# ARe iNtuitives more racist than sensors?



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

DanseMacabre said:


> *Yep I think seeing the big picture makes you less likely to stereotype because you may see one bad egg but then you think "But hey, that's a single person! Think of all the other amazing people of that race there are! One idiot doesn't reflect the sentiments of an entire race, that's preposterous!"
> 
> Or maybe that's just me xD*


Ah, but you could see that bad egg, or a few, and automatically see a "pattern" and impress that pattern onto the entire population to "expand it". Sensors might just take it person by person, day by day and not dwell on anything beyond it.

Not only that, I'd think N's could be more likely to come up with insane schemes/theories about race, purity, eugenics for a "whiter/blacker/etcer future".

I'm no racist, just looking at it from the other side.


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

I think many iNtuitives, being outsiders and a minority ourselves, are probably more likely not to be racist. Sensors, who take in more information aesthetically and concretely in their surroundings, may be more likely to notice visual differences in people (such as skin tone) first, and then expand their views from that standpoint. *shrugs*


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

babblingbrook said:


> About 40% of the members on Stormfront, a large white nationalist and supremacist neonazi forum, are INTJ, while they only make up 1,5% of the population.
> 
> Source:
> Stormfront


This more than likely reflects internet users and not racists.

That being said, this is a very strange thread. Really? N's are more apt to be racist? The things people come up with...


----------



## Sgtshanky (Jun 28, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> I think many iNtuitives, being outsiders and a minority ourselves, are probably more likely not to be racist. Sensors, who take in more information aesthetically and concretely in their surroundings, may be more likely to notice visual differences in people (such as skin tone) first, and then expand their views from that standpoint. *shrugs*


I think most ENxx's usually fit well in mainstream society. ENTPs are constantly meeting new people, and ENFP's are generally well liked by everyone. 

Regarding N vs S. 
It is not Sensor's nature to form beliefs without available data, so they would not automatically form an opinion on race based on a few examples. However, it is easy for them to form incorrect ideas if they take all the information they gain as truthful, which may not be the case.
Intuition, as I understand, is all about making assumptions and seeing patterns, so an N could just as easily come to erroneous conclusions about people, without external influences.

What I am trying to say is that, it has more to do with how the information was acquired by them.


----------



## Kalifornia310 (Jan 7, 2010)

<---- confused as to what you mean.


----------



## Sgtshanky (Jun 28, 2010)

I meant to say that racism is not something intuitives are more prone to than sensors. They can both arrive to the same conclusion by different means.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Sgtshanky said:


> ENFP's are generally well liked by everyone.


I thought many people found us to be annoying and/or too eccentric? I can't really fit in at my school. Not that it bothers me, it's just a fact haha

Anyway, I really don't see why there would be a connection between S/N and racist attitudes. I thought about it for a while, but no lol


----------



## Sgtshanky (Jun 28, 2010)

Nyx said:


> I thought many people found us to be annoying and/or too eccentric? I can't really fit in at my school. Not that it bothers me, it's just a fact haha



Hmmm honestly I only know a couple of ENFPs, they seem to have an affinity to connecting with people. I can see how some people may consider them annoying, but I really like them.:happy:


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Meh...I'm defective :frustrating:


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

edit: nevermind. read proms post. I have been censored. see what I did there?


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm an N and I want slaves. No racial.


----------



## Tatl33 (Apr 26, 2010)

I think the difference between an N and an S is N's stick with their beliefs stronger then S's. Which sometimes means an N may stick with a strong racist belief, and vice versa. But for the most part, I believe intuitives are not more racist then sensors.


----------



## Capsicum (Mar 17, 2010)

Racism has far more to do with environmental factors (parents' and friends' beliefs, possible negative experiences, media) than N or S.


----------



## Xplosive (Mar 4, 2010)

I think worldview dominant types (Ni and Si dom's) would be most likely to be racist, whether it be due to past concrete experience (Si) or impressions they've formed (Ni) from observing or dealing with certain races.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> I think many iNtuitives, being outsiders and a minority ourselves, are probably more likely not to be racist. Sensors, who take in more information aesthetically and concretely in their surroundings, may be more likely to notice visual differences in people (such as skin tone) first, and then expand their views from that standpoint. *shrugs*


Right, but ever notice how the minorities frequently engage in reverse racism/discrimination? It's overlooked when a black person calls a white girl a "White bitch", but if the white girl called the black girl a "Black bitch", zOMFG NAZI!!!1

And the iNtuitives are no exception - too many of them on these MBTI-themed forums tend to display a blatant distaste for Sensors, without citing reasons.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm Asian, and I love benign stereotypes, although Asians and Whites seem to be the only two races that I feel comfortable making jokes about. My Asian friends and I make our own Asian jokes in private, and my white friends make Asian jokes. That's alright, because I make White jokes (and Dutch jokes), and nobody is offended, and none of the stereotypes are particularly harmful (Asians as nerds and workaholics). I don't make jokes about any other races, however, because in some cases stereotypes about a certain race, such as Black, might be more harmful and offensive than others. But no one is ever offended, and we all have great fun. I often get into fights with my ISFJ mother about racism (and homophobia). She refused to rent out her house to an Iranian because of the heavily wrapped and bomb dropping image she often associates with Middle Eastern men, and she often speaks of Black men with a condescending attitude. She laughed out loud when I told her that a Black guy was attracted to me. I guess it was good that I didn't mention that we had a brief relationship as well. My mom is rightly a latent Chinese supremacist, while I'm a racial (and gender) abolitionist. I really think it has more to do with nurture than nature, as with most things.


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

IrukandjiJellyGel said:


> Right, but ever notice how the minorities frequently engage in reverse racism/discrimination? It's overlooked when a black person calls a white girl a "White bitch", but if the white girl called the black girl a "Black bitch", zOMFG NAZI!!!1
> 
> And the iNtuitives are no exception - too many of them on these MBTI-themed forums tend to display a blatant distaste for Sensors, without citing reasons.


Yeah, I'm not hesitant at all to cite my reasons. Actually, the reason would be one and one alone:
Sensors have made my life extra fantastically difficult. Yaaaaaaaay... :dry:


----------



## Nasmoe (Nov 11, 2009)

IrukandjiJellyGel said:


> Right, but ever notice how the minorities frequently engage in reverse racism/discrimination? It's overlooked when a black person calls a white girl a "White bitch", but if the white girl called the black girl a "Black bitch", zOMFG NAZI!!!1
> 
> And the iNtuitives are no exception - too many of them on these MBTI-themed forums tend to display a blatant distaste for Sensors, without citing reasons.


I hate it when some people claim they can't be racist because they're a minority.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

This thread is chock full of disgusting N elitism and gross misinterpretations of the nature of S vs. N.

Here are a couple misconceptions to clear up:

*1) Ns do not "see the big picture" better than Ss. *I wish Keirsey or MBTI or whoever introduced this horrifically inaccurate idea would make a public service announcement formally retracting it. If I had a nickel for every pretentious N type rambling about how great he is at "seeing the big picture" and how Ss are clearly terrible at it (which is simply not the case) I could probably pay for a giant billboard explaining the nature of this retarded misconception, and put one in every major city in the country.

*EXTROVERSION sees the big picture; INTROVERSION sees the finer details*. E functions have a broader but shallower and less defined focus; I functions have a sharper, deeper and clearer view of a narrower range of information.

*2) Hint to the OP: It's "Sensor" with an S, not censor.* And the answer to your question is no. Read Eric B's post in this thread if you want to understand how each functional perspective might contribute to a racist attitude, but remember that racism means making an inaccurate assumption about _all_ members of a particular racial group. That is not what iNtuition does. If I were to say, "Blacks tend to be taller than Asians", for example, that would not be racist, because it's statistically valid. The average black person really is taller than the average Asian. *Note that this intuitive, generalized claim does not seek to describe every individual member of the group, but rather the average tendencies of the group as a whole.*

Certainly there exist some Asians who are taller than some black people. Yao Ming is clearly taller than Gary Coleman was. That's not the point of the above claim and it doesn't make such a claim racist. Stop interpreting generalized statements in a case-specific context.




Iapetus said:


> Sensing = I'm OK you're not OK these types are likely to take a negative default position toward xxxx people.


This is completely ridiculous. The Sensing function has nothing to do with taking a default negative position toward any particular type of person.

Any function might do this for any number of reasons.



Iapetus said:


> The Lucky One:
> 
> I think of people as being a rank of the four functions. I don't believe in the convoluted system that has been put together to explain personality based on Jung or the Mongrel theory called MBTI.
> 
> ...


This is even more ridiculous than your previous post. Have actually read any Jung? All functions can and do appear in introverted and extroverted forms; what on earth are you talking about here?

Also lol @ an Ne type calling intuition "intrinsically extroverted." This is so wildly inaccurate I don't even know where to start. 




Monte said:


> Um, wrong.
> 
> We're more likely to look at people as individuals since we pay more attention to detail.
> 
> ...


This is really horrible reasoning and probably the most ridiculous post in this whole thread.

