# Sensor vs Intuitive stereotypes



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

I'm just genuinely curious...why is there so much talk in "typing" with the stereotypes of N and S rather than what it actually is? 

It's about how you take in information right?

So why all this "Ns are smarter than Ss" and "Ns are deep and Ss are not" etc. I tend to see that sort of thing A LOT. Especially in the Guess the Type forum with typing fictional characters...a lot of people type the "deep", "imaginative" and "smart" characters as Ns, when Ss can be all these things too.

So...why the stereotypes?

In fact just in general a lot of people (not all) seem to type based largely on stereotypes. e.g. organised people are always J etc.

Feel free to discuss


----------



## Beautiful Synthetic (Aug 30, 2012)

I kind of think it's type descriptions that create these stereotypes. And perhaps certain people of a certain type exhibited this type of behavior in the past, and people thought "oh intuits/sensors must be this way" or something like that.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

I think N and S has the largest "divide" on this forum in comparison to real life. A lot of people are Ns here, when most of the population are Sensors. There are also some negative stereotypes towards Extroverts here due to the large number of Introverts (IE all extroverts are loud, intrusive, annoying, never want to introspect on anything, party animals, etc), but not as much as you see with N and S. Thinkers and Feelers as well as Judgers and Perceivers seem to be here in about equal numbers (and are more balanced in the overall population) so there is less negativity about any of them.

Sensors also tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to MBTI descriptions. Intuituves are generally described as the creative, deep, analytic people while Sensors, especially SJs, tend to get described as very group-oriented (as in, needing to belong to and follow a group), traditional, and shallow. I also see the sentiment that Sensors are so prevalent because they're evolutionary "leftovers" from our hunter-gatherer days where environmental awareness was a necessity, whereas Intuitives are the "next step" in humanity expressed a lot, and that really annoys me.

There's a bit of stereotyping going on elsewhere (if you procrastinate you must be a P, if you make schedules you must be a J) but none of it is quite so prevalent or negative as the stereotypes against Sensors. When I look at the What's My Type? forum, I see a lot of people who are absolutely sure they're xNxx and not a lot of people who are sure they're xSxx. I think there's some false sense that being an N makes you "special" and if you were ever excluded or are not athletic you must be an N. And, people tend to type their parents and other authority figures as SJ types because they didn't let them have their own way as a teen and therefore must be "stubborn and traditional", which they don't identify themselves as.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

Beautiful Synthetic said:


> I kind of think it's type descriptions that create these stereotypes. And perhaps certain people of a certain type exhibited this type of behavior in the past, and people thought "oh intuits/sensors must be this way" or something like that.


Yeah I really do get that impression. A lot of people in the ISFP forum don't really seem much like ISFPs...they're just "artistic" and therefore decide they're ISFP. I assume it's the same in a lot of the other forums.

Tis a shame really, because any type is capable of anything really.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

Lotan said:


> Sensors also tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to MBTI descriptions. Intuituves are generally described as the creative, deep, analytic people while Sensors, especially SJs, tend to get described as very group-oriented (as in, needing to belong to and follow a group), traditional, and shallow. I also see the sentiment that Sensors are so prevalent because they're evolutionary "leftovers" from our hunter-gatherer days where environmental awareness was a necessity, whereas Intuitives are the "next step" in humanity expressed a lot, and that really annoys me.


Basically everything I've been irritated with. I find it strange that people think like this because if you type (or attempt to type) people in real life...you see that no type is better than another. I know some wonderful SJs and some wonderful NFs. Same with NTs. I actually know very few SPs but the few I do know are awesome. Everyone has their different strengths. 

The "smartest" person in my grade last year (academically speaking) was an SJ, and second smartest an NT. Both are good friends of mine. I know some very deep Ss, very sporty Ns and Ps who don't really procrastinate.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

I've heard the stereotype that S types aren't as creative or as inventive as N types, and I think that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Because there isn't just one personality theory that is being discussed on these threads. A lot of people's ideas on type also come from the Keirsey temperament theories and a bunch of other people's theories, like myers/briggs or jung's theories or Lenore Thomson's, or Beebe's.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Another stereotype I hate is the "iNtuitives are the big picture people/sensors are detail-oriented." Ugh. That's why so many people type themselves as Ns on the dichotomy tests.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

BasketCase said:


> Basically everything I've been irritated with. I find it strange that people think like this because if you type (or attempt to type) people in real life...you see that no type is better than another. I know some wonderful SJs and some wonderful NFs. Same with NTs. I actually know very few SPs but the few I do know are awesome. Everyone has their different strengths.
> 
> The "smartest" person in my grade last year (academically speaking) was an SJ, and second smartest an NT. Both are good friends of mine. I know some very deep Ss, very sporty Ns and Ps who don't really procrastinate.


One of the problems is that a lot of descriptions of N resonate heavily with people who were excluded at some point in their life; that combined with most people being sensors leads some people to believe that

1. they were excluded and therefore must be N
2. they were excluded because of sensors

which creates a negative image of sensors, and people who aren't particularly interested in seeing them as positive because they now associate sensing dominance with mean teachers and popular kids.

Also, a lot of blogs are downright horrible in their descriptions. I saw one say that ESTJs are not very smart, the ideal career for an ESFP is a prostitute, and that ISTJs are the most boring type of person. There's a whole lot of bias out there, alas.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Sometimes I think people feel a form of self validation from their personality type. They read about how their types differ from other types and form bias against those types. "I always knew I was more creative/intuitive than so-so they just couldn't see it because they are a sensor" stuff like that. It is reinforced by threads like 'Which type of are you most attracted to', 'What is your favorite type', some people just can't get the idea that there are incredible people of all types, and that what type you are is really only the top of the iceberg when it comes to your full personality.


----------



## GENIUSandVIOLENCE (Oct 6, 2012)

Lotan said:


> There's a bit of stereotyping going on elsewhere (if you procrastinate you must be a P, if you make schedules you must be a J)


That isn't always the case, but because that stereotype does exist, does that imply that people tend to type others based on E vs. I, N vs. S, T vs. F and P vs. J? There are arguments that say that typing people based on the eight Jungian functions may be more correct. So rather than stereotyping E, I, N, S, etc. is it more useful to stereotype Ti, Fi, Te, etc.?


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

GENIUSandVIOLENCE said:


> That isn't always the case, but because that stereotype does exist, does that imply that people tend to type others based on E vs. I, N vs. S, T vs. F and P vs. J? There are arguments that say that typing people based on the eight Jungian functions may be more correct. So rather than stereotyping E, I, N, S, etc. is it more useful to stereotype Ti, Fi, Te, etc.?


Yes, especially with J and P, which change which functions are extroverted and introverted. Some of the J and P stereotypes have a basis in the functions, but a lot of people and online quizzes will type someone as a J or a P based on how messy their room is or how often they're late to appointments. I see a ton if people who type themselves as "INTx" or something like that, which means they haven't even got a single function figured out because that J or P will completely change it. That's why looking at functions rather than letters is important.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

There are reasons some of the stereotypes exist. My mother is a dominating ISFJ who thinks only about structure and order. She's completely obsessed with the perfect child she wants me to be and will go crazy if something is out of line. My ISTJ friend is sweet and passive, she doesn't force anyone to think or act the way she does and she's a lot of fun to be around. My ESTJ friend is one of the best bosses I've ever had and he's incredibly creative and flexible about how things are run. I've met some absolutely horrible SPs, most of the bullies I had were SPs but I also have an ESFP friend who makes me laugh and who can be a lot of fun to be around. I hung out with an ESFP today and while she and I will never be close she certainly wasn't shallow in the way that most type descriptions would make her out to be.

There's a reason I tend to hang out with mostly intuitive types, it's really helpful to be able to hang out with people who understand your thought process. That doesn't mean sensors are shallow or not fun to hang around, they can be a blast. I've met some really awful intuitives as well, one of the worst bosses I ever had was an extraordinarily unhealthy ENTP who seemed to get pleasure from openly mocking me in front of other people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter your type, good people can be found everywhere. Unfortunately, so can assholes. The prejudice against sensors is ridiculous.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

I guess these are all the cool people on PerC  It is bizarre how MBTI has so many people stereotyping. Maybe that's why many people who don't know much about it think it's so stupid?

I agree with typing based on Jungian functions over 4 letters. Both are helpful but I know for me it was really useful with functions rather than attempting to figure it out with a few letters.

Do you think the stereotyping causes a lot of people to type themselves incorrectly? E.g. "unique" people assuming they're an N?


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

BasketCase said:


> Do you think the stereotyping causes a lot of people to type themselves incorrectly? E.g. "unique" people assuming they're an N?


Absolutely. I bet there are a ton of mistypes because of that. I mistyped myself as an introvert for the longest time because I disliked going to parties and most other hangouts typical of my age group (which is irrelevant) and preferred small groups to large ones (almost everyone does). I accepted ENTJ over INTJ when I started looking at functions, and considered ESTJ as well. I've seen a few threads here and on other forms where a ton of people agree that someone is xSxx and they won't budge on being xNxx. It's up to an individual to decide on their type and some of them may really have been xNxx but some of them are probably mistypes. A lot of people who decide on N really don't want to be S; I'm guessing the negative stereotypes play a part in that.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

Lotan said:


> A lot of people who decide on N really don't want to be S; I'm guessing the negative stereotypes play a part in that.


I went through that myself. I was initially really keen when I found out my type, I thought it fitted me pretty well. Too much reading on PerC caused me to question that, and I then fell into the "I want to be an N" hole. It took a while to convince myself that there was nothing wrong with being an S, and that people just tend to hate on the Ss because they most likely just don't really get it. Also the stereotypes confused me, because a lot of people (and even quizzes online) say stuff like "Ns are imaginative and Ss are not", which made me go "well I'm imaginative...does that make me an N?" Which is of course ridiculous.

Stereotyping is probably one of the reasons there are SO MANY Ns on PerC...particularly INFPs and INFJs. If Ns are so rare, I'd hazard a guess that many people who claim to be these types (and any type really) are probably mistyped. 

I've noticed I and E are often stereotyped a lot as well. Not to the same extent but as you said, a lot of people type I vs E as "like or dislike going to parties" etc. As a general rule everyone's a bit on the fence, because anyone can use any of their functions/letters/whatever...but it's all about preference right? And with I and E, it's about how you get energy. 

I guess that's probably the main problem with typing. Stereotypes. Also, dichotomies, and of course the two combined.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

I vs E is about "energy". It's about your preferred function being subjective or inwardly focused. Or objective, outwardly focused.
S vs N is about either your dominant or auxiliary function being sensory in nature or intuitive. Intuitive is about more and less than being "creative". It's taking things as a given that you personally have no sensory basis for. This can be both a good and a bad thing.
Understanding something not through careful observation with the senses but as a concept. All of us have both aspects, but the less used aspects are submerged and almost hated. Jung called this your shadow self.
T vs F is the same as above with the preferred function being either thinking or feeling. Again, not directly connected to what the name implies. Also can be either subjective or objective.
P vs J is less understandable in Myers-Briggs because development of the functions take time and introverted perceiving types are lumped into the Js while introverted judgers are lumped with the perceivers because of their auxiliary function. Which they may have only a very tenuous understanding of in themselves and others.


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

I think there are quite a few disadvantages to being an 'N'. 

It's down to a lot of people's need to be pretentious about themselves. If it sounds good and intelligent as well as 'different' then they want to be that. But on the extrovert thing, I do tend find some extroverts overbearing while having the please stop talking to me in small talk thing. XD


----------



## Brad Pitt (Jul 6, 2012)

So what is the actual difference, stereotypes aside?


