# Anti-Sensor Bias??



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

What is so bad about being a sensor? I feel like I see this way too much, but people just posting/saying things like "Sensors don't think" or "if you're a sensor, you just see everything exactly how it is and nothing else." BS.

Also, one of my friends is in denial about being an ESFP all the while thinking she's an ENTJ. I mean, gurl, why do you not want to be a sensor? She's told me before that being an F is possible, but an S--heck no. WHY! Why do so many people seem to have a negative view of sensors?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

They're either strong intuitives projecting their own insecurities around sensation onto others, or they don't know what they are talking about (or both).


----------



## Johnston (Dec 16, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> What is so bad about being a sensor? I feel like I see this way too much, but people just posting/saying things like "Sensors don't think" or "if you're a sensor, you just see everything exactly how it is and nothing else." BS.


 @pizzapie
I'm with you, it's complete BS. From my perspective, it could be some INxx overreacting to these "friendly", invalidating questions like "why are you so different?" "why can't you be like everyone else?" etc. I think those "sensor condescending" INxx's sometimes get hurt and attribute stupidy to all sensors. Well, I don't call that logical. That's all.


----------



## .30691 (Dec 19, 2011)

Don't worry about it, I love sensors. Being intuitiveness they should be able to understand it for what it really is, obviously they are not that mature.


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

I am not sure. Maybe they think they are superior because they believe sensors are not as deep and introspective as them. I like intuitives and sensors. We need both in the world so we can balance each other out.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Johnston said:


> @_pizzapie_
> I'm with you, it's complete BS. From my perspective,* it could be some INxx overreacting to these "friendly", invalidating questions like "why are you so different?" "why can't you be like everyone else?" etc.* I think those "sensor condescending" INxx's sometimes get hurt and attribute stupidy to all sensors. Well, I don't call that logical. That's all.


I think that's total BS too! I wish more people would just be themselves and not give a crap about what anyone else thinks. INxx's are awesome and a ton of my friends are these types. I don't think it's possible to be friendly while asking someone why they're different and can't be like everyone else.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

Lets be honest; every time somebody brings up the attitude towards Sensors from Intuitive types the defense leans to the Sensor side, which people bring up a lot of good points towards Sensors but not so much on how come Intuitive people feel this way.

I think it mostly comes down to the fact that SJs feel more comfortable when things are routine and follow a more natural order, when an SJ is frustrated with somebody they usually attack their differences. Intuitives being less common especially the IN types, they are seen as not only different but susceptible to these attacks. The Intuitive may feel like they have to do all this stuff to be accepted where as the Sensor has to do nothing.

With SP types I think its somewhat similar but different, when I talk to some SP types I don't get the feeling they expect me to be like them but rather I over think the situation and should just go with the flow more which I think is more understanding but at the same time they can find it frustrating that they blow anything remotely serious off.

The Majority of the sensors on here seem quite understanding though I have seen what I would describe as Sado-Masochist kind of attitude especially to NFs. I enjoy hanging out with my Sensor friends but there is a point where I just need a break and to indulge in Ni behaviour.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Ns have a high propensity to be bored by Ss, and Ss have the same propensity towards Ns.

iNtuitivess tend to get a wiser/smarter-than-thou type of effect against Sensors
Sensors tend to get a "you're a weirdo, weirdo" mindset against iNtuitives.

But, the difference between Is and Es comes down with them being slightly bored/annoyed with each other.
The difference between Fs and Ts is that of frustration of sensitivity and anger at lack thereof.
Between Js and Ps is the finding the latter pretentious, and the former stuffy.
Ss and Ns can just have a straight-up difficult time understanding each other.

For instance, I don't know how my ISTJ friend's mind works, but I _can't _shake the feeling that the answer isn't "not often" when he talks of his love of sex and tries to make smalltalk...


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Because some people, when attempting to type others, put anyone they don't like into the "sensor" box and assume anyone they get on with is an intuitive. It's a nice bit of circular logic where anyone who is perceived as shallow and stupid is a sensor, and then from their dodgy typing methods they come to the conclusion that all sensors are shallow and stupid.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Because they have little or wrong information.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I wish I was a sensor. Your friend has no idea what she's on about. 

But in all seriousness, I think each type has a combo of functions that can be advantageous in a given situation. Being intuitive is not a mystical, magical thing, and I wish people would get that silly notion out of their heads.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

A lack of basic understanding of cognitive functions and related developments would lead someone to think a given function can somehow be superior to another...

I mean, how can I possibly say Ne is better than Se? Cognitive functions are like grass, they don't get any greener when you cross the bridge. Like all things there are pros there are cons.


----------



## hela (Feb 12, 2012)

For your friend--the significant majority of literature on MBTI/Jung (I'm going to cry) has a strong intuitive bias that, surprise! makes sensors out as less ~*~*~mystical~*~*~ than the ~*~*~magical~*~*~ intuitives, and who didn't grow up wanting to be a super special snowflake unicorn child with a bright future and unique insight into the hearts of men? ARE YOU TELLING ME I CAN'T BE A PRINCESS IF I'M ESFP???? BUT I'VE ALWAYS FELT AS IF MY TRUE KINGDOM WAS etc etc etc 

Also the NTs are soooo smarty11! SFs don't know how to do anything but giggle and play beer pong while making artisan hamburgers!11! thing. It's dumb.

In short: people need to put some time into developing their own identities and stop taking internet quizzes to heart. It's not as if changing your type changes who you are as a person, anymore than having "NT" in front of your name means you're intelligent.


----------



## toffee (Nov 26, 2012)

I also think one of the reasons people have an anti-sensor bias is because of the way online descriptions of intuitives makes us out to seem like some enlightened, mystical, unique little snowflakes. People want to feel unique and special and many don't really have a clue about the actual cognitive functions. I actually think that there is a possibility that many of us N-types, not excluding myself, are mistyped sensors.


----------



## toffee (Nov 26, 2012)

hela said:


> For your friend--the significant majority of literature on MBTI/Jung (I'm going to cry) has a strong intuitive bias that, surprise! makes sensors out as less ~*~*~mystical~*~*~ than the ~*~*~magical~*~*~ intuitives, and who didn't grow up wanting to be a super special snowflake unicorn child with a bright future and unique insight into the hearts of men? ARE YOU TELLING ME I CAN'T BE A PRINCESS IF I'M ESFP???? BUT I'VE ALWAYS FELT AS IF MY TRUE KINGDOM WAS etc etc etc
> 
> Also the NTs are soooo smarty11! SFs don't know how to do anything but giggle and play beer pong while making artisan hamburgers!11! thing. It's dumb.
> 
> In short: people need to put some time into developing their own identities and stop taking internet quizzes to heart. It's not as if changing your type changes who you are as a person, anymore than having "NT" in front of your name means you're intelligent.


I take back the part where I say I might be a mistyped sensor. We clearly think the same lol.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> Because some people, when attempting to type others, put anyone they don't like into the "sensor" box and assume anyone they get on with is an intuitive. It's a nice bit of circular logic where anyone who is perceived as shallow and stupid is a sensor, and then from their dodgy typing methods they come to the conclusion that all sensors are shallow and stupid.


And don't you think that this kind of circular logic, in and of itself, might be a shallow and stupid way of thinking? (iNtuitives thinking along the lines that they imagine sensors do).


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

toffee said:


> I also think one of the reasons people have an anti-sensor bias is because of the way online descriptions of intuitives makes us out to seem like some enlightened, mystical, unique little snowflakes. People want to feel unique and special and many don't really have a clue about the actual cognitive functions. I actually think that there is a possibility that many of us N-types, not excluding myself, are mistyped sensors.


Make that an absolute certainty.

(Not you in particular, but some Ns in general)


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

To be honest, I think most of the anti-sensor bias comes from mistyped intuitives in a bizarre manifestation of reaction formation.


----------



## toffee (Nov 26, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> Make that an absolute certainty.
> 
> (Not you in particular, but some Ns in general)


Yes, I mean there is a very remote possibility that intuitives really do just like Jungian theory and the MBTI a lot more than sensors, and that's why we are so prevalent here, but if we were going by statistics, it makes pretty much no sense that the NF and NT sections are as active as they are. 

When I go into the "What's My Type" forum, some people are actually offended, or outright reject any suggestion that they might be sensors, because they took an online test 3 times and they read the description and "Like, I'm totally an INTP cause mypersonality said so and I'm smart and got a 150 on an IQ test and I've got a dark twisted mind and nobody understands my genius."

I do also know that the majority of people on here are rather young and are still figuring themselves out. I take most people's declared type with a grain of salt.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

toffee said:


> Yes, I mean there is a very remote possibility that intuitives really do just like Jungian theory and the MBTI a lot more than sensors, and that's why we are so prevalent here, but if we were going by statistics, it makes pretty much no sense that the NF and NT sections are as active as they are.
> 
> When I go into the "What's My Type" forum, some people are actually offended, or outright reject any suggestion that they might be sensors, because they took an online test 3 times and they read the description and "Like, I'm totally an INTP cause mypersonality said so and I'm smart and got a 150 on an IQ test and I've got a dark twisted mind and nobody understands my genius."
> 
> I do also know that the majority of people on here are rather young and are still figuring themselves out. I take most people's declared type with a grain of salt.


I don't think it's a completely far-fetched idea that intuitives might be more drawn to typology than sensors, but even so there's probably a slightly more even distribution than people's self-typing would indicate. These stereotypes make it more difficult for people to type accurately. I have considered that I might be a sensor, but on the one hand I don't know if that was just to prove that I'm not a sensor hater, and on the other hand I might be a sensor who's more drawn to the idea of being an intuitive. All I can say is that after several months of studying the functions and analysing my thought process in depth, I have only just come to the conclusion that INTP appears to be how my brain works. I've never read an INTP profile, or any other MBTI type description for that matter, that describes me all that well. It frustrates me that so many people seem to take a test, read the description provided, think "oh my god that is sooo me!" and never give their type a second thought.


