# Intuits vs Sensors - Equals?



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I think the I/E divide is the biggest in reality. It's where a person "lives". I'm pretty social for an introvert but many extroverts still don't get that I need alone time and get offended. And people should know by now not to say "Why are you so quiet?"


Quite possible, I'm extremely unsocial for an extrovert and people still say I talk too much. Lol.

Plus isn't this what Jung theorized as well - besides, it's something many people have observed on their own without reading about typology so I do genuinely think there is something to it that makes it the "biggest difference".


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

seriously
who the fuck cares:dry:


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Many of the people I respect most IRL for their intelligence and acumen are sensors, and particularly ISTJs and ISFJs. The natural talents of sensors and particularly Si-doms are pretty amazing, and something I would like for myself. Take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt of course, but I don't see much basis for anti-sensorial sentiments other than as a result of some sort of psychological complex over being "misunderstood".



DOGSOUP said:


> Quite possible, I'm extremely unsocial for an extrovert and people still say I talk too much. Lol.
> 
> Plus isn't this what Jung theorized as well - besides, it's something many people have observed on their own without reading about typology so I do genuinely think there is something to it that makes it the "biggest difference".


Reminds me of all the times I have had ENFPs tell me that they could totally identify with me because they are "the most introverted extroverts". Even if it is true, the difference there is still night and day.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Try telling an "INTJ" that they're an ISTJ, it's the funniest thing ever. "WHAT!? How dare you, N-no I'm not, I think for myself, I'm creative, I'm independent, I'm nothing like them" etc


Yeah, but I take it a step further and ask for proof on some FB pages.

In order to receive 'N' results, you must be selecting creative against practical etc etc in those kinds of questions - so, I want to see it - where's the creativity? Where is the innovation? Where are these peoples fresh, unique perspectives? Where are there insights?
What new information are they bringing to the table? Where is the originality in their thoughts?

Nobody ever complies. They just copy-paste crap from whatever their favourite blog is.
Complete bullshit artists.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

PiT said:


> Reminds me of all the times I have had ENFPs tell me that they could totally identify with me because they are "the most introverted extroverts". Even if it is true, the difference there is still night and day.


I think it's just ENFPs wanting to be special h:

I agree with you, the attitude influences a lot on how we approach information and in cases where it is noticeable, it really is noticeable. One of the reasons it has not become such a "topic" as N vs. S on this forum is because 'extroverts' aren't supposed to exist on this forum (or rest of the interent to that matter) by default. It is a bit similar to how 'sensors' are out there living the _real life_... supposedly. Though from that it does follow quite logically that ES-types are the most vehemently hated by some IN-typists. Luckily not too many serious ones of those here.



Turi said:


> Yeah, but I take it a step further and ask for proof on some FB pages.
> 
> In order to receive 'N' results, you must be selecting creative against practical etc etc in those kinds of questions - so, I want to see it - where's the creativity? Where is the innovation? Where are these peoples fresh, unique perspectives? Where are there insights?
> What new information are they bringing to the table? Where is the originality in their thoughts?
> ...


Excellent point, I have been wondering the same thing myself. Okay, on this forum even. I can think of just a couple intuitives who I have seen with insightful additions into the theory. Something you'd expect to see (especially from many self-proclaimed NTs) a lot more, were this forum truly inhabited by such innovative spirits.

Not calling anyone out but if anyone feels called out, good


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *
> 
> 1. Have you seen this bias?
> 
> ...


*

no, no, no 

its completely subjective. depends on the task at hand. 

an ENTJ could be worthless, an ISFP could be worthless. Cognitive function says nothing about worth. 

every type is important in its own way, every type serves a purpose, every type can reach a maximum or inferior potential. 

ask yourself - what is 'worth'? what is 'best'? its all bullshit man... an illusion. best what? worth what? 

its already put into loose categories for us - ENTJ's do sometimes make great leaders - but not if there is no one to lead. INFP's make great dreamers and idealists, but they'll shit themselves when public speaking. ESTP's can be great athletes... but so can any type given enough time, practice and dedication. 

my mom is an ISFJ, and shes fantastic at sewing and making quilts... competition winning quality and detail
my dad is an ESTJ, he is a wood worker... artisan level dedication and attention to detail... 

neither of them can improvise for shit, everything is by the book, by the plan, by the recipe. 

bottom line: someone is feeding you bullshit. its not important.*


----------



## AzV (May 22, 2016)

I have seen a lot of this bias. 
I disagree with this bias. 
Sensors are as good as intuitives. 
The sensor-intuitive debates were started by those who had self-ego to satisfy.

It is pitiful when people identify themselves as intuitive and try so hard to defend their type and how great their types are.
I mean it is as if they don't have any real-life achievement, so they use anything as irrelevant as their types to justify how great they are.
Those with real-life achievement should be able to notice that in real life, typology contributes nothing to success.


----------



## calicobts (Sep 12, 2017)

In real life, the bias is reversed. That's why there's a bias online, most who are into MBTI are intuitive so that's why it seems there's an N-bias. Society in general is geared to put sensors at an advantage, but not so much intuitives. When it comes to social change and art, that's when N-types dominant. If anything, I hope this pushes sensors to actually appreciate and include intuitives. For, intuitives I hope they learn to be more practical in order to get through life easier.

The real bias on forums and real life I would say is between feelers and thinkers.


----------



## Chatshire (Oct 12, 2017)

nvm that was a bit too shady


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Turi said:


> Yeah, but I take it a step further and ask for proof on some FB pages.
> 
> In order to receive 'N' results, you must be selecting creative against practical etc etc in those kinds of questions - so, I want to see it - where's the creativity? Where is the innovation? Where are these peoples fresh, unique perspectives? Where are there insights?
> What new information are they bringing to the table? Where is the originality in their thoughts?
> ...


I think the best way to determine if someone is an INTJ is, for example in forums like these, if that person hangs around with a bunch of people who have typed themselves based on the cognitive functions and you relate to them, then you're probably one of them.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

calicobts said:


> In real life, the bias is reversed. That's why there's a bias online, most who are into MBTI are intuitive so that's why it seems there's an N-bias. *Society in general is geared to put sensors at an advantage, but not so much intuitives.*


How so?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Yeah, I don't see how society is really geared more to sensors. At least not to the extent people make it seem. SPs generally don't agree with "the system" and I don't think SJs exactly like it either. Can someone actually go into detail about this claim? Nobody ever does. If anything society has an extrovert bias but I'm not complaining, it's a necessity.


----------



## Cataclysm (Mar 16, 2015)

I know this fucking ENFP who has hated on sensors but he himself can't even get his fucking drivers license. He's like "yeah, I'm on it, I have the book".


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Hmmm haven't noticed that particular bias but that might be because I'm kind of fuzzy on the S/N differences and I test pretty close to the edge there so I don't see a huge dichotomy between them. 

I have definitely noticed a few other biases...

extroversion "more normal than" introversion - I encounter that bias everywhere as far back as I can remember. That one bugs the hell out of me.

I also encounter a "J is better than P" bias a lot although I love P people personally and don't know how I would get along without them to balance me out.

And I've also encountered a "T is better than F" bias.... and a "T is male, F is female" bias. that one makes absolutely no sense to me. I also test pretty close to the borderline on T & F so it's hard for me to picture them as competing things, to me they are of equal importance.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Turi said:


> Intuitive types typically are airheads, prefer to jump to assumptions and ignore real-world data that doesn't support their pole-vault conclusions, they prefer to understand the bare minimum before proceeding with things, and the downside is they ignore reality and get stressed out over being a part of the real world.
> If this doesn't resonate, you're not an intuitive.





Turi said:


> Intuitive types typically are airheads, prefer to jump to assumptions and ignore real-world data that doesn't support their pole-vault conclusions





Turi said:


> pole-vault conclusions


You got this term from me, cite your sources. Fucking intuitives


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Wild said:


> You got this term from me, cite your sources. Fucking intuitives


Indeed I did, it's also in one of the questions in one of my quizzes.

:smug:


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Cataclysm said:


> I know this fucking ENFP who has hated on sensors but he himself can't even get his fucking drivers license. He's like "yeah, I'm on it, I have the book".