----------



## Brad Pitt (Jul 6, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> I vs E is about "energy". It's about your preferred function being subjective or inwardly focused. Or objective, outwardly focused.
> S vs N is about either your dominant or auxiliary function being sensory in nature or intuitive. Intuitive is about more and less than being "creative". It's taking things as a given that you personally have no sensory basis for. This can be both a good and a bad thing.
> Understanding something not through careful observation with the senses but as a concept. All of us have both aspects, but the less used aspects are submerged and almost hated. Jung called this your shadow self.
> T vs F is the same as above with the preferred function being either thinking or feeling. Again, not directly connected to what the name implies. Also can be either subjective or objective.
> P vs J is less understandable in Myers-Briggs because development of the functions take time and introverted perceiving types are lumped into the Js while introverted judgers are lumped with the perceivers because of their auxiliary function. Which they may have only a very tenuous understanding of in themselves and others.


Thanks this is great, but could younrxplain tf and jp a little more as to what the actual differences are?


----------



## Luanne (Jul 6, 2012)

Hmm... This does annoy me actually (partly cause I'm never entirely sure whether or not I use Ne or Se and I'd like to have an idea of what they both are) cause all I have to go on are the stereotypes, and while I fit a lot of the stereotypes associated with Ns, I don't know...
I hate stereotypes.
There is literally no point to what I just said.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Out, damned stereotypes! Let's get this straight once and for all! Everybody is basically the same as everybody else, and anybody can be anything they want to be, and everybody's as smart and creative as everybody else, and saying anything different is just silly freaking stereotyping!

Also, ponies for all...

Come on, people. This is definitely one of the more reality-challenged threads I have had the discomfort of perusing in a while.

Let's start with what most modern MBTI sources view as one of the core defining elements of the N/S dimension — namely, the _abstract/concrete_ duality.



kasthu said:


> Another stereotype I hate is the "iNtuitives are the big picture people/sensors are detail-oriented." Ugh. That's why so many people type themselves as Ns on the dichotomy tests.


The reason you find this sort of distinction on so many of those darned "dichotomy tests" is that it goes to the heart of the difference between N's and S's.


Myers explained that S's "are intensely aware of the external environment; they are observant at the expense of imagination" — while N's focus on "the sense impressions related to the current inspiration; they are imaginative at the expense of observation."
The official MBTI asks, "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses, or courses involving theory?" and "Do you value facts more as being interesting in themselves, or illustrating some principle or relationship?"
Keirsey notes that an S typically "wants facts, trusts facts, and remembers facts" and tends to be "accurate in observing details," while an N "seems to scan, glance, radiate at things and people, at times aware only of that which is related to his current preoccupations, missing details noted by" S's.
Lenore Thomson (whose work in centered more around the functions than the dichotomies) notes that "Sensation gives us an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation," while "Intuition gives us an appreciation for the larger picture or underlying pattern, beyond the reach of the senses," with the result that N's tend to be uninterested in "facts and details."
Linda Berens explains that sensing "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data," while intuition "is a process of becoming aware of abstract information, like symbols, conceptual patterns, and meanings."
Berens and Nardi associate S with "tangible information" and N with "conceptual information" and specifically associate Ne with "Interpreting situations and relationships" and "becoming aware of patterns, implications and meanings," and Ni with "current perceptions sparking insights into complex situations," "becoming aware of universal meanings and symbols" and "noticing whole patterns or systems."

Now, at this point you might object, well, OK, reckful, I know the official MBTI and most of the modern theorists view S vs. N in those terms, but _that's not what Jung said_. And you'd be partly right, but only because Jung located the lion's share of the abstract/concrete duality in his conceptions of introversion and extraversion, rather than his conceptions of intuition and sensation. So if you want to "go back to Jung" in that respect, you'll be in a better position to complain about modern S/N descriptions in that regard, but you'll also have accepted a perspective that says _introverts_ are the abstract "big picture" people and _extraverts_ are the ones whose abstract-thinking abilities tend to suffer from their strong focus on the facts and details of the physical world. And oh, yeah — just FYI, there's now about fifty years of statistical data (from MBTI theorists and Big Five theorists both) that makes it pretty clear Myers was right to move abstract/concrete from the I/E dimension to the N/S dimension.

Meanwhile, speaking of facts...



BasketCase said:


> I'm just genuinely curious...why is there so much talk in "typing" with the stereotypes of N and S rather than what it actually is?
> 
> It's about how you take in information right?
> 
> ...


It's virtually always "stereotyping" if somebody declares that _all N's_ are this, or _all S's_ do that, since temperament (by which I mean the more hard-wired aspects of personality that Jung and the MBTI are about) is virtually always more accurately described in terms of tendencies and probabilities, and there are often multiple other influences that can come into play in terms of actual behavioral or other results.

So of course it's silly stereotyping if somebody says, e.g., "all N's are smarter than all S's." But, honestly, have you ever heard anyone say that? But if someone says that, _on average_, and as measured by things like scholastic aptitude tests and academic performance and IQ tests, N's are significantly "smarter" than S's, why would you call that a "stereotype" or otherwise object to it if it's backed up by decades worth of data (which it certainly is)? The 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual was full of statistics that correlated measures of academic aptitude and achieivement with the MBTI preferences and found a consistent N advantage (and a secondary I advantage), and Big Five psychologists have likewise found significant correlations between Openness to Experience (the Big Five version of an N preference) and standard measures of intelligence.

Does this mean N's are better than S's? Silly question, right? What does "better" mean? The official MBTI view has always been that no type is "better" than any other _overall_, and that each preference and type has its own strengths and weaknesses. (Not to mention that these are _averages_ and, hopefully needless to say, any particular S could well be smarter than any particular N.) But subscribing to that philosophy doesn't necessitate being in denial in the face of _facts_ concerning the nature and extent of various particular strengths or weaknesses that meaningfully correlate with certain types.

As another example, take creativity...



Bast said:


> I've heard the stereotype that S types aren't as creative or as inventive as N types, and I think that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.


My understanding is that, if you distinguish _art_ from _crafts_ – to use a familiar distinction – then, statistically speaking, most types of creative artists (using that term broadly) are disproportionately populated by N's. (Browsing the statistics in the MBTI Manual, it looks like maybe a P preference has the 2nd-biggest influence on artistic interests, with F in 3rd place.)

The second edition of the MBTI Manual includes a section on MBTI studies of "creativity," and an N preference is (by a substantial margin) the preference most strongly associated with creativity (both of the artistic kind and of the technical/scientific kind). Of the 114 professional fine artists in one of the sample studies, 91% of them were N's (65% NF and 26% NT). More specifically, 25 were INFP and only one was ISFP.

The list of occupational rankings along the SN dimension at the back of the MBTI Manual (based on a variety of studies in the MBTI database) includes the following entries:


Photographers: 73% N
Teachers of art, drama & music: 71% N
Artists & entertainers (broad category): 69% N
Musicians & composers: 65% N
Designers: 58% N

There are _no_ artistic occupations that are majority S.

And all these N majorities are particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that N's are typically reported to make up only around 25-30% of the general population.

Focusing on NFs in particular, Keirsey says: "Although [NFs] make up only about 12 percent of the general population, ... their influence on the minds of the populace is massive, for most writers come from this group. Novelists, dramatists, television writers, playwrights, journalists, poets, and biographers are almost exclusively NFs."

As noted above, the Big Five dimension that corresponds to N is called Openness to Experience, and there's quite a bit of data demonstrating significant correlations between that and various measures of creativity. You can find some discussion about those Big Five correlations with _both_ intelligence and creativity in this Wikipedia article.

As a side note, FWIW (and acknowledging that Jung's eight type portraits were not exactly on-target in every case), Jung viewed Ni-doms as the most characteristically artistic type. He wrote: "The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, if it gains the ascendency, produces a peculiar type of man: the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, the artist and the crank on the other. The artist might be regarded as the normal representative of this type." (He also said people occasionally got a glimpse of the weirdness of an Si-dom's psyche if the Si-dom produced some art, but noted that that was the exception rather than the rule.)

Jung also associated art and feeling. In his description of a Te-dom, he said that "all those activities that are dependent on feeling will become repressed in such a type — for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, cultivation of friends, etc." As a final note, in describing the auxiliary function, Jung explained: "*esides the ... primary function there is [an] ... auxiliary function, ... [and the] resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, ... artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on." So you might say Jung, to some extent, associated NFs with art.

=======================================

Finally, for anybody who's interested, here's an "introduction to N and S" that I posted at another forum a while ago:


 




I think one of the distinctions at the heart of N/S is the one between the "real" world — where physical things (and "facts") exist and events happen in time (S-world) — and the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, patterns, etc. (N-world). Both N's and S's understand that both worlds exist, and have their place. The N/S distinction has more to do with which world you find most valuable and meaningful — and focus most of your attention on. A hardcore S will tend to view N-world as valueless except to the extent that it ultimately serves some kind of practical purpose in S-world. A hardcore N, on the other hand, will tend to feel most at home in N-world, and view the physical world as more of a canvas or playground on which the laws of nature, science, psychology, beauty, etc. play themselves out. Just as an S tends to only value ideas to the extent that they serve some practical end, an N will tend to find the facts/details/etc. of the "real world" uninteresting to the extent that they don't embody, illustrate or otherwise tie into some more abstract pattern, principle, law or other aspect of N-world.

A hardcore S may well view himself as practical, down-to-earth and common-sensical and to roll his eyes at dreamy, impractical, pointy-headed intellectuals whose theories and "bright ideas" tend to blind them to the way things actually work — while a hardcore N may view the hardcore S as a deficiently non-intellectual (and perhaps somewhat dim) person who seems to often to miss the forest for the trees and is regrettably uninterested in the ideas/laws/patterns that make the world an interesting place.

Isabel Myers said N's "face life expectantly, craving inspiration," while S's "face life observantly, craving enjoyment." N's "admit fully to consciousness only the sense impressions related to the current inspiration; they are imaginative at the expense of observation"; whereas S's "admit to consciousness every sense impression and are intensely aware of the external environment; they are observant at the expense of imagination." She also said that N's "are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it"; whereas S's tend to be "reluctant to sacrifice present enjoyment to future gain or good."

Keirsey says that an N "lives in anticipation. Whatever is can be better, or different, and is seen only as a way station. Consequently, N's often experience a vague sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness. They seem somewhat bothered by reality, constantly looking toward possibilities of changing or improving the actual"; whereas an S "wants facts, trusts facts and remembers facts. He believes in experience and knows through experience (history), both personal and global. ... They focus on what actually happened rather than worrying too much about what might have been or what will be in the future."

Krueger and Thuesen say N's "find the future and its possibilities more intriguing than frightening" and "are usually more excited about where they're going than where they are"; whereas S's "focus on 'what is' and find 'what can be' unsettling."

Keirsey also notes that an N child "may be difficult to handle. He always seems to have a core of 'being his own person' which adults sometimes find objectionable and offensive. ... He may seem opinionated to others, the NT in particular, and he often is very certain that he knows; at the same time, he cannot justify his convictions to others' satisfaction when questioned."

It's common to read, in MBTI sources, that an N is substantially more likely than an S to be bored and unhappy with a job that could fairly be described as doing the same thing over and over. An NT will enjoy putting some kind of system together, then want to move on to devising a new system, leaving it to the S "administrators" to actually use/apply the system, while the S administrators are more content to be the hands-on people applying the system day in and day out to deal with each day's new demands, and are happy to leave it to the Ns to have to endure the brain damage involved in figuring out new systems, or improving old systems.

As Isabel Myers put it, N's "enjoy learning a new skill more than using it," while S's "enjoy using skills already learned more than learning new ones."

The MBTI manual notes that people considered "highly creative" tend to be N's, with writers tending to be NFs, and mathematicians and scientists tending to be NTs. Kroeger and Thuesen note that elementary school teachers are mostly S's, high school teachers are fairly evenly split, and college professors tend to be N's.


*


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

reckful said:


> tl;dr


Note that I said "creative" and "inventive", not professionals working in the field of fine arts. 