----------



## toffee (Nov 26, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Because people presume that every person they've known with fetal alcohol syndrome, a low IQ, head trauma, or just plain ignorant up-bringing is a sensor, and every person they know who reads, discusses relevant issues, and has an IQ above 85 is an intuitive.
> 
> I've noticed people wanting to claim people as diverse as David Lynch and Taylor Swift as Ns, when it's apparent to me that they are respectively ISFP and ISFJ. I have also seen one person make the claim, though, that David Lynch is an ISFJ, and my only guess on that would be that they presume that his love of the past and small-town morality seems like SJ creativity, no matter how otherwise weird and disturbing his films can be. I can see the rationale for it, but I still think Lynch is Se/Ni.


I agree with you entirely. Especially the thing about Taylor Swift. It completely baffles me that people think she's an anything but an SJ.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Here is the thing. First off, Intuitives are rarer. Any type that is called "rare" is likely to attract people. Just like you find so many people who type themselves as Fours (or Fives or Eights) using the Enneagram. It gives us a reason for feeling different and lonely and isolated and misunderstood by the many people around us, like family members (especially parents who are usually typed as SJs) and friends and everybody at school (because, let's face it -- teens are more likely to mistype as Intuitives).
> 
> I am most definitely a dominant Intuitive. And yet I do not relate to this _feeling different_ thing. Yes, I will feel painfully lonely and misunderstood at times, sometimes for a long stretch of time. I start daydreaming, fantasizing, idealizing. I feel like I am being deep and introspective. I feel like I am me and then there's everybody else and the fact that nobody can truly understand me is a burden. But Sensors most definitely feel this way too. It's only human. There's no need to look for some personality typing system to validate these feelings. And letting yourself dwell on these feelings isn't healthy either.
> 
> ...


You know, I think the real Keirsey and even his son David on the Keirsey web site are more open-minded about sensors than most misinformed people I've encountered on the Internet who are apparently Keirsey biased. There's an ISFP on the web site who is a vigilante about unschooling children, says he's in love with a Hindu elephant goddess, loves baiting women sexually but not having sex with them, and is overall what most people in Jung would recognize as an Fi dom but people with the so-called "Keirsey bias" would immediately label an NF. And do you know what? David Keirsey's son accepts this person as an ISFP, in fact has expressed deep annoyance with what he sees as this SPs senselessly rebellious attitude. 

I think Ns may get annoyed when sensors point out the obvious, facts or what presently exist to them. I've noticed as I've gotten older that I enjoy doing this with an increasingly condescending but tongue-in-cheek self-mocking attitude (referring to people as son, bro, and so forth) ...but my annoyance with people who miss facts or what presently exists annoys me more at 30 than it did at 20 or 15, and I attribute that to being Feeling dominant, but developing sensing more as I grew older to a more refined function. I was a lot more Fi idealistic at 18 than I am now, I am more grounded, and I think Se has probably grounded me, maybe. Or maybe I'm using Si as a "critical parent" like Beebe says ISFPs are wont to do.

I thought I was an N for a while because I am so into political ideas and so forth, but the truth is I'm really just dead-set about ethics (Fi) and I constantly reference systems which already exist and work (Se/Te) instead of trying to form radically new ones, but yet see underlying patterns to varying societies and epochs of human civilization (Ni). An older INTJ with a pretty extensive knowledge of functions was actually the first person to suggest to me that I'm actually an ISFP, and later I realized he was right.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

toffee said:


> I agree with you entirely. Especially the thing about Taylor Swift. It completely baffles me that people think she's an anything but an SJ.


She is the biggest ISFJ who ever did ISFJ.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You know, I think the real Keirsey and even his son David on the Keirsey web site are more open-minded about sensors than most misinformed people I've encountered on the Internet who are apparently Keirsey biased. There's an ISFP on the web site who is a vigilante about unschooling children, says he's in love with a Hindu elephant goddess, loves baiting women sexually but not having sex with them, and is overall what most people in Jung would recognize as an Fi dom but people with the so-called "Keirsey bias" would immediately label an NF. And do you know what? David Keirsey's son accepts this person as an ISFP, in fact has expressed deep annoyance with what he sees as this SPs senselessly rebellious attitude.


I don't mind Keirsey, actually. I do mind it when people use his system badly. And then stereotype and such. I do think Keirsey's system has its uses.  I had fun learning about it and playing around in it. I tried to fit myself into each temperament. XD I still do find myself relating most to the NF temperament. That means something, maybe. 



> I think Ns may get annoyed when sensors point out the obvious, facts or what presently exist to them. I've noticed as I've gotten older that I enjoy doing this with an increasingly condescending but tongue-in-cheek self-mocking attitude (referring to people as son, bro, and so forth) ...but my annoyance with people who miss facts or what presently exists annoys me more at 30 than it did at 20 or 15, and I attribute that to being Feeling dominant, but developing sensing more as I grew older to a more refined function. I was a lot more Fi idealistic at 18 than I am now, I am more grounded, and I think Se has probably grounded me, maybe. Or maybe I'm using Si as a "critical parent" like Beebe says ISFPs are wont to do.


Haha, yes. I never understood why some people thought it necessary to point out something there. Why focus on that? It doesn't matter to me. A lot of the time after some event, my sister likes knowing who was there, what people wore (considering fashion is something that interests her. She speaks about it so passionately that even I'm getting into it now o_o), where things were. I don't really pay attention to that sort of thing. I know what people felt, what was said, the conversation, the trains of thought, the ideas that were there. I will not be able to remember exactly how somebody looked or what they wore or perhaps how something happened. I just find those things slip from my memory. It frustrates my sister that I do this. ^^' And my mother as well. 

Oof, I'm still working on the whole "getting grounded" thing.  I know this sounds rather stereotypical, but I do often become that Oblivious Intuitive. Not necessarily clumsy but _extremely_ forgetful about details that so many other people consider easy to recall. And it never ceases to frustrate me when I am forced to think narrowly, against the grain of Ne.



> I thought I was an N for a while because I am so into political ideas and so forth, but the truth is I'm really just dead-set about ethics (Fi) and I constantly reference systems which already exist and work (Se/Te) instead of trying to form radically new ones, but yet see underlying patterns to varying societies and epochs of human civilization (Ni). An older INTJ with a pretty extensive knowledge of functions was actually the first person to suggest to me that I'm actually an ISFP, and later I realized he was right.


Hmm... this reminds me. What do you think of "Sensor topics" and "Intuitive topics"? Like, what do you consider deep conversation? I assume politics would be one for you?


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Here is the thing. First off, Intuitives are rarer. Any type that is called "rare" is likely to attract people. Just like you find so many people who type themselves as Fours (or Fives or Eights) using the Enneagram. It gives us a reason for feeling different and lonely and isolated and misunderstood by the many people around us, like family members (especially parents who are usually typed as SJs) and friends and everybody at school (because, let's face it -- teens are more likely to mistype as Intuitives).
> 
> I am most definitely a dominant Intuitive. And yet I do not relate to this _feeling different_ thing. Yes, I will feel painfully lonely and misunderstood at times, sometimes for a long stretch of time. I start daydreaming, fantasizing, idealizing. I feel like I am being deep and introspective. I feel like I am me and then there's everybody else and the fact that nobody can truly understand me is a burden. But Sensors most definitely feel this way too. It's only human. There's no need to look for some personality typing system to validate these feelings. And letting yourself dwell on these feelings isn't healthy either.
> 
> ...


I made exactly the same mistake when I first got into MBTI, but I got out of it soon enough. Recently, though, I've had exactly the opposite problem. NTs are supposedly the rarest temperament, and I think I'm too normal to be a rare type. Yes, I've felt lonely, alienated, misunderstood, but as you say everyone feels like that from time to time, so it's not a sign that there's anything particularly unique about me. So while other people are thinking "I'm too unique to be a sensor" I'm thinking "I'm not unique enough to be an intuitive".


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

JoanCrawford said:


> You know, it's funny. The only people who seem to see this so-called "bias" are sensors... They get very offended when the topic of Intuition and Sensor even come up. XD Do they think negatively of themselves and project it onto us? Or do they just feel left out because Intuition is seen as a valuable trait? Hopefully they do know that they are just as special as everyone else, sensors are very important to our society, they help ground us unreasonable intuitive's.


I think a lot of this bias lies with Sensors who mistype themselves because of the aspirational qualities of intuition. Stems from a lack of self-awareness and/or reliance on stereotypes.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> I don't mind Keirsey, actually. I do mind it when people use his system badly. And then stereotype and such. I do think Keirsey's system has its uses.  I had fun learning about it and playing around in it. I tried to fit myself into each temperament. XD I still do find myself relating most to the NF temperament. That means something, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think politics and sociology are deep topics but I've noticed that sometimes this INTP I know tries to start these big heavy conversations with me on facebook and I'm just like WHOA WTF I'M TIRED STOP IT. He'll just introduce a topic with big paragraphs of ideas or information, and if I respond noncommittally he thinks I'm not interested at all, and sometimes I'm not, I really don't being asked certain kinds of questions on the spur of the moment. I guess he's read some things I've written and thinks this somehow translates to me being this person to engage in deep conversations with all at once, but I can't do that, it's not natural to me. 

Maybe everyone has their own idea of what deep is, and Fi probably thinks that a deep conversation is different than a Ti dom does. A lot of Western philosophy strikes me as INTP-ish because of the specialized vocabulary and purely abstract nature of the theories that don't always apply to the real world. I think my interest in Eastern philosophy is that it seems more applicable to living life on a daily basis.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

JoanCrawford said:


> You know, it's funny. The only people who seem to see this so-called "bias" are sensors... They get very offended when the topic of Intuition and Sensor even come up. XD Do they think negatively of themselves and project it onto us? Or do they just feel left out because Intuition is seen as a valuable trait? Hopefully they do know that they are just as special as everyone else, sensors are very important to our society, they help ground us unreasonable intuitive's.


It's difficult to notice your own bias, though, so of course only sensors would see the "so-called" bias against them. Honestly, most sensors don't get offended when intuition and sensing are brought up, it's just that they get offended when they're shoved into a stereotype that makes being a sensor sounds less than desirable.

Intuition is definetly made out to be a more valuable trait, and it just makes it easy for sensors to feel as though they're unappreciated because the only places they've been told they're useful is in "business and finances" (yipee).