Sensors are not all automatically retarded half wit ingrates who believe everything they hear because they're too dumb to think otherwise. *You need to stop presuming that anyone intelligent/educated/articulate/not a complete moron is automatically an N type, because it's really slanting your perspective on typology.

*Ironically, the very bias you purport to be too smart for is coming back to bite you in the ass with your ridiculously inaccurate perception of Sensors as a total group.

And for the love of God, no, being an N type doesn't mean you pay more attention to detail. Introversion pays more attention to detail; extroversion has a broader but shallower focus.




Sgtshanky said:


> I meant to say that racism is not something intuitives are more prone to than sensors. They can both arrive to the same conclusion by different means.


Hey look, a Sensor got it exactly right and is making much smarter posts in this thread than most of the iNtuitives. ^_^


----------



## Jojo (Jul 5, 2010)

I don't think it matters N or S. Racism is an endless perception and argument. I have worked for a prominent minority owned company and can tell you its a hypocritical loop. The fact remains we should treat all people with respect. I don't care who does it. Pre-judging anybody without merit is ignorant.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

And what you describe is what I am referring to, as part of people thinking they are better than others. They're used to their own group, and not as familiar with others, so they may be prone to pre-judging theother group as you describe.

I would think Sensors would be the ones who might look directly at groups of people and their problems (crime, poverty, etc), as well as statistical "fact", and use that to support a prejudice. They will, however claim, it is "just the facts". "Look right before you; there it is". (You need a little iNtuition to look behind what you see and ask if there is more to those visible realities than just the people being lazy and inferior, or whatever).
This society was always predominantly S, and it did uphold racism for a long time, often with those rationales for it.

So again, I do not see any greater proclivity towards racism on either side.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> I would think Sensors would be the ones who might look directly at groups of people and their problems (crime, poverty, etc), as well as statistical "fact", and use that to support a prejudice. They will, however claim, it is "just the facts". "Look right before you; there it is". (You need a little iNtuition to look behind what you see and ask if there is more to those visible realities than just the people being lazy and inferior, or whatever). This society was always predominantly S, and it did uphold racism for a long time, often with those rationales for it. So again, I do not see any greater proclivity towards racism on either side.


So are you basing this on people that you presume to be sensing types in real life (which in itself is presumptuous since we can't read people's types) or are you basing this on people who have confirmed their types on the forum? The former is exactly why the prejudices occur when we see someone's behavior and presume they are a certain type. On the other hand, it does not take you going too far on this forum to show that those claiming to be intuiting types are full of prejudices.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I'm basing this on the nature of the sensing function. It focuses on "facts" and what is seen, so that is how something like racism would take shape with them. 
And it might bethe same sort of thing that you're doing with type, by taking the acts of some people you see on a forum (who could even be mistyped for all we know) and using it to support this broad idea about N's being more prejudiced.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

The Great One said:


> I was thinking, and since iNtuitives are more generalized, would they be more racist in general than sensors?


N is more of a conceptual function than a generalizing one. Generally speaking, NPs _hate_ generalizing.

I would say racist people are more likely to be SJ than anything else -- dumb STJs especially.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> I'm basing this on the nature of the sensing function. It focuses on "facts" and what is seen, so that is how something like racism would take shape with them.
> And it might bethe same sort of thing that you're doing with type, by taking the acts of some people you see on a forum (who could even be mistyped for all we know) and using it to support this broad idea about N's being more prejudiced.


You act as though you have never typed on a forum Eric. It does not take much of a leap even for a sensing type, to know that if you replaced some of the language in defining racism, it's what we observe on this forum:


> rac·ism
> /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
> –noun
> 1.
> ...


Now do we want to start counting the number of threads started by intuiting types showing a bias against sensing types, and vice versa? Do you truly think there is a difference between a hatred for a race and a hatred for a type because diluted beliefs of superiority? Whether mistyped or not, it's the behavior of believing you're an intuiting type that creates superior belief. I would see it being no different if a person thought they were one race only later to realize they were not. Intuiting types in general wreak of a diluted superior belief and you know it's a fact. Whether they are intuiting types is irrelevant unless you can show that even those who changed their type to sensing continued to behavior. Again do we need to have a count done on the varied threads?


----------



## Heuristyx (Sep 20, 2010)

*Title:*


> ARe iNtuitives more racist than censors?


 It's the censor's job to censor everything. Racism offends people, so I suppose it _has_ to be censored. Otherwise, a censor would be fired.


