User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 511

  1. #141
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    A further factor in the mix here.. is that prejudice against sensors, is prejudice against one's own type.

    We all sense, we all use intuition. We just have preferences as to which we believe we are best at and/or prefer to use. But dismissing someone for "sensing" is quite ridiclous. The dismisser would quickly die if they could not use sensing functions.
    It's true that we all use both S and N; however, N prejudice against S type people is not prejudice against one's own type, because "S type person" = "someone who uses S more often than N", not "someone who uses exclusively S and never any N."

    I don't think anyone is dismissing anyone else for using the S function at all. Personally, I don't use "He's a Sensor" as a reason to dismiss someone, as much as my critics are wont to pretend otherwise. It just so happens that a majority of people I get along well with tend to prefer using N more often than S. It doesn't mean that we never use S, or that S-type people never use N, and for the love of God...(and this last part is directed at everyone, not just you, Geoff):

    MBTI IS A GENERALIZATION; THE FACT THAT IT LACKS ABSOLUTE ACCURACY IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #142
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I do try. In fact, believe it or not, I've become a more tolerant person since studying MBTI. I consider most people to be far more rational than I used to; I understand now that their value systems are fundamentally different from mine.

    I think, again, the problem here is a result of overzealous assumptions about the accuracy of MBTI labels. Nadir's cute little "there is no such thing as an iNtuitive" comment is the best example of this thus far: s/he assumes that, since the type labels can't be applied universally to everyone, they must automatically have no validity.

    I'm getting a little tired of having to explain that generalizations still have merit, as long as their inherent limitations are understood. The fact that MBTI doesn't work accurately for EVERYONE doesn't mean that it can't provide some useful insight into ANYONE. Seriously, if we don't use generalizations which fail on some occasions, we're left with hardly any useful descriptive terminology at all.

    I am not saying that. I am just saying that you implied that bias online against Sensors was OK, since there exists so much bias against Intuitives IRL. That is nonsense.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #143
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It just so happens that a majority of people I get along well with tend to prefer using N more often than S.
    The friends you had tested, right?

    MBTI IS A GENERALIZATION; THE FACT THAT IT LACKS ABSOLUTE ACCURACY IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT
    All Capszies isn't going to strengthen what you're trying to explain. It's just a pain to the eyes. If you happen to be upset, calm down and take a breather.

    And... how is MBTI a... generalization? You can say that our Types, collectively, are a generlization based off of specific processes working in tandem to create a pattern. Our interpretation of them becomes generalized, not the system itself.

  4. #144
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    I've found it amusing that you've kept referring to tests as though to strengthen your argument that you are an N.

    Tests have no validity over one's type. Tests, by themselves, prove nothing. Nothing. No self-respecting NT would believe in the validity of an instrument which has no assurance beyond a give-or-take 70% measured success rate nor for a system which is not even scientifically proven. The system isn't perfect, it's still being understood and adapted to, and we're all along for the ride should we choose to board.

    No one is 100% anything. lol If you were 100% N, I'd suspect the rest of your body were on life support and you were locked up in a psychiatric ward due to incoherent ramblings.

    Obviously, I don't believe that testing "100% N" means I never use any Sensing. That should be understood based on the inherent limitations in the system--of course I use S sometimes; I just prefer to use N a lot more. The very fact that I know and acknowledge this should quell any suspicions you might have about my supposed overconfidence in the validity of MBTI.

    The fact that you felt you had to point all of this out to me seems kind of telling--this stuff goes with the territory of using any system of generalizations.

    I obviously don't think it's perfect, but it doesn't need to be in order to be useful. You people who run around spouting off this stuff about how it's "unproven" are missing the point; it's not intended to accurately predict every thought or action that everyone will have. Even if it's right 51% of the time, it still has value because it adds an added degree of predictability.

    For instance, I'll use a little game theory example, cause I'm a nerd about that stuff.

    Say I'm dealing you random cards from a standard deck, and you're trying to predict which ones will come up. After I've gone through half the deck, you notice from counting that only 7 of 26 red cards remain.

    Now, on your 27th prediction, if you had to guess, would you say that a red or black card will come up? Someone who misunderstands MBTI and the inherent limitations of generalizations would say:

    "I have no idea! Both are possible, so there's no sense in trying to guess!"

    This person, of course, would avoid making any generalizations about anything, ever, because some red card might get upset.

    But someone who gets the bloody point would say:

    "Black, obviously. I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess black until shown evidence otherwise, because that's most probable."

    All things are uncertain but that doesn't make them equally probable--generalizations have uses as long as you don't expect them to be accurate in all cases.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #145
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    The friends you had tested, right?



    All Capszies isn't going to strengthen what you're trying to explain. It's just a pain to the eyes. If you happen to be upset, calm down and take a breather.

