in the United States hasn't caused a bit of a long term N drain on the general population. I don't know. I lived in the DC belt loop area for a few years (where you'd expect the opposite to be true) and did similar stats in my head... I'd still say 20% is pushing it... but that could be bias or any number of other things. If I were to guess, I'd say a general 10-15% N representation in the population at most, but that is purely anecdotal and based on my Si database. I think I am right, but I don't think anyone should believe me, LOL.

I've been meaning to post my data graphs, 'fixed' models, general theory-craft stuff, and conclusions but I am lazy.
@earthgirl - Yes, I was talking about you! Even I mistyped you N, I am sad to say. I am glad that you and @Conclusion exist. I think the implications of you are astounding and timely. We N types are often so jarred and relieved by discovering type that we use it as a dumping ground for all our angst and the results in N elitism, which leads to crap descriptions of S types. I think this thread alone has a great array of S type people who blow that out of the water - or at least put us in a position to start to work through it.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

SputnikExperiment said:


> Everyone's a sensor and everyone's an intuitive. Just think of it in pairs.
> 
> Ne/Si - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. Something grabs their attention and they check against the storehouse of information. Won't get me killed, sound like I've been smoking too much crack. Good, moving right along.
> 
> ...


I like this breakdown and think there's something to it (in particular I have a lot of bathtub eureka moments when in gear) but -- I think to note this and end here is to leave the work only half done. I really do think there are some subtle / profound differences in cognition and communication, and that to really resolve this issue we have to recognize those differences and work to accomodate them. (Although to be fair, my personal suspicion is that the work I'm suggesting, of "recognizing and respecting meaningful difference, based on a more fundamental commonality" and "cultivating / instilling better communication skills in ourselves" falls harder on SJs than anyone else. Or at least I've committed harder to it than most, and feel that disproportionality is entirely appropriate. )

(Also I think it requires us to recognize / break down some unrealistic / destructive cultural ideas about / reifications of "originality" / "creativity," which I think lead inevitably to an overvaluation of intuition, as I've described elsewhere.)

@_arkigos_, I like that analysis, though I'm a bit bummed that Si is so common -- being "openly ISFJ" on PerC one gets the impression that one's more special than one is, I suppose  -- but another small point:



arkigos said:


> I lived in the DC belt loop area for a few years (where you'd expect the opposite to be true) and did similar stats in my head... I'd still say 20% is pushing it... but that could be bias or any number of other things.


Honestly I'd imagine that Ss (or Si-doms and -auxes at least) would be overrepresented there too, just because "deciding you want a position in an incredibly hierarchical / authoritarian DC institution of some kind" and then "working steadily towards it in spite of all the drudgery and boredom and sheer authoritarian pointlessness required" sound to me like it'd weed out a lot of Ns -- who would then find jobs in cities where you can find good / high status work without being so bored.  (But maybe I'm misunderstanding the nature of work in DC?)


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I took all the legitimate large scale studies


Care to be specific? References?



arkigos said:


> It doesn't make sense that Si would be so common, Ni so rare, and Se/Ne boiling around in the middle.


Why doesn't that "make sense"?



arkigos said:


> Actually, it makes perfect sense if you assume that there is a general diffuse tendency to mistype and if you accept that Se types are slightly more likely than average to mistype Ne.




I really must not be following your train of thought. I find it strange that you point out that the biggest "imbalance" is between SJ's and NJ's, and yet you then go on to focus on SP/NP's. What evidence do you have that "Se types are slightly more likely than average to mistype Ne." More likely than whom? And are we talking only about people ("more likely than average") mistyping as Ne specifically or just to mistype?

EDIT: I think I see now that you're making a case for why there are actually _fewer_ "real" N-types than would be suggested by "all the legitimate large scale studies". To that I say, based on what? Your personal anecdotal experience? Why should anyone believe your personal experience over "all the legitimate large scale studies"? And given that S/N seems to be the oddball in that the other three dimensions are roughly evenly distributed, why should our natural question be "Why isn't the imbalance between S and N even more extreme?" rather than "Why is there any lopsidedness in this dimension when the others show symmetry?"

EDIT2, EDIT HARDER:

Ok my reading comprehension is in the shitter today. I missed this sentence:



arkigos said:


> I think I am right, but I don't think anyone should believe me, LOL.




I should rephrase my question: Why do _you _believe your personal anecdotal experience over "all the legitimate large scale studies"?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Care to be specific? References?


Somewhere I have them I am sure. Just look em up. I only avoided studies that were very small or that had to be actively sought out by the taker (aka, tests online)... since too few people causes anomalies and tests that people actively seek out are susceptible to all sorts of problems that 'random' sampling tends to mitigate (though, admittedly, not eliminate). Honestly, the trend I report is so distinct and consisistent that you can choose any study and you'll see it. No need for you to rely on mine, which I might have selected through subtle bias. 



Teybo said:


> Why doesn't that "make sense"?


Because it's inconsistent. I suppose it not making sense isn't necessarily relevant. If it were all over the place, that would be one thing. If it were all stable, that would be one thing. But, Si/Ni is stable and Se/Ne isn't? Why? Si is consistently stable at the top, and Ni is consistently stable at the bottom and Se Ne is a free-for-all in the middle? (actually, it's stable on the whole, but with odd anomalies with specific types jumping around. Specifically, as I said the Ni/Si types have average variance of 2 and at most 5... where Ne/Se types have a notably higher variance... though it blurs out to relatively consistent numbers for Ne and Se as a whole. Each individual type varies a lot within that.... rather, varies more than Ni/Si types do. 

Simply put: Why would Se/Ne have a higher Standard Deviation? That 'makes no sense' and by that I mean it's inconsistent with no observable explanation for that inconsistency within the system itself. Further, even if there were no deviation discrepancy... why are the type distributions ranked as they are Si>Se>=Ne>Ni does not seem to be inherent to the system. I've iterated a huge number of possible reasons in my head and even the best ones are shaky. Is Ni somehow less viable in natural selection? Is Ni weeded out in early childhood? Is Ni less needed in a functional society? If so, why is Ne not in the boat with them. Of all the many things I have considered, nothing seems to fit. I am open to suggestions to explain why it isn't roughly 50/50 like the S/J and T/F splits. There are roughly as many instances of Fi in any position as there are of Fe in any position, but Ni vs Si has a huge split. Okay, then why not Ne vs Se, which is nearly equal? Te is just as likely to be inferior as it is to be dominant, but the same isn't true of Ne and Ni and Ne and Ni aren't even consistent with each other! It makes no sense. 

*EDIT:
Te-Ti-Fe-Fi: Consistent prevalence and positioning. Essentially diffuse.
Ne-Ni-Se-Si: ~40% ~27% ~23% ~10% or essentially that.... ballpark at least.
If so:
Ni in any position: ~33% (ballpark and mostly from memory)
Ne in any position: ~66%

That may seem consistent to you, but it's not... the pattern is an illusion inherent to the model. It's hard to explain but if you think about it you realize there will always be symmetry you can find because of how the functions grow and fall in unison.*

This isn't theory, this is just me looking at numbers that occur consistently and asking why. My conclusions are separate and don't even answer all the questions, though they do make the data far more coherent and consistent.




Teybo said:


> I really must not be following your train of thought. I find it strange that you point out that the biggest "imbalance" is between SJ's and NJ's, and yet you then go on to focus on SP/NP's. What evidence do you have that "Se types are slightly more likely than average to mistype Ne." More likely than whom? And are we talking only about people ("more likely than average") mistyping as Ne specifically or just to mistype?



Yes, that is an interesting and one I considered at length. Why not try to solve it to universal consistency? Why not address Ni/Si inconsistency? The fact is that I did just that. The problem is that there simply seems to be quite a few more Si types than Ni types in the population. My conclusion was that, while I could not say why there are more Si types than Ni types in the population, there are. Quite a bit more, actually. Let me put it this way.... trying to solve the problem by putting Si and Ni into alignment has two major problems:

1) The stats would have to be WAAAAAY off. To 'fix' Se/Ne you have to fudge the numbers relatively little... and thus the discrepancy can be explained as being one of a vague tendency rather than a complete breakdown of the entire theory. To sync up Si/Ni you have to prove that "Almost every Ni thinks they are an Si based on the tests" rather than "Se is 5% more likely and Ne is 5% less likely than the whole average (which could be 30% or more) to type as each other". I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue the former who doesn't also argue that the theory is broken.

2) Neither myself nor anyone else I know who is well versed in type theory and tends to be able to type people relatively consistently even vaguely suspects that the Ni/Si skew is inaccurate.... sure, they may think 30/70 or 20/80 or even the implied 10/90 ... but it's consistent with reality. I don't think there has been any consistent observation that Ne is notably more prevalent in the population either. Interestingly, I tend to notice MORE Ni than Ne in those I meet but I dismiss this as either bias or that I am more cognizant of Ni triggers? Or indigestion. 




Teybo said:


> EDIT: I think I see now that you're making a case for why there are actually _fewer_ "real" N-types than would be suggested by "all the legitimate large scale studies". To that I say, based on what? Your personal anecdotal experience? Why should anyone believe your personal experience over "all the legitimate large scale studies"? And given that S/N seems to be the oddball in that the other three dimensions are roughly evenly distributed, why should our natural question be "Why isn't the imbalance between S and N even more extreme?" rather than "Why is there any lopsidedness in this dimension when the others show symmetry?"


Yes, I am making that case. Yes, it is my anecdotal experience. No one should believe my experience over the studies. They should question both against what they observe and think and the evidence and the inconsistencies and all that. I am rather disappointed and frustrated when people just accept my anecdotal experiences. Kinda absurd, honestly. 

Both questions should be asked and examined. I have rejected the later as unsolvable. I don't think they are mutually exclusive questions at all. At all. I am very curious to solve the latter question but it appears there simply is an assymetry. I can't say the reasons, but at least it's consistent. I've wondered if it's like left-handed / right-handed - which I've pondered at length since I was a kid. I know parents and institutions would 'beat' the south paw out of kids and they changed. But was this the chicken or was it the egg? How has it affected the numbers? How have those numbers changed? How are they different in different societies, classes, etc, etc? I actually don't know, and don't pretend to know but I find it rather curious and sometimes I have theories about it.



Teybo said:


> EDIT2, EDIT HARDER:
> Ok my reading comprehension is in the shitter today. I missed this sentence:


No problem. 'EDIT HARDER' was hilarious and made it all worth it.



Teybo said:


> I should rephrase my question: Why do _you _believe your personal anecdotal experience over "all the legitimate large scale studies"?


Because legitimate large scale studies are:

1) Out of my control to observe all the variables and root out biases of all shapes and sizes... and...
2) Studies show that 90% of all studies have inaccurate statistics in them or present data that is easily draw false conclusions from.
3) My anecdotal considerations are deeply considered and aggressively checked. I begin many conversations with "I have observed X, tell me what I've missed... or misunderstood." I do my best to be comprehensive and moderate and to question every question and reconclude every conclusion. In essence, I trust my methodology and logic... only because I question the holy hell out of it and beg people to correct me. I am not picky. Correct away, I am eager for the new perspective. 

I have mused on this for literally a decade... and as of now I feel like I am ready to have it disproven by the group as appropriate. 

Also, thanks for holding my feet to the fire. I value it.

EDIT: I anticipate you asking why, if I dismiss the validity of the studies, I am anchoring my whole argument on them. Fact is, I am not. They are only involved because people are more likely to consider them and they are consistent with my personal observations ... in that they are consistent with the inconsistency I have observed. I don't base my argument on them in the least...


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

This thread is one of so many that remind me of Katamari Damacy:









@_Octavarium_, it's probably true that a lot of people mistype themselves, and then there will be other people who gripe about it for different reasons. The human existence is one that is full of projection in any which direction, a subtle and ironic thing if you consider the implications within the concept of physics that says the universe appears holographic. Anyhow, it only adds to the fiesta of projection to try calling people out for projection; people need to come to terms with themselves in their own time. 

As to the rest of the OP: Everyone does Intuition (along with Thinking, Feeling, Sensing) on some level, in some way. To discern if someone has dominant or inferior intuition, just examine what level of development or maturity the perspective exhibits in their thinking in relation and opposition to Sensing, then how it connects to Thinking/Feeling, how/why they dis/identify with it, and so on until you've cobbled together a picture of how they think and what functions are egoic vs. not and you can relay it into a functional picture of their type. You can pose intelligence and brain power through any framework and it will still be intelligent, so there's no substantial reason for people to favor being one type over another - just the illusions of how they're sorted or portrayed through imbecilic descriptions.

Granted, there are reasons to think Sensing is the more..sensible..functionality to be prevalent in a population of physical beings. It's a primal instinct to go for the tangible _first_, leaning on intuition as instinctive perspective, and develop those intuitively-derived ideas on it more consciously _later_ as instinct leads you safely to maturity, and it's an evolutionarily smart order that would seem to help a species' members survive into old age. So what's the issue with declaring that the majority of people are likely to be Sensation over Intuition-oriented? I don't get it.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I like this description of N/S in pairs, which makes it feel more alive. The Se/Ni combo is so definitely me, especially the part about "they throw themselves at the world, realizing how amazing it is" and "this overstimulates the brain and new connections are made." Yes, and yes, and yes. That is my world and the way that I perceive it.




SputnikExperiment said:


> Everyone's a sensor and everyone's an intuitive. Just think of it in pairs.
> 
> Ne/Si - Experiences the world, just like everybody else. Something grabs their attention and they check against the storehouse of information. Won't get me killed, sound like I've been smoking too much crack. Good, moving right along.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@_arkigos_

I was hoping you would clarify whether you are considering only "large scale studies" that utilize the MBTI to assess self-concept or if you are including studies that use other assessment instruments.

From a statistical point of view, the imbalance of SJ's and NJ's, compared to the relative balance of SP's and NP's, suggests that there is an interaction between the two factors, with "J" having an "S"-ward pull. Theoretically, this makes sense: people with typical J preferences for conclusions and decisiveness may see themselves as less inclined toward possibilities and openness than people with typical P preferences. And the MBTI Step II manual does show a slight correlation between test items regarding Intuition (or the Big 5 correlate of "Openness to Experience") and test items regarding Judging in a way that would suggest the MBTI might tend to "mistype" NJ's as SJ's, especially for people who fall near the middle of the N/S spectrum but more toward the J-end of the J/P spectrum.




> :: Yes, that is an interesting and one I considered at length. Why not try to solve it to universal consistency? Why not address Ni/Si inconsistency? The fact is that I did just that. The problem is that there simply seems to be quite a few more Si types than Ni types in the population. My conclusion was that, while I could not say why there are more Si types than Ni types in the population, there are. Quite a bit more, actually. Let me put it this way.... trying to solve the problem by putting Si and Ni into alignment has two major problems:
> 
> 1) The stats would have to be WAAAAAY off. To 'fix' Se/Ne you have to fudge the numbers relatively little... and thus the discrepancy can be explained as being one of a vague tendency rather than a complete breakdown of the entire theory. To sync up Si/Ni you have to prove that "Almost every Ni thinks they are an Si based on the tests" rather than "Se is 5% more likely and Ne is 5% less likely than the whole average (which could be 30% or more) to type as each other". I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue the former who doesn't also argue that the theory is broken.
> 
> 2) Neither myself nor anyone else I know who is well versed in type theory and tends to be able to type people relatively consistently even vaguely suspects that the Ni/Si skew is inaccurate.... sure, they may think 30/70 or 20/80 or even the implied 10/90 ... but it's consistent with reality. I don't think there has been any consistent observation that Ne is notably more prevalent in the population either. Interestingly, I tend to notice MORE Ni than Ne in those I meet but I dismiss this as either bias or that I am more cognizant of Ni triggers? Or indigestion.


You didn't really address why you think there's a tendency for SP's to "mistype" as NP's. I'm skeptical that there is anything meaningful behind your standard deviation analysis, especially since you've not posted any numbers, but particularly because it sounds like you are making some sort of cross-study comparison, a process which can be fraught no matter what the subject. That aside, you didn't really address your assumption that SP's "mistype" as NP's. An argument from the cross-study variability of the ordered rankings, within a "narrow" window surrounded by the J's, of SP and NP types does not get you as far as saying that SP's "mistype" as NP's. Not really even close.

I find it interesting that your own anecdotal experience is at odds with itself. You seem to want to claim that (presumably) the MBTI overrepresents N types, even as it places N's in a minority, while at the same time saying that you "tend to notice Ni" in people but come to dismiss it. And yet you say, "My anecdotal considerations are deeply considered and aggressively checked."

Your anecdotal experience of noticing Ni more than you might expect given the data on NJ prevalence suggests that it is the NJ's who are "mistyped" (that is, "real" NJ's are mistyped by the MBTI as SJ's), not the S/NP's. All of this, of course, with the caveat that you are making assumptions about the mapping between measurable preferences and the theoretical, yet-unsubstantiated-by-research cognitive functions. Those "large scale studies" did not test any concept of "Ni". They measured preferences along various dimensions, including S/N and J/P. The extrapolation to your personal understanding of "Ni" is not part of the literature.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Teybo said:


> I think the point is that "general population" isn't equivalent to "population of people who frequent MBTI type forums", and so it's not appropriate to make predictions about the type distribution of a type forum based on statistics that apply to the general population.
> 
> If you go to a locker room, and take a sample of "man or woman", you're not likely to get anywhere near the 50% mark that is true of the general population. It's not appropriate to say that a visitor to a type forum is only 30% likely to prefer N over S, just as it's not appropriate to say that a visitor to a men's locker room is only 50% likely to be a man because about 50% of all humans are men.


You missed the point. You know that there's a 99.9% probability of there only being people of a specific gender in the locker room. It is a known variable. If you removed the signs showing which was which then you would get a 50/50 chance again. But it's still 2 locker rooms.

Also, they can't be compared. It's not like as if you could go into the women's locker room and claim that it's likely that some of them aren't female. You can however claim that it is likely that some people who claim to be Ns are actually Ss.

My point was that since we don't know the variables *here*, then we must look at it from a broader perspective if we wish to calculate the likelihood of N vs S. That broader perspective being the statistics of ca. 70% being Ss and ca. 30% being Ns.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Teybo said:


> I think the point is that "general population" isn't equivalent to "population of people who frequent MBTI type forums", and so it's not appropriate to make predictions about the type distribution of a type forum based on statistics that apply to the general population.
> 
> If you go to a locker room, and take a sample of "man or woman", you're not likely to get anywhere near the 50% mark that is true of the general population. It's not appropriate to say that a visitor to a type forum is only 30% likely to prefer N over S, just as it's not appropriate to say that a visitor to a men's locker room is only 50% likely to be a man just because about 50% of all humans are men.


Exactly that.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Teybo said:


> To extend the locker room analogy...
> 
> When you're in a locker room, it's not really appropriate to confront other people and insist that they do not belong in that locker room because you don't believe that they are really a man or really a woman. If they ask for your opinion, that's something else (ha!).


Try going into the locker room of the opposite sex (note: I'm not using the word gender) and see what happens.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> You can however claim that it is likely that some people who claim to be Ns are actually Ss.


And what makes you think S's are more likely to mistype as N's than, say, T's are to mistype as F's or F's to mistype as T's?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> You missed the point. You know that there's a 99.9% probability of there only being people of a specific gender in the locker room. It is a known variable. If you removed the signs showing which was which then you would get a 50/50 chance again. But it's still 2 locker rooms.



HA! I want you to try this experiment. I'm willing to bet money that you won't find that you get a 50/50 split, with men and women equally distributed in both locker rooms. It is more likely that women will peak into the room, see if there are more women than men, and enter the locker room that has fewer men. And likewise for men. It is more likely that people will self-select for the "right" locker room rather than being _randomly_ distributed.

Which is what this is about, essentially. Self-selection bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two ways of explaining the type distribution discrepancies between the general population and type forums. 1. You can assume that the population of people who frequent type forums are the same as the general population, and so the problem must be that a lot of N types are "secretly" S types in disguise. OR 2. You can assume that there will be a subset of the general population that is more interested and attracted to studying personality theory, and that this subset will have a different distribution of types from the general population.

Which is more plausible? That there is something about personality theory that appeals to intuitives' desire to explore theoretical possibilities and underlying causes that disproportionately attracts them to type forums, or that all people are equally attracted to type forums but an overwhelming majority of people mistype as N rather than S, but get the other dimensions right?

Jung was an intuitive. Myers was an intuitive. Her mother, Briggs, was an intuitive. All were introverts, as well. Why act surprised that they had ideas that resonated with other introverts and intuitives? Why act surprised that the internet attracts introverts and intuitives?

You need to check the likelihood of your assumptions, and assuming that visitors to type forums will fit the distribution of the general population is certainly an assumption.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> And what makes you think S's are more likely to mistype as N's than, say, T's are to mistype as F's or F's to mistype as T's?


I just gave you the statistics like 3 pages ago...

Extraverts - 45-53%Introverts -47-55%Sensors - 66-74%Intuitives - 26-34%Thinkers - 40-50%Feelers - 50-60%Judgers - 54-60%Perceivers - 40-46%

It's not as much likelihood to mistype themselves as it is likelihood of having a certain dichotomy.
The statistics for everything except S vs N is almost 50/50 and thus they irrelevant when thinking of the probability of a person having a certain dichotomy.
If I were to calculate the probability of you being an extravert or introvert and they are about 50/50 then it would be irrelevant as there's an equal (or close to equal) possibility for either. That is not the case for the S vs N.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Teybo said:


> HA! I want you try this experiment. I'm willing to bet money that you won't find that you get a 50/50 split, with men and women equally distributed in both locker rooms. It is more likely that women will peak into the room, see if there are women than men, and enter the locker room with fewer men. And likewise for men. It is more likely that people will self-select for the "right" locker room rather than being _randomly_ distributed.
> 
> Which is what this is about, essentially. Self-selection bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which brings us to what many have said, the "I'm probably an N because I am..." thinking.

I would however reverse my statement and say that it is true that many people who are drawn to these places *type themselves* as Ns more often than as Ss. That is why you can't trust the distribution of types here and thus we can't rely on any local statistics and must thus rely on some wider statistics.



> Jung was an intuitive. Myers was an intuitive. Her mother, Briggs, was an intuitive. All were introverts, as well. Why act surprised that they had ideas that resonated with other introverts and intuitives? Why act surprised that the internet attracts introverts and intuitives?


Am I surprised or are you just putting words into my mouth?



> You need to check the likelihood of your assumptions, and assuming that visitors to type forums will fit the distribution of the general population is certainly an assumption.


Just as it is an assumption that Ns would be more drawn to this than Ss.

*I stated before that I do not hold an opinion about this, I was merely pointing out statistics.*


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I just gave you the statistics like 3 pages ago...
> 
> Extraverts - 45-53%Introverts -47-55%Sensors - 66-74%Intuitives - 26-34%Thinkers - 40-50%Feelers - 50-60%Judgers - 54-60%Perceivers - 40-46%
> 
> ...


And the statistics for S/N in the general population are relevant to the percentage of N's on a personality forum because?

You've already said that a forum like PerC is likely to be more than 30% N, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make by citing those statistics again.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> And the statistics for S/N in the general population are relevant to the percentage of N's on a personality forum because?
> 
> You've already said that a forum like PerC is likely to be more than 30% N, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make by citing those statistics again.


Answered in the above post:


> I would however reverse my statement and say that it is true that many people who are drawn to these places *type themselves* as Ns more often than as Ss. That is why you can't trust the distribution of types here and thus we can't rely on any local statistics and must thus rely on some wider statistics.


And your question was:


> And what makes you think S's are more likely to mistype as N's than, say, T's are to mistype as F's or F's to mistype as T's?


It did not say that it was about personality forums.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I don't really care too much for statistics to be honest. I don't think you could honestly get an accurate representation of type, because many of the definitions are fucked up. That is literally my only problem with the MBTI. I am ok with Dichotomies that isn't J-P in actuality.

Intuition is poorly defined, and if it wasn't then the theory would probably be considerably better, but still sort of mediocre anyways. Also Jung was a thinker and Myers was a feeler to be pedantic. In their own words even.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Acerbusvenator

I'm not accusing you of anything. We're just having a discussion.

I'm just trying to point out that your assumption about the distribution of people who frequent type forums is exactly that, an assumption. My going on about the locker room was to demonstrate that statistics which apply to general populations may not apply to self-selected populations.

When you're creating a model, you're going to be making assumptions, and it's important that you think about the likelihood (and consequences) of your assumptions.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Well, I agree with what some said about not liking statistics.

The only reason I posted it was to explain why some people might find it appropriate to point out that many are likely not intuitives. Not everyone is sceptical about statistics, just hang around the INFJ group for a while and the constant comments about how supposedly rare they are comes up so many times that you wish that someone would just delete all MBTI related statistics from the web.

True, many can't handle when I sometimes write because I write as if it is something I stand for even if it isn't (I have a bad habit of doing that).



> I'm just trying to point out that your assumption about the distribution of people who frequent type forums is exactly that, an assumption. My going on about the locker room was to demonstrate that statistics which apply to general populations may not apply to self-selected populations.
> 
> When you're creating a model, you're going to be making assumptions, and it's important that you think about the likelihood (and consequences) of your assumptions.


 @_Teybo_, I find it offensive that you believe that I am incapable of that reasoning and in need of help to comprehend it.


In short, I stated what we "know". You assumed it was something I stood by, but it wasn't.
End of story.

If you ever heard me talk about my opinion surrounding statistics then you'd never have assumed that I stood by it to begin with.

EDIT: If you wonder why I kept discussing something I don't stand for then it was because people argued against *ME *and not against what I wrote and I don't lay down my arms and walk away when people use ad hominems (meaning: To the man) against me.

These 2 was why I kept going here:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/147485-everybody-wants-n-6.html#post3751369
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/147485-everybody-wants-n-7.html#post3751665


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

I think a lot of so-called "anti-Sensor bias" is perpetuated by the forum itself. I've noticed that whenever someone tries to type themselves, there are at least a few people who try to convince the person they're a Sensor even if they obviously aren't, because "if you think you're an Intuitive obviously you just have a case of special snowflake syndrome, there's no way you can be an Intuitive" (even though 1/3rd of the population is a fairly sizable minority). So I feel like that pisses people off who don't feel that they are Sensors, and then they're accused of being biased when they say they can't possibly be Sensors.

When I was upset about being typed as ISFJ the first time I posted on here, it's because I knew I wasn't a Sensor. As it turned out, they kept insisting I was one because I was very stressed out and having very low self-esteem at the time I posted and I was relying mostly on my tertiary Si because I was having too much anxiety to trust my Fi or Ne. Also because I never considered that I might be a Perceiver since I am very organized and make to-do lists pretty often. This is just my experience but I would imagine others' experiences might be similar.

Another thing is that people often are really sensitive about "anti-Sensor bias" and accuse others of it over nothing. I've been accused of being anti-Sensor a couple of times, which is kind of ridiculous because I actually sometimes wish I was a Sensor (less angst and more competence!) and actually my least favorite MBTI type is an Intuitive type (INTJ). So basically I feel like a lot of this "anti-Sensor bias" is invented.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> And what makes you think S's are more likely to mistype as N's than, say, T's are to mistype as F's or F's to mistype as T's?


It certainly used to be that if people mistyped, it was often because they mistyped as having an Intuitive preference. That's just because of the bias that was present. I'm not entirely sure how big the bias is anymore. Intuition is still somewhat glorified in descriptions, and most people do wish they were the "rarer" type (not that I pay too much attention to the statistics either). 

Still, I think oftentimes a lot of people type themselves as either having a Thinking preference or a Feeling preference based on whether or not they are emotional or rational. (By the way, I still sometimes dislike the way Feeling is described. It makes it seem so very irrational.) 

Wherever a bias towards one thing is present, you'll often find more people mistype as that "glorified" type or as having that function. 

I'm not entirely sure whether more people mistype as Intuitives as opposed to those who mistype as having a Feeling or Thinking preference. 

Sometimes I think the reason a lot of people mistype is because of the Keirsey temperaments and the stereotypes that naturally follow them.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Julia Bell

What specifically has Keirsey written that is so misleading, in your opinion?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Teybo said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> What specifically has Keirsey written that is so misleading, in your opinion?


This stuff:









Sad part is that it's not even directly connected to MBTI as far as I am aware. He has just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on).

People will often have a strong bias as being "rational" or "idealistic" and many seem to play on this so incredibly much.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> What specifically has Keirsey written that is so misleading, in your opinion?


Oh, it's nothing on Keirsey. It's the way people use Keirsey, and how they connect his system with MBTI. The two were never meant to be used together. They are separate systems. But people so often forget that, and it's very confusing for newbies just getting into typology. 

I've heard people say stuff like, "There's no way I'm a xSxJ because I'm not traditional and I don't highly value authority and I hate routine etc etc etc". Which is based off the SJ Keirsey temperament.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@_Acerbusvenator_


Why are "Rational" and "Idealistic" any more biasing than "Feeling" and "Thinking"?

@_Julia Bell_

What evidence do you have that Keirsey never intended for there to be any correlation between his temperaments and MBTI types? The opposite seems to be overwhelmingly true. He still uses MBTI type codes on his website (or, at least, whoever maintains that website still does).

And because it seems that my posts lead to people getting personally offended, let me clarify that I'm "just asking".


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@_Teybo_, just for clarification, I have taken absolutely no offense in anything you have said thus far. In fact, I quite respect what you have to say.  As far as I know, although Keirsey does appear to use MBTI type codes, he never mentions that his system correlates with MBTI, or even that you can find your MBTI type by identifying your Keirsey temperament. As far as I know, he doesn't mention Isabel Myers at all, or references her. I've no rock solid, airtight proof at the moment, though. 

I'm not saying that there are no correlations between the temperaments and MBTI-- I'm just saying the it's still arguable whether it's a good idea to use them together as one system.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Teybo said:


> @_Acerbusvenator_
> 
> 
> Why are "Rational" and "Idealistic" any more biasing than "Feeling" and "Thinking"?


The rational - thinker creates an equal bias.
But would you rather be called a feeler (which gives the sense of someone who is emotional) or idealist (which would be someone with passion who wants to make changes for the better).

It's not that they are more biasing tho as much as it is that they aren't MBTI and they got a lot of stereotypes surrounding the words.

The fact that he grouped people based on behavior does so that even more stereotypes come up. "Those XXX always do YYY" etc.
I think you are aware of the constant bashing that many XNTXs do against XNFXs just because of that guy. If he didn't make up those 4 groups there wouldn't be any XNFX or XSXJ bashing or at least less of it.
The main problem tho is that many think that Keirsey = MBTI.

I for example am a clear INTJ, but
I put a lot of emphasis on integrity.
I have been told that I am incredibly diplomatic (if I want to).
I break up fights when I notice them coming.
I have been told that I am very open.
I won't do things without any purpose.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I put a huge value on knowledge.
I am not strategic.
I don't care about endlessly improving things, I'll end when I am satisfied that something fulfills its purpose.
I prefer teamwork over independence.
I tend to think inside *my *box.

Many people will however get a confirmation bias in which they go "I am kind, I am diplomatic, I don't like fights, I must be an NF." or "I am smart, I think outside the box, I can think independently so I must be an NT." or more specifically, it is suffering from the forer effect because it only really consists of keywords.
People also simplify things so that it would make sense to their own bias.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Bad experiences in real life IMO. Sadly it drives a lot of people to the internet
> 
> Within MBTI, it's N's complaining about the SJs but all over the internet it's various groups complaining about ''normal'' people for various reasons. Autistics versus neurotypicals, deaf versus the hearing(yes, this is a thing), etc...


 This thread ended on page one with this post.

Edit - Though I'm happy that Forer effect was finally mentioned.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

The title reminded me of this song:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> What specifically has Keirsey written that is so misleading, in your opinion?


How about... everything? He even admits himself that he doesn't support function theory even though the functions are the most important aspect of Jungian psychology.


----------



## zerocrossing (Jul 6, 2011)

Keirsey makes Se types seem waaaaay cooler than everybody else (even if he doesn't believe in Se).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Sad part is that it's not even directly connected to MBTI as far as I am aware. He has just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on).





Julia Bell said:


> Oh, it's nothing on Keirsey. It's the way people use Keirsey, and how they connect his system with MBTI. The two were never meant to be used together. They are separate systems. But people so often forget that, and it's very confusing for newbies just getting into typology.





Julia Bell said:


> As far as I know, although Keirsey does appear to use MBTI type codes, he never mentions that his system correlates with MBTI, or even that you can find your MBTI type by identifying your Keirsey temperament. As far as I know, he doesn't mention Isabel Myers at all, or references her. I've no rock solid, airtight proof at the moment, though.


To try to clear up some of the confusion about the relationship between Keirsey and the MBTI...

I strongly disagree with the perspective that says that the Keirsey ideas that most people are familiar with (from Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II) are a different personality theory that only tangentially corresponds to the MBTI. In PUM and PUM II, Keirsey's basically just an MBTI guy who adds the idea that NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs are particularly significant subgroups in terms of what they have in common.

He certainly isn't a believer in the cognitive functions (_aka_ "type dynamics") but, as further explained here, Myers wasn't much of a believer in the functions either, and official MBTI sources — not to mention the vast majority of the thousands of MBTI-related studies that have been conducted over the past 50 years — have always been centered around the dichotomies rather than the functions.

Just as Keirsey thought of NT/NF/SJ/SP as the most fundamental way to carve the 16 types into four groups, Myers thought of NT/NF/ST/SF as the most fundamental way to subdivide the 16 types — and Myers' sub-groups are even _less_ function-related than Keirsey's.

As the back cover blurb for Please Understand Me (1984) explained:



> Keirsey adopted the theory of Psychological Types of Carl Jung and the pioneering (and best selling) method of measuring type of Isabel Myers in 1955 and ever since has adapted his clinical practice to the perspective of Jung-Myers typology. PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME provides a useful vocabulary and phraseology for applying the Jung-Myers concepts of type.



In the first chapter of Please Understand Me II (1998), Keirsey describes "The Debt to Isabel Myers," and here's part of what he says:



Keirsey said:


> I must comment about the way the work of Isabel Myers struck me when I first encountered it in 1956. I remember vividly, even after forty or so years, when a visiting psychologist from Educational Testing Service handed me my psychological type portrait upon my completion of the Myers-Briggs questionnaire. ...
> 
> Wow! Here I was, only five years out of graduate school, working as a corrective interventionist for schools and trying very hard to figure out how to apply what I had learned about people in making myself useful to school children and their parents and teachers and administrators, these people having all sorts of difficulties getting along with each other. And along comes a little old lady from Princeton, New Jersey, Isabel Myers, to tell me about myself, about who I was and what I was good for. Oh, I already knew some of that stuff about myself, but I didn't know that I was a kind of type of person, and that there had to be others just like me. Indeed, looking back on my graduate studies I realized that my two best friends in the psychology department were just like me, and the one professor I admired was just like me. ...
> 
> ...



The "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" at the front of PUM II types you based on 70 items. Ten of them are I/E items, and 20 each are S/N, T/F and J/P items, and they're very similar to the items on the official MBTI. And both PUM and PUM II include separate portraits of each of the 16 types, in addition to descriptions of the things that (as Keirsey sees it) NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs tend to have in common.

The idea that Keirsey's focus is somehow more _behavioral_ than Myers or other MBTI sources also doesn't have much truth to it. In the introduction to Please Understand Me II, as part of his explanation for why he steers clear of the cognitive functions, Keirsey himself states (more misleadingly than accurately) that his work is somehow more solidly based on observation of what people actually say and do — rather than on "speculation" about "people's mental make-up." But if you actually read Please Understand Me II and compare Keirsey's descriptions with the descriptions in Myers, Thomson or any other popular MBTI source (or Jung, for that matter), you'll find that the mix of internal and external really isn't all that different. Here's a passage from Keirsey's INTJ description, for example:



Keirsey said:


> Their point of view is pragmatic, skeptical, relativistic, focused on spatial intersections and intervals of time. They base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology. Intellectually, they are prone to practice strategy far more than diplomacy, tactics and especially logistics.



Their "point of view," their "self-image," their "trust" in reason and "hunger" for achievement, their "aspiration" to be wizards: this is pretty much all about an INTJ's _internal_ values/motivations/etc., no? And this is pulled from his introductory summary. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those internal aspects in greater detail, and has similar discussions of the "self-image" and "aspirations" and etc. of each of the 16 MBTI types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> *Their "point of view," their "self-image," their "trust" in reason and "hunger" for achievement, their "aspiration" to be wizards: this is pretty much all about an INTJ's internal values/motivations/etc., no?* And this is pulled from his introductory summary. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those internal aspects in greater detail, and has similar discussions of the "self-image" and "aspirations" and etc. of each of the 16 MBTI types.


No. 

I have no hunger for achievement for example, I have few to no aspirations in life. I am not a wizard nor do I strive to be one (what the fuck does that mean to begin anyway, lol?) and my internal values and my self-image have little to do with what you presented here. For a type 3 perhaps, which I'm not to begin with. 

I'm a type 5w*4*. What's important to me is to figure out and understand myself and to be myself; to be true to myself. I take pride in my knowledge but only because I'm a type 5, not because I happened to be an NT. I know plenty of people who take pride in their thinking without being cognitive NTs. @_Conclusion_ for example. 

What makes me an INTJ is because I think in terms of dominant Ni and auxiliary Te, not because I have a particular self-image that happened to correlate with what Keirsey described here. You need to stop rely on what sources say and look at what they are _really_ saying. How people appear is not the same as how they actually work inside.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ I'm not looking for a debate on what INTJs are like, or whether Keirsey or @LeaT has better insights to offer along those lines. I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different from what you find in other MBTI sources.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> ^ I'm not looking for a debate on what INTJs are like, or whether Keirsey or @_LeaT_ has better insights to offer along those lines. I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different from what you find in other MBTI sources.


Then why even quote Keirsey to begin? Essentially, your conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's, which to be honest is frankly missing the point why Jung even bothered to describe his psychological types at all. At least Myers pretended to do what Jung did, so assuming that Jung, Myers-Briggs and Keirsey (including, Berens, Nardi, Thomson and who else you can come up with) are doing the same thing is quite... flabbergasting. If we're moving down that slippery slope logic, then I will say that I think astrology is doing that too. They are describing personality types, no? Aren't they the same and thus as legit as The Big 5?

I reiterate what I wrote previously:


> You need to stop rely on what sources say and look at what they are *really *saying_._


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Then why even quote Keirsey to begin? Essentially, your conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's, which to be honest is frankly missing the point why Jung even bothered to describe his psychological types at all. At least Myers pretended to do what Jung did, so assuming that Jung, Myers-Briggs and Keirsey (including, Berens, Nardi, Thomson and who else you can come up with) are doing the same thing is quite... flabbergasting. If we're moving down that slippery slope logic, then I will say that I think astrology is doing that too. They are describing personality types, no? Aren't they the same and thus as legit as The Big 5?
> 
> I reiterate what I wrote previously:
> 
> ...


"Essentially, [my] conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's"—??

Somebody needs to start looking at what people "are *really* saying" but, with all due respect, I don't think it's me. :tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> "Essentially, [my] conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's"—??
> 
> Somebody needs to start looking at what people "are *really* saying" but, with all due respect, I don't think it's me. :tongue:


Then please clarify, what _was _​your conclusion? I think it is extremely difficult to interpret sentences like these:


> But if you actually read Please Understand Me II and compare Keirsey's descriptions with the descriptions in Myers, Thomson or any other popular MBTI source (or Jung, for that matter), you'll find that the mix of internal and external *really isn't all that different.*





> I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in *Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different *from what you find in other MBTI sources.


As any other way than you clearly downgrading the differences in content, creating sweeping statements since that they in a very general shallow sense seem to do the same thing, they are in fact, not that different.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Then please clarify, what _was _​your conclusion?


As I've already reiterated (are you even trying?), I said that, contrary to the view that Keirsey's all about _behavior_ and Jung/MBTI are about _internal_ stuff, the internal/external mix in the type profiles in Keirsey, Jung, Myers and other MBTI sources are not all that different.

I also pointed out that Keirsey had virtually no use for Jung's "cognitive functions" frame, and I specifically quoted Keirsey praising Myers for having done such a good job separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff — which is a far cry, I would submit, from my "conclusion" being "that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's" (as you summarized me).

I hope this helps. :tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> As I've already reiterated (are you even trying?), I said that, contrary to the view that Keirsey's all about _behavior_ and Jung/MBTI are about _internal_ stuff, the internal/external mix in the type profiles in Keirsey, Jung, Myers and other MBTI sources are not all that different.


No, clearly I am not trying. Also, I never once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. If anything, I'm inclined to say it's quite the opposite. The very source of internal conflict when it comes to the MBTI has to do with MBTI scholars trying to reconcile Jung with Myers' original interpretation of Jung which developed into what we see today. 

Yes, Jung also describes types in PT, I never denied this, but the way you present your information clarly seems to suggest that you think Jung's description of the inner workings of the human psyche is in fact, not that much different to how Keirsey describes type. 

Am I misreading you based on the quotes I picked out?


> I also pointed out that Keirsey had virtually no use for Jung's "cognitive functions" frame, and I specifically quoted Keirsey praising Myers for having done such a good job separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff — which is a far cry, I would submit, from my "conclusion" being "that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's" (as you summarized me).


So did I way before you posted your post in here, by pointing out that Keirsey has openly admitted that he does not support Jung's cognitive theory. I never chose to comment on Keirsey's comment when it comes to Myers since it is quite frankly, irrelevant to the point I was making.


> I hope this helps. :tongue:


Not really, since you failed to see the point I was making.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I never once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff.


And I never once claimed that you ever once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. My initial post quoted Acerbusvenator saying that Keirsey "just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on)" — which is a view I fairly often encounter, and led me to make my point about internal/external mixes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> And I never once claimed that you ever once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. My initial post quoted Acerbusvenator saying that Keirsey "just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on)" — which is a view I fairly often encounter, and led me to make my point about internal/external mixes.


And I pointed out that you seemed to trivialize how the various sources seem to handle psychological type, if Keirsey's types can even be considered as such. I'm inclined to say no.


----------



## Vianna (Jul 28, 2012)

I noticed actually the same thing. A lot of people in "type me" threads start their thread sure, that they are N and suddenly others start to doubt it, like it is something imposimble. Most of the people in "what is my type" forum are by other members typed as sensors. You know...There can't be so many sensors. Someone really has to be an intuitive type. On other forum once one member started to incredibly doubt with me, how imposible it is for me to be an intuitive type, even though I am almost 100% sure I am...I noticed that member later and that (s)he does that pretty often to other members also. I think (s)he was typed as INTP and the only feeling I got from it was...Some of the intuitive types are so proud of being intuitive and it makes them feeling, that they are such a uniqe, that they don't want others to be intutive too, because it would make them less uniqe...


----------



## Pseudowho (Jun 18, 2011)

It's a shame that this appears to have dissolved into argument. How easy it is to become furious with someone online, when we probably would not be so rude in real life...or are both of you "just not trying"? 

Regardless, I do agree with the opinion earlier on in the thread, that perhaps some S-types who type themselves as N-types, do so because of fear of prejudice. Which, is a fault on the side of both possible parties (the accusors and the accusees)- misinterpretation of the meaning and the significance of MBTI. The biggest flaw of this forum, is the amount of stock people put into MBTI types! Honestly! Like in healthcare, a person might be "a man with diabetes" (for example) as opposed to "a diabetic man", we should endeavour to do the same with MBTI types here. A person is not the sum of their MBTI description, but rather, should recognise an MBTI description with overall shared traits to themselves.

That might have come across as irrelevant and a little rant. I'm sorry! What I mean, is, if people in this forum understood MBTI properly and didn't take it so seriously, there would likely be no issues. Regardless of whether someone views themselves as an N or an S of any type, I'm still just going to take them as they come.

Come forth into my ample bosom, all ye S-types and N-types. We are all friends here.

Except you dirty INTJ's, UGH :wink:


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

I disagree with those who say that people come to perc *primarily* because they are interested in widening their horizons with the theories. Surely there are exceptions, but mostly people come here because they want to know more about themselves, who they are, because honestly most people have no idea who they are (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US became interested in the theory only after doing the funky similarminds personality test that told you that you are a super human, just as you had always secretly thought). People coming here for the first time might be suffering from an identity chrisis and if a "psychological" theory offers *an* answer that possibly relieves the pain, I'd say that anyone would go for it, irrespective of whether being a sensor or an intuitive. After studying the theories for a while they, of course, become more and more interesting and, possibly even, addictive.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Tehee, for once, she doesn't argue with *me*. :tongue:


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Polly said:


> I noticed actually the same thing. A lot of people in "type me" threads start their thread sure, that they are N and suddenly others start to doubt it, like it is something imposimble. Most of the people in "what is my type" forum are by other members typed as sensors. You know...There can't be so many sensors. Someone really has to be an intuitive type. On other forum once one member started to incredibly doubt with me, how imposible it is for me to be an intuitive type, even though I am almost 100% sure I am...I noticed that member later and that (s)he does that pretty often to other members also. I think (s)he was typed as INTP and the only feeling I got from it was...Some of the intuitive types are so proud of being intuitive and it makes them feeling, that they are such a uniqe, that they don't want others to be intutive too, because it would make them less uniqe...


I think that's the case for some people; I do wonder sometimes whether some of the people who spread this stuff are using their "N" label to make themselves feel superior. If being a sensor is portrayed as a "secret" that must be "sniffed out" as it is in the thread I quoted in the OP, that implies that intuitives are special and that being a sensor is something to be ashamed of. That's why I said that that reflects a much worse anti-sensor bias than anyone who types as an intuitive just because that's what they want to be. (To clear up something I think a couple of people misunderstood about the OP, I wasn't objecting to the idea that there are more sensors than intuitives in the general population; I was objecting to the portrayal of intuitives as special.) I think there are other people, though, who want to spread the idea that sensors are just as clever/imaginative/whatever as intuitives, and end up typing too many people as sensors because they want to prove that point. I do think those people have good intentions, but they're not helping their cause. Some of them seem to almost act as though S/N makes no differences to what a person is like. 

I agree with the sentiment expressed by people like @SputnikExperiment, @spectralsparrow and @Recon777; these theories are getting at the differences between people, and it's entirely possible to think that sensors and intuitives are different without thinking one is better or more valuable than the other. It's worth remembering that PerC is an N-dominated culture, and that's why N qualities are perceived as better, just as SJ qualities tend to be valued in an SJ society. But who says being theoretical/intellectual/imaginative is better than being down to earth/common sense/practical? When I first learned about the MBTI, I decided that I was definitely an N; in fact, I was mentally putting the people I knew into the categories I now know as "sensors" and "intuitives" long before I'd ever heard of it. But before I started browsing PerC, it didn't even occur to me to think that intuitives were any better than sensors.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

why is N perceived to lack common sense? I've been told I have it in spades.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I have to say, @_Conclusion_, that sounds nothing like any Si definition I've ever read. If you've got your own theory there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you fit anybody's definition of ISFJ. Even if you define ISFJ as simply Si, Fe, Ti, Ne, you have your own definitions of those functions, so using the standard terminology to refer to your own theory could potentially be misleading. We have someone like you, who types as a sensor, but keeps going waaay off into N-land in all your posts; you're going into some very abstract theoretical frameworks with seemingly little or no concern with how this stuff can be applied to anything practical. As far as I'm concerned you're clearly an N, and yet according to your own theory you're an ISFJ. I just think it could be confusing, especially for someone who is new to PerC and/or typology, how everyone seemingly has their own theory but uses the same terminology. How can we correct sensor/intuitive misconceptions if everyone has a different definition of what a sensor or intuitive is?


Just because someone is capable of abstract thinking it doesn't mean that person is an intuitive. That shows a poor understanding of what intuition means. 

Intuition is, at its very simplest sense, an apprehension of reality, if I am going to loosely paraphrase Jung. This means that what intuition does is that it reads patterns, hidden meanings and connections beyond the immediate sense experience. A very simple example is thus that a car is not just an object with four doors, four wheels and so on, but also a means of transportation. That is reading purpose beyond the immediate sense experience of how the car appears as. 

Abstraction thus not the same as intuition. Any person should, at least in theory, be capable of thinking abstractly. One can argue that especially the introverted functions are abstract by nature because they operate _a priori_. Si then, can take on a very abstract form due to its content ultimately being introverted, but what makes it a sensation function is that it will always relate to the concrete world that generated these abstractions. 

Intuition does not operate this way, since it apparehends reality and tries to look beyond what is immediate and concrete.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Also @Conclusion, if I'm completely honest I don't think your "political consciousness" regarding your self-typing is very helpfull to the community. It seems to me that you are typing as a sensor partly to show that being an S is nothing to be ashamed of. You do seem to have good intentions, but when you bring considerations like that into your decision about which type you are it can hinder people's progress in learning about the differences between the types, and between people.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Just because someone is capable of abstract thinking it doesn't mean that person is an intuitive. That shows a poor understanding of what intuition means.


I didn't say that. Sensors can certainly be capable of thinking abstractly, and may have some interest in theory, but they're more likely to want to apply the theory to something practical. If someone is intensely interested in abstract theoretical concepts but doesn't really care about practical applications, I'd call that person an intuitive. It might not fit with the Jung or socionics definitions of intuition, but it fits with the MBTI's definition.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I have to say, @_Conclusion_, that sounds nothing like any Si definition I've ever read. If you've got your own theory there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you fit anybody's definition of ISFJ. Even if you define ISFJ as simply Si, Fe, Ti, Ne, you have your own definitions of those functions, so using the standard terminology to refer to your own theory could potentially be misleading. We have someone like you, who types as a sensor, but keeps going waaay off into N-land in all your posts; you're going into some very abstract theoretical frameworks with seemingly little or no concern with how this stuff can be applied to anything practical. As far as I'm concerned you're clearly an N, and yet according to your own theory you're an ISFJ. I just think it could be confusing, especially for someone who is new to PerC and/or typology, how everyone seemingly has their own theory but uses the same terminology. How can we correct sensor/intuitive misconceptions if everyone has a different definition of what a sensor or intuitive is?


You've never heard that Si is sensory impressions? Sorry, 'templates'. The term I tend to use is 'database'. Simply put, Si records everything that it experiences and the impression it gave... usually casual impressions or sensory associations. I touched fire and it burned me. However, it isn't conscious like that. You see fire and you have an impression of the association. Because of Ne, the Si has a natural fear of possibilities... as they cannot easily distinguish what might occur (Ni does this) and thus, in an uncertain situation, Si attempts to relate the situation back to those impressions... sometimes inappropriately. The result is the hand-wringing mother stereotype. Just because it happened to the Si doesn't mean it will happen again, even though the situation feels the same. The Si may not be able to see that. Ne would have to suppress Si in order to embrace the possibilities, with a confidence that unexpected results can be good. 

As a rule, Si types really struggle to do this, specifically when the situation is serious - such as when dealing with their children, which is both nerve-wracking and also prone to cause a lot of sensory impressions to resurface by it's cyclical nature (see yourself in them). I'd go on about how Ni is different, but I assume the Ni types in the room already know how it's different (Hint: it's abstracted). 

I am personally fighting off Si with a stick where my kids are concerned. Si was never a consideration for me, as Ne was usually fundamentally stronger. Si had it's role, mostly as a huge pain in the ass that made me very uncertain in any new situation, but it never had the reins. 

Anyway, I think your Si description was quite fine @_Conclusion_. I also think you used Ne quite strongly in that post. I am suddenly curious how you justify Si in dominant usage. I'd like to emphasize that being harassed by Si doesn't mean it's dominant. Si dominance implies comfortable conscious usage and usually implies that you are inclined to embrace it and see it as the best tool for the job in most situations. I don't think some forum posts using Ne can determine that, but consider this: Fe has a huge role in my life and always has. I'd call it a preoccupation. However, it's absolutely a subconscious scourge to me. It overwhelms me and, to approach it, I tend to have to utilize every other function first. When Fe has 'dominance', I am a shaking weeping mess saying 'what got into me?' 

Values define me and my love of people has bubbled below the surface since I was old enough to form lasting memories. Rather than proving a strong position, I think that the specifics of my relationship with Fe prove that it is inferior.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I didn't say that. Sensors can certainly be capable of thinking abstractly, and may have some interest in theory, *but they're more likely to want to apply the theory to something practical.*


Practical or pragmatic application of abstract thought tends to fall into the realms of Te (Fe types probably see themselves as pragmatic but for reasons that are probably not widely recognized as such), not sensation, although sensation can help to realize these practical applications in a more efficient way. 



> If someone is intensely interested in abstract theoretical concepts but doesn't really care about practical applications, I'd call that person an intuitive.


I'd call that a person who does not seem to favor Te as their logical evaluation function. As an example, you already mentioned yourself the need for practical application of theory and how theory must fit reality a couple of times in your posts, explicitly or implicitly:


> _you're going into some very abstract theoretical frameworks *with seemingly little or no concern with how this stuff can be applied to anything practical. *_


Does this make you a sensor too, despite the fact that you type as an N on the MBTI tests?


> It might not fit with the Jung or socionics definitions of intuition, but it fits with the MBTI's definition.


Socionics and the MBTI both derive their defnitions from Jung, so I'd say it's fair to say that while they may approach it somewhat differently, they are in effect trying to describe the same phenomenon. How effectively they are doing this however, is another question.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Octavarium said:


> I didn't say that. Sensors can certainly be capable of thinking abstractly, and may have some interest in theory, but they're more likely to want to apply the theory to something practical. If someone is intensely interested in abstract theoretical concepts but doesn't really care about practical applications, I'd call that person an intuitive. It might not fit with the Jung or socionics definitions of intuition, but it fits with the MBTI's definition.


Si is funny this way, l had a very poor understanding of it and still don't grasp it completely in an Si dominant but l relate it to my own inferior Si which is mysterious but l see it in both ISxJ's and myself.

lt's possible that myself and some other Ne-Si users fail to separate the way we use Si from Ne itself and think that an Si dominant must be an intuitive if they're similar to us.

l don't think he's trying to make a statement, but l remember that for a very short period(l think when l first registered) of time people actually did take on an S type to make an ''MBTI statement'' and were sure to inform everyone of the reasons behind their doing so. lt was more than a little bizarre.

l think introverts can very easily be mistyped as intuitive and it's easy to view them as such. A separate issue that doesn't get discussed as much as S vs N in general but is interesting and would eventually lead into how hard the distinction can be to make in some cases and thus how little difference there truly is between some S/N types >_>


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@LeaT If you're not going to bother reading what I actually write, is there any point in me typing out a serious response? You just did to me exactly what you did to @reckful earlier in the thread: took a quote out of the post and then came to a conclusion based on it that had nothing to do with what was actually said.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> It's interesting to me that Keirsey could ditch the functions and not have it really make a difference is interesting.


As you'll see if you read this post, I think Myers also (mostly) ditched the functions. Keirsey was just more up front about it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @_LeaT_ If you're not going to bother reading what I actually write, is there any point in me typing out a serious response? You just did to me exactly what you did to @_reckful_ earlier in the thread: took a quote out of the post and then came to a conclusion based on it that had nothing to do with what was actually said.


I am not cherrypicking or not reading you properly. I could say the same thing about you. This is how I can tell you're an Si-Ne type over Ni-Se type. What I did was in my opinion very relevant to what I was saying. I was proving the point to you that theoretical pragmatism has nothing to do with sensation but is the result of Te as a force operating in the psyche, either conscious or unconscious. 

The question I asked you was of rhetorical nature. You define S this way, but then, according to your own definition, you'd be an S. That you favor theoretical pragmatism is evident in a lot of your posts in this thread. I just so chose to quote the most evident example where you openly admit this yourself. That you seek results is however very evident, and that need for results is caused by Te, not sensation. 

You need to stop simplify functions. They are not just 4 letter codes where S is S. That really misses the depth of what sensation is about. This becomes evident because you do not recognize @Conclusion's description of Si as Si but instead you label it as N because it's abstract. Well, then allow me to say duh, Si is abstract because Si is abstraction of sense experience. 

Look deeper, not for the shore. Just because the description may not fit your personal understanding of Si it doesn't mean it's not Si. Si isn't just how things appear as; Si is a specific perspective meant to describe how people work in their minds. Sensation as a whole is. The very definition of cognitive functions that Myers derive her 4 letter code from is based on Jung's core idea that we will always understand the world through a certain cognitive perspective. 

I really don't think it can be clearer than this.


----------



## bluetriceritops (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm definitely an N supremacist but that said I think I only think N is better because I'm a high N. I have met S types who (the ones who could stand the whole explanation) said that hearing how an "N" thinks makes them wish they were deaf. on the outside N looks like a lot of overthinking (kinda like having a whole forum dedicated to over analyzing personality traits). While I prefer to keep the company of N's its not really cuz they are so much better its just easier and takes less effort for me than a bunch of s types. I can't really see someone who is mistyping themselves as an N being super involved on this site for a long period of time whereas an actual N type is going to enjoy the high density of other N types compared to the regular population and the theoretical acrobatics that comes with that.


----------



## bluetriceritops (Apr 15, 2012)

w ww. wireclub. com /chat/room/mbti_personality_type?from=welcome- starting a chat now be mindful of the spaces


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... and, no one considered that intuition is under represented in the official statistics. Let's remember what the MBTI is as an institution and who their clients are. Would that make the statistics more representative of the corporate culture and not of America as a nation? Is it possible that people answer questions a certain way because they enjoy collecting a cheque every so often? MBTI statistics are not government census data and should not be treated as such. 

... there's something to be said about yearning for a specific result. Is it possible that our unconscious looks past our repressions, our insecurities and answers the questions accordingly? I consider my testing as an extroverted intuitive as being representative of something that I was in the past and something I'm in the process of becoming. 

Why 16 types? Why not 20? or 14?

16 just happens to be a convenient number where all the possible combinations of functions are accounted for. Is it possible to have 3 or 5 functions rather then the standard 4? Considering there are 7 billion people living on earth and only 16 types, it's hard not to imagine the system as being crude despite its sophistication.

edit: We're also dealing with a system where the definitions are being debate; not only an this forum and in this particular thread, but also among professionals.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

@_Octavarium_ I see what you're saying, but honestly I think most everyone will wind up with their own subtly different definition of the functions according to their own experience / understanding; I'm just taking the opportunity to lay mine out, since I don't see much of myself in most folks' Si descriptions, and since I was thinking about it anyway. (And to my mind since 80% of internet arguments boil down to "what should this word mean," having arguments that boil down to "what should this function mean" doesn't strike me as much of a change. )

And I see what you're saying about different theories, but again to my mind I'd frame it differently -- I think a profusion of theories can only be a good thing, but my instinct is to define a project or community (or forum) in terms of a shared vision, shared purpose. Not only do we all have different theories, but we all have different interests / needs, so it's hard to appeal to common ground in cases like this. Harder to bridge the gap between different theories / understandings. Not sure what to do about that; maybe I'm expecting PerC to be more of a community than it is or can be. 

And FWIW, I don't view my label as "what type I am," (which I currently un-conceptualize as SiFeTiNe & etc.) but rather what type I identify as -- which is (on PerC) a part of what transforms me from a random unperson into a fully fledged social being. To have social reasons to garb myself one way rather than another when I could make a case for both, honestly, seems to me entirely appropriate.  At the same time, I see what you're saying (and feel your pain) about not being able to trust peoples' types -- but really that's true in any case for all manner of reasons, and I think a certain basic skill at (re)typing people is necessary to really learn what different folks are like. (A bit chicken-and-egg I know; personally I think lurking typing threads is helpful.)

(Also I think part of the reason that it doesn't sound like anyone else's Si description is that very few Si-doms who're interested in their own cognition actually type themselves as Si-doms. )

EDIT: @Octavarium, long story, but I think the note to arkigos and attached link is a decent summary. 

@_arkigos_, that's the kind of question I have difficulty answering quickly or completely. I'm committed to seeing SiFeTiNe through as a hypothesis, but my reasons for that commitment take some thought to thoroughly articulate.  (Awhile ago I made a first stab at it here, if you're interested.)

Actually I find your experience of Fe quite striking, because while I spent most of my life short-circuiting Fe with a judgement against itself (as a dumb function for dumb people) I differentiated it all at once in a yearlong explosion of kittens and rainbows and cultural anthropology and political radicalism and self-assessment and inner work -- and continued to think of it as my inferior throughout. I thought I must really be going crazy to reason so heavily with it, relying on it almost as an IJ does their aux. Then someone suggested that it really was my aux. A bit of a relief in many ways. 

I seem to have a funny relationship to Ne -- indeed I've described my cognition as a brooding thundercloud of Si with flashes of inferior Ne, and I think you're seeing a couple weeks of such flashes put to paper all at once as I tried to attend to and come to grips with the function I noticed last.  And I do a fair amount of Ne-ishly-rambly public speaking as a grad student, when I've thought it through / know my stuff; I've got quite adept at preparing quickly, but still need to completely prepare. But when it comes, it seems to flow compulsively, unreasonably, out of some gap in my awareness; I find it incredibly difficult to use on its own, and incredibly difficult to trust when it tells me something I can't verify independently. (And if you watch what I'm afraid of, and why, as I've learned to do only lately when I became conscious of the passion of fear as a fluid chill in and around my heart, you'll see it operating quite a bit outside my awareness.)

But, honestly interested in your thoughts if you'd like to share them.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I think this thread is racist.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

SputnikExperiment said:


> ... and, no one considered that intuition is under represented in the official statistics. Let's remember what the MBTI is as an institution and who their clients are. Would that make the statistics more representative of the corporate culture and not of America as a nation? Is it possible that people answer questions a certain way because they enjoy collecting a cheque every so often? MBTI statistics are not government census data and should not be treated as such.
> 
> ... there's something to be said about yearning for a specific result. Is it possible that our unconscious looks past our repressions, our insecurities and answers the questions accordingly? I consider my testing as an extroverted intuitive as being representative of something that I was in the past and something I'm in the process of becoming.
> 
> ...


This.

l'm going to do myself an enormous favor and not *ever* answer the questions like anything other than an ESTJ if given the MBTI for potential employment and it's known that you shouldn't. l've read about unlucky people here who were rejected after their results for being "creative" in corporate lingo and sent on their merry way to find an employer better suited for their whacky intuitive tastes.

l was only given the test in high school. Our teacher trolled us a little about how important it was and l think if anything, that will also cause people to avoid some of the answers that are going to come out on the N (or P) side.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Conclusion, if you don't mind me asking: if you "don't see much of [yourself] in most folks' Si descriptions", what lead you to the conclusion that you're an Si dom? I'm just curious about your process.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> You need to stop simplify functions. They are not just 4 letter codes where S is S. That really misses the depth of what sensation is about. This becomes evident because you do not recognize @_Conclusion_'s description of Si as Si but instead you label it as N because it's abstract. Well, then allow me to say duh, Si is abstract because Si is abstraction of sense experience.
> 
> Look deeper, not for the shore. Just because the description may not fit your personal understanding of Si it doesn't mean it's not Si. Si isn't just how things appear as; Si is a specific perspective meant to describe how people work in their minds. Sensation as a whole is. The very definition of cognitive functions that Myers derive her 4 letter code from is based on Jung's core idea that we will always understand the world through a certain cognitive perspective.
> 
> I really don't think it can be clearer than this.


I think this absolutely nailed it. I don't know where it was being said that 'S' is perception of immediate sensory experience. How in the world could a database of sensory impressions being connected in an internalized, visceral impression possibly be immediate and present? Sure, it's recording, but mostly it is connecting these impressiong 'intuitively'. That is definitely what it is, and mechanically the same as Ni. 

The only problem I have with this is that it is using the term 'abstract' which I think is troublesome due to subjective meanings that can be placed on that word. I think it is an absolutely fine word to use, but that is because I feel I grasp the meaning of it in this context.

I might have used the word 'imagined'? I don't know. Regardless, it is either that Si itself has the power of some level of 'abstraction' (grr, I wish there were a better word!) or it is able to utilize Ne somehow. This doesn't seem to make sense because it seems like connecting impressions is wholly in the purview of Si. I think the ultimate point of whether Ne is involved is moot... since anyone who is Si is also Ne. Si is not immediate or present AT ALL, I think it is just like Ni in being pulled away from the now to those impressions, connecting them much like Ni would. I think this is a brilliant clarification/description of Si. It would make much more sense for the stereotypical 'presence of mind' associated with Si types to be their Ne.... while the focus of that awareness is informed by Si. 

I wandered a bit there, when what I really wanted to say is that I think @LeaT's assertion was very insightful.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_arkigos_

Though I'm sure you're firmly aware, I thought I'd post the definition of abstraction as Jung intended it as it relates to functions for all to see. I think a good synonym for abstract, in this case, would be extract.




Jung said:


> 1. Abstraction, as the word already implies, is the drawing out or isolation of a content (e.g. a meaning or general character, etc.) from a connection, containing other elements, whose combination as a totality is something unique or individual, and therefore inaccessible to comparison. Singularity, uniqueness, and incomparability are obstacles to cognition, hence to the cognitive tendency the remaining elements, though felt to be essentially bound up with the content, must appear irrelevant.​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_arkigos_
> 
> Though I'm sure you're firmly aware, I thought I'd post the definition of abstraction as Jung intended it as it relates to functions for all to see. I think a good synonym for abstract, in this case, would be extract.


First, thank you for this. I believe I have read this but lost it somewhere along the way. 