Also, the VAST majority of personality tests that are referenced in the S/N "divide" are all based on self report data, and therefore are prone to being full of shit.


ETA: Also, why is it always INTJs who jump in to argue that Ns are ~THE BEST AROUND~~~? There's a stereotype for you.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

The stereotypical sensors are blondes.
The stereotypical intuitives are brunettes.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Bast said:


> reckful said:
> 
> 
> > tl;dr
> ...


As I said, that fine arts study was just "one of the sample studies" among many studies over the past 50 years — by MBTI and Big Five psychologists both — that have found significant correlations between an N preference (and the corresponding Big Five dimension) and multiple forms of creativity.

Ignore my posts (and the facts) if you like, Bast. I can only lead you to the water.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

reckful said:


> As I said, that fine arts study was just "one of the sample studies" among many studies over the past 50 years — by MBTI and Big Five psychologists both — that have found significant correlations between an N preference (and the corresponding Big Five dimension) and multiple forms of creativity.
> 
> Ignore my posts (and the facts) if you like, Bast. I can only lead you to the water.


I'm not saying there isn't a high correlation that has been show time and time again between N types and "creativity" in a general sense. Obviously there is. However, to say that all people of S types are less creative and less inventive than N types by default just because of said "facts" is ridiculous. That was my original point.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Bast said:


> I'm not saying there isn't a high correlation that has been show time and time again between N types and "creativity" in a general sense. Obviously there is. However, *to say that all people of S types are less creative and less inventive than N types by default just because of said "facts" is ridiculous*. That was my original point.


And can you point me to any post or website that has ever claimed that _all_ N's are more creative than _all_ S's, or is that just a silly straw man you've concocted? As I said in the post you didn't read:



reckful said:


> It's virtually always "stereotyping" if somebody declares that _all N's_ are this, or _all S's_ do that, since temperament (by which I mean the more hard-wired aspects of personality that Jung and the MBTI are about) is virtually always more accurately described in terms of tendencies and probabilities, and there are often multiple other influences that can come into play in terms of actual behavioral or other results.


You're now conceding that there's "a high correlation" that's been "shown time and time again between N types and 'creativity' in a general sense." Well, with all due respect, a "high correlation" that turns up "time and time again" is about as good as it gets in the area of temperament. And your latest post certainly makes your initial post in this thread sound curious to me. Here it is again, in its entirety:



Bast said:


> I've heard the stereotype that S types aren't as creative or as inventive as N types, and I think that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

reckful said:


> And can you point me to any post or website that has ever claimed that _all_ N's are more creative than _all_ S's, or is that just a silly straw man you've concocted? As I said in the post you didn't read:


It's been said many times on this very forum, but the posts get removed and the poster gets an infraction for typism. And I actually did read your post in its entirety, just FYI. Also, "silly straw man" made me smile, thanks for that. I'm looking forward to being told I'm using more logical fallacies in the future. Please compare me to a Nazi next.




> You're now conceding that there's "a high correlation" that's been "shown time and time again between N types and 'creativity' in a general sense." Well, with all due respect, a "high correlation" that turns up "time and time again" is about as good as it gets in the area of temperament. And your latest post certainly makes your initial post in this thread sound curious to me. Here it is again, in its entirety:


...you do realize this is a thread about stereotypes, right? I said that it's a stereotype that Ns are more creative than S types. Isn't that exactly what you said in what you just quoted yourself as saying?? If it would make you feel better, I can go back and make my first post say "ALL Ns" and "ALL Ss", as that's what I meant. You're taking this all very seriously.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

The difference in the stereotypes reflect the differences IRL. That's how they become stereotypes in the first place. The problem isn't the stereotypes, it's the judgements people apply to them. I'm more creative and more of a deep thinker than any of the S's around me, but I don't think that makes me better or smarter because IRL I see the S's are way ahead of me because they naturally apply their skills to the concrete and tangible, therefore making visible progress with their lives. IRL, I've always felt like I've drawn the short straw by having N strengths, they feel pretty useless in everyday applications. I'd switch for a sensors brain anytime.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@reckful, I found your post very interesting (not because I either agree or disagree with it, but because it had lots of quotes and data in it that I didn't know ... does that make me an S?). 

However, it says this about creativity on wiki:


> J. P. Guilford[SUP][33][/SUP] performed important work in the field of creativity, drawing a distinction between convergent and divergent production (commonly renamed convergent and divergent thinking). *Convergent thinking involves aiming for a single, correct solution to a problem,* whereas *divergent thinking involves creative generation of multiple answers to a set problem.* Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology literature. Other researchers have occasionally used the terms _flexible_ thinking or fluid intelligence, which are roughly similar to (but not synonymous with) creativity.


Convergent thinking= Ni (+Te), possibly even Si (+Te), maybe Ni + Fe if you don't take _thinking_ too literally
divergent thinking= Ne (+Ti), maybe Ne + Fi.
No? 


Also, I read an article once about different levels of creativity (of course, being a useless INTJ I forgot the title, author _and _the name of the levels, but I am right anyway  ). Anyway, the lowest level was something like "applying a skill you have learned correctly" and the highest was a genius who invents something completely new. Needless to say, the highest level of creativity is so rare, that only very few people actually "achieve" this level (although achieve is the wrong word). So it doesn't even matter about S vs. N because compared to those geniuses we're all equally "uncreative" anyway. 

I've forgotten what I wanted to say.

Here's a personal anecdote: My best friend (an ESFJ) once told me that I'm so incredibly creative and she would like to be like that. This was way before I learned about MBTI and INTJ and I was really surprised. Granted, at the time I had ideas for 3 novels. None of them ever got written and good riddance because I'm a rubbish novel writer. Also, I wrote a few poems and a published poet on a forum said I should get them published in this and that magazine. I f*cking know that they aren't all that bad and I really _ought_ to have them published. YET during all this time it never occurred to me to think of myself as "creative". I thought my ESFJ friend was quite creative because she's a little bit into arts and crafts and produces nice little pictures and objects that she places around her house. _Objectively_ they are the kind of stuff that children and "housewives" make, but personally I find them pleasant to look at and I wish I had the patience to make something like that myself.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> tl;dr


The subjective lens bias is strong in this one, he has an MBTI qualification that severely distorts observation. Summarising _reckful_ in all arguments "Myers was right, Jung wrong, I'm obviously officially educated in MBTI which is obviously right because its 'new'". The funny thing is that MBTI is a joke to mainstream science due to the horrendous subjectivity; _Abraxas_ was right when mentioned that its only hard science which could redeem it else the dichotomies wallow in the personalized lens the authors have. 

tl;dr continued
Jung's Te, Fe, Se and Ne are all largely talking about sensors; you heard that right people "sensors". They adhere to the "facts", which they constantly adapt to from the external reality. Sensing is looking at the world's concrete/"objected" details which the mind constantly adapts too by storing them in.

Whereas his Ti Fi Si and Ni descriptions are largely talking about "intuition"; the abstract view of reality. An "abstract" view of reality is arranging the information observed by the senses into a 'big picture' that neglects details. Hence Jungian "Si" is a miscategorization of the element of "intuition" when he talks about viewing the world under that "subjective lens" creating an abstract presentation of the given idea; It is not sensing with a "subjective lens" when describing SJs view of reality but instead, its just comparing recorded "concrete" details with the past. Modern researchers Nardi... are saying this and its right, MBTI is a modern school of thought on its own after all.

*What objective sense of measurement says that such proposed dichotomies of intuition, sensing, thinking or feeling are objective? Other personality theories may agree with that to a degree but even with those, what is objective about them? Explicitly the part which doesn't fall victim to the author's "subjective lens"?
*
_I'm just a humble genius, and I'm serious about that, strolling through these forums_


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Convergent thinking= Ni (+Te), possibly even Si (+Te), maybe Ni + Fe if you don't take _thinking_ too literally
> divergent thinking= Ne (+Ti), maybe Ne + Fi.
> No?


As explained in the long spoiler in this post, I'm really a dichotomies guy rather than a functions guy. My understanding is that, if there's a quintessential "creative artist" type, it's the Limbic INFP, with N being the most significant (and well-established) contributor, but with each of the other four preferences (if you count Limbic) also making some contribution.

I'm not well versed in what divergent and convergent thinking are all about, but I'd note that the Wikipedia article I previously linked to on Openness to experience associates creativity with divergent thinking (and both with Openness to experience).


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

There are always exceptions (for example, I'm a Te-dom and want to be an author, and I would certainly not describe myself as tasteless or unable to make friends), and those statistics could make some creative or intelligent people type themselves as N just because they're creative or intelligent without actually reading up on the functions.

Regardless of any correlation there will always be exceptions; and a lot of things I see said about Sensors are outright negative (they're 'sheep', they're shallow, they never think outside the box, they're boring, etc) which just make Ns seem all-around superior. No type is superior, and _those_ are the stereotypes I think are bullshit rather than "on average Ns are smarter" which is just a statistic. And I have to wonder if some statistics end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy; a lot of smart/artistic Ss I know typed themselves as N at first. I won't deny that those statistics exist but I have to wonder if it makes it harder for the exceptions to type themselves.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> @_reckful_, I found your post very interesting (not because I either agree or disagree with it, but because it had lots of quotes and data in it that I didn't know ... does that make me an S?).
> 
> However, it says this about creativity on wiki:
> 
> ...


Under his type of MBTI, an ENTJs is more inline with a sensors and so are INTJs that believe that intuition is only useful if it serves a practical goal. The only true intuitives are xNTPs, especially the INTP, that care about the "abstract"/"intuitive" ideas on their own irespective of their application in reality. Under such a dichotomy, I'm personally an MBTI:INTP since I'm interested in ideas themselves more so that the ability to execute them. Its like I become a confused INTJ because I've developed my lower sensing function that sometimes makes me want to bring my intuitions to reality; but because I'm not a sensor I find the process irritating. But xNTJs who are said to naturally lean towards practically do. They don't like abstract ideas for their beauty.

_FlaviaGemina_ Long story short you are actually a sensor or the confused sensors like xNTJs who orientate towards intuition being applied to reality.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Under his type of MBTI, an ENTJs is more inline with a sensors and so are INTJs that believe that intuition is only useful if it serves a practical goal. The only true intuitives are xNTPs, especially the INTP, that care about the "abstract"/"intuitive" ideas on their own irespective of their application in reality. Under such a dichotomy, I'm personally an MBTI:INTP since I'm interested in ideas themselves more so that the ability to execute them. Its like I become a confused INTJ because I've developed my lower sensing function that sometimes makes me want to bring my intuitions to reality; but because I'm not a sensor I find the process irritating. But xNTJs who are said to naturally lean towards practically do. They don't like abstract ideas for their beauty.
> 
> _FlaviaGemina_ Long story short you are actually a sensor or the confused sensors like xNTJs who orientate towards intuition being applied to reality.


I'm not sure I follow you. Could you please indicate of the paragraphs reflect your opinion on what reckful said and which of them are your own opinion?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I'm not sure I follow you. Could you please indicate of the paragraphs reflect your opinion on what reckful said and which of them are your own opinion?


Its not really hard to connect the dots, and he explains why Jung is wrong and MBTI is "right". Weren't you picking up on what he said that people who need concrete evidence are "sensors"? Intuitors don't care about accuracy, they just connect the dots to their own likening, as big picture orientated people. Reckful has an MBTI qualification and or impressive knowledge on it, but he can't seem to acknowledge that he has a subjective lens, that distorts things. 

I can't really be bothered to go through his wall of text, but if you do so you can see why he thinks that Jung's I/E were wrong so they had to be changed to N/S, which he believes is right. Besides his subjectively sanctioned evidence his argument is not convincing.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Bast said:


> Note that I said "creative" and "inventive", not professionals working in the field of fine arts.
> 
> Also, the VAST majority of personality tests that are referenced in the S/N "divide" are all based on self report data, and therefore are prone to being full of shit.
> 
> ...