    And... how is MBTI a... generalization? You can say that our Types, collectively, are a generlization based off of specific processes working in tandem to create a pattern. Our interpretation of them becomes generalized, not the system itself.
    I guess I was hoping pain to the eyes would get people to actually pay attention to what I've said about 8 times now on this thread alone, instead of repeatedly reassuring me of how imperfect and unproven MBTI is. I'm well aware of that.

    Umm...how could MBTI not be a generalization? "He's ISFP" = "He generally prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving."

    If I'm trying to guess what this guy will do in a given situation, and his decision is directly related to one of the four MBTI dichotomies, I'm going to guess that he will do whatever his stated preference on that dichotomy indicates. Of course, this leads me to an incorrect conclusion a significant portion of the time, but as long as it helps me predict his behavior more accurately than I could otherwise, I will take MBTI into account. I will not assume that MBTI is the perfect gospel truth or that it can never be wrong. If I see enough repeated behavior to the contrary, I will change my assessment of his type. MBTI doesn't need external proof because the questions themselves (and the answers from participants) are the proof.

    The only reason you would claim that it requires more proof is if you fundamentally misjudge its purpose in the first place. Use it for what it's intended for, and nothing more, and you won't need any more proof.



    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I am not saying that. I am just saying that you implied that bias online against Sensors was OK, since there exists so much bias against Intuitives IRL. That is nonsense.
    You're right, it's not ok. Sometimes I act biased against Sensors because of this bitterness stemming from real life, but when I do this I'm no more morally right than they are. I'm sorry for any offense this may have caused.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #146
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    one of my dearest friends is an ESFJ and I can't say enough great things about her. I knew as soon as we became acquainted that we had different approaches and ideas to most things, but she is such a great person all of that is easily overlooked. I can basically get along with anyone who is pleasant and doesn't try to change or pick apart who I am and that's where my ISFJ mother comes in. ;P I will say though she does seem less that way with me lately so maybe there is a light at the end of our tunnel. Perhaps MBTI has played a part in helping us get along better.
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  7. #147
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    For instance, I'll use a little game theory example, cause I'm a nerd about that stuff.

    Say I'm dealing you random cards from a standard deck, and you're trying to predict which ones will come up. After I've gone through half the deck, you notice from counting that only 7 of 26 red cards remain.

    Now, on your 27th prediction, if you had to guess, would you say that a red or black card will come up? Someone who misunderstands MBTI and the inherent limitations of generalizations would say:

    "I have no idea! Both are possible, so there's no sense in trying to guess!"

    This person, of course, would avoid making any generalizations about anything, ever, because some red card might get upset.

    But someone who gets the bloody point would say:

    "Black, obviously. I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess black until shown evidence otherwise, because that's most probable."

    That's not a good example to use to prove a case for MBTI. In a deck of cards, there is a finite assumed. 54 cards, 26 black, 26 red.

    There is no such finite assumptions with MBTI, hence, it makes predictions, even based on type a lot more shaky, because you don't know what part of the all you're trying to predict, because there is no all. Knowing the ENTP profile, doesn't reveal ALL about an individual ENTP. But, knowing all about the number of red cards on the table, does give a prediction (due to probability) about what the next card can be. There's a denominator there, but there is no denominator (of ALL) in MBTI.

    This is why we must be careful to speak of generalizations coming from MBTI.

  8. #148
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's true that we all use both S and N; however, N prejudice against S type people is not prejudice against one's own type, because "S type person" = "someone who uses S more often than N", not "someone who uses exclusively S and never any N."

    I don't think anyone is dismissing anyone else for using the S function at all. Personally, I don't use "He's a Sensor" as a reason to dismiss someone, as much as my critics are wont to pretend otherwise. It just so happens that a majority of people I get along well with tend to prefer using N more often than S. It doesn't mean that we never use S, or that S-type people never use N, and for the love of God...(and this last part is directed at everyone, not just you, Geoff):

    MBTI IS A GENERALIZATION; THE FACT THAT IT LACKS ABSOLUTE ACCURACY IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT
    What made you think my post was aimed at you? I was adding something to the mix....

  9. #149
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Umm...how could MBTI not be a generalization? "He's ISFP" = "He generally prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving."
    That's not what MBTI does.It's ridiculous to think that MBTI states that 'he's ISFP, thus, he generally prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving'. You're just stretching out the ISFP in statement format. This would be meaningless, and, make MBTI look redundant. MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviours/thoughts to what these 'introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving' are. Thus, we must look carefully at the generalization rising out of the definitions MBTI assigns to introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving.

    You are twisting, and grappling at straws, to save face for using the word 'generalizations' to MBTI incorrectly. It's not working.

  10. #150
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    People aren't playing cards, if you want to make negative assumptions about good people like the one Jen pointed out, then you insult them and the people that like them. If you're ok with that then that's ok, just realise it does make you look quite callous.

Similar Threads

  1. TypeC biased against sensors?
    By Oaky in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. [NT] The NT Prejudice Against Feeling
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 03:42 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Question for sensors?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 03:30 AM
  4. [ISTJ] Famous dead Sensors
    By labyrinthine in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO