# Who's more likely to be into typology? N or S?



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Simple question - keen to hear your thoughts as well.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

_Both have the capacity -_ (N)'s have a greater potentiality to be within typology environments (because of specific internet searching-context). But I contend, all the introvert(s) regardless of S/N have somewhat similar net histories and bookmarks. & "Sensors," utilizing internet less is incorrect.

Both (S)'s and (N)'s can be "into typology,". Although, because (S)'s have distinct fixation elsewhere - their exposure is often _limited_; not that they haven't the same capacities to be high-functioning typology fetishtists. Upon proper exposure - (S)-types can become fixated on typology. This escalates with (Si)-dom users. 

You underestimate sensing 'mysticism' / sensor-capacity to become addicted to typology-like systems. Take a look a monks - pure (Se). All (Sensing domain). Yoga - sensing. Astrology - sensors. Meditation - sensing. Organized religion - sensing domain. (Si/Fe)-central. Jet-Li, Se. Bruce, Ti/Se. Buddha has more (S) than an alphabet. Zen-buddhism is (Si)-maximized.

(Sensor(s)) are known to be astrology fetishtists, as well. XSFX eat that stuff like cake. Often, many sensing humanoids will submit to the (astrology horoscope as complex-human relation guides) - I contend, this is because (more exposure). Astrology is everywhere (re: more publicized) - "typology" is isolated to specific localities. Magical-thinking is abundant & unique to the humanoid-condition. No type is immune. Many magical-thinking XSFJ's, as well. Take a look at church women all into the church ranks. Si-central. If Typology had the same amount of [exposure] as Astrology - you will see a high-functioning influx of sensing humanoids utilizing it offline. Perhaps there are _distinct ways _the S/N go about their "typology" interests; rather than lack-off.

The types more into deep typology with less real-world application are loonies & XXFP/XXFJ-, I say FP/FJ since they are more psychologically (anatomically-subject fixated to stumble over it) -- how many ENTP? How many ENTJ's give a hoot about MBTI? Not many. Go up to your ENTJ boss and talk dichtonomies; you will get a laugh. INTJ's care about Typology, but only the lightly autistic ones. Remove ENTJ/ENTP from the equation (&) fill-in with XSFX populace, it will come out even.

Most times, specimens just make-up their own stuff. That is (N)'s way of going about typology; making up stuff. People'll fall for anything. The humanoids making-up stuff in Typology (or simply winging the theory anyway they see fit) are usually intuitives (so we assume more intuitives are "into" Typology -- because they are more able to put their own creative nonsensical spins on it). Offline, forget it. Only the (Si-humanoids &, XXFP/XXFJ) are going the mile.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Intuitives seem to care more from my real life experience, but I also know some N's who don't. So depends.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm trying to think of something different to say but @V i x e n pretty much is saying exactly what I think

overall I think if MBTI had more exposure, S types would far surpass Ns in interest, especially if the descriptions they read are fair, realistic and not negative towards them


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/7lz2wk/mbtis_subreddits_by_number_of_subscribers/


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/7lz2wk/mbtis_subreddits_by_number_of_subscribers/


what about the whole of Reddit?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> what about the whole of Reddit?


I don't really think it matters.
I know where you're coming from - you want to know if say, most of Reddit as a whole are N types, so it would make sense most users of subreddits are N types, due to the overall clientele, so to speak.

I truly don't think it matters, though, because now we've got that.. the PerC and TypoC stats from a few years back, the polls I and so many others have made re: the same/similar thing in Facebook groups.. it just seems a little ignorant and kind of silly to fight it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I don't really think it matters.
> I know where you're coming from - you want to know if say, most of Reddit as a whole are N types, so it would make sense most users of subreddits are N types, due to the overall clientele, so to speak.
> 
> I truly don't think it matters, though, because now we've got that.. the PerC and TypoC stats from a few years back, the polls I and so many others have made re: the same/similar thing in Facebook groups.. it just seems a little ignorant and kind of silly to fight it.


You should read VIXEN's post to understand better. You can't draw generalized conclusions without knowing your sample isn't biased.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> You should read VIXEN's post to understand better. You can't draw generalized conclusions without knowing your sample isn't biased.


I have read it, and her response in the other thread that got closed for review - I agree with most of it - moreso her post in the other thread, except I do lulz at the idea of bosses of any kind, not being interested in MBTI - employers make you undertake what is essentially an MBTI test to check candidate suitability now. 
They've got an interest in it, on some level, lol.

I feel like I _can_ draw generalised conclusions from the information I have here - I mean, what more does it actually take to convince someone using cold hard facts and numbers, lol.

I find it difficult to believe I'm even being met with opposition, when personality theory is abstract in the first place - if we brought personality theory to the masses and glamourised it all over TV etc ala Catwalks post in the other thread - then we're removing it from being abstract, and into something more tangible, concrete and materialistic - we'd be shifting it from the realm of N, to the realm of S - it makes sense it would be of higher interest to Sensors then, if it's mainstream, current, popular etc.

The soul would be gone then - the things we theorise and hypothesise about would be gone - I just think it would shift from being an N thing, to an S thing, due to the rise in popularity and what it would mean if there were magazines in the public eye, and talk shows etc revolving around it - it would bring the idea of typology down to Earth, down to reality, into broader society - I wholeheartedly agree, if this occurred, it would be more of an S thing.

But. That's not how it is right now, is it?

We're fortunately, not at that level - it hasn't been brought down to Earth, so to speak.
It's still the realm of N - and this is proven time and time again, in basically any kind of research you can think of.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I have read it, and her response in the other thread that got closed for review - I agree with most of it - moreso her post in the other thread, except I do lulz at the idea of bosses of any kind, not being interested in MBTI - employers make you undertake what is essentially an MBTI test to check candidate suitability now.
> They've got an interest in it, on some level, lol.


I'm not sure you realize just how unknown MBTI is to most of the world. I've even asked psychologists and psychology students about it and knew nothing. My last therapist had taken an online test, she was INFP, but had no interest in it to read further. 



> I feel like I _can_ draw generalised conclusions from the information I have here - I mean, what more does it actually take to convince someone using cold hard facts and numbers, lol.
> 
> I find it difficult to believe I'm even being met with opposition, when personality theory is abstract in the first place - if we brought personality theory to the masses and glamourised it all over TV etc ala Catwalks post in the other thread - then we're removing it from being abstract, and into something more tangible, concrete and materialistic - we'd be shifting it from the realm of N, to the realm of S - it makes sense it would be of higher interest to Sensors then, if it's mainstream, current, popular etc.
> 
> ...


The method you are using is faulty, it's as simple as that. Obviously it's fine for confirmation bias, but if someone is truly interested to see if N or S would be have more interest, innately, they'd have to make things equal and develop a method that would ensure unbiased results. 

Here I see circular logic, you start that MBTI is de facto presented to pique N's interest and then conclude that S's would have no interest in it. This isn't correct logic to reach the truth.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

You misinterpret what I posted, but that's okay - I've never cared about "logic" in the first place.

What I say makes sense to me, and if people would zoom out a little it would make sense to them too.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> You misinterpret what I posted, but that's okay - I've never cared about "logic" in the first place.
> 
> What I say makes sense to me, and if people would zoom out a little it would make sense to them too.


Zooming out is what Catwalk did and you basically agreed with this when you said that MBTI, the way it's presented now, caters to N types, THAT'S THE POINT
If you have a problem with personality theory becoming more accessible to sensors through a different presentation, it may be because you romanticize its abstractness as something near 'exclusive' to Ns. In reality, everyone is capable of the abstraction required to understand personality theory, the same way other psychological theories are, sensors may just need a different presentation to get into it and more access to the public IRL.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

No... >_<

I have no idea what is going on, but you honestly don't get what I'm saying.
I'm not trying to be rude, it's just how it is, and that's okay, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## 800sexy (Dec 19, 2017)

Sensing types are too shallow to care about psychology and how the world works


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> (Sensor(s)) are known to be astrology fetishtists, as well.


I agree with all your points except this. I've met people IRL who are into astrology and one of them even said they also typed as a INFP from an MBTI test. Astrology is more of an NF thing I'd say, because it's purely conceptual and quite disconnected from reality, it has very little factual basis, it's all about your own fate, and it's used almost as a symbol or prophecy of the self.

Thinking types least of all will be interested in astrology, because they will dismiss it for being factually inaccurate. Sensors will be less likely to be interested in it also. They will gravitate to more grounded theories like MBTI when exploring personality related concepts. 

Therefore I also think that arguably, MBTI is a very ST thing - it's a system built for a functional purpose, invented as a tool for employment. It will be particularly the NFs that are drawn to activities such as astrology, tarot cards, or fortune telling. 

Back on topic though, both S and N types seem to be drawn to typology.


----------



## BranchMonkey (Feb 23, 2017)

> OP is Turi: Who's more likely to be into typology? N or S?


Depends on the goal for "being into" anything. 

Some people are into MBTI because they hope it'll tell them who they are, solid, definitive, done--take a test, explains everything, or has the potential to do so, in which case any insecure person can be "into it," intuitive, sensor, thinker, feeler.

I am a member of INTJf, coming up nine years next month--I don't participate any longer but I did for going on eight years, and the place has--as would be apparent--a strong INTJ population. Some of the most vocal, stubborn, and run their life by 'this system' are INTJs.

We got a few here that are members there but I don't want to start name dropping to make my point: INTJf exists, it's founder is an INTJ, most members are too--and the debates about typing get down and often dirty.

Extraverts are least into MBTI especially online, and I don't know many who take astrology and such seriously either.

I don't give a hoot about astrology, and I don't take MBTI as serious as many I know on this or other typing forums because human beings' brains are too complex to be squeezed metaphorically into 16 categories, or even more categories, except for a goal:

1) Career
2) Replacement for religion
3) Adjunct for religion
4) Out of boredom 
5) Fun stuff
6) World peace (Myers Briggs has been quoted, traceable, to believing her "baby" could bring this about)
7) Mentally ill (I am anti-social and loathe human beings, can't get a job because I am an INTJ or some other type)
8) Money (Marketing typing, not just MBTI--longstanding practice with this)
9) Youtube "Look at me, I'm an expert" kinds of online gurus
10) People who want to pigeon-hole possible mates, or actual mates.

BONUS: Mental health professionals who use it as Myers Briggs hoped they would--to help their clients become more successful.

I could go on but the point is clear: Intuitives and sensors; feelers and thinkers; those who fly under "Unknown": All candidates for theories, pseudo or otherwise of "certainty."


----------



## gargoyle (Mar 13, 2018)

both. it is only apparent that intuitives are more likely to be into typology. don't forget - loooots of people are actually mistyped.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Looks like the results are in, folks.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

You assume that _abstraction_ is purely an intuitive capacity, which is hilariously fallacious. Then you talk about how intuitives are more into this and sensors are more into that and sensors only like popular shit and intuitives only like _deep shit_. And then you come at everyone else for using stereotypical models to draw conclusions. You need to take a long hard look in the mirror.


----------



## shrek guacamole (Mar 14, 2018)

Well I showed all this typology stuff to three friends, 2 sensors and 1 intuitive. They all did the test and it was accurate but my sensor friends don't really showed interest in it. My intuitive friend really did and took screenshots and yeah. I think intuitives are more likely to be interested in typology. Btw sensors CAN be interested in it too just as much as intuitives.


----------

