# Anything but a Sensor



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Mods, feel free to move this thread if you don't think it's appropriate for this subforum.

I've noticed there's a trend here of people coming to this forum not being sure of their types, BUT they're so adamant that they're an iNtuitive. Like, "I'm not sure whether I'm an INFJ, ENFP, INFP or INTP, but I'm DEFINITELY an N" and other stuff along that line. They're willing to consider being any type, except a Sensor. Nevermind that Ni and Ne are two very different cognitive functions. Or even worse, "I'm definitely an NT but I don't know which one"...euhm ENTJ/INTP or INTJ/ENTP are nothing alike o_o.

It wouldn't bother me as much if I see people say the same thing for other letters, like, "I'm not sure what my type is, but I'm definitely and unquestionably a Feeler/Extrovert/Perceiver/Judger" etc. but the thing is that this is far less frequent. I don't think I've ever seen that actually. uh.

Why do you think this happens? I mean, I can answer my own question but I'd like to see if there are anyone more optimistic than I am.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

That pisses me off too and I'm glad someone's said it. It's also very common which makes it more annoying. When I considered ISTP about two years back I was hesitant to type myself as one when I saw everyone say "I can't be a sensor because I like to read and I think about things"  etc. So lurking at other peoples' type me threads did NOT help. When people agreed with ISTP I was thinking "Do they think I'm some mindless drone then?!" 

But I think someone who doesn't know if they're a J or P is a bigger problem as far as difference in types go. The J or P makes a huge difference (so once again if someone can't tell if they use Ni or Ne in aux/tertiary if they prefer N over S *sigh*).


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

I see this too. It pains me so. I see so many people incorrectly assessing the value of each aspect to their type. They tend to look at their top two functions ("I know I'm an NT!") and completely disregard other aspects of their type. I think the problem is they tend to zoom into what they value. The values associated with Intuition are very attractive. I see many intuitives on here afraid to say that they enjoy eating the same meal everyday, or that they like getting together and celebrating a tradition.
I think the reason is, and I'm sure you've heard these before, "intuitives often feel ostracized by the predominately sensor world," "More intuitves on the net" etc. etc. 
Besides those... I think the S/N is the aspect of type that gets the most attention.
The honest reason, though, is there is a bias. Not that Sensors are trying to be intuitives, but that intuitives are trying to make it clear that they do have a preference for N.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

To tell you the truth, S vs N is probably the least important difference in the system, especially where Se vs Ne is concerned. Feelers and Thinkers have many more differences in processing the world, and are more likely to come into conflict if they don't share thinking and feeling functions (so, dom Fi/Te is likely to clash with dom Ti/Fe). Yet, there is much less bias against thinkers or feelers: I've noticed that some people hold typist attitudes against feelers, but they aren't too widespread, and generally realize their ignorance within a short period of time. So, why does anti-sensor bias even exist? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

The descriptions of intuitives, and the descriptions of iNtuition itself are often more flattering or unique-sounding than those of sensors/sensing. Lots of the people read this and want to feel like they have some type of innate, snowflakey persona and do everything they can to confirm that these descriptions do indeed apply to them. It's as if by just applying a label which brings with it the connotation of some type of special or unique intelligence or empathetic ability then they will become some stereotypical version of it. People want to be different, they apply a label which they think makes them different, but they don't actually bother to understand it or themselves, resulting in more and more mistyping.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I _don't understand this._ I see many ENFPs who I feel are, in fact, ESFPs. And ESFPs are really cool! I went through a period of doubt about my type where I wondered, "Well, I wonder if I use Se or Ne?" And I was honestly going to be okay with typing myself as ESFP. They're awesome. But for whatever reason, Sensory types are apparently more "simple", "not as creative", "not as deep", "doesn't notice deep things", etc according to other people.  

I vote that an article should be written on the awesomeness of Sensors. XD Because people really don't understand the difference between Sensing and iNtuiting, and everybody naturally decides "I wanna be an iNtuitive!" Then when you talk to people about the possibility of them being a Sensor, they have this mindset of, "Must. Be. An. iNtuitive." Why? "Because I like playing with theories and read between the lines and I'm complex." 

No, no, no. X_x


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

In my opinion, it is the worst when you tell these sorts of people about all the cool stuff about sensing and they say "Isn't that intuition?".


----------



## Tove (Dec 25, 2011)

Oh, finally someone brings this up. It's sad how biased people can be, especially when the S/N difference is subtle and there is much more than just two letters. Cognitive functions swim a lot deeper.

What comes to the anti-sensor bias, like @Dark Romantic phrased it, it's most likely due to a bunch of misunderstandings and generalizations. When you first get into MBTI, most sites on the Internet give you a simplified version where they just talk about the four letters and greatly exaggerate their traits. Seriously, I didn't even know about cognitive functions before I found PerC and started lurking around the forums unregistered.

One thing these simplified versions tell you is that basically Sensors are always fact-based, predictable, nearly animalistic people who never think anything through and only like superficial things. Then they show you iNtuitives, who are described as creative, imaginative, innovative people, almost ingenious. Once I read that it's _only_ an N trait to rely on hunches and use metaphors, and that Sensors don't like reading - no exceptions.

Now, when the types are put down that way, who would want to be a Sensor? One of those simple-minded people who hate deep thinking and can't manage themselves? Meanwhile Sensors are described this way, iNtuitives are made out to be much smarter, superior people who are intellectual and have more depth to them.

This is the reason so many people mistype themselves as Ns; they're not educated enough on the MBTI to distinguish the types properly. Most have no idea about cognitive functions. Imagination and intelligence are naturally valued in our world, and when asked if they're stupid, predictable and superficial or intellectual, innovative and clever, most people will answer the latter. It's not anyone's fault, that's what I did, too. Problem: not nearly enough education. The simplistic sources of information that first pop up when you try to search MBTI are also, unfortunately, usually the only sources people use.

Sadly, even people with education on the cognitive functions and MBTI in general can be ignorant. For some reason it seems to be a thought stuck in the backbone, the whole thing about S's being simple and N's being complex. This thread, although old, absolutely horrified me. How can people think personalities are so black and white?

To break it down, we are all very complicated and the MBTI types are definitely not about just the four letters. The way I see it, the cognitive functions form different kinds of patterns and combinations, which in turn create larger compounds, aka the types. All Sensors are definitely not the same and can never be put in one group, and same goes for iNtuitives. MBTI can never be simplified because the human mind is anything but simple, and to say that one type is worse than the other or that all the people behind one letter can be squeezed into one group is insulting. This is something much more people should understand.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

There are so many cliches with type.T's are all thinkers,F' are all feelers,S's are all sensors.We all use all of the functions.I have a couple of close sensor friends(artists)who are just as creative as intuitives.They just use a different process is all..To answer the question i think some people see"intuitives"as more elitest so they just pick it.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

You know the funny thing is that true Intuitives are supposed to not be superficial in their perceptions, yet so many people run around claiming to have a preference for Intuition based upon some superficial reasoning. 

Actually this thread gets at the heart of why so many people are mistyped. It's simply confirmation bias. They read something that confirms some already-held idea of themselves (bells should be going off about now) and then run off with it. That's not type. If anything the point of MBTI or any personality inventory is to reveal about the person things about themselves for which they were previously unaware. Otherwise what is the point of taking the test if you already know the outcome? The only thing I'm sure of is that I have issues with Sensation and tend to downplay my own Thinking which likely indicates a preference toward Intuition and Feeling. But too many people simply read a type description and then make it work for how they see themselves, which of course isn't the point. Good analysis is designed to challenge the person out of their comfort zone, to give them a fresh perspective. 

Telling a true intuitive that he's an intuitive might help clarify some things, but it doesn't really do much beyond that. The real juice is in trying to figure out how he deals with his Sensation - that's where the real fight is.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> You know the funny thing is that true Intuitives are supposed to not be superficial in their perceptions, yet so many people run around claiming to have a preference for Intuition based upon some superficial reasoning.
> 
> Actually this thread gets at the heart of why so many people are mistyped. It's simply confirmation bias. They read something that confirms some already-held idea of themselves (bells should be going off about now) and then run off with it. That's not type. If anything the point of MBTI or any personality inventory is to reveal about the person things about themselves for which they were previously unaware. Otherwise what is the point of taking the test if you already know the outcome? The only thing I'm sure of is that I have issues with Sensation and tend to downplay my own Thinking which likely indicates a preference toward Intuition and Feeling. But too many people simply read a type description and then make it work for how they see themselves, which of course isn't the point. Good analysis is designed to challenge the person out of their comfort zone, to give them a fresh perspective.
> 
> Telling a true intuitive that he's an intuitive might help clarify some things, but it doesn't really do much beyond that. The real juice is in trying to figure out how he deals with his Sensation - that's where the real fight is.


Agreed. D; Stereotypes and biases are very painful and usually not helpful. There's something about stereotypes that gets under my skin in a very peculiar way. It takes a lot for me to be so annoyed and passionate about something. XD This is it right here. Heck, I know that when I read descriptions of N versus S, I'd much rather be an iNtuitive.  Because the descriptions lack so much. They over-glorify iNtuition and then chop off all the depth of Sensing.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Totally agree with you on this one. How often do you ever see someone start a thread called, i know i'm a sensor, i just cant' figure out if i'm an I/E. That or, please help me, i know i'm XSXX. Never, you just never see it. So your observation is 100% correct.

What seems to be happening is newbies ( although not all are new ) are reading so much misinformation on this forum, in many cases posted by other newbies or people who are so uneducate/mistyped themselves, they in tern soak all this in as the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I know this to be true, because I myself when arriving here, i thought the same way. Only when i began to do my own research_ outside of PerC _did i truly begin to really understand the cognitive funtions. I stayed completely away from _all the information here_. Now don't get me wrong, we have people here( very few ) but still, we do have those who are very educated. There is no way anyone who is new would be able to tell the difference. I wish when i had arrived there was a place i could go that suggest informative memebers, leaving their names so i could follow their knowledge.

So many people are still stuck on the letters themselves, as if the letters are who they are. They don't grasp the meaning behind the letters, or have an understanding there is a meaning/function behind each letter. People get attached to these 4 letters, and in many cases have a hard time letting them go. They begin to feel at home in a particular subforum, and feel as if they don't belong in another, so don't want to help themselves understand that MBTI is not just about 4 letters.

How many times do you see, well it impossible for me to be an I/E. This is another huge issue with functions. They relate these letters with shy, outgoing, social etc. When the reality of it is both I/E can behave this way. P/J same thing. I don't judge people, so i'm can't be a J, i'm really messy so i must be a P. Again, there is not correlation between the two.

So how does one actually either help or tell someone they may be mistyped ? If someone who has any knowledge with the functions points this out, there will be someone who doesn't that will come along with stereotypes to convince them the knowledable one is wrong. And i've seen it happen way too often to know that in most cases they will believe the one who isn't educated/ and possibly/probably mistyped themselves. So the cycle continues.

One of my favorites in the ENFP forum is this. I can't be an INFP. My Te is too strong ( rolls eyes ) and since apparently INFP can't think ( rolls eyes again-sarcastic ) i have to be an ENFP, even if i feel way to introverted to be an extrovert. So there you go with the stereotypes again, INFP can't think near as well as an ENFP, because we all know that both types can't develope their first 4 functions.( sarcastic again ) So many mistypes in all forums, both intuitive and sensors alike. 

I personally believe we have tons of sensors here typed as intuitive that are afraid, or feel out of place coming forward with their actual type. That and the fact they don't know any better. I also believe we have sensors who are actually intuitives who are reading too much into misinformation and typing themselves wrong. If intuitive are so rare, then why are we filled with them here, and on other forums too. It doesn't add up or make sense. Someone tried to point out in a thead not so long ago that sensos don't enjoy the internet, theories, that is why we don't have as many here. The internet is for intuitive people. Fucking facepalm, i shut that one down in a hurry, so much BS. No people wake up, many of our intuitives are actually sensors, that is the issue.

I would like to suggest perhaps somehow, someway creating or introducing a sticky that newbies, and misinformed people can go. A place that would mention "_ Informative members _". Memebers who have really done their homework and can speak through the functions. Those who have a strong grasp, those who can educate people on the differences without any stereotypes included. There may not be many in this position, although i believe we do have a few. And no, i'm certainly not including myself in this group. I'm wondering if this is possible . Anyways my 2 cents with morning java. Still a bit sleep so hopefully it will make some sort of sense. Thanks for creating this thread, i think it was really needed


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I would like to suggest perhaps somehow, someway creating or introducing a sticky that newbies, and misinformed people can go. A place that would mention "_ Informative members _". Memebers who have really done their homework and can speak through the functions. Those who have a strong grasp, those who can educate people on the differences without any stereotypes included. There may not be many in this position, although i believe we do have a few. And no, i'm certainly not including myself in this group. I'm wondering if this is possible . Anyways my 2 cents with morning java. Still a bit sleep so hopefully it will make some sort of sense. Thanks for creating the this thread, i think it was really needed


^ THIS. We desperately need this. O___O 

Erm, Te is not supposed to be particularly "strong" for an ENFP, is it? It's the Tert, right? Which means it's gonna develop more slowly... at least that was my understanding. x3


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Or even worse, "I'm definitely an NT but I don't know which one"...euhm ENTJ/INTP or INTJ/ENTP are nothing alike o_o.


The minute Myers-Briggs brought dichotomies into typology, Jung's ideas were flushed down the toilet. I blame David Keirsey for making matters even worse. Fuq dat gai.



> *Rationals (NTs)* are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better. All *Rationals* share the following core characteristics:
> 
> 
> Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.
> ...


Keirsey Temperament Website - Portrait of the Rational® (NT)

The implication that every NT is this way, and no other temperament can be, has done what may be irreparable damage to typology. Even just calling a temperament things like "rational" or "artisan" encourages stereotypes.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> ^ THIS. We desperately need this. O___O
> 
> Erm, Te is not supposed to be particularly "strong" for an ENFP, is it? It's the Tert, right? Which means it's gonna develop more slowly... at least that was my understanding. x3


I agree we do need it. From my understanding Te is developled at a later stage in life. Of course i don't know the exact age, nor can anyone pin point what that age could be. I'm over thirty and feeling like my Te has only kicked in strong the past few years. I really believe myself personally that these functions can kick start depending on education, work experience and life experience. If i'm surrounded by people who use thinking skills primary, its easy to pick up those skills as well. I think it really depends on the individual , their environment and surroundings. Even habits can play a part. Someone who does a lot of reading for example .


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I would like to suggest perhaps somehow, someway creating or introducing a sticky that newbies, and misinformed people can go. A place that would mention "_ Informative members _". Memebers who have really done their homework and can speak through the functions. Those who have a strong grasp, those who can educate people on the differences without any stereotypes included. There may not be many in this position, although i believe we do have a few. And no, i'm certainly not including myself in this group. I'm wondering if this is possible . Anyways my 2 cents with morning java. Still a bit sleep so hopefully it will make some sort of sense. Thanks for creating the this thread, i think it was really needed


That is a good idea. We do have a system by which certified members can be tagged as such, and they have been in the past. Once we have a few, I would be happy to make a sticky in the intro or "what's my type" forum that directs members to this.

I plan to get MBTI certified myself. If I can keep my loathing of the dichotomies under control long enough.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Stephen said:


> That is a good idea. We do have a system by which certified members can be tagged as such, and they have been in the past. Once we have a few, I would be happy to make a sticky in the intro or "what's my type" forum that directs members to this.
> 
> I plan to get MBTI certified myself. If I can keep my loathing of the dichotomies under control long enough.


Thank you Stephen. And for what its worth, i believe you're in a position to be qualified as one of the " Informative members " =)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Kayness_ -

I agree so much with this. Even as someone who uses "iNtuition", I do kind of roll my eyes at the anti-sensor baloney that exists so often on and in these forums. Or, heck, even on the internet. I've been trying to come up with some sort of working hypothesis on how how the different functions affect learning additional languages as an adult. People may have seen my polls around the various Kiersey forums. Unfortunately, I typo'd extensively in them because I made them at like 3 AM or something like that.

What I'm learning is that this whole hypothesis I'm trying to formulate is actually really frigging complex ... and* hey, guess what folks, even if you ARE an iNtuitive type, you will be using your sensing function to some degree while interacting with the rest of the world -- whether it's learning a langauge or doing something else*. I think we need to drive that home with the newer folks. 

And, as a note, most of the people I interact with IRL are sensors ... and I have no issue with them (ISFP mother, ISTJ sister, ISTP best friend). There is absolutely nothing wrong with sensors and absolutely nothing wrong with being around sensors. My ISTP bestie and I actually complemented each other fairly well learning math, chemistry and physics our freshman year of college ... what I couldn't figure out, she could and what she couldn't figure out, I could. And between the two of us, if we couldn't figure it out ... just about no one else in our courses could figure it out either!

People need to learn that a) it (MBTI) is a categorical system and b) like most categorical systems, it isn't the end-all, be-all of the world. Furthermore, our understanding will continue to evolve ... either at the basic level of learning about the functions, or on the grander scale of the system evolving (preferably past Kiersey temperaments).


----------



## Epimer (Mar 21, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Mods, feel free to move this thread if you don't think it's appropriate for this subforum.
> 
> I've noticed there's a trend here of people coming to this forum not being sure of their types, BUT they're so adamant that they're an iNtuitive. Like, "I'm not sure whether I'm an INFJ, ENFP, INFP or INTP, but I'm DEFINITELY an N" and other stuff along that line. They're willing to consider being any type, except a Sensor. Nevermind that Ni and Ne are two very different cognitive functions. Or even worse, "I'm definitely an NT but I don't know which one"...euhm ENTJ/INTP or INTJ/ENTP are nothing alike o_o.
> 
> ...


Well, without reading through other replies (as I am busy, not cos I am uninterested!), then I think maybe two main reasons.

First and foremost their is possibly a techie/net-nerd bias against sensors. So maybe people pick up that and it sort of...

Wow. Just got distracted by @Aßbiscuits avatar. Holy moly. :laughing:
Sorry! Back on track now!

... erm, well I guess that that is one aspect -- the (generalised) tech-nerd feelings towards "jock" "sensors". Maybe somehow that is a factor? (And I gave a crap and shallow synopsis as I didn't have time! Apologies! And I don't think that sensors are all gym fanatics that drink too much, etc. Just saying that some stereotypes and generalisations might come into play in this.)

Oh, as an aside there must be some N/S uncertainty threads/posts? Surely? No?! Really?!!!

Two:

I think that maybe N/S is something many people find easy to assing to themselves. (Typo there, and I went back to correct "assing" to "assign", but it was a Freudian slip, so I'm going to let it slide! [Slip/slide? Get it?])

For example I would be more E (though still an "I" overall) if I didn't have anxiety issues, etc.
And I have ADHD and OCD, so my J/P mix is a little odd too.
And I think that most people have issue with F/T because there seems to be too much of a polarisation in how the two judging functions are treated in many places. I may be T, but I have a lot of F to give too.

(And to anyone who wants to tell me off for disrespecting cog functions, then I reckon that without anxiety etc., then I would be ENTP. So only a little different.)