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> I also note that people like typing themselves as Introverts for this same reason. 1) Introverts are rarer. 2) Introverts are more 'misunderstood' too supposedly. Being a INxx means you are _really really special and nobody ever understands you ever. _There are so many people who type as INFP. An odd thing I have noticed is that often the people who type as INXP, the people with Intuition as their auxiliary and not their dominant, often complain about the S and N gap being the largest. This should not at all be the case. In fact, an ISFP and an INFP should find they've got possibly more similarities than an INFP would have with an ENFP.


Yes! I hate when people who are obvious extraverts insist that they're introverts. It not only bugs me because I'm an introvert and so I'm just like "gurl you don't get what an introvert is do you" but that they just want to be an introvert so they can complain about having to be around people. Also introverts are not misunderstood at all. Introverts just need more time alone than extraverts. 

However I think INFPs have more in common than ENFPs because they have the same functions, although I see what you mean, because under stress an INFP and ISFP would act fairly similar, both of them having inferior Te.


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> It's difficult to notice your own bias, though, so of course only sensors would see the "so-called" bias against them. Honestly, most sensors don't get offended when intuition and sensing are brought up, it's just that they get offended when they're shoved into a stereotype that makes being a sensor sounds less than desirable.Intuition is definetly made out to be a more valuable trait, and it just makes it easy for sensors to feel as though they're unappreciated because the only places they've been told they're useful is in "business and finances" (yipee).


I don't think intuition is necessarily a more "valueable" trait. But is a "rarer" trait, when you are in the minority and have a smaller group of people who share your preferences. It is natural for people to see different as "inferior" or "wrong", I think this is just human nature.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I've done this unconscious IRL before (inferior sensation type, I am) - I literally called a group of Se doms primitive once by accident, because I had no idea how to deal with them - they just looked at me like I didn't make sense - and then, we were friends - really no big deal, but a weird type moment I had once completely due to speaking almost on impulse (after all, what gets repressed tends to come out often when you're not thinking about it). Just very interesting psychological observation. I've come far since though, lol.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

What I find most amusing is the number of INXPs who assert their intuiveness and cite it as a major issue with their parents/friends while ignoring the fact that they aren't actually Intuitives at all as they're actually Feelers or Thinkers.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Blacktide said:


> I don't think intuition is necessarily a more "valueable" trait. But is a "rarer" trait, when you are in the minority and have a smaller group of people who share your preferences. It is natural for people to see different as "inferior" or "wrong", I think this is just human nature.


I agree, but I said it's _made out_ to be a more valuable trait, not that it is. They're both just as useful, but in their own ways. The world wouldn't be complete if there were only sensors or if there were only intuitives.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

I have been struggling for years trying to figure out Sensing and Intuition conflicts. At first glance, I realize that I didn't understand the two very well. 

I had entire cycles of friendships, I thought were intuitives, but were not in the end. I wonder if It was my own naivety combined with a group of people who clearly were "trying" to be like intuitive that I was mistaken, or perhaps they were displaying simply a grossly undeveloped function? I clearly remember making a jaw-dropping face at a poetry reading in the English department full of creative writers and poets, I thought how is it possible that these are sensors!? I stood up to speak my piece emanating a weird hatred, I think I destroyed some people that day. I hated myself too, for failing to understand creative people as more diverse. 

To me, I am attracted to developed sensors because I like the reliability. It makes things easier sometimes, and can be somewhat of a stress relief. I remember a well developed ISTJ I worked with a year ago in an office, in every conflict that arose she stepped in and was like "don't worry, I saw everything, it was this, not this..." She was accurate and diligent in reporting her awareness. She had a great sense of humour too. In an ideal world where being stressed out isn't a constant, I think the need for her would have decreased dramatically though. 

A date I went on, in the brief period that Fucktard and I were broken up, was an xSTJ who was quite attracted to me. I told Fucktard later about it. I think he regretted asking me about it. The xSTJ had a perfect body, great career, and shared all my politics; what was missing though was relative gains. As an xNTJ I felt like I would economically incompatible. I would uproot him, in every detail, for the arrival of a vision. Fucktard, also an NT refers to me as "vicious." I don't know how I feel about the word, but I feel that it may have contributed to the stabby-day dreams I had beheading the xSTJ. Couldn't survive even one day dream with me.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

On these forums, there's a lot of anti-sensor bias, in real life, there's a lot of anti-intuitive bias. I'd chalk that up to the fact Intuitives dominate these forums, and Sensors dominate the real world. Human nature is to suppress the voice of the minority to make one's own group stronger.





suicidal_orange said:


> What I find most amusing is the number of INXPs who assert their intuiveness and cite it as a major issue with their parents/friends while ignoring the fact that they aren't actually Intuitives at all as they're actually Feelers or Thinkers.


What's amusing, is your lack of grasp of how functions are translated into type. Yes, INxPs do have a dominant judging function, instead of an intuitive perception function- but the fact their intuitive perception function lies auxiliary and thus predominant to their sensing function in tertiary, means they have an intuitive preference. 

You, as an ISTP, are still a sensor, even though you have a dominant introverted thinking judging function. That's why that cool letter S is in your type.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Pshh, I'm not going to feel sorry for sensors. They are just making a bigger deal, for than what it is. I mean, I've seen a lot of IN types get bullied, by specifically sensors, and now they want to make it out to be that IN's are bullying them on here? Please. 

Statistically things like high IQ are correlated with intuitive types, specifically the INTx, score at a higher IQ rate, overall intelligence, and every score for intuitive is higher on average to the S types. It's just the reality of things.


----------



## Pom87 (Apr 7, 2012)

Yes. You are stupid if you use your senses because relying solely on your intuition, something that you cannot really grasp, is very rational.

No. I see bias as ignorance in others, or special snowflake syndrome.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

donkeybals said:


> Pshh, I'm not going to feel sorry for sensors. They are just making a bigger deal, for than what it is. I mean, I've seen a lot of IN types get bullied, by specifically sensors, and now they want to make it out to be that IN's are bullying them on here? Please.
> 
> Statistically things like high IQ are correlated with intuitive types, specifically the INTx, score at a higher IQ rate, overall intelligence, and every score for intuitive is higher on average to the S types. It's just the reality of things.


I am guessing you have some issues with people you "consider" sensors?  

And I don't know how many times I have said this, but high IQ hardly means anything apart from you are very good at a certain type of intelligence. Plus a high IQ doesn't always get you by in life, so I have no idea why people throw this BS about.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

There is an anti-sensor bias going on on the internet since most individuals don't actually know what is sensing vs. intuition. Those two can appear the same to an outside observer. Sensing is knowing present information vs. knowing possible or theoretical information. As to what is sensing vs. intuition is a very very complex discussion since sensing and intuition are always working together.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@pizzapie I've been thinking about your comments about each temperament valuing different things, and I have to say, if NTs value critical thinking and NFs value empathy, well... the people who throw these stereotypes around aren't displaying much of either.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

firedell said:


> I am guessing you have some issues with people you "consider" sensors?
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have said this, but high IQ hardly means anything apart from you are very good at a certain type of intelligence. Plus a high IQ doesn't always get you by in life, so I have no idea why people throw this BS about.


People "throw this BS about" because it's an accurate way to measure intelligence. Whether you like to think so or not, some of the brightest minds and experts disagree with you. It's used as a predictor in education, future income, etc. One of it's uses has been to identify mental retardation. And gifted ability. And so and so forth. You don't have all the facts and are attempting to down play its significance.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Also, just wanted to throw out there, that for instance, some people _are_ gifted in other areas. For instance, isfps are typically known for their artistic ability, and known for their "see all" ability. However, I will say, you may be a _good artist_ but that doesn't do much good summing up your overall intellect. Idiot savants, just to throw out a bit of extreme example, can paint amazing pictures, but not even know how to tie their shoes.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Pshh, I'm not going to feel sorry for sensors. They are just making a bigger deal, for than what it is. I mean, I've seen a lot of IN types get bullied, by specifically sensors, and now they want to make it out to be that IN's are bullying them on here? Please.
> 
> Statistically things like high IQ are correlated with intuitive types, specifically the INTx, score at a higher IQ rate, overall intelligence, and every score for intuitive is higher on average to the S types. It's just the reality of things.


I never said anything about being bullied. You're making a bigger deal out of it then necessary. Do you know some bitchy sensors IRL?


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> People "throw this BS about" because it's an accurate way to measure intelligence. Whether you like to think so or not, some of the brightest minds and experts disagree with you. It's used as a predictor in education, future income, etc. One of it's uses has been to identify mental retardation. And gifted ability. And so and so forth. You don't have all the facts and are attempting to down play its significance.


Having a high IQ means nothing unless you do something with it. It's like saying, hey look I've got lots of pancakes and you don't, but I'm not going to eat a single one and neither are you. 

And if you're still trying to say that sensors aren't bullied in real life but INxx types are, you clearly have not seen the real world. All types get bullied. You're also being a serious hypocrite too by basically calling sensors idiots and then saying that they don't get bullied.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm going to plant another thought into this. 

I think important stages are acceptance of a bias, apology, and then to relinquish it or maintain it according to a supporting connection. How often do we hear this voice on our shoulder saying things like fat bitch, stupid hoe, and whatever. Or insane right wing normative-tit, heh. How often do we own up to the bias, or even accept the bias of others? 

In diplomacy, for example with my step father, an agreed upon reality goes a long way. Jung, too, would say that whether it is real or not doesn't really matter, entertaining and facilitating our unconscious selves effectively is. Bias can be adaptive, it is built in. We evolved to have strong psychological preferences. Without the social skills though, it becomes maladaptive. Some of that involves insight to what is and what is not real, acceptance, apology, and choice. 

I noted my own bias in an earlier post. But the stupidity of just doing that felt defective without mentioning this too. It has another dimension. All that sexy bias is even sexier now!


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Worth Lessemo said:


> I noted my own bias in an earlier post. But the stupidity of just doing that felt defective without mentioning this too. It has another dimension. All that sexy bias is even sexier now!