If abstraction is:



> _Abstraction, therefore, is that form of mental activity which releases the essential content or fact from its connection with irrelevant elements; it distinguishes it from them, or, in other words, differentiates it. (v. Differentiation). In its wider sense, everything is abstract that is separated from its connection with non-appertaining elements._


Then @LeaT used precisely the correct word because that is precisely what (my) Si does. I would also state that my Si does this in a wholly subconscious way. I see someone, and I almost instantly, without thinking, have a list of everyone I have ever met whom they are 'like' and have to pull those impressions into conscious thought and organize them. Not just with people, but with many things (more perhaps than I realize) that enter my senses. 

I think this process is something I share with Keirsey... who used his subjective impressions over many years to formulate his ... well, his whole damn book. There is very much a feeling of making sense of sensory impressions that have been triggered many times in a wide range of situations for many years. It feels like Please Understand Me II is in many ways a dump of those impressions into a book.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

Not gonna pretend I read all of that so I'll just say this.

*Guys, the reason the "Ns" want you to be a sensor is because. THE INTERNET IS FULL OF "Ns". NOT ENOUGH ROOM ANYMORE. NEED MORE SENSORS. *

Just look at this board. Crawling with INTJs, INFPs, ENFPs, INTPs etc. 

Like seriously. We definitely *NEED MORE SPs*. Shit on this forum gets too heavy sometimes.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@arkigos

To add to what @reckful said, even if you could definitively prove that as many as 90 % of the people who start type-me threads turn out to be S's, and that thread was therefore technically correct in suggesting that the average typee was "not likely an N," you also need to consider that that thread is not making a neutral statement of fact. It's a thread entitled "Things to consider when you do your form" which is stickied in the "What's my personality type?" forum, so the purpose of that statement is to discourage people from thinking they're N's. What exactly are we trying to achieve by doing that? Doesn't that suggest that being an N is better than being an S?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm going to jump in here:

The statement is making an assertion of probability, so let's take a heuristic approach to arrive at an estimate. To do this, we need to assess what facts we have in front of us that we can use to make inferences from. We can divide this facts into two categories: What we know about the composition of PerC members, and what we know based on type data in general.

A. What is true about the composition of PerC members?
What we can objectively verify about PerC members is that the plurality of members identify as IN types, and that that there are more N types than S types

I just took a snapshot of the type distribution of PerC members as of today, 6/11/2013. I only included members who have made at least 5 posts.


```
Type	Freq	Proportion
UNKNOWN	1544	0.09
ISTJ	437	0.02
ISFJ	314	0.02
ISTP	527	0.03
ISFP	506	0.03
INTJ	1876	0.11
INTP	2228	0.13
INFJ	2580	0.15
INFP	3723	0.21
ESTJ	97	0.01
ESFJ	102	0.01
ESTP	159	0.01
ESFP	117	0.01
ENTJ	401	0.02
ENTP	1112	0.06
ENFJ	514	0.03
ENFP	1352	0.08
```


```
Pref	Freq	Proportion
I	12191	0.76
E	3854	0.24
S	2259	0.14
N	13786	0.86
T	6837	0.43
F	9208	0.57
J	6321	0.39
P	9724	0.61
```
I want to point out two things: 

IN's constitute the majority of typed PerC members, at 59%
N's outnumber S's by 17 to 3, that is, 86% of typed PerC members are N types.

That's what we know about PerC.

B. What do we know from MBTI data?

From MBTI data we can pull at least two relevant pieces of information: N types are more likely than S types to be interested in pursuits involving psychology and personality. We know this from data regarding type and occupation (and occupation satisfaction), but this trend pops up in all sorts of places, such as in Mitchell (2003) who mentions that 86% percent of the MBTI administrators in the study reported by Bathurst (1999) were N types. Yes, 86%, the same as the percentage of N types on PerC. Uncanny!

Speaking of Mitchell (2003), his study addressed the anecodtal observation that SP types are likely to mistype as N's. I strongly suggest reading through the whole study; it is in very plain language and the statistics are not at all hard to follow. But the message is very clear. (Attention: @arkigos)

For all best-fit N types, the most frequent dimension for them to be mistyped on by a test is the N/S dimension. That is, people who, after careful consideration of their test results and of the information provided to them by an experienced type practitioner, decide that they are N types, the most likely dimension that the test made an error on was the N/S dimension. In fact, 25% of NJ types are mistyped by the MBTI as SJ types. That's an insane number. If anyone wants to complain about a facet of the MBTI, this should be the part they complain about. It is absolutely shitty at correctly typing NJ's, who were mistyped as either SJ's or NP's about 40% of the time. :angry::crazy: INSANE!

The opposite is true for best-fit S types. For all best-fit S types, the N/S dimension is the least likely dimension for them to be mistyped on by the MBTI.

If, as a heuristic, we are considering A) the general category of people interested in type, B) the general category of people who visit PerC, and C) the general category of people who feel uncertain about their type on the N/S dimension, every single data point we have tells us that it is more likely that this set of people is an N type, not an S type.

So, here's a heuristic answer: No, the statement is not likely to be true. In fact, the opposite is strongly implied by the available data. From what we can tell, if you are here on PerC questioning your N/S preference, you are more likely to end up deciding that N is a better fit than S.

Why is that thread stickied on PerC? Can we ask a mod to un-sticky it?

EDIT:
@Octavarium posted while I was working on this post.

I think it's worth considering that from a factual standpoint, the stickied post in question is at best confusing, and at worst flat out wrong and unhelpful.

But @Octavarium's points about the tone and style of the stickied post, which she has been making since the first post of this thread, are enough for us to condemn the stickied post as problematic and unworthy of "sticky" status.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Teybo, good points, but...

1. How did you get that data about PerC members? Just curious.
2. In all honesty, that thread isn't worth the intellectual energy you've invested in disputing its claims. I don't think that thread is saying that, after carefully considering the facts, it's author came to the conclusion that there is a higher probability of someone who starts a type-me thread being an S than an N. Rather, I think it's more along the lines of, "you may think you're an N, but really you're not as clever or imaginative as you think, and the typers here will sniff out the dirty secret that is your S preference." Which is why I've already said several times, and I think it's worth repeating again, that reflects a pretty bad anti-sensor bias, and quite frankly the forum shouldn't be endorsing such nonsense.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Octavarium

1. Up top, click Community, then Member List. Then, on the right hand side, you'll notice a search option. Click Advanced Search. You can filter by type.

2. It wasn't that much time and energy to post what I did, and I wanted to post it because A) the data is interesting and worth considering; B) it addresses a conversation @arkigos and I had much earlier in the thread and C) I find the stickied thread to be completely unsuitable (and offensive and insulting) and I'm willing to be the one to provide whatever data is necessary to convince any notified moderators (have you asked any mods about removing the thread?) that it should be removed on empirical grounds.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@Teybo —

Thanks for sharing that JPT article! I hadn't seen that before. Just last week (as you know), I said...



reckful said:


> I think there are aspects of personality where it makes sense to view N and J as tugging in somewhat opposite directions, and I suspect that that sometimes leads to "dirty" questions on MBTI tests (e.g., an N question that appeals more to NPs than NJs). And I suspect that it may turn out that dirty questions of that kind are the primary reason that an N preference mildly correlates with a P preference (and an S preference with a J preference) — rather than because the two real human personality dimensions the typology is tapping into actually correlate.


... and I'd say that article offers some decent evidence that some not-insignificant portion (at least) of the correlation between S/N and J/P is the result of poor test items rather than a real correlation between the two underlying personality dimensions.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @Octavarium
> 
> 1. Up top, click Community, then Member List. Then, on the right hand side, you'll notice a search option. Click Advanced Search. You can filter by type.
> 
> 2. It wasn't that much time and energy to post what I did, and I wanted to post it because A) the data is interesting and worth considering; B) it addresses a conversation @arkigos and I had much earlier in the thread and C) I find the stickied thread to be completely unsuitable (and offensive and insulting) and I'm willing to be the one to provide whatever data is necessary to convince any notified moderators (have you asked any mods about removing the thread?) that it should be removed on empirical grounds.


My god, the number of times a load of people on a thread say "we need to tell the mods about this!" and no one actually does. Calling @Dear Sigmund @Promethea


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

reckful said:


> @Teybo —
> 
> Thanks for sharing that JPT article! I hadn't seen that before. Just last week (as you know), I said...
> 
> ...


You're welcome. 

The N/S-P/J correlation is clearly inherent in the instrument, but if we understand personality based on the constructions of Intuition, Sensation, Perceiving, and Judging alone, I'm not sure we're "free" of the SJ-NP biasing. 

That's not to contradict what you said. I think you're right that the underlying personality dimensions are not linked, which is evidenced by the Big 5 being able to separate out two distinct dimensions of Openness and Conscientiousness. Although O and C don't correlate perfectly with N/S and J/P, it's enough to suggest that the underlying concepts are separable.

However, seeing things through the lens of Intuition or Sensing seems itself to induce, at least in me, and perhaps in other NJ's, an implicit tug on the idea of Judging or Perceiving. What do you think?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Teybo said:


> However, seeing things through the lens of Intuition or Sensing seems itself to induce, at least in me, and perhaps in other NJ's, an implicit tug on the idea of Judging or Perceiving. What do you think?


Not sure what you mean, but I think I disagree. I've been complaining for years that it's pretty typical for MBTI tests to include S/N items where the N items are significantly more likely to appeal to NPs (and/or NFs, in the case of what you might call "mystical" N items, although the _official_ MBTI is pretty much free of those) than NTJs — who I see as the most _grounded_ of the N's. There are lots of personality characteristics that more than one of the MBTI preferences can substantially contribute to, and I think the MBTI should be designed in such a way that items on any dimension that _also_ significantly correlate with one of the other dimensions are _kept off the test_. If the two underlying dimensions are actually correlated, that won't be possible, but otherwise it should be — and, as you noted, the Big Five data suggests that it's possible.

So I suspect my answer to your question is that, assuming the underlying personality dimensions are separate, then if the "lens of Intuition" in MBTI theory is properly defined/described (so that it's just straight N rather than N with a dash of P), it will be understood to be something that doesn't "induce ... an implicit [P] tug" (assuming the "P" is also properly defined/described, of course).

Note that I'm not envisioning that the theory will _ignore_ the N + P characteristics. On the contrary, I think there are lots of personality characteristics that are best viewed in terms of corresponding to combinations of two or more of the preferences. I just think the typology (and its test) should do its best to distinguish the N vs. S stuff from the NP vs. SJ stuff (and so on).


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

reckful said:


> Not sure what you mean, but I think I disagree. I've been complaining for years that it's pretty typical for MBTI tests to include S/N items where the N items are significantly more likely to appeal to NPs (and/or NFs, in the case of what you might call "mystical" N items, although the _official_ MBTI is pretty much free of those) than NTJs — who I see as the most _grounded_ of the N's. There are lots of personality characteristics that more than one of the MBTI preferences can substantially contribute to, and I think the MBTI should be designed in such a way that items on any dimension that _also_ significantly correlate with one of the other dimensions are _kept off the test_. If the two underlying dimensions are actually correlated, that won't be possible, but otherwise it should be — and, as you noted, the Big Five data suggests that it's possible.
> 
> So I suspect my answer to your question is that, assuming the underlying personality dimensions are separate, then if the "lens of Intuition" in MBTI theory is properly defined/described (so that it's just straight N rather than N with a dash of P), it will be understood to be something that doesn't "induce ... an implicit [P] tug" (assuming the "P" is also properly defined/described, of course).
> 
> Note that I'm not envisioning that the theory will _ignore_ the N + P characteristics. On the contrary, I think there are lots of personality characteristics that are best viewed in terms of corresponding to combinations of two or more of the preferences. I just think the typology (and its test) should do its best to distinguish the N vs. S stuff from the NP vs. SJ stuff (and so on).


Interesting. Maybe part of it is that I'm at a point where I'm wondering what "MBTI theory properly defined/described" even looks like. And part of that might be that the ghosts of "functions" are still floating around in my head, but as living zombies as communicated from the heads of mainstream MBTI practitioners, theorists, and expert authors.

That is to say, perhaps the reason that I feel like the theoretical conception of N is tied to P is related to a feedback loop of sorts that has reinforced so many N characteristics as "Ne" and thus, implicitly, NP.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint with me! roud:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Teybo_, @_reckful_, @_arkigos_

Here is another interesting explanation by Berens on how SPs might be mistyped as N's:

How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing

It's not scientific, but I think the ideas are worth considering.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_Teybo_, @_reckful_, @_arkigos_
> 
> Here is another interesting explanation by Berens on how SPs might be mistyped as N's:
> 
> ...


Berens was, specifically, one of the sources that Mitchell (2003) addressed.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_Teybo_, @_reckful_, @_arkigos_
> 
> Here is another interesting explanation by Berens on how SPs might be mistyped as N's:
> 
> ...


To follow up on @Teybo's reply, that Berens/Robb article is one of the "anecdotal" reports cited at the start of the article Teybo linked to — the author of which found that the data pointed to somewhat different conclusions. Near the start of his article, Mitchell noted:



Mitchell said:


> Several reports over the past few years have concluded that the MBTI S-N scale elicits an inordinate number of intuitive responses from SPs (Berens, 1997; Berens & Robb, 1997; Rogers, 1997). Most of these reports have been based on anecdotal rather than empirical data. Although anecdotal evidence may be suggestive of interesting research questions, it is inadequate for drawing scientific conclusions.


As Teybo noted in his earlier post, one of the things Mitchell found was that it was significantly more likely for N's (and NJs in particular) to mistype as S's than the other way around.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Teybo said:


> Berens was, specifically, one of the sources that Mitchell (2003) addressed.


Yes, which is what made me think of the link I posted.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Yes, which is what made me think of the link I posted.


See @reckful's post above.

I was too subtle. When I say that Mitchell (2003) addressed the ideas that Berens put forward regarding SP's, what I mean to convey is that the data debunks Berens and Robb's anecdotal "theory".


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> To follow up on @_Teybo_'s reply, that Berens/Robb article is one of the "anecdotal" reports cited at the start of the article Teybo linked to — the author of which found that the data pointed to somewhat different conclusions. Near the start of his article, Mitchell noted:
> 
> As Teybo noted in his earlier post, one of the things Mitchell found was that it was significantly more likely for N's (and NJs in particular) to mistype as S's than the other way around.


I suppose the point that I was getting at was to provide some potential explanations as to why some SPs might look like Ns. I wasn't trying to disprove what Teybo was saying.

In the MBTI class I took, they taught us that when in doubt, between S or N, choose N because Ns are more likely to confuse themselves as Sensors, rather than vice versa. This fact may be less evident on a typology forum full of enthusiasts, but in the real world where people are unfamiliar with MBTI, it is more likely. (Same goes for choosing I, F, or P when in doubt of their respective dichotomies)


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> In the MBTI class I took, they taught us that when in doubt, between S or N, choose N because Ns are more likely to confuse themselves as Sensors, rather than vice versa. This fact may be less evident on a typology forum full of enthusiasts, but in the real world where people are unfamiliar with MBTI, it is more likely.


No no no, that's the underlying point of this whole thread. Here on PerC, more than anywhere else I can think of, we can expect more N's than S's, and yet we have some brain-dead, typist, arrogant, moronic sticky-ed thread that says "You're not likely an "N"" and "People will sniff you out regardless of what you write."

While some SP's might get NP results on the MBTI, they can rest assured that it is more likely for them to get an SJ result than an NP result. The ones who are most likely to contradict their MBTI results on the N/S dimension are people who test as S's but identify their best-fit type as an N type


----------



## Tru7h (Oct 16, 2012)

Um...whatever. Sensor or intuitive? Who gives a crap. It is simply about your preferences. You are who you are and for those who try to esteem themselves above others as a result of their type, shut up and grow up.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Teybo said:


> No no no, that's the underlying point of this whole thread. Here on PerC, more than anywhere else I can think of, we can expect more N's than S's, and yet we have some brain-dead, typist, arrogant, moronic sticky-ed thread that says "You're not likely an "N"" and "People will sniff you out regardless of what you write."
> 
> While some SP's might get NP results on the MBTI, they can rest assured that it is more likely for them to get an SJ result than an NP result. The ones who are most likely to contradict their MBTI results on the N/S dimension are people who test as S's but identify their best-fit type as an N type


My bad. I forgot the main point from 20-something pages ago. I just wanted to discuss how an N or S might get confused for the other. Oops.

On MBTI tests I always test as a strong N. I have to go out of my way to manipulate the test to give me an ISTP result. It was this forum that typed me as xSTP. So I went with it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> On MBTI tests I always test as a strong N. I have to go out of my way to manipulate the test to give me an ISTP result. It was this forum that typed me as xSTP. So I went with it.


I realize you're probably not going to buy this, but I have to say it: If you "always test as a strong N" on dichotomy-based MBTI tests, the probability that you're an S is very low. The MBTI S/N dichotomy is tapping into the same relatively hard-wired dimension of human personality as the Big Five Openness to Experience dimension, and it's a dimension with decades of respectable scientific (albeit "soft scientific") backing at this point. Nothing remotely like the same thing can be said for the "cognitive functions" that I assume one or more of the PerC posters must have pointed to in convincing you you were _really_ an S.

If you've never read my summary "dichotomies vs. functions" post, you're cordially invited.

ADDED: And in case you're interested in reading any of the links in that post and can't access them because you're not an INTJforum member, you can find replacement copies of the links in this PerC post.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> I realize you're probably not going to buy this, but I have to say it: If you "always test as a strong N" on dichotomy-based MBTI tests, the probability that you're an S is very low. The MBTI S/N dichotomy is tapping into the same relatively hard-wired dimension of human personality as the Big Five Openness to Experience dimension, and it's a dimension with decades of respectable scientific (albeit "soft scientific") backing at this point. Nothing remotely like the same thing can be said for the "cognitive functions" that I assume one or more of the PerC posters must have pointed to in convincing you you were _really_ an S.
> 
> If you've never read my summary "dichotomies vs. functions" post, you're cordially invited.


LOL. Of course I'll buy! I am probably the most open-minded person despite whatever impression I might give off.  Which is why I am open to being typed as a Sensor over Intuitive. I think I can be difficult to type because I am also autistic, so I tend to be quite literal and concrete. In autistic people, I find that there is a disconnect between the abstract and concrete. I can understand both, but have great difficulties relating one to the other. My thinking is also primarily non-verbal. It's like I'm a tourist in a foreign country, where I can mostly communicate in basic literal language. Others might have to be more explicit and dumb things down, but that is only because these same others don't speak my language. My IQ is in the 99th percentile, I understand a lot more than I might appear to. I also think about things in a very different way.

Sorry. I went off on a tangent. I have been discriminated against my whole life. I am bothered by potentially being discriminated against because of an MBTI dichotomy. It's silly.

I will read your post. Thanks!!


----------



## Daniel_James_Maher (Feb 11, 2013)

I read the title and thought "You wish!" But having actually seen your post now I agree, but I think I can add to it.

I typed as INTJ first time I took the test, and being a good ISTJ I accepted this result implicitly until an INFJ friend insisted I do it again because she was sure I was an ISTJ. I got INTJ again a number of times before I eventually got ISTJ.

In my case; I was horrified by the INTJ result (not that I dislike INTJs, no offence to you guys, but try to imagine how an ISTJ would feel about being 'actually' INTJ. I'll help you; I knew I wasn't good at problem solving so that made me a relatively 'dumb' INTJ and apart from that the description said INTJs had little regard for rules and that made me seem like I was just weak-willed.) so I had no desire to test as INTJ but I did anyway. I eventually realised it was because I did not understand the questions relating to the N-S spectrum properly, because they were not concrete enough. There would be questions about whether I liked the big picture or the details; and actually I like a broad knowledge across many fields so I answered big picture. Of course, I actually like to go into details as well, and I'm not so good with anything intuitive. In almost every S-N question I fit the N answer better for whatever reason.
I think if the test questions were designed with sensors in mind there would not be so many mistypes.

Also the test should be designed in a neutral way so that people aren't tempted to answer inaccurately.
If the question asks "Are you good at solving problems?" how on earth is anyone meant to answer that objectively?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Daniel_James_Maher said:


> I typed as INTJ first time I took the test, and being a good ISTJ I accepted this result implicitly until an INFJ friend insisted I do it again because she was sure I was an ISTJ. I got INTJ again a number of times before I eventually got ISTJ. ...
> 
> I had no desire to test as INTJ but I did anyway. I eventually realised it was because I did not understand the questions relating to the N-S spectrum properly, because they were not concrete enough. There would be questions about whether I liked the big picture or the details; and actually I like a broad knowledge across many fields so I answered big picture. Of course, I actually like to go into details as well, and I'm not so good with anything intuitive. In almost every S-N question I fit the N answer better for whatever reason.
> I think if the test questions were designed with sensors in mind there would not be so many mistypes.
> ...


I'm not sure which test you're referring to as "the test," but the official MBTI doesn't have any references to "big picture" or "details," nor does it ask if you're "good at solving problems."

If you have any interest in taking the Step I MBTI and seeing how you come out, it's here.


----------



## Daniel_James_Maher (Feb 11, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'm not sure which test you're referring to as "the test," but the official MBTI doesn't have any references to "big picture" or "details," nor does it ask if you're "good at solving problems."
> 
> If you have any interest in taking the Step I MBTI and seeing how you come out, it's here.


Thanks but I am confident what type I am by numerous evidences including test results, I don't need yet another test. I took several different tests and my post was based on common problems among many of the tests I did.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Daniel_James_Maher said:


> Thanks but I am confident what type I am by numerous evidences including test results, I don't need yet another test. I took several different tests and my post was based on common problems among many of the tests I did.


Well, thanks, but I wasn't particularly interested in your type. The issue under discussion is the extent to which the tests people are likely to take are N-skewed in terms of having N items that _both_ N's and S's are more likely to prefer.

Can you point me to any of the tests you took? I'd be particularly interested in which one it was that you thought of as "the test," and that your friend had you take multiple times.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_reckful_ - criticism noted. I think that instead of making any assertions, I'll just stick to asking questions. I cannot grasp these complex things, but you and Teybo can, so I will rely on you to answers to a few simple questions, if you don't mind.

How do you explain the dramatic J to S and P to N pull in the CAPT statistics? Do you agree with Mitchell 2003? If so, I ask that you also consider answering the question I post to Teybo later in this post concerning that study.

Do you believe that Extraverts and Perceivers are significantly more likely to also be Feelers? 

Do you believe that NFPs are more common that STPs? 

I am asking honestly, lacking comprehension. I hope you will answer thoughtfully.



Teybo said:


> @_arkigos_
> 
> I wonder why you, as someone who claims to "have a good mind for statistics", can't grasp that the data is most simply explained by "the well known correlation between S and J, and between N and P" (Mitchell 2003). Or, put another way: "Note that a consistent finding in type research, often overlooked, is a moderate correlation of SN scores with JP scores (continuous scores typically correlate in the low to mid .40s range). This is the only problematic interscale correlation and a clear indication that S and J (as well as N and P) are not completely independent constructs" (McPeek and Martin, 2012b).
> 
> This is a well-known, and well-documented phenomenon. There's not a lot of mystery here.


I cited your explanation for the data twice. You've made it clear that I cannot grasp it, but at least I cited it. I meant to say that Mitchell 2003 could indeed potentially answer the oddities in the stats, but that it depended on whether the official CAPT stats were done from test results or from best-match. I even stated in my text that depending on that answer, the Mitchell 2003 explanation may indeed be the correct one. My inability to grasp it notwithstanding. 

Nevertheless, your criticism was not wasted. I read Mitchell 2003 and found it interesting. I am going to assume that since you believe Mitchel 2003 answers the J to S / P to N problem, that you consider the 'best fit' results of Mitchell 2003 to be more accurate or representational of reality, and since you and @_reckful_ are more able to grasp things than I, I will ask you for some clarification. I can only assume you will answer honestly and with due diligence/objectivity:

Does this breakdown of type distribution look accurate to you?



ISTJ - 267
*ENFP - 266*
ESFJ - 265
ISFJ - 257
*INFP - 231*
ESTJ - 196
ESFP - 156
*ENFJ - 153*
*INFJ - 127*
ISFP - 123
*INTJ - 94*
*ENTP - 86*
*ENTJ - 81*
*INTP - 76*
ESTP - 72
ISTP - 71

Do you agree with these results that ISTP and ESTP are distinctly the least common types? 

Do you agree with these results that NFPs are the second most common type-group after SFJ? †

Do you agree that both INFP and ENFP types are notably more common than ISFP and ESFP types, respectively?

Does this breakdown of distribution look accurate to you?

SJ - 39%
NP - 26%
NJ - 18%
SP - 16.7%

Does this breakdown of distribution look accurate to you?

F - 63.6%
T - 37.4%

Aka, do you believe that there are quite nearly twice as many F types than T types? 

Does this breakdown of distribution look accurate to you?

J - 57%
P - 43%

Or, more specifically, does this breakdown look accurate to you?

SJ - 39%
SP - 16.7%

Aka, that there are more than twice as many SJ types as SP types? 

Or, more specifically:

SFJ: 20.7%
STP: 5.7%

Do you believe that there are four times as many SFJs than STPs? 

And, regardless of whether or not you see any of the above as relevant: 

Do you believe that this study shows accurate data?

You are welcome to question me or make any statement about my comprehension or methods or anything you like. Go to town. I will honestly consider it. In addition to doing that, will you consider addressing the above questions decoupled from any contention you have with me? 

Please do not simply cite my innate flaws or attempt to trump these questions as being irrelevant to another question or consideration. I am asking you whether or not you agree with the results of the Mitchell 2003 'best fit' study . I am asking nothing else but the questions above as stated.


† - I am omitting E/I because in these statistics, the E and I tend to be level and consistent. Rather, E is always nominally better represented than I. The reason that E is not therefore higher overall, I believe is due to the fact that ISTJ is so much numerically higher than ESTJ, which serves as a strong counter to the general tend. The only other type group that shows more introverts than extroverts is, interestingly, NTJ... but less significantly and having less weight overall.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_ - criticism noted. I think that instead of making any assertions, I'll just stick to asking questions. I cannot grasp these complex things, but you and Teybo can, so I will rely on you to answers to a few simple questions, if you don't mind.
> 
> How do you explain the dramatic J to S and P to N pull in the CAPT statistics? Do you agree with Mitchell 2003? If so, I ask that you also consider answering the question I post to Teybo later in this post concerning that study.


I already gave my view of the S/N-J/P correlation. See this post and this post (both from earlier in this thread).

