# Intution tied to intelligence.



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sick said:


> There was an interesting study that was done on MBTI and income. ENTJs came out the richest and INFPs the poorest.
> 
> Anyway, if that study is accurate (big if, I have no idea of the sample size) then there's not much of correlation between socioeconomic status and iNtuition, since N types were in both the top spot and the bottom.
> 
> ...


And yet posters will insist that N's are more intelligent and more successful because of studies as shitty as this one. Are people able to look at studies critically and tell them apart? There aren't any good MBTI studies, but they'll keep coming back to them anyway because that's all they have to reassure themselves that they are smarter than the population around them. God forbid they should be lumped in with the rest of the population. 

Assuming that seeing connections and patterns means that you actually see REAL connections and patterns. Intelligent people will see connections and patterns and might be right. How many intuitives in this discussion looked like morons using ANECDOTES to disprove statistics. All they had to do was critically assess the MBTI studies themselves without looking foolish enough to fall back on anecdotes.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> More anecdotes.
> 
> 
> Why do people do this? It's like when there's a another study on breastmilk, 80 formula feeding mothers show up to insist that their formula fed child grew up healthy. Err... yeah. So? Do you understand how statistics work at all?


No need to get defensive, I just noticed that a lot of sites say that the Thinkers are more common in men then women in fact I saw that ESTP is more common in men than women. This maybe because evolution has favored women to be feelers rather then thinkers.


----------



## Antiloop (Feb 10, 2014)

In-tuh-resting stuff. I had also heard that intuition came come from not being too engaged by others. Or was that introversy? I don't remember. I

Anyway, I can see how some may see intuits as more intelligent, or higher class. I havn't made the same observation, but now that somebody's mentioned it, maybe I will. We shall see. It doesn't fit in too well for me and the people in my surrounding. I know you don't care or want to hear about my surronding, but I said it anyway.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

So, you point some studies showing correlation between intuition and intelligence, and some other studies for SES and intelligence, then say intuiation must be correlated with SES as well if the first statement is accepted? 

umm, *WHY* ? this isnt like maths, where if a&b and a&c then b&c as well.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> So, you point some studies showing correlation between intuition and intelligence, and some other studies for SES and intelligence, then say intuiation must be correlated with SES as well if the first statement is accepted?
> 
> umm, *WHY* ? this isnt like maths, where if a&b and a&c then b&c as well.


People are drawing conclusions from flawed studies, ie intuitives are smarter. Why not draw my own conclusions equally as haphazardly as them? They always come back to the tired argument that they have "evidence" and don't give a crap how flimsy it is because 'we don't have anything better'. Arguing over the intelligence plus intuitives studies feels like this:






Yes, I know they have studies that show intuitives have higher IQ. No, the studies aren't concrete evidence and are so weak that they should be disregarded. If we're using these studies, why not start using studies from Cosmopolitan next? If you look at the NT subforums most are 100% convinced of their intellectual superiority. They don't need any solid facts or evidence. Simply being called "the Intellectuals" is enough for them to conclude that they are smarter and suffer the population around them. They got a label they wanted and are sprinting off with it. Because they see the "big picture" and obviously no one else can see the big picture like they do. To a lessor degree the same is true on the NF subforums. You can go look if you don't believe me. Is that the real draw to MBTI for some? The "right" to claim intellectual superiority? 

Never mind facts. Never mind examining the quality of the studies they boast. Some claim high IQ's but reading their posts I have to wonder about the quality of the IQ tests they took. Some will pop up saying that these people are probably mistyped. The people from the MBTI studies are equally as likely to be mistyped. Just because everyone says it is so, doesn't make it so. Solid evidence makes it so. I find patterns and connections in day to day life. I don't presume that these patterns and connections prove anything. I see possible correlations that are as likely to be coincidence. How anyone can 'determine' that the patterns they see are in fact real because they 'believe' it and then expect me to accept they're automatically smarter than those around them is preposterous.

On blind faith, they are accepting that intuitives are more intelligent. You know, because nearly everyone in the MBTI community says so, it must be true. I'm not the most intelligent person around, but this is glaringly illogical. If intuitives are so smart, why are so many just accepting this on face value? I might understand if they were claiming a reasonable difference in intelligence with most types intelligence overlapping. But they're claiming intuitives pretty much across the board have higher IQ's and they do it with unquestioning authority. It's staggers the mind that so few question this belief. Where are these critical thinking skills?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> No need to get defensive, I just noticed that a lot of sites say that the Thinkers are more common in men then women in fact I saw that ESTP is more common in men than women. This maybe because evolution has favored women to be feelers rather then thinkers.


Not meant as an attack, just getting impatient with more anecdotes. 

I mean, we can derail this thread on thinking women if you want. Have at it.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> Not meant as an attack, just getting impatient with more anecdotes.
> 
> I mean, we can derail this thread on thinking women if you want. Have at it.


Why are you getting impatient? It's fine being a thinking type girl. I was merely inputting my observations. Also you said you think us NT's think we are smarter then Sensors, my dad was a sensor an ESTP in fact and I am convinced he was a smart man, on the higher end of the IQ scale 125-135. You are right a lot of anecdotal information in this thread.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> Why are you getting impatient? It's fine being a thinking type girl. I was merely inputting my observations. Also you said you think us NT's think we are smarter then Sensors, my dad was a sensor an ESTP in fact and I am convinced he was a smart man, on the higher end of the IQ scale 125-135. You are right a lot of anecdotal information in this thread.


I don't think all NT's think they are smarter than Sensors. I tried to make that clear in my posts, but apparently not clear enough. My problem is that those who do think so going by number of posts would be well over half their numbers.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> On blind faith, they are accepting that intuitives are more intelligent. You know, because nearly everyone in the MBTI community says so, it must be true. I'm not the most intelligent person around, but this is glaringly illogical. If intuitives are so smart, why are so many just accepting this on face value? I might understand if they were claiming a reasonable difference in intelligence with most types intelligence overlapping. But they're claiming intuitives pretty much across the board have higher IQ's and they do it with unquestioning authority. It's staggers the mind that so few question this belief. Where are these critical thinking skills?