Anyway, I think that maybe the N/S divide is possibly the one that is for one thing, maybe that which is least complicated by various factors such as mental health issues or societal pressures (e.g. the "idea" that... Men = "T". Women = "F" -- And no, I'm not suggesting that to be the case! But you know what I mean.).

So maybe most people also find it easier to determine their S/N alignment out of all the other things?

I don't know. This is just what occurred to me off the top of my head.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

I applaud this whole thread.


People really don't understand what being a Sensor is. I hate that ESFJ/ISFJ and ESFP/ISFP are given the worst rap in the universe. Chances are, half the people IRL that you love and adore are those types.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

Well...I can understand if Intuitives feel misunderstood by Sensors, and I think some of them may be bitter about it. This could be the reason why some are so biased against Sensors--they may have not gotten along with Sensors off the internet. And that's not too surprising, because Intuitives are less common and there are more Sensors in the world. It still irritates me, but I can get it. It's the same thing with the Introverts vs. Extroverts dichtomy. Some Introverts may feel misunderstood by Extroverts, so they bash Extroverts on the internet. In other words, fighting fire with fire.


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

In my opinion, most of the people that insist to be "anything but a sensor" just want to be "different" or "rare". Some may even have a "I'm better than everyone else" complex. I think that when you are typing, you should be open to all options. After all, it's just how we process information not who we are as people. Ultimately this theory is for ourselves, not for anyone else. It's so we can understand how we process as an individual not for others to claim superiority over certain types. The small minded stereotypes is what has driven me to want to leave PerC in the past. Examples include, "ESFP's are stupid, ditzy and/or air headed" and people making a point to start an argument with me over it. That's funny anyway considering my best friend is ESFP and she was acing AP Calculus in high school. She's doing fashion design in university now and people seem to see that as a "stupid thing to do" as well. Any design course takes a significant amount of math and a significant amount of creativity. My ISFP best friend creates the most beautiful paintings and she's very generous with them, she's given me a few of her creations and was offered a scholarship to go to visual art school in Belgium. My ESFJ Aunt has a heart of gold. She's very Rose-like (_The Golden Girls_). Even the things that I'm saying right now shouldn't transition over onto all sensors as this is my own experience with them, as they are their own people. All of this "anything but a sensor" nonsense is a type of prejudice. Jung would probably be rolling over in his grave knowing that some people were turning his theory into a new way to discriminate. In any case, we all have sensing and intuiting in us no matter how far to the front or far to the back it is. In conclusion: Some of the most creative and wonderful and _intelligent_ people in the world are sensors. I think it's high time for people to realize that.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

I definitely see what you mean. Some people really do have Speshul Snowflake Syndrome, lol.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

MilkyWay132 said:


> Well...I can understand if Intuitives feel misunderstood by Sensors, and I think some of them may be bitter about it. This could be the reason why some are so biased against Sensors--they may have not gotten along with Sensors off the internet. And that's not too surprising, because Intuitives are less common and there are more Sensors in the world. It still irritates me, but I can get it. It's the same thing with the Introverts vs. Extroverts dichtomy. Some Introverts may feel misunderstood by Extroverts, so they bash Extroverts on the internet. In other words, fighting fire with fire.


The thing I don't understand is why the S/N antagonism is so much stronger than between the other opposites. I remember growing up my family and another were all Ns and the two others closest to us were all S. Hearing the grown ups talk it was very clear that the intuitive parents thought of the sensors as stupid and vulgar and the sensors thought of our parents as stuck up and boring, and for some reason as having more money than we actually had. 

As kids we didn't have that animosity. My best friend growing up was ESFP from one of the families mentioned above.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Staffan said:


> The thing I don't understand is why the S/N antagonism is so much stronger than between the other opposites. I remember growing up my family and another were all Ns and the two others closest to us were all S. Hearing the grown ups talk it was very clear that the intuitive parents thought of the sensors as stupid and vulgar and the sensors thought of our parents as stuck up and boring, and for some reason as having more money than we actually had.
> 
> As kids we didn't have that animosity. My best friend growing up was ESFP from one of the families mentioned above.


The T vs F thing rages too. It just divides itself different (more men want to be T's than F's). I cannot tell you how many people I've come across who are clearly Feeling types who swear they are NTs. And while we're on the subject lets not get started on the number of Ti vs Te mismatches (or I think the more prevalent Fe vs Fi mixups -- like I said I swear half the 'INFPs' are Fe-types). 

Also @Stephen it would be so awesome to have someone on here who is really MBTI certified. That would be amazing I wish you the best on that journey. I myself had considered doing some Jungian training as there are a few places here in Los Angeles, but its pretty heavy stuff.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

MilkyWay132 said:


> I definitely see what you mean. Some people really do have Speshul Snowflake Syndrome, lol.


I suffer from that but I think it's more impressive to be an S that no-one gets than an N. I mean, it's obviously all about me personally rather than being able to blame it on an N/S devide if I'm an S :wink:


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> @Stephen it would be so awesome to have someone on here who is really MBTI certified.


@MrShatter is.


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> (or I think the more prevalent Fe vs Fi mixups -- like I said I swear half the 'INFPs' are Fe-types).


I've had so-called INFP's attack my posts in certain threads on PerC all revolving around "you're not caring for other persons emotions enough", "you're treating them wrong", "you're not doing the best for so-and-so" the list goes on and on... I didn't realize my personal life was anyone else's business (sarcasm) especially involving _strangers online_. These people were trying to get me to change my opinions and to tell them that they were right all surrounding "giving to others" or asking me to "change for others" because it's "the right thing to do". This could also be called, "trying to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat". Their replies were dripping with Fe and yet, a lot of these people were slashing and stereotyping types that use Fe- especially ESFJ's which I think is utterly ridiculous in general. Maybe they should step back and take a look in the mirror sometime. They may realize that the types they're stereotyping and blatantly discriminating against are actually their own. They also may wake up and see that Fe-users are not "bad types". No type is a "bad type" regardless of what anyone else has to say about it.


----------



## possiBri (Jan 4, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I would like to suggest perhaps somehow, someway creating or introducing a sticky that newbies, and misinformed people can go. A place that would mention "_ Informative members _". Memebers who have really done their homework and can speak through the functions. Those who have a strong grasp, those who can educate people on the differences without any stereotypes included. There may not be many in this position, although i believe we do have a few. And no, i'm certainly not including myself in this group. I'm wondering if this is possible . Anyways my 2 cents with morning java. Still a bit sleep so hopefully it will make some sort of sense. Thanks for creating this thread, i think it was really needed


I thought we had a list of people who actually have certifications and stuff? What happened to it?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> *The T vs F thing rages too. It just divides itself different (more men want to be T's than F's). I cannot tell you how many people I've come across who are clearly Feeling types who swear they are NTs. And while we're on the subject lets not get started on the number of Ti vs Te mismatches* (*or I think the more prevalent Fe vs Fi mixups -- like I said I swear half the 'INFPs' are Fe-types). *
> 
> Also @Stephen it would be so awesome to have someone on here who is really MBTI certified. That would be amazing I wish you the best on that journey. I myself had considered doing some Jungian training as there are a few places here in Los Angeles, but its pretty heavy stuff.


I could kiss you a hundred times over for observing what i highlighed here in this post. I thought it was just me.

I didn't realize anyone here was actually certified in functions, so thanks at @Stephen for pointing this out. And you yourself Liquid Light in my humble opinion is very educated in functions. I have more bookmarks on my PC of your postings than any other bookmarks overall. I've learned a lot from reading your knowledge.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

possiBri said:


> I thought we had a list of people who actually have certifications and stuff? What happened to it?


I honestly wasn't aware we did. I hope in the future there will be a list compiled for everyone to see. I think its important we have a go to person.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Being a special snowflake is impossible. And long ago it became a cliche on these types of forums. Some of the most boring cliches being:

- Daydreamy, deep, creative N's
- Cold, rational NT's
- Super cold rational, unfeel-y NTs
- Blood is circulated through my body via my brain because I don't even have a heart NT's
- lol stupid sensors/feelers
- lol 2-dimensional people who would have been perfect Star Wars prequel characters


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

In all fairness, although some of it is sensor bashing I can't help to think that many truly confuse themselves as intuiting types. Some assessments (I know the MBTI Step II for sure) had a glitch to where when in doubt the results showed INTP. But we also should consider that we truly do use intuition and maybe we will later discover that typing on forums do have a way of bringing out the intuiting side in all of us, regardless of type. Would that be any different than certain circumstances calling for a certain function-attitude? 

Years ago, I read *this article*, and have referenced to it several times when similar topics come up. Those using Se truly mistake themselves for intuiting types. That is why STPs can mistype as NTJs and SFPs as NFs as outlined *here*. I think the hipocrasy of loathing sensing types in real life, while behaving the same way on the forums would be quite obvious with "in crowd" antics. Let's face it folks, and I have said it repeatedly, the things that most intuiting types scoff at in how they perceive sensing types IRL, is exactly how some behave on the forums.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

So you think there a lot of mistyped N's roaming the boards @Kayness?

Anyway, I haven't seen this going on myself. Maybe they really think they are intuitives and really are intuitives and you are taking it the wrong way. It seems like a few sensors around here have this inferioty complex, thinking that intuitives ride around on their high horses, with their noses held high in the air, being all smug.  

Anyway, in my experiences, a lot of people want to type themselves with the suggestions they've already have brought to the table. For example, say someone has narrowed it down from, isfp, infp, and infj. If you'd throw out a suggestion, different from what they were thinking, more often than not they will be adamant that what they narrowed it down to is correct.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> So you think there a lot of mistyped N's roaming the boards @_Kayness_ ?
> 
> Anyway, I haven't seen this going on myself. Maybe they really think they are intuitives and really are intuitives and you are taking it the wrong way. It seems like a few sensors around here have this inferioty complex, thinking that intuitives ride around on their high horses, with their noses held high in the air, being all smug.
> 
> Anyway, in my experiences, a lot of people want to type themselves with the suggestions they've already have brought to the table. For example, say someone has narrowed it down from, isfp, infp, and infj. If you'd throw out a suggestion, different from what they were thinking, more often than not they will be adamant that what they narrowed it down to is correct.


 That’s not what I was implying. I don’t know and honestly, don’t care to know if anyone on this board is mistyped or not. If someone doesn’t know themselves enough to type themselves correctly, then I’m even less qualified to help them. I don’t even go to the ‘What’s My Type?’ subforum because I don’t believe in suggesting a stranger’s type based on a block of text they’ve written about themselves, or of a third person. I’m also skeptical because I suspect that it’s just going to be full of bias anyway, and whenever I do read those, a lot of the time the information that they give doesn’t really help.

I didn’t say this based on an isolated incident or a handful of samples, but based on the observation over the months that I’ve been here. I never, ever see somebody say, “I’m definitely a xSxx” or a “xxTx”, meaning that they’ve cut out the consideration of being an N or an F-type respectively, but I often see people who are unsure of their type already cutting out the consideration of being a Sensor. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that there is also a lot of anti-sensor bias going around on this forum, and I strongly suspect that there is either:

a) a correlation between those two (stemming from a common cause), or
b) the anti-sensor bias causes people to not want to type themselves as an S type.

If you’re going to tell me you haven’t noticed *that* either, well I can name two threads off the top of my head discussing this subject:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/30647-intuitives-complex-sensors-simple.html
http://personalitycafe.com/sps-temp...1-anti-sensor-bias-how-do-you-feel-about.html

So yes, my ‘inferiority complex’, as you call it, doesn’t come out of a vacuum. What you’re doing is that you’re invalidating and trying to make me feel guilty for pointing what I perceive as a symptom of the problem with the popular MBTI descriptions. I would even call it gaslighting.

I would have taken this at face value if the incidences are few and far inbetween, and is more scattered. Instead the bias is overwhelmingly tilted against one letter of the MBTI. Your observation doesn't need to be the same as mine, but to say(and dismiss) that it's due to an inferiority complex on my (our) part, without trying to look deeper into the issue? Srsly.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

I could see some people saying that they are definitely an "N" type if they seem to have strong preferences for iNtuition instead of as a Sensor. For example, I struggled in typing myself for a while, but I knew I was an "N". I would make logical jumps/just KNOW things(even if they werent correct, I'd still have a guess I at least felt was right) and think in terms of metaphors and connections and could really identify with that, so I could see how that could come about.

However, I dont like the elitist impression that many N-types give off here. iNtuitives arent any better than anyone else; simply different. It is a different style of thinking and frankly, some people are straight-up never going to understand each other so their immaturity judges those different from them to be inferior. I may not be interested in what other people may have to say sometimes, but that doesnt make them less important or less of a person than I am. 

A lot of what I see too is that sensors arent "deep". This is nooooooooot true haha... I can't pretend to understand sensing very well, but I simply get the impression that their interests lie elsewhere. One of my Sensing friends is very into fashion, and I couldnt care less. Same with how I'm very interested in my videogames and she didnt really care about that either.

I also think that a lot of N's are mistyped because they want to feel "different". People read way too much into stereotypes and morph their behavior to fit a certain group that they wish to become. I, for example, admire the NF disposition and SP preferences and for the longest time, convinced myself I was an NF because I had emotions and read into the stereotype that NT's were robots. Which they arent  and i eventually saw the light and typed myself for the final time as an INTP.

It is inappropriate to use MBTI as a kind of system in which some types are glorified over others. They are GENERAL descriptions, not "exactly who you are". Its similar to racism and its kind of annoying.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

It's not just themselves..

I notice that every single human being who is anyone or has ever done anything is also an N..
Actors, singers, politicians, humanitarians, philosophers and so forth.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Khys said:


> I applaud this whole thread.
> 
> 
> People really don't understand what being a Sensor is. I hate that ESFJ/ISFJ and ESFP/ISFP are given the worst rap in the universe. Chances are, half the people IRL that you love and adore are those types.


YES! Definitely agreed!

My mother is an ESFJ, my sister an ESTJ, and a bunch of my friends are ESFPs. They're all wonderful and I couldn't live without them. The friendships I have with my NF friends are just as "deep" and "meaningful" as my friendships with the Sensors.  I don't understand what it is about these awful stereotypes. They're very hurtful. I see all this nasty stuff about ESFJs and think about my mom who is absolutely wonderful and understanding.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Arclight said:


> It's not just themselves..
> 
> I notice that every single human being who is anyone or has ever done anything is also an N..
> Actors, singers, politicians, humanitarians, philosophers and so forth.


Even within that, there are also people on these forums who ... if they tend to dislike a certain type for whatever reason, they'll "type" people they dislike or disagree with as the type they dislike/hate with little evidence to actually support it. That's another frustrating tidbit. My tangent is kind of off-topic from Kayness's original post, but I think it's a somewhat relavent tangent to the discussion of mistyping oneself or others.

It definitely fits into the "I couldn't be that type because of ___________" or "So-and-so CANNOT be my type so they must be ____________" issue.


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

Another possible reason is that the sensor's subforums are slower (less populated, less threads, etc).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

People are uneducated, it's that simple. People throw "sensor" around like it's an insult. Heck, even Keirsey isn't as bad as people make him out to be on-line...when I actually read _Please Understand Me II _I was actually quite drawn to the Artisan description. I was surprised!

But lack of knowledge of Jung, especially, makes things bad because people presume Se and Si are the same, that only iNtuitives can be "abstract," and that every person that they like must be an N. 

I was such an ignorant fool when I first came to type forums that I thought because I majored in something like English lit I couldn't be a sensor (I know it's funny, it's one of the reasons why I am so quick to correct others, like yeah, this cannot go on). And people kept telling me "you seem like an SFP" ...I got ESFP a lot, and I figured it was because I used to be an exotic dancer...but then other SPs and some SJs started telling me "I think you're an SP" ...anyway, I've been educating myself for years on the topic, from Jung to Beebe to Keirsey, and I am adamant about sharing my knowledge with others, because it freed me of my own silly ideas about personality.

I mean, what's the point of studying type if you think it's something it's totally not?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Hapalo said:


> Another possible reason is that the sensor's subforums are slower (less populated, less threads, etc).


 Yes.. But that is the effect of what this thread is discussing. Of course if no one _wants_ to be a sensor then areas for sensors will be less populated.. Which then feeds the "I don't want to be a sensor" phenomena even more and round and round we go. 

Cause and effect.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Thank you for posting this! I actually used to think like this myself, only because some people make out intuitives to be so much better. You see so much rubbish on some of the N forums complaining about how the evil sensors ruin their lives. MBTI can turn into a dangerous stereotyping tool if you don't know how to use it correctly.

If it weren't for the fact that my first test told me I'm a sensor, I'd probably still be convinced I'm an INFP, because I've appreciated what I thought were intuitive tendencies for most of my life, without realising that sensors can have them too. I think if some people could learn to appreciate the benefits of being a sensor too, they'd feel more comfortable committing to calling themselves one.


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

Arclight said:


> Yes.. But that is the effect of what this thread is discussing. Of course if no one _wants_ to be a sensor then areas for sensors will be less populated.. Which then feeds the "I don't want to be a sensor" phenomena even more and round and round we go.
> 
> Cause and effect.


That is what I meant.
Sensors need a better PR manager or we need to make intuitives look bad.
We should spam the N subforums with "Hitler was intuitive" threads.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Hapalo said:


> That is what I meant.
> Sensors need a better PR manager or we need to make intuitives look bad.
> We should spam the N subforums with "Hitler was intuitive" threads.


 LAMO


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

Hapalo said:


> That is what I meant.
> Sensors need a better PR manager or we need to make intuitives look bad.
> We should spam the N subforums with "Hitler was intuitive" threads.


Trying to solve a problem by creating another problem? That's a ridiculous idea.
Talk about cause and effect... 

I agree with posting true information about typing in the "What's my Type" forum as suggested previously.
Then we don't create more prejudice from current prejudice.


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

Arclight said:


> LAMO


If you are N YOU SUPPORT HITLER.
N MEANS NAZI! ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Hapalo said:


> That is what I meant.
> Sensors need a better PR manager or we need to make intuitives look bad.
> We should spam the N subforums with "Hitler was intuitive" threads.


Oh, INTJ humour. :laughing:

After looking on the article that someone posted one page back, about how the functions see the forest... I'm not sure what's so undesirable about taking in the forest's sensory information in rich detail (Se) or being reminded of happy, nostalgic times (Si)! Of course, it's more complex than that, but that's the basics. There's something very relaxing about being so satisfied by the natural world. It's nothing to be ashamed of! It's no wonder sensors are always stereotyped as more laid-back.


----------



## asewland (Mar 5, 2012)

I read this definition of S and N from an earlier thread and I'm going to share it with you all:
S: details ---> big picture
N: big picture ---> details

That's all their is to it. I've met Ns that you mistake for Ss since their very concrete and Ss that you would have thought were Ns since their heads are always in the clouds with new theories and such. I think the concrete/abstract part of the S/N divide comes from the fact that Ss will often deal with concrete studies since it involves details and Ns would deal with the abstract since it often involves the big picture.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

@Kayness, You sure you don't go to the what's my type subforum, that's where I was assuming you got this impression from:



Kayness said:


> I've noticed there's a trend here of people coming to this forum not being sure of their types, BUT they're so adamant that they're an iNtuitive. Like, "I'm not sure whether I'm an INFJ, ENFP, INFP or INTP, but I'm DEFINITELY an N" and other stuff along that line. They're willing to consider being any type, except a Sensor. Nevermind that Ni and Ne are two very different cognitive functions. Or even worse, "I'm definitely an NT but I don't know which one"...euhm ENTJ/INTP or INTJ/ENTP are nothing alike o_o.