I will never forget the day I was called dumb (for being an E*S*FP) by a comically-drunk-off-their-ass ENFP on this forum. In a thread they made detailing their immense fetish for ENTJs. Ew x10000000000000000000

I really do feel like it's way better now, though. I've heard there's still a horrendous bias in MBTI facebook groups, but people used to get away with that shit here too. Now at least, if you do it people are gonna go on an intra-thread witch hunt for your ass.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Turi said:


> Indeed I did, it's also in one of the questions in one of my quizzes.
> 
> :smug:


Is that so

Who's the innovative one now, INTJ? Maybe you should be the one doing keg stands at Chad's party


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yeah, I don't see how society is really geared more to sensors. At least not to the extent people make it seem. SPs generally don't agree with "the system" and I don't think SJs exactly like it either. Can someone actually go into detail about this claim? Nobody ever does. If anything society has an extrovert bias but I'm not complaining, it's a necessity.


Where is this magic land of extroverts? Certainly not here. Everyone is miserable. Making eye contact is seen as a threat and oh good God do not greet them unless you want to be arrested for attempted murder.
Even at conventions and other like-minded gatherings are like this.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

(Did some digging (&) found a better post) - 



Aluminum Frost said:


> Try telling an "INTJ" that they're an ISTJ, it's the funniest thing ever. "WHAT!? How dare you, N-no I'm not, I think for myself, I'm creative, I'm independent, I'm nothing like them" etc


The (best) times to have "discussions/analyze" with INTJ-humanoids; are separate from other INTJ-specimens. When "INTJ's" are in groups (especially online), ritualized _group-think _occurs, thus it will prevent such biases. 

In most Typology/forum-communities, (even ridden with INTJ), below online-responses will mimick each-other, or the (above) specimens, umoving due to (previous-_biases/pre-poster syndrome_).

"_An INTJ said (X, Y, Z), it must be correct. And I must do similar-behavior patterns,"_" - So long as "INTJ" is on you nametag, INTJ in large group(s) will comply.

A specimen once asked; if I would rather be "_better off being surrounded by 'other INTJs all relating to another',_" - or being surrounded by non-INTJs [and being the "only INTJ" in the room of specimen(s) in which I cannot relate; well, the former has never much appealed. The amount of [specimens] all standing in a circle, psychologically jerking off (&) ejaculating biases all over eachother like a Japanese (NT) bukkake is hard to ignore.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> What I'm saying is that the Jungian cognitive functions (https://www.idrlabs.com/infographic/cognitive-functions-at-a-glance.php ) which is the foundation of the MBTI, is much much different than the definitions that you know of.
> 
> you might not even be ISTP if you study that method.
> 
> For example Te (extraverted thinking) people are known for efficiency & order and paying attention to systems. Some of these people might identify with what your definition of introversion is (needing periods of time to be alone to recharge) because some of these people will tend to want to act that way. I know maybe two ENTJs (their dominant Jungian cognitive function is extraverted thinking or Te) who want to be alone more than to socialize so by your method, they would pass as "introverts" but when you study the cognitive functions, their dominant function is Te or extraverted thinking.


He still defines extraversion in his book as being social. So yes in order to be Te dom you need to be more social than not.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> He still defines extraversion in his book as being social. So yes in order to be Te dom you need to be more social than not.


I don't think so, no.

I think his explanation is much more complicated actually. He defines introversion/extroversion in regards with the flow of the libido and some such. Meaning it is about the internal process of the psyche not really about being socially outgoing and whatnot. Then he explained the nuances of the functions like extroverted feeling, etc. which will give you the impression that it is more than just social attitude. I also agree with this.

Te is so different from the stereotype of an "Extrovert" in general, for example, especially Te-Ni combination or ENTJ.

Some Fe people will also probably identify as introverts in your method. that's another example.

so as you can see, the discrepancy is outstanding.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> I don't think so, no.
> 
> I think his explanation is much more complicated actually. He defines introversion/extroversion in regards with the flow of the libido and some such. Meaning it is about the internal process of the psyche not really about being socially outgoing and whatnot. Then he explained the nuances of the functions like extroverted feeling, etc. which will give you the impression that it is more than just social attitude. I also agree with this.
> 
> ...


Turi took an excerpt out of it actually so it's a fact.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Turi took an excerpt out of it actually so it's a fact.


Nothing in the descriptions of all the cognitive functions are directly related to social attitude.


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *Does being a sensor really mean we’re somehow second-class?*


Not really. Some individuals may have an anti-sensor bias, but on the whole, I wouldn't say so.

PerC, like other personality discussion groups has a demographic type representation, that is nearly the virtual opposite of RL. If type statistics are in any way accurate, 21.6% of Perc members identify as INFP, when there are very few INFP's IRL. 76.5% of PerC members also identify as intuitives.


----------



## calicobts (Sep 12, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> I don't agree that the biggest difference is between introverts/extroverts....
> 
> I don't think introversion/extroversion has anything to do with "wanting to be alone after a period of time" and all that kind of thing. It has to do more with psyche's focus from external to internal (introvert) or internal to external (extrovert). This difference comes only second after S/N in my opinion.
> 
> ...


I've read your other posts between the other user on here and I'd like to clarify my view. When I say there's a bias between introversion and extroversion, I meant it based on sociability not Carl Jung's cognitive functions. I think if we used internal/external rather than introversion/extroversion, then there would be less confusion.


----------



## calicobts (Sep 12, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> The "society" also values innovation and creativity, among plenty of other things, I am sure. Besides, intuitives can be plenty opportunistic too, especially if they see potential to an idea and find applications for it. I don't think they necessarily have to work harder to do that. Intuition should provide them with insights and visions that _can_ be realized, just as much as sensing provides ways to manipulate situations to their benefit -- but the additional effort isn't up to type, it is up to the person in question. Plus if you find that difficult on your own then there is always the chance to cooperate with people who have strengths you do not possess.
> 
> Of course, there are other serious disadvantages people can have, which are directly or indirectly connected to the way society is structured and organized, but most of those things are not typology related, either. Although they can be perceived through a lense of typology, that may not be the most credible explanation in most circles.
> 
> Plus most societies have seemed to focus on the needs of the few instead of the needs of the majority, so that narrative seems a bit iffy as well.


When I say Intuitives need to work harder, I speak to the underdeveloped/unhealthy ones because of course there are so many unhealthy individuals of each type. I would like to clarify though that I'm speaking purely from theory as many see MBTI as the be all and end all. So I do agree that typology doesn't have the answers to everything because personality theory is only one aspect of understanding oneself or others by means of psychology. 

I would like to ask you though, what do you mean society focuses on the needs of the few rather than many? Could you give me examples?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> Nothing in the descriptions of all the cognitive functions are directly related to social attitude.


The type descriptions don't _need_ to include being social and/or any other general aspects of Extraversion, because the rest of the book is about I/E basically.

The type descriptions are for introverted and Extraverted types - Extraversion therefore is implied in the Extraverted type descriptions.

For example Jungs Extraverted sensation type should be seen as being an _Extraverted_ type and therefore what he says about _extraversion_ applies.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

dragonhead66 said:


> I don't agree that the biggest difference is between introverts/extroverts....


Neither do I, and that wasn't what I said so not really sure why you quoted me on this. What I said was basically I didn't see why people make so much of a big deal about S/N in particular because each of the other dichotomy divides all show similar issues.

For what it's worth, if pressed to pick one I thought created the biggest divide, I'd choose T/F, simply because I see more conflicts over misunderstandings from this in real life.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

aus2020 said:


> Not really. Some individuals may have an anti-sensor bias, but on the whole, I wouldn't say so.
> 
> PerC, like other personality discussion groups has a demographic type representation, that is nearly the virtual opposite of RL. If type statistics are in any way accurate, 21.6% of Perc members identify as INFP, when there are very few INFP's IRL. 76.5% of PerC members also identify as intuitives.


If you've got access to current statistics.. can we please see them?
I believe we're relying on ones from 2014 ATM, the more recent, the better.

That INFP thing is interesting considering what I told you about the massively high INFP preferences here in Australia via 16personalities statistics!


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AllyKat said:


> Neither do I, and that wasn't what I said so not really sure why you quoted me on this. What I said was basically I didn't see why people make so much of a big deal about S/N in particular because each of the other dichotomy divides all show similar issues.
> 
> For what it's worth, if pressed to pick one I thought created the biggest divide, I'd choose T/F, simply because I see more conflicts over misunderstandings from this in real life.


I would agree with this, T/F conflicts manifest on a daily basis and I mean, people literally argue over decision making etc.

Nobody argues over the way you prefer to receive information (yeah I simplified the shit out of this).