Sexy bias! Classic.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

pizzapie said:


> Having a high IQ means nothing unless you do something with it. It's like saying, hey look I've got lots of pancakes and you don't, but I'm not going to eat a single one and neither are you.
> 
> And if you're still trying to say that sensors aren't bullied in real life but INxx types are, you clearly have not seen the real world. All types get bullied. You're also being a serious hypocrite too by basically calling sensors idiots and then saying that they don't get bullied.


Although I respect pancake analogies, I don't agree with this one. It's really hard not to use your intelligence in one form or another. I'm just interested in, what you mean exactly by "doing something with it"?


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Although I respect pancake analogies, I don't agree with this one. It's really hard not to use your intelligence in one form or another. I'm just interested in, what you mean exactly by "using" it?


I mean if you don't put it into practical use. Obvious people with high intelligences will have something going on in their head but if they don't put that out into the real world, it doesn't matter whether or not they have a high intelligence.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

pizzapie said:


> I mean if you don't put it into practical use. Obvious people with high intelligences will have something going on in their head but if they don't put that out into the real world, it doesn't matter whether or not they have a high intelligence.


People with a high IQ are always using their intelligence, it's something that's with you in life. By the "real world" I'm assuming you mean career wise, and just because you know rocket science, doesn't mean that _you should be_ a rocket scientist or your intelligence doesn't matter.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> People with a high IQ are always using their intelligence, it's something that's with you in life. By the "real world" I'm assuming you mean career wise, and just because you know rocket science, doesn't mean that _you should be_ a rocket scientist or your intelligence doesn't matter.


Always using their intelligence? really? I know some people (there are two in particular that come to mind) who are very intelligent, but waste it. Everyone thinks they're idiots because of the way they act, and they're not putting their brains to use.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

SharkT00th said:


> There is an anti-sensor bias going on on the internet since most individuals don't actually know what is sensing vs. intuition. Those two can appear the same to an outside observer. Sensing is knowing present information vs. knowing possible or theoretical information. As to what is sensing vs. intuition is a very very complex discussion since sensing and intuition are always working together.


Well, not exactly. From my understanding, persons with a sensing preference take in raw information and process it for meaning after the initial absorption of the knowledge. Those with an intuition preference process the information prior to applying and storing the information. Of course you then have a series of changes in attitude toward information and the processing of it because of this difference in method. Sensors value raw knowledge more than the processed knowledge, and Intuitives value the processed knowledge over the raw knowledge- objective vs subjective perception. I don't think you can just chalk down Sensing and Intuition as seeing the present vs possible.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

To expound upon my earlier suggestion that the "anti-sensor bias" was due to a sensor majority off the forums vs an intuitive majority on the forums, there's also a significant seperation in communication styles between the two perception preferences. Because of this, I've known many sensors to chalk up a few rather air-headed INFxs as stupid, because of their focuses and style of communication- one that doesn't properly translate into a full expression of their thoughts. The same can be said the other way around, with many intuitives finding sensors to be "unintelligent" , due to a perception that the focus of the sensors is upon that of the shallow and insular. I think this apparent gap between communication styles and intellectual focus can lead persons of each preference to see the other as lesser.

I haven't expressed my distate on the whole situation, because I'm aware that I myself am guilty of it - just as I'm wholly aware of the anti-intuitive bias that pervades American society as well as its professional world.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Well, not exactly. From my understanding, persons with a sensing preference take in raw information and process it for meaning after the initial absorption of the knowledge. Those with an intuition preference process the information prior to applying and storing the information. Of course you then have a series of changes in attitude toward information and the processing of it because of this difference in method. Sensors value raw knowledge more than the processed knowledge, and Intuitives value the processed knowledge over the raw knowledge- objective vs subjective perception. I don't think you can just chalk down Sensing and Intuition as seeing the present vs possible.


I think you hit a big nail on the head: You play with the data that is given, and that is intuition. Sensing types will have intuition as well to know what the data they get means, it means that they won't play much with the data though or unless their intuition improves.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

donkeybals said:


> People "throw this BS about" because it's an accurate way to measure intelligence. Whether you like to think so or not, some of the brightest minds and experts disagree with you. It's used as a predictor in education, future income, etc. One of it's uses has been to identify mental retardation. And gifted ability. And so and so forth. You don't have all the facts and are attempting to down play its significance.





donkeybals said:


> Also, just wanted to throw out there, that for instance, some people _are_ gifted in other areas. For instance, isfps are typically known for their artistic ability, and known for their "see all" ability. However, I will say, you may be a _good artist_ but that doesn't do much good summing up your overall intellect. Idiot savants, just to throw out a bit of extreme example, can paint amazing pictures, but not even know how to tie their shoes.



IQ has been disproved as a way to count for intelligence as a whole. I do not believe that having an high IQ score will do much, apart from the fact that you can solve sequences, and can sieve through meaningless words to get to the real problem. Making that great and dandy if you want to work in the sciences. That is great and all, but unless these people actually apply it, then it becomes useless.

I don't know how many times on here, whether the user is lying or not, has said that have an IQ of 120+, yet I don't see any proof from their other posts that they actually have done something about it in the real world. If you have such a great gift, use it. Stop boasting about it, and do something about it. 

I have never been able to complete an IQ test, because I get eventually get bored and think "What does this prove?". I personally would rather be doing something that actually counted for something. Unless Mensa get a notification about my amazing genius, then all it is doing is boosting my ego. 

And in response to saying about ISFP's having an artistic ability, not all ISFP's are ACTUALLY artists. Many ISFP's struggle with coming to terms with being an ISFP because they cannot draw, or compose ect: It has nothing to do with us being able to paint pretty pictures. If anything our Se helps us apply our values (Fi), and "create" something with them. 

This sounds hypocritical when I am Graphic Design student, but I struggle with it to be honest. When it comes down to it, my tutor always tells me that I do things too intelligently, and I should draw for the sake of it. Which I cannot personally do. I cannot make a picture because it is required of me, it must have some political reasoning or some personal belief. 

I would account myself to be a quite intelligent person. I may not achieve great scientific discoveries, because that isn't where my heart lies. I prefer to create something for me, rather than the masses and then for people to enjoy it because that is what I want to do with that brain of mine. Whether people believe it to be intelligent or not, then I really don't care. But I know that I don't need an IQ score to tell me if I am or not.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

firedell said:


> IQ has been disproved as a way to count for intelligence as a whole. I do not believe that having an high IQ score will do much, apart from the fact that you can solve sequences, and can sieve through meaningless words to get to the real problem. Making that great and dandy if you want to work in the sciences. That is great and all, but unless these people actually apply it, then it becomes useless.
> 
> I don't know how many times on here, whether the user is lying or not, has said that have an IQ of 120+, yet I don't see any proof from their other posts that they actually have done something about it in the real world. If you have such a great gift, use it. Stop boasting about it, and do something about it.
> 
> ...


IQ has not been disproven, it's still an accepted and commonly used method to determine a level of giftedness in children and propensity for the acquisition and application of knowledge in adults, something I would define as "intelligence". As far as application of intelligence, while it is true that Johnny won't become famous even if he has a 180 IQ and works at a gas station his whole life, that doesn't make him any less intelligent, that just makes him confined by his circumstances and personal drive. 

Just like not all ISFPs are artists, not all NTs are intelligent. Of those persons I've met who I would say are highly gifted, 3 were INTPs, 1 was an INTJ, one was an ISTJ, and one was me. Those are my contemporaries, all of us are still in high school. As such, we've done jackshit with our intelligence except push through this academic purgatory and attempt to navigate through social circles. I've been much more successful socially (I'm captain of two clubs, Cheif Editor of the school paper [but fuck my comma splices on internet forums], and have written all my scholarship essays as well), the ISTJ and INTJ (last I talked to each of them) maintained superior markings to myself, and of the 3 INTPs I deemed to be very intelligent, 2 had no motivation for making good marks. Just like grades aren't an accurate measure of intelligence, success in life isn't either. 

Now, following this same line of thought, intelligence doesn't make one person superior to another. The person with a 150 IQ is certainly more intelligent than the person with an 100 IQ. This doesn't make the person with a 150 IQ any better outside of that quantification of their intelligence, but it still does measure intelligence. The person with the 100 IQ could possess a much better work ethic and get more done in life, but that doesn't make him or her any more intelligent.


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> IQ has not been disproven, it's still an accepted and commonly used method to determine a level of giftedness in children and propensity for the acquisition and application of knowledge in adults, something I would define as "intelligence". As far as application of intelligence, while it is true that Johnny won't become famous even if he has a 180 IQ and works at a gas station his whole life, that doesn't make him any less intelligent, that just makes him confined by his circumstances and personal drive.
> 
> Just like not all ISFPs are artists, not all NTs are intelligent. Of those persons I've met who I would say are highly gifted, 3 were INTPs, 1 was an INTJ, one was an ISTJ, and one was me. Those are my contemporaries, all of us are still in high school. As such, we've done jackshit with our intelligence except push through this academic purgatory and attempt to navigate through social circles. I've been much more successful socially (I'm captain of two clubs, Cheif Editor of the school paper [but fuck my comma splices on internet forums], and have written all my scholarship essays as well), the ISTJ and INTJ (last I talked to each of them) maintained superior markings to myself, and of the 3 INTPs I deemed to be very intelligent, 2 had no motivation for making good marks. Just like grades aren't an accurate measure of intelligence, success in life isn't either.
> 
> Now, following this same line of thought, intelligence doesn't make one person superior to another. The person with a 150 IQ is certainly more intelligent than the person with an 100 IQ. This doesn't make the person with a 150 IQ any better outside of that quantification of their intelligence, but it still does measure intelligence. The person with the 100 IQ could possess a much better work ethic and get more done in life, but that doesn't make him or her any more intelligent.


 Thank you for posting this, I was tempted to post something similar myself. But I always feel like an atheist trying to convert the pope, when I talk to people who have strong belief's about something.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Blacktide said:


> Thank you for posting this, I was tempted to post something similar myself. But I always feel like an atheist trying to convert the pope, when I talk to people who have strong belief's about something.


I'm not bothered by such concerns. If the Pope told me I needed to take Jesus into my life, I'd tell him he (forgive my crassitude) needs to get some pussy.