At least socionics tries to say that for a person to be whole, they have to take advantage of the 4 sides to their personality, thinking, sensing, intuition and feeling. Sure it has its bald claims but it seems to try to redeem itself. MBTI has the strong intuition bias. If you aren't an NT something is kind of wrong.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I'm not sure I follow you. Could you please indicate of the paragraphs reflect your opinion on what reckful said and which of them are your own opinion?


Just in case it's helpful to you, I don't recognize my statements (or views) in Boolean11's characterizations of them.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

@reckful

Overall I agree with your longer post that pointed out the natural correlations that are along the S/N divide. If we're thinking realistically, then I do think that generally those patterns do exist. 

I think the key point, though, is what Lotan mentions below:



Lotan said:


> Regardless of any correlation there will always be exceptions; and a lot of things I see said about Sensors are outright negative (they're 'sheep', they're shallow, they never think outside the box, they're boring, etc) which just make Ns seem all-around superior. No type is superior, and _those_ are the stereotypes I think are bullshit rather than "on average Ns are smarter" which is just a statistic. And I have to wonder if some statistics end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy; a lot of smart/artistic Ss I know typed themselves as N at first. I won't deny that those statistics exist but I have to wonder if it makes it harder for the exceptions to type themselves.



I think the problem is that sometimes people take those general trends and they use it to make jumps to stereotypes that are not true. They take the general N creativity aspect and make it seem like Ss never think for themselves or ever do anything original. 

So I think that's the main point of this thread, IMO...to make sure that people keep straight the differences between the factual trends and the false stereotypes of superiority/inferiority.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> Just in case it's helpful to you, I don't recognize my statements (or views) in Boolean11's characterizations of them.


Because your subjective lens chooses to do so, your critique of Jung's Sensing and Intuition dichotomies, which you claim to be more of I/E. Are just subjective in origin, geez you don't even note how a the "lens"/subjective can distort understanding. You have your own subjective interpretation of Jung that claim that the idea of classifying information under a "lens"/ "the subjective" is a characteristic of intuition. That just doesn't make enough bloody sense when you provide us without an objective premises besides saying that we should swallow your MBTI teaches because they are right (you have a qualification in it, something you strongly suggest with your impressive quotes; though your subjective lens never disappears in it) . 

The idea that SJs are aware of everything in tangible reality is subjective on its on; what is the objective evidence to suggest that besides clearly viewing that as a subjective lens. Your improved dichotomies that you claim Myers brought, don't really make any objective sense beside noting how here subjective lens lead her to that dichotomy.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

@liza_200 there is no problem with the descriptions you said at the beginning. It is just irritating to see typing going on based on things like "intelligence", "creativity" etc. It is just the stereotypes. The way a lot of people (not everyone) use these stereotypes quite a lot. The N stereotypes are just as silly. Just because a few people act a certain way doesn't mean everyone of that "type" does. You could just as easily target I/E...J/P to a lesser extent but you still could. In any case it is "typist" and shouldn't happen.

I was just kinda wondering why it happens. It adds no value to the system and actually makes it very confusing if you try to type yourself by reading a lot on this website. All types are equal and have their own strengths, as do the people within each "type". That's really my point. But anyway. Thanks for being honest at least.


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

BasketCase said:


> @liza_200 there is no problem with the descriptions you said at the beginning. It is just irritating to see typing going on based on things like "intelligence", "creativity" etc. It is just the stereotypes. The way a lot of people (not everyone) use these stereotypes quite a lot. The N stereotypes are just as silly. Just because a few people act a certain way doesn't mean everyone of that "type" does. You could just as easily target I/E...J/P to a lesser extent but you still could. In any case it is "typist" and shouldn't happen.
> 
> I was just kinda wondering why it happens. It adds no value to the system and actually makes it very confusing if you try to type yourself by reading a lot on this website. *All types are equal* and have their own strengths, as do the people within each "type".


Nope. We'll are not fishes. Some of us are birds, and tigers, who have their strength in the sky and in the land.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

liza_200 said:


> Nope. We'll are not fishes. Some of us are birds, and tigers, who have their strength in the sky and in the land.


Very true  But none of us are Unicorns...because as unfortunate as it is, they don't exist. But there are birds, tigers, cats, dogs, lions, guianan cock-of-the-rocks and ants.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Don't forget us wizards. :tongue:


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

Hahaha yes Wizards are cool. And witches.  And of course they're all real.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

liza_200 said:


> These kind of threads actually look like the 'ranting threads' lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's hard to say how prevalent any one particular stereotype on PerC is compared to another. However, for me, it at least feels like I've seen more separation along the N/S line on PerC than I have any of the other preferences.

I think a large part of it is that there's a large disparity between S and N both IRL and on PerC than there is with the other preferences. It's hard to tell with type statistics, but for E/I, T/F, and J/P, many stats put the preferences as pretty close to 50/50. The S/N difference is the only one that seems to be very highly skewed IRL. 

And on PerC, it seems to be just the opposite...the number of Ns is clearly much larger than the number of Ss on PerC.

I know there are stereotypes on all of the preferences and types. And my perception may be wrong, but it feels like it happens more along the S/N line. And I think that's partly because if a T says something about Fs, there are a large number of Fs there to explain it or balance it out. When it happens in with N vs. S, there aren't as many S members to chime in. 

These threads in particular stand out to me:


http://personalitycafe.com/nfs-temp...igh-intuitives-prejudice-against-sensors.html

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/98079-common-think-sensors-simple.html

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/30647-intuitives-complex-sensors-simple.html



I think the other difference is that with the other preferences, I think there's a general mentality that it's not as locked into place and that there is room for development. Some people may claim that NTs are "cold" or "heartless", but I think there's a general belief that this preference doesn't limit the NT from being emotional or developing a feeling side. I think the same is true for E/I and J/P. I think most Ps believe Js can loosen up, and Js believe Ps can improve structure/organization.


But with S/N...it's almost as if people believe there's a gap and a separation that can't be overcome. It's almost like some Ns believe that Ss will never "get them"...that they'll never understand what it's like to think as an N. It doesn't seem like there's as much of a believe that an S can "develop their N side". 

I think this is a direct result of Ns being in the minority in their real lives. they probably deal with many Ss IRL who don't make an effort to understand them, so they do start feeling like there is a very strong separation. I think what happens is many Ss feel like they're lumped into this same group.



Now, I agree with you that ideally, one wouldn't care about this. But it's frustrating to feel as though you have to prove anything to anyone based solely on a letter preference. I don't want to go into a a conversation feeling like someone won't take what I have to say seriously based on any aspect of the type that's listed on my profile. 

This can be true for any of the preferences, but I think it's most notable along the S line. I've even had some people tell me that I'm "not like other ISFJs". While I do take this as a compliment in some ways, it also reinforces the idea that I have to show I'm different than what someone would naturally expect from someone of my type. 




I think you're right in that the issue does get blown up a bit, and there are plenty of Ns who get just as tired of the stereotyping as Ss do. And like I keep saying...I don't know if this does happen more often along the S/N line than the other preferences. All I can say is that it feels like it does, and I can remember more times it happens here than I can for other preferences.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

liza_200 said:


> 'Sensors are detail-oriented, sensors are traditional, sensors are down to earth'.. etc
> A question to the sensors, why do you people keep on taking these comments in a negative way?


Because those comments are often worded much more negatively than you worded them. On their own those qualities aren't back. But a lot of people seem to see it as 'traditional = sheeple who can't think for themselves' and 'down to earth = boring and not complex enough to theorize'.

Like the threads linked in the post above mine; people saying sensors are "simple". I've also seen people say that they just can't get along with sensors because sensors never discuss complex topics, and people who self typed as N get accused of not actually being an intuitive if they make an argument another N thinks is stupid.

This forum is about typing and a majority of us have typed ourselves, so some stereotyping will happen and if the description of your type is totally inaccurate you should...perhaps consider another type; but sensor qualities ARE often portrayed in an unfairly negative light here.


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> But with S/N...it's almost as if people believe there's a gap and a separation that can't be overcome. It's almost like some Ns believe that Ss will never "get them"...that they'll never understand what it's like to think as an N. It doesn't seem like there's as much of a believe that an S can "develop their N side".
> 
> I think this is a direct result of Ns being in the minority in their real lives. they probably deal with many Ss IRL who don't make an effort to understand them, so they do start feeling like there is a very strong separation. I think what happens is many Ss feel like they're lumped into this same group.


Well, you can't really blame the intuitives for calling you all that in a negative way here, cause they always get ignored and neglected by sensors in real life, and irl, sensors don't actually care or try to understand them. And even if they try to, they find us awkward or insane cause we don't match with their stereotypical behaviors and actions. Like I had this ESFJ friend of mine who actually tried to understand me and concluded calling me a 'psycho' cause I was different. Now this is probably because of lack of knowledge about the sensors and the intuitives. Many Ns here share their thoughts and vents about what _actually _happens irl with them everyday. So it's natural to draw such conclusions. And then you guys are a bunch of exceptions among millions of rotten eggs who tries to prove that they're worth it. Why and how should we even believe that you're really worth it unless and until you prove it to us? And it's partially impossible to make each and every intuitive here to understand this cause the actual sensor population in reality will still remain the same. And there are so many intuitives who aren't a member of perC..
And I've observed that sensors (especially Sjs) have the habit of stereotyping. It's like :'don't you have an apple everyday for breakfast, then why are you having a banana today? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?' (maybe NJs also might have this habit but I haven't experienced them, and this example might sound silly..but this is what had come to my mind  )


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

@0uroboros and @liza_200 - 

The issue is when we attempt to deduce cognitive functions strictly by behaviors and to reduce something as complex as personality to a set of observed behaviors, without giving due consideration to motives, experiences, and values. The behaviors we observe are an expression of the cognitive processes, but are heavily influenced by all of these other things. When we ignore everything except the cognitive processes while attempting to type ourselves and others, we are bound to have many errors. Statistically, approximately 70% of all MBTI test results are inaccurate the first time that the test is administered.

Based on behavior alone, the vast majority of teens will type their parents as an SJ, failing to realize that their relationship, being a parent/child relationship, will naturally have an SJ feel to it, since that is somewhat part and parcel to the role of being a parent. I've known of ENFP parents that were typed as SJs by their kids. If you can miss it that far when you live with someone, there is something wrong with the methodology being used.

I've read so many erroneous deductions made by people making sweeping generalizations based on type and what a few words or descriptions of behaviors meant to them. Taking SJs as an example, someone that is young, seeking self-realization and rebelling against the establishment, will say that churches are filled with SJs - and not much else. What do they base this on? Well, these people go to church regularly, so they must be SJs, since SJs are so traditional. This circular reasoning blinds them to the fact that churches are actually filled with all MBTI types, generally proportionate to MBTI types in the population. Those making these assumptions are blind to the importance of values, life experiences (particularly relating to the family of origin), and the differences inherent in generations because of these influences. Not understanding what is meant by "traditional", people are mistyping others and contributing to the misunderstanding of MBTI that is so prevalent. A young SJ today is about as likely as an NT to be an atheist or an agnostic - seldom darkening a church door. Yet the stereotype is perpetuated daily.

Coupled with that, we have people attempting to determine correlations between various theories without doing their homework, which ends up spreading more false information. The Big Five grants greater intelligence to some intuitive types based on their method of perception (this has some inherent flaws, but that is a discussion for another time), so someone familiar with MBTI and The Big Five comes along and says that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors, which is a complete misrepresentation of what the data actually reveals, since this aspect (as described by The Big Five) is actually only dealing with Ne and how it searches for possibilities. But the "facts" are stated authoritatively that N's have a higher IQ than S's.

