# Why do you think theres such a weird bias against Sensors having depth?



## Mammon

Sabrah said:


> She has very strong feelings about Christianity. She feels that other religions are evil.
> Not saying that all Ns or even INFPs are like that, but that there are clucks in every bunch.


No. It just sounds like every other ignorant ten year old trying to conjure up unattained false wisdom.


----------



## Sabrah

Mammon said:


> No. It just sounds like every other ignorant ten year old trying to conjure up unattained false wisdom.


She is 19. I want to be hard on her, but cannot be as she has been brainwashed all her life. She is a well-meaning person, so I believe that with some gradual information she will change her views and become more open-minded.


----------



## Sabrah

Those ideas instill users with a sense of superiority. Even the self-proclaimed most logical types do this. 

I think Ns may have a little more trouble balancing out their thoughts/perceptions and actual tangible evidence about things (but that is just a theory). I know both Sensors and INtuitives, and they experience different forms of depth.

For example, INFJs hide their thoughts/feelings behind a superficial facial exterior. ISFJs, hide depth under an alert behavioral exterior.

*It cannot be said that one is deeper than the other. *

What frustrates me is that many users are not even willing to learn about Sensing types. Many of them refuse to change their beliefs or stereotypes on sensors even if they are presented with new information. It is even more ironic, because those exact users call sensors "traditional" or "subservient," yet they are very close-minded. 

Many people are bad at typing others. Whenever people on here try to type me, they are always wrong. I had users claim that I was more like an INTJ or INTP than an ISTJ. They may have thought that my behavior did not conform enough to ISTJ stereotypes. I am certain of my type. In addition, users on typing threads often type people on a basis of mundane behaviors rather than a complex analysis of behavior, responses, and thought processes. Musicians are rarely typed as Sensing, and actors are rarely typed as Intuitive.


----------



## StunnedFox

Sabrah said:


> What frustrates me is that many users are not even willing to learn about Sensing types. Many of them refuse to change their beliefs or stereotypes on sensors even if they are presented with new information. It is even more ironic, because those exact users call sensors "traditional" or "subservient," yet they are very close-minded.
> 
> Many people are bad at typing others. Whenever people on here try to type me, they are always wrong. I had users claim that I was more like an INTJ or INTP than an ISTJ. They may have thought that my behavior did not conform enough to ISTJ stereotypes. I am certain of my type. In addition, users on typing threads often type people on a basis of mundane behaviors rather than a complex analysis of behavior, responses, and thought processes. Musicians are rarely typed as Sensing, and actors are rarely typed as Intuitive.


I have to agree - it's quite bizarre to see people perpetually complaining of closed-mindedness in sensors, when they themselves appear not to be open-minded enough to reconsider their rather general and flawed assertions.

I don't understand the confidence so many posters on this site seem to have in their own "typing" abilities - as you say, so much of their "analysis" seems to boil down to simplistic readings of a person, "you're an Fe user because you're being polite" or "you're an intuitive because you question a lot", that sort of thing. Why anyone presumes they know a person better than the person does themselves, particularly off the basis of nothing more than a brief observation or interaction, is beyond me.

I spent a while trying to discern my best-fit type (having typed as an ISTJ before; I think I've got it right at the moment with INTP, but it's hard ever to be sure), and as part of that process started a few different "type me" threads on here. I've had no less than _nine_ different types suggested for me (all INs, all STs, and ENTJ), yet despite the diverse range of opinions, the majority of people making suggestions had a bizarrely high degree of confidence in their own particular conclusions, even as those conclusions rested on fairly flimsy arguments when I asked for substantiation. It's a phenomenon I still struggle to understand - like I said, I don't know why people presume such an intimate knowledge of another's personality on the basis of such limited information...


----------



## AliceKettle

Because when people think of sensor, the word in the moment, and what you see is what you get comes to mind. 
However, as sensors mature they often learn and personally experience how to be and how important it is to be analytical, deep, future-oriented, and abstract. For instance, I used to view the people's actions and decisions in terms of black and white when I was a little girl, but throughout my mid-late teens my tertiary Ni's really been getting developed. I'm more experienced I understand that no one is ever totally good or totally evil. They are shades of gray, and that's something I look for in people that I talk to. I get irritated by the goody-two shoes who refuses to ever bend or break the rules just as much as I hate the soulless demon who does what is wrong just because he wants to for the pleasure of it. Still, I look deeply at good guys, heroes, anti-heroes criminals, bad guys, and villains, and ask myself why they are commiting the crime. Is it because someone wronged the villain in their past? Is it because the villain has lost everything that is important and beloved to him that he feels that all that is left is evil? Is the anti-hero trying to make a change for the better, but has trouble carrying it out with conventional morals, so he has to resort to unconventional morals? Are they trying to change for the better?
I'm an ISFP. I mistyped as an INFP for a while partiall because I, like many of the mistyped sensors on PC, felt the strongly negative bias against sensors, and really wanted to be Ne or Ni dominant instead of Se or Si dominant. Even personality websites with Jung tests have a hidden bias against sensors too, and it makes you feel more ideal to be an analytical, forward-thinking, idealistic, mentally quick, and theory is that many of the Ne and Ni dominant types on PC are actually mistyped Si's and Se's, who are either mistaken or want their strongly tertiary/shadow functions of Ne and/or Ni functions to be their dominant function. After all, intuitives are supposed to be far less common than sensors, and yet there are so many more intuitives than sensors on PC.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca

All I am saying is that SJs are the devil and should be killed at birth because they make too many useless babies. What's so bad about that?