----------



## onstar5488 (Sep 29, 2010)

I don't think its type related. I think its based more on upbringing and such.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> You act as though you have never typed on a forum Eric. It does not take much of a leap even for a sensing type, to know that if you replaced some of the language in defining racism, it's what we observe on this forum:Now do we want to start counting the number of threads started by intuiting types showing a bias against sensing types, and vice versa? Do you truly think there is a difference between a hatred for a race and a hatred for a type because diluted beliefs of superiority? Whether mistyped or not, it's the behavior of *believing you're an intuiting type that creates superior belief*. I would see it being no different if a person thought they were one race only later to realize they were not. Intuiting types in general *wreak of a diluted superior belief and you know it's a fact*. Whether they are intuiting types is irrelevant unless you can show that even those who changed their type to sensing continued to behavior. Again do we need to have a count done on the varied threads?


I have not gone around looking for any "superior belief" in comparison between S and N or any other types (you hear about the same type of claims with T and F). 

But you're doing exactly what I mentioned. Painting an entire type group based on the limited "facts" you have collected. 
Since type theory is an abstract concept, there are generally more N's in the discussions; especially on TYPOc, (where I have been longer, and more active), and of course, N-themed forums like INTPc, etc. (there do seem to be more S's here on this forum). 
It's their [unofficial] "domain", so to speak, you have a lot of people who say stupid things; a lot making non-serious or tongue-in-cheek comments (typical of abstract-minded folk), etc. and a few who might be as you describe. But that's just how people are; it's not because they're N. 
You cannot make such a blanket statement about the entire MBTI preference group. The whole purpose of this is to help understand each other, not to create new categories to negatively stereotype others over. 
And just like other such issues, when you get into pointing at others, you end up inadvertently becoming just like those you are pointing at.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Eric B said:


> I have not gone around looking for any "superior belief" in comparison between S and N or any other types (you hear about the same type of claims with T and F).
> 
> But you're doing exactly what I mentioned. Painting an entire type group based on the limited "facts" you have collected.


Interesting, you claim it's limited facts but you are not sure since you have seen them. Face it, you know as well as everyone reading this thread that intuiting types are more prone to making superiority statements than any other function. Attempting to rationalize that I am doing something wrong only means you're unwilling to admit to the obvious.


Eric B said:


> Since type theory is an abstract concept, there are generally more N's in the discussions; especially on TYPOc, (where I have been longer, and more active), and of course, N-themed forums like INTPc, etc. (there do seem to be more S's here on this forum).
> It's their [unofficial] "domain", so to speak, you have a lot of people who say stupid things; a lot making non-serious or tongue-in-cheek comments (typical of abstract-minded folk), etc. and a few who might be as you describe. But that's just how people are; it's not because they're N.
> You cannot make such a blanket statement about the entire MBTI preference group. The whole purpose of this is to help understand each other, not to create new categories to negatively stereotype others over.
> And just like other such issues, when you get into pointing at others, you end up inadvertently becoming just like those you are pointing at.


It's not blanket, and I did not refer to the entire MBTI, you did. I said the forums and you know as well as anyone that go to any given forum and you will find the comments. Are you saying it's justified since intuiting types consider it their domain, it's still prejudicial statements. I never said they're that way because their "N", I said that "N"s do it more than sensing types. This discussion seems pointless since everyone reading this has known it to exist on any forum they subscribe to relating to type.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

onstar5488 said:


> I don't think its type related. I think its based more on upbringing and such.


How you relate to your upbringing is itself type-related.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Interesting, you claim it's limited facts but you are not sure since you have seen them.


I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you must have seen something to that effect somewhere. I simply haven't.


> Face it, you know as well as everyone reading this thread that intuiting types are more prone to making superiority statements than any other function. Attempting to rationalize that I am doing something wrong only means you're unwilling to admit to the obvious. It's not blanket, and I did not refer to the entire MBTI, you did. I said the forums and you know as well as anyone that go to any given forum and you will find the comments. Are you saying it's justified since intuiting types consider it their domain, it's still prejudicial statements. I never said they're that way because their "N", I said that "N"s do it more than sensing types. This discussion seems pointless since everyone reading this has known it to exist on any forum they subscribe to relating to type.


 Well, I said nothing about "justification", and it's not that they _consider_ it their domain; they're just the majority, so their perspective prevails.

I really do not pay much attention to a lot of silly stuff and discussions people make. So maybe you have just been exposed to more of it than I have. 
The issue was not how much of it from N's can be found here (at least that's not what I thought that was what it was about). You're saying it's not about the whole MBTI, but my only point is that this topic is whether N's are more prone to prejudice, and I'm saying most likely not, as all people can fall into that, but in their own way accoding to their preferences.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

I think the mere title of this thread creates an "us vs. them" mentality. So racist.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

I am not going to enter the debate on whether intuitives are more racist than sensors, but I can corroborate Functianalyst's argument. I have been on this site awhile now and as a moderator I have needed to delete and infract many people for their bias, especially regarding N superiority. Many people come to this site to vent about their frustration regarding sensors. To make things worse there is a significant number of users who believe they are far superior in intellect due to their being intuitive. 