----------



## remMUS (Dec 28, 2012)

Because they see things differently from intuitives, get it? Hehe. OMG I'm so funny with my crap jokes, but yeah, I think it's an attitude that's been perpetuated. Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is. Anyone want some grilled cheese? I think I made a ton of it right there.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

remMUS said:


> Because they see things differently from intuitives, get it? Hehe. OMG I'm so funny with my crap jokes, but yeah, I think it's an attitude that's been perpetuated. Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is. Anyone want some grilled cheese? I think I made a ton of it right there.


Grilled cheese sounds fantastic right now. I'll bring some salad along with it, mmkay?


----------



## remMUS (Dec 28, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> Grilled cheese sounds fantastic right now. I'll bring some salad along with it, mmkay?


Gee! I love salad. Let's do it roud:!


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

How about some home made tomato soup to go with that grilled cheese and salad?



remMUS said:


> Gee! I love salad. Let's do it roud:!


----------



## remMUS (Dec 28, 2012)

The more the merrier! I love how this thread has changed. It's beautiful. I'm so freaking proud of myself. Thank you everyone! You're all wonderful...*gets teary-eyed*...


----------



## voicetrocity (Mar 31, 2012)

The only thing I can think of is lack of education and misleading tests. 

Out of the 1,000-something posts I've made here, most of them were made when I was mistyped as an ENFP. What's even more shocking to me is that there's only one person who even made the slightest insinuation that I might be mistyped (and the comment wasn't even directed at me, just "assertive" ENFP's in general). Looking back, I have no idea how blind I could have been; I mean, my enneagram survey practically* BLED* ISTP.

I think it was the fact of being a reactive type that makes me appear as an (F), and I'm pretty open with the fact that I have had moments of "intuition" (N). Couple that with having an outward oriented enneagram (E) and there you go. Even the official MBTI test I had "sent out" mistyped me -sigh-. 

I don't see why someone would get all offended at the suggestion of being a sensor. I'm still an intuitive, observant person without needing some sort of "NF" label to prove that.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

Replying to OP:

When people first learn about MBTI, they often come across some article, webpage, book, whatever that lists out the estimated percentages of each type. Seeing that sensors, especially SJs, apparently make up the majority of the population (although these statistics are highly debated, of course), it is human nature to want to believe that you are special, that you are "not like THEM", and that everyone you dislike can be explained away as being "one of those sensors who doesn't understand ME". Obviously not everyone thinks this way, but I believe this is the cause of the majority of anti-sensor bias.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

remMUS said:


> The more the merrier! I love how this thread has changed. It's beautiful. I'm so freaking proud of myself. Thank you everyone! You're all wonderful...*gets teary-eyed*...


No, no no. Thank YOU for making all that tasty grilled cheese. It was delicious.


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

Besides people's yearning for snowflakes, a reason for bias against Si is that, rightly or wrongly, that function has been termed "unfun". Is there some truth to that stereotype? The extraverted perceiving functions *are* likened to fun, and I don't think any of you, be you Pi or be you Pe-dom/aux, will disagree . The SPs don't catch nearly as much flak.

Slightly offtopic- some have posited that the allotments of SJs, SPs, NFs, and NTs in the global populace are what they are because that was what civilization required for many millennia. Might technological advancements bring sizable changes to the demand levels for those four groups? (and create more cause for bias? )


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I would think that a healthy Si function would feel very good, as opposed to "unfun." It can help you to relive good experiences. From everything that I'm reading, Si is about memory and details and sensory experiences in the past. Sensory experiences in the present will trigger these memories. 
I find that, sometimes, I am able to access my Si to recall past experiences. But it is difficult for me because that's a weak shadow function. A flower or a smell might trigger memories but they are fleeting. Someone who has a strong Si function may have a very strong visual recall or powerful memories.
The most extreme case of powerful Si is Jill Price. She is "The Woman Who Can't Forget." She remembers and can access her memories of every detail in her life. It is awesome. I found this about her: Woman Who Can't Forget Amazes Doctors - ABC News



Meritocrat said:


> Besides people's yearning for snowflakes, a reason for bias against Si is that, rightly or wrongly, that function has been termed "unfun". Is there some truth to that stereotype? The extraverted perceiving functions *are* likened to fun, and I don't think any of you, be you Pi or be you Pe-dom/aux, will disagree . The SPs don't catch nearly as much flak.
> 
> Slightly offtopic- some have posited that the allotments of SJs, SPs, NFs, and NTs in the global populace are what they are because that was what civilization required for many millennia. Might technological advancements bring sizable changes to the demand levels for those four groups? (and create more cause for bias? )


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

I think it's because there are more sensors in the general population and N types can feel like they are different or left out.

Interestingly, I get along better with sensors than intuitives in real life, despite my preference for the abstract. I'm not really sure why that is.
@voicetrocity ENFP to ISTP is a huge mistype. Those types are very, very different. One reason the mistype may not have been pointed out is that some people on personality cafe feel that it's rude to suggest you're mistyped.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Thank you for the salad and for joining the party.



pizzapie said:


> No, no no. Thank YOU for making all that tasty grilled cheese. It was delicious.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Why?



Doom said:


> Lets be honest; every time somebody brings up the attitude towards Sensors from Intuitive types the defense leans to the Sensor side, which people bring up a lot of good points towards Sensors but not so much on how come Intuitive people feel this way.


This right here is one example. Especially in real life even if the people aren't aware of type, because type related behavior usually sensor prone is favored given they make up the majority.



Doom said:


> when an S is frustrated with somebody they usually* attack their differences.* Intuitives being less common especially the IN types, they are seen as not only different but *susceptible to these attacks. The Intuitive may feel like they have to do all this stuff to be accepted where as the Sensor has to do nothing.*


If people have been attacked based off skin color, gender, orientation, personality is certainly no exception where there is greater "justification" to attack personality differences. The other characteristics are more involuntary, unchangeable but for the latter these "weirdo's should just get with the program."

N's, or especially INXXs respond like any other of these minorities and vent to the people who know how they feel the most, other INXX's.

And the place to find such a community is online. The problem with that however is the Sensor's online know about MBTI and are more tolerant of differences resulting in the attack of people who technically have never provoked you.



Johnston said:


> it could be some INxx overreacting to these "friendly", invalidating questions like "why are you so different?" "why can't you be like everyone else?" etc. I think those "sensor condescending" INxx's sometimes get hurt and attribute stupidy to all sensors.


It's an overreaction to attribute stupidity to all sensor's definitely, but there would be times perhaps when "some" women for example might just vent that all men are stupid. Whilst it would be again an overreaction, what is not an overreaction is the frustration one inevitably feels to the questions you mentioned above constantly being thrown in their face for expressing the slightest sign of individuality. And the answer maybe is, don't hang around these people, but it's bit hard when your types are rarer and even really introverted intuitives may yearn for social contact but feel like it comes with a set of conditions, one that is strictly repressive of their personality. Imagine being conflicted in the desire to express yourself but at the cost of less social contact, or vice-versa but rarely both at the same time.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

I think it's unfair of N's or INXX's to vent frustration online in an all encompassing manner that condemns all sensor's but at the same time even the MBTI experts and publishers have acknowledged S/N conflicts and in the real world where S's outnumber N's, N's are bound to feel the frustration more.

The cyber world is almost like an inverted mirror reflection of the real world where the conditions are reversed. N's outnumber S's and S's feel the heat.

The differences however is N's in real life get frustrated by S's because one or neither know about the MBTI and reactions of negativity i.e. "why are you such a weirdo, why can't you just be normal, why can't you just be like everyone else?" are common response to differences amongst one another. As I said, it's happened with race, gender, orientation, nationality, why not personality differences where it's easier to criticize because it's perceived as not so immutable, and a justifiable annoyance. "Race, gender, career, they're not what matter, it's the personality that counts." "And if the personality annoys you, just ignore them."

Here however, people obviously know about MBTI online, therefore the attacks by N's on S's come across like cheap shots where because one is enlightened about psychology more than your lay man in real life, it is expected that you know better.

I guess at the end of the day S/N differences do bring up real life conflicts where the latter feels they get the short end of the stick and those N's who do make it work usually do so by adopting a more S prone behavior which still isn't fulfilling. But by no means is the answer to persecute 8/16 types especially ones who know about MBTI, are more tolerant, and have never attacked you for perpetual bigotry.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I don't buy into the notion that intuitives like to visit the internet more than sensors do. I personally just think that's an introverted thing in general, even if they are cognitively extroverted. Why do people believe in such nonsense? Why would a sensor be less interested in the internet? I mean it's such a useful and amusing tool after all.

Whatever, stop being dumb people. Being bullied doesn't make you an intuitive, and neither does wasting your life on the internet as well. I need to learn that as much as everyone else. I think that most of the disagreements people have with each other, is not based on Sensor and Intuitives, but rather based on disagreements about things that actually fucking matter, like how much of a prick they are or not. After all, perception functions are just perception functions. Most of the conflicts in the history of time is between people not really understanding each other, and where everyone either sees the other side as unfeeling, evil, malicious, morally corrupt or moronic, not worthy of being taken serious, foolish.

Let's stop the player hating, and we all must check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. We must view ourselves as an effigy of our own egos. To stop being blinded by our need to appear superior, and to actually be superior in our souls. Labeling yourself with the letter N does not change anything about you. The letter "N" does not impress anyone other than beginners who have started out and don't understand, or the people who refuse to understand. To change yourself to "N" is to twist yourself into the image of something else, and to have let your desires of APPEARING superior get in the way of ACTUALLY BEING superior.

Love and Peace, and don't make me say this shit again. It's getting old, also this is just a general thing. If you aren't an idiot, then don't take this personally. Really, this kind of rant belongs more on 4chan then say here anyways. I really hate the typology topics in that place. *Sigh* They really do believe being an INTJ makes you fucking house or something. (who is an ENTP anyways)


----------



## voicetrocity (Mar 31, 2012)

HarpFluffy said:


> One reason the mistype may not have been pointed out is that some people on personality cafe feel that it's rude to suggest you're mistyped.