So, for me, seeing the system abused and applied incorrectly is irritating in that it makes the system worthless. Once we get away from strictly behavior based typing, and start delving into the cognitive processes as they are expressed behaviorally with consideration given to values, motive, and life experiences, our accuracy will improve and the system will become functional as it should be.

I suspect that most people on this site and others like it, couldn't begin to tell you why they are XXXX type, outside of a few random behaviors. This is a great starting point, but it is hardly an end all solution. We all exhibit almost all behaviors at some time, but the motivations are very different. Once we start getting people to realize their actual motivations instead of glossing it over and believing what they want to believe about themselves, then a greater depth of self-realization and accuracy in typing will be observed.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

liza_200 said:


> Well, you can't really blame the intuitives for calling you all that in a negative way here, cause they always get ignored and neglected by sensors in real life, and irl, sensors don't actually care or try to understand them. And even if they try to, they find us awkward or insane cause we don't match with their stereotypical behaviors and actions. Like I had this ESFJ friend of mine who actually tried to understand me and concluded calling me a 'psycho' cause I was different. Now this is probably because of lack of knowledge about the sensors and the intuitives. Many Ns here share their thoughts and vents about what _actually _happens irl with them everyday. So it's natural to draw such conclusions. And then you guys are a bunch of exceptions among millions of rotten eggs who tries to prove that they're worth it. Why and how should we even believe that you're really worth it unless and until you prove it to us? And it's partially impossible to make each and every intuitive here to understand this cause the actual sensor population in reality will still remain the same. And there are so many intuitives who aren't a member of perC..
> And I've observed that sensors (especially Sjs) have the habit of stereotyping. It's like :'don't you have an apple everyday for breakfast, then why are you having a banana today? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?' (maybe NJs also might have this habit but I haven't experienced them, and this example might sound silly..but this is what had come to my mind  )


I see. So being misunderstood is what makes us an intuitive. Then every kid in middle school is an intuitive.


----------



## 0uroboros (Nov 23, 2011)

@*teddy564339 *

 
 "Sources of Misunderstanding: Although extraversion and introversion are important differences in understanding ourselves and others, these preferences are minor compared with the sensation and intuitive ways of thinking about things. The two preferences of sensation and intuition are, of any of the preferences, the source of the most miscommunication, misunderstanding, vilification, defamation and denigration. _This difference places the widest gulf between people. _It is the difference, in fact, that Kretschmer saw so clearly as schizothymia vs. cyclothymia. The schizothyms (intuitives) are understood in terms of sensitivity/awareness, while the cyclothymes (sensibles) are understood in terms of happiness/sadness, optimism/pessimism. For Kretschmer this was the fundamental dimension of human experience, while for Jung it was merely one of four bases of difference." Please Understand Me, Keirsey/Bates, p17.

I do think there is something to this difference. Long before I was looking into MBTI as a tool to help understand my situation in my relationship, I was articulating issues my wife and I were working through as matters where I wanted more consciousness (sensitivity/awareness). I used that word--consciousness, like a chant. To say it has been difficult to communicate these needs and feelings to the point where she "gets" it is an incredible understatement. She has told me directly that she doesn't think this way, and I do believe she is better understood in terms of optimism/pessimism (she wrestles with this daily) than I am. 

One example, from one relationship.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

niss said:


> Coupled with that, we have *people attempting to determine correlations between various theories without doing their homework*, which ends up spreading more false information. The Big Five grants greater intelligence to some intuitive types based on their method of perception (this has some inherent flaws, but that is a discussion for another time), so someone familiar with MBTI and The Big Five comes along and says that *intuitives are more intelligent than sensors, which is a complete misrepresentation of what the data actually reveals, since this aspect (as described by The Big Five) is actually only dealing with Ne* and how it searches for possibilities. But the "facts" are stated authoritatively that N's have a higher IQ than S's.


Well, _somebody_ hasn't done his homework. My copy of the MBTI Manual has page after page after page (multiple chapters) with tables of statistics relating to IQ tests, scholastic aptitude tests and scholastic achievement. In the vast majority of cases, where what's being measured is something you'd tend to associate with standard academic-oriented concepts of "intelligence" (rather than something like, _e.g._, emotional intelligence), N's —NPs and NJs _both_ — score higher than S's, and the differences are more often what you'd call substantial than minor.

Introverts typically score higher than extraverts as well, but there's a little more inconsistency on that dimension and the I/E differences are typically significantly smaller than the S/N differences.

J/P is more complicated. Differentiating _aptitude_ (_e.g._, IQ tests and SAT scores) from _achievement_ (_e.g._, school grades), P's most often outscore J's in aptitude (although the magnitude of the differences are often relatively small), and J's typically outscore P's in achievement.

There's a chart that plots GPA against IQ for the 16 types — to show who tends to "underachieve" and who tends to "overachieve" — for a sample of 3,503 male college prep students from 27 high schools. As the Manual notes, "all of the J types but ESFJ are above the line and all P types but INTP are below the line." Lest the INTPs get too smug, the Manual also notes that "both INT types are high, but INTJ is three times as far above the line as INTP." 

The INTJs in that particular sample had the highest IQs, with the INTPs close behind, followed by INFPs and ENTPs.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

niss said:


> I see. So being misunderstood is what makes us an intuitive. Then every kid in middle school is an intuitive.


beautiful. The "subjective lens" that is used to create such dichotomies isn't really objective; I noticed reckful could never criticize Jung without falling under a subjective bias.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> Well, _somebody_ hasn't done his homework. My copy of the MBTI Manual has page after page after page (multiple chapters) with tables of statistics relating to IQ tests, scholastic aptitude tests and scholastic achievement. In the vast majority of cases, where what's being measured is something you'd tend to associate with standard academic-oriented concepts of "intelligence" (rather than something like, _e.g._, emotional intelligence), N's —NPs and NJs _both_ — score higher than S's, and the differences are more often what you'd call substantial than minor.
> 
> Introverts typically score higher than extraverts as well, but there's a little more inconsistency on that dimension and the I/E differences are typically significantly smaller than the S/N differences.
> 
> ...


The dichotomy is very subjective though, you don't take note the problem of the subjective lens

Plus reckful you sound a lot more like Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", the subjective lens is strong in your critique


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

liza_200 said:


> Well, you can't really blame the intuitives for calling you all that in a negative way here, cause they always get ignored and neglected by sensors in real life, and irl, sensors don't actually care or try to understand them. And even if they try to, they find us awkward or insane cause we don't match with their stereotypical behaviors and actions. Like I had this ESFJ friend of mine who actually tried to understand me and concluded calling me a 'psycho' cause I was different. Now this is probably because of lack of knowledge about the sensors and the intuitives. Many Ns here share their thoughts and vents about what _actually _happens irl with them everyday. So it's natural to draw such conclusions. And then you guys are a bunch of exceptions among millions of rotten eggs who tries to prove that they're worth it. Why and how should we even believe that you're really worth it unless and until you prove it to us? And it's partially impossible to make each and every intuitive here to understand this cause the actual sensor population in reality will still remain the same. And there are so many intuitives who aren't a member of perC..
> And I've observed that sensors (especially Sjs) have the habit of stereotyping. It's like :'don't you have an apple everyday for breakfast, then why are you having a banana today? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?' (maybe NJs also might have this habit but I haven't experienced them, and this example might sound silly..but this is what had come to my mind  )



I'm a little confused. In your first post you seemed to be claiming that sensors on PerC shouldn't worry about being stereotyped by Ns because the stereotypes aren't true. And in this post you seem to be claiming that Ss on PerC should have to prove that they don't fall under those stereotypes?



I think I see what you're saying in that Ns experience frustration with people they tag as Ss IRL and that they develop a certain sense of caution about Ss in general. And I do get that. But I don't think that this means that an S on PerC should have to "prove" that they're "not like the other Ss".

And I say this with full confidence because I have talked to countless Ns on PerC who don't expect me or any other S to have to "prove" anything. I can, and do blame someone for thinking anything negatively about me simply because I have four letters on my profile...because there are tons of PerC members, N or otherwise, who don't. I'm not going to give someone a free pass to do that just because they may have had frustrations with others in their lives. 



But this is true for all of the preferences, not just Ns and Ss. I think it would be wrong for me to assume that an NT is "heartless" and that I would expect them to have to prove me to that they're not. 



I am completely fine with an N or anyone else venting about their frustrations with a certain type or certain people they deal with in their lives. But for them to apply these frustrations to other people they don't know anything about other than four letters on a profile I see as along the same lines as any other form of prejudice, and I don't believe it's justified.



I don't believe any type should have to prove that they're "worth it". I have talked to fantastic members on PerC of all 16 types. While I believe I generally am more likely to have conflicts with certain types than others, I'm not going to direct this at any particular person. There is such a huge variety among the people of one type. I believe everyone deserves a fair chance without having to prove anything.




I guess I just believe you can't have it both ways. If I'm ok with an N venting, I'm ok with an S venting.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

liza_200 said:


> Well, you can't really blame the intuitives for calling you all that in a negative way here, cause they always get ignored and neglected by sensors in real life, and irl, sensors don't actually care or try to understand them. And even if they try to, they find us awkward or insane cause we don't match with their stereotypical behaviors and actions. Like I had this ESFJ friend of mine who actually tried to understand me and concluded calling me a 'psycho' cause I was different. Now this is probably because of lack of knowledge about the sensors and the intuitives. Many Ns here share their thoughts and vents about what _actually _happens irl with them everyday. So it's natural to draw such conclusions. And then you guys are a bunch of exceptions among millions of rotten eggs who tries to prove that they're worth it. Why and how should we even believe that you're really worth it unless and until you prove it to us? And it's partially impossible to make each and every intuitive here to understand this cause the actual sensor population in reality will still remain the same. And there are so many intuitives who aren't a member of perC..
> And I've observed that sensors (especially Sjs) have the habit of stereotyping. It's like :'don't you have an apple everyday for breakfast, then why are you having a banana today? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?' (maybe NJs also might have this habit but I haven't experienced them, and this example might sound silly..but this is what had come to my mind  )


Too many NTs are dumb here and stupid enough to see beyond the superiority complex which is hilarious. NTs who learn socionics tend to redeem themselves as the whole inconsistent horrendous nature behind the typing process shows up. You might possibly be a sensor actually because if you were intuitive you'd champion the truth doing the hardcore research that goes beyond the fallacies that most sensors conjure up. I mean to be frank what type of intuitive fails see the various problems crippling these dichotomies that have been set up? Absolutely none.

Only intuitives can understand this you looked you must be a sensor


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> I'm a little confused. In your first post you seemed to be claiming that sensors on PerC shouldn't worry about being stereotyped by Ns because the stereotypes aren't true. And in this post you seem to be claiming that Ss on PerC should have to prove that they don't fall under those stereotypes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You forgot to add the its not completely about MBTI but enneagram, those dumb traditionalist type 1s are the problem with the world absolutely annyoying. And the worst ones are xSTJs, obnoxious little buggers, who can't see things beyond their noses, incredibly stupid. But of course the intellectual type 5s like most NTs really, who at the least have a wing 5 if not type 5s, are the real people.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

reckful said:


> Well, _somebody_ hasn't done his homework. My copy of the MBTI Manual has page after page after page (multiple chapters) with tables of statistics relating to IQ tests, scholastic aptitude tests and scholastic achievement. In the vast majority of cases, where what's being measured is something you'd tend to associate with standard academic-oriented concepts of "intelligence" (rather than something like, _e.g._, emotional intelligence), N's —NPs and NJs _both_ — score higher than S's, and the differences are more often what you'd call substantial than minor.
> 
> Introverts typically score higher than extraverts as well, but there's a little more inconsistency on that dimension and the I/E differences are typically significantly smaller than the S/N differences.
> 
> ...


I've read many of those studies. We're talking about different homework assignments.