It's a blatant example of the ecological fallacy - what's (potentially) true on the basis of data about the whole group must therefore be true for all of those within it. When you add in that the group data is difficult to confirm (both because of the disputability of the tests and questions over the definition of "intelligence"), there's very little basis for it all. I do think that those making these claims of "across-the-board" intelligence have been swayed somewhat by the favourable labels their type/group of types receive/s: rational, intellectual, scientist, thinker, etc. Whether there is a trend towards intelligence in the group is irrelevant, and confers nothing on the individual; the fact that so many miss something so obvious, or by choice ignore it, is staggering.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I imagine a big problem is the application to functions.
People reduce Sensing to meaning sensory, feeling to emotions, thinking to objective analysis. Too much focus on the words as they mean in general language but not as they exist within their theoretical structure.
So that's why I imagine people thinking of Se types as being to people who are hedonistic and go as far as to somehow thinking it means they haven't got a brain between their shoulders.

To me this is just an over extension of MBTI that it can't account for, at it's best it forms a structure of general thinking processes but other than that it's not providing anything else. It's forcing MBTI's structure to fit reality and misses vital parts that make up our humanity.
So anyone using their type to justify their IQ by type is having a wank really, because one should justify their intelligence by the criteria of what intelligence is which is sketchy in itself. 
It seems pretty illogical for someone to justify themselves based on their type, or i'm so smart because i'm an INTX,i'm so empathetic because i'm a IXFX. It's too far detached from more significant variables. I don't see an inherent ability in intuitives to increase one's socioeconomic status other than the individual's opportunity own tenacity or focus.
Though intelligence is generally associated with better socioeconomic status i'm sure there's plenty of smart people who aren't doing too well for themselves regardless, reality doesn't simply reward having a high IQ though it certainly is useful overall.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

My sister (I'm fairly sure) is an ISTP. She had such high marks in school that she graduated from highschool a year early and throughout college she was always the within the top two in all her classes. She likes to change around jobs a lot and never sticks to one thing, but she is an expert in everything she does. She is a take action and do it yourself sort of person.

My INTP brother did rather well in school especially in maths, but he failed in English and grammar because he didn't like it. He also wanted to become an opera singer but never was good enough for that. When he did get a job that suited him he stuck with it and has been THE statustician for a large hospital for nearly two decades now. He failed his driver's test twice before he got his license when he turned 17... so... you know... all I have to do is look at my family and see that general intelligence doesn't have to do with being intuitive or sensor.

My other brother is an ENFJ and he has finally found a job that suits him now that he is in his 50s as a teacher. He was neither the top in his classes and took an extra year to get his bachelor's degree at University.

I lived in the deaf community in DC at Galleudet University. There was a girl there who was from a farm whom I think is an INFP. She didn't use her voice and she lived in a fantasy world in her head most of the time. She and I clicked rather easily because of the whole NF fantasy thang. I ended up going there because of my good friend I grew up with went to Gally University and she was extremely intelligent and wanted to become a history teacher. She is an ESFJ and was on the dean's list every year at Gally.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

I'm an ISTP Aspie.

I remember being years ahead of my peers in school. I remember being sent to some college to take a test that was really just a bunch of fill-in-the-blank analogies and being told I had genius-level intellect. I don't know if I ever got a number, but if I did, I don't remember. I did since learn that "genius" means minimum of 130.

Throughout my life, I've noticed that compared to the vast majority of people I meet, I have a distinct advantage in most forms of academia. I work a mundane job at a family-owned grocery/liquor store/butcher shop/deli, and several coworkers have told me that I am "too smart to be working here". Mostly I just remember a lot of facts, have an easy time understanding things, and have a very strong urge to learn *everything* about new subjects, and am capable of spewing vast amounts of information about things.

And perhaps if the world were all academia, it would be true. If that is the sole criteria for intelligence, then maybe I am a genius.

But I also remember my mother spending years and years to get me to be able to interact with people on "normal" terms. Basic social skills that are taken for granted still frequently elude me.

I remember being constantly told that I am too literal. I was ecstatic when I finally grasped the concept of figures of speech. Even today, despite having had my Ni really developed by being very close to an INFJ, my sense of symbolism and subtlety is so esoteric that most of the time, it fails to communicate anything.

I am a musician with no sense of creativity. It is a huge disappointment to me.

The lack of these three things makes me wonder if a genius may still be clueless.

There are many forms of intelligence. I come from a upper-middle class family and could very easily utilize the kind of intelligence with which I am strongest to continue that thread. But that is not important to me.

I have learned that judging someone by their apparent "intelligence" isn't important. I notice what people value. What specifics things they are good at and what they are not good at. So I am just as convinced that my ESFJ coworker's practical and people-oriented intelligences are just as significant and useful as whatever the hell I have.

The fact that the world chooses to relegate her intelligences to generally menial roles doesn't mean they are any less valid, important, or significant.

This post has been rather rambling and I do not know exactly how much it connects to the topic at hand, but I thought it would contain at least one relevant observation.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> I don't think all NT's think they are smarter than Sensors. I tried to make that clear in my posts, but apparently not clear enough. My problem is that those who do think so going by number of posts would be well over half their numbers.


"If you look at the NT subforums most are 100% convinced of their intellectual superiority"


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> "If you look at the NT subforums* most* are 100% convinced of their intellectual superiority"


In bold, MOST. Not all. Most.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Firstly, I like your argument about intuition and socioeconomic status...but I know there are exceptions to that. I was raised in the "lower working class"...okay...poverty class a lot of the time. Also, people who were abused do not always become "more sensing"...actually, they can also cope in opposite ways. Musicians and mathematicians (let's just say, the ones who like theory a lot) can come from backgrounds of labor, little education, and a life requiring "street smarts," but it is rarer because they haven't received as much exposure to those disciplines as someone rich.

I have a problem with the idea of "intelligence" being measured. Intelligence has become such a broad term that it doesn't (and rightfully so) mean what it used to. And I do agree with the idea of multiple intelligences. 

I think people that either put themselves above others or below them suffer from feelings of inferiority. That is, they either have to put others below them to feel equal, or they have to demote themselves because they do not feel equal.

People like to think of jocks as stupid because they probably wouldn't have been treated as shitty in high school if they were a popular jock. And because they felt as if they were valued as less because of their deficiency in sensing. In my experience, jealousy is a motivator to cultivate new skills or accept repressed parts of yourself. So...if you look at the stacking of say, an INTJ or an INFJ...Se is their "inferior" function. Feelings of inferiority may be associated with Se. In an ESTP, the "inferior" is Ni. So feelings of inferiority might be associated with that. 

I work with children, and I see huge personality differences even when they are two or three years old. I don't think they can be socialized out of their personalities...but a lot can happen to a person between the ages of three and 23...when their brains are done developing. I don't think some would turn from intuitives to sensors or thinkers to feelers...but some will be in environments that nurture their dominant functions whereas others will not. The higher class can nurture all of the functions better if they choose to allocate resources to that.