I can see that, it's just stange because I made 2 personality typing threads, where I *welcomed* differing opinions. I'm not truly angry or anything. I just found it odd, since there were people who had no qualms with presenting differing types for my enneagram type. _-shrugs-_ just one of those things. I'm simply pleased to have finally found my type. Also, I don't think it's as HUGE a mistype as one might think. I spent several months in the ENFP forum, have an ENFP friend; and even though we're almost completely different types, I was still able to find things in common.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

If you manage to have bias against sensors as a group without any differentiation.
It first and foremost demonstrates a complete lack of cognitive function knowledge.

I don't hate on types, but I know I'm pretty uncomfortable with some of the perspectives generated by Ti-Fe and Ne-Si


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

MissJordan said:


> Ns have a high propensity to be bored by Ss, and Ss have the same propensity towards Ns.
> 
> iNtuitivess tend to get a wiser/smarter-than-thou type of effect against Sensors
> *Sensors tend to get a "you're a weirdo, weirdo" mindset against iNtuitives.*
> ...


i dont see intuitives as weirdos. intuitives have an interesting perspective that I miss. i more often than not, really would like to cut to the chase and deal with things immediately when working through something, my imagination is more stimulated as i work along in the moment and i absorb much more information from the sensory experience than hearing about something, reading it second or through long dreary lectures.


as for the sensor hate, to acknowledge is to give power, even to things that dont really have any concrete base. i would not lose sleep over it. there really is no oppression going on, besides, do you really want to talk with someone who is lame enough to believe and think that way?


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

voicetrocity said:


> I can see that, it's just stange because I made 2 personality typing threads, where I *welcomed* differing opinions. I'm not truly angry or anything. I just found it odd, since there were people who had no qualms with presenting differing types for my enneagram type. _-shrugs-_ just one of those things. I'm simply pleased to have finally found my type. Also, I don't think it's as HUGE a mistype as one might think. I spent several months in the ENFP forum, have an ENFP friend; and even though we're almost completely different types, I was still able to find things in common.


I suggested another type for someone who started a "type me" thread, and she argued with me and tried to convince me I was wrong. I refused to argue and simply reminded her that she asked for other possibilities. It's almost like challenging someone's identity. "That's a nice outfit" sounds a lot better than "What you're wearing would look better on someone else. Here, you should wear this instead." It may be true, but I think a lot of people want to avoid the discomfort, especially if you were spending most of your time on the ENFP subforum, which is Affirmation City.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/127679-nts-experience-s-people.html

S's have a vague sense that an N is different from them but it is like they are color blind and hearing someone describe blue.
N's know that S's are different from them and we have a grasp of how they are different.
S's may get picked on in forums but N's get picked at in life by S's who try to force their S'ness on the N minority (until or unless we are famous).


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I've never observed Ns getting picked on in real life for being different. I also have never observed sensors trying to force their sensing preference on people preferring intuition. A few examples of this sort of thing would be helpful. Maybe I'm just oblivious.




Old Intern said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/127679-nts-experience-s-people.html
> 
> S's have a vague sense that an N is different from them but it is like they are color blind and hearing someone describe blue.
> N's know that S's are different from them and we have a grasp of how they are different.
> S's may get picked on in forums but N's get picked at in life by S's who try to force their S'ness on the N minority (until or unless we are famous).


----------



## Tetsonot (Nov 22, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> I've never observed Ns getting picked on in real life for being different. I also have never observed sensors trying to force their sensing preference on people preferring intuition. A few examples of this sort of thing would be helpful. Maybe I'm just oblivious.


I would also appreciate some examples. I have never seen it happen either and I like to think of myself as being pretty socially aware.


----------



## Iridescent (Dec 30, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/127679-nts-experience-s-people.html
> 
> S's have a vague sense that an N is different from them but it is like they are color blind and hearing someone describe blue.
> N's know that S's are different from them and we have a grasp of how they are different.
> S's may get picked on in forums but N's get picked at in life by S's who try to force their S'ness on the N minority (until or unless we are famous).


Bullshit. I'm an ISTP and I've been badly bullied for almost my entire life for being "different". Intuitives don't have a monopoly on intelligence and creativity, y'know.


----------



## Zilchopincho (May 8, 2012)

Anti-sensor bias? More like Sensory deprivation!!  Eh... Eh...


I'll leave now.


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

Impersonal logic rocks  In case of emergency, give me impersonal logic over illogical feeling any day.

(Screw the photo album, getcherass outta the burning building!)


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

Jorji said:


> Wait...when did you switch personality types? I forget what you were, but it wasn't INTJ...or am I trippin' on shrooms?


I have always been an evil INTJ I just hide it well:wink:.


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

Blacktide said:


> I have always been an evil INTJ I just hide it well:wink:.


Arrrrr...carry on, mate.


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> I do need to respond to this... first, the nagging part. No, all sensors are not nags. That is plain silly. For example, isxp types are, for sure, not nags. I can't speak for any other isxp type, but I can speak for myself. I don't have the attention span to nag someone about much of anything. I will admit to being too flaky for that.
> 
> Now, about the easy going nature of NT types. Um. I don't really see that. My dad was a very strong NT type. I felt that he did try to push his way of seeing the world onto me. When we discussed issues, he constantly told me that I was "taking it personally" or that I wasn't logical enough. OK. So that is true. But he rejected my positions because they weren't argued from the standpoint of impersonal logic. I felt that he was trying to push me to be more "logical" in his sort of way. But impersonal logic does nothing for me. I am more confident of my positions when I can tell stories and move from the specific to the general. But he and other NTs that I know did not like that.
> 
> As for the "normal" part... normal is a subjective term and what is normal from my perspective is not normal from yours. For that reason, I never use the term "normal" except as in "You don't have a fever. Your temperature is normal." That is pretty much it. I don't know why you would want to ask a sensor if you're normal (which is kind of boring, anyway).


 In my experience nagging seems to be an ESxJ trait that I don't really see as often in introverts. 

As far as sensors being "normal"... Well in a way they are. Around 75-85% of the population are sensors and normal is constituted by a majority. So I think sensors are pretty justified in seeing themselves as "normal", the problem arises when people view "not normal" as a bad/inferior way.


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

Blacktide said:


> In my experience nagging seems to be an ESxJ trait that I don't really see as often in introverts.


It's all relative. Introverts have a way of nagging that isn't readily recognized as such. My mother is an ISFJ, and she makes a lot of back-handed statements that a lot of people would never catch. Passive-Aggressive, much? Disclaimer: not bashing ISFJs...everyone is different. My mother, however, is a passive-aggressive control freak (who no longer gets the desired results, because we're all on to her tactics...and sick of trying [to no avail] to please her).


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

Jorji said:


> It's all relative. Introverts have a way of nagging that isn't readily recognized as such. My mother is an ISFJ, and she makes a lot of back-handed statements that a lot of people would never catch. Passive-Aggressive, much? Disclaimer: not bashing ISFJs...everyone is different. My mother, however, is a passive-aggressive control freak (who no longer gets the desired results, because we're all on to her tactics...and sick of trying [to no avail] to please her).


My personal favorite is the Jewish mother stereotype, "what do you want your poor mother to starve in her old age??"
"I see how it is, you hate me that's it isn't it, well maybe I will just curl up and die, you would like that wouldn't you?"
Passive aggressive at its best.


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

Blacktide said:


> My personal favorite is the Jewish mother stereotype, "what do you want your poor mother to starve in her old age??"
> "I see how it is, you hate me that's it isn't it, well maybe I will just curl up and die, you would like that wouldn't you?"
> Passive aggressive at its best.


LOL. Comical, isn't it? But hey, we all have our preferred survival techniques. SMH


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> But unimaginative? That is completely inaccurate


Uhmm yes I totally see your point. It wasn't my most well phrased post ever. Actually it even earned me an infraction(?!).

I guess what i meant was kind of an "intellectual" unimaginativeness ( ohh i know someones going to take that the wrong way but please cut me some slack ). I didn't mean that S-types are less creative or expressive or anything like that. Actually I'm sure most of the artists, musicians, painters and whatever that i enjoy are Ss. I just meant that compared to certain Ns some Ss tend to lack interest in intellectual abstraction and what if's to some extent. 


walking tourist said:


> But yes, I guess that sometimes my feeling preference does run away with me since I am Fi dominant and my thinking functions are kind of weak. And I do know that this can annoy a strong NT type.
> 
> Oddly enough, I see all of that impersonal logic as... unimaginative...


Again i earned an infraction for calling feelers illogical... But seriously that's exactly what lack of impersonal logic is. Obviously feelers are capable of impersonal logic, as thinkers are capable of emotional judgments, but it's not their knee-jerk reaction. Not at all. 

I know about your viewpoint on impersonal logic, it's pretty common... Me i feel the exact same way about people who say logic is unimaginative. I feel that people who say that are being even more unimaginative than me because they don't see the freedom of creativity and possibility that logic gives me. So yeah... The differences are quite remarkable!

Happy new year!


----------



## Azure_Sky (Oct 9, 2012)

I admire many of the traits sensors have. I think sensor bias is stupid. I think people who judge an entire group of people based on things like typology want to feel superior. For other people, they can be closed minded to anything different than themselves.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I have auditory processing disorder and sensory processing disorder and have been told all of my life that I am "abnormal," even "defective." It took me a long time to understand that "not normal" is OK. 
There has been discussion among SPs of our tendancy to be characterized as ADHD, which is not seen as "normal" in our society.



Blacktide said:


> As far as sensors being "normal"... Well in a way they are. Around 75-85% of the population are sensors and normal is constituted by a majority. So I think sensors are pretty justified in seeing themselves as "normal", the problem arises when people view "not normal" as a bad/inferior way.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Are you kidding?Aren't fourth functions not only shadow, but aspirations?I, for one, would love to be better at Se. James Bond-like antics >>>


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Thank you for clarifying your definition of intellectual unimaginativeness. I have gone crazy with the what if's but it's not the useful kind of what if imagination of an NF or an NT. Alas, I tend to perceive catastrophe when I start with the what if... so I avoid that... sigh...
As for the illogical part, for me, that may be true because of the perception of catastrophe. But I am aware of my own lack of logic and will even comment on it... oh self, that is completely illogical!!!!!
Happy New Year to you, too!!!