As I understand it, if you ignore results from particular studies and look at the data overall, it appears that the S/N-J/P correlation is the only really significant one among the MBTI dichotomies. As McPeek & Martin put it last year (and as previously quoted by @Teybo; emphasis mine):



McPeek & Martin said:


> Note that a consistent finding in type research, often overlooked, is a moderate correlation of SN scores with JP scores (continuous scores typically correlate in the low to mid .40s range). *This is the only problematic interscale correlation* and a clear indication that S and J (as well as N and P) are not completely independent constructs



Given that the Big Five scales corresponding to _all four_ MBTI dimensions apparently don't correlate — and given my view that, from the standpoint of the actual underlying human reality, the two typologies are tapping into the same real temperament dimensions — _if_ and to the extent that there were any other "interscale correlations" in the MBTI (in addition to S/N-J/P), I would first be inclined to suspect imperfections in the test (i.e., the kinds of "dirty" items I've discussed in terms of S/N-J/P).

That said, if it ultimately turns out that, in terms of the underlying human reality, one or more of the MBTI dimensions has some correlation with other dimensions — well, then, that is what it is, right? In that case, having the same correlation show up in the test results would presumably be a _virtue_ rather than a vice. And, as I understand it, the existing data suggests that there may well be a significant _real_ correlation between introversion and neuroticism (the Big Five dimension that doesn't really have a corresponding MBTI dimension).

Your post included a whole slew of types and percentages and asked if I consider those percentages "accurate"? What do you mean by "accurate"? As I've often noted (including here at PerC),



reckful said:


> ... personality typing involves _multiple_ sources of significant error, starting with the fact that they haven't even figured out exactly what the nature of the temperament dimensions they should be measuring are, and also including multiple forms of human error in any self-assessment test that can cause the taker to answer a question "incorrectly." What's more, the more you assume (as Jung did, and as various studies suggest) that a relatively large percentage of the population is in or near the middle on one or more of the dimensions, the more mistyped people you should expect as a result of relatively small testing errors.


If I'm right in my suspicion that "dirty" test items are responsible for much or all of the S/N-J/P correlation, then that would suggest that I'd expect many of the MBTI distribution statistics that would be affected by that flaw to be "inaccurate" to that extent and, as just noted, that's far from the only source of error I see with MBTI statistics.

ADDED: Again, it wasn't clear to me what you meant by "accurate," but if your question was not so much, do I think those type statistics were "accurate" with respect to the subjects in that particular study, but instead whether I think those type frequencies are "accurate" in terms of the general population, my answer would be that I wouldn't be particularly inclined to expect the type frequencies among the subjects of any particular study — even _if_ they were completely accurate with respect to all those subjects, which, of course, they wouldn't be — to necessarily reflect the type frequencies in the general population.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> I already gave my view of the S/N-J/P correlation. See this post and this post (both from earlier in this thread).
> 
> As I understand it, if you ignore results from particular studies and look at the data overall, it appears that the S/N-J/P correlation is the only really significant one among the MBTI dichotomies. As McPeek & Martin put it last year (and as previously quoted by @_Teybo_; emphasis mine):
> 
> ...


Thank you for your excellent answer. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your view. 

I agree very much with McPeek & Martin that the S/N-J/P correlation is a rather consistent issue with MBTI studies.. and certainly the most universal and notable.

By accurate I meant supported by your own observations or by any other source that you accept, though I get the impression you aren't inclined to think in those terms. Fair enough, you've trumped the question in a sensible way. But doesn't that mean that you are agnostic on the point of type distributions? You have no opinion at all as to whether, say, ENFP is more or less common than ESTP? 

I guess I am asking how far your rejection of the statistics and of anecdote goes and whether you have any opinion from any source about type distributions. You seemed to be in favor of the 27% statistic for N, but if the stats are bad, how would one have confidence in this?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@arkigos

Before I humor you and answer your questions, let's address something about Mitchell, 2003.

Mitchell sought to address 4 specific questions which are centered around the anecodtal (and now debunked) reports that "best-fit" SP's tended to be mistyped by the MBTI as N's, and that this SP--> N mistyping was notably more frequent than for other combinations of types/dimensions.

To answer that question, Mitchell sampled data from type practitioners who could report both MBTI result and best-fit type for each person. To have proper statistical power, there should be a sufficient n in each of the 16 "best-fit" types. Note that the goal is to sample 16 different populations sufficiently (1. the population of people who's best fit type is ISTJ; 2. the population of people whose best fit type is ISFJ, 3. the population of... etc.) Please also note that the relative frequency of each of these sampled populations is irrelevant.

If Mitchell's research question was "What is the distribution of types in the general population?", this sampling method would be inappropriate. But that was not his research question. 

Imagine, if you will, that he had n=200 for each of the 16 types. For his research question, that sample would be perfectly fine, as each of the 16 types is being treated as a separate population, and he has sufficiently sampled each of the 16 populations.

This should be clear to anyone having a "good mind for statistics".

On to your questions:



arkigos said:


> Does this breakdown of type distribution look accurate to you?
> 
> 
> ISTJ - 267
> ...


This is the number of n for each type that Mitchell 2003 sampled. In that sense, these numbers are accurate. If you are asking if the relative frequencies of each type are similar to the general population, the answer is no, of course not. And this is neither surprising nor troubling, as I explained above.

Since you've entered butt-hurt pedantic mode, let me answer those three questions after the list, referring to the general population:
No, no, and no.

Estimated relative frequency of types can be found here.

But you posted that already, so you already know the answers to these questions you're asking. But, please, far be it from me to withhold some more "No" from you.



arkigos said:


> Does this breakdown of distribution look accurate to you?
> 
> SJ - 39%
> NP - 26%
> ...


No and no (aka, no).



arkigos said:


> Does this breakdown of distribution look accurate to you?
> 
> J - 57%
> P - 43%


This is pretty close, actually.



arkigos said:


> Or, more specifically, does this breakdown look accurate to you?
> 
> SJ - 39%
> SP - 16.7%
> ...


No (but the actual SJ:SP ratio in the general population is close to 2:1).

No, the actual ration of SFJ:STP is closer to 2:1.



arkigos said:


> And, regardless of whether or not you see any of the above as relevant:
> 
> Do you believe that this study shows accurate data?My MBTI Personality Type - My MBTI Results - How Frequent Is My Type?


Yep, although that's not a "study" per se.

EDIT: 

To clarify, I "believe" that the study shows accurate data regarding MBTI test results. I'm inclined to believe, and this belief is backed up by Mitchell 2003, that the MBTI consistently mistypes best-fit NJ's, so if we're talking about best-fit types, then I would say that those frequencies are probably a bit off, and that some of those SJ's are likely to be mistyped "best-fit" NJ's.

EDIT2, Edit Jr.:

I anticipate another wall of text from you, so let me pose a hypothetical situation to you that should help you clarify things.

Suppose I was interested in asking if race (just White/Black, to simplify things) influenced American's candy bar preferences, specifically, whether people preferred Snickers more than Payday.

I sample 700 White people and 700 Black people. I ask each person which candy bar they prefer.

Are my results invalid because I have equal numbers of White and Black people in my sample, even though White people are a much larger percentage of the American population than Black people?

Would it be appropriate for me to claim that the ratio of White people to Black people in the general population is roughly equal, based on my sample?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I guess I am asking how far your rejection of the statistics and of anecdote goes and whether you have any opinion from any source about type distributions. You seemed to be in favor of the 27% statistic for N, but if the stats are bad, how would one have confidence in this?


I wouldn't say I'm in favor of the 27% statistic for N's. I've always said that, because of the test-item "dirtiness" I've already mentioned, I think it's more likely for an N to mistype S than _vice versa_. That is, my own take is that the greatest source of that dirtiness is N items that are really more NP-ish (pushing some NJs to the S side), and that there are more of those than there are S items that are more SJ-ish. If I'm correct about that (and I certainly can't prove it, although it certainly seems consistent with McPeek & Martin's results), then I'd be inclined to suspect that 27% probably understates the real percentage of N's.

It sounds right to me that there are significantly more S's than N's, though.

I don't have any particular reason to doubt the 50/50-ish figures I most often see cited for E/I and J/P, which is not to say I'd be shocked if either of those dimensions turned out to be somewhat more lopsided than that. It's not uncommon to read that introverts are more of a minority — although it might be that the result largely depends on how you define introversion.

As I noted in this recent post, Berens cites figures suggesting that, whereas 43.4% of men are F's, only 24.4% of women are T's, and that's somewhat consistent with my own personal anecdotal take (based on RL and forum interactions both) that F men may be substantially more common than T women. And obviously, if those figures are anything close to being correct, you'd expect there to be significantly more F's than T's.


----------



## basicallyrun (Jun 11, 2013)

Wah! I feel like all I have to say has already been said,so to avoid repetition I'm editing my reply to this before I proceed to die in a hole from social anxiety.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

basicallyrun said:


> Wah! I feel like all I have to say has already been said,so to avoid repetition I'm editing my reply to this before I proceed to die in a hole from social anxiety.


In your earlier post, you said:



basicallyrun said:


> there might also be more mistyped N's here than S's ... simply because a lot of descriptions and tests are quite obviously written with a _heavy _N-bias (if you're an S you just can't possibly theorize and are completely incapable of any learning besides hands-on and N's are really smart but S's are stupid and also their mothers probably have weird hair).


And @Octavarium asked you if you could share some examples, and I'd say _nobody_ so far has pointed to any descriptions or tests that could reasonably be characterized as saying that "if you're an S you just can't possibly theorize and are completely incapable of any learning besides hands-on" or that "N's are really smart but S's are stupid" — much less saying anything derogatory about their mother's hair.

So, contrary to what your latest post says about "avoid[ing] repetition," if you could give us a couple of examples of reasonably popular online S/N descriptions or test items that match your characterization, I don't think it would be repetitive at all.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@Teybo - I can't actually see where in the Mitchell 2003 thing it states that the data was broken up and balanced in the way you described. I read it through twice and I simply can't find it. Would you indulge me and give a page/paragraph location or quote it so I can see it? Thank you.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @Teybo - I can't actually see where in the Mitchell 2003 thing it states that the data was broken up and balanced in the way you described. I read it through twice and I simply can't find it. Would you indulge me and give a page/paragraph location or quote it so I can see it? Thank you.


This must be one of those times where we are simply talking past each other. I never stated that the data was "broken up and balanced". I'm not sure what you even mean by that?

If you're referring to this:



Teybo said:


> Mitchell sampled data from type practitioners who could report both MBTI result and best-fit type for each person. To have proper statistical power, there should be a sufficient n in each of the 16 "best-fit" types. Note that the goal is to sample 16 different populations sufficiently (1. the population of people who's best fit type is ISTJ; 2. the population of people whose best fit type is ISFJ, 3. the population of... etc.) Please also note that the relative frequency of each of these sampled populations is irrelevant.


then I would say two things: First, the above isn't so much a description of a specific process as much as it is a suggestion of the proper way to interpret the sampling method employed by Mitchell. You were hyper focused on the relative frequency of each type in Mitchell's sample, but the relative frequency of each type in the sample is actually not really relevant to the research questions or to the statistical tests that were ran to try to answer the research questions.

Second, to be specific about what Mitchell did: he "grouped" the 16 types according to a main factor (SP, SJ, NF, NT or SP, SJ, NP, NJ) to run the ANOVAs. His method for getting his sample is described on page 2, and the statistical tests he runs are stated as he goes, throughout the paper. For instance, see most of page 3.

This is a bit like getting a sample of people that can be labeled according to some feature (White men, Black men, White women, and Black women) and then running the ANOVA with one of those features as the main factor (gender).

There's a reason I added Edit Jr. to my previous post. If you are spending much time thinking about the relative frequency of type in Mitchell's sample, it means that you're misunderstanding either the research question or the statistics or both. The relative distribution of types of Americans is a property of the general population, and if that's the property you want to investigate, your sample should be a random or representative sample of the general population.

The tendency for any particular type to "mistype" on an MBTI dimension is a property of that type (and this property could be shared with other types based on a shared factor like "having N and J in the type code"). So to evaluate this tendency, your sample should be a random or representative sample of "a particular type". And you're going to want to sample each particular type.

It's the same thing with my candybar X race example. The distribution of race of Americans is a property of the general population, and if the distribution of race is what I'm interested in, then I need to sample the general population and ask what their race is. However, that's not my research question. My question is about the influence on race on candybar preference, so having a sample with a different distribution of race from the general population is ok, so long as I've sufficiently sampled each racial population.


----------



## IntoTheBlue (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't want to be an N but recently I'm doubting my S.


----------



## thesleepybean (Sep 15, 2012)

Being an N is totally overrated IMHO, and from what I understand about being an S, my life would be so much easier if I wasn't one! The reason for this is that sometimes I simply _do not know why I do some of the things that I do_ i.e. I can't relate them to cognition, or emotion: they simply come from nowhere. In fact Ni can be so secretive about these reasons that sometimes I feel that I've just no idea who I am!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I guess I just go with what I know. I don't see any reason to project onto others. I've got no reason to doubt my type. I've had 43 years to get to know myself, and my preferences. I don't prejudge other types for being different because I would not like that to happen to me. 

As true as the points of the OP are, I see a whole lot of people who put so much into MBTI that they believe knowing their type means their self-discovery is over, when in fact, it has just begun.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Part of the problem is just that intuitives get a lot more attention and a lot more analysis which leaves more for both sensors and intuitives to relate to whether they are one or not


----------