Also, I don't think people refuse to be an S, just cause S's are bad or something. There are no bad types (with the exception of evil intjs  JK), just different types. For example, isfps are typically pretty good with art. I mean, look at your signature, that's awesome! 



I will be on my way now:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Hapalo said:


> That is what I meant.
> Sensors need a better PR manager or we need to make intuitives look bad.
> We should spam the N subforums with "Hitler was intuitive" threads.


Especially mention he was an INFJ. Maybe we'd have more ISFJ pride (I mean, good lord, they're one the majority types IRL but INFJs swarm forums? Hmm.)


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Especially mention he was an INFJ. Maybe we'd have more ISFJ pride (I mean, good lord, they're one the majority types IRL but INFJs swarm forums? Hmm.)


Yep. This cracks me up. ISFJs are cool.  They're just as intriguing as INFJs to me.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

The typical misinformed definition of an ESTJ:

E = evil and demanding like my parents
S = stick up the ass and can't take a joke
T = thinks they know shit because they memorized the rule book
J = jackass who thinks they can run your life better than you

With that misconception wandering around, it's no wonder people are afraid to even consider the possibility of being one of us. I can only imagine what the other sensors are branded as.


----------



## Enormous Hatred (Jul 29, 2011)

In a way I can't even blame most people—people who are brought into the system somewhere in the middle of traditional understanding. It's like faulting someone who was victim to a particularly convoluted game of telephone. You see that these systems all use the same terminology and so you assume and/or hope that they're all faithful distillations of the same source material. Hell, I'm still uprooting parts of my own flawed understanding.

On a more peculiar, comedic note, I think it may actually be possible that there have been people who insisted they were Sensing types because they feel they are smart/abstract and therefore transcend the stereotype, making them some kind of "savior".


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I think ESTJ gets the worst rep, likely because it's the opposite of INFP, the most common type on this forum (and probably most likely to be anti-sensor biased too). ISTJ, ESTP and ESFP aren't very well respected either, though.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Kitzara said:


> I think ESTJ gets the worst rep, likely because it's the opposite of INFP, the most common type on this forum (and probably most likely to be anti-sensor biased too). ISTJ, ESTP and ESFP aren't very well respected either, though.


I definitely feel like huddling in a corner now. x_X Like I mentioned, my sister is an ESTJ. Two years younger than me and I honestly have _no idea_ where I'd be without her. O__O She's so full of depth... she's almost been my protector, really. XD Even though she's younger. I talk with her about everything and anything. We balance each other out. She's artsy, intellectual, and full of ideas. The fact that ESTJs get such a bad rap is awful. 

Hmm. I wonder what would happen if I changed my personality type thing is shows on the side to "ESFP", post around, and see if anybody thinks less of me. XD


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Kitzara said:


> I think ESTJ gets the worst rep, likely because it's the opposite of INFP, the most common type on this forum (and probably most likely to be anti-sensor biased too). ISTJ, ESTP and ESFP aren't very well respected either, though.


To my knowledge, the general line of thinking runs like this:

ISTJ: quiet mindless drones who will fall in line behind anyone who raises their voice loud enough. Can also be used as a synonym for "slave."

ESTP: that jock with the raging hormones purported to have date raped most of his ex-girlfriends. Can usually be found in a run down, white-trash garage with a beer, scantily clad women, and posters of the favorite sports team. Can only speak at two volumes: loud and EXTRA loud.

ESFJ: sweet, lighthearted, dreamy. Born upon this earth only to serve as a plague to ENTJs and their plans for world dominance. 

ESFP: the pushover partier who has a lot of friends and everyone likes but is secretly afraid of complete and utter rejection. Most likely the type to burn the witch so long as everyone else agrees to it. 

ISTP: the extreme sports enthusiast who has an untranslatable sense of humor. Will usually only hear about them in the obituaries after they died trying to break a world record.

by contrast, some of the general N stereotypes

INFJ: deep and highly intelligent, but often misunderstood. Artsy and full of brilliance when they're not trying to slit their wrists.

INTP: incredibly deep thinker who can talk only in hypotheticals for hours upon end. God forbid you ask them to do something as down to Earth as take out the trash. Potentially very whiny. 

INTJ: God.

ENTJ: God, but with a corporate suit and a sign that says "i'll make you my bitch."

ENFP: the idiot who might have a clearer picture of the world than the rest of us-- if you can get them to shut up and stop looking for rainbows and fairies and talking pumpkins.

INFP: that person who stares out the window and occasionally cries for no reason. 

ENTP: the jackass who has all the thinking aspects of an INTP and all the loudmouth qualities of an ESTP. Will get you off of a 1st degree murder sentence even though you've confessed and make millions selling the book rights to your story.


----------



## Enormous Hatred (Jul 29, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> I think ESTJ gets the worst rep, likely because it's the opposite of INFP, the most common type on this forum (and probably most likely to be anti-sensor biased too). ISTJ, ESTP and ESFP aren't very well respected either, though.


At least it seems to be balanced out somewhat by the perception that ISTP is "the cool Sensor" and ENFP is the "retardliest of the iNtuitives".


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

JuliaRhys said:


> ISTJ: quiet mindless drones who will fall in line behind anyone who raises their voice loud enough. Can also be used as a synonym for "slave."


And also NEVER EVER EVER GIVE ANY INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE EMOTIONS AND COLDY STARE AT YOU WHEN YOU SAY HI TO THEM.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JuliaRhys said:


> To my knowledge, the general line of thinking runs like this:
> 
> ISTJ: quiet mindless drones who will fall in line behind anyone who raises their voice loud enough. Can also be used as a synonym for "slave."
> 
> ...


This. Is. Golden. @[email protected]


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

JuliaRhys said:


> To my knowledge, the general line of thinking runs like this:
> 
> ISTJ: quiet mindless drones who will fall in line behind anyone who raises their voice loud enough. Can also be used as a synonym for "slave."
> 
> ...


Bahahaha! I especially loled at the enfp looking for rainbows comment. XD


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

For some it's jumping to erroneous conclusions of what the types mean, for many it's an indication of the terrible information they've read on MBTI so far (which is great that they then come here to investigate further so they can be informed), and for others it's accurate and I cannot fathom why anyone would be angry about that, unless you're presuming there must be an emotional reason for someone ruling out certain types.

I have never been able to question my N and on a slightly lesser level my T, not because I wanted to be NT but because they were just too obviously me. I started out typing as INTJ, laughable now and of course once I had an awareness of cognitive functions I clearly recognised I was P and therefore understood why my N could not be questioned: Ne dom. My mistyping had nothing to do with sensor stereotypes, and I do not believe that I'm so special that this wouldn't be the case for others.

The average user who joins and wants to be typed has no understanding of cognitive functions, they read the basic MBTI descriptions and can easily consider themselves xNTx or xNFx etc without knowing why that last x is so out of place. The OP sounds like being annoyed with people who are new to the system not knowing how it works... 

Which makes this unfortunate:



Kayness said:


> I don’t even go to the ‘What’s My Type?’ subforum because I don’t believe in suggesting a stranger’s type based on a block of text they’ve written about themselves, or of a third person. I’m also skeptical because I suspect that it’s just going to be full of bias anyway, and whenever I do read those, a lot of the time the information that they give doesn’t really help.


Because that's how you can impact on people. I'm not suggesting you type them, I dislike people telling others what they are as well, but when someone is asking input is being sought and if you don't want to suggest types it doesn't mean that you can't direct them to information, play up the importance of JCF, or tell them about patterns you've noticed… such as this one about the sensor-bias! 

The more people who are annoyed at Sensor-bias and other stereotypes, because they have a level of understanding that shows they are baseless, who go into type me threads or threads by newbs who don't understand the system the better. Type me threads are frequently read by newbs, they'll create their own and read those of others posted around the same time, the last person who should be helping someone type themselves is someone who doesn't understand even the basics of JCF. If the information being given is unhelpful give something better.

So help them!

These types of threads will never stop because people are taking crap on-line tests every day and reading shallow information so looking for something better. Everyone has misconceptions when they first start out.

Now if you want to talk about the stupidity of the stereotypes that's something different, lack of education is not offensive it's curable, it's the stereotypes that need to die.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

It's so goddamn stupid. Hell, most of my friends are sensors, and one of my best friends is an ESFJ, and they're supposed to be the antichrist for INTP's.

In fact, many of the Intuitives I know act like they are the be all and end all, that they are the smartest, bestest academics and therefore everyone should bow down to them. No, people are good at different things, and all types have their ups and downs. It just so happens that the downside of many N's, especially INT's, is that they think they are smarter than God.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Sonny said:


> For some it's jumping to erroneous conclusions of what the types mean, for many it's an indication of the terrible information they've read on MBTI so far (which is great that they then come here to investigate further so they can be informed), and for others it's accurate and I cannot fathom why anyone would be angry about that, unless you're presuming there must be an emotional reason for someone ruling out certain types.
> 
> I have never been able to question my N and on a slightly lesser level my T, not because I wanted to be NT but because they were just too obviously me. I started out typing as INTJ, laughable now and of course once I had an awareness of cognitive functions I clearly recognised I was P and therefore understood why my N could not be questioned: Ne dom. My mistyping had nothing to do with sensor stereotypes, and I do not believe that I'm so special that this wouldn't be the case for others.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for pointing it out, I never thought of it that way before!


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

If you see someone who you think is a sensor, call it out, challenge them and help them become educated so that they know themselves better.

Do you think I am a sensing type? lol.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

JuliaRhys said:


> To my knowledge, the general line of thinking runs like this:
> 
> ESFJ: sweet, lighthearted, dreamy. Born upon this earth only to serve as a plague to ENTJs and their plans for world dominance.


Also contrastingly the very controlling, emotionally/empathetically pretty sucky, descriptions of ESFJ mothers who are only about shoulds. 
Really confuses me.


I also find the notion that thinkers don't get emotional or manipulative quite strange - or rather feelers are the emotionally unstable, manipulative ones -, I've witnessed both not inoften.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

This thread also made me think of the S/N divide between Sweden and Denmark. For some reason Denmark is much more a extraverted sensing nation and Sweden more introverted intuitive. We tend to view the Danes as somewhat childish epicureans while they view us as easily frightened bureaucrats. The Danes are great at typical sensor stuff like art, design, film and business while Swedes are great at more NT stuff like science and technology. Although we never reach the levels of antagonism found in a type forum; it's more of a friendly banter.


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

Who cares if people don't want to be sensors. It just leaves more sensory goodness for the rest of us.


----------



## Some Kind of Blue (Dec 14, 2011)

It's because people don't value differences. They develop false confirmation bias about what type they think they are, when really, they're being a huge hypocrite.


----------



## asewland (Mar 5, 2012)

JuliaRhys said:


> To my knowledge, the general line of thinking runs like this:
> 
> ISTJ: quiet mindless drones who will fall in line behind anyone who raises their voice loud enough. Can also be used as a synonym for "slave."
> 
> ...


We are not jackasses, we are simply better than you.


----------



## BlueG (Jun 2, 2011)

Proteus said:


> The descriptions of intuitives, and the descriptions of iNtuition itself are often more flattering or unique-sounding than those of sensors/sensing. Lots of the people read this and want to feel like they have some type of innate, snowflakey persona and do everything they can to confirm that these descriptions do indeed apply to them. It's as if by just applying a label which brings with it the connotation of some type of special or unique intelligence or empathetic ability then they will become some stereotypical version of it. People want to be different, they apply a label which they think makes them different, but they don't actually bother to understand it or themselves, resulting in more and more mistyping.











Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I think that's the problem also.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I would say that I have been guilty of all charges before.

I always thought: "Meh, I can learn things fast, do not engage with the world and hate doing repetitive things - Therefore, I'm not a sensor". But after trying a lot of different things, I'm pretty damn sure it was quite condescending of mine. Sensors are well capable persons, just like any one. A sensor can reach the same insights of an intuitive, but through different channels.

Like someone mentioned, the 'special snowflake' lure is one too strong for those who are not sure of themselves yet. Imagine, being through a phase where you don't know (and accept yourself) being called 'simple minded, not prone to abstractions' and things along these lines. It's not a very flattering thing to hear, and it surely bias some people's view on the S/N divide.

That being said, I've been giving consideration if I'm either a intutive or not. And this time, I'm totally okay with both results.


----------



## Loveternity (Aug 3, 2011)

@Kayness Brilliant thread, thank you very much for this. Most of my thoughts on this have been expressed already in one way or another, so I'm going to try to keep this short.

My gut reaction to the topic was "What if I am a sensor?", then I proceeded to introspect and analyze myself... again. To me, that is the purpose of these forums; to gain a better understanding of myself, no matter how well I think I know myself.

But I'll play the devil's advocate and say; "Does this make me in any way "better", "smarter" or "wiser" than someone who finds these forums, sticks to a type without ever questioning it and finds comfort in it?" No, I don't think so.

Maybe it's not the intended purpose of these forums, but if someone finds comfort in stereotypes and feels joy to finally belong somewhere and in turn becomes hugely biased, why should I mess with that joy?

So instead of trying to "open their eyes", I trust that these people will either open them by themselves as time goes by or keep them shut but remain "happy". In any case, the forums have served _a_ purpose for them.

Last but not least, I think it's more important that one is not hurt by such people and learns to recognize bias for what it is rather than try to forcefully change it.

(I am sorry if I seem to be putting labels by saying "such people" etc.)


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

Overflow said:


> Maybe it's not the intended purpose of these forums, but if someone finds comfort in stereotypes and feels joy to finally belong somewhere and in turn becomes hugely biased, why should I mess with that joy?
> 
> So instead of trying to "open their eyes", I trust that these people will either open them by themselves as time goes by or keep them shut but remain "happy". In any case, the forums have served _a_ purpose for them.


To an extent I agree with you - people being happy isn't a bad thing, except that often in order for those people to feel happy they actually mess with the happy of the people against whom they have the bias. If it was just a bias that's one thing, but when they spew that bias into places and in ways that are designed to offend other people then yeah I think their happy should be messed with. I'd rather keep the non-biased person happy than tell them to suck it up and deal with the bias of someone else.

I agree that forcefully changing bias isn't going to be of much use at all (and will likely just hurt the person trying to do the changing). However, if the person with the bias is hurting other people, especially if they do it deliberately or are intentionally insulting, then calling them on their bias and their behaviour is a good move.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

Overflow said:


> Maybe it's not the intended purpose of these forums, but if someone finds comfort in stereotypes and feels joy to finally belong somewhere and in turn becomes hugely biased, why should I mess with that joy?


I would. I mean, I may be being a bit of an extremist, but I think a person's source of joy should come from within. Of course, different things work for different persons, but shake the stereotype a bit and you have a person left in pieces. I'm saying that because it has happened to me countless times before I finally found myself.

Finding comfort in a stereotype is something I would advise to others. It takes out the space of self-learning for the propagation of an image of the person that not its own.

I think that I would rather live and accept an ugly truth than living under a beautiful lie. Lies can be uncovered.

Just my 2 cents though.


----------



## redballoon (Oct 19, 2011)

what a great thread. none of the people who stereotype are in it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Overflow said:


> Maybe it's not the intended purpose of these forums, but if someone finds comfort in stereotypes and feels joy to finally belong somewhere and in turn becomes hugely biased, why should I mess with that joy?


Because it's fucking ignorant and hurts other people? 

There's more to life than being happy. I mean, you know, raping strangers makes some people happy. 

Of course having personality theory stereotypes isn't as bad as rape, but give me a fucking break. 

This fulfills the Keirsey stereotype where the Artisan finds the Idealist's behavior "enabling." I see this a lot on the Keirsey forum and funnily enough I agree. Do you like that stereotype? That Idealists are enablers?


----------



## Loveternity (Aug 3, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Because it's fucking ignorant and hurts other people?


The way I see it, people allow themselves to be hurt by such words. I believe in freedom of speech. After years of dealing with trolls and people who choose to wear blinders, I've come to the conclusion that it's best to leave them be and not let them get to you.

I've never seen good results from fighting fire with fire in such a case and I'll be more than glad if someone proves me wrong. I'm sorry if my post offended you.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

The original post criticizes people for knowing that they are N's, but being confused about other variables such as T versus F. But most of this confusion has to do with the stupid definitions of F (especially Fi) that are thrown about. People are constantly saying that F is a "rational" function, and just has to do with ethics and "values." The obvious implication is that Thinkers lack ethics. But using the term "values" to describe F is basically inaccurate. Everyone has values. It is just that Feelers base their values more on emotions and Thinkers base them more on cold facts. Anyway, I do think that this dumb misdefinition causes a lot of the confusion.

I do think that Intuitives are more likely to appreciate MBTI, so I would expect more N's on this forum. Most of the people here really are intuitives, and the confused INxPs are just confused about the judging functions because people try to tell them that only feelers operate according to morals.

There is also a lot of conflicting information on this forum about the meaning of J versus P, so I would readily expect confusion there as well.

There is probably also some mild bias against the Sensor label, but I don't think that plays that big a part in the confusion.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Obsidian said:


> There is probably also some mild bias against the Sensor label, but I don't think that plays that big a part in the confusion.


I wouldn't call it simply mild. All over the place I see posts either confused about Sensory versus Intuition, asking the difference, and then people typing themselves are much more willing to see themselves as an Intuitive type. I think it's a pretty big deal. And of course it's not just Sensory versus Intuition. People mix up I/E, J/P, and T/F all the time. Mostly because of the stereotypes that are out there. 

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say Intuitives would appreciate MBTI more. There's plenty of Sensors who are really into MBTI.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

Proteus said:


> People want to be different


Ha!

Maybe unless they actually are.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Most people that claim to be Ns are not. It's just that Keirsey's nonsense and poorly-written MBTI tests cause people to equate N with being smart and open-minded and S with closeminded bigots and dumb jocks.

The distinction between S and N is quite simple, according to Jung:

Sensors prefer sense-data in and of itself while Intuitives prefer possibilities that come from the Unconscious and don't give a damn about what is percieved itself.

There are lots of Ne Doms in the business world for that reason, and they are the most innovative AND ruthless businesspeople because, according to Jung, once the perceived object no longer has any possibilities it comes to bore the Ne-Dom, who throws it away, even if "it" is a human being.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I think the general consensus here is that someone needs to write a proper article detailing the differences between S and N... without being biased towards either one! I think we all need a proper look at each one's advantages and disadvantages, because even as a sensor I still can't help but feel somewhat inferior to the intuitives. The main thing I appreciate about being a sensor is being able to be so in touch with the real world and the present moment... but other than that, all the articles I see make intuitives look better!