Are you still deaf monemi?


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> In bold, MOST. Not all. Most.


I think all T types come off as a bit arrogant to each other *Intuitive's aren't the only ones.*


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> I think all T types come off as a bit arrogant to each other *Intuitive's aren't the only ones.*


A bit arrogant to each other or to you?


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

I usually find that xSTx types don't give a fuck about whether or not they're more intelligent than anyone else, outside of general frustration at people who don't operate by our sense of logic.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> A bit arrogant to each other or to you?


To each other mainly. Why do you take all my comments so personally, I am trying to be generalized.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

AST said:


> I usually find that xSTx types don't give a fuck about whether or not they're more intelligent than anyone else, outside of general frustration at people who don't operate by our sense of logic.



So true, I can vouch for this. My brother is an ST and he's not fussed about who's smarter, but if I do something a different way to him, he will start to notice and I can tell he's getting pissed off (usually efficiency is his main concern). That's only if it involves him or concerns him in any way though.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

Well, first you say that xxTx types in general come off as arrogant and that it is not just xNxx types. Yet, you agree that xSTx types are exempt from this. So, you have to be referring to NT types.

However, if the xxTx factor is the cause of this arrogance, then why are xSTx exempt?

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> To each other mainly. Why do you take all my comments so personally, I am trying to be generalized.


I'm not. You just seem to hint at things in your posts without coming right out and saying it. I'm not going to make guesses at your meaning when it's so much easier to be frank with you. 

I can't speak as to how arrogant T's are to each other without anecdotes.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but from what I have read no one's quite mentioned the idea that I'm going to bring up.


I do think SES has the biggest impact in terms of things like academic performance, higher education, learning, and career status. 


However, I think that SES has a bigger impact with sensors (at least SJs) than it does with intuitives.


Here's what I mean. SJs have Si in one of their top two spots. Si users tend to prefer consistency and have a harder time breaking away from experiences that they had when they were younger. They tend to hold on to those kinds of experiences.

(I don't know how this works with SPs, so I can't comment on them).

For Ns...I think because of their idealism, they tend to want to break away from something if they don't view it as right or perfect for them.


So I think if an S comes from a disadvantaged situation where learning is not encouraged...they're not as likely to go out and learn themselves. An SJ in particular would tend to still have the mentality they were taught from their youth. They may not believe that they there's any way to get out of it. So, they focus on working hard in the situation that they're in.

Again, it's hard for me to comment on SPs...but I get the impression that even though they're more adaptable, they might still be more likely to stay in the same income bracket at least.



Now, if an SJ grows up in a positive environment with economic advantages....then they're more likely to do well academically because that's what they were taught as kids. They're more likely to fit into the results that their SES would predict.


So in terms of the studies that monemi posted, for SJs they're going to be more true. SES will be a very large indicator for SJs. And since SJs make up such a large part of society, that gets reflected in the study.



For Ns....they may be more likely to break away from their past experiences. I don't think NTs are born more intelligent...but I do think they have a thirst for abstract knowledge in a way that Ss don't. (Just like how Ss have a thirst for sensory experiences in a way that NTs don't). With NFs, I think it's similar, but the knowledge is more aimed at social areas.


So I think Ns naturally want to be able to learn as much as they can about ideas just because they have a natural preference to do so. They want to look at the big picture and big ideas....they want new ideas, multiple perspectives, adaptive mindsets...all of that.


So, because of that, I think an N will still have that desire to learn regardless of their background. They will also be more idealistic and less likely to be satisfied living the same life their whole lives.


So, SES may not be as big of an indicator for Ns.


Now, of course I'm speaking generally with all of this. Certainly there are Ss who can break past their SES and Ns who don't. But if we're talking on a general level, I would guess it's more likely to happen with Ns.




For me, I think it's all about figuring out what different types' natural strengths are and recognizing that....but not letting it limit others. 


I can't say for sure the idea of Ns being "more intelligent" in general is true. Using a certain definition of intelligence I'm sure it is (that definition aligning more with Ns' natural strengths). If it is true, I don't have a problem with an N thinking it. The problem I have is when they think their natural area of strength is more important than the areas of natural strength of an S.

To me, Ne and Si are a good example of this. Ne is great at looking at a lot of new ideas, brainstorming, and coming up with new ways to solve problems. However, it's not good at staying focused on something and completing it...it usually gets bored and wants to move on to another idea. Si is the opposite...it has a hard time creating new ideas, but it's great at getting all of the details right and sticking with something until it's completed fully.

It's good for Ne users and Si users to recognize the strengths that the other has...it's stupid to say "All Ne users can do what all Si users can just as well (and vice versa)." But it doesn't mean that every Ne user can't do Si things as well as every Si user. 

Basically, it's about recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses, recognizing the different strengths and weaknesses of others, and working together to minimize your own weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths of others.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

meltedsorbet said:


> Are you still deaf monemi?


Hard of hearing. I miss some frequencies and volume can be an issue for me. I miss a lot without my hearing aids for volume. I wear my hair so that it covers them.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> I'm not. You just seem to hint at things in your posts without coming right out and saying it. I'm not going to make guesses at your meaning when it's so much easier to be frank with you.
> 
> I can't speak as to how arrogant T's are to each other without anecdotes.


Hint things that defame you I assume? I don't post things with my primary goal to defame site members.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

@teddy564339 You meander a lot, but I'll try to answer you. The stereotypes of strengths for Sensors are bullshit. I can use a bunch of anecdotes, but I'm sure a bunch of other people can come on here and give opposing anecdotes. Many of the recommended careers for for sensors are SHIT compared to what they suggest for intuitives. You might be satisfied with being offered breadcrumbs, but I'm not. 

Builders, police officer, salesmen... Colour me unimpressed. Enough platitudes that sensors are seen as equal but different. So much like women have been seen as equal but different.  Sensors are not seen as equals by most of the MBTI community. You don't care. Fine. But I'm not satisfied with the status quo as is. What I see happening as is, is bullshit. My strengths are not recognized. What I see happening is N seeing themselves as N+S=superhero and S's as S-N=short bus people. I'm using humour to illustrate my point, but it's still true.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> Hint things that defame you I assume? I don't post things with my primary goal to defame site members.