T/F conflict is very real-life.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I would agree with this, T/F conflicts manifest on a daily basis and I mean, people literally argue over decision making etc.
> 
> Nobody argues over the way you prefer to receive information (yeah I simplified the shit out of this).
> 
> T/F conflict is very real-life.


In my experience, the N/S divide can filter people out before you even get to a point where you can have T/F conflicts.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Turi said:


> The type descriptions don't _need_ to include being social and/or any other general aspects of Extraversion, because the rest of the book is about I/E basically.
> 
> The type descriptions are for introverted and Extraverted types - Extraversion therefore is implied in the Extraverted type descriptions.
> 
> For example Jungs Extraverted sensation type should be seen as being an _Extraverted_ type and therefore what he says about _extraversion_ applies.


No.



Turi said:


> If you've got access to current statistics.. can we please see them?
> I believe we're relying on ones from 2014 ATM, the more recent, the better.
> 
> That INFP thing is interesting considering what I told you about the massively high INFP preferences here in Australia via 16personalities statistics!


I'm not sure if the 16personalities site is credible.......in fact, it could be the least credible. that site isn't about the cognitive functions. So you could have an ESFJ jumping up and down in the comments section of that site saying she got INTJ.



AllyKat said:


> Neither do I, and that wasn't what I said so not really sure why you quoted me on this. What I said was basically I didn't see why people make so much of a big deal about S/N in particular because each of the other dichotomy divides all show similar issues.
> 
> For what it's worth, if pressed to pick one I thought created the biggest divide, I'd choose T/F, simply because I see more conflicts over misunderstandings from this in real life.


What Red Panda said:



Red Panda said:


> In my experience, the N/S divide can filter people out before you even get to a point where you can have T/F conflicts.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> I don't agree that the biggest difference is between introverts/extroverts....
> 
> I don't think introversion/extroversion has anything to do with "wanting to be alone after a period of time" and all that kind of thing. It has to do more with psyche's focus from external to internal (introvert) or internal to external (extrovert). This difference comes only second after S/N in my opinion.


You're describing the psychological descriptions of introversion and extroversion. Regardless of what you would like to think, Myer Briggs doesn't necessarily use this perspective. 



> this is because sensors are about facts while intuitives are about innovation, imagination and thinking outside the box.


Sure, if you play with mere dichotomies, however the description is rather vague and unfitting. I'll vocalize one of the many reasons I get annoyed with dichotomy. The way it's explained often makes it appear black and white. "Sensors are about facts, while intuitives are about innovation, imagination, and thinking outside the box." Outside of stating that you Sensors are apparently one thing, while intuitives are described as magical, imaginative, abstract unicorns. More importantly, here is the simple fix. "Sensors can be imagintive, but they lean more towards being factual based, concrete, and hands-on. Intuitives can be hands on, but lean more towards being imagintive and innovative." There. Now you can make the point and be able to present it in a way logical manner. 



> you might disagree but that's how I see it.


Yes, I do disagree with your alien space logic that makes sense to you exclusively. 



> so are intuitives justified when saying they're in the minority? probably.


Sure without context. However, they're asking about them here, where they seem to be around often.



> are they justified when they say, for example, that sensors in general, are dumb, compared to them? the answer is no.


Really it makes no sense. Sensors score better in school. Because of how the system is structured. Intuitives just come up with pretty good ideas. Now before someone attempts to say it, I don't think intelligence is necessarily relative to rather one is a Sensor or an Intuitive, considering there are far too many types of intelligence to narrow down unrealistically in order to claim a quick victor.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Xcopy said:


> You're describing the psychological descriptions of introversion and extroversion. Regardless of what you would like to think, Myer Briggs doesn't necessarily use this perspective.


I think this is the real definitions of introversion/extroversion (more or less close to that). myers briggs borrowed them and added the "being energized when alone" stuff. this isn't what the Jungian cognitive functions are all about.



Xcopy said:


> Sure, if you play with mere dichotomies, however the description is rather vague and unfitting. I'll vocalize one of the many reasons I get annoyed with dichotomy. The way it's explained often makes it appear black and white. "Sensors are about facts, while intuitives are about innovation, imagination, and thinking outside the box." Outside of stating that you Sensors are apparently one thing, while intuitives are described as magical, imaginative, abstract unicorns. More importantly, here is the simple fix. "Sensors can be imagintive, but they lean more towards being factual based, concrete, and hands-on. Intuitives can be hands on, but lean more towards being imagintive and innovative." There. Now you can make the point and be able to present it in a way logical manner.


you basically just said the same thing though.

just in case you haven't noticed, I don't abide by the dichotomies either.



Xcopy said:


> Yes, I do disagree with your alien space logic that makes sense to you exclusively.


I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.



Xcopy said:


> Sure without context. However, they're asking about them here, where they seem to be around often.


I don't even know what this reply has to do with my post or to what you have quoted.



Xcopy said:


> Really it makes no sense. Sensors score better in school. Because of how the system is structured. Intuitives just come up with pretty good ideas. Now before someone attempts to say it, I don't think intelligence is necessarily relative to rather one is a Sensor or an Intuitive, considering there are far too many types of intelligence to narrow down unrealistically in order to claim a quick victor.


Some N's do great at school too. e.g. INTJ.

What I'm saying is that I don't think it's correct when some Ns think they're "better" than Ss because of the fact that they come up with more ideas or something. but you seem to be in agreement with this anyway.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> I think this is the real definitions of introversion/extroversion (more or less close to that). myers briggs borrowed them and added the "being energized when alone" stuff. this isn't what the Jungian cognitive functions are all about.


No, it is the exact way psychological descriptions describe the process of Introversion and Extroversion. Right here:



> Psychology. a person characterized by extroversion; a person concerned primarily with the physical and social environment (opposed to introvert ).Psychology. Introvert- a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings


And yeah, I am aware of the functions, thank you.





> you basically just said the same thing though.


Actually I didn't. I structured what you said in a manner of how one would use bland dichotomy descriptions similar to how functions work, a balanced individual with both sensing and intuitive traits only with a slight leaning towards either side. 




> I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.


What you think about me, is not relevant nor important to the discussion. What is relevant is what we're discussing.



> I don't even know what this reply has to do with my post or to what you have quoted.


Because you said this: 



> so are intuitives justified when saying they're in the minority? probably.


In the real world, sure. However here, on PerC that isn't the case. It's actually the reverse scenario. There are a lot less sensors than intuitives.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Dear God.




Xcopy said:


> No, it is the exact way psychological descriptions describe the process of Introversion and Extroversion. Right here:
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, I am aware of the functions, thank you.


so what is your point exactly? sorry cause you're not making any sense.



Xcopy said:


> Actually I didn't. I structured what you said in a manner of how one would use bland dichotomy descriptions similar to how functions work, a balanced individual with both sensing and intuitive traits only with a slight leaning towards either side.


I disagree.



Xcopy said:


> What you think about me, is not relevant nor important to the discussion. What is relevant is what we're discussing.


Nor your "alien space logic" description about me is relevant.



Xcopy said:


> In the real world, sure. However here, on PerC that isn't the case. It's actually the reverse scenario. There are a lot less sensors than intuitives.


..........but we're talking about the general population.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> Dear God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Intuitives are 40% of the population. You're so misunderstood and oppressed. *plays song on the worlds smallest violin*


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Intuitives are 40% of the population. You're so misunderstood and oppressed. *plays song on the worlds smallest violin*


Actually, around 26% of total population, at least in the US, but probably won't be too different in other countries

https://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Actually, around 26% of total population, at least in the US, but probably won't be too different in other countries
> 
> https://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/
> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm


Tui posted stats that say 40%


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

*1. Have you seen this bias?*

Who has not?

*2. Do you agree with this bias?*

I do, partially. 

*3. Are sensors worth less than intuits?*

Define worth. Generally speaking they both think differently and possess different strengths and weaknesses. Now, taking individuals (small samples), it would be difficult to tell whether a sensor or the intuitive is lesser or greater. 

*4. What is your theory on the sensor - intuit debate?*

Productive. Both say something the other party might have not heard or have not heard it explained or told those ways.

*Lastly, *I want to say that most people are sensors, and people, especially people on here (feeling different) are looking for weaker people, who are normal, and label them as sensing types. This is why no one understands sensing, really. 

So many people try to get in detail what it is, but in truth the best way to tell whether you are dealing with the sensor is just observing them. How much emphasis they give on sensing related stuff. It takes time. 