I can only guess as to why there are so many with this bias. Maybe they don't get out much in real life or are scared and awkward so they use this forum as a way to try and dominate people. I believe some think that being intuitive is cool and actually lie or delude themselves into thinking they are actually intuitive.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Not if you live in the south where being racist is part of the culture. Hard to find an SJ who isn't racist down here. I think Intuitives are less racist, but I think those that are racist are more likely to go to extremes.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Not if you live in the south where being racist is part of the culture. Hard to find an SJ who isn't racist down here. I think Intuitives are less racist, but I think those that are racist are more likely to go to extremes.


Think about the variables you are missing by using personal empirical evidence to draw this conclusion. Also, check out this link:

http://discovery.skillsone.com/Docu... Diffs in Best-Fit Type Discovery 7.22.09.pdf

SJs are not predominately WASPs...


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Te is is likely to be the most racist function. It generalises everything. That's the only correlation I see between racism and type, in all honesty it isn't even that strong. There are many Te users who see the grey areas so they won't prejudge. I myself find it difficult to not put things into black and white, but I try really hard not to.

I'm not projecting, I've read that Te generalises and I've seen the users of it here use it to generalise, especially on other types.

Since I'm often misunderstood around here this does not mean I'm racist or that I think Te users are, I'm just sharing that this generalising that Te users tend to do is the only correlation I see between type and racism since generalising leads to prejudice which leads to racism.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Granted I agree with most that we should not be using the word racist here, since it has a specific connotation and this is not about how types behave toward people of color, different ethnic groups or genders. But the spirit of the behavior is noted, which is the reason for my responses. Based on the spirit of that behavior, yes intuiting types show a bias. Maybe a better relevant term to what we're discussing can be found in the closed article titled "Typias - Typocentrism - Typophobia"


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

only black people are racist.





ahem... terrible joke. please don't ban me!

Anyway for a serious answer, probably Ni doms in combination with Te. Ni has a tendency to make outrageous inductions. Si dom's probably just do whatever the Ni doms say.


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

Am I the only one who finds the underlying premise of the thread amusing?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Is it typist for me to say that Se sensors are better in bed?


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Is it typist for me to say that Se sensors are better in bed?


It is, which highlights the sheer ridiculousness of the concept. What is typology, if not stereotyping of one form or another?


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Is it typist for me to say that Se sensors are better in bed?


No, that's just science.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

Yes it is technically typism. The reason behind the rule is to block the negative typism. Many people use type as away of furthering their bias.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

TreeBob said:


> Yes it is technically typism. The reason behind the rule is to block the negative typism. Many people use type as away of furthering their bias.


Well then. There you have it folks. It appears Ne's _are_ indeed more racist. But only in a _positive sense_ because that's the only way I know how. :tongue:

EDIT: I should rephrase my original statement and say "_In my experience,_ sensors are better in bed. 

Yours Truly, The Oracle. :wink:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Is it typist for me to say that Se sensors are better in bed?


Revelation.. I just discovered that I must be an Se sensor! :crazy:


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Revelation.. I just discovered that I must be an Se sensor! :crazy:


Seriously! I say I go "sensor" in bed! You must do the same. I think everyone should go "sensor" in bedandomgwheredidIjusttakethisthreadokayI'llstop :laughing:


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Aleksei said:


> It is, which highlights the sheer ridiculousness of the concept. What is typology, if not stereotyping of one form or another?


Typology theoretically is more generalising (trends) than stereotyping (belief founded in oversimplification). When put into the hands of the general public, generalised patterns turns to stereotyping. 

There are some things you can generalise about a type, but the further you obfuscate into unfounded stereotypes and weak premises, the further you come from what might hold true for the majority generally (generalisation).

How helpful is an unfounded stereotype to learning that may or may not be the case for a type generally? most people base claims about a type on 1 or 2 people they know of that type. The less cases you study, the more likely you are to find entropy (cases who deviate from the norm) this is why large sample sizes in any investigation are important. Secondly, how useful is a stereotype (apart from the profile or psychological type itself, remember) when you may chalk something up to type, when it's not really (perhaps they are moody, and you say they are an enneatype 4, when really they have bipolar). There are many confounds in the equation...