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

I've noticed this too. I've also seen it with T v F a lot as well.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> Most people that claim to be Ns are not. It's just that Keirsey's nonsense and poorly-written MBTI tests cause people to equate N with being smart and open-minded and S with closeminded bigots and dumb jocks.
> 
> The distinction between S and N is quite simple, according to Jung:
> 
> ...


I thought this was interesting. I don't believe i've ever read that anywhere, especially anything related with Jung. If you could, please provide me a link that shows Jung said this. Its kind of dishearting really, as i lead with Ne and don't throw people away when bored with them. I may take a step back, or need some space , but no, i don't throw them away. Thanks, i'll be waiting for the link  Would love to read the context of how he worded this.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Last thing I want to say is this. I'm so sick these sensor self pity, intuitives are typist jerks threads and overall attitude. The sensors that are jumping aboard with this trend of thought are no better than the intuitives who've poked fun of sensors in the first place. And it just comes across as a bunch of whiny babies playing the victim. There I said it.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> The main thing I appreciate about being a sensor is being able to be so in touch with the real world and the present moment... but other than that, all the articles I see make intuitives look better!


"Better" is kind of an opinionated term. We in the West live in a very intellectualist society. If we were in the ancient world, probably Se-types would tend to receive a lot of glory, due to their abilities to dominate the physical world.

I don't know if all INxPs can relate, but I personally kind of suck at sensing. So much so, that I actually bump into things on a fairly regular basis. And while I consider my creative abilities a strength, a good bit of the time they lead to practical dead ends.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< I mainly went with 4 things:

SJs prefer the past and consequently their orientation is towards that.
SPs prefer to live in the present (I envy this to be honest)
NPs prefer the near future.
NJs prefer the far future.

Based on the above -.- I'm somewhere between NP and NJ...which is annoying, "the quest for long term meaning" is bothersome and I wish I was SP. I still don't know if I'm an N thou, the possibility still exists that I'm an S, as in I prefer to see, hear, touch and take things apart, to see how they actually work. I don't do well with understanding from theory or even if I do, I don't prefer it. I also like rock climbing and such, because it relaxes me.

With that said I think a lot, constantly and relentlessly ( enneagram 6), meaning of life, genetic destiny of humanity, origin of the self, what are we really, politics, morals, society, non carbon based sentient life etc etc...you name it -.- and my focus is on meaning and the far future.

^^; so with all that going on <.< I have no freaking idea what effing type I am. Compared to the enneagram, the MBTI is very problematic.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> The original post criticizes people for knowing that they are N's, but being confused about other variables such as T versus F.


Throw loaded assumptions around, why don't you?? 

I said a few pages later that I don't know or care if people are correctly typed or not (gosh I dearly wish that the intent of my OP can just be correctly inferred and I don't need to spell this out). If people are certain that they are Ns, then it's fine, but this is the case where there's an overwhelming number of people who claim to be sure that they're iNtuitives yet it is relatively exceedingly rare that you see the case for the reverse (people claining to be sure that they're Sensors), or even for other dichotomies. It's also not a coincidence that the popular MBTI and CF descriptions are heavily tilted towards Ns (some even equate N, esp Ni, with psychic or prophetic tendencies ). If these incidents are more evenly dispersed across all the letters of MBTI, I woudn't even have thought to bring this topic up.



> But most of this confusion has to do with the stupid definitions of F (especially Fi) that are thrown about. People are constantly saying that F is a "rational" function, and just has to do with ethics and "values." The obvious implication is that Thinkers lack ethics. But using the term "values" to describe F is basically inaccurate. Everyone has values. It is just that Feelers base their values more on emotions and Thinkers base them more on cold facts. Anyway, I do think that this dumb misdefinition causes a lot of the confusion.


Correct, F and T are Judging functions, and those who have T and F as their dominant functions (IxxPs, ExxJs) are called 'Rationals'. It's Jungian's definition of Rational, not the common dictionary definition or even Keirseyan definition of the word. Also, everyone use an F function, and for Thinkers it's in the Tertiary or Inferior position.



> There is *probably also some mild bias against the Sensor label*, but I don't think that plays that big a part in the confusion.


 understatement of the.....(insert appropriate length of time here)


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Kayness said:


> It's also not a coincidence that the popular MBTI and CF descriptions are heavily tilted towards Ns (some even equate N, esp Ni, with psychic or prophetic tendencies ).


I do think that Ni has a tendency toward psychic-like knowledge. But that is no stunning compliment. I don't have a real high view of Ni, myself. Their psychic predictions are often wrong. In my experience, Ni people tend to overlook low-probability events — sometimes making themselves look idiotic in the process. That is, an unusual situation comes up, and the Ni dominant cannot accurately process it logically because it is outside of their paradigm.



> there's an overwhelming number of people who claim to be sure that they're iNtuitives yet it is relatively exceedingly rare that you see the case for the reverse (people claining to be sure that they're Sensors), or even for other dichotomies.


I could be wrong, but I just really do not believe that sensors are inclined toward the MBTI. Especially SPs.



> It's also not a coincidence that the popular MBTI and CF descriptions are heavily tilted towards Ns (some even equate N, esp Ni, with psychic or prophetic tendencies ).


I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. But I do truly think that all MBTI descriptions would be more helpful if they listed negatives along with the positives.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> I do think that Ni has a tendency toward psychic-like knowledge. But that is no stunning compliment. I don't have a real high view of Ni, myself. Their psychic predictions are often wrong. In my experience, Ni people tend to overlook low-probability events — sometimes making themselves look idiotic in the process. That is, an unusual situation comes up, and the Ni dominant cannot accurately process it logically because it is outside of their paradigm.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I just really do not believe that sensors are inclined toward the MBTI. Especially SPs.
> 
> I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. But I do truly think that all MBTI descriptions would be more helpful if they listed negatives along with the positives.


well you ARE talking to an SP 
anyway,
this article is a prime example of what I was talking about:
http://personalitycafe.com/infj-articles/75929-most-accurate-analysis-infj.html "It is no wonder that many INFJs can make a decent living by hanging a “Psychic” sign on their front door"
or this:
INFJ Profile " Their amazing ability to deduce the inner workings of the mind, will and emotions of others gives INFJs their reputation as prophets and seers."

not saying it's bad or untrue or whatever but I think that these are the kind of descriptions that create some exaggerated bias towards Ni and then when, say, Stephen or myself show skepticism, we get called 'jealous' or 'sour grape'...er ok.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@Kayness

Well you do sound kinda jealous. But you oughta just focus on your own strengths. For example, I would bet that you probably don't bump into things very often, or have much trouble focusing on the task at hand, or zone out when you should be paying attention, or worry excessively about improbable events. And you probably are less manipulative with your emotions than Fe types. And you probably are not anti-social like most IxTPs.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> @_Kayness_
> 
> Well you do sound kinda jealous. But you oughta just focus on your own strengths. For example, I would bet that you probably don't bump into things very often, or have much trouble focusing on the task at hand, or zone out when you should be paying attention, or worry excessively about improbable events. And you probably are less manipulative with your emotions than Fe types. And you probably are not anti-social like most IxTPs.


 Er, no. I use Ni too. and those things that you mentioned aren't always true for me. I was called clumsy as a kid (and even a few years ago by an ex's housemate). I'm supposed to be doing some concept work right now but I'm instead here on PerC checking for notifications. Using Se, unfortunately, doesn't always mean I'm good at being focused on the task at hand(it'd be great if it does, though. I'd like to be a lot more productive.)

I'm not antisocial but I'm rather asocial.

but thanks


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> or have much trouble focusing on the task at hand


Depends. Se can be distracted or bored. Like if I don't want to listen to some 50 year old guy ramble on about something or another, I may suddenly look at the four year old beside me and say "oh you have glitter on your boots how nice" or look around at how nice the day is. Then 50 year old man notices that no one is listening to his story and says, "Jesus is no one listening to me? Do you guys have a pulse?"

True story. Happened today.

The same could go for a class or a boring meeting or any number of things an Se type does not want to focus on, they can choose to focus on something else.

Furthermore, Se types have introverted functions - you know like Ni. And Fi or Ti. That means we can think and be inside our heads.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I thought this was interesting. I don't believe i've ever read that anywhere, especially anything related with Jung. If you could, please provide me a link that shows Jung said this. Its kind of dishearting really, as i lead with Ne and don't throw people away when bored with them. I may take a step back, or need some space , but no, i don't throw them away. Thanks, i'll be waiting for the link  Would love to read the context of how he worded this.


I've got that for you.



> He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them.





> The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.





> Such women understand the art of utilizing every social opportunity; they establish right social con- [p. 466] nections; they seek out lovers with possibilities only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility.


This is straight from Jung's description of the Extroverted Intuitive type. That's why I've scoffed at people saying that the Sensor descriptions are bad, somehow. Jung didn't play favorites.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Are you telling me as a sensor, I am not a special snowflake?








This whole time I have been deceived.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Kayness
@fourtines 
@firedell










:blushed: <3 










My fave ISFPs.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

@fourtines: Speaking as an Extraverted Intuitive, I find that description hilarious. :laughing:


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Rim said:


> Based on the above -.- I'm somewhere between NP and NJ...which is annoying, "the quest for long term meaning" is bothersome and I wish I was SP. I still don't know if I'm an N thou, the possibility still exists that I'm an S, as in I prefer to see, hear, touch and take things apart, to see how they actually work. I don't do well with understanding from theory or even if I do, I don't prefer it. I also like rock climbing and such, because it relaxes me.
> 
> With that said I think a lot, constantly and relentlessly ( enneagram 6), meaning of life, genetic destiny of humanity, origin of the self, what are we really, politics, morals, society, non carbon based sentient life etc etc...you name it -.- and my focus is on meaning and the far future.


See, that's what convinces me I'm a sensor. I hardly ever think of any of those things unless somebody else brings up the topic. And I've always loved using practical skills, but I'm not very good at them. :laughing: I almost got kicked out of chemistry practicals for never following instructions and just diving into it - a bit of a Se thing.

That sounds rough though, about your type. I'm a bit stuck between SP and SJ myself, so I can kind of relate. I hope you can figure it out soon!


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Obsidian said:


> For example, I would bet that you probably don't bump into things very often, or have much trouble focusing on the task at hand, or zone out when you should be paying attention, or worry excessively about improbable events. And you probably are less manipulative with your emotions than Fe types.


...No, not really. Isn't that all a little stereotypical? Se types get bored just as easily as others. As @fourtines mentioned, if we get bored of the task at hand we can easily divert to something else. It just usually involves looking around us for something visually stimulating. And as for bumping into things, I do it all the time. It happens because I'm too busy looking at something else or trying to multitask. 

Every type can do something against their stereotype, it just happens in a different way. That's something that frustrates a fair amount of sensors, because some intuitives think we're just "hurr durr I'm a sensor and I have no imagination and everything has to physically exist for me to like it".

Sorry about the double post, by the way.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I'm not sure you even understand what Se is. Here's a hint: it's not the equivalent of being a mindless retard, or a dog.


I'm not sure you are even capable of intelligently discussing MBTI over an internet forum. I can't even say a damn thing without offending you, and without you going on the attack.

I think this thread is proof about why sensors dislike MBTI. It's like sensors all have some sort of inferiority complex. You can't even describe the sensing functions, without having the majority of the sensors start getting on the defensive. What a pointless, whiny thread.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Staffan said:


> This to me implies that Jung's ideas, as formulated in the early 1920s, are still valid. Like the fact that practically all thinking types are men and vice versa. Or that the auxiliary is relatively archaic and primitive. I can't say I have ever encountered an intelligent person who's auxiliary could be described as primitive. Not saying the MBTI or Keirsey are all that great but looking at all other ideas in psychology, there is a constant development where ideas are discarded or improved.


One can't build on a theory unless one understands it in the first place. :tongue:


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

@TaylorS
Thank you. I think i've actually read this before, although it''s been sometime. Maybe i purposely blocked it out ;p...although it doesn't sound so good reading it " cough * , it doesn't sound near as bad as the way you explained it.( throwing people away ) Sounds about right thou. Kind of explains why we can go long periods of time without contacting people, not everyone, there are people i can go long periods of time without speaking with, yet my inner circle is really tight. Thanks again, i appreciate the link


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> Says who? According to Jung, the lower three functions were all the opposite orientation of the top function.


Only in extreme "pure" types in which only the dominant function is conscious, which is what Jung was describing in Chapter 10 of _Psychological Types_. You need to read his other works to understand the context (_The Portable Jung_ and _The Essential Jung_ are good places to start), especially with how the Persona, Ego, Shadow complexes function. Functions cannot be brought into consciousness unless they flip their orientation, because the orientation opposite the orientation of the Ego is an essential part of the Shadow.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> @TaylorS
> Thank you. I think i've actually read this before, although it''s been sometime. Maybe i purposely blocked it out ;p...although it doesn't sound so good reading it " cough * , it doesn't sound near as bad as the way you explained it.( throwing people away ) Sounds about right thou. Kind of explains why we can go long periods of time without contacting people, not everyone, there are people i can go long periods of time without speaking with, yet my inner circle is really tight. Thanks again, i appreciate the link


Thanks, reading Jung's stuff has been very eye opening.

One that has just been republished this year is his 1925 lectures, it is a good read.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> Maybe SPs really do have physical orientations equal to INTPs. And maybe sensors are basically EQUAL to intuitives in every way. And if that's so, maybe the whole MBTI should not even exist. *After all, we wouldn't want to actually DISTINGUISH or analyze groups of people, would we?
> 
> The whole MBTI system is based off generalizations.* All this "Don't stereotype" bullshit gets pretty maddening. Every time I make some analytical comment, everyone feels the need to swoop in and point out all the supposed exceptions to the rule. So anyway, I stand by my comment. Se types are generally more physically- and present-oriented.


I think it's easy to forget that. A lot of people's interest in typology is in applying it to understand/analyse individuals, (themselves/family/friends/etc), not in trying to understand/analyse groups. And thus wrongly, they can take the generalised descriptions for the groups of people and apply it at an individual level (ecological fallacy..) without thinking about why something might be the case.

Anyhow, worrying about improbable events could be inferior intution, trouble focusing on tasks or zoning out could be a lack of interest, and bumping into things could mean that someone is busy thinking of other things at the time, all of which can happen to an SP. It may happen less to the 'average' (not that there exists such a thing..) SP than the 'average' NP. However, I don't think they are looking at comparing themselves to an NP. They are looking at comparing themselves to the information presented which thus seems bogus.

It's possible SPs are less interested in MBTI because they focus more on the detail. If they see that none of these generalised groups fit them, they may ignore the whole thing. That's what I've done sometimes with things that seem wrong.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> I'm not sure you are even capable of intelligently discussing MBTI over an internet forum. I can't even say a damn thing without offending you, and without you going on the attack.
> 
> I think this thread is proof about why sensors dislike MBTI. It's like sensors all have some sort of inferiority complex. You can't even describe the sensing functions, without having the majority of the sensors start getting on the defensive. What a pointless, whiny thread.


Actually you and @donkeybals to me seem incapable of intelligent discussion, and neither of you even seem to understand Jung.

Yes, educated people, whether they are sensors or intuitives, tend to get annoyed with people who base their arguments on conjecture rather than making informed references. 

I don't have an inferiority complex in the slightest. I actually prefer the description for Se over the description for Ne. I even found the Keirsey description of Artisan more appealing than Idealist, which sounded like a bunch of timid, non-confrontational, social workers with sexual issues to me.

Many of the people I most admire are Se types as well, I've noticed, like I must have subconsciously formulated some of my heroes around people who have similar perceptions or skill sets...like the Fitzgeralds, Dorothy Parker, Henry Miller, and numerous musicians.

So this idea of "inferiority" is your head, something you're projecting on to sensors, betraying your own prejudice.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I even found the Keirsey description of Artisan more appealing than Idealist, which sounded like a bunch of timid, non-confrontational, social workers with sexual issues to me.


Heeeey! Don't say that about us! 



But on the topic, 

I just wanted to discuss what someone said about the fact that MBTI is based of generalizations and stereotypes, and being used to tell people apart. 

While I agree with this, I feel like people are taking MBTI towards a whole different level here. I don't think there's an open hate against sensors from intuitives. But there seems to be a good amount of sensors in denial, and I'll tell you why.

Most of the people who get into MBTI are people who are willing to learn more about themselves. In other words, they often do not understand themselves and also probably, their places in the world. While not true for everyone, MBTI was an explanation on why many of us are how we are - strenghts, flaws and all. It probably gave meaning to a lot of us typed intuitives. It is the 'unique snowflake effect'

And we all have seen the numbers in terms of proportions of sensors over the intuitives, and how they are the majority of society. Then, every person that we didn't got along with, the person that picked on us, the annoying parent, the boring teacher, soon tended to fall along the sensor label just because they viewed the world in a different way than we did.

And what happens when you finally learn more about yourself and the theory as well, realizing that the terms that made you feel so special once hold no meaning to you now. When you were in high school, solving a complex exercise before anyone else did surely meant you were an NT. After you learn more, you do realize that every example you had of your 'major intuition skill' or 'cold analytical thinking' were biased towards small events where you did something you felt proud of.

It certainly can shake your worldview to learn that the way you type yourself is highly dependent on how you want to view yourself. When you grow up, and finally learn more about the world and yourself, it may be hard to accept that the ways you think are not what you expected them to be.

Many of the users that we have here are still on their young years and may be trapped in the unique snowflake effect. Time only can show them that this prejudice may be a dumb choice, but we need to work on some policies to present both sides of the coin in an unbiased manner. 


And to finally sum it all, this whole prejudice is the product of taking the traits of specific persons and atributing them to a personality type. A lot of this comes from 'typing other people', which I find unethical. Remember that we all have our ego and persona. What you see is not what it is - and thus, things like this come to fruition.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Herp said:


> Heeeey! Don't say that about us!


I didn't say that about you, I said it about the Keirsey description (have you read PUMII?); that's what it translated to, overall, in my perception... and I just know it's not me. I don't think Diplomacy is my primary intelligence.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I didn't say that about you, I said it about the Keirsey description (have you read PUMII?); that's what it translated to, overall, in my perception... and I just know it's not me. I don't think Diplomacy is my primary intelligence.


Don't worry. I didn't meant to pick up an argument. 

And, unfortunately, I feel like it is sometimes true. It's just like some of us need to have some balls sometimes and do something for themselves.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Many of the users that we have here are still on their young years and may be trapped in the unique snowflake effect.


Um, that'd be me in my younger years, and I've never had this problem to the extent that I thought it would be funny and satisfying to try to make sensors look like retards - quite the contrary (I always thought that was idiotic and lacking intellectual integrity and just didn't fit with my experiences with sensors IRL) - I've always wanted this to fit my observations of people as much as possible in a very scientific way - I always found searching for outliers of stereotypes to be the most interesting aspect of typology (I always felt like an outlier in the world in general in so many ways - I guess my enneagram 4 wing makes me enthusiastic about finding the unique in myself and in observations driven by my primary 5 nature), since this allows me to deep-dive further into intriguing implications based on observations I have or haven't noticed. Exploring typology based on stereotypes is the most boring aspect of it ever - it stifles intuitive deep-diving, ironically, LOL (to think so many so-called "N" types engage in this is embarrassingly ironic to me) - stereotypes aren't really meant to be explored - that's why they exist - to prevent people from exploring any further or deeper into any topic.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

fourtines said:


> So this idea of "inferiority" is your head, something you're projecting on to sensors, betraying your own prejudice.


No, it's based off the fact that you are being completely hostile and obnoxious without any justification. And it's based off the fact that every CORRECT generalization about sensors seems to be met with the outcry of "THAT'S JUST A STEREOTYPE."


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno

Stereotypes are how you analyze a complex subject like human beings. If you eliminate stereotypes in the interest of examining and emphasizing the absolute uniqueness of every individual, then you do not have science anymore. You just have anecdotes. You can call it "deep" if you want. But in reality, it's pointless.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> No, it's based off the fact that you are being completely hostile and obnoxious without any justification. And it's based off the fact that every CORRECT generalization about sensors seems to be met with the outcry of "THAT'S JUST A STEREOTYPE."


Why are you so sure you're correct that people are jealous, when they're just trying to tell you that you are uninformed? This includes an INTJ up there, bro.

I don't argue with all stereotypes, anyway. I've said in this thread I prefer the Keirsey Artisan temperament to Idealist (or do you just ignore words you don't want to see?) and I've said more than once on this forum that I think PTypes ISFP Exuberant sounds just like me. 

Seriously, here's me in a nutshell:



> The following ten traits and characteristics are typical of the *Exuberant personality type*.
> 
> *Mood swings*. Those of the Exuberant temperament tend to experience a greater range of emotion than those of any other type. They are very emotionally reactive.
> *Artistic inclinations*. The Exuberant type is the most inclined of all the types to be involved with the fine arts, music, or literature (Keirsey, 204). They take an artistic approach to all aspects of their lives.
> ...


So I'm not sure what you're talking about, and all of your arguments look like conjecture B.S. to me anyhow, I don't see you making any concrete references to established theories, just spouting your personal ideas about things. 

@_donkeybals_ didn't even realize that ISTPs are Ti doms.

I mean...the mind boggles. People thinking they're superior, why, exactly?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Stereotypes are how you analyze a complex subject like human beings. If you eliminate stereotypes in the interest of examining and emphasizing the absolute uniqueness of every individual, then you do not have science anymore. You just have anecdotes. You can call it "deep" if you want. But in reality, it's pointless.


Woa, you analyze people via stereotypes? Give me lessons in this...or not. Jungian principles aren't stereotypes, btw. You might as well call any principle a stereotype by that reasoning.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno

"Stereotype" is just a belittling synonym for "generalization."


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> @JungyesMBTIno
> 
> "Stereotype" is just a belittling synonym for "generalization."


Okay, can I make a generalization?

SimulatedWorld and SolitaryWalker make you look like a damn sorry excuse for an NTP type, what with your limited knowledge of personality theory. The former is one of the most knowledgeable people I've ever encountered about Jung, and the latter is actually published.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Why are you so sure you're correct that people are jealous, when they're just trying to tell you that you are uninformed? This includes an INTJ up there, bro.
> 
> I don't argue with all stereotypes, anyway. I've said in this thread I prefer the Keirsey Artisan temperament to Idealist (or do you just ignore words you don't want to see?) and I've said more than once on this forum that I think PTypes ISFP Exuberant sounds just like me.
> 
> ...


I know istps are ti dom. Show me where it says otherwise.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

donkeybals said:


> I know istps are ti dom. Show me where it says otherwise.


So you're just unaware of the original Jungian theory of undifferentiated sensing for the IT(S)?


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I hope that the involved in this thread realises that this has gone beyond a healthy discussion to calling out each other.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Herp said:


> I hope that the involved in this thread realises that this has gone beyond a healthy discussion to calling out each other.


Wow it's another 9w1 telling people to play nice, even though they're not a moderator!

I think I'll get deeper into this generalization thing, you know, stereotypes are fun.

Let's stereotype everyone.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

fourtines said:


> This is straight from Jung's description of the Extroverted Intuitive type. That's why I've scoffed at people saying that the Sensor descriptions are bad, somehow. Jung didn't play favorites.





Dark Romantic said:


> It's funny, because I suppose that it's _technically_ true, but it's absolutely the most cynical way of looking at it that I can think of.


It's interesting though, because when I first read it, I was still skeptical enough to ask "is even Jung just trying to flatter us?" But seeing as that he is (literally) not the type to do that sort of thing, it's obvious who the real source of bias is here (and I wonder why....)

It wasn't until later on that I even saw any speck of cynicism in that whole "cold blooded abandon" part.... that he could've simply said "abandon," "dismiss," or "drop it like it's hot," but nope.

It's revolutionary, isn't it? Type really is tied up in ourselves.

"Mental processing" is a technically correct way to put it but one which fails to do justice to the difference it really creates. Like fourtines admiring musicians and other Se types, or me shouting at the tv at 8 years old because the students just won't get it and fully trust their crazy awesome busdriver just because she does things differently :laughing:

So once you've actually read and understood the original descriptions, the bias is mostly just your own, right? Like, an educated but far-from-perfect dominant intuitive still rejects sensing and so would be uncomfortable with considering being anything other than xNxx. This and similar phenomena could be happening for _some_ people who react badly to being considered S, though I do think the horribly off information on sensing that still goes around either upfront or in the background is still a huge reason for it. 

And no, I'm not saying that dominant intuition is an excuse to throw your inferior sensing projection around like beads in a parade and not care if they hit someone in the eye. It's kind of one of the big deals of learning this in the first place.... to recognize when you are being biased and at least attempting to process it with maturity instead of just throwing it out.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ElectricSparkle said:


> It's interesting though, because when I first read it, I was still skeptical enough to ask "is even Jung just trying to flatter us?" But seeing as that he is (literally) not the type to do that sort of thing, it's obvious who the real source of bias is here (and I wonder why....)
> 
> It wasn't until later on that I even saw any speck of cynicism in that whole "cold blooded abandon" part.... that he could've simply said "abandon," "dismiss," or "drop it like it's hot," but nope.
> 
> ...


I think that's interesting that a true Ne dom could read the Extroverted Intuitive description and see nothing negative about it! LOL. Fascinating, truly. Well, of course, except the inferior Si neurosis part at the end, I'm sure no one takes their inferior as "flattery." 

But my neurosis was one of the easiest things to spot. I think in Jung's original diagnostic tool, I'd actually be an ES(F) Cultural Realist. 

However, reading his other material, I really saw myself in Fi. It was upon reading Fi that I really realized this is me, I am not Fe. 

And I'm way too moved by the poetry of Si to be an Ne dom, I just almost fetishize it, which might be something an INFP would do, but that didn't explain that supposed Te I keep showing constantly, which is obviously my aux Se (a couple of INTJs told me "yeah you aren't using as much Te as you think you are..."). There's that whole Se/Te mix-up.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> I'm not sure you are even capable of intelligently discussing MBTI over an internet forum.


Says the person who unquestioningly parrots Keirsey's stereotypes and who doesn't seem to bother to look deeper into the actual cognitive functions, you know, the heart of this whole MBTI thing. Nowhere in this thread do I see any indications that you've read Jung's work.



> I think this thread is proof about why sensors dislike MBTI.


I think this thread is proof about why sensors dislike people who spout ignorant, biased assumptions and stereotypes about Si/Se functions and people who use them as their primary perceiving functions.



> It's like sensors all have some sort of inferiority complex. You can't even describe the sensing functions, without having the majority of the sensors start getting on the defensive.


woooooow projection! And also, your idea of 'describing' the sensing functions is parroting the popular MBTI and keirseyan descriptions, you know, the places where this tilt against sensors were born.



> What a pointless, whiny thread.


The only reason you don't like this thread is because you can't spout your ignorant typist comments with impunity. People, including myself, are sick of it and are not taking it lying down.

I know that in your last post where you used my username you avoided @ mentioning me, presumably because you don't want to draw my attention to your post. but i'm going to keep on replying to you if I think it warrants a reply. I'm just sick of people like you and donkeybals who whine because they can't take the backlash against their typism.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Wow it's another 9w1 telling people to play nice, even though they're not a moderator!


 who's the other one? I don't think I do that


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Kayness said:


> who's the other one? I certainly don't do that


Haha...not you.

I was trying to make a  funny  point.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Cause everyone is a unique snowflake. Just like everyone else.

Hispters.

Burn 'em, I say.

P.S: I consider Keirsey's temperament highly flawed as it were. ISTP's would actually be thinkers first and foremost, and thus more on the line of 'the intellects' rather than the mechanics. Then again, we happen to be perfect fencesitters in any temperament description I've ever encountered.

CAN'T PUT ME IN BOXES YOU SEE!



> According to Analytical Psychology if one is introverted then the Jungian Shadow is extraverted, and vice-versa. This means that the auxiliary must share the attitude of the dominant and the tertiary must share the attitude of the Inferior. So if you are an ISTP your auxiliary is Si, not Se.


Which book would that be? Only having read the single piece about the definitions so far I could clearly see Jung state the 'tandem principle' - if what you say were correct, and introverts were indeed introverted dom *and* introverted auxiliary, we basically wouldn't care about anything happining around us, as introversion would be so absolute to us that the 'object' would practically come completely inexistent to us.

If we didn't function in tandem (Extro - Intro - Extro - Intro / Intro - Extro - Intro - Extro) we'd be malfunctioning, hard. I'd actually go so far and say that a lot of personality disorders are a result of malfunctioning extroversion in introverts and malfunctioning introversion in extroverts.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Says the person who unquestioningly parrots Keirsey's stereotypes and who doesn't seem to bother to look deeper into the actual cognitive functions, you know, the heart of this whole MBTI thing. Nowhere in this thread do I see any indications that you've read Jung's work.
> 
> 
> I think this thread is proof about why sensors dislike people who spout ignorant, biased assumptions and stereotypes about Si/Se functions and people who use them as their primary perceiving functions.
> ...


Wut? I gave flowers on the sensor appreciation thread. 

Naggers! @13:08

@Obsidian *Whispers softly into ear* Say man, Kayness is sort of queen round' these parts *Points at Stephens sig*, so you might want to consider doing the f*ck she say


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

17 pages, got only a few minutes left before I hit it with the barn animals. 

Well, what can I say? 

People on the Internet tend to be highly iNtuitive, I've noticed. But to actually take the time to research more into the MBTI and create an account in PersonalityCafe is more likely for an iNtuitive than a Sensor. N and S are both processing functions, which is what we do every second of an atom, and it's probably easier to understand than the other functions. Trust me, I've thought about this for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nanoseconds.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> *Whispers softly into ear* Say man, Kayness is sort of queen round' these parts *Points at Stephens sig*, so you might want to consider doing the f*ck she say


 you're kidding me mate...I didn't get together with @_Stephen_ just so that I can use his status to intimidate or lord it over the members of this site or to exalt myself. I certainly never gave any indication that I want or demand special treatment because of my association with him. You, and everybody else, certainly are free to talk or argue with me the exact same way you would any other member on this site.

Also Stephen is not the kind of person to abuse moderator privileges to serve his own personal grudges (or those of mine, for that matter).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Coke said:


> 17 pages, got only a few minutes left before I hit it with the barn animals.
> 
> Well, what can I say?
> 
> *People on the Internet tend to be highly iNtuitive,* I've noticed. But to actually take the time to research more into the MBTI and create an account in PersonalityCafe is more likely for an iNtuitive than a Sensor. N and S are both processing functions, which is what we do every second of an atom, and it's probably easier to understand than the other functions. Trust me, I've thought about this for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nanoseconds.


But everybody is on the Internet now.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Kayness said:


> I know that in your last post where you used my username you avoided @ mentioning me, presumably because you don't want to draw my attention to your post. but i'm going to keep on replying to you if I think it warrants a reply. I'm just sick of people like you and donkeybals who whine because they can't take the backlash against their typism.


What the fuck is your problem? I haven't even said a single thing that's "typist." I didn't mention you because I didn't have any reason to. But I see that you want to join in on the "Let's bitch against Obsidian for no reason" fest. I guess I'll start including you in my responses.

Except I think I'm about done arguing with you people, anyway. No point.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> What the fuck is your problem? I haven't even said a single thing that's "typist." I didn't mention you because I didn't have any reason to. But I see that you want to join in on the "Let's bitch against Obsidian for no reason" fest. I guess I'll start including you in my responses.
> 
> Except I think I'm about done arguing with you people, anyway. No point.


You can't really be that oblivious that your points will be interpreted as typist...right...


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Which ones?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Um, most of the ones you made here...Don't pretend to be oblivious.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Oh, "most of the ones," okay.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Obsidian - The fact is, there's a bunch of people who have created threads asking questions about the difference between Sensing and Intuiting. There's also a lot of threads of people asking questions about Sensors. Like "Are Sensors complex?" Also, if you around, you'll find that people do tend to prefer the Intuitive descriptions. For example, ESFP is almost always looked down upon while ENFP is glorified. 



> Over the last four years, in the MBTI® Qualifying Programs, advanced programs and elsewhere, we found a disproportionate number of people who had reported preferences for the iNtuiting process while their behaviors seemed to resemble the Artisan-SP temperament pattern. This raised some questions such as: What is the relationship between temperament and Jung's typology? Can someone have one type and a different temperament? If not, what is going on here?


From: How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing | The InterStrength Group

Not to mention: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/91383-im-not-diggin-esfp-prejudice.html

http://personalitycafe.com/esfp-for...esfp-ever-stop-ponder-about-meaning-life.html

I'm posting more on ESFP because that's the type I've been most looking into lately.  I noticed that out of most the Sensor types, ESFP has a particularly dreadful stereotype that isn't truthful at all. 

Not to mention I've had encounters with others who say things like, "Well, at least you don't live with an ISFJ, it's like living with the frickin' police", "Ugh, ESFJs are so manipulating", etc. All of it was directed towards Sensors. Hardly anybody had a complaint against Intuitives. Even when people did start poking fun of Intuitives, it was by Intuitives themselves saying things like, "Yeah, we're clumsy, we're so busy in our own brains that we think of future possibilities all the time and get distracted", etc.

^ Just start looking around. We're not spouting nonsense here when we say there's a bias. 

While you may not be "typist" and you think Sensors are fine, there is no getting around that people, for whatever reason, would prefer to have an N in their MBTI type than an S. There has to be a reason. So, why is this?


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Oh, "most of the ones," okay.


Several of your posts in this thread show a tilt toward very common and negative stereotypes that we see a lot on here. I'm posting from my phone right now, so it's difficult for me to go through a long thread and quote them all, but if you sit tight a bit I am willing to quote the things you've said, why they're wrong and offensive, and what the other perspective on them is. It may take until I get home for that, though.


----------



## White River (Feb 13, 2011)

Khys said:


> I applaud this whole thread.
> 
> 
> People really don't understand what being a Sensor is. I hate that ESFJ/ISFJ and ESFP/ISFP are given the worst rap in the universe. Chances are, half the people IRL that you love and adore are those types.


I agree, although I will say that the reason your final sentence is likely true is because a lot of the people we know are quite likely to be those types anyway! The reason I personally moan about ESFx's in particular is not because I loathe them all. I just recognise that I often get into situations with some of them where there is some sort of conflict and know that we find it a bit tricky to understand each other on anything more than a superficial level.



asewland said:


> I read this definition of S and N from an earlier thread and I'm going to share it with you all:
> S: details ---> big picture
> N: big picture ---> details
> 
> That's all their is to it. I've met Ns that you mistake for Ss since their very concrete and Ss that you would have thought were Ns since their heads are always in the clouds with new theories and such. I think the concrete/abstract part of the S/N divide comes from the fact that Ss will often deal with concrete studies since it involves details and Ns would deal with the abstract since it often involves the big picture.


You're telling me. I had the hardest time figuring out whether I was an ISTJ or INTJ because the distinction never made that much sense to me the way it is usually presented.


---

In terms of the main point of the thread, I got about halfway through the 18 pages but couldn't make it to the end, so sorry if I missed any important points. However, I think the main issue is that a lot of the information online is unreliable and a lot of the tests misleading. I don't think individuals are to blame here. As I believe @Stephen has already said, a good solution would be to have some reliable sources of information that people who are new are immediately directed towards.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Not to mention I've had encounters with others who say things like, "Well, at least you don't live with an ISFJ, it's like living with the frickin' police", "Ugh, ESFJs are so manipulating", etc. All of it was directed towards Sensors. Hardly anybody had a complaint against Intuitives.* Even when people did start poking fun of Intuitives, it was by Intuitives themselves saying things like, "Yeah, we're clumsy, we're so busy in our own brains that we think of future possibilities all the time and get distracted", etc.*


Other tiresome old gems people pull out:

- Sometimes when I say something really deep/interesting, people will just look at me funny.
- Something obvious happens and you're none the wiser because you were so distracted in your head
- You fail to notice the weather/details/people/etc because you're too distracted in your head

And then there will be characteristics that are just introversion and not actual intuition. Also their intuition never really seems to cover either Ni or Ne. It blandly glazes over with stereotypes about what N is.

It seems people also add the, "In my head" part so they don't seem absent-minded. Most people's everyday thoughts are not intellectual gifts, I manage to think quickly and take in everything at the same time. I'm not saying my thoughts are anymore valuable than others, I'm just bringing people down to reality.

Love the post BTW @Julia Bell


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

\o/ how the frack do you people know all this!? <_< I can't even tell if I'm using Se<->Ni or Si<->Ne pair in my own type...nobody here doubts this stuff but me ^^? lmao after more then a year with the MBTI/JCF...I still can't make up my mind about this. Judging functions are so much easier...they make more sense.

@walking tourist you effing beutiful genious! XD Yes I completely agree with what you stated.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Rim - Well, I debated myself for the longest time after trying to type myself. I just had to look up a bunch of stuff (I still look up things on this matter!), took some cognitive functions tests (while keeping in mind they weren't going to be 100% accurate), self-reflected a ton, watched myself, and came to a conclusion. Hmm... there's some people who could help with figuring out whether you use Si+Ne or Se+Ni and what you use most.  I would, but I think this thread isn't the place to do so. XD


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> @Rim - Well, I debated myself for the longest time after trying to type myself. I just had to look up a bunch of stuff (I still look up things on this matter!), took some cognitive functions tests (while keeping in mind they weren't going to be 100% accurate), self-reflected a ton, watched myself, and came to a conclusion. Hmm... there's some people who could help with figuring out whether you use Si+Ne or Se+Ni and what you use most.  I would, but I think this thread isn't the place to do so. XD


^^ yeah..I have a thread for that in the type me section (or several). I'd just like to say that it is difficult to see the preference as it is already, but with all these stereotypes floating around it becomes even more difficult for many reasons. One of them being disinformation.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Staffan_ - I think we all agree they have _substance_ and there's some truth to them.
> 
> Oh boy. If being more of hard science or math person who has good IQ means you're an iNtuitive, time to label myself a Sensor. I like science sometimes, but really science, math, and IQ - they're all stuff that I fail at. I have a terrible time on IQ tests, and I don't think it's because I'm dumb. I'm very into the arts. I'm very auditory and kinesthetic. Too bad IQ tests are geared towards visual learners. >.> Yet despite my search for my type, I have tested the majority as ENFP. The other times? INFP.  One time, ENFJ. Very rarely have I gotten ESFP. I've self-reflected, I've honestly looked into ESFP as possibility. Yet it seems I use Ne more than Se.
> 
> And I still do terribly on IQ tests. Even on the "easy" ones that others seem to do so well on I have a hard time getting 100. Definitely not my area of expertise. Does this make me a Sensor? Hmmm...


Well, it's only patterns. Like being tall won't make you a man. A lot of ENFPs and ENTPs are not into hard science at all. Quite a few are things like journalists or entrepeneurs I think. The kind who work a project and move on another project that can be something completely different.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> @Staffan
> Oh boy. If being more of hard science or math person who has good IQ means you're an iNtuitive, time to label myself a Sensor. I like science sometimes, but really science, math, and IQ - they're all stuff that I fail at. I have a terrible time on IQ tests, and I don't think it's because I'm dumb. I'm very into the arts. I'm very auditory and kinesthetic. Too bad IQ tests are geared towards visual learners. >.>


Actually, I've heard the other way around, that math and science are more geared to the SJ types, at least, in high school. In college, of course, math is more for the N types. I'm also not good at math, science and IQ, even though I love detective and logical challenges. I'm also quite into the arts as well.


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

Rim said:


> ^^ yeah..I have a thread for that in the type me section (or several). I'd just like to say that it is difficult to see the preference as it is already, but with all these stereotypes floating around it becomes even more difficult for many reasons. One of them being disinformation.


I've had the same issues and it all revolves around being misinformed. I'm so confused about typology theory right now it's unbelievably ridiculous. It's all because of stereotypes and as others have said in this thread, people claiming, "we" "us" "everyone" when talking about a certain type instead of "I" "me" "mine". I can't figure out one function from another function and I'm actually starting wonder if I'm going to end up right back where I started with IxFP at the end of the day. You can see very clearly in this thread that some are carrying on their own subjective believes about typology theory and functions whilst claiming that they're right and "that's what Jung meant". How do you know what Jung meant? Are you him? Did he somehow magically get lifted up and transferred into your body? That in itself would naturally tell you that some iNtuitives are mistyping as Sensors and possibly vice versa. "Personality Unknown" it is for now.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> Oh boy. If being more of hard science or math person who has good IQ means you're an iNtuitive, time to label myself a Sensor.


I'll take that intuitive title, thanks.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Coke said:


> I said the majority of every Internet user spends time on entertainment/social media. Also, let me ask you a question: Why aren't Sensors active as much as iNtuitives are in these types of sub-forums? Exactly.


Maybe what you need think firstly is, are these people actually typed correctly? Probably a good percentage are fooled by group bias to be an N, and won't even bother to look further into the theory.

Also, if you think about it. If sensors get bashed for their opinion, and "You're just a sensor, your opinion means nothing." Do you really think this would encourage people to go into these sub-forums? No.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Staffan said:


> Although these descriptions may be biased they still have some substance. It does seem like intuitive are more into higher education and the statistics and studies on this indicate that intuitives have higher IQ than sensors. This is not to say that N is superior to S, but rather that they have different fields of expertise. Whether N is more creative or intellectual is a matter of definition. Is the inventor more creative than the artist? In my experience sensors are better at arts while intuitives better at hard science. And sensors are better in fields in which facts weigh more heavily, like biology or history and heavy theory stuff like math and physics is better suited for the intuitives.
> 
> Sure, it’s easy to interpret this as meaning sensors are stupid people who can only grasp what is in front of their noses. The IQ difference is especially sensitive. There are various ways of approaching it. You could argue that IQ doesn’t matter or that people have been mistyped etc or you could accept it and move on. From what I’ve seen in research and my own experience, I think the difference is real. I haven’t seen anything to contradict it. Is it the end of the world if intuitives have higher IQs? I know I’m never going to be a visual artist. I read “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” and made considerable progress, but there still has to be some natural talent to get a really good result.
> 
> ...


I did not try to assert or even imply that there's _absolutely no difference_ between N/S, certainly not in the area of cognitive abilities and difference areas of intelligence. Even I am not that knee deep into that PC stuff. I have seen in a few other places that Ns have higher IQ than Ss, but I accept that it's because IQ tests are probably created by iNtuitives, using criteria in which they are stronger, and I also take into account the numerous factors that limit its usefulness, like bias, methodology, scope, or even age.

What I was talking about in response to Coke is a lot of the anti-sensor bias, and ignorant and offensive assumptions about sensors revolve around discounting their cognitive abilities that are arguably necessary to function normally in society. Stuff like, 'it's mostly the intuitives who use the internet' (so what happens when a sensor wants to find out information about something? do they use the yellow pages? call up somebody? or do they go to the library and dig up one of those outdated, old dusty encyclopedia tomes? Given how integrated the internet is to a lot of societies these days, why shouldn't sensors use the internet when they have access or if it's a lot more convenient for them to?), or our ability to communicate clearly and effectively just because we're sensors (e.g. http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-for...-you-might-actually-intuitive.html#post988778). Then there is all these nonsense about how sensors can't think abstractly or 'don't like MBTI' because they read somewhere that sensors are less likely to be interested in abstract topics and then took it LITERALLY and then eventually 'less likely to' evolves into 'cannot'. But the thing is that so many fundamental aspects of our society are built upon abstraction, like the law, languages, morality, goodness etc. It's absurd to take the 'sensors don't do abstract' thing as literally as so many people on this forum seem to do because even the most abstraction-deficient person will have some basic grasp on it due to just existing in society alone.

The examples that you brought up to support your argument, however, pertain to more esoteric and specialized disciplines which are not a central part of a lot of people's lives. These are the subjects that not everyone are interested in nor even have the innate talent for, as you said. I'm more concerned with people using their interpretation of the sensing functions as a justification to discount sensors' abilities to function normally (as I've elaborated above, and a lot more implications that I won't address here because oh gawd I think I'm running out of gas). I'm not sure if you don't realize this or if you're reaching to think of the most far-fetched arguments just for the sake of being argumentative with me.

Also, Obsidian isn't ganged up on as much as he's the only one making his side of the argument. I was going to leave him be until I saw that he misrepresented what I said made things up and then claim that I said it.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kayness said:


> I did not try to assert or even imply that there's _absolutely no difference_ between N/S, certainly not in the area of cognitive abilities and difference areas of intelligence. Even I am not that knee deep into that PC stuff. I have seen in a few other places that Ns have higher IQ than Ss, but I accept that it's because IQ tests are probably created by iNtuitives, using criteria in which they are stronger, and I also take into account the numerous factors that limit its usefulness, like bias, methodology, scope, or even age.
> 
> What I was talking about in response to Coke is a lot of the anti-sensor bias, and ignorant and offensive assumptions about sensors revolve around discounting their cognitive abilities that are arguably necessary to function normally in society. Stuff like, 'it's mostly the intuitives who use the internet' (so what happens when a sensor wants to find out information about something? do they use the yellow pages? call up somebody? or do they go to the library and dig up one of those outdated, old dusty encyclopedia tomes? Given how integrated the internet is to a lot of societies these days, why shouldn't sensors use the internet when they have access or if it's a lot more convenient for them to?), or our ability to communicate clearly and effectively just because we're sensors (e.g. http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-for...-you-might-actually-intuitive.html#post988778). Then there is all these nonsense about how sensors can't think abstractly or 'don't like MBTI' because they read somewhere that sensors are less likely to be interested in abstract topics and then took it LITERALLY and then eventually 'less likely to' evolves into 'cannot'. But the thing is that so many fundamental aspects of our society are built upon abstraction, like the law, languages, morality, goodness etc. It's absurd to take the 'sensors don't do abstract' thing as literally as so many people on this forum seem to do because even the most abstraction-deficient person will have some basic grasp on it due to just existing in society alone.
> 
> ...


It’s likely that IQ tests have been constructed mainly by intuitives, but their usefulness is well documented. They have mostly been used for assessing scholastic aptitude and today they are more often called aptitude tests but there is little difference between them. 

Sure, the internet is used by all types, I don’t see how anyone could avoid noticing that. Hardly more or less so for any specific type since every interest is catered to. But I doubt sensors are equally interested in psychology. Not in my experience and stats on what people study and work with suggest that it is largely an N playground.

I’m not sure what “esoteric and specialized disciplines” you mean. Art and science is pretty central to most people’s lives one way or the other. And I can’t really see the people who will “dicsount sensor’s abilities to function normally”. Most people will exaggerate because adding "some", "often", "not always" etc to every sentence becomes very tiresome for both writer and reader. If anyone really concluded anything like, “you guys can’t function normally” you’d have more of a case. But from here it looks more like you’re being easily offended. Besides, wouldn’t the best attack on what you consider negative stereotypes be to just speak loud and clear about what sensors are all about? To say “no that’s wrong, this is how it is”?

As for @_Obsidian_ , I think he was ganged up on. He made a pretty good case for Se being less clumsy than others anyway.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> It’s likely that IQ tests have been constructed mainly by intuitives


Only based on the fact that you think intuition is related to IQ. None of the IQ MBTI studies have any verifiable results that I've ever seen (I can post them if you like) - they're just a bunch of random statistics thrown around the internet with no empirical backing (which you seem to love so much - how ironic). The only legitimate one I've ever found was one testing college students in a physiology class (where it occurred and whatnot was recorded and it was peer reviewed) - but guess what - memorizing information for a test isn't testing IQ - that's cheating IQ, if you know anything about IQ. I know tons of N types IRL who have no interest in highly intellectual stuff like this - and I know a lot of N types IRL who aren't very intellectual either. According to Carl Jung, the actual psychologist, rather than Myers and Briggs who had no psychology credentials, sensing is basically empiricism, while intuition is functioning on gut hunches - that's it in a nutshell, rather than the convoluted assumptions (unproven) by Myers about N being creativity and all of that junk.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> @Coke - We have been discussing this. There's a lot of Intuitives here who are mistyped and actually Sensors. Why? We are discussing this too. The awful stereotypes and the flawed ways we try to type ourselves. Therefore there will be less of them.


But then again, they can be second-guessing themselves and be actually iNtuitives. There's a lot of iNtuitives here who actually took the time to take the test multiple times with addition to thoroughly reading the cognitive functions that drive as sidekicks to the four letters, and, after much introspection and practical self-examination, decided that they are, indeed, the type they are.



Kayness said:


> correlation does not imply causation
> 
> As in, just because the people on this forum are overwhelmingly iNtuitives, it does not necessarily mean that Ns are more likely to use the internet (and therefore, Ss are not so interested in using the internet...because everyone is on the internet these days).
> 
> ...


I already clarified that majority of Internet users are not N's, but it's alright, it's time-consuming to read through a bunch of posts. You made some good points in the post.. Sensors can be smart, and iNtuitives can be stupid. Never thought of it that way.  Actually, that makes me think I might be ESTP/ISTP..cuz look at my sig. But I find myself still much more "in the clouds" than my Sensor friends, and vice versa. 



firedell said:


> Maybe what you need think firstly is, are these people actually typed correctly? Probably a good percentage are fooled by group bias to be an N, and won't even bother to look further into the theory.
> 
> Also, if you think about it. If sensors get bashed for their opinion, and "You're just a sensor, your opinion means nothing." Do you really think this would encourage people to go into these sub-forums? No.


@Arclight, O, where art thou? Speak to this troubled individual! Speak thy words of wisdom! What were they? Ah, yes! Speculation is bad! .... nobody's going to get bashed because of their certain type, unless an iNtuitive KKK group makes themselves known in these forums. This site was created for one reason -- gather a diverse audience to discuss about typology. You Sensors are invaluable; we iNtuitives want to hear what you guys have to say about a particular topic. So, post more. 

If you are an iNtuitive and would love to see Sensors come out of their burrows and join the discussion, THANK THIS POST TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!

Also, if your username is Owfin, THANK THIS POST TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPORT FROM INTUITIVES!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> As for @Obsidian , I think he was ganged up on. He made a pretty good case for Se being less clumsy than others anyway.


Eh, not really (and we're all not a bunch of gangsters either looking to pick a fight, LOL - at least from what I can tell from the responses here). Having a function doesn't guarantee that you're going to be good at it. You can over-rely on, say, logical thinking, but not be brilliant with it - I know plenty of T types with average IQs. There's a such thing as superior logic, and inferior logic, but it's all still in the realm of logic. Same would go for Se - I have an ISTP friend who's very unathletic and clumsy with it. It's all just the perspectives that the ego favors for reasoning and filtering information in an ego syntonic way - IQ exists outside of this, since IQ is a separate concept from personality. That's a major logical fallacy by Myers and Briggs - if they were actually defining pre-existing concepts (since they make creativity and N synonymous), then they shouldn't have called their theory a personality theory. What, in that case, would make creativity and intuition different from each other? Same goes for sensing and the five senses. @LiquidLight had a good post around here about why the J/P dichotomies are also an example of a major logical fallacy - something to do with how they were just built into the personality types, but they can't be conceptually isolated to prove their existence in personality via logic.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

coke said:


> *if you are an intuitive* and would love to see sensors come out of their burrows and join the discussion, thank this post to show your support!


MWHAHAHA I DON'T HAVE TO THANK YOU! hehehehe


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Owfin said:


> MWHAHAHA I DON'T HAVE TO THANK YOU! hehehehe


Wut...? I'm sure I ... ah-HAH! Found it. Too bad, sucka! Go re-read my post!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> But I find myself still much more "in the clouds" than my Sensor friends, and vice versa.


Being "in the clouds" and speculative definitely doesn't mean someone's intelligent. There's a ton of idiotic speculation out there just to prove it. There's a such thing as intelligently linking concepts together to speculate, and stupidly doing this (or just coming up with something pretty lackluster) - but regardless of how well or poorly one does it, it's all in the realm of intuition anyhow. This point is really overdue at PerC, LOL. See, I was able to conceptually isolate IQ from intuition, just like that. XD


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> @Kayness - O_O I sincerely hope that person was just kidding around. That is... insanity.
> 
> Hmm... http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/91728-there-one-mbti-type-you-really-dont-mix.html
> 
> ...


The majority responding to that thread are inferior sensing types. I have nothing against sensors and find many intelligent. 

If anything my bias would be in the T/F divide. Though spending some time in the INFJ forum has helped my understanding of the feeling functions, specifically Fe.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Being "in the clouds" and speculative definitely doesn't mean someone's intelligent.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, that's essentially where the N functions function - just broadening the perspective here, since there is no logic that makes higher IQ and N particularly likely.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Can we have everyone in this thread take an IQ test and post it?


----------



## Stanley309 (Dec 22, 2011)

Ns have rather the ability to understand stuff intuitively than sensors, which is one reason for their obvious higher collective intelligence. I think from a certain degree of complexity intuition is a essential factor..


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Don't forget that nobody in here is a perfect type. I'm not the perfect ENTP because I am not 100% E, 100% N, 100% T, 100% P. I still have the Sensing functions in me, and I do use it frequently. Same applies to you sensors; you haven't scored 100% on S -- which means you guys are still partly iNtuitive but prefer to use Sensing functions.

As for the OP, I still think that it is due to more population of N's than S's in this forum.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Sepa said:


> Ns have rather the ability to understand stuff intuitively than sensors, which is one reason for their obvious higher collective intelligence. I think from a certain degree of complexity intuition is a essential factor..


Understanding something via more esoteric perception = higher intelligence? How is perception even a measure of intelligence to begin with, considering that the N functions are just perception functions, while intelligence measures reasoning abilities (more in the realm of the judgement functions) and higher order thinking abilities? You just sound like you're quoting stuff you heard before on internet fora. Seeing what's not present isn't going to get you the right answer with any guarantee.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Also, this (


> Ns have rather the ability to understand stuff intuitively than sensors


) begs the question, understanding and intuition go hand-in-hand? Well sure, since this statement actually said nothing about what understanding intuitively entails. *sarcasm*


----------



## PisceanReve (Jun 2, 2011)

lol well I'm actually guilty of doing that when trying to find my type, but it wasn't because I was biased in any way.
I know that I'm N more than I know that I'm E, T, or P--that's the letter that just seemed to fit me most. Then I read about the two N groupings: NF and NT and finally veered towards NT (because there are just as many T vs F stereotypes as there are N vs S...well, almost lol) and found that NTs DO act very similarly. I know I was bouncing backk and forth between ENTP, INTP, and INTJ before I finally settled on ENTP when learning more about the cognitive functions.
I was one of those people who sometimes wished they were S instead though because I fulfill a lot of the N stereotypes: bumping into things in front of me because I'm too focused on whatever I'm thinking about and totally oblivious to my environment (even when I'm concentrating *sigh*) and I want to be able to relate to people and the world and know what's going on. When I was younger I felt a bit inferior to SJs in particular because all the ones I've met were always so organized, orderly, and competent.
I've never thought less of Sensors, though I have always, always wondered what it was like to see the world from their eyes.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Coke said:


> Can we have everyone in this thread take an IQ test and post it?


Quoting myself from an earlier thread:

I've found one study here, Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Moutafi - 2002 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library with 900 participants, in the European Journal of Personality which compares both Big Five and MBTI with IQ. It doesn't say in the online abstract but the N preference correlated 0.22 and the S -019 to general intelligence. If the main function was measured instead of the dichotomy it would no doubt be a higher correlation but is still a clear connection. The article also reviews similar studies, several have found a correlation to Openness which is similar to N.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Jung 101 cognitive function definitions, please read it.

Get back here if you actually understood it.

Until then I can't really help it but disregard most people as trolls :mellow:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't think it's even possible for there to be an answer to the question of S and N and IQ (other than it's irrelevant at best), since IQ isn't personality - they are separate concepts. One might as well just call someone who's an N, intelligent, which is obviously ridiculous - after all, if N truly was intelligence, then why are some Ns smarter than others? Why should some Ns be smarter than others? See, intelligence still can't be isolated from the equation - the two aren't synonymous. The same can be said about creativity. If this were the case, then wouldn't S have to be it's opposite (dumb), considering that the S/N functions are conceptually bound to each other based on this IQ reasoning? How does this leave room for "average IQ"? You'd think that testing companies and psychology would've recognized this by now in order to further validate their use of psychometrics and making $ off of it by appealing to N types in various ways in a giant IQ test/MBTI conspiracy scheme...yeah, bet that's happening.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Staffan said:


> Quoting myself from an earlier thread:
> 
> I've found one study here, Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Moutafi - 2002 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library with 900 participants, in the European Journal of Personality which compares both Big Five and MBTI with IQ. It doesn't say in the online abstract but the N preference correlated 0.22 and the S -019 to general intelligence. If the main function was measured instead of the dichotomy it would no doubt be a higher correlation but is still a clear connection. The article also reviews similar studies, several have found a correlation to Openness which is similar to N.