So, you've got the studies; read and digested them, but at face value. At what point do you study the methodology? When do you stop and realize that if well more than half of us are mis-typed initially, that those reports are likely affected? When do you question the testing method(s) as it relates to type? At what point do we attribute the student's home life as having an impact? Are there any flaws within the current method for testing of IQ?

When do you stop and realize that statistically, the average person has one breast and one testicle? Then realizing that nothing could be further from reality. We need to stop regurgitating "facts" contrived from studies and start thinking about what we are really saying.

The questions are rhetorical and involve the use of "you" in a general sense.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

This thread is so beautiful, it's bringing a tear to my brilliant NT eyes.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Elyasis said:


> Auburn, what now?


lol, yeah, I forgot about that one.... I usually categorize Auburn as brunette though, cuz it's dark.


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

niss said:


> I see. So being misunderstood is what makes us an intuitive. Then every kid in middle school is an intuitive.


Nope. I never said that being misunderstood makes one an intuitive. That's not what I actually meant, I was talking about the problems which many intuitive face irl because of behaving in ways which is usually not common. Imagine a group of 1000 people, with almost similar aspects, following the trend etc and then suddenly one person, who is totally different, doesn't follow the trend, behaves like an alien and blah blah blah emerges, and then others wonder, why does the person behaves in this way? Ans- probably she/he is back-dated and insane, and then everyone starts ignoring that person. (misunderstanding: alert) Of course any person, whether S or N will be considered as 'alien' when they act differently from the rest of the group. But sensors are generally ignored when they stand out for something like justice etc which generally SJs suffer from, among the sensor group. For 95% of the cases, I've seen that Ns suffer the most, for behaving like a foreigner among the natives, cause they're the minority and because of this, sensors who are ignorant about MBTI doesn't understand why these people behave in this way and not exactly like the rest of the group. And therefore, more misunderstanding occurs. (like I gave the example) And that's why you even see in the forum, so many Ns coming with the problems that their sensor parents/teachers/friends don't understand them. Do you see sensors saying all that? Not much.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

@liza_200 I can see your point...but doesn't that imply that many sensors who don't know about MBTI will ostracise Ns? I suppose I can see that point of view.

I don't know if this is going to be relevant but anyway. My INFJ friend and I have "typed" many people in our friendship group...and come up with the strange result of many Ns. We may have typed wrong, but it is unlikely that we've typed them all wrong - and many have taken the test. I can't quite remember how many we've typed/who is what but from what I can recall, the Ns and Ss in our group are fairly even. Now, we are the "nerd" group at school, making us the naturally ostracised for being quite different from the rest of our cohort. I think regardless of academic result, our whole group are very naturally smart (some of us...me haha...are just lazy). 

I don't tend to find (and I don't the rest of the sensors in our group do either) that we don't understand each other. Sure we have differences in terms of processing information (I for one am terrible at understanding mathematical concepts), but apart from that we all have a lot of similarities. The Ns in our group suffer ostracism just as much as the Ss.

Now you did say "95%" of the time, so at least you aren't totally generalising...but I think personal differences in behaviour account for that. I guess you could stereotypically say that there probably is a greater percentage of sensors who encounter this problem less...but I don't think it's that huge a gap.

I have never met an N that I have honestly considered acted in an "alien" way. They all seem perfectly normal to me. The only people I really don't understand really are my parents (who I have a sneaking suspicion are both Ns) - but I think that's more of an age gap thing than an MBTI thing - afterall, they clearly don't understand me very well either.

Food for thought?


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I'm a little confused. In your first post you seemed to be claiming that sensors on PerC shouldn't worry about being stereotyped by Ns because the stereotypes aren't true. And in this post you seem to be claiming that Ss on PerC should have to prove that they don't fall under those stereotypes?


Yep, I said that because you all said that you're no less than a N, at first my point was when you people know your strengths then why pay attention to what others have to say? The more complex you make this, the more chaotic it becomes. And then you said, that because of the MBTI ignorant sensors out there, the sensors present in the perC also get stereotyped by those negative traits. You said that they shouldn't cause you're not like those sensors who doesn't try to understand the Ns. So then my point was, if you really think that you're different and you're worth and if you're really so eager to make the Ns understand that you're different, then why don't you show it, or prove it in someway? But again I mentioned that partially, that's not possible to make each and every N understand. So, ultimately these type of threads are of no worth other than ranting.



teddy564339 said:


> I think I see what you're saying in that Ns experience frustration with people they tag as Ss IRL and that they develop a certain sense of caution about Ss in general. And I do get that. But I don't think that this means that an S on PerC should have to "prove" that they're "not like the other Ss".


What you had written before:


teddy564339 said:


> I think this is a direct result of Ns being in the minority in their real lives. they probably deal with many Ss IRL who don't make an effort to understand them, so they do start feeling like there is a very strong separation. I think what happens is many Ss feel like they're lumped into this same group.


And as the Op had written:


BasketCase said:


> "deep","imaginative" and "smart" characters as Ns, when Ss can be all these things too.


This is how it goes. What I wanted to say that ranting wouldn't bother anyone ultimately. (like I said in my first post too)


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

BasketCase said:


> @liza_200 I can see your point...but doesn't that imply that many sensors who don't know about MBTI will ostracise Ns? I suppose I can see that point of view.
> 
> I don't know if this is going to be relevant but anyway. My INFJ friend and I have "typed" many people in our friendship group...and come up with the strange result of many Ns. We may have typed wrong, but it is unlikely that we've typed them all wrong - and many have taken the test. I can't quite remember how many we've typed/who is what but from what I can recall, the Ns and Ss in our group are fairly even. Now, we are the "nerd" group at school, making us the naturally ostracised for being quite different from the rest of our cohort. I think regardless of academic result, our whole group are very naturally smart (some of us...me haha...are just lazy).
> 
> ...


Hmm, I being an intuitive also get along with my ESFJ friend, even after that huge gap of Ne-Ti-Fe-Si and Fe-Si-Ne-Ti. Many of her traits also doesn't at all match with the ESFJ description. But function wise, she is one of them. I'm not talking about these, what I mean is the problems which generally Ns face while they try to interact with the society and the majority. Sensors do have intuitive friends, don't they? And intuitive do have sensors friends don't they? But I'm taking about the problems which many Ns generally face. That strange gap they see and face.


----------



## BasketCase (May 16, 2012)

@liza_200 the "strange gap" is caused by closed minded people. And they can be of any type. Differences are a part of people...imagine how boring it'd be if we were all the same? But anyway. Many of the Ss I know don't cause this gap. I know a few who probably would - and I do tend to be judgemental about the "majority", and judge these people pretty harshly. But I think gaps are only made if they are allowed to be made. Some closed-minded people decide they don't like "different" people, those "different" people decide they don't want to have anything to do with the "closed-minded" people and there's the gap. I guess some people get stuck in the middle or on a particular side and it can cause problems.

But I've felt gaps for being "different" and I'm not an N. I guess my point has always been that even though a lot of people are (or act...it can be hard to tell) closed-minded, shallow etc, they can belong to any type and it shouldn't be stereotyped based off things that any type can have. I don't know if that makes any sense but anyway.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

liza_200 said:


> Nope. I never said that being misunderstood makes one an intuitive. That's not what I actually meant, I was talking about the problems which many intuitive face irl because of behaving in ways which is usually not common. Imagine a group of 1000 people, with almost similar aspects, following the trend etc and then suddenly one person, who is totally different, doesn't follow the trend, behaves like an alien and blah blah blah emerges, and then others wonder, why does the person behaves in this way? Ans- probably she/he is back-dated and insane, and then everyone starts ignoring that person. (misunderstanding: alert) Of course any person, whether S or N will be considered as 'alien' when they act differently from the rest of the group. But sensors are generally ignored when they stand out for something like justice etc which generally SJs suffer from, among the sensor group. For 95% of the cases, I've seen that Ns suffer the most, for behaving like a foreigner among the natives, cause they're the minority and because of this, sensors who are ignorant about MBTI doesn't understand why these people behave in this way and not exactly like the rest of the group. And therefore, more misunderstanding occurs. (like I gave the example) And that's why you even see in the forum, so many Ns coming with the problems that their sensor parents/teachers/friends don't understand them. Do you see sensors saying all that? Not much.


My comment was actually an attempt to point out the fallacy of your position.

Feeling out of sync, like the odd man out, not fitting in, whatever you want to call it - this is universal to the human existence. We all encounter this in our lives - some more than others, but it has little to do with being an intuitive or a sensor and much to do with damaged people raising their children to interact with others in much the same fashion as the parent learned to cope with others, from how they were raised.

I am undoubtedly a sensor and a Si-dom, yet I experienced the very things on which you are basing your arguments. I was made to feel dumb because I didn't grasp concepts as easily as others, but it wasn't because they were intuitive and I was a sensor - it was because of how I was raised and my lack of exposure to new concepts in my home life. My parents expected the teacher to teach me everything with little or no input from them - a very hands off approach. Couple this with a home in which critical anger was the only acceptable emotion to display to others, and you have a kid that is not about to seek help from anyone.

My point is, that to attribute feeling like an outcast to a difference between sensors and intuitive cognitive processing is an incorrect application of MBTI.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

niss said:


> *I've read many of those studies*. We're talking about different homework assignments.
> 
> *So, you've got the studies; read and digested them, but at face value. At what point do you study the methodology?* When do you stop and realize that if well more than half of us are mis-typed initially, that those reports are likely affected? When do you question the testing method(s) as it relates to type? At what point do we attribute the student's home life as having an impact? Are there any flaws within the current method for testing of IQ?
> 
> When do you stop and realize that statistically, the average person has one breast and one testicle? Then realizing that nothing could be further from reality. We need to stop regurgitating "facts" contrived from studies and start thinking about what we are really saying.


Wow, niss. Integrity much?

As an aside, let me mention at this point — given how this is dragging out — that I don't personally find the issue of MBTI correlations with intelligence particularly interesting. I'm a veteran at another MBTI forum where the issue comes up periodically, and I have a copy of the MBTI Manual, so I'd posted that information in a previous thread or two and had the relevant paragraphs available to paste into my first post in this thread. I actually care more about poster integrity than MBTI/intelligence correlations — which brings me back to you.

Your first post declared that people who think there's a correlation between an MBTI N preference and intelligence are people who _haven't done their homework_ because that view simply represents a misunderstanding of Big Five data that only relates to "Ne and how it searches for possibilities."

Here's that part of your post again:



niss said:


> Coupled with that, we have people attempting to determine correlations between various theories without doing their homework, which ends up spreading more false information. *The Big Five grants greater intelligence to some intuitive types based on their method of perception* (this has some inherent flaws, but that is a discussion for another time), *so someone familiar with MBTI and The Big Five comes along and says that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors, which is a complete misrepresentation of what the data actually reveals, since this aspect (as described by The Big Five) is actually only dealing with Ne and how it searches for possibilities*. But the "facts" are stated authoritatively that N's have a higher IQ than S's.



I'm sorry, niss, but it simply isn't credible to me that that post could have been made by somebody familiar — as you suddenly claim to be! — with the fact that the MBTI Manual presents a boatload of MBTI-related data (not Big Five data) showing substantial correlations between an N preference (not "Ne") and multiple measures of intelligence and academic achievement. But now you're telling us that, not only are you aware of that data, but — holy moly! — you've even "read many of those studies." But, see, there are at least two big problems with that claim. The first problem is that almost all of "those studies" are _unpublished_. (Well, what the hell, eh? That's no obstacle when you've left your integrity in your other pants.) And the second problem is that, if you were really familiar with those MBTI statistics, your first post wouldn't have said that people who claim an MBTI N preference correlates with intelligence are people who _misunderstand some Big Five data_. You would have said you'd looked into the metric ass ton of _MBTI data_ and concluded that it fails to support the claimed correlation.