I don't know what the purpose of your hints are. I don't know what you're hinting at. That's why I'm asking point blank questions.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

monemi said:


> @_teddy564339_ You meander a lot, but I'll try to answer you. The stereotypes of strengths for Sensors are bullshit. I can use a bunch of anecdotes, but I'm sure a bunch of other people can come on here and give opposing anecdotes. Many of the recommended careers for for sensors are SHIT compared to what they suggest for intuitives. You might be satisfied with being offered breadcrumbs, but I'm not.
> 
> Builders, police officer, salesmen... Colour me unimpressed. Enough platitudes that sensors are seen as equal but different. So much like women have been seen as equal but different.  Sensors are not seen as equals by most of the MBTI community. You don't care. Fine. But I'm not satisfied with the status quo as is. What I see happening as is, is bullshit. My strengths are not recognized. What I see happening is N seeing themselves as N+S=superhero and S's as S-N=short bus people. I'm using humour to illustrate my point, but it's still true.



Well, I can tell we disagree a good bit here, so I won't go into a lot of it since it would get us way off track.


But basically...if someone is convinced that they're born superior to others and that that's what their MBTI letters actually mean...I view it as a waste of my time to even talk to them. As you mentioned, maybe that's just a difference between us...that's the kind of conflict that I don't care to put any time or energy into. That's not why I come to PerC.

I prefer to focus on talking to the members that I believe have something worthwhile to offer. I've talked to plenty of Ns who see their own limitations and do value "S traits". Very rarely have I interacted with an N who viewed me as unintelligent, and I think any who would do so probably hasn't looked at any of my past posts, since they give plenty of evidence for it.

But I also don't spend a lot of time perusing through the N forums and posting on them, either. Maybe that's part of the reason you have more posts than I do (and in a much shorter amount of time). I can see you value attacking the issue head on, and I can respect that. But you're right...for me, I don't care about convincing someone who's using the MBTI for the wrong reasons to re-examine it unless I believe they have a willingness to do so.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> @teddy564339 You meander a lot, but I'll try to answer you. The stereotypes of strengths for Sensors are bullshit. I can use a bunch of anecdotes, but I'm sure a bunch of other people can come on here and give opposing anecdotes. Many of the recommended careers for for sensors are SHIT compared to what they suggest for intuitives. You might be satisfied with being offered breadcrumbs, but I'm not.
> 
> Builders, police officer, salesmen... Colour me unimpressed. Enough platitudes that sensors are seen as equal but different. So much like women have been seen as equal but different.  Sensors are not seen as equals by most of the MBTI community. You don't care. Fine. But I'm not satisfied with the status quo as is. What I see happening as is, is bullshit. My strengths are not recognized. What I see happening is N seeing themselves as N+S=superhero and S's as S-N=short bus people. I'm using humour to illustrate my point, but it's still true.


Yep - it's the differences that are ascribed that fundamentally aren't related to type that cause this sort of misconception (and the same with gender or race). There are differences, that's the point of the typology system, but, whether sensors are being denigrated as animalistic simpletons or treated as "equal in strength but with different strengths", the representation of these differences is highly off the mark. You mention the tendency of people to see intuition as something "in addition to" sensing - and thus sensing is seen as "lacking" intuition. I think this sometimes occurs with T/F as well, and it's probably down to the words used: everyone thinks, feels, senses and intuits, but there are those who mistake the 4-letter code as only describing a preference within themselves but being the entire extent of the thought processes of those with different letters in their code (so a misguided thinker says "well, I can feel emotions, so thinking is greater than feeling, because feelers can't be logical"). The effect of this is exacerbated with intuition, I think, because the fact that other people sense the environment around them is obvious, yet the things other people intuit is not.

I'd also think a second factor is the tendency for those who consider themselves "outsiders" to see others with different types as "the normal people". Given the purported proportion of S-users to N-users, it's obvious why N-types latch onto this particular dichotomy when doing this; however, I'm sure extraverts are on the receiving end of this from a number of introverts as well. The biggest problems with this are the propensity to ascribe every trait the misguided individual doesn't possess onto these "normal" types - so those N-users who happen not to be good at sports or not particularly "street smart" tend to confer these onto sensors (often as the 'platitudes' you mention), and those N-users who see themselves as intelligent see sensors as dumb. You're an introvert who doesn't like parties? Then extraverts must all love them. It's so obviously flawed, and yet these foolhardy assumptions are freely perpetuated without the slightest consideration.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> I don't know what the purpose of your hints are. I don't know what you're hinting at. That's why I'm asking point blank questions.


Hinting implies that I am trying to intimidate someone and the only person I have addressing has been you, don't play coy with me. There are no hints in what I say I am simply presenting ideas, which I like to do in forums. In fact, that's why they exist.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> Hard of hearing. I miss some frequencies and volume can be an issue for me. I miss a lot without my hearing aids for volume. I wear my hair so that it covers them.


Oh, it sounds like they work well for you. I was surprised to hear you were deaf as a child because you seem fluent in verbal language, and many deaf people struggle with that.

I agree with you that there is a problem with how sensors are depicted, and that sensor bashing is wrong. One of my first friends on PerC was an ISFP. And she said once that she felt like intuitives thought she was dumber than them. I never thought that about her...I always admired how blunt and honest she was.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> Oh, it sounds like they work well for you. I was surprised to hear you were deaf as a child because you seem fluent in verbal language, and many deaf people struggle with that.
> 
> I agree with you that there is a problem with how sensors are depicted, and that sensor bashing is wrong. One of my first friends on PerC was an ISFP. And she said once that she felt like intuitives thought she was dumber than them. I never thought that about her...I always admired how blunt and honest she was.


Intuitives are gifted in their ability to think so abstractly and then draw conclusions but sensors have the gift of common sense and the ability to take in what is around them at the present which many intuitives might miss.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

monemi said:


> What I see happening is N seeing themselves as N+S=superhero and S's as S-N=short bus people. I'm using humour to illustrate my point, but it's still true.