It is very difficult to spot a sensor on the internet. 
It is very easy to mistype one as, since stereotypes. 

Peace.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Apple Pine said:


> *1. Have you seen this bias?*
> 
> Who has not?
> 
> ...


I honestly have to say that your profile's type and the one mentioned in your siggy mismatch is bothering me

BTW nice post


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> I honestly have to say that your profile's type and the one mentioned in your siggy mismatch is bothering me
> 
> BTW nice post


I was just reading about Jordan Peterson's mbti suggestions on the forum. Fellows are typing him as INFJ, some as INTJ. Literally my case. I honestly don't know whether I am INFJ or INTJ. Most likely INFJ, but it is just not difficult enough to argue against that and label me as INTJ, so I keep it open. 

Btw nice country. Let's go drunk some strong tea to a pub tonight. Jk.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Apple Pine said:


> I was just reading about Jordan Peterson's mbti suggestions on the forum. Fellows are typing him as INFJ, some as INTJ. Literally my case. I honestly don't know whether I am INFJ or INTJ. Most likely INFJ, but it is just not difficult enough to argue against that and label me as INTJ, so I keep it open.


I know nothing about that dude, but I can't find my own type too. I just see something and instantly want to be like that. That's my problem, also lack of any stronger logical judgment. One thing is for sure tho, it's that I am irrational perceiver. There's just so much information and lots of it is slightly different. On top of that people have different understanding of same thing and further I go, the more confused I become. If you want advice, then Carl Jung's book about types is probably the best source of information or at the very least, its credibility is the highest.



Apple Pine said:


> Btw nice country. Let's go drunk some strong tea to a pub tonight. Jk.


That's pretty rare to hear that about Lithuania, mostly negative stuff from locals. lol. I personally think that this country may not live very long due to horrible situation with finances.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> I honestly have to say that your profile's type and the one mentioned in your siggy mismatch is bothering me


lol.............


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> I know nothing about that dude, but I can't find my own type too. I just see something and instantly want to be like that. That's my problem, also lack of any stronger logical judgment. One thing is for sure tho, it's that I am irrational perceiver. There's just so much information and lots of it is slightly different. On top of that people have different understanding of same thing and further I go, the more confused I become. If you want advice, then Carl Jung's book about types is probably the best source of information or at the very least, its credibility is the highest.
> 
> 
> That's pretty rare to hear that about Lithuania, mostly negative stuff from locals. lol. I personally think that this country may not live very long due to horrible situation with finances.


ISFJ and 6. Not only your mbti is probably hard to type, but even your enneagram type is the default one. YES. Type 6 is basically the default type of Enneagram. Literally, that's the one you pick (or 9), if you don't identify with any. 6 is a fill up. It's everything random that is not in other types. 

Regarding the books etc., I don't need them anymore. I have had countless in length (hours) debates, discussions on my type outside PERC. INTJ 3w2 sx is the best fit. Case closed. 

I would recommend you having very long analyses on your type, instead of many quick observations and analyses. 

Well, you know what Lithuanians are. Complainers. Living in the capital is not that bad, and it's one of best performing cities in Europe. Not so bad for me personally. Do you still live here?


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *Does being a sensor really mean we’re somehow second-class?*
> 
> Throughout every forum I’ve read, there's a bias about certain types being better than others. It seems many people view types to be superior - inferior in the following order:
> 
> ...


I also have my own standings. It's about my own preferences, based on what I value, not necessarily about who is better objectively, but who do I like more, subjectively, based on the people I've met:

1. ENTJ
2. INTJ (would be 6th if I wasn't one myself)
3. INFJ
4. ENFJ
5. INFP
6. ESFJ
7. ENTP
8. INTP
9. ESTJ
10. ENFP
11. ISTJ
12. ISFP
13. ISFJ 
14. ISTP
15. ESTP
16. ESFP

1. Have you seen this bias? Not necessarily, I've heard about it, but haven't experienced it myself.

2. Do you agree with this bias? As the standings show, I do prefer my own N-kind. I find them more similar.

3. Are sensors worth less than intuits? No, not really. You're just different, superior in some respects, inferior in others.

4. What is your theory on the sensor - intuit debate? The fact is the S-types that I have met get bored more quickly with theoretical discussions. Usually, they want to talk the weather and everyday stuff. I was raised by sensors and I never got any empathy from them (ISTP father and ISFJ mother). They could never get me and I could never get them. There is a communication barrier between us. They also misunderstand what I'm saying. Usually with N-types I will connect very quickly and not run out of things to say. INFPs and ENFPs are the only ones with whom I would have trouble communicating, because of the Ne-Fi combo, which makes it very difficult for me to talk to them about certain topics (I've noticed they easily become offended and misinterpret my Te intentions and become very unpredictable and aggressive, which in turn triggers my fight, flight or freeze response). It can get uncomfortable to talk to them. But still I can relate more easily to them, than say ESFJs (I love them, but I have a hard time communicating to them).

With S-types I run out of things to say and an awkward silence will ensue. I doubt an ESFJ would be very interested in discussing at length Napoleon's strategic and tactical mistakes in his invasion of Russia, the formation of the Solar System, the politics of immigration in Europe and its parallels to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Sun Tzu's Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince and their modern implications for leaders and managers, etc. They would listen politely and even contribute with some truly deep ideas, but would lose interest quickly. One ESFJ I knew said the deepest things I've ever heard anyone say. She had a fascinating mind when in the mood, but usually was more concerned with clubbing and gossip. She reminded me of Daria's sister... can't remember her name... on the old MTV show Daria, who was very focused on popularity and boys, but then one day when she went with her family to play paintball, all of the sudden came up with a very complex and well thought out strategy to lay a trap and ambush the opposing team and every one was amazed how she came up with that. ESFJs may look shallow on the outside, but have great depth within, a depth which is unlike everything I've ever seen, not even N-types can equal that. You should really hear an ESFJ objectively analyse a situation or people... Such depth, clarity and nuance! It's wow! Unfortunately, it's hard to get them in that mood.

Even people (N-types) who don't know anything about the MBTI tend to notice how boring discussions can be with some S-type people. This is owed to the fact that S-types tend to focus on everyday activities (e.g. how many socks I have, what do I do every day, etc.) This is quickly both tiring and annoying for N-types. As I say: "These are things you do, not things you talk about!" My ISFJ mother is the person who can make me angry quicker than anyone by asking the exact same questions about the same boring things over and over again.

So yes, to summarise, the focus on different things and the different styles of communication make it hard to relate.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Apple Pine said:


> ISFJ and 6. Not only your mbti is probably hard to type


I honestly relate to both ISFJ and INFJ types. Currently trying to understand them both better.




Apple Pine said:


> but even your enneagram type is the default one. YES. Type 6 is basically the default type of Enneagram. Literally, that's the one you pick (or 9), if you don't identify with any. 6 is a fill up. It's everything random that is not in other types.


I don't take enneagram seriously. I once typed myself as 4 in the past, but moved to 6 as someone noticed how I'm the one of them and I read about it myself. Turned out it fits me truly good.




Apple Pine said:


> Regarding the books etc., I don't need them anymore. I have had countless in length (hours) debates, discussions on my type outside PERC. INTJ 3w2 sx is the best fit. Case closed.


*hides in darkness*




Apple Pine said:


> I would recommend you having very long analyses on your type, instead of many quick observations and analyses.


I can't. I certainly don't have enough patience for that, drains me too much and it's not like I never did like you said.





Apple Pine said:


> Well, you know what Lithuanians are. Complainers. Living in the capital is not that bad, and it's one of best performing cities in Europe. Not so bad for me personally. Do you still live here?


I have never lived there. I live in temporary capital at best, that's Kaunas. I actually never been in Vilnius for more than a half of day. From my limited experience of it, I didn't like it at all. It feels cold, detached, a bit mysterious. Kaunas feels much cozier, warmer, closer to the people. Hard to explain, but I like it here much more. Yet again I really hate not being at home, so...

BTW I like your avatar, that cat is so cute :kitteh:


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> What shit? the entire typology thing?
> 
> or the S/N thingy


All of it, its just a theory, so assuming people's superiority or inferiority based on one tiny aspect of what is essentially a social construct anyway is fucking retarded. That is not what its meant for, and it's not good for it either.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *Does being a sensor really mean we’re somehow second-class?*
> 
> Throughout every forum I’ve read, there's a bias about certain types being better than others. It seems many people view types to be superior - inferior in the following order:
> 
> ...


No better. Just different. Different people contribute different things to the world.

1. Unfortunately, and I'd be surprised if anyone hasn't
2. Absolutely not
3. I don't think anyone mentally healthy would say yes
4. None better, just different. Imagine a world full of one type...and imagine how the weaknesses of each type you imagine covering the face of the earth would leave certain things in the world being pretty awful.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

soop said:


> All of it, its just a theory, so assuming people's superiority or inferiority based on one tiny aspect of what is essentially a social construct anyway is fucking retarded. That is not what its meant for, and it's not good for it either.


Pretty much.
People invest a lot of faith into theories, but in the end they're unable to be proven. If objective truth could be found via these methods, we'd all be coming to the same conclusion.

I think there is definitely some kind of pattern that exists in personality, but to say this is it...
well, we can't really prove it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

RGBCMYK said:


> Pretty much.
> People invest a lot of faith into theories, but in the end they're unable to be proven. If objective truth could be found via these methods, we'd all be coming to the same conclusion.
> 
> I think there is definitely some kind of pattern that exists in personality, but to say this is it...
> well, we can't really prove it.


Or can we?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Turi said:


> Or can we?


I'm not going to try explaining it. Best wishes, take care.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

*1. Have you seen this bias?*

Yes. In almost every community I've seen MBTI brought up. Both online, and offline.

*2. Do you agree with this bias?*

No. 

*3. Are sensors worth less than intuits?*

Of course not.

*4. What is your theory on the sensor - intuit debate?*

The desire to feel superior to others is something a _ton_ of us share, especially if we're lacking in self-confidence. It's all throughout history: people want to be special, and to be seen as more valuable than _"the plebeians."_ 

An obvious example we've all seen is musical preference. There are communities dedicated to hardcore music fans, and regardless of genre, so many of them have the same mentality. Whether the name used is _"plebs," "normies," "locals,"_ or whatever else, it's usually the same. Members love viewing themselves as _"elite"_ and above average when it comes to musical taste. They will see Joe Schmo listening to a Top 40 hit, feel that surge of superiority, and call him a plebeian. Of course they would _never_ listen to something mainstream: they're special.

It's not just music, obviously. We see it everywhere. It's the same elitist mentality that exists everywhere. Whether it be _"REAL fans of X show would NEVER hold Y opinion,"_ _"casual gym-goers are so dumb because they have no idea how to use the machines,"_ or _"REAL gamers wouldn't find Darksouls hard! You're a casual, get good!"_ I'm guilty of doing it in the past, and I probably still do it now. I feel like it's something we all do. 

When it comes to MBTI, I see it as the same thing. Here are 8 personality types that are allegedly _"the most common,"_ and here are 8 other personality types that are allegedly _"much more rare."_ *OF COURSE* the vast majority of people are going to self-identify as intuitive types. It's what we see EVERYWHERE else. Some previous comments in this thread illustrate my point perfectly. The whole, _"my sensor friends only like to talk about clubs and gossip"_ garbage is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. 

Really, that's the way I see it, and it's so prevalent. The way people talk about S-types in an MBTI context is the same way music snobs talk about _"plebeians who listen to Top 40."_ It's creating a strawman to represent _"the average person,"_ and then removing yourself from that group so that you can feel superior. 

And doing so with MBTI is about as lazy as you can get. To just claim, _"I am more creative and intellectual than the average person"_ based on _personality type_ of all things? At that point, you don't even need to do _anything_ to feel superior... you can just claim your _"personality type"_ makes you more x, more y, and more z, and smugly look down on everyone else. 

This sort of mentality will never stop, most definitely not in the context of MBTI. Why do you think _so_ many people self-identify as intuitives online whenever this stuff is discussed? Because _"intuitives are craving to fit in to a sensing-dominated world, and as a result there's a disproportionate amount of them online"_? Lol. Absolutely not. It's because all these _"more creative, more intellectual, more whatever"_ labels are assigned to N-personality types, and *OF COURSE* everyone is going to eat that right up. It's something that can let you look down on others without even having to do anything.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

RGBCMYK said:


> I'm not going to try explaining it. Best wishes, take care.


Explain what?

If there's a way to objectively track functions, where we're all on the same page and can produce the same results when typing others, removing the subjective bias that corrupts this entire community, we should all jump on it.

This is potentially game-changing. I'm way too excited to see where it goes.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> Dear God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You said what you believe is that this is how it should work according to the framework of MBTI, but MBTI does not use these perspectives in terms of Extroversion or Introversion. 





> I disagree.


You're free to prove me the differences on this.




> Nor your "alien space logic" description about me is relevant.


It's relevant because I am baffled at how you can go by what you *believe *makes sense over what actually make sense. If logic is alien to you, that would explain this conversation in general.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Xcopy said:


> You said what you believe is that this is how it should work according to the framework of MBTI, but MBTI does not use these perspectives in terms of Extroversion or Introversion.


but MBTI is based on the cognitive functions and we should be defining extroversion/introversion based on how it is, on the cognitive functions. not on how MBTI uses those words.

You just like to keep coming at this, huh?

I think you have the 'alien space logic'.



Xcopy said:


> It's relevant because I am baffled at how you can go by what you *believe *makes sense over what actually make sense. If logic is alien to you, that would explain this conversation in general.


So in that same context, what I said is also relevant: you have no idea what you're talking about - I am baffled as well.

You don't think I make sense and neither do I think you make sense. lol.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> but MBTI is based on the cognitive functions and we should be defining extroversion/introversion based on how it is, on the cognitive functions. not on how MBTI uses those words.
> 
> You just like to keep coming at this, huh?
> 
> ...


Fine, lets use functions. You have inferior Ti, you're bad at logic. Therefore you lose this argument


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Fine, lets use functions. You have inferior Ti, you're bad at logic. Therefore you lose this argument


Are you joking? How the fuck is that an argument?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> Are you joking? How the fuck is that an argument?


That is just the way he typically constructs arguments.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

i think the OP is referring to these opinions:

https://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Of course you'd say that because I don't agree with you.
> 
> You used psychological types as a reference point to build your case upon. But then when presented with the definition of extraversion from that same book you act as if it doesn't apply to EXTRAVERTED functions. You're intellectually dishonest.
> 
> I already acknowledged it's a bad argument, but you should be following it as you're so rigid with functions. Umm no, that's not what logic is. You're just inserting your head-canon definitions of what Fe actually is. Find me even a single definition of Fe that says it has to do with logic and reason. Just because Fe doms can be logical it doesn't mean that Fe itself is logical.


^bad argument doesn't even need a reply


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

dragonhead66 said:


> i didnt say that Fe=logic.......


I think we both know that no Function = logic


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

myjazz said:


> I think we both know that no Function = logic


i think what frosty is saying that since Ti is known for deductive logic, it is the 'purest form of logic' there is, therefore Ti=logic. but even by that standards, just because someone _practices_ logic doesn't mean he is good at it. like even if someone is a 'doctor' does not mean he is a 'good doctor'.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> where the hell did you do this?
> 
> 
> 
> i didnt say that Fe=logic.......


Turi did?

You said Fe can be logical, what does Fe have to do with logic?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

myjazz said:


> ^bad argument doesn't even need a reply


appeal to the stone fallacy


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> i think what frosty is saying that since Ti is known for deductive logic, it is the 'purest form of logic' there is, therefore Ti=logic. but even by that standards, just because someone _practices_ logic doesn't mean he is good at it. like even if someone is a 'doctor' does not mean he is a 'good doctor'.


----------



## Lady of Clockwork (Dec 14, 2017)

I've never seen INFP placed so high on a hierarchy before.



> 1. Have you seen this bias?
> 
> 2. Do you agree with this bias?
> 
> 3. Are sensors worth less than intuits?


This bias has existed for years upon years, and I don't agree with it. Sensors are not worth less.

When I was at university, I sat a paper that included sensual perception using Top-Down & Bottom-Up processing. Two psychologists came in to discuss them, and they both dismissed the idea that people have something called 'intuition', this sixth-sense of pulling something out of nothingness. I assume people still claim they have this sixth sense, as if they are unique humans chosen by the Gods to possess these powers, thus making them superior than those with nothing more than the present, mundane sense of direct reality. (Although, I think MBTI insinuates iNtuition as something different to the typical idea of intuition.)

