# are sensors rarer than intuitives?



## RandomUsar (Jan 10, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Or a less crazy solution... people on the internet tend to mistype themselves as N's and T's because of the illusion that those two letters equal a higher intelligence...


You don't think a change--no matter how slight--is possible or imminent? Our needs have changed so much since the time of Jung. There are many manifestations of this change... for example... longer lifespans, differences in our body structures, more open social interactions, our IQ's are definitely higher than our ancestors'... as a human race, we're advancing at an unprecedented rate. Physically fighting for survival isn't the norm anymore. We use our brains more these days instead of our brawn. Shouldn't these have affected the structure of our brains? Hence, the uhh... redistribution of percentage of types. Bah. But what do I know... I'm a noob.  Haha!

And err... it was a study it seemed. I'm sure those organizations conducting the study... will have taken precautions to limit the bias toward N's... make it as accurate as possible. Most people who take it the first time... aren't aware of this preference for N. At least, from what I've noticed... people who take it the first time don't really take it all that seriously either. So... they prolly won't initally care if they are N/S or T/F. I didn't.


----------



## kman (Jan 12, 2014)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> You don't think a change--no matter how slight--is possible or imminent? Our needs have changed so much since the time of Jung. There are many manifestations of this change... for example... longer lifespans, differences in our body structures, more open social interactions, our IQ's are definitely higher than our ancestors'... as a human race, we're advancing at an unprecedented rate. Physically fighting for survival isn't the norm anymore. We use our brains more these days instead of our brawn. Shouldn't these have affected the structure of our brains? Hence, the uhh... redistribution of percentage of types. Bah. But what do I know... I'm a noob.  Haha!
> 
> And err... it was a study it seemed. I'm sure those organizations conducting the study... will have taken precautions to limit the bias toward N's... make it as accurate as possible. Most people who take it the first time... aren't aware of this preference for N. At least, from what I've noticed... people who take it the first time don't really take it all that seriously either. So... they prolly won't initally care if they are N/S or T/F. I didn't.


I doubt our IQ is higher than our ancestors. We simply have more information and are more knowledgeable, that does not mean having higher IQ. And things always change, but to have things change drastically in such a small amount of time assuming the first research was remotely accurate sounds simply, fantastical... And since we are built off our ''ancestors'' such change should not be so dramatic, not to this level, it does not make much sense.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

It depends on what statistics you're looking at, most of the ones I've seen, even though, the actual results vary, ISFJ almost invariably comes out to be most common, followed closely by ESFJ. I find that kinda believable, because it's not uncommon at all for me to be surrounded by people that I've typed as ESFJ. They're EVERYWHERE! lol


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Then again, it may also be an issue with the tests, because I find NJs and SPs just about always show up as rarer than SJs and NPs, so maybe the way the questions are written makes sensor correlate more toward introverted sensing, and intuitive correlate more toward extroverted intution.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> You don't think a change--no matter how slight--is possible or imminent? Our needs have changed so much since the time of Jung. There are many manifestations of this change... for example... longer lifespans, differences in our body structures, more open social interactions, our IQ's are definitely higher than our ancestors'... as a human race, we're advancing at an unprecedented rate. Physically fighting for survival isn't the norm anymore. We use our brains more these days instead of our brawn. Shouldn't these have affected the structure of our brains? Hence, the uhh... redistribution of percentage of types. Bah. But what do I know... I'm a noob.  Haha!


We're talking about 20 or so years, human evolution takes generations. Actually there's a lot of evidence to point to our brains being almost exactly the same as they were at when we discovered agriculture (about 10,000 years ago). 

Also, Si and Se are still cognitive functions, it's not a matter of 'brain vs brawns' but 'brain vs different functions in the brain'. There are many parts of society that actually probably favor S types, in particular xSTJ types, especially in business.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> We're talking about 20 or so years, human evolution takes generations. Actually there's a lot of evidence to point to our brains being almost exactly the same as they were at when we discovered agriculture (about 10,000 years ago).
> 
> Also, Si and Se are still cognitive functions, it's not a matter of 'brain vs brawns' but 'brain vs different functions in the brain'. There are many parts of society that actually probably favor S types, in particular xSTJ types, especially in business.