As many times as I've had to safe my ENFJ wife from absent-mindedly walking out into DC traffic, I find this notion positively hilarious.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Yep - it's the differences that are ascribed that fundamentally aren't related to type that cause this sort of misconception (and the same with gender or race). There are differences, that's the point of the typology system, but, whether sensors are being denigrated as animalistic simpletons or treated as "equal in strength but with different strengths", the representation of these differences is highly off the mark. You mention the tendency of people to see intuition as something "in addition to" sensing - and thus sensing is seen as "lacking" intuition. I think this sometimes occurs with T/F as well, and it's probably down to the words used: everyone thinks, feels, senses and intuits, but there are those who mistake the 4-letter code as only describing a preference within themselves but being the entire extent of the thought processes of those with different letters in their code (so a misguided thinker says "well, I can feel emotions, so thinking is greater than feeling, because feelers can't be logical"). The effect of this is exacerbated with intuition, I think, because the fact that other people sense the environment around them is obvious, yet the things other people intuit is not.
> 
> I'd also think a second factor is the tendency for those who consider themselves "outsiders" to see others with different types as "the normal people". Given the purported proportion of S-users to N-users, it's obvious why N-types latch onto this particular dichotomy when doing this; however, I'm sure extraverts are on the receiving end of this from a number of introverts as well. The biggest problems with this are the propensity to ascribe every trait the misguided individual doesn't possess onto these "normal" types - so those N-users who happen not to be good at sports or not particularly "street smart" tend to confer these onto sensors (often as the 'platitudes' you mention), and those N-users who see themselves as intelligent see sensors as dumb. You're an introvert who doesn't like parties? Then extraverts must all love them. It's so obviously flawed, and yet these foolhardy assumptions are freely perpetuated without the slightest consideration.



Yes, all of these points are ones that I agree with. If this is what monemi has been saying and I've just been missing it, then I actually agree with her a lot more than I thought.


I think the difference is the idea of being intelligent vs. unintelligent. For the most part, I don't think what you're describing here really is focusing on intelligence. I think that's one of the consequences of it, but not the central point.


I have had many conversations in the past where I feel like I have to defend Ss because it seems like the N feels like "Ns can do what Ss can, but Ss can't do what Ns can." However, I've learned that most Ns I've talked with don't really believe this (or at least I was able to convince them through our conversations not to believe it that simply), it's moreso that they don't always take the time to articulate what they do believe and it comes across like this is how they think. It's just like all of those old threads about intuitives being complex and sensors being simple.


But I really do think there are a lot of natural reasons why this happens. Part of it is that we're on an internet forum where it's all words, so it's hard to bring in all of the RL examples where sensors have some natural advantages. However, most Ns I talk to seem to be aware of this when it comes up...I've had many say things like "I'm very absent-minded" or "Ss help keep me grounded in reality". Again, it's not to say Ns are always this way and Ss aren't, but I do think it's a trend.

The other main part is that as you said, Ns are in the minority IRL. When they're constantly told "Get your head out of the clouds, focus on what's in front of you, what you're thinking about isn't important", it's natural for them to feel frustrated. I view it more as backlash than anything else. But if I'm going to fault an N for thinking they're superior to an S, I have to equally fault all of the Ss in life who think they're superior to the N because they think the N's thoughts are just stupid, pointless daydreaming.

Most Ns I've talked to do seem to understand and value the "groundedness" that Ss bring to the table. I just think that they're beaten over the head with it again and again and again in life, so there's not much balance. So they come to a place like PerC and they kind of just let loose. It brings back the balance for them.

And when you get a lot of them together that all feel the same thing, it encourages them even more, and to an S member in the minority on the outside, you get this sense of superiority.


So I think that's a main contributing factor. I don't think it's so much that Ns think "Oh, I sense stuff, I can do everything sensors can do," as much as it is that they receive a barrage of sensor attitudes all of the time and they get overwhelmed by it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> If you define intelligence by one's natural ability to maturely and dominantly engage the conceptual aspect of any subject or object, then, yes, intuitives are more intelligent because the definition of intuition is therein contained.


But important to point out, ONLY if we adhere to the commonly understood definition of what intuition _is_, which is not the same as Jungian intuition. Therein lies the problem. This assumption wouldn't be an issue if people bothered to question their understanding and definition of intuition first, especially in relation to Jung/MBTI.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Sensors and intelligence. Yum! Can I have some?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> Well, I can tell we disagree a good bit here, so I won't go into a lot of it since it would get us way off track.
> 
> 
> But basically...if someone is convinced that they're born superior to others and that that's what their MBTI letters actually mean...I view it as a waste of my time to even talk to them. As you mentioned, maybe that's just a difference between us...that's the kind of conflict that I don't care to put any time or energy into. That's not why I come to PerC.
> ...


You don't have to hang out on N boards to see a lack of respect for sensors. Currently on the SP board, there's a thread that popped up about who the real golddiggers are. ESXP's or ESXJ's. On the psychology board, there's a poster that stereotyped "popular" kids up the yahoo using sensor stereotypes and how "those" kids from his HS are all ending up pregnant and in jail. Er... okay. 

Since when has turning a deaf ear to prejudice brought about change? 

I wouldn't care if it didn't seep into so many conversations.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> Yes, all of these points are ones that I agree with. If this is what monemi has been saying and I've just been missing it, then I actually agree with her a lot more than I thought.
> 
> 
> I think the difference is the idea of being intelligent vs. unintelligent. For the most part, I don't think what you're describing here really is focusing on intelligence. I think that's one of the consequences of it, but not the central point.
> ...


The "sensors keep us grounded" is one of the most annoying platitudes on here. It's a pat on the head and a lollipop after someone has just said something offensive. Just because someone struggles to fit in with society, doesn't give them free reign to be jerks here. I've tried giving intuitives opportunities on typing threads to cough up intelligent sensors. Even then, they started bickering over whether the most "marginally" intelligent ideas were sensors because they showed signs of being able to plan. You have got to be shitting me. It proves flat out to me, that they really do think we're idiots. As a group they can't do it. They cannot think of an intelligent person that they respect and type them as a sensor. 

They use PC terms when called out on this behaviour. But when push comes to shove, they do not think we're intelligent. Typing threads are dramatic illustrations of what they really think. They love to give athletic heroes N typings. Obviously N's can be athletic. But S's can't be intelligent. Go on, try it. Give them another opportunity to type sensors that they personally respect that most people would deem intelligent.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

I've never ascribed to the notion that iNtuitives are smarter than sensors, but that they are suited to different modes of intelligence. Case in point, sensors are far better suited to be surgeons than are iNtuitives, and I think it's universally agreed that surgeons are of superior intelligence. There's nothing abstract or conceptual about cutting someone open. There's no contemplating, no imagining, no conceptualizing. There's concrete, flesh and blood organs and you have right here, right now to do something about it in the most practical, established means available (though I'm sure medical malpractice lawyers wouldn't mind an intuitive surgeon playing cowboy with a new idea in the OR every now and then)

My dad, ISTP, very practical and mechanical, an also *very* creative. When I was a kid, he used his mechanical skills to build all kinds of awesome gadgets and contraptions for my brother and I to play with, of which he scavenged parts from scrap yards to build. One of the coolest ideas he came up with was he built an airplane cockpit with gauges and meters and throttles, lights, switches, sound effects, a yoke, etc., and then to up the ante, he took the insides out of some two-way radios and installed them inside of full face helmets so we could put them on and talk to each other on the radio. We would play pilot and space shuttle and anything else we could come up with for hours. That's the kind of playful mechanical creativity that I only see coming from an ISTP, though I haven't done a survey, so maybe from some other types as well. But I am sooo, sooo lucky he's my dad!!