Nothing is remotely special about being xNxx or xSxx as we witness every single day, but some people are determined to believe otherwise, that maybe they're not a common peasant, but a Duke or Duchess. Perhaps iNtuitives have trouble seeing themselves as they truly are, and thus come across as arrogant or superior by dismissing others' opinions - they are more likely to be someone to find a successful person and say, "They dropped out of school and look what they became", then sit back and wait for the same effect, or, "People thought Einstein was stupid, and look how he turned out", when maybe they really are stupid.

Only an iNtuitive would create that hierarchy - perhaps it's distorted. Try turning it upside-down and see what happens.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *Does being a sensor really mean we’re somehow second-class?*
> 
> Throughout every forum I’ve read, there's a bias about certain types being better than others. It seems many people view types to be superior - inferior in the following order:
> 
> ...


You have to put everything in context. In the context of abstract thinking that order may make some sense. But change the context and the order may be reverse.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Turi did?
> 
> You said Fe can be logical, what does Fe have to do with logic?


uhhhh......._you seriously believe that Fe cannot be logical?_ :angry:


edit: you're saying Turi provided the evidence? He was simply saying that carl jung attributed extraversion/introversion to being socially outgoing or not even within the texts of his psychological types like for example what 'introverted feeling' is. I disagreed with this because jung's definitions of introversion/extraversion are much more specific and complicated than being "outgoing" or not, and you could tell this with how he explained introverted feeling, extraverted feeling, etc. - and more evidence of this pops up with the definitions of the jungian cognitive functions.

For example:

"The four psychological functions may be subjugated to the control of consciousness, which can take two attitudes:

Extraversion: "a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object."[1] Consciously, in an extravert, the four basic cognitive functions follow the extraverted 'general attitude of consciousness': "Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted."[2]
Introversion: "a turning inwards of the libido, whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move towards the object, but recedes towards the subject."[1] Consciously, in an introvert, the four basic cognitive functions follow the introverted 'general attitude of consciousness'. "Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation while the object at most receives only a secondary value."[1]
The difference between extraversion and introversion comes from the source of the decisive factor in forming motivation and developing ideas, whether it is objective (i.e. the external environment) or subjective (the collective unconscious, or "processes inherent in the psyche"[1]). When discussing function types, Jung ascribed movements of the libido in both directions for each function in each function type, but with one direction being that final judge."

That's from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions#Psychological_functions

Even, say, for the sake of argument, let us consider the possibility that you guys are right and that jung does indeed attribute extraversion/introversion to social attitude directly, the specific understanding of cognitive functions (where MBTI is based on) doesn't directly link them to social attitude like being outgoing or being reserved and whatnot.



Peter said:


> You have to put everything in context. In the context of abstract thinking that order may make some sense. But change the context and the order may be reverse.


This.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> uhhhh......._you seriously believe that Fe cannot be logical?_ :angry:
> 
> 
> edit: you're saying Turi provided the evidence? He was simply saying that carl jung attributed extraversion/introversion to being socially outgoing or not even within the texts of his psychological types like for example what 'introverted feeling' is. I disagreed with this because jung's definitions of introversion/extraversion are much more specific and complicated than being "outgoing" or not, and you could tell this with how he explained introverted feeling, extraverted feeling, etc. - and more evidence of this pops up with the definitions of the jungian cognitive functions.
> ...


Omfg, Fe doesn't have to do with logic. Just like it doesn't have to do with intuiting or sensing. You're not understanding. I'm not saying Fe users can't be logical, I'm saying is them being logical doesn't come from Fe. Different functions do different things. You're taking offense and not listening to what I'm saying.

Great! He also defined it in psychological types as being social and whatnot. You're cherry-picking and being dishonest.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Omfg, Fe doesn't have to do with logic. Just like it doesn't have to do with intuiting or sensing.


I.never.said.that.Fe.has.to.do.with.logic.



Aluminum Frost said:


> You're not understanding. *I'm not saying Fe users can't be logical, I'm saying is them being logical doesn't come from Fe*. Different functions do different things. You're taking offense and not listening to what I'm saying.


This actually says 'Fe cannot be logical'.

I am taking offense?? Really? Why? Because I'm an Fe user? :tongue:



Aluminum Frost said:


> Great! He also defined it in psychological types as being social and whatnot. You're cherry-picking and being dishonest.


Prove this please.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> I.never.said.that.Fe.has.to.do.with.logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then why are you getting mad when I say Fe can't be logical? It also can't be observant cause that's not what it does.

Yes, it does, I never said it didn't. Fe users use other functions too. ExFJs can be logical. Fe by itself can't. What are you not getting here?

No, because you're slow.

Turi already linked the excerpt. What are you asking me? Like really.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Then why are you getting mad when I say Fe can't be logical? It also can't be observant cause that's not what it does.
> 
> Yes, it does, I never said it didn't. Fe users use other functions too. ExFJs can be logical. Fe by itself can't. What are you not getting here?
> 
> ...


Not slow. just trying to get you to clarify your side.

Even then.....

No function, for that matter, pertains to logic itself so saying that "Fe cannot be logical but Fe users can be logical because they use other functions as well" is bullshit.

and I never saw Turi pull any excerpt.


edit: i'm not getting mad, just find you amusing.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Turi said:


>


i dont really agree with that.

this makes more sense, and others tend to agree with this, as well: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/04/why-te-is-inductive-and-ti-is-deductive/


----------



## Doom_Knight (Apr 17, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> i dont really agree with that.
> 
> this makes more sense, and others tend to agree with this, as well: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/04/why-te-is-inductive-and-ti-is-deductive/


For good reasons, that video is junk. 

I like idrlabs. They at least try to be objective and have some of the better Sensor descriptions. 

But I love them for their Star Wars videos:


----------



## lolberty (Feb 2, 2018)

nuff said :^)


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

dragonhead66 said:


> i think what frosty is saying that since Ti is known for deductive logic, it is the 'purest form of logic' there is, therefore Ti=logic. but even by that standards, just because someone _practices_ logic doesn't mean he is good at it. like even if someone is a 'doctor' does not mean he is a 'good doctor'.


That's just more proof that Ti can be completely illogical. 
Almost every post made by Frost in this thread is proof of that, I already disproved his claim of someone making a bad argument...which was just a cop out for not being able to dispute the argument. ofc it could be fasle Ti Dom......
So far his strong point in debating is redirection instead of logical indication.
and I have debated many very strong Ti Dom people since my time here never once nor have I seen such from a Ti not even ISTP. I kinda miss Functianylist some times..i think that was his name he was a good ISTP to debate with.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Omfg, Fe doesn't have to do with logic. Just like it doesn't have to do with intuiting or sensing. You're not understanding. I'm not saying Fe users can't be logical, I'm saying is them being logical doesn't come from Fe. Different functions do different things. You're taking offense and not listening to what I'm saying.
> 
> Great! He also defined it in psychological types as being social and whatnot. You're cherry-picking and being dishonest.


All you keep saying is I sy its not logical therefore your wrong. Where is your profound logic that you think you have.
@*dragonhead66 *has made several logical post and yet you can't even do one? Your proving him right just as much as he is proving himself right.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> i dont really agree with that.
> 
> this makes more sense, and others tend to agree with this, as well: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/04/why-te-is-inductive-and-ti-is-deductive/


That article is horrendous, it's a piss-poor argument made by people who didn't/don't understand what deductive reasoning is (called into question in the comments and addressed in an edit, which does _nothing _to support their premise), and the author/s rely on their own 'cursory' definitions of Ti and Te to (attempt to) prove their point.

I understand they cite tiny little snippets of _Psychological Types_ and _Gifts Differing_, however they don't express clearly how the quotes provided support their own cursory definitions.

Both examples provided of deductive reasoning are stressed as _not _being Ti specific, one actually being suggested as a _Te _argument.
Not to mention, the article repeatedly states that you can't reduce Te/Ti to inductive/deductive reasoning anyway.

My own view is that Thinking preferences, whether dichotomy, Te or Ti, don't = logic in the first place, and therefore neither should be inherently connected to deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning, for that matter.
..and even if Ti/Te/T _did _= logic it shouldn't be assumed the T types in question is any _good _at it, even if it's their dominant function.


* *





IMO if I had to _force_ anything about typology to be remotely associated with deductive and inductive reasoning I would posit Sensing as inductive and Intuition as deductive, due to the nature of S types preferring to rely on and gather observable information i.e facts/evidence before jumping to conclusions and N types preferring to start with an overview/gist then flesh it out with facts.