DiamondDays said:


> Uhmm yes I totally see your point. It wasn't my most well phrased post ever. Actually it even earned me an infraction(?!).
> 
> I guess what i meant was kind of an "intellectual" unimaginativeness ( ohh i know someones going to take that the wrong way but please cut me some slack ). I didn't mean that S-types are less creative or expressive or anything like that. Actually I'm sure most of the artists, musicians, painters and whatever that i enjoy are Ss. I just meant that compared to certain Ns some Ss tend to lack interest in intellectual abstraction and what if's to some extent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Your fourth function is the inferior. I'm not sure of aspiration. My Te is my inferior and... oh... it is so incredibly inferior. I wish that it would be more useful!!!!



FlightsOfFancy said:


> Are you kidding?Aren't fourth functions not only shadow, but aspirations?I, for one, would love to be better at Se. James Bond-like antics >>>


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> Your fourth function is the inferior. I'm not sure of aspiration. My Te is my inferior and... oh... it is so incredibly inferior. I wish that it would be more useful!!!!


I don't believe Jung mentioned it explicitly, but many others saw the inferior function as aspirational Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It makes sense no? You realize that you aren't good at something that is very useful and wish you can master it? Quite commonplace. And all functions are very useful in certain situations.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Oh, another one of those.

Here, let me state the obvious, on that no further discussion on this topic may be necessary ever again.

Rational Dominant folks (Ji/Je) are capable of experiencing the world concrete and abstract.

It's only Irrational Judging Dominant folks (Pi/Pe) that are tied to a single form of experiencing the world.

The latter however have the advantage to measure their intake by both, their thinking side, and feeling side.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Those tables are really interesting.
I agree that it is common to want to master something, especially if you are aware of your inadequacies. For me, it's the thinking functions. They are so weak. I've always been aware of that, even before I knew anything about personality types. As an example, when I went to college, I wrote all sorts of essays and research papers. I had no problem with writing and with telling a story. But analysis? Oh, that always felt so uncomfortable! I had to cover up my lack of analytical skill somehow. So I wrote beautiful essays, and many of the teachers liked them. Other teachers commented, "Great description, but where is the analysis?" Um. Well. There isn't any??? One teacher even made note of my "feverish imagination." But analytical skills... no there... but maybe schools could do a better job at teaching that sort of stuff... after a certain point, it just sort of seems to be expected... but not adequately taught...



FlightsOfFancy said:


> I don't believe Jung mentioned it explicitly, but many others saw the inferior function as aspirational Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It makes sense no? You realize that you aren't good at something that is very useful and wish you can master it? Quite commonplace. And all functions are very useful in certain situations.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Oh, another one of those.
> 
> Here, let me state the obvious, on that no further discussion on this topic may be necessary ever again.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to be rude but what? 

I kind of understand what you are saying but it seems reductive. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I don't mean to be rude but what?
> 
> I kind of understand what you are saying but it seems reductive. Can you elaborate?


Look at the function of any given type.

Judging Doms are set up like this:

Judging - Perceiving - Perceiving - Judging

Aux and Tert can presumably be swapped freely, as there's no real hierarchy aside from the dom and inferior.

Example of an ISTP:
Ti - Se - Ni - Fe

I can perceive concrete (Se) and abstract (Ni) but are bound to one-dimensional judging (Ti)

Reverse, for Irrational Dominant types:
Perceiving - Judging - Judging - Perceiving

Example of an INTJ:
Ni - Te - Fi - Se

You're one-dimensional in your information intake (Ni) but can judge the information by resorting to Te and Fi respectively.


----------



## gambit (Jun 24, 2010)

pizzapie said:


> What is so bad about being a sensor? I feel like I see this way too much, but people just posting/saying things like "Sensors don't think" or "if you're a sensor, you just see everything exactly how it is and nothing else." BS.
> 
> Also, one of my friends is in denial about being an ESFP all the while thinking she's an ENTJ. I mean, gurl, why do you not want to be a sensor? She's told me before that being an F is possible, but an S--heck no. WHY! Why do so many people seem to have a negative view of sensors?


This is funny in a satirical sense. From your point of view, she's in denial about being ESFP, but from hers, you're in denial about her being ENTJ.

Could you both just have different "beliefs"?


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

gambit said:


> This is funny in a satirical sense. From your point of view, she's in denial about being ESFP, but from hers, you're in denial about her being ENTJ.
> 
> Could you both just have different "beliefs"?


Possibly. Although I seriously doubt that she is an ENTJ--there is absolutely NO way her first function is Te. She's one of the most disorganized people I know.

And also I know someone who is a true ENTJ and they're so different it's not even funny. Although I am willing to hear her out on being an ENTJ because obviously she knows herself better than I do, but she's an extravert and so her most visible function is pretty easy to see and I'm fairly certain it's Se.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

So, I just read all 14 pages in one sitting...it's a lot to process, but I have a couple comments right now. 

1) I believe that this S vs N bias stems from the fact that there is far too much emphasis and weight placed on this dichotomy. The reason for this is still unclear to me. It is only one factor in the system, and not even the most important one at that. If anyone has read any Jung, they would know that Jung believed there were only two personality types, the extravert and the introvert. In light of this, the functions are just that...functions or tools or processes. I never encountered this S vs. N problem until I came to this forum. I always tested equally in Sensing and Intuition, but I always identified more with Sensing. IRL the problems that I have with people have nothing to do with S vs. N. As a dominant introverted Thinker, most of my problems are from my lack of understanding of Fe. I use both Se-Ni freely, and I have no trouble getting along with people who use Si-Ne. Like @Erbse said, only dominant Perceivers should have problems in this area, because the S/N pair is on the dominant-inferior axis. For these types, the opposite function will seem foreign to the other. 

2) Sensing cannot exist without Intuition, just as Thinking cannot exist without Feeling. They are two sides to the same coin, Perception, and it is foolish to try to separate them. It's like trying to understand the concept of light without first knowing what dark is. 

3) I don't believe in type rarity at all. I don't believe Intuitive types are rarer than Sensing types. If Sensing and Intuition exist in tandem, then how can one occur more frequently than the other? I also find the statistics to be suspect and unreliable. There is no way to find an appropriate and accurate sample size to test for this reliably. 

So the notion that Anti-Sensor bias exists online because there is Anti-Intuitive bias IRL is absurd. However, if there were actually "Anti-Intuitive bias" in the real world, it raises the question: how does that make Anti-Sensor bias on the internet right or justified? I must say, that is a very immature mentality. I worked with young children for 6 years, and it reminds me of a pair of four-year-olds trying to justify their bad behavior because the other kid "did it first". 

4) Intelligence has nothing to do with personality. IQ has nothing to do with personality. IQ is not necessarily an accurate representation of intelligence. Here's the thing about that. My mother is INFJ. Much of my love of learning and reading comes from her influence. She is so intelligent. She reads everything and remembers almost everything. If you were to ask her about English history, she could give 100 lectures on it from memory. She writes deep and moving poetry. She is an artist and very creative. My love and ability in art came because she encouraged it. But when she takes IQ tests, she comes out with an average score (around 118 give or take 5 points), because she's not good with math. So if someone were to judge her based solely on her IQ scores, they would miss the penetrating and insightful intellect that lies beneath.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I personally think the connection between Intuition and Intellectualism/Imagination is played up way too much, which is why there is such a heavy bias towards Intuition in places that discusses the MBTI. I don't even think the imagination of Sensors have much of a connection toward "Realistic" imagination, but I might just be kidding myself here.

Er...despite what the internet might want you to think, an IQ of 118 is actually above average. 100 is average, so it does reflect on her intelligence.


----------



## MissBlossom (Dec 22, 2010)

It's hard to be an iNtuitive in a Sensor world. Internet is an iNtuitive world so you'll have to live with the anti-Sensor bias. In real life you will hear an overwhelming number of Sensors being frustrated with iNtuitives. 
It's even: real life is anti-iNtuitive, internet is anti-Sensor.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

MissBlossom said:


> It's hard to be an iNtuitive in a Sensor world. Internet is an iNtuitive world so you'll have to live with the anti-Sensor bias. In real life you will hear an overwhelming number of Sensors being frustrated with iNtuitives.
> It's even: real life is anti-iNtuitive, internet is anti-Sensor.


Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right.


But three rights DO make a left :wink:.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Haven't we all had annoying experiences with sensors though ? I'm not saying that justifies hatred towards them, but I think most of people's opinions are formed from life experiences.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

I've noticed a lot of comments on this thread about how sensors (and SJs in particular, it seems) want to make everyone more like them. It is probably true that most SJs want everyone else to be more SJish, not because they're SJs, but because they're human. We all walk around with all sorts of ideas about how people should be, to some extent at least. All of us at some point have probably thought "if only everyone was more like me..." and, in fact, that's exactly what some of the posters on this thread are doing when they complain about the sensors in their lives. 

It's natural to get frustrated by people who are different, who can't seem to see our perspective. We all probably have types that we tend to clash with; there's no point in pretending we get on with every type equally just for the sake of being PC. There's a big difference, though, between saying that you tend to find certain types frustrating/difficult to get on with/you don't have much in common with them, and making huge sweeping generalisations about how all the qualities that you hate in people belong to one group. Having said that, you do have to be careful about typing people, even people you know well. It took me several months to type myself, and I'm still not certain that I'm typed correctly, so I wouldn't presume to know anyone's type for certain. 

I know for myself that I find the feeling perspective difficult to understand. I'm not saying I hate all feelers; there are plenty of people I like very much who I'm fairly sure are feelers. I'm just saying that when people express feeler-ish values it makes me think "why the hell would anyone think like that?" but I think it would be entirely natural for feelers to think the same about thinkers. This is coming from someone who has mistyped as both INFJ and INFP... partly because of stupid stereotypes again. According to the internet if you ever show the slightest flicker of emotion you cannot be a thinker.

As a final note, being an intuitive has its disadvantages. The other day I noticed myself completely losing confidence in my Si... now that's a problem an SJ would be unlikely to have.