Really the only thing that drew me to want to spend more time talking to Ns after first learning about MBTI is having always grown up being thought of as "weird" to most other people and NFs make me feel less weird, LOL!

As for the disrespectful and prejudiced posts, I would remind everyone that there are a *lot* of teenagers on this forum, not all, but a lot of whom lack the understanding and experience to know any better.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

AlliG said:


> Really the only thing that drew me to want to spend more time talking to Ns after first learning about MBTI is having always grown up being thought of as "weird" to most other people and NFs make me feel less weird, LOL!


What does weirdness have anything to do with intuition?


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I was beaten and harassed for being me, growing up. I was beaten and almost raped by my ex husband for being me. I've always had to live with these kinds of things. I lived among a bunch of racist red necks, in of course a poor trailer trash neighborhood. And I'm a poor single mom trying to work and go to school while taking care of her kid. I've always been me. I just didn't know me came with a four letter label until 2 1/2 years ago.

In other words, socioeconomic status didn't program me my fundamental personality. I didn't have a choice in becoming an Asian female and being born into this type of environment, and I didn't have a choice being an INTP. I'm more prone to think it has more to do with my genetic programming...


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

zazara said:


> What does weirdness have anything to do with intuition?


Well, I can't point to a study, just my own observation. It's just clear to me over the years that other people regard the way I communicate as a bit bizarre. I admit that what's going on inside my head at the same time I'm speaking can seem nonsensical to others as it's actually coming out of my mouth because I tend to make big leaps between seemingly unrelated ideas and there's no details on how I got from one place to another, so to others it can come across as random and directionless. More often than not, people are looking at me like I have an arm growing out of my forehead. And probably for good reason, I mean, it's not a sign of unintelligence that someone can't read my mind. I can't expect anything else. I just find that in talking to NFs (in person, not online because obviously typing something out really slows down my thinking and it comes off more concise), they don't seem to notice the unprovoked shift in thinking and just keep rolling with it. It's probably a tendency to brush over details not just when speaking, but also when listening so they're not so much concerned about the missing pieces as long as the gist of it was picked up.

The only reasonable explanation for this is auxiliary Ne, jumping around randomly between one half-thought and another. And the fact that NFs seem to be the only people who don't look at me like I have an arm growing out of my forehead :tongue:


----------



## outsidedogdiner (Mar 15, 2014)

good morning. im 57 and did not know i am intuitive, entp/j 5-5-5-5 until last year. kinda sucks on both sides of a mirror. a far a socioblahblah, this lower class, poor if you will, intuitive understands the real world. this is one guy who understand that intuition voiced sometimes earns a pop in the nose. if all types posting, still living even, could grasp that where you woke up today is not special and is subject to change, paragraphs about our greatness would have something worth reading. just my working class opinion. i have always been seen as a quirky freak genious. when the priviledge were reading, my mom taught me "if your gonna act a turd go lay in the yard. NO SLAM


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

monemi said:


> You don't have to hang out on N boards to see a lack of respect for sensors. Currently on the SP board, there's a thread that popped up about who the real golddiggers are. ESXP's or ESXJ's. On the psychology board, there's a poster that stereotyped "popular" kids up the yahoo using sensor stereotypes and how "those" kids from his HS are all ending up pregnant and in jail. Er... okay.
> 
> Since when has turning a deaf ear to prejudice brought about change?
> 
> I wouldn't care if it didn't seep into so many conversations.



Again, you're much more active on the forums than I've ever been. I find it too exhausting to even read threads that don't interest me, much less post and try to convince people with certain mentalities. Especially when it's the same thing popping up again and again. When I see an opportunity in a conversation I'm enjoying (especially if I feel like I have a chance to teach someone something else because I feel like they're receptive enough), I'll take it. But I just don't feel like having long arguments if I feel like I'll have to spend tons of energy trying to get across what I view as a simple point. 

But that's just me. I come to PerC to enjoy myself. I don't view it as a matter of social justice and I don't feel a responsibility to try to change people's minds. 

If you do, and if that's what motivates you...more power to you. I support you in that. It's just not worth it to me.




monemi said:


> The "sensors keep us grounded" is one of the most annoying platitudes on here. It's a pat on the head and a lollipop after someone has just said something offensive. Just because someone struggles to fit in with society, doesn't give them free reign to be jerks here. I've tried giving intuitives opportunities on typing threads to cough up intelligent sensors. Even then, they started bickering over whether the most "marginally" intelligent ideas were sensors because they showed signs of being able to plan. You have got to be shitting me. It proves flat out to me, that they really do think we're idiots. As a group they can't do it. They cannot think of an intelligent person that they respect and type them as a sensor.
> 
> They use PC terms when called out on this behaviour. But when push comes to shove, they do not think we're intelligent. Typing threads are dramatic illustrations of what they really think. They love to give athletic heroes N typings. Obviously N's can be athletic. But S's can't be intelligent. Go on, try it. Give them another opportunity to type sensors that they personally respect that most people would deem intelligent.


It's hard for me to speak to much to this because it all depends on which members we're talking about. I may not even know any of the ones you're referring to. But thinking of past conversations I've had, I've seen plenty of Ns express that they genuinely value Ss. The whole "keeping me grounded" thing I view as a strong reality, especially when someone discusses how they respect and admire how Ss are actually the ones getting things done. Yes, I've seen people post crap about how much better society would be if everyone was an N. But I also see people refuting it and pointing out how ridiculous it is since Ss and Ns by nature need each other. 


As for the famous typing thing...I'd have to see the conversation. I wouldn't automatically say that someone not being able to come up with famous intelligent people of types automatically means they don't have any respect for them. I know that I can't really type anyone and if it weren't for sites that type celebrities, I'd have trouble coming up with anyone famous of any type.

So were you able to come up with a list of famous, intelligent people that was an even mix of Ns and Ss? If you did, and posted it, and all of the Ns said that all of the people on the list had to be Ns because they were intelligent...then I'd agree with your point.