I suspect you don't even have a copy of the MBTI Manual, and I'm confident you haven't really "read many of those studies." So I'm not surprised that your post doesn't actually point to a single shortcoming in any particular study. All it does is throw up a smokescreen of know-nothing arguments of the kind you could make to anybody with the temerity to point to a body of studies showing a correlation between an MBTI preference and just about anything.

What's more, and as further evidence of your lack of knowledge in this area, your claim that the Big Five data on intelligence only relates to "Ne and how it searches for possibilities" is also way off. For one thing, as noted in the Wikipedia article, Openness to experience (the Big Five version of an N preference) has been shown to correlate with many of the standard measures of intelligence. And for another thing, there is, in fact, no Big Five data relating to "Ne." In fact, as further discussed in this post, there's very little data correlating "Ne" with _anything_ — under Big Five auspices or MBTI auspices or by anybody else. McCrae and Costa — probably the two most prominent Big Five psychologists — have pointed out (see this article) that attempts to establish that the eight Jungian functions even _exist_ have pretty much come up empty, while confirming the validity of the four MBTI dichotomies and noting their substantial correlation with four of the Big Five factors. If I had to guess, I'd guess that you read somewhere about a correlation between the Big Five Openness dimension and "divergent thinking," and you said to yourself, aha, divergent thinking, that sounds like "Ne and how it searches for possibilities," and that must be where people got the notion that an MBTI N preference correlates with intelligence — but it's really just Ne!

In any case, wherever your multilayered misunderstanding came from, you posted it — and I pointed out that there was, in fact, lots of relevant MBTI data. And then, alas, instead of admitting your error, you threw up your little smokescreen, with arguments of the caliber of "statistically, the average person has one breast and one testicle" (_so statistics is stoopid la la la_), and what about "the student's home life," eh? and "We need to stop regurgitating 'facts' contrived from studies and start thinking about what we are really saying" (*chin stroke*), and hey, don't forget about "mis-typing"! — while pretending that you'd done some kind of critical reading of "many ... studies" that your first post indicates you'd never even heard of.

Good show.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

liza_200 said:


> Yep, I said that because you all said that you're no less than a N, at first my point was when you people know your strengths then why pay attention to what others have to say? The more complex you make this, the more chaotic it becomes. And then you said, that because of the MBTI ignorant sensors out there, the sensors present in the perC also get stereotyped by those negative traits. You said that they shouldn't cause you're not like those sensors who doesn't try to understand the Ns. So then my point was, if you really think that you're different and you're worth and if you're really so eager to make the Ns understand that you're different, then why don't you show it, or prove it in someway?



I agree with you if we're talking about a trait that is strongly attributed to the type preferences that Ss have, and a particular S happens to be an outlier. In those cases, I think it's understandable to have an assumption that an S would have this particular trait, and if they claimed otherwise, it would be reasonable to expect them to have to "prove" it.


The problem comes when there are negative stereotypes based on misunderstandings. The idea of someone being "deep" vs. being "shallow", or things of that nature. I think the issue is those terms are so broad that there's no way they could be attributed to 8 whole types, especially since they're often interpreted in different ways with different meanings.

The reason why it matters to me is that I want to be able to have a conversation with someone and not have them start off having misgivings about me. I want my PerC conversations to be with people who are open to understanding one another and trying to learn about one another, not people who have already established a mindset that has to be proven to be wrong. 

It would be very tiresome and frustrating to have to prove something of that nature in every single conversation with every single member that I run across. I feel like if I don't expect others to have to prove this to me (and that I can make an effort to learn about them and treat them as individuals), then I would like the same in return. 


The same is true about the feelings of an N being oppressed or an S being closed-minded. These are not traits that type explains, it's not that simple. What's even worse is that it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy...instead of someone first determining someone's type and then noticing traits about them, people can look at someone with a negative trait and decide that makes this person a certain type. It happens with SJs and parents all of the time...people think that just because their parents establish rules and tell them what to do, their parents must be SJs. 


And I think it's moreso the a sense of superiority that bothers me the most. If someone were to say "As an N, I'm deep in this particular way and shallow in this way, and Ss tend to be deeper in this this other way and more shallow in this other way", then I'm fine with that and can understand that. I can also understand that an N may feel more comfortable in general having particular kinds of conversations with other Ns. But for someone to think "Because I'm an N, an S is incapable of understanding me, even though I understand them just fine"...then I start believing that they hold an unfair and erroneous prejudice.


I think the other issue is what "proving" really means. How exactly does one "prove" that they're not judgmental? Isn't being on PerC and having these kinds of conversation proof enough? 


I guess what I'm saying is...I can understand having a certain amount of caution when conversing with people of certain types until you get to know them as people better. But regardless of type, everyone deserves a certain amount of respect going into a conversation and shouldn't have to prove that they are deserving of this sort of respect.




liza_200 said:


> But again I mentioned that partially, that's not possible to make each and every N understand. So, ultimately these type of threads are of no worth other than ranting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you in the aspect that I don't think a thread like this will change the minds of a large number of people; either an N or S will automatically believe the stereotypes and won't change their mind about it by reading the thread, or they will already understand that the stereotypes are silly. 

But that doesn't mean that *no one* will learn and take steps towards changing their mind. It happens all of the time on PerC...a thread will inspire someone to think about something in a different way or learn some new information they hadn't thought of before. How else will people learn on PerC if people don't bring up the topics? 


And as I said...even if it is just ranting, that doesn't make it worthless. I can imagine the response I would get if an N posted about how they were frustrated by an S they knew in their lives and I simply said "Why are you wasting your time posting it here? It's not like posting about it will change what the S is doing."

It's the same thing...the N is probably posting about it to express their feelings and be able to relate to others who feel the same way. If nothing else, this thread can be doing the same thing, and I think that is valuable.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

BasketCase said:


> I was just kinda wondering why it happens. It adds no value to the system and actually makes it very confusing if you try to type yourself by reading a lot on this website. All types are equal and have their own strengths, as do the people within each "type".


People are always looking for a way to organize information, and that includes information on groups of people. Regardless if we're N or S or TUVWXYZ, we automatically look for patterns. The reason why we even belong to a certain category is because of similarities, not differences, and incidentally, stereotypes _ignore_ differences -- which is why stereotypes are even problematic in the first place, especially when they are treated as facts...and that almost everyone is an exception to the rule.

I'm not sure about the "why" but as for the "how", I think it's largely due to misinformation or lack of information, misattribution and false association, or illusory correlation -- expecting certain patterns from a type, and then always keeping tab on those particular patterns, which actually have nothing to do with the type itself. Again, it's about looking for patterns at the risk of ignoring differences and subtleties.

In terms of practical purpose, it shortcuts the need to absorb tons of information on groups of people you want to know about, to know what to expect and possibly to know what to do and what not to around them.

To break the stereotypes, a lot of assumptions need to be challenged, and in the process, you'd have to constantly face contradictions within and without yourself, monitor your beliefs and thoughts, and accept arguments from people on different sides from you. You might just end up not knowing what to believe or expect, and ambiguity is unsettling.

In summary, it's as @niss says...stereotyping is easy.




liza_200 said:


> Do you see sensors saying all that? Not much.


Because sensors don't talk about it doesn't mean they don't encounter problems of a similar nature. Just because nobody says anything doesn't mean it's not there.

You are free to use the N/S divide to justify whatever you wish to.
A lot of the N venting across the board speaks to me, but that's all it does -- it doesn't represent the truth.

As much as I have been misjudged/misunderstood/ignored/ostracized/whathaveyou by sensors, I have been treated the same by intuitives. If anything, the only thing that seems to consistently divide people is difference in influence, in power, in interest and in values etc, and the inability to accept the difference...and this is an issue beyond type.


I don't care if people want to make generalizations about types whatsoever, as long as they keep a flexible stance and don't treat others like they're all products of the same mold.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

They're just jealous to be honest. 

Sensors get boring descriptions and inuitives get dazzling ones. This is why their types look preferable, when in fact no type is preferable. They are all poor in their own ways. xD

Which do you prefer: being called pratical or imaginative? Pratical basically strikes boring and imaginative makes you look amazing. 

People who can't see past the N/S divide are missing out.


----------



## eatmeimadanish (Jun 4, 2012)

Ok so this thread is long... and filled with all kinds of partial or miss information. The main problem I see is that we tend to over exemplify the capacity of the functions and sweep with too broad a brush. So lets clarify the functions so we can all build correctly our assumptions:
Type Indicators:
1) Where we get our Energy: This is the where we get our energy and recharge our batteries. Extroverts get their energy from people and activities, Introverts get their energy from within themselves, either ideas or feelings. 

2) How we interpret information: Sensing relies on the five senses. This usually results in concrete understanding, and attention to the details of how something works. They take the outside world and process it there as it is. Intuitives use their inner function to analyze ideas and experiences. They process the world internally and the search for deeper meaning. 

3) How we make decisions or judgements: Do we judge things by how they make us feel, or do we judge them on what we think about them through logic and past experience. Feelers determine what they think by how they feel about it, thinkers determine how they feel by what they think about it. They are not mutually exclusive, but one is almost always the engine behind our decisions and determines the outcome of the other function. 

4) How we need our outside world to be: Judgers need their outside world organized and predictable, percievers need their inside world organized and predictable. This is important, because the letters swap our dominant function because of the direction we put out energy into. Judgers need to do, perceivers need to process. Thus the perceivers outside world does not matter to them as much as the inner world. Judgers structure the outside world first, so that they can deal with their inner world. Perceivers deal with their inner world first, so they can deal with their outside world.

One of the confusing things is when the functions get misinterpreted "J's are clean and P's are messy", totally not true. Though it's fair to say that these could be symptoms, they are not determining factors. A J personality who is obsessed with structuring an idea, may forgo cleaning the room. A perceiver may keep things clean so they feel comfortable to deal with their inner world. 

It is important that we do not look at symptoms as the identifying factor, but instead the entire process of how you think and deal with information, emotions and energy. An ISTP may be more organized then an INTJ, but that's because of the difference in focused attention, and where they spend their energy. Until you understand the entire process, it is hard to just isolate the letters and determine where you fit.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Humans are social beings by nature. Think about how humans socialize and what factors play in that successful socialization.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

I don't understand why intuiting is associated with imagination. I guess I can understand why intuiting would be associated with an interest in purely abstract philosophical or intellectual topics that don't have practical relevance.





> Judgers need to do, perceivers need to process.


I think all of the extroverted functions are action oriented.


> Thus the perceivers outside world does not matter to them as much as the inner world.


What are they perceiving?


----------



## eatmeimadanish (Jun 4, 2012)

"I think all of the extroverted functions are action oriented."

No they are energy oriented. Action con-notates a visible reaction, but sometimes its an emotional or logical reaction. For instance watching a movie or reading a book is an expense of energy, but could be ignored as an action. 

"What are they perceiving?"

Great question. They are dealing with their internal function first. Let me use an example to best describe it. ENFP and ENFJ are great examples. ENFP is an Extroverted Intuitive, and an Introverted Feeler. ENFJ is an Extroverted Feeler and an Introverted Intuitive. Because the perceiver deals with their primary function first before they expend energy, they then process things internally via their emotions, then expend energy in an intuitive sense based on those feelings. The judger will react to their feelings first, and then process them internally after. Because of the inversion, they are dramatically different. This is why an ENFP will often only expend energy toward things they are passionate about. An ENFJ however will expend energy first via their feeling function, and then deal with it intuitively later. 

So the perciever always uses the internal to dictate the expense of energy, and the judger expends energy to then dictate the internal. Thus why a judger feels better when the room is cleaned, and the perceiver only cleans the room when they feel like it.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

eatmeimadanish said:


> "I think all of the extroverted functions are action oriented."
> 
> No they are energy oriented. Action con-notates a visible reaction, but sometimes its an emotional or logical reaction. For instance watching a movie or reading a book is an expense of energy, but could be ignored as an action.
> 
> ...