----------



## Mayura (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't think Sensors are stupid at all. In fact, they can be quite smart people. However, I still have trouble communicating with Sensors as they are more in touch with things that their five senses can offer while I like making mind leaps a lot. This makes it difficult for me to convey my ideas to them as I would need to go to the lengths of citing various real life examples to connect them to my thoughts. It is often worse when my ideas are purely abstract. Frequently, the efforts of explaining are too massive that I give up talking completely. I would just nod, smile and then make an excuse to leave the room.

Hence, I do not think it's bias on either side. It's just our inability to connect with each other as the way we process our thoughts are so different. I'm pretty sure in real life, there are a lot of Sensors who are frustrated with me as they think I'm selfish because I backed off from teaching them or laying down the solutions. In truth, I just find it excruciatingly exhausting when I have to spell things from A to Z.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> Er...despite what the internet might want you to think, an IQ of 118 is actually above average. 100 is average, so it does reflect on her intelligence.


I didn't get the number or range off the Internet...it was from memory. I obviously remembered incorrectly. My point is that her IQ number was higher than that.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

MissBlossom said:


> It's hard to be an iNtuitive in a Sensor world. Internet is an iNtuitive world so you'll have to live with the anti-Sensor bias. In real life you will hear an overwhelming number of Sensors being frustrated with iNtuitives.
> It's even: real life is anti-iNtuitive, internet is anti-Sensor.


I don't think real life is anti-intuitive. Hell, I'd say it's more anti-introvert and anti-perceiver (I know a lot of things about the way schools and workplaces are set up don't work well for perceiving types) than anti-intuitive. The most anti-intuitive it's ever felt to me is that sometimes people don't want to talk about the same things as me, and it's difficult to find activities I can enjoy with my peers. SPs especially are the most likely to drop out of school, whereas a lot of NTs excel (and schooling is a huge predictor of job success later in life).

I think because internet statistics show that sensors are a majority of people, it's easy to test intuitive and think "A-ha, THIS is why I feel left out", assume people who "fit in" or don't understand you are sensors, and falsely attribute struggles in life to being intuitive when in fact it is probably only very loosely correlated with S vs N.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

I find it fascinating that so many intuitives and sensors say that they don't relate and stuff. Sensors getting irritated with intuitives and vice-versa. I've never found that a problem. I've never not been able to "get" my intuitive friends. My group is pretty even in terms of N and S. And I'm pretty sure most of us relate to each other. In a lot of ways, I struggle more with some of the sensors. So, it doesn't seems that our differences are anything to do with type.

But anyway. I find the sensor bias irritating. And with people saying that intuitives are like...left out? I don't think that has anything at all to do with N and S. It's only a few intuitives who push the stereotypes and bias...few spoiling for the many as always, just as a few sensors are stupid and basically create the stereotypes.

Shame really. As cool as the system is, it gets ruined by bias and stereotyping. The type descriptions are awful. I reckon cognitive functions are the best way to go. In every type, you use both sensing and intuition. It just happens that one is a preference, and the other requires a little more effort to learn to use. 

I read the most absurd article today, saying that intuitives can use sensing, but sensors don't use intuition. Of course that's just one idiot talking...but a heap of people agreed. I guess people just need to actually learn about the functions instead of just assuming based off the letters.

Everyone wants to be "unique" and different...and the assumption that sensors are more "normal" makes people who are "outsiders" to assume they are Ns. Plus...there are so many "stupid" people around these days, it's easy to assume they're all just "dumb sensors". No one wants to be associated with the mindless masses right?

But yeah. The whole bias is ridiculous cause in the end...we're all people.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I've noticed a lot of comments on this thread about how sensors (and SJs in particular, it seems) want to make everyone more like them. It is probably true that most SJs want everyone else to be more SJish, not because they're SJs, but because they're human. We all walk around with all sorts of ideas about how people should be, to some extent at least. All of us at some point have probably thought "if only everyone was more like me..." and, in fact, that's exactly what some of the posters on this thread are doing when they complain about the sensors in their lives.
> 
> As a final note, being an intuitive has its disadvantages. The other day I noticed myself completely losing confidence in my Si... now that's a problem an SJ would be unlikely to have.


I don't feel the need to make everybody else like me. I've honestly never felt that way, and I don't really see where that stereotype comes from. I don't like people to be like me because I like being different, even though statistics say ISTJs are among the most common types. I think we all like feeling like we're different, and so that's where a lot of this sensor bias comes from. Intuitives are less common, which makes people feel special.

Losing confidence in your Si? Holy moly I've got plenty to spare. Si overload going on here.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> I don't feel the need to make everybody else like me. I've honestly never felt that way, and I don't really see where that stereotype comes from. I don't like people to be like me because I like being different, even though statistics say ISTJs are among the most common types. I think we all like feeling like we're different, and so that's where a lot of this sensor bias comes from. Intuitives are less common, which makes people feel special.
> 
> Losing confidence in your Si? Holy moly I've got plenty to spare. Si overload going on here.


True. What I meant was that we probably all think our lives would be easier if everyone saw things from our perspective... or think "you would understand if you could only see things my way". I'm not saying we all want everyone to be exactly the same.

As for the Si thing... just imagine noticing that something isn't the way it was before or that something unusual has just happened, quite confidently commenting on it... and then thinking "was it really like that or did I just make that up?" That's what happens to me sometimes, and then at other times my Si can be incredibly sharp... I guess that's the nature of the tertiary function. I'm saying this to point out that having a tertiary/inferior sensing function, in other words, being an intuitive, has its own problems, so there's no point in glorifying it.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

BasketCase said:


> I read the most absurd article today, saying that intuitives can use sensing, but sensors don't use intuition. Of course that's just one idiot talking...but a heap of people agreed. I guess people just need to actually learn about the functions instead of just assuming based off the letters.


Ah, yes. I found another gem from my all time favourite typology website, from Portrait of an ESFJ


Personality Page said:


> Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don't have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions.


In this sentence they're comparing ESFJs with ENFJs, so I think what they mean is that ESFJs have less developed intuition. But "they don't have intuition" is an incredibly sloppy way of putting it.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

pizzapie said:


> I don't feel the need to make everybody else like me. I've honestly never felt that way, and I don't really see where that stereotype comes from.


For this particular stereotype, I think we have Keirsey's interpretation of SJ to thank for that. Most MBTI writers mix in Keirsey's temperaments, which is a really bad call.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

pizzapie said:


> What is so bad about being a sensor? I feel like I see this way too much, but people just posting/saying things like "Sensors don't think" or "if you're a sensor, you just see everything exactly how it is and nothing else." BS.
> 
> Also, one of my friends is in denial about being an ESFP all the while thinking she's an ENTJ. I mean, gurl, why do you not want to be a sensor? She's told me before that being an F is possible, but an S--heck no. WHY! Why do so many people seem to have a negative view of sensors?


It's fear. I worry that if someone takes everything in concretely, they won't see beyond my propensity to lose my keys at god awful times, and discover the true brain that lies within. :tongue:


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> I don't feel the need to make everybody else like me. I've honestly never felt that way, and I don't really see where that stereotype comes from. I don't like people to be like me because I like being different, even though statistics say ISTJs are among the most common types. I think we all like feeling like we're different, and so that's where a lot of this sensor bias comes from. Intuitives are less common, which makes people feel special.
> 
> Losing confidence in your Si? Holy moly I've got plenty to spare. Si overload going on here.


I don't know about you, but I have a close ISTJ gaming friend, and he is the epitome of the "thought police". It is hillarious to see us kick ass online, I tend to support his play while he wildly insults the enemy team for not accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (he is an atheist). :laughing:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> I've noticed you have some serious beef with sensors. Not all sensors are selfish assholes that ignore what you're saying when you talk about anything you're interested in.
> 
> S's are all different and so you can't lump them all to say that each one of their definitions of "normal" is the same. They're more likely to talk about tangible things, but then again, who isn't? You can talk about your thoughts and musings, but they all stem from tangible things.
> 
> ...


I did honestly mean for people to see some humor in this. I was asked for an example of S's picking on N's. I have read other threads here (that I can relate to) about how an SJ and NF's for that matter - seem to feel the need to fix people. Being an entp-ish type - out of the box thinking is "normal" for me. 

However, I have been present durring countless discussions in my life, where normal is lifted up as some kind of Holy Grail. In the context of those discussions normal is not defined as healthy. The only explanation I can find is that "normal" is to many people a matter of lining up in harmony with their dominant SI.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> I did honestly mean for people to see some humor in this. I was asked for an example of S's picking on N's. I have read other threads here (that I can relate to) about how an SJ and NF's for that matter - seem to feel the need to fix people. Being an entp-ish type - out of the box thinking is "normal" for me.
> 
> However, I have been present durring countless discussions in my life, where normal is lifted up as some kind of Holy Grail. In the context of those discussions normal is not defined as healthy. The only explanation I can find is that "normal" is to many people a matter of lining up in harmony with their dominant SI.


I don't really see where the humor was in it. It really just sounds like you've had a lot of bad experiences with people you determined to be sensors and so you started generalizing and voila.

I think it can be an SJ and NF thing to try and "fix" people but I've never done that and honestly never intend to. My INFJ best friend tries to fix me all the time into what she thinks I should be but I never give in because I don't want to be defined by her alone.

With me, my Si really only gets upset if normal is disrupted in my envoirnment--but NOT with people. People change all the time and expecting people to be the same way has proven itself unreliable, and so I don't try to fit people into boxes of normal because it doesn't work. I've observed behaviors from people that I characterize as normal behavior to them, but I don't consider some of my friends "normal" and the others "not normal."


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Personality Page said:


> Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don't have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions.


Well the intuition of an ESFJ isn't repressed, so I am pretty sure that they could summon up the Ne to help out with their Fe ego desires if it was deemed necessary. After all both ENFJs and ESFJs are Fe doms, and they will use both Intuition and Sensation to help out their Extroverted Feeling goals. They are more alike than ENFJs and INFJs are alike and the same goes for the Sensing preferring pair as well.

I think a lot of people place way too much value into the Auxilaries, whenever the Dominant and the suppressed inferior function is a lot more important to the overall character of a person and their ego. As is stated by the people who actually know what they are talking about.


----------