Stereotypes based on a very small sample are the opposite of generalisations. Generalisations make general claims based on some evidence for majority trends and much can be gleaned from them (although it's limited at a point). Stereotypes are usually based on minority samples or biased selections of traits. They are the antithesis of generalisations because they aren't helpful for understanding the majority.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Seriously! I say I go "sensor" in bed! You must do the same. I think everyone should go "sensor" in bedandomgwheredidIjusttakethisthreadokayI'llstop :laughing:


Well, I have also heard its possible for an NT to master bedroom activities much the same way they would master any skill of interest. I certainly agree with that one. I won't say who the sloppiest lays seem to be, as that would also be typism.. but it hasn't been.. well.. the two aforementioned. *zips lip*
:crazy:


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

I'd think that having a lot of Ne would be advantageous in a bedroom situation as far as being able to anticipate and figure out a partner's needs and preferences.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Well, I have also heard its possible for an NT to master bedroom activities much the same way they would master any skill of interest. I certainly agree with that one. I won't say who the sloppiest lays seem to be, as that would also be typism.. but it hasn't been.. well.. the two aforementioned. *zips lip*
> :crazy:


What about NTs with Se? 

That capital R is getting on my tits *scratches title of thread on screen* neeeeehhhh


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

how did this thread on racism turn into discussion about sex?? 
pink, i blame you :tongue:




TreeBob said:


> I am not going to enter the debate on whether intuitives are more racist than sensors, but I can corroborate Functianalyst's argument. I have been on this site awhile now and as a moderator I have needed to delete and infract many people for their bias, especially regarding N superiority. Many people come to this site to vent about their frustration regarding sensors. To make things worse there is a significant number of users who believe they are far superior in intellect due to their being intuitive.


If proportion of S and N reflected life, ~80% S vs ~20% N, then then perhaps you would be giving more infractions to sensors. But this forum is approx 75% N and 25% S according to statistics, so by virtue of intuitives posting more you'll be infracting them more. Even when reading sensor forums is seems like half to third of people posting there are N-types once again.



TreeBob said:


> I can only guess as to why there are so many with this bias. Maybe they don't get out much in real life or are scared and awkward so they use this forum as a way to try and dominate people. I believe some think that being intuitive is cool and actually lie or delude themselves into thinking they are actually intuitive.


yep, many intuitives are biased because they are nerds who don't get out much and must have been bullied in school so this is how they strike back

On a more serious note, it is that sensors and intuitives don't easily see each other's perspective, and what you don't see you're bound to reject, think it is not true, and wonder how can anybody behave like this. It is alike the inferior function 'blindspot' that the mind doesn't clearly see and may proceed to reject. The indication that it is bad, stupid, inferior is simply such rejection put into words.


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

vel said:


> how did this thread on racism turn into discussion about sex??
> pink, i blame you :tongue:


cuz she wants to sex me


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

vel said:


> how did this thread on racism turn into discussion about sex??
> pink, i blame you :tongue:
> 
> 
> ...


I really don't think you would see more bias if the sensor % was higher. The reasoning for this is the lack of caring. Sensors generally don't go out of the way to act differently to a type. If we are assholes we are assholes to all. I guess there isn't the whole inferiority complex going on. You can explain it away based on superior intuitive numbers if you like but that really isn't the case. All one has to do is read the tone of many many posts on this forum and you can almost imagine their noses in the air as they write. 

I will give you that both sides have trouble seeing perspectives but this is the case across all types. I can consistently reject what an SJ says for instance, but completely understand many INFJs. Ne and Si are both foreign to me and the logic leaves me laughing at times. That said I don't think I am better than them, just different. 


Oh and I should say that sensors get bullied as much as intuitives. You don't have a market on nerds.That is just silly and actually helps my argument that intuitives have bias. Intuitives aren't special and the quicker you see that the better off all types will be.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

TreeBob said:


> The reasoning for this is the lack of caring. Sensors generally don't go out of the way to act differently to a type. If we are assholes we are assholes to all. I guess there isn't the whole inferiority complex going on.


Absolutely. I call myself an equal opportunity offender.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

TreeBob said:


> ... The reasoning for this is the lack of caring. Sensors generally don't go out of the way to act differently to a type. If we are assholes we are assholes to all. ...


Next time some poor INFP complains about being bullied by an ESTJ I will tell them that it simply does not happen, that sensors do not act differently towards any personality.



TreeBob said:


> Oh and I should say that sensors get bullied as much as intuitives. You don't have a market on nerds.That is just silly and actually helps my argument that intuitives have bias. Intuitives aren't special and the quicker you see that the better off all types will be.