> Intelligence was found to be most consistently predicted by high Openness and low Neuroticism, which has been repeatedly reported in the past (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Kyllonen, 1997), as well as by low Extraversion and low Conscientiousness, which has also been previously reported (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, under review). Of the demographic factors, there were no gender differences with respect to general intelligence (g), but age was found to be a significant negative predictor of g, in line with previous findings (Matthews, Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000). Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


MBTI and Jung aren't interchangeable with the Big 5, nor did any deliberately structure themselves off of each other.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Sepa said:


> Ns have rather the ability to understand stuff intuitively than sensors, which is one reason for their obvious higher collective intelligence. I think from a certain degree of complexity intuition is a essential factor..


For some reason I always thought it was more that Intuitives went off their hunches and trusted them more, whereas Sensors get those same hunches, but mistrust them as they mistrust their own inferior or tertiary N functions.

All that you get from this is understandings through different methods. Those understandings may themselves also be wrong, if a sensor has been fed misleading information or an intuitive is guessing too quickly on their hunches.


----------



## Stanley309 (Dec 22, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Understanding something via more esoteric perception = higher intelligence? How is perception even a measure of intelligence to begin with, considering that the N functions are just perception functions, while intelligence measures reasoning abilities (more in the realm of the judgement functions) and higher order thinking abilities? You just sound like you're quoting stuff you heard before on internet fora. Seeing what's not present isn't going to get you the right answer with any guarantee.


You can not seperate intuition and thinking when talking about intelligence. Both work together to understand circumstances, find a solution or the correct answer like in IQ-tests. 

So yes, "esoteric perception" is a part of human intelligence - a very important one, in fact. You wont find many people considered "genuises" without amazing intutive abilities.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Alright, Wikipedia has no information that correlates intelligence to personality in any personality theories. Personality psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check this stuff out about the MBTI from Wikipedia:



> Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[13][15]


and



> *Studies suggest that the MBTI is not a useful predictor of job performance.*[51] As noted above under Precepts and ethics, *the MBTI measures preference, not ability.* *The use of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged in the Manual.[17]:78 It is not designed for this purpose.*
> [edit]


And here's the reliability of IQ tests a la Wikipedia:



> Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability. A high reliability implies that while test-takers can have varying scores on differing occasions when taking the same test and can vary in scores on different IQ tests taken at the same age, the scores generally agree. A test-taker's score on any one IQ test is surrounded by an error band that shows, to a specified degree of confidence, what the test-taker's true score is likely to be. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about 3 points, or in other words, the odds are about 2 out of 3 that a person's true IQ is in range from 3 points above to 3 points below the test IQ. Another description is that there is a 95% chance that the true IQ is in range from 4-5 points above to 4-5 points below the test IQ, depending on the test in question. Clinical psychologists generally regard them as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[7][30][31]


So there we go. The bolded reflects that MBTI can't be used to test abilities, while IQ tests of all sorts do. Take it or leave it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Sepa said:


> You can not seperate intuition and thinking when talking about intelligence. Both work together to understand circumstances, find a solution or the correct answer like in IQ-tests.
> 
> So yes, "esoteric perception" is a part of human intelligence - a very important one, in fact. You wont find many people considered "genuises" without amazing intutive abilities.


Yeah...like Carl Jung, an ISTP. All of the introverted functions are abstract, btw. So I guess feelers have lower IQs, even though no place on the internet makes this claim? I've even seen "so-called" MBTI IQ/standardized test studies that correlate some of the highest performances with NFPs...WTF...so, obviously, there's no scientific consensus on what any of these sources are trying to get at, therefore, there's good reason to question their reliability and validity big time. And that's not the end of the MBTI graft either...


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Lol. Quoting Wikipedia. Lol.

edit: Carl Jung = ISTP? WTF are you on? Stop trolling, please. You are just making the subject much more complex than it already is.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Coke said:


> Lol. Quoting Wikipedia. Lol.\
> 
> edit: Carl Jung = ISTP? WTF are you on?


I dare you to a debate with me. I have a shitload of evidence to back up my claims.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

And the info on Wikipedia can be found elsewhere, btw.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I dare you to a debate with me. I have a shitload of evidence to back up my claims.


Circusy entertainment accepted.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Coke said:


> Circusy entertainment accepted.


Very constructive responses you have (as in, lacking insight).


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Very constructive responses you have (as in, lacking insight).


You said you dared me. I accepted that dare because I lack insight.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

What doesn't make sense to me is, how can MBTI be a reliable indicator of IQ correlations if it is less successful in classifying people correctly than IQ tests are in estimating a person's actual intelligence range?


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

JungYesMBTINo said:


> Having a function doesn't guarantee that you're going to be good at it. You can over-rely on, say, logical thinking, but not be brilliant with it - I know plenty of T types with average IQs.


But if you use a function often, then chances are that it will probably get stronger.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> But if you use a function often, then chances are that it will probably get stronger.


If you actually use it constructively - otherwise, what are you measuring this against to know this?


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What doesn't make sense to me is, how can MBTI be a reliable indicator of IQ correlations if it is less successful in classifying people correctly than IQ tests are in estimating a person's actual intelligence range?


PM me with evidence that Jung is an ISTP


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Coke said:


> Carl Jung = ISTP? WTF are you on? Stop trolling, please. You are just making the subject much more complex than it already is.


Jung typed himself as the jcf equivalent of ISTP. You're welcome to disagree with his self assessment, but "WTF are you on" is a bit over the top. You and @JungyesMBTIno are free to join the debate over his type in the Guess The Type subforum. The thread is stuck.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Jung:



> As a natural scientist, *thinking and sensation were uppermost in me* and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.


from Analytical Psychology

[Edit] An additional link to read through: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2012/02/jung-identified-himself-as-both-intp-and-istp/


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Okay. The debate that is currently going on in this thread is proof we need something out there to point people towards _accurate information_ and perhaps something that shows us where we get these stereotypes from... I think it is pointless arguing at this point. Why people cannot see the obvious bias towards Intuition is beyond me. Or perhaps it could be accurate to say some people simply don't want to see it. 

Yes. Jung. He's ISTP. -Le gasp- The fact that this is so surprising to some is slightly disturbing to me...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Julia Bell

That would be awesome! This potential thread should be stickied (there are also some that exist that definitely shouldn't be stickies either).


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @Julia Bell
> 
> That would be awesome! This potential thread should be stickied (there are also some that exist that definitely shouldn't be stickies either).


It would! ^^ Yes... I think there are some stickies here that are simply misleading or are too easy to misinterpret.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Julia Bell

I can start the new thread, since I know of a ton of reliable and unreliable websites from my years spent analyzing this stuff before I came here, unless you want to, then, I don't mind!


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @Julia Bell
> 
> I can start the new thread, since I know of a ton of reliable and unreliable websites from my years spent analyzing this stuff before I came here, unless you want to, then, I don't mind!


It'd be best if somebody like you did it. To be honest, lots I have learned and come to trust has come from you, LiquidLight, Stephen, and some others who have incidentally posted on this thread. ^^ I also looked up lots of info... But I don't remember exactly where it all came from. I always tried to make sure it was reliable, though.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Julia Bell

Why thank you! ^^ I might be able to start something up tomorrow at earliest (since I should be studying for a test right now) - hopefully, they might be interested also. I've been thinking about doing this for a while now, honestly, but never found the time.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @Julia Bell
> 
> Why thank you! ^^ I might be able to start something up tomorrow at earliest (since I should be studying for a test right now) - hopefully, they might be interested also. I've been thinking about doing this for a while now, honestly, but never found the time.


Haha, study (or cram, all depending XD)! I'm sure other people might like to help or add onto what you come up with, as well. ^^ Good luck on your test.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> Haha, study (or cram, all depending XD)! I'm sure other people might like to help or add onto what you come up with, as well. ^^ Good luck on your test.


Not cramming yet.  Thank you, I'm aiming for an 100% on this (it's for an Einstein class ^^). I'd like to work together with some people here, really!


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Good idea. Whenever someone is posting misinformation, we can link them to that thread, and leave it at that. 

No more wasted time...yay!


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Coke said:


> I said the majority of every Internet user spends time on entertainment/social media. Also, let me ask you a question: Why aren't Sensors active as much as iNtuitives are in these types of sub-forums? Exactly.


Most people here *are* Sensors, it's just that a lot are mistyped as Intuitives, I was until I actually read Jung. :wink:


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

alionsroar said:


> Thanks for the clarification, I misread your post.
> My guess would be that Sensors (I use this term to refer to the people that aren't so active on these forums) prefer information that lines up with their experiences and Myer-Briggs which has no scientific basis to it, doesn't line up with their experience.
> I think it's easier to slot yourself into one of the 16 types if you ignore a heap of information about either the type or yourself.


That is why Jung, a Sensor himself, got ticked off at people overgeneralizing and misusing the stuff he wrote in _Psychological Types_, I once read an anecdote of him getting angry at people who went straight to Chapter 10 without reading the rest of the book, and even ignoring his other works which should be read BEFORE _Psychological Types_ to prevent misunderstanding what he meant.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Staffan said:


> Although these descriptions may be biased they still have some substance. It does seem like intuitive are more into higher education and the statistics and studies on this indicate that intuitives have higher IQ than sensors. This is not to say that N is superior to S, but rather that they have different fields of expertise. Whether N is more creative or intellectual is a matter of definition. Is the inventor more creative than the artist? In my experience sensors are better at arts while intuitives better at hard science. And sensors are better in fields in which facts weigh more heavily, like biology or history and heavy theory stuff like math and physics is better suited for the intuitives.
> 
> Sure, it’s easy to interpret this as meaning sensors are stupid people who can only grasp what is in front of their noses. The IQ difference is especially sensitive. There are various ways of approaching it. You could argue that IQ doesn’t matter or that people have been mistyped etc or you could accept it and move on. From what I’ve seen in research and my own experience, I think the difference is real. I haven’t seen anything to contradict it. Is it the end of the world if intuitives have higher IQs? I know I’m never going to be a visual artist. I read “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” and made considerable progress, but there still has to be some natural talent to get a really good result.
> 
> ...


Those studies are flawed because they are based on flawed MBTI tests that equate N with abstract thinking ability.

And you are right with the paranormal crap, that is an N thing, N's prefer to believe what their gut tells them is real over what their senses tell them is real. I suspect that over 90% of Atheists are Sensors. And I think you got it backwards, most scientists will be sensors, except theoretical physicists, who I think have a lot of Intuitives.

I suspect that Sensors have a higher incidence of autistic traits than average while Intuitives have a higher incidence of schizotypal and psychotic traits.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Rim_ - Well, I debated myself for the longest time after trying to type myself. I just had to look up a bunch of stuff (I still look up things on this matter!), took some cognitive functions tests (while keeping in mind they weren't going to be 100% accurate), self-reflected a ton, watched myself, and came to a conclusion. Hmm... there's some people who could help with figuring out whether you use Si+Ne or Se+Ni and what you use most.  I would, but I think this thread isn't the place to do so. XD


Do you prefer to trust your gut or prefer to trust what your senses tell you?

If the former you are an N, if the later you are an S.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> Do you prefer to trust your gut or prefer to trust what your senses tell you?
> 
> If the former you are an N, if the later you are an S.


That's a tough question for anybody to answer.  For me, and I'd suspect most people, would answer both. Sure I trust my senses, but I also trust my gut. I trust my gut quite a bit. If gut is that feeling I can get when interacting people that, "He must be thinking/feeling/is doing because" and I don't quite have solid basis for that, then yes.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

The final word on Jung's type seems to come from an interview in which he states,

"I most certainly was characterized by Thinking … and I had a great deal of iNtuition, too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. … I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for diagnosis."


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Staffan said:


> And here is what I said: "I believe it may be that the right brain is both S and N while the left is T and F". Ms Fact Checker ; )
> 
> Thomson and Niednagel is really just Niednagel because he is Thomson's source. And he is not a neuroscientist himself. According to the American Psychological Association he is a pseudo-scientist.


Oh dear, all personality theory is considered pseudo-science, you know this right? The APA doesn't accept Jungian functions, MBTI, or Keirsey...only the Big Five. 

Nothing you're saying is fact, so no worries there, Steffan.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Actually just as a question, apart from catagorising what certain people like or do and what they might go for in a job, what do statistics bring to the table that helps the people this theory is meant to help?

This is actually for anyone to answer, not necessarily Staffan and as I said before I do think statistics have some validity...to an extent.

I ask this because to me, everything that statistics on this theory point out: the difficulty some sensing types might have in traditional educational environments or rather the difficulty some teachers have when they do not understand the differences in perceptional modes, or the fact that an intuitive or sensor might feel out of place amongst a majority of one or the other....are all observable through interaction with others anyhow.

All this theory does is try to make things more explainable, to help people understand one another, for that purpose it is as good as anything, but I dont understand the need to put statistics to it for some purpose that isn't really explained. Afterall you are hardly going to get any concrete answers since this is a theory about how people's minds work.

Also im not saying we shouldn't try to go deeper into things and look for real tangible correlation, but when it comes to the mind, you will always have difficulty grapsing any certainty.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Statistics exist for extroverts (mostly extroverted judgers in my experience) to fall back on to back up their claims, from most my experience anyway.

However, if you select the correct experimentees and ask the correct questions, you'll always just gain the result you'd like to portrait, which can obviously prove quite fatal for people solely relying on such information without having thought for themselves for a second.

That isn't to say I disregard all statics, but only most of them. Additionally dependent on a country you live in you only need a certain amount of people to make your study public and valid. You could of course ask 1.000 Germans out of 90.000.000 and then create a statistic making claims over the whole 90 million, but everyone semi sane in their mind questions the validity of the information presented in front of him.

Since statistics are an acknowledged tool in debates however, chances are you'll never get rid of them - to me however, they're as pointless they can be, as for most statistics you can find one to counter it, or if you wanted, make a survey on your own to counter it.

At the end of the day I'll only trust my own perception of things, how limited they may at any given moment in time. As for why they were brought up in this topic; probably the first reason I mentioned. Additionally, many of them, much like a few participants here, haven't understood MBTI, or more precisely Jung.

S/N does nothing for intelligence (in their extroverted orientation), all they do is plainly absorb / create raw information. This is said by definition of the terms, so that's rather empirical as it were and not really up to debate or interpretation whatsoever.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Oh dear, all personality theory is considered pseudo-science, you know this right? The APA doesn't accept Jungian functions, MBTI, or Keirsey...only the Big Five.
> 
> Nothing you're saying is fact, so no worries there, Steffan.


The acceptance is in proportion to the science backing it up. The Big Five has that to a large degree, the MBTI to a slighter degree -and as a consequence there are some studies published in the scientific journals using it - and there is no acceptance of type dynamic theories since there is nothing to back it up. And I very much doubt that APA only approves of the Big Five. There are lots of articles on studies using other theories in the scientific journals. The Big Five is the dominant theory, that's all.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Staffan said:


> It's only my problem if I'm wrong and you haven't established that. And it would be ironic only it isn't.


That's an awful lot of words to say nothing at all. Do you have an argument aside from "prove the stereotypes are wrong without using all the examples you've already given me?" If I'm misrepresenting your position at all, kindly enlighten me.


----------



## Eiderdrown (May 9, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> @Eiderdrown
> 
> Hey! Sensors have metaphysical psychic experiences, too!! You're STEREOTYPING!!!
> 
> But in reality, I think that what you are describing actually applies more to Ni than Ne. Also, I would not say that these perceptions are necessarily "accurate," as you suggest.


See, the problem is that i'm not really stereotyping, Carl Jung is stereotyping. When I say that I've read and known his original work first..I mean that I've commit his speeches to memory (without any influence from me). I thought giving a clear definition of the grounds which this indicator was based on would make sense..I guess I delivered it wrong. 

When I said mystical experience, I mean it's something that we don't know very much about... it's a process of the unconscious which differs from sensation because it is independent of time (and other worldly attachments). A slight difference from Metaphysical Psychic experiences.. I mean...what did you have in mind? Spiritual or Cosmic connections is not what I was thinking with mystic. More of how a weather man works (the kind who can guess only by examination through his _senses_), is an example which Jung would not have a problem with me giving to represent iNtuition.

Maybe it's weird to think about..but you really just argued with Carl Jung that his definition of iNtuition is more of one variation that another, a part of a whole really. If he's wrong about the function he coined that would be a neat conversation. I suggest you should review and be confidant against any ideas you put out. Maybe you know what you claim though..I don't know


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Stephen said:


> That's an awful lot of words to say nothing at all. Do you have an argument aside from "prove the stereotypes are wrong without using all the examples you've already given me?" If I'm misrepresenting your position at all, kindly enlighten me.


No, this isn't you wanting to know anything, it's just bickering and we have already been throught it earlier. To quote a friend of yours, "don't pretend to give a shit about what I think".


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> No, this isn't you wanting to know anything, it's just bickering and we have already been throught it earlier. To quote a friend of yours, "don't pretend to give a shit about what I think".


You have to be the biggest MBTI worshipping troll I've ever seen on this site. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT - EVERYONE TO JUST SAY "STAFFAN'S TOTALLY CORRECT AND A GENIUS" AND BOW DOWN TO YOU!? NONE OF US HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY THAT MAY ENLIGHTEN YOU!? WHY EVEN BOTHER HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH YOU AT ALL. STOP TRYING TO ACT LIKE A SEER WITH THIS STUFF AND PREDICT OTHERS' MOTIVES. I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE DISCUSSING STUFF WITH YOU ARE DOING MORE THAN BICKERING - NOTICE HOW MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE MOST OF THE SENSING TYPES ON HERE ARE WITH THIS THEORETICAL STUFF THAN YOU, THE INFP ARE? SO IRONIC, SINCE YOU THINK SENSORS ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THE CONCRETE - PROJECTION, MUCH? YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH A CARDBOARD CUTOUT OF INFPS WITH A MAJOR INFERIORITY COMPLEX AROUND INFERIOR TE - I'M NOT TROLLING, YOU'RE DOGMATIC BEHAVIOR IS ACTUALLY IN JUNGIAN DESCRIPTIONS OF INFPS IN THE GRIP OF THE INFERIOR FUNCTION. (yeah, I might get in trouble for this rant, but I've about had it with you).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Staffan

Yeah, and you're very mature to ignore all of my posts - very scientific indeed, just because I hurt your ego by disproving your stance on the Jungian functions via logic (them and MBTI are one-in-the-same, duh).


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Fourtines said:


> Upon further reading, the ISFP takes action and responds more quickly than the INFP - a "deeper listener" - and that means Fi/Se suits me just fine.


You're STEREOTYPING!! Intuitives take fast action, too! I have plenty of anecdotal examples where N's have actually done things. You wound me with your offensive comments. Here's a hint: Intuitives are not just actionless, retarded dogs. Or I guess, maybe it would be actionless plants, or fungi. I demand a ban for this typism.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think @fourtines is right, based on my IRL observations. Pretty much any Se type tends to be more actively engaged in the moment than any Si types I've noticed - they tend to be more physically responsive to immediate stimuli, while a lot of Si types tend to reflect more on their impressions of the outer world, unless they're uber hyperactive.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Whatever, discriminator.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Staffan said:


> I said in MBTI terms, not theory.
> 
> The anecdotal evidence is intriguing but it would be even more interesting to look at the thread asking about this. I think there are hundreds of replies there. And even more interesting would be actual research of course. If you know of any please let me know. And left-handed would actually imply right-brained since the connections between hemispheres and the sides of the body are connected diagonally.
> 
> ...


yeah, i got the two confused-was writing in a hurry. i meant to say that all the P's i know are right-handed... come to think of it, i've come across very few left-handed people (in comparison).