I don't know how accurate/unbiased a lot of celebrity/historical figure typing sites are, but a lot of them have a lot more famous Ns. To me, this is because in general, Ns are the ones who are more likely to push for big changes in the world. In my mind, none of these ideas would have ever taken off if there weren't plenty of Ss there to make it all happen, and I think the famous Ns get more of the credit because they're the ones who started the ideas. The flip side is that they often didn't get any of the credit while they were alive.

But to me, that's not really about intelligence...it's about a type of intelligence that Ns tend to value more. Kind of like the post above me mentioned...a surgeon would be a great example of a more typical "S" skill that takes tons of intelligence. But I can't think of any famous surgeon that I can think of. 

I view it as Ss doing more of the "dirty work" and Ns kind of getting more of the glamour because they're the "innovators". But I don't think that necessarily implies someone thinks they're less intelligent.


But again, I'd have to see the exact conversation. I imagine it's a mix...some look at it in a fair way, some don't.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

meltedsorbet said:


> Oh, it sounds like they work well for you. I was surprised to hear you were deaf as a child because you seem fluent in verbal language, and many deaf people struggle with that.
> 
> I agree with you that there is a problem with how sensors are depicted, and that sensor bashing is wrong. One of my first friends on PerC was an ISFP. And she said once that she felt like intuitives thought she was dumber than them. I never thought that about her...I always admired how blunt and honest she was.


Unlike blindness, there isn't "legally deaf". There isn't a specific line where you are considered officially deaf. But like blindness, it's not often that someone to be completely deaf. We might not hear you yelling at us, but we'll hear sirens or klaxons going off or a school bell above our head. 

I'm not the only deaf person in my Dad's family. He already knew sign language when I was born. My mother was pretty determined that I was going to talk and an ISTP mother is a stubborn one. She is amazing at picking up languages. We moved when I was a kid (military brat) and they pushed me to learn German when we lived in Germany. I'm not a fantastic, but I can communicate in German. I seem to forget it but when I'm in Germany or Holland or Switzerland, it comes back to me. I learned French and lived in Montreal for 5 years. My French pronunciation sucks, my mouth doesn't move in some directions no matter how many times I try. My husband is French Canadian and so we have a bilingual household but my husband and kids aren't exactly fluent in BSL. 

With all the work I've put into speaking and languages, I should hope I'm fluent in English at least.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> You don't have to hang out on N boards to see a lack of respect for sensors. Currently on the SP board, there's a thread that popped up about who the real golddiggers are. ESXP's or ESXJ's. On the psychology board, there's a poster that stereotyped "popular" kids up the yahoo using sensor stereotypes and how "those" kids from his HS are all ending up pregnant and in jail. Er... okay.
> 
> Since when has turning a deaf ear to prejudice brought about change?
> 
> I wouldn't care if it didn't seep into so many conversations.


Aww thanks for sharing that, *pats head*, here's a lollipop.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

OrchestraInside said:


> Aww thanks for sharing that, *pats head*, here's a lollipop.


Don't mind him. His unity of humanity is out of whack today :wink:

Orchestra!! *tapping foot*


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> It's hard for me to speak to much to this because it all depends on which members we're talking about. I may not even know any of the ones you're referring to. But thinking of past conversations I've had, I've seen plenty of Ns express that they genuinely value Ss. The whole "keeping me grounded" thing I view as a strong reality, especially when someone discusses how they respect and admire how Ss are actually the ones getting things done. Yes, I've seen people post crap about how much better society would be if everyone was an N. But I also see people refuting it and pointing out how ridiculous it is since Ss and Ns by nature need each other.
> 
> 
> As for the famous typing thing...I'd have to see the conversation. I wouldn't automatically say that someone not being able to come up with famous intelligent people of types automatically means they don't have any respect for them. I know that I can't really type anyone and if it weren't for sites that type celebrities, I'd have trouble coming up with anyone famous of any type.
> ...


I doubt it. I think any time a sensor actually does anything innovative or intelligent, intuitives claim them. God forbid that a sensor could exist and actually do anything of import. There's enough people that howl when they look at CelebrityTypes - Overview . 'Oh my God what a stupid website. There's no way that person was a sensor.' blah blah blah. Over and over again. I've seen Madonna argued, I've seen Richard Branson argued etc... I see N's switched for different N's. I've seen S's switched to N's. I've never seen N's switched to S's. Never. If S's make change happen, why in the hell wouldn't S's be the ones leading the change? My bullshit detector is going off.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

OrchestraInside said:


> Aww thanks for sharing that, *pats head*, here's a lollipop.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> I doubt it. I think any time a sensor actually does anything innovative or intelligent, intuitives claim them. God forbid that a sensor could exist and actually do anything of import. There's enough people that howl when they look at CelebrityTypes - Overview . 'Oh my God what a stupid website. There's no way that person was a sensor.' blah blah blah. Over and over again. I've seen Madonna argued, I've seen Richard Branson argued etc... I see N's switched for different N's. I've seen S's switched to N's. I've never seen N's switched to S's. Never. If S's make change happen, why in the hell wouldn't S's be the ones leading the change? My bullshit detector is going off.


In reality of course, this happens because wee lil' Ns don't have a life -> spend all their time typing silly arguments on silly online forums. 90 % of us are overweight, myopic and miserable - we've got to take it out on _someone_, and you Ss are nicely absent online so you won't be able to defend yourselves, and we get to be in majority.


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

AlliG said:


> Don't mind him. His unity of humanity is out of whack today :wink:
> 
> Orchestra!! *tapping foot*


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

monemi said:


> Unlike blindness, there isn't "legally deaf". There isn't a specific line where you are considered officially deaf. But like blindness, it's not often that someone to be completely deaf. We might not hear you yelling at us, but we'll hear sirens or klaxons going off or a school bell above our head.
> 
> I'm not the only deaf person in my Dad's family. He already knew sign language when I was born. My mother was pretty determined that I was going to talk and an ISTP mother is a stubborn one. She is amazing at picking up languages. We moved when I was a kid (military brat) and they pushed me to learn German when we lived in Germany. I'm not a fantastic, but I can communicate in German. I seem to forget it but when I'm in Germany or Holland or Switzerland, it comes back to me. I learned French and lived in Montreal for 5 years. My French pronunciation sucks, my mouth doesn't move in some directions no matter how many times I try. My husband is French Canadian and so we have a bilingual household but my husband and kids aren't exactly fluent in BSL.
> 
> With all the work I've put into speaking and languages, I should hope I'm fluent in English at least.


That's awesome. And thanks for explaining to me about the range of what is considered "deaf." I took ASL in college, and really enjoyed it though I wasn't that great at it. And my tutor was totally deaf. She wasn't able to learn verbal language that fluidly, but she planned on becoming a writer...and writing for and about deaf people. 