" Maybe they don't get out much in real life or are scared and awkward so they use this forum as a way to try and dominate people." - your words about intuitives. I simply condensed that long phrase into "nerds" as this description fits the nerd stereotype. I do not see myself commenting anywhere on quantity of N nerds vs S nerds. This is more related to introversion than perceiving function.


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

I always viewed Te doms as the bullies. They like to hear themselves talk. If an Se or Ne is a bully, its probably just fun and games and you should learn to play along.

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the "time-out" chair was created to force Te doms to sit there and stfu for a few minutes and think about what they've done.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

vel said:


> Next time some poor INFP complains about being bullied by an ESTJ I will tell them that it simply does not happen, that sensors do not act differently towards any personality.


And that would be pretty accurate. The ESTJ in this case doesn't care about type--that's not why they bully. For an ESTJ to bully you would require that your performance was sub-par in some respect. Type is not the issue.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

vel said:


> Next time some poor INFP complains about being bullied by an ESTJ I will tell them that it simply does not happen, that sensors do not act differently towards any personality.
> 
> 
> " Maybe they don't get out much in real life or are scared and awkward so they use this forum as a way to try and dominate people." - your words about intuitives. I simply condensed that long phrase into "nerds" as this description fits the nerd stereotype. I do not see myself commenting anywhere on quantity of N nerds vs S nerds. This is more related to introversion than perceiving function.


Damn maybe I was an INFP when someone was trying to bully me back in high school. I didn't realize MBTI was so popular in people's youth years that we typed all the bad people who bother us. So an intuitive gets picked on and they scream get your hands of me you dirty STJ! Give me a break vel. Stop blaming type for people's problems. Some people are asses who like to pick on the weak. Every weak INFP isn't getting picked on by an ESTJ

ESTJs probably just don't pay enough attention to an INFP so they think they are undervalued.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Eric B said:


> This society was always predominantly S, and it did uphold racism for a long time, often with those rationales for it.





vel said:


> yep, many intuitives are biased because they are nerds who don't get out much and must have been bullied in school so this is how they strike back


I would think the above two statements would only further support the argument that _reactionary_ behavior on the part of intuitives would cause them to be the greater of the typists now. 

And it's not so much if those statements are true, it's how people react to their beliefs that is true. If you believe that all sensors are racist, you will treat them that way. Or perhaps believing this truth makes it easier to feel good about picking on a group of people?

Furthermore, the statement was made that there were more sensors at one time when racism prevailed. And the conclusion was drawn that there for sensors are racist? So also by that standard, there are more infractions on intuitives for typism, so then why wouldn't they be considered the typists?



TreeBob said:


> I really don't think you would see more bias if the sensor % was higher. The reasoning for this is the lack of caring. Sensors generally don't go out of the way to act differently to a type. If we are assholes we are assholes to all. I guess there isn't the whole inferiority complex going on. You can explain it away based on superior intuitive numbers if you like but that really isn't the case. All one has to do is read the tone of many many posts on this forum and you can almost imagine their noses in the air as they write.
> 
> I will give you that both sides have trouble seeing perspectives but this is the case across all types. I can consistently reject what an SJ says for instance, but completely understand many INFJs. Ne and Si are both foreign to me and the logic leaves me laughing at times. That said I don't think I am better than them, just different.
> 
> Oh and I should say that sensors get bullied as much as intuitives. You don't have a market on nerds.That is just silly and actually helps my argument that intuitives have bias. Intuitives aren't special and the quicker you see that the better off all types will be.


 I would like to fully support this statement and other statements made by Treebob. In my lifetime I have seen many sensors get picked on. In most cases people are getting away with it simply the sensor is not applying their energy there to notice. But I notice and it makes me sick.

However, my father is an ESTP (Se dom). A large part of my openness for other types comes from him. Years ago, he once worked for a company and was very high up. They gave him cars, trips, and he was compensated well. My family was living quite nicely. 

One day my father was at a swimming pool party with members of the company. He had heard racial slurs against another member of the company who wasn't present. My father became disgusted with the company and the filth he heard. He walked out of the company the very next day and never returned. He vowed to work for himself the rest of his life no matter what it took and made a commitment to hire people of all origins. However, he does have a bias for the "underdog". 

I am an Ne and I pretty much work the same way. But I learned it from an Se. But my dad and I both function in the world as perceivers so perhaps there is where our commonalities lie. 




vel said:


> Next time some poor INFP complains about being bullied by an ESTJ I will tell them that it simply does not happen, that sensors do not act differently towards any personality.


This statement could just support the idea that one type just complains more, not necessarily bullied more.

I happen to know I do complain and report typism and bullying when I see it. So perhaps the intuitives are receiving more infractions because of this here intuitive complaining about it when I see it. Oops sorry. 