This is a good way of putting it...I've always felt out of place as a judger with huge procrastination problems, but I feel awful if my room is unclean or if I have a bunch of tasks that need doing. I can't distract myself enough to forget about them and do something else productive, but I still can't get the motivation up to just do it most of the time. I suck at proper procrastination.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

eatmeimadanish said:


> "I think all of the extroverted functions are action oriented."
> 
> No they are energy oriented. Action con-notates a visible reaction, but sometimes its an emotional or logical reaction. For instance watching a movie or reading a book is an expense of energy, but could be ignored as an action.


So watching a movie or reading a book involves extraversion?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

firedell said:


> They're just jealous to be honest.
> 
> Sensors get boring descriptions and inuitives get dazzling ones. This is why their types look preferable, when in fact no type is preferable. They are all poor in their own ways. xD
> 
> ...


That why I thought socionics was more objective, it even has the man with the "highest iq" typed as a sensor, Chris Langan. By default every smart person is an intuitive in MBTI but in socionics its uncertain, it could even be argued that Charles Darwin's persona could be ISTp-ish, who happens to be balanced since he appears to have developed intuition.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Whoops, wrong post, wrong thread. Carry on.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

reckful said:


> The list of occupational rankings along the SN dimension at the back of the MBTI Manual (based on a variety of studies in the MBTI database) includes the following entries:
> 
> Photographers: 73% N
> Teachers of art, drama & music: 71% N
> ...


*Now I'm very curious as to what were the percentages for INFJs in the creative field?Jung's description is IMO accurate when describing INFJs. There seem to be two types even in the INFJs: The "artistic" INFJs who are more concerned with the said shaping of perception and the INFJs on a cause, who would be the one's who Jung describes as having made that shift in perception into when perception becomes a moral problem. Those who embody their vision. I don't know where INTJs fit in the description though, albeit I suppose Nietzsche and Ayn Rand for example fit in nicely.*


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

firedell said:


> They're just jealous to be honest.
> 
> Sensors get boring descriptions and inuitives get dazzling ones. This is why their types look preferable, when in fact no type is preferable. They are all poor in their own ways. xD
> 
> ...


Maybe intuitives are just jealous, so they made up the sensor stereotypes. They would rather be hot and efficient. Practical strikes me as being a great survival skill. Imaginative is great if you're independently wealthy, or if you want to risk starving in the gutter (or risk sticking out like a sore thumb).

You don't see that guy who writes for eight hours a day in a language that doesn't exist, has rotten teeth, and believes that people are actually hybrids of fairies, and think "oh, he must be a sensor." Scientists suggest a link between mental illness and creativity. If creativity is associated with NF, so is mental illness. Woo-hoo--awesomeness if you're not actually experiencing it.


----------



## LittleOrange (Feb 11, 2012)

Hmm...well...as an S, ISFP precisely, I was always pretty confused in social settings. I never had a clue what other people want, why they behave the way they behave, what was I expected to do or what should I do in certain situations. You could say I was pretty socially unintelligent or unaware of social norms, as I heard some people describe it. When I was about 19-20 I read a book called "Emotional intelligence" and it said that if we get in tune with our "intuition" (I´m ont sure if they used that word exactly) we could *feel* other people, kind of go beyond what they say and get the truth behind. I tried doing that I surprisingly I became much better socially. I could figure out peoples motivations, I knew what I should do and what was expected of me etc. And I felt more confident. It seemed like this "intuition" made me float easier through the social mess that would made me puzzled as an S. :shrug:
There is a flip side though, when I know what other people want and what is expected of me, I feel guilty of not doing it. But as an S, I don´t know and I don´t care


----------



## Girlinthedark (Aug 1, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> It's hard to say how prevalent any one particular stereotype on PerC is compared to another. However, for me, it at least feels like I've seen more separation along the N/S line on PerC than I have any of the other preferences.
> 
> I think a large part of it is that there's a large disparity between S and N both IRL and on PerC than there is with the other preferences. It's hard to tell with type statistics, but for E/I, T/F, and J/P, many stats put the preferences as pretty close to 50/50. The S/N difference is the only one that seems to be very highly skewed IRL.
> 
> ...


I always enjoy reading your posts teddy, you seem like a mature well rounded person. Unfortunately, the Ss I know irl tend to take their traits as granted and seem to think its the only way to be. As an intuitive, I've noticed that even if I try to understand their interests, they don't feel they have to do the same with mine because they don't understand the effort I'm putting in to understand their perspective as to them it comes naturally and since most of them don't meet many Ns on a regular basis, its hard for them to realise that there're other perspectives besides their own.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Girlinthedark said:


> I always enjoy reading your posts teddy, you seem like a mature well rounded person. Unfortunately, the Ss I know irl tend to take their traits as granted and seem to think its the only way to be. As an intuitive, I've noticed that even if I try to understand their interests, they don't feel they have to do the same with mine because they don't understand the effort I'm putting in to understand their perspective as to them it comes naturally and since most of them don't meet many Ns on a regular basis, its hard for them to realise that there're other perspectives besides their own.



I understand that it must be very frustrating. This tend to happen a lot in situations where one group is in a majority...they view the majority as "normal" and the minority as "weird'. They don't see a need to adapt to the minority. I know that with Si doms/users in particular, it's very hard for them to understand how others are different than they are. 

And I don't have a problem with any N describing those frustrations. I just think it's good for them to distinguish between an S in their lives who knows nothing about the MBTI and just thinks Ns are "weird" and an S PerC member who does understand and appreciate differences in people. It's when these Ss all get clumped together that it bothers me on PerC, because you never know if someone is going to assume things about you simply based on your type.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> I know that with Si doms/users in particular, it's very hard for them to understand how others are different than they are.


I think this is true, although it's often overstated (one of the obvious sources of stereotyping and discontent is overstatement). This is really the appeal of MBTI for me, coming to understand how people differ in such fundamental ways. If anything, that's the source of my own frustration at the continued perpetuation of the N/S bias on this forum and in many type descriptions online; that the theory is being misused, and is painting an inaccurate portrait of the differences between people; closing minds rather than opening them. 

To the more general issue that was the cause of this thread's resurfacing (thank you, @Girlinthedark, for doing that; this thread made for fascinating reading) - I would say that the majority is often less uniform than it seems to those in a minority. The differences are there, no doubt, but there are many other differences that play into such things as well (here, say, acceptance/tolerance of divergence from certain norms comes into play, as does prior contact with similarly "different" people, what the task at hand might be [so "difference" is a lot more acceptable in an informal situation than in a formal one, for instance], &c.) - there's less homogeneity that outward perceptions might seem to convey.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I think this is true, although it's often overstated (one of the obvious sources of stereotyping and discontent is overstatement). This is really the appeal of MBTI for me, coming to understand how people differ in such fundamental ways. If anything, that's the source of my own frustration at the continued perpetuation of the N/S bias on this forum and in many type descriptions online; that the theory is being misused, and is painting an inaccurate portrait of the differences between people; closing minds rather than opening them.


Yeah, it's a tricky topic for me because there are so many details to take into account for every situation, which makes every situation different.

I do believe the idea is true, simply because I've read about it in a few MBTI books, it is true for me (at least it was my natural reaction before learning about the MBTI), and I hear a lot of people talk about it on PerC. This doesn't mean it's always accurate, and like you said, it may be overstated. 

But it's a tough call. In some situations it might be that someone sees someone being closed-minded and automatically thinks this contributes to them being an S or an SJ when they're actually an N. In other cases, it may just be a disagreement and the person may not being described accurately. But, it could also be the S/SJ taking the majority mentality and not understanding the differences of others.


So it's hard to distinguish between them. It's especially hard when we only hear one side of the story. I tend to the give the benefit of the doubt to the person telling the story because that's all I have to go by, and I don't like questioning someone's honesty based on my own conjectures...partly because I don't like it when someone does that to me. So I may err on the side of the N telling the story.


So it might be overstated to the bias of the person bringing it up....but I can't say for sure if it is. There are just so many variables.


----------



## Girlinthedark (Aug 1, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> I understand that it must be very frustrating. This tend to happen a lot in situations where one group is in a majority...they view the majority as "normal" and the minority as "weird'. They don't see a need to adapt to the minority. I know that with Si doms/users in particular, it's very hard for them to understand how others are different than they are.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with any N describing those frustrations. I just think it's good for them to distinguish between an S in their lives who knows nothing about the MBTI and just thinks Ns are "weird" and an S PerC member who does understand and appreciate differences in people. It's when these Ss all get clumped together that it bothers me on PerC, because you never know if someone is going to assume things about you simply based on your type.


I agree, its not fair to blame everyone of a particular preferance (sorry it took me a while to post). Although I've noticed a trend in MBTI forums, someone vents about how the sensors they know in real life are rigid, don't try to understand their perspectives and some people immediately jump in and accuse them of being typist. They feel like they must restore justice by supporting people they don't even know. So what happens to the poster? They get judged/ misunderstood in real life and when they vent on the internet, they get judged again. I think its not fair either.


----------



## Girlinthedark (Aug 1, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> I think this is true, although it's often overstated (one of the obvious sources of stereotyping and discontent is overstatement). This is really the appeal of MBTI for me, coming to understand how people differ in such fundamental ways. If anything, that's the source of my own frustration at the continued perpetuation of the N/S bias on this forum and in many type descriptions online; that the theory is being misused, and is painting an inaccurate portrait of the differences between people; closing minds rather than opening them.
> 
> To the more general issue that was the cause of this thread's resurfacing (thank you, @Girlinthedark, for doing that; this thread made for fascinating reading) - I would say that the majority is often less uniform than it seems to those in a minority. The differences are there, no doubt, but there are many other differences that play into such things as well (here, say, acceptance/tolerance of divergence from certain norms comes into play, as does prior contact with similarly "different" people, what the task at hand might be [so "difference" is a lot more acceptable in an informal situation than in a formal one, for instance], &c.) - there's less homogeneity that outward perceptions might seem to convey.


Good point and agreed. But there's also a thing about fitting in. Sometimes people try to appear more homogeneous than they actually are just to fit in. So perhaps from a outside perspective they might appear similar even though they're not.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Girlinthedark said:


> I agree, its not fair to blame everyone of a particular preferance (sorry it took me a while to post). Although I've noticed a trend in MBTI forums, someone vents about how the sensors they know in real life are rigid, don't try to understand their perspectives and some people immediately jump in and accuse them of being typist. They feel like they must restore justice by supporting people they don't even know. So what happens to the poster? They get judged/ misunderstood in real life and when they vent on the internet, they get judged again. I think its not fair either.


Yeah, that's why I think the whole thing is always about communication and everyone being patient and not jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Knight of Ender (Mar 30, 2014)

My personal stereotypes about sensors is that they are the type that will read the textbook from start to finish and overthink every single detail. And my stereotype of intuitives is that they forget basic things such as eating when they get wrapped up in something.


----------



## Pearl Parker (Sep 2, 2014)

This thread reminded me of this clip. It's a very shallow depiction of N's and S's. It's more of a jab at Sensors, really. Feeding into the stereotype of them being intellectually inferior than intuitives. Ignore the last part. You know how YouTube uploaders are. Involving religion in everything.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Simply put, intuitives feel misunderstood. I am guilty of holding this stereotype in real life tbh. It's almost as if seeing that someone is a sensor means they're a totally different species. No matter what I try I don't think I could see it any other way - in the same sense that I have a negative stereotype of extraverts. It's probably not that big of a deal in reality, but the N/S divide gives us a framework to channel our frustration in mis-understandings and different styles of communication. Of course, the cognitive functions and their ordering are what matter but N/S is seen as a binary: you either "in the club" of iNtuitives or you're "one of the commoners". As an NT I find it difficult to deny that I have negative connotations associated with SJs. The sterreotype is that they're too "narrow-minded, stuck up and unable to think for themselves or beyond the dimensions of their primitive senses."


----------