----------



## Sman

put down the crack pipe champ


----------



## XZ9

Is anybody actually going to quantify the word depth and thus proceed to debate on whether it's actually true or not? It appears a rather vague word with no specify meaning. Of course three pages in and nobody bothered to debate on the word depth or not. You guys need to debate on terms. All the others posts went off tangent.


----------



## Daniel_James_Maher

Good point @Great_Thinker so here's a Google definition to get the ball rolling:



complexity and profundity of thought.
"the book has unexpected depth"

synonyms:profoundness, profundity, deepness, wisdom, understanding,intelligence, sagacity, discernment, perceptiveness, penetration,perspicuity, insight, awareness, intuition, astuteness, acumen,shrewdness, acuity; More











antonyms:shallowness, triviality


----------



## Val37

Everyone is intuitive, but in different measures. And _everyone_ is a sensor.

Dominate Sensors gather and filter their info first via the 5 senses, and from there start to dive deeper.

Dominant Intuitives, I think, speculate first (gathering thoughts/ideas from the black abyss, and thus drawing weird attention to themselves if shared too soon) and then look for concrete evidence to back up their gut instincts...and sometimes they can't :frustrating:

Neither one is better. I just look at N and S as one's preference in how he/she collects and collates info.

BTW, I was mistyped as an ISFP at first, and I thought it was sooooo cool! I got to wear the "they have an infectious charm" label for a good two days! Until my sister told me to take it again because it didn't sound like me at all! How dare she question my charm? 

Then I got INFP, also known as the tortured soul, and she was like, "that's you!" My deepest recesses were written in plain view all over the internet :sad:

So yeah, mistyping can happen. (I took the 3 diff tests trying to replicate the ISFP to no avail.)


----------



## Val37

Sabrah said:


> INFP sister who does not knows little about MBTI: "I do not want to take that math class. That professor is a Muslim."
> Me: "He is from India. It is possible that he is Muslim, but it is more likely that he is a Hindu. Anyway, it should not matter. He is teaching math, not his religion. I do not know why you are so bigoted."
> INFP: "No. You just don't get it because you are a sensor."
> Me: ......
> INFPs: "Sensors just do not realize anything."
> 
> An actual conversation I've had.


Wow, I'm speechless, yet chuckling. I'm with nix1, that's just rude...and baffling.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

i wonder how weird the bias is =o


----------



## OutOfThisWorld

Probably because Sensors have a tendency to hide their depth quite well or is unwilling/hesitant to disclose their inner world, especially the Si-dom users. What people are left with is the shallow, outer masks used to protect the squishy inner workings of a Sensor.


----------



## Zamyatin

Partly because the terms intuition and sensing are stupid, a relic of Jung that should have been decommissioned a long time ago. Being relatively undefined terms, they force anybody who is getting into typology to look to others in the community to define those terms, and that's why the whole conservative Si/irresponsible Se thing survives.

Replace them with "concrete" and "abstract", and introduce them to a new crowd, and you'd see the bias die down pretty quickly, as the existing biases would die with this typology community, and the new terms would need minimal definition preventing new biases from arising.


----------



## Dastan

The word sensor is taken too literally. Especially when talking about functions, not only preferences, some people tend to think that types really lack their lower functions and only consist of their first two functions and nothing else.

The way people describe and understand a sensor is often unrealistic and exaggerated. The definition that a sensor is focused primarily on sense perception might only be true in this special sense: focused primarily on sense perception in relation to the other kind of perception (intuition), in relation to other people.

Because in general, I can't imagine someone being 'primarily focused on his senses', except maybe painters or meditation experts or something like that who have learned this.

I mean people focus on family, work, cars, fun, travel etc. and none of these are pure sensory data. Sensory data are mostly cues for further ideas, thoughts, actions. Aside from some special activities or moments of emergency I cannot think of any situation in which somebody is just sensing.

So given that even a sensor is not really in the world of senses all the time it doesn't make much sense to draw some line and say more than this is to deep for a sensor...

Sensors are too much defined by their sensing. But they should also be defined by their ideas, thoughts etc. they still have these things. Even though their  intuition is supposed to be low or inferior one cannot claim that for example an increased attention on sensory data won't result in good ideas/intuitions in many situations.


----------



## Grandalf

There's STILL typism in 2015?? :shocked:

Do all those "forum rules" even work???


----------



## tanstaafl28

There isn't one.


----------



## Cesspool

One reason:
Kiersey.


----------



## Cesspool

Sabrah said:


> She has very strong feelings about Christianity. She feels that other religions are evil.
> Not saying that all Ns or even INFPs are like that, but that there are clucks in every bunch.


Sooooooo... She's stupid? 
I would stop loving her, personally.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

What is depth? lol


----------