And why do you call them "*poor*" INFPs? They don't need this kind of sympathy. They are not "less than". INFPs are very strong and have a tough center. They have an awesome ability to kick ass when necessary.


----------



## Ti Dominant (Sep 25, 2010)

TheLuckyOne said:


> I would associate racism with older SJ's though, since they tend to hold the values of those that raised them.


I definitely agree with this. I would think that the temperament most racist would be SJ's. 
They're traditional types. And if they are raised in a traditional racist setting, they're like to continue the tradition, even if there's no reason for it.



Mutatio NOmenis said:


> S's, especially, SJ's are the most likely to be racist simply because they seem to pick up more strongly on what they are being indoctrinated with.


This ^^^^^



babblingbrook said:


> About 40% of the members on Stormfront, a large white nationalist and supremacist neonazi forum, are INTJ, while they only make up 1,5% of the population.
> 
> Source:
> Stormfront


Introverted people with Intuition (INTP, INTJ, INFJ, INFP) tend to dominate the internet.
Therefore, it makes no sense to use online statistics from one online site. 

Perhaps a real-life poll conducted on various random personality types, in a fair and balanced manner, would truly help get a more *accurate* picture of this situation. What you've typed is highly unreliable, and pretty useless to point out to anyone.



God said:


> Right, but ever notice how the minorities frequently engage in reverse racism/discrimination? It's overlooked when a black person calls a white girl a "White bitch", but if the white girl called the black girl a "Black bitch", zOMFG NAZI!!!1
> 
> And the iNtuitives are no exception - too many of them on these MBTI-themed forums tend to display a blatant distaste for Sensors, without citing reasons.


The person you quoted didn't mean "minorities" as in "blacks and hispanics." 
They meant "minority" as in "not part of the mainstream or majority."
Even whites can be minorities, if they are a part of some counterculture, for example. 

A white atheist is a minority.
A white female is a minority.
A white homosexual is a minority. 

Hopefully that explains things for you.
And thus, many intuitives are minorities in society, as the person you quoted said. 

Secondly, the fact that an intuitive type is intolerant towards sensing types has little to do with the issue of racism. There are plenty of valid reasons why sensing types do not enjoy being around intuitives, and why intuitives do not like being around sensing types. Thus, it's apples and oranges. You can't compare S/N intolerance to racism. It's not the same thing.



simulatedworld said:


> but remember that racism means making an inaccurate assumption about _all_ members of a particular racial group. That is not what iNtuition does. If I were to say, "Blacks tend to be taller than Asians", for example, that would not be racist, because it's statistically valid. The average black person really is taller than the average Asian. *Note that this intuitive, generalized claim does not seek to describe every individual member of the group, but rather the average tendencies of the group as a whole.*


But someone could point out how they tend to generally notice many members of a particular race who display behavior X. If behavior X is viewed negatively, from some social perspective, to the point where it's some kind of taboo, then an intuitive racist could, theoretically, assume that most people of this particular race are disgusting, inferior, and uncivilized. Thus, even such generalizations could account for racism, on some level. 

However, as I explained, stereotyping involves cognitive association, not generalization. 
In other words, someone's racist views aren't because they tend to actually see many other members of another race as having inferior behavior/qualities. On the contrary, someone's racist views are more likely to stem from preconceived notions and misconceptions about other people of different races, most of which are the result of socialization. 

And thus, I would argue that more sensing types would be harmed by blind socialization than intuitive types. But that remains a point to be disputed.



azrinsani said:


> Nice Post,
> 
> I think Intuitives tend to generalize things more, so that's probably why you suspect they tend to be more racist. These are negative intuitors. However, positive intuitors can also see the bigger picture, which opposes racism.
> 
> ...


1. Good point. Intuitive types can often see the larger picture, which views ALL humans as equals, rather than limiting them to particular groups, based on VISUAL and social distinctions. 

2. Perhaps it's matter of J/P and S/N. 
I would agree that Perceivers are often more open-minded about different views. 
Hence, SJ's would be more intolerant of change (even social change), while NP's would be the most progressive. And racial discrimination is usually part of a social paradigm that NP's are usually responsible for changing. ENFP's, for example, are about idealistic CHANGE! ENTP's value possibilities and see things differently. INTP's are highly unconventional. INFP's are similar to INTP's in being different. So yeah, I would say all the NP'S are probably the more tolerant and open-minded of the types.



scrybaby said:


> no, because we see the bigger picture.
> So we see race as the HUMAN RACE.
> Maybe this will make us racist against aliens....time will tell...


Indeed. This is a very valid point.


----------