Our brains are the same, but it is a cultural attitude. I mean, Jung thought people could balance themselves. He didn't think we would have to wait for the process of biological evolution to take place. A cultural change could be responsible. Our brains are no different than the Ancient Greeks, but our psychology is much different. Our way of thought is different. But that is because our culture is different. Jung covered this evolution of thought from primitive man to Scholasticism to modern times.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Our brains are the same, but it is a cultural attitude. I mean, Jung thought people could balance themselves. He didn't think we would have to wait for the process of biological evolution to take place. A cultural change could be responsible. Our brains are no different than the Ancient Greeks, but our psychology is much different. Our way of thought is different. But that is because our culture is different. Jung covered this evolution of thought from primitive man to Scholasticism to modern times.


I don't think the western world has gotten any more 'intuitive' in the last 20 years either. The education system has a of 'Si elements', there's a big focus on provable facts and memorization.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

dulcinea said:


> It depends on what statistics you're looking at, most of the ones I've seen, even though, the actual results vary, ISFJ almost invariably comes out to be most common, followed closely by ESFJ. I find that kinda believable, because it's not uncommon at all for me to be surrounded by people that I've typed as ESFJ. They're EVERYWHERE! lol


haha yeah! i was shocked to see them so low too. maybe locations vary... i wish there were more near me :tongue: actually my only problem with the test is that i think extroverts in general are rarer.



kman said:


> I doubt these stats are accurate. The study would of have to be conducted across the world on a huge timescale. Figuring out a persons ''myers briggs personality trait'' takes time and isn't done in a day. Aswell, such psychology studies would of been made famous.


over 52,000 conducted by professionals in a course you pay money for while face to face (if that is their website). idk, though, going by what you say every statistic would be inaccurate then.

i found the other thread that said there were more intuitives than sensors in france, if anyone is still skeptical 

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...ntuitives-proportion-may-quite-different.html

i still can't find the post that said INTJs were more common in korea, so i will keep searching for that one...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I don't think the western world has gotten any more 'intuitive' in the last 20 years either. The education system has a of 'Si elements', there's a big focus on provable facts and memorization.


I agree with that actually, but that push is somewhat recent. There was a hippy flavor added to the system a generation or so ago, that wanted to focus on creativity and intelligence that evaded measure. But our test scores were crumbling and now everyone is rallying around S type thinking again. And there is still resistance to that S type thinking, but nobody can really think of a solution to test scores without it.


----------



## RandomUsar (Jan 10, 2014)

kman said:


> I doubt our IQ is higher than our ancestors. We simply have more information and are more knowledgeable, that does not mean having higher IQ. And things always change, but to have things change drastically in such a small amount of time assuming the first research was remotely accurate sounds simply, fantastical... And since we are built off our ''ancestors'' such change should not be so dramatic, not to this level, it does not make much sense.


I mentioned it because I watched a video or must have read an article somewhere that said our IQ's are 30 points higher than our forefathers. Something like this... Smarter than ever?

And besides... it's not like we are incapable of using all the 8 cognitive functions... It doesn't need to be a drastic change... you must be imagining like an obvious change in brain structure like we'll develop an extra prominent gyrus or something... of course not... the changes will most likely be subtle and minute. It's a spectrum. A lot of us are borderline N/S or J/P or T/F already anyway.

I'm just open to the possibility of a different view.

And... shouldn't the recent study be more accurate because it can cover a wider population? With the help of the interwebz or due to the fact that we live in a much smaller world now? With... possibly better technology hence... more information... hence more understanding... hence better assessment?


----------



## RandomUsar (Jan 10, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> We're talking about 20 or so years, human evolution takes generations. Actually there's a lot of evidence to point to our brains being almost exactly the same as they were at when we discovered agriculture (about 10,000 years ago).
> 
> Also, Si and Se are still cognitive functions, it's not a matter of 'brain vs brawns' but 'brain vs different functions in the brain'. There are many parts of society that actually probably favor S types, in particular xSTJ types, especially in business.


Almost exactly the same... but not the same. I mean... just look at us now. Even in business, where STJ's, as you said, are supposedly favored... they have to keep up with technology... with our modern ways and machinery.

And by brains vs brawn... I simply meant... that one probably has to utilize more of ones thinking or imagination... which doesn't require much physical effort(brawn). You just sit down and think/imagine. That results in certain functions being developed more than others. And this is a pandemic... spanning all cultures and countries.

Why... though... is the idea that sensors could be rarer so... unappealing? Shouldn't you be enthused to have more likeminded individuals in the populace? Haha peace :laughing:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> Almost exactly the same... but not the same. I mean... just look at us now. Even in business, where STJ's, as you said, are supposedly favored... they have to keep up with technology... with our modern ways and machinery.
> 
> And by brains vs brawn... I simply meant... that one probably has to utilize more of ones thinking or imagination... which doesn't require much physical effort(brawn). You just sit down and think/imagine. That results in certain functions being developed more than others. And this is a pandemic... spanning all cultures and countries.
> 
> *Why... though... is the idea that sensors could be rarer so... unappealing?* Shouldn't you be enthused to have more likeminded individuals in the populace? Haha peace :laughing:


Because now we can't blame them for the state of the world, and why we don't fit in.