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Staffan said:


> To quote a friend of yours, "don't pretend to give a shit about what I think".


 I'm right here, no need for that sort of passive-aggressiveness.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

fourtines said:


> Unlike you, I'm a fact checker, not just spurting shit wildly like "people who are right brained are N111!!!!!!"
> 
> I mean, come on, that's foolish as it is, really. If right brained is artistic creativity...and many Se types are visual, musical, mechanical, etc. artists....
> 
> ...


as far as i know it, N in itself isn't all that linear, meaning that it wouldn't be all iP-types. for that matter, cruising the boards i've seen that Si may be able to "communicate" it's results in a linear fashion, but the process itself isn't all that linear either. which makes sense though--_everything in balance_--so one would really have to have both in order to function in the world, having the subjective inner (in a sense, nonlinear) effectively communicate with the objective outer (linear--falling outside oneself, being subject to the objective order of the world... or it's typically viewed as "order" because of group consensus, where as what's inside varies among individuals and cannot possibly "fall into order" as perfectly as the extroverted version of a function)...?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Type dynamics has never been backed up empirically and as a consequence never become part of the scientific research in personality psychology. Or have about Jung, did he ever make a claim that was substantiated?


Answer my question: Is MBTI rooted directly in Jung or not? Then, you'll have your answer about what's more valid. If you don't answer, I'll know you're trolling (since I've posted about a billion links to basic information here, and of course, you didn't dare check any - instead, you assume that you can beat the sensors, since you seem to think that they're so "dumb").


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno

You might get more intelligent discussion against your supposedly brilliant posts if you weren't so bitchily obnoxious about making them. And to a feeler, no less. Just read your last three posts to him. What the hell.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> @JungyesMBTIno
> 
> You might get more intelligent discussion against your supposedly brilliant posts if you weren't so bitchily obnoxious about making them. And to a feeler, no less. Just read your last three posts to him. What the hell.


Projection. And I don't bow to people based on their type (I've had discussions with this guy before, so I know what I'm dealing with).


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Well I am a thinker and even I can barely stand dealing with you most of the time. So if you want people to ignore your posts, go ahead and ignore my advice.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Well I am a thinker and even I can barely stand dealing with you most of the time. So if you want people to ignore your posts, go ahead and ignore my advice.


LOL. Does anyone actually take anything you say seriously? You're so getting an infraction for your obvious personal attacks.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Huh? What do I have to do with this?
> 
> 
> R.C.
> _Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it..._


You might have to figure out how I link into the conspiracy to figure it out.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> You're STEREOTYPING!! Intuitives take fast action, too! I have plenty of anecdotal examples where N's have actually done things. You wound me with your offensive comments. Here's a hint: Intuitives are not just actionless, retarded dogs. Or I guess, maybe it would be actionless plants, or fungi. I demand a ban for this typism.


I'm paraphrasing the Dario Nardi study, and his findings of Fi/Se versus Fi/Ne. 

I said that the INFP was a deeper listener, and that is a positive quality, where as the ISFP is more responsive or quick to action (aux Se)...which is also a positive quality, just different. I didn't insult either type.

You strike me as a trollololol.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Fourtines, you impress me with your gladness for finally returning home. Learn your memes better if you'd don't get that.

What I would like to insert.

It's more likely to have more introverts and intuitives on a forum about self-introspection and knowledge, and about psychology (a very iNtuitive dominated profession). Nothing against Sensors or Extroverts (being one of those two myself), but of dafuquing course there wouldn't be an even split of types. Put me in a catholic discussion forum, and I'd end up in jail for homicide. That shit burns my ears to no end. My type, according to Socionics / Global 5 descriptions (ILE and SCUEI respectively), are noted for atheist/agnostic tendencies. Shit like that. Give me a job in a day care, and I would be in jail for child abuse. I'd tell them all to shut the fuck up, quit whining, and do something useful like T-P the tree outside until my shift was over.

Similarly, make an ESTJ be a philosophy professor, or an ENTJ be a therapeutic psychiatrist, and you'll have similar results. Put an ENFJ behind the controls of the US's missile silos, and explain the consequences of launching them, and shit won't get done. Put a 100% Introvert at the head of public relations, and he or she will bash their head into the wall.

So of course there isn't an even divide along the types in communities centred around certain topics. I'm sure there are more iNtuitives here, some prejudice may arise from that herd-mentality bit.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Fourtines, you impress me with your gladness for finally returning home. Learn your memes better if you'd don't get that.
> 
> What I would like to insert.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what that meme is, and I even googled it, so you're going to have to enlighten me, unless you're making some kind of passive aggressive insult that you don't wish to own up to. 

I do agree that I would be terrible in the military, for example. I also don't want a job doing Western philosophy or sitting in a room with machines and numbers all day, it would depress me.

I agree with this sort of thing, but on the other hand, the stereotypes do go far...many ENTPs have the Fe development that they wouldn't kill anyone because they don't like religion. In fact, I know an ENTP who teaches children music. And he's definitely an ENTP.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think typing people by abilities is bordering on stupidity for the most part, since the functions are about what's most comfortable for a person in terms of thinking - what's most compatible with their self image - if people couldn't go against their preferences to great degrees to get through life, they would be very maladaptive, which conflicts with...um, reality, basically. I can obviously handle Se-intensive tasks fine enough if I give them my all, but thing is, the functions are about preferences supported by the ego, so if I forced myself into a career based heavily around Se, it would be highly ego dystonic to me, since it's the last way I would ever want my ego to be represented through - it would showcase the part of me that I try to reject the most (nearly unconsciously). I would hate myself for doing this and neglecting interests in the realm of dominant intuition and thinking. Mental preferences say nothing about IQ and abilities, however. IQ isn't a preference and the extent of a person's abilities surely depend on IQ a lot.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Trolololol meme is from the song called "Я очень рад, ведь я, наконец, возвращаюсь домой " 

In English, "_I Am Glad, because I'm Finally Returning Back Home". _You said Trololololol.


I was being sarcastic about all the wanton murder, just making a point with a teensy bit of exageration. If he really enjoys music, I can see the allure. I had an amazing 8th grade English teacher, he too was an ENTP, really enjoyed the stuff. Got me addicted to Kafka. It's not like he's doing it because he enjoys taking care of the kids, to the point he'd be content just handling the kids all day.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Ino, I'm not typing by ability. I'm making an inference of relative population of certain types in certain communities, due to a likely preference by the type for certain kinds of tasks, information, environment, etc. I'm certainly not saying an ENTP couldn't work all day with kids, nor that an INFP couldn't be a great asset to the military. I'm just saying they likely as not, wouldn't enjoy it. As you put it, it would be "ego dystonic". We're agreeing here, you misunderstood.

Due to that, certain communities will have higher populations of different types. The majority will likely impose a prejudice on the minority, hence the prevalence of the sentiment "Anything but a Sensor" , as was expressed by the OP.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, I believe you. It's just that there are a ton of people on here who can't get this through their heads, so I might as well put it out.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Yeah, well, those people can go work in the labour camps. Earn some money for Happy to keep these forums running.


Speaking of which, an ENxP would likely get bored of labour camps first. Not that it isn't bad for everyone. Say we're stamping letters in Santa's Workshop. The ENxP would stamp his second letter upsidedown, the next one 270º rotated, and so on. It should be noted that an ENFP would yell a little bit about the injustice first, whereas the ENTP would shoot the overseers buttocks with beebee guns to express the same sentiment. Afterwards, he or she would lead a violent revolt against Santa, topple the oppressive ruler, and appoint a giant fluffy care bear in its place. The ENxP would hide in the Carebear, play God, and get free tea.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Added note, the Carebear would need to be climate controlled in the inside. Those things would get stuffy.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Yeah, well, those people can go work in the labour camps. Earn some money for Happy to keep these forums running.
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, an ENxP would likely get bored of labour camps first. Not that it isn't bad for everyone. Say we're stamping letters in Santa's Workshop. The ENxP would stamp his second letter upsidedown, the next one 270º rotated, and so on. It should be noted that an ENFP would yell a little bit about the injustice first, whereas the ENTP would shoot the overseers buttocks with beebee guns to express the same sentiment. Afterwards, he or she would lead a violent revolt against Santa, topple the oppressive ruler, and appoint a giant fluffy care bear in its place. The ENxP would hide in the Carebear, play God, and get free tea.


+300 lighten up 


But in the spirit of this thread, let's try to make this equal opportunity shall we? Sure, we might get bored first, but what about that that IxFP over there enraged by this profound injustice? Or the ESxP who may be inclined to immediately make an escape? .... They might get to the revolution before we're even done making the climate controlled care bear suit!


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Guys... I'm not sure if anybody noticed, but the ISXJs have already gotten around that whole pesky labor camp thing...


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm not fully convinced that most people come here for the theoretical aspects.
Since I often see posts talking about everyday things such as, "I do this, do you do that? Does that type do that? What should I do about my relationship with so-and-so? What jobs would be good for me? Where do you guys hang out?" As though some people just come to chat to people who they think are similar to them.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

alionsroar said:


> I'm not fully convinced that most people come here for the theoretical aspects.
> Since I often see posts talking about everyday things such as, "I do this, do you do that? Does that type do that? What should I do about my relationship with so-and-so? What jobs would be good for me? Where do you guys hang out?" As though some people just come to chat to people who they think are similar to them.


Very true. 

However, my main motivation for signing up was to discuss the theoretical aspects of MBTI and JCF. Who woulda thunk?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Trolololol meme is from the song called "Я очень рад, ведь я, наконец, возвращаюсь домой "
> 
> In English, "_I Am Glad, because I'm Finally Returning Back Home". _You said Trololololol.


Oh hahaha! (hahaha..hahaha..hahaha...trolololol trollololola!) 

I never knew that, thanks for sharing. 





> I was being sarcastic about all the wanton murder, just making a point with a teensy bit of exageration. If he really enjoys music, I can see the allure. I had an amazing 8th grade English teacher, he too was an ENTP, really enjoyed the stuff. Got me addicted to Kafka. It's not like he's doing it because he enjoys taking care of the kids, to the point he'd be content just handling the kids all day.


Yeah I would agree that many ENTPs probably don't become day care workers or Kindergarten teachers, but would be more likely to teach a subject in middle or high school.

This ENTP is a musician first and foremost and gives private lessons to kids, so you are correct it's based in his love of music.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Guys... I'm not sure if anybody noticed, but the ISXJs have already gotten around that whole pesky labor camp thing...


Sorry, I didn't notice..... must've happened somewhere between us thinking of the care bear suits and some other thing to deliberately forget reality. You ISxJs so sneaky


----------



## LiquidCool (Feb 26, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Why do you think this happens? I mean, I can answer my own question but I'd like to see if there are anyone more optimistic than I am.


I think that it at least partially relates to individual interests and hobbies.

You see or know people who spend their free time playing sports and assume that they are "Sensors". You see or know people who spend their free time working on cars or other vehicles and assume that they are "Sensors". You see or know people who love to work and be busy all the time and assume that they are "Sensors". However, you don't identify with any of those hobbies or interests. You also don't identify with or care about most of the stuff that is considered by the media to be "important" news, such as celebrity antics.

Instead, you identify far more with the individuals who spend their free time playing video games, reading, programming, or playing some RPG/TCG/CCG/card game/board game.


Also, it probably varies based on how old the person is.

Just my thoughts on the topic.


----------



## Gandalf_ (Mar 29, 2012)

There's a bias against sensing because no one wants to be someone who can't understand the big picture. It conjures up images of being led around by the nose like a donkey, just following orders because you don't know what else to do. That's harsh, but the truth. ... Maybe.

To counteract that, maybe I should bash Ns. We tend to neglect what's right in our faces. We can be downright blind at times. This conjures up the image of a philosopher falling into a well to his death because he couldn't get his head out of the clouds.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

madhatter said:


> However, my main motivation for signing up was to discuss the theoretical aspects of MBTI and JCF. Who woulda thunk?


You're such a rebel, how very ISTP of you.


----------



## leadintea (Nov 22, 2011)

Personally, I'd prefer to be an Se-dom than an Ne-dom because I'd rather look at things concretely for what they are than trying to think about them abstractly or to be too focused in the future.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LiquidCool said:


> I think that it at least partially relates to individual interests and hobbies.
> 
> You see or know people who spend their free time playing sports and assume that they are "Sensors". You see or know people who spend their free time working on cars or other vehicles and assume that they are "Sensors". You see or know people who love to work and be busy all the time and assume that they are "Sensors". However, you don't identify with any of those hobbies or interests. You also don't identify with or care about most of the stuff that is considered by the media to be "important" news, such as celebrity antics.
> 
> ...


Well, you should go study personality theory now, because what you said was just kind of like...lolwut? 

U iz N if you "identify" with those people programming computers or playing RPG? Do tell. 

There are also plenty of ISFJ English teachers, and ISTJ historians, so "reading" is not necessarily indicative of N, either.


----------



## LiquidCool (Feb 26, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Well, you should go study personality theory now, because what you said was just kind of like...lolwut?
> 
> U iz N if you "identify" with those people programming computers or playing RPG? Do tell.
> 
> There are also plenty of ISFJ English teachers, and ISTJ historians, so "reading" is not necessarily indicative of N, either.


You realize that the original post asked if anyone had ideas about why people who are new are often (or at least relatively frequently) adamant about having a preference for Intuition/Intuiting and about not having a preference for Sensing, right?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LiquidCool said:


> You also don't identify with or care about most of the stuff that is considered by the media to be "important" news, such as celebrity antics.
> 
> Instead, you identify far more with the individuals who spend their free time playing video games, reading, programming, or playing some RPG/TCG/CCG/card game/board game.
> 
> ...


This goes back an individual's judging function's attitude more than anything else.

While do see your point, it's still based on complete misconception and lack of understanding of the material.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LiquidCool said:


> You realize that the original post asked if anyone had ideas about why people who are new are often (or at least relatively frequently) adamant about having a preference for Intuition/Intuiting and about not having a preference for Sensing, right?


Oops! heh.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Unlike you, I'm a fact checker, not just spurting shit wildly like "people who are right brained are N111!!!!!!"
> 
> I mean, come on, that's foolish as it is, really. If right brained is artistic creativity...and many Se types are visual, musical, mechanical, etc. artists....
> 
> ...


 Very true.
I don't think you can say one type uses their brain in one way. People vary (hence people mistyping or being mistyped alot). I know a very creative ISTJ (he does science, but loves drawing) and I'm an ISFP and they're known as the artists. INTJs and INTPs I've met seem to be into computers, and none into the arts at all.
So it depends (probably it's due to nurture as I was encouraged to do art).


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Gandalf_ said:


> There's a bias against sensing because no one wants to be someone who can't understand the big picture. It conjures up images of being led around by the nose like a donkey, just following orders because you don't know what else to do. That's harsh, but the truth. ... Maybe.
> 
> To counteract that, maybe I should bash Ns. We tend to neglect what's right in our faces. We can be downright blind at times. This conjures up the image of a philosopher falling into a well to his death because he couldn't get his head out of the clouds.


Well, I don't think either description is right.
The myer-briggs site mentions about people preferring Sensing: "I start with facts and *then *form a big picture." 
I'm not quite sure why some people substitute 'then' for 'never' unless they're paying too much attention to test questions which ask "do you prefer to look at the facts or the big picture" and they look at neither the facts nor the big picture.

And intuitive people not being aware of what's in front of them sounds fishy too. I've looked at several sites, although no books, but I've never seen that description. Do you have a source?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Zero11_ - Yup. Physical activity does not explain the difference between S and N at all, in any way. I'm Intuitive and I dance.  I've danced for a long time now. I play the piano. I'm a composer and musician. I'm perfectly capable holding my own in a soccer game. I'm also not the clumsy person in the family. ^^


And you are also Extroverted:happy:
Wait :shocked: I am not confused anymore because you are all wrong.
My observations give off a different picture. Not only Se-doms are more physical active :mellowhysical active iNtuitives are mostly brainwashed sheep from the Sensor majority.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

alionsroar said:


> And intuitive people not being aware of what's in front of them sounds fishy too. I've looked at several sites, although no books, but I've never seen that description. Do you have a source?





> The Extraverted Intuitive Type
> 
> Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type. *The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation.* He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them. *As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate*. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling. *How- [p. 465] ever reasonable and opportune it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks in favour of stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison, the self-same situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly.* Neither reason nor feeling can restrain or discourage him from a new possibility, even though it may run counter to convictions hitherto unquestioned. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are, with him, inferior functions, possessing no decisive weight; hence they lack the power to offer any lasting. resistance to the force of intuition. And yet these are the only functions that are capable of creating any effectual compensation to the supremacy of intuition, since they can provide the intuitive with that judgment in which his type is altogether lacking. The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. *Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities*, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.
> 
> ...


It's not stated straight forward (although I do think to remember he did put it quite bluntly somewhere), but there's plenty of indications. Of course iNtuitives will recognize a stone when they see one, but the difference stems from what he makes of it internally and *automatically* comparatively to a Se user.

Also note that this description first and foremost describes Ne doms.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Exactly! I mean, I'm a pretty observant guy. I won't fall into a well unless I decided it was the entrance to a secret Chinese military base, cleverly placed in the edges of suburbia. I'm certainly not clumsy, but I am often distracted by random thought during sports. I have to do alot of thought suppression to make it through a game without missing the important bits.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Jung said:
> 
> 
> > This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations.
> ...


Thanks, however I am currently under the impression that Myer-Briggs/Thomson's etc and Jung's ideas, of what functions are, are very, very, very, far apart, they're not even on the same page. Mainly because of things I have read on the other personality website from people who have read more of Jung's work.

I'm more inclined to believe that Jung was not referring directly to physiological perception when he is talking about sensation.
Where he writes that the Extraverted Intuitive type represses the sensations of actual things, the result doesn't seem to be bumping into things, but becoming romantically inclined towards an unsuitable mate... Unless you're suggesting the Extraverted Intuitive man is able to visually see the more suitable woman so he missed bumping into her
It also says that the sensation type is similarly oblivious to the object and also misses the soul of the object.

Thus I am still unconvinced that intuition, either Jung's version or anyone (who has written about personality types at length) else's version, is related to bumping into things.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

alionsroar said:


> Thus I am still unconvinced that intuition, either Jung's version or anyone (who has written about personality types at length) else's version, is related to bumping into things.


Oh certainly, as I said, S and N alike will see a stone for what it is, a stone.

Either can be tardy enough to trip over it if their attention goes elsewhere, obviously.

The clumsiness argument is highly questionable, if not outright strange.


----------

