Bias against "S" types

["?"]

Originally Posted by athenian200

Did I say you couldn't? I made that inference as a statement of opinion, and to show my own knowledge. Not to imply that you were incapable of such an inference on your own. This is actually a good example of how Sensors and Intuitives don't live up to their stereotypes. You're the one jumping to conclusions and reading into things, and I only meant exactly what I said by that remark.

I did not read into anything. You said, "It really isn't fair to the more intelligent/insightful Sensors, and the bad parts are caricatured." which anyone reading that would infer that on average sensing types are not intelligent/insightful. Intuitives do not have a monopoly on intelligence and insightfulness.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by "?"

I did not read into anything. You said, "It really isn't fair to the more intelligent/insightful Sensors, and the bad parts are caricatured." which anyone reading that would infer that on average sensing types are not intelligent/insightful. Intuitives do not have a monopoly on intelligence and insightfulness.

I apologize, then. I don't mean to imply things like that (I honestly didn't even realize I had implied that, and just did it unconsciously. A Freudian slip. ), but I'm probably biased in that direction from spending so much time on these forums, identifying as Intuitive myself, and just generally wanting to avoid a lot of the more Sensing aspects of things. Even one of the ISTP's here has a slight bias towards thinking that most Intuitives tend to have higher IQs, and tends to think that any Sensor who is here is probably above average (although that might have been a carryover from when he typed himself as INTP).

I guess I need to realize that just because I don't use Sensing very productively doesn't mean it can't be used well or creatively. It's a hard lesson to learn.

Honestly, you're probably smarter than us in a lot of ways. You can see reality exactly as it is and appreciate it, while I always see it filtered in terms of my goals or ideas. The Sensing is just as important a type of insight, although it's harder for me to appreciate it. Try to keep in mind it's as hard for me to use Se as it is for you to use Fe.

[InFlux]

I read this whole thread a while ago but lost track 'cause it got too long.

I just want to say that even though using extraverted sensing feels like walking up a hill filled with potholes wearing a blindfold, when it works, it's awesome. And people who live with a lot of this seem a lot happier than most of the N-types I know who are always lost in (my/our/their) collective ideas, which aren't always good places to be.

And I'm married happily to an ISTJ and related to at least two others off the top of my head. Even though I admittedly don't understand well what introverted sensing is, they are smart and together people who do good stuff.

Bias is for suckers and fools.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Xander

Actually the correlation is there. Many intelligent people can become depressed and feel misunderstood because of their intellect.

It was tongue in cheek, but good clarification. (I also find it amusing that smart people can't solve their own problems... but I realise a lot are too young to do much about it... though honestly, if you are *that* smart and on the internet, you can solve it. The reality is that most people that are "smart" but not "genius" really over estimate their own intelligence, leading to them being arrogant and standoff ish. The problem then lies with being an ass rather than smart.

FWIW, I never had a problem with people and intelligence - I had a problem with head in clouds, regardless of how smart they are.)

Originally Posted by Santtu

No matter how much safe-guarding there can be on any published information, the human factor can never be taken away. Not if the papers would go through a thousand committees before being published. Not that the human factor should be taken away.

I agree entirely. I meant it as a battle between two world views more than a glorification of statistics. No data is perfect; but ignoring data without evaluating its worth is the weakness I was describing.

Data is only as good as what it measures - the human element exists both in the gathering and in the interpretation. Most mistakes are made not understanding what was measured - if you don't work with cutting edge data, most of the bad stuff gets pruned out. It's just two sides of the same error coin - over dependence and ignoring it.

["?"]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

In straight up IQ tests, Ns dominate - do you disagree with this? I agree that the tests can be challenged on those grounds, but unless you are also saying that intuition as a whole can be divided along the same lines, the correlation remains.

I can't argue your first statement Pgat, but clearly this has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with intuitive types being more comfortable with symbols. As stated the U.S. decision to ban I.Q. testing was based on it being biased towards those who lacked sufficent experience to answer the questions. Althought MBTI was never considered in the mix, it would make sense that sensing types would have poorer results since the test lacks experiential value.

["?"]

Originally Posted by athenian200

I apologize, then. I don't mean to imply things like that (I honestly didn't even realize I had implied that, and just did it unconsciously. A Freudian slip. ), but I'm probably biased in that direction from spending so much time on these forums, identifying as Intuitive myself, and just generally wanting to avoid a lot of the more Sensing aspects of things. Even one of the ISTP's here has a slight bias towards thinking that most Intuitives tend to have higher IQs, and tends to think that any Sensor who is here is probably above average (although that might have been a carryover from when he typed himself as INTP).

No problem, just making a point on noticing, but as stated to Pgat above, I.Q. test do not measure intelligence. The "I" most likely should represent imagination. The test were given at such an early age, render the average person (regardless of type) incapable responding well, since they lacked any type of experience to relate to the test. I generally score 128-133 on the test, which is up 19-25 points from when I had taken it in high school, many moons ago.

[Uberfuhrer]

Doesn't Openness on the FFM generally decrease with age?

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by "?"

I can't argue your first statement Pgat, but clearly this has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with intuitive types being more comfortable with symbols. As stated the U.S. decision to ban I.Q. testing was based on it being biased towards those who lacked sufficent experience to answer the questions. Althought MBTI was never considered in the mix, it would make sense that sensing types would have poorer results since the test lacks experiential value.

As true as that is, and I agree, IQ does correlate to a great many things - that's why it is still used, despite it not being all that politically correct (and statistically it really shouldn't be, but it's hard to convince people of that when it does work...)

It's only been banned because of its roots in racism, not for practical reasons.

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Doesn't Openness on the FFM generally decrease with age?

Yes, in general.

[Splittet]

Oh, these IQ discussions are so frustrating. At the root of it all is the definition of intelligence. The traditional meaning is something like this: “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” This is what IQ is trying to measure.

It’s now being challenged by the multiple intelligences view. And it’s true, IQ does not measure intelligence in the multiple intelligences sense. That is what people really criticize about IQ, but IQ was never meant to measure this sense of what intelligence is, and you can’t criticize it for not doing so.

Why don’t we call the traditional sense of intelligence intelligence-1 and the new sense intelligence-2? Then we wouldn’t have all this bloody mess. No way of seeing intelligence is better than the other, they are just different, and it gives no meaning to compare them. They are two different concepts, describing two different things. The two ways of using the word intelligence are just two different reference level (physics analogy), and there are no right or wrong reference levels ...

[Uberfuhrer]

IQ tests do, in fact, ask S-oriented questions. They test memory recall and various other visual questions (such as "Which of these shapes does not belong?"), as well as factual knowledge.

Two things that IQ tests don't measure accurately are (A) in the S domain, kinesthetic/athletic/motor skills and (B) in the N domain, tendency for imagination and creative play.

At most IQ tests measure questions that require access of Ti with the aid of Ne, which is why, statistically speaking, INTPs tend to score the highest.