----------



## RandomUsar (Jan 10, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because now we can't blame them for the state of the world, and why we don't fit in.


Who knows... you guys might actually be our only hope. :kitteh:

Oh... I wouldn't worry about fitting in. It would be the sensors' turn to worry about such things.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> Who knows... you guys might actually be our only hope. :kitteh:
> 
> Oh... I wouldn't worry about fitting in. It would be the sensors' turn to worry about such things.


seems like a perfect time to bring up these links

Where Did All the College Football Fans Go? | Bleacher Report

Kids Are More Creative Now Than in 1985 | Care2 Causes

Children becoming addicted to video game fantasy worlds, teachers warn | Society | The Guardian

:sad: when everyone is like that it makes school so boring though... i always wonder what it would be like to go to high school in the early 2000s


----------



## RandomUsar (Jan 10, 2014)

idoh said:


> seems like a perfect time to bring up these links
> 
> Where Did All the College Football Fans Go? | Bleacher Report
> 
> ...


These are dark times in the ... sensor kingdom.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> These are dark times in the ... sensor kingdom.


lol not so fast. just too many introverted introverts :tongue: i made another thread like that about the computer making everyone 'introverted'


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Depends who was tested.

Some statistics take everyone, some focus on upper management. I've seen MBTI statistics for the latter, so we need to know who was being tested.


----------



## kman (Jan 12, 2014)

ch3rryb0mb said:


> I mentioned it because I watched a video or must have read an article somewhere that said our IQ's are 30 points higher than our forefathers.
> 
> And besides... it's not like we are incapable of using all the 8 cognitive functions... It doesn't need to be a drastic change... you must be imagining like an obvious change in brain structure like we'll develop an extra prominent gyrus or something... of course not... the changes will most likely be subtle and minute. It's a spectrum. A lot of us are borderline N/S or J/P or T/F already anyway.
> 
> ...


Assuming the old stats are correct: Intj was .5% now its 2nd most popular. That is drastic change. Behaviour has many biological factors to it, not just when and where and how you grow up to be. I could believe intj being higher in % not to being 2nd place in popularity. And to believe than T are more popular than F to such an extent also brings more questions. This begs the question if whomever did the test, do they understand the purpose of the personality test or did they just ask question of the sort like: do you get emotional quickly or even perhaps, do you enjoy going to parties? If so, these are the wrong questions being asked.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

this gives more credence to the non-essentiality of mbti in my mind. if environmental needs can change surface actions so greatly that one interprets themselves as a different "type" than would be predicted by a statistic used as a standard where genetic predisposition is assumed, then type is a fleeting phenomena, at least as far as usefulness in a common setting.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

My theory is that cultural values are changing from 1980's all around the world. Previous generations of women were taught to 'be nice' more so and taught they were valued for being nurturing (right or wrong). Previous generations of men were taught to 'be strong' more so and taught they were valued for being providers (right or wrong). Going into the information age, teachers and parents have devalued trade skills or home maker. Wanting to be a plumber or construction worker or farmer isn't good enough. Wanting to be a housewife or house cleaner or waitress isn't good enough. The push has been to get higher education and be better than that, to be 'highly intelligent.' People have entered colleges and universities in huge number increasingly compared to before the 1980s. Most mothers work outside the home today. Manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, those sort of skills are cheap and plentiful in other places. Now the electrician spends less time in school, has minimal student debt paid off quickly and makes a lot of money because parents and teachers took the electricians competition and told them to get a bachelors degrees. Actual auto mechanics are being replaced with part replacers because the people intelligent enough to actually diagnose the problem and fix it were told they could do better than being some common auto mechanic. 

I'm not saying things were better in the 'good old days'. There have been gains and losses, in my books. But I think there have been major changes in which fields our Grandparents encouraged our parents to go into vs what our parents encouraged us to do and what we encourage our children to do. 30 years ago, women placed higher value on being feelers and men placed more value on being sensors. The demographics are changing and those values are changing significantly. How people behave and see themselves has had to adapt with the times. 

Sensors in general are too highly valued in traditional western societies. Feeler women in general have been highly valued in traditional western societies. Things are shifting.


----------