It sounds like your parents were on it. I wish I had your language skills. I don't know exactly why, but I preferred learning ASL over French and Spanish. It pushed me to make more facial expressions and also...I like how there aren't so many conjugations and grammar rules, and I suppose it was easier to focus on what people were trying to say rather than how. And it also pushed me to clarify what I was trying to say before actually saying it. And I think there's just something beautiful about visual communication.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

OrchestraInside said:


> In reality of course, this happens because wee lil' Ns don't have a life -> spend all their time typing silly arguments on silly online forums. 90 % of us are overweight, myopic and miserable - we've got to take it out on _someone_, and you Ss are nicely absent online so you won't be able to defend yourselves, and we get to be in majority.


Got a theme song you.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

monemi said:


> I doubt it. I think any time a sensor actually does anything innovative or intelligent, intuitives claim them. God forbid that a sensor could exist and actually do anything of import. There's enough people that howl when they look at CelebrityTypes - Overview . 'Oh my God what a stupid website. There's no way that person was a sensor.' blah blah blah. Over and over again. I've seen Madonna argued, I've seen Richard Branson argued etc... I see N's switched for different N's. I've seen S's switched to N's. I've never seen N's switched to S's. Never. If S's make change happen, why in the hell wouldn't S's be the ones leading the change? My bullshit detector is going off.



Most of the typings on that site make sense to me. If the people you've talked with all seem to argue that anyone who's ever done anything worthwhile or important must be an N, then I agree with you...they have a bias against Ss and aren't truly taking the time to understand them. 

And when I talk about "making change", I guess I wasn't specific enough in what I was focusing on. Looking on that list, there are plenty of intelligent, famous people who enacted change. In addition to all of the entertainers (Marilyn Monroe, Paul McCartney, etc.), there are plenty of world leaders who enacted great changes (Kennedy, FDR, Churchill, Malcolm X)...and if anyone thinks that this means they can't be Ss, then they're totally off base. But in almost all of those cases, the changes seem to be more direct, physical, and aimed/focused on something. Whether it's political change or the visuals of entertainment...it seems like it's more focused on something right in front of them. 

With a lot of the historical Ns on the list, it's more of an abstract change. It's more of a discovery, I suppose. That's why there are so many inventors and writers on there. I see a pretty big difference between those and the Ss.


So if an N flat out thinks that a lot of those Ss must be Ns, then I think they have a really flawed understanding/perspective and are probably just trying to feed into the intellectual superiority of Ns. But, if they tend to think more of the famous Ns when they think of someone intelligent...I think it's moreso that they can just relate to that type of intelligence more. So it's quite possible that they're just defining intelligence differently. And maybe part of the problem is that they don't value the "S" type intelligence as much. 

I even look at some of the ESFJs on there, like Andy Rooney or Regis Philbin, and I think a lot of times people don't think of them when they think of someone being intelligent. The kind of intelligence it takes to captivate people/an audience is something that takes a lot of talent, and I think a lot of Ns wouldn't be as adept in that area. But a lot of times I don't think it's respected as much by Ns and not viewed as "real intelligence". 


So I guess for me, I still like to try to find what truly distinguishes Ss and Ns. I'd rather not just say "everyone is intelligent" and leave it at that. I want to figure out if someone truly does think that Ns are more intelligent or if they just aren't seeing the different ways intelligence can play out.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Intuitives are gifted in their ability to think so abstractly and then draw conclusions but sensors have the gift of common sense and the ability to take in what is around them at the present which many intuitives might miss.


Yeah...in most aspects of my life (outside of college or personal time) being a stronger sensor would have been an advantage. My current job is always presenting challenges with my personality type...or vice versa. 

Both intuition and sensing are their own gifts...but it's funny to watch people in my workplace getting irritated about the differences between sensing and intuition without them knowing MBTI jargon. Like the ESFJ and ESFP about the physicists' kids..."parent of the year...could you clip your kid's toenails? Why do they slather her in sunscreen?" Etc. Not to say that all physicists are intuitives...but I think some of them are. 

*laughing* Some of the stories of what the intuitives accidentally expose their kids to get recycled over and over again. Like the time one took the kids through the car-wash and forgot to roll up the windows beforehand. *laughing* Mostly they are just comedic to me, but some of my co-workers just "can't understand how ANYONE" could lack in common sense that way." I see both sides because um...I make those kinds of mistakes a lot and I also like physics, and am glad we have people who invest enough into the abstract and the theoretical to develop and teach it.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> Most of the typings on that site make sense to me. If the people you've talked with all seem to argue that anyone who's ever done anything worthwhile or important must be an N, then I agree with you...they have a bias against Ss and aren't truly taking the time to understand them.
> 
> And when I talk about "making change", I guess I wasn't specific enough in what I was focusing on. Looking on that list, there are plenty of intelligent, famous people who enacted change. In addition to all of the entertainers (Marilyn Monroe, Paul McCartney, etc.), there are plenty of world leaders who enacted great changes (Kennedy, FDR, Churchill, Malcolm X)...and if anyone thinks that this means they can't be Ss, then they're totally off base. But in almost all of those cases, the changes seem to be more direct, physical, and aimed/focused on something. Whether it's political change or the visuals of entertainment...it seems like it's more focused on something right in front of them.
> 
> ...


These differences are exaggerated to the point that S's aren't expected to have abstract thought or enjoy theory or be creative or to be innovative. But I've seen N's that were good at sports and S's that worked in creative fields. It's not nearly as black and white as so often presented on here.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

monemi said:


> These differences are exaggerated to the point that S's aren't expected to have abstract thought or enjoy theory or be creative or to be innovative. But I've seen N's that were good at sports and S's that worked in creative fields. It's not nearly as black and white as so often presented on here.


I get the feeling some see it more as..

"It's not like you _can't_, we're just automatically better at it."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> These differences are exaggerated to the point that S's aren't expected to have abstract thought or enjoy theory or be creative or to be innovative.


I think that perhaps these people have confused function with individual.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

This theory runs into conflict when contrasted with the "which types make the most" chart, which has been floating around PerC for awhile. If I remember the chart correctly, ESTJs & ENTJs make the most money, and INFPs/ENTPs make some of the worst. 

That would seem to suggest that socio-economic status is not necessarily an S/N thing.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

AST said:


> I usually find that xSTx types don't give a fuck about whether or not they're more intelligent than anyone else, outside of general frustration at people who don't operate by our sense of logic.


This. So absolutely true.


----------