S kind of resembles the "bottom up" approach of inductive reasoning, and N kind of resembles the "top down" approach of deductive reasoning.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> I am not.
> 
> just illustrating that she actually agrees with you when she posted that. (because she's implying that i have reading comprehension issues since she's saying that that's not what she intended)
> 
> this has been overdone lol


Do you misconstrue everything people say on purpose?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

dragonhead66 said:


> there's so many assumptions to this i dont even know where to start.
> 
> I don't even know where you got the bolded assumption but i'm not even going to address that cause that's a personal attack.
> 
> ...


"I was just asking you whether you admit to frost's argument or not (that Fe doms are illogical)"

Not what I was saying, for the 5th time already.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Not what I was saying, for the 5th time already.


that's what you are saying.

you may deny that but piecing everything together and with the help of common sense, then that's what you are saying.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> Sorry but these are nonsense.


I was just clarifying my earlier stances because you seemed confused. Too bad you feel that way. If it is any consolation, your posts come across the same way to me.



dragonhead66 said:


> ....that's not even what i was doing.


K, so YOU can constantly state what people are saying, but you cannot even be consistent with your own posts when quoted word for word?



dragonhead66 said:


> It also doesn't mean that "you are bad at logic" because you could be good at logic that _deals with the people element._





Aluminum Frost said:


> "I was just asking you whether you admit to frost's argument or not (that Fe doms are illogical)"


Well let's be honest here, if this conversation is any indication....


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> I was just clarifying my earlier stances because you seemed confused. Too bad you feel that way. If it is any consolation, your posts come across the same way to me.


your "clarification" is nonsense or doesn't go to anywhere.



DOGSOUP said:


> K, so YOU can constantly state what people are saying, but you cannot even be consistent with your own posts when quoted word for word?


prove that that's what I meant.

"It also doesn't mean that "you are bad at logic" because you could be good at logic that deals with the people element."

yes but i never distorted the definition of logic. i said Fe can be good in applying logic when it deals with the people element.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

@DOGSOUP Another example of poor comprehension:

You said something about the post #183 PROVING that I make 'online feuds out of boredom'.

somebody told me i didnt have to go on all these stupid arguments and i said, i'm just bored. OKAY. Suddenly this makes me "creating online feuds out of boredom"....Um, wow. Great reading comprehension there.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> your "clarification" is nonsense or doesn't go to anywhere.


Speaking of posts that go nowhere...



> "It also doesn't mean that "you are bad at logic" because you could be good at logic that deals with the people element."
> 
> yes but i never distorted the definition of logic. i said Fe can be good in applying logic when it deals with the people element.


Well that is just a bunch of bs that has no theoretical foundation whatsoever. Next thing you are saying a T dominant is excellent with values when applying them to the impersonal element.



dragonhead66 said:


> @DOGSOUP Another example of poor comprehension:
> 
> You said something about the post #183 PROVING that I make 'online feuds out of boredom'.
> 
> somebody told me i didnt have to go on all these stupid arguments and i said, i'm just bored. OKAY. Suddenly this makes me "creating online feuds out of boredom"....Um, wow. Great reading comprehension there.


That wasn't reading comprehension, it was interpretation that seems to best explain your behaviour so far. And the fact that you didn't deny it (and instead chose to mock my reading comprehension) speaks volumes.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> Well that is just a bunch of bs that has no theoretical foundation whatsoever.


"Well..." ?

well suddenly you realized you just put the interpretation of "me distorting logic". you could have just said you disagreed with me instead of saying me making stuff up. Good grief.



DOGSOUP said:


> Next thing you are saying a T dominant is excellent with values when applying them to the impersonal element.


yeah why not? although I'd replace your word of "values" with the word "ethics"



DOGSOUP said:


> That wasn't reading comprehension, it was interpretation that seems to best explain your behaviour so far. And the fact that you didn't deny it (and instead chose to mock my reading comprehension) speaks volumes.


Um, I'm sorry? THAT was reading comprehension.


even for the sake of argument let's say Fe deals with people as oppose to Ti which is logic, it still doesn't mean that:

1.) Fe is better than Ti
or that
2.) Ti is better at logic.

just thought i should add that.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> "Well..." ?
> 
> well suddenly you realized you just put the interpretation of "me distorting logic". you could have just said you disagreed with me instead of saying me making stuff up. Good grief.


I never said you were distorting logic. I was pointing out you were redefining logic into being a people related thing, because of course feelers think they are logical when it comes to relationships and shit, and that benefits your argument. And I DID say I disagreed with you as well (see below*), so dunno what you are on about.



> yeah why not? although I'd replace your word of "values" with the word "ethics"


Except that it makes absolutely no sense for you to apply your inferior function when your dominant function is supposed to be the better at adapting to new information.
But okay, here I can see how we approach this from different perspectives. I think of it more like you use thinking to process thinking related information; but that you may wish to apply your dominant function to most situations even when it isn't applicable. You seem to suggest here that a person would use their weaker function to information that would be more effectively dealt with by their dominant function.



> Um, I'm sorry? THAT was reading comprehension.


In that case I comprehended the word "bored" so I passed the test. 



> even for the sake of argument let's say Fe deals with people as oppose to Ti which is logic, it still doesn't mean that:
> 
> 1.) Fe is better than Ti
> or that
> ...


Why is Ti not better at logic when you define Ti as logic and Fe not having to do with logic but people?
No one said claim 1, ever.
Also you never seemed to make much of a distinction between the function and the person using the function. 

*My presumptions for the argument:

1. Ti deals with certain type of logical thinking/reasoning
2. Fe deals with reasoning and evaluation through feeling values
3. Fe dom suppresses Ti because it poses a threat to their predominant preference
4. This suppression can be perceived from the pov of Ti dom as "illogical"
5. It DOESN'T mean that the Fe dom cannot reason/evaluate, nor does it mean that they cannot be trained in formal logic, or be better in touch with their Ti instead of neglecting it.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> I never said you were distorting logic. I was pointing out you were redefining logic into being a people related thing, because of course feelers think they are logical when it comes to relationships and shit, and that benefits your argument. And I DID say I disagreed with you as well (see below*), so dunno what you are on about.


you said: Also since you attempted to *redefine logic* as containing a people element... whatever that refers to.

edit: you are implying that i am distorting the definition of logic by 'redefining logic' and whatnot. and I said that's not what I was doing to which you replied saying that _that's what i was doing._



DOGSOUP said:


> Except that it makes absolutely no sense for you to apply your inferior function when your dominant function is supposed to be the better at adapting to new information.
> But okay, here I can see how we approach this from different perspectives. I think of it more like you use thinking to process thinking related information; but that you may wish to apply your dominant function to most situations even when it isn't applicable. You seem to suggest here that a person would use their weaker function to information that would be more effectively dealt with by their dominant function.


what i was saying was that no function=logic. so Fe=/=logic neither Ti=/=logic. What i was saying was both can be good at logic, like Fe can be good with logic dealing with the 'people element' and Ti can be good with deductive reasoning type of logic.

I don't think you are understanding me and I don't think it's my fault.



DOGSOUP said:


> In that case I comprehended the word "bored" so I passed the test.


you assumed I'm creating online feuds out of boredom. And then, you said that I did not deny it but I actually did deny it, even saying you comprehended that particular exchange wrongly. Another wrong comprehension there?



DOGSOUP said:


> Why is Ti not better at logic when you define Ti as logic and Fe not having to do with logic but people?
> No one said claim 1, ever.
> Also you never seemed to make much of a distinction between the function and the person using the function.


when we say "Ti" we automatically mean Ti doms and when we say "Fe" we automatically mean Fe doms... when we say "Si" we automatically mean "Si" doms...etc....

now having said that, yes, Ti might naturally be better at logic but doesn't mean that as a whole (Ti doms), they are better at logic. because we can have delusional Ti (Ti doms). You hear me?

I am saying this for the sake of this logical framework. not that I necessarily believe this is how it should be or this is how I should define Ti vs. Fe(Ti=logic and Fe=people).

I just clarified claim number 1 to get the emotional assumption that being logical=better out of the way.




Okay, the bolded ones are how I would modify


1. Ti deals with certain type of logical thinking/reasoning
2. Fe deals with reasoning and evaluation through feeling values *(which can be logical)*
3. Fe dom suppresses Ti because it poses a threat to their predominant preference
4. This suppression can be perceived from the pov of Ti dom as "illogical" *(based on their deductive reasoning type of logic lens)*
5. It DOESN'T mean that the Fe dom cannot reason/evaluate, nor does it mean that they cannot be trained in formal logic, or be better in touch with their Ti instead of neglecting it. >>> *This last part means you really agree with frost because I believe that's how she sees it as well.*

BUT to me...

when we say Fe or Ti we pertain to Fe doms or Ti doms, etc. AND Fe thrives on reasoning/logic based on societal ethics/values and/or what creates group harmony, etc. while Ti thrives on deductive reasoning type of logic

so frost said "Fe is illogical" which to me means "Fe doms are illogical" which I disagree with.


Finally, I think we are getting to something lol.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

@dragonhead66 Ok so just stop assuming that when people say Fe they automatically mean Fe dom and none of this conversation needs to take place ever again. I think I'm fine with the rest, roughly speaking.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> @dragonhead66 Ok so just stop assuming that when people say Fe they automatically mean Fe dom and none of this conversation needs to take place ever again. I think I'm fine with the rest, roughly speaking.


why shouldn't it be the case though?

when I think of say "Fe" an "Fe person" comes to mind. Fe is not an abstract impersonal thing unrelated to any personality, in the world of typology. These are models for personalities. They don't float around like detail-concepts.....

that's my take.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> why shouldn't it be the case though?
> 
> when I think of say "Fe" an "Fe person" comes to mind. Fe is not an abstract impersonal thing unrelated to any personality, in the world of typology. These are models for personalities. They don't float around like detail-concepts.....
> 
> that's my take.


Because everyone can extrovert feeling, you are only an extroverted feeling type when you do so habitually and in the worst case scenario, to an unhealthy extent.

Especially with thinkers I have noticed a tendency to "abstract" the functions from people. And when defining things and talking about the theory it makes sense. Specifically because it is a model of a personality, not the personality itself. But I have taken issue with that approach too lately


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

I actually view SPs one of the most competent of any type.
Sure they have their general _"don't give a f*ck attitude"_ but that's actually appealing to me.
I always wished I could be someone who is so in the moment that could counter any proposition and take charge.


----------



## Ozymandias116 (Nov 24, 2016)

I would say that all types are equal but the types are not equally good at everything. 

The bias I have seen in regards to the letters is: 
I is preferred over E. 
N is preferred over S. 
T is preferred over F. 
J is preferred over P. 

Which, in that case, would mean that INTJ would be the most preferred type and ESFP the least preferred type. But I would say that the bias doesn't end with N over S, I over E is also very real (introverts are described as deep and thoughtful whereas extroverts are described as shallow and rash) and if you look at the Big Five, conscientiousness is the biggest indication of personal success (if I recall correctly) which would mean that it is easier for you to become successful if you are a J. 

MBTI is about finding your type, enhancing your strengths and working on your weaknesses; so this game of comparison is pretty pointless. If you don't do anything your type doesn't matter and being a certain type is not something that will make you better than other people; if you actually believe that you are a pretty sad human being that won't amount to much in the end.


----------



## Temizzle (May 14, 2017)

ISTJ_1x2 said:


> *Does being a sensor really mean we’re somehow second-class?*
> 
> Throughout every forum I’ve read, there's a bias about certain types being better than others. It seems many people view types to be superior - inferior in the following order:
> 
> ...


Yes this bias exists imo. I disagree with the bias as it is presented, but agree with it in another light. 

I do think that different people naturally excel at different activities. Does that mean people should box themselves in to recommended activities based on their personality type? Definitely not. But it does suggest that if you query a certain specific profession, you may find most of the people within that profession tend to score towards a certain personality type. 

For example, Product Managers as a whole overwhelmingly score NTJ, with SFP left completely unrepresented based on a couple of studies done on several hundred PMs in the past few years. 

What I think should be noted is that the majority of the population is S, rather than N. Some implications of this:
1. Ss as a group are more reproductively fit -- they are a more successful subspecies than Ns. 
2. Ns seem to congregate on online forums -- we hear their voice and opinions louder. 
3. Ns seem to report feeling different from most people around them. This makes sense as most people are Ss. Perhaps Ns are expressing their repressed feelings of [semi]isolation online.

Now here is a philosophical aside: 
Is a president more valuable than a cook? An engineer more valuable than an artist? A stockbroker more valuable than a nurse? 

You might argue that because a president's or engineer's role takes much more specialization than that of an artist or a cook that those roles are more valuable. It's really tough to say. In Yuval Hararri's book Sapiens, he argues that humans shouldn't have surpassed the hunter-gatherer stage. Perhaps presidents, engineers, and stockbrokers do more harm to society than good? Perhaps we should be sticking to our roots and keeping things simple? Perhaps all our scheming, plotting, curiosity, and greed seem good to us, but are actually not. 

Now bring it back to the original N vs S argument... 

I'll let you decide.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

It's tbh laughable that with the other 3 dichtomies, the type distribution is almost balanced but only with S vs. N do we have this sudden majority-minority set-up lmao.

I wonder if we could figure out if this is because of survival related reasons by testing it the same way they used the differences in IQ results between males and females. You know with how gals there are more "balanced" individuals and lads tend to be more one of the two extremes... 

* *

















Yeah we should totally test it. If chicks tend to have no clear preference or be in the middle of N/S whereas guys tend to get more extreme (100% INTUITION) results, then this totally is survival related...


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Stating that _"there are more N-types online because they're more attracted to the internet"_ is something people always say, but I highly doubt it's true. 

The real reason there are _"more N-types online"_ is because the bias exists in the first place. We all have a subconscious desire to be viewed as special in some way, even if we deny it, and MBTI illustrates that fact as clear as day. 

When half the types are described as _"average"_ and half the types are described as _"mystical and rare,"_ lol.... like.... 

I will always argue the statement, _"N's are more drawn to message boards."_ It's just a lazy way to explain away what's really going on.

The fact that you see so many _"my S mom only knits"_ and _"my S friends only watch Reality TV"_ comments is proof. People are insecure, and use the bias in MBTI descriptions to look down on others and feel better about themselves.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

And that isn't meant as an attack. It's just my reaction to some of the, for lack of a better word, ridiculous comments we've all seen for years. 

This stuff is so often talked about in a back-handed/passive-aggressive/coded way, like. The whole _"oh S's fit in more with society because x, y, z"_ where the poster _acts_ like they're "complimenting" S-types, when in reality they're doing the opposite. And it does need to be called out. Stating things plainly is probably the best way to do so.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Oprah said:


> This stuff is so often talked about in a back-handed/passive-aggressive/coded way, like. The whole _"oh S's fit in more with society because x, y, z"_ where the poster _acts_ like they're "complimenting" S-types, when in reality they're doing the opposite. And it does need to be called out. Stating things plainly is probably the best way to do so.


Yeah lol. I swear if I see this one more time... not sure what I'll do, maybe start watching reality TV instead of hanging out on Perc.

Btw, I do think this has been pointed out to some people who were giving such "compliments", and they claimed to be unaware of it :bored:


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Oprah said:


> Stating that _"there are more N-types online because they're more attracted to the internet"_ is something people always say, but I highly doubt it's true.
> 
> The real reason there are _"more N-types online"_ is because the bias exists in the first place. We all have a subconscious desire to be viewed as special in some way, even if we deny it, and MBTI illustrates that fact as clear as day.
> 
> ...





DOGSOUP said:


> Yeah lol. I swear if I see this one more time... not sure what I'll do, maybe start watching reality TV instead of hanging out on Perc.
> 
> Btw, I do think this has been pointed out to some people who were giving such "compliments", and they claimed to be unaware of it :bored:


It's probably just the truth.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

dragonhead66 said:


> It's probably just the truth.


Lol, if it is I'd expect a lot more "intuition" from a site like this.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> Lol, if it is I'd expect a lot more "intuition" from a site like this.


it only makes sense though.

the personality type descriptions for ESFJs aren't shunned in the outside world but here those same descriptions/traits are the most unpopular. I actually thought if S and N are equal online, ESFJ/ESTJ aren't going to take a lot of shit here online but alas that's not the case. That's just an example.

Take it what you will.

edit: I was actually quite surprised by that.


----------



## lungdealer (Feb 15, 2018)

currse you sensors dont exist


----------

