• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Prejudice against Sensors?

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.



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.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
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. :)
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
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.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
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....
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
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.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.


If you say so. I think it's pretty comical that you guys can even pretend such a system is not one of generalizations, though.

Yes, MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviors and thoughts, but the test itself spends 70 questions asking you directly which of these thoughts and behaviors describe you best. The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.

The generalization part comes when it takes your personally stated preferences on these external stimuli and makes guesses about how you will respond to other, similar external stimuli in the future. It's behavioralism, and it IS a generalization because it takes a small sampling of your own behavioral preference and then tries to infer information about other situations.

I totally agree that we must look carefully at the generalizations rising from these definitions...as you just said. How does this make MBTI not a system of generalizations?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

Close, but I don't use MBTI to make negative assumptions about anyone. I use it as a way to make guesses at explanations for behaviors that I have directly observed. There's a subtle difference there.


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.

Yes, and the fact that a deck of cards is finite is why I can use precise numerical probabilities to describe it, but not with MBTI; however, the principle of increased predictability is still the same, and still based entirely on the concept of generalizations. (It's 52 cards, btw.) ;)

As for your next paragraph, well, I think you've just restated my point, and at this point I suspect that you may misunderstand the definition of "generalization":

–noun
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.

A general statement, idea, or principle. A generalization doesn't have to describe ALL members of a given group or class in order to have validity. As long as it describes a majority of them a majority of the time, it's useful.

For another example, here's a generalization: Black people are better at basketball than white people.

Of course, there are certainly great white basketball players. There are probably even more black people who suck at basketball, but neither of these facts reduces the value of said generalization. Obviously examples abound of white people who play basketball better than black people, and yet the generalization itself still rings true. It's a question of averages, not of applying exact or rigid labels to every individual member of a particular group. This is the very definition of a generalization.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
I agree. An online test isn't going to be that accurate. For me MBTI is a good indicator providing the person knows themselves well enough and remain objective while taking it. I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results match.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Good stuff :)
Part of me wonders how much this has changed with late GenerationY. Perhaps I'm delusional or hanging around the wrong group of crowd, but it almost seems to be natural for people to declare themselves as 'different', 'unique' or 'weird' rather than be normal.

For me it's even more of a mindscrew when I hear friends that deem themselves as weird and have experienced harsh times as a child rant and push away another social misfit. It's the Fe speaking... but you'd think that having experienced such thing. People won't be so willing to go against others.

My friends would describe me as strange. ISFJs make roughly 10% of the population. They have noted that I have a tendancy to talk about more concrete things (I commented on the difference first) such as relationships, what's occuring and what might happen. There's been no conflict at all whatsoever despite the S/N difference. Personally I identify as quite a strong sensor as Ni/Ne doesn't come easily to me. However when I'm taking online tests or speaking to other people. There are times my results are more slanted towards the centre or socionics forums passing me off as an N purely because my interests usually side more towards psychology etc.

It does irk me when I see a post that's blatantly bashing sensors (i.e. N = Alien thread) to the extent I was extremely tempted to reply back sarcastically but meh. Why bother... perhaps people are just venting.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
I agree. An online test isn't going to be that accurate. For me MBTI is a good indicator providing the person knows themselves well enough to be subjective and honest while taking it. I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results are the same.

It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).

She made the point more than once that if someone already knew how MBTI worked, the testing was not going to work, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to answer the questions without colouring the answers with what we think (or feel, ha!) they mean.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).

She made the point more than once that if someone already knew how MBTI worked, the testing was not going to work, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to answer the questions without colouring the answers with what we think (or feel, ha!) they mean.
Makes sense. So do you agree with the outcome?
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
So are you and NF or NT?

When officially tested, and naive, I was XNTP, with them deciding on "I" (and therefore INTP) due to the follow up observations of how my thought processes worked, how I interacted in the workshop with objects etc.

I think it was something like this

E/I +0 ("I") N (+60) T (+20), P (+100)
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
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.

You misunderstood. I didn't question your confidence in the validity in MBTI but in the testing of it. What else could 100% N mean if not that you have 0% S? Why then do you place importance "being that I score 100% N" earlier? (Btw, I don't believe in percentages based off of tests. I'm just throwing that out there.).

I obviously don't think it's perfect, but it doesn't need to be in order to be useful.

Did I say it had to be perfect in order to be useful? I merely pointed out that the system isn't or our understanding of it isn't. I wasn't displacing value of its imperfection.

You people who run around spouting off this stuff about how it's "unproven" are missing the point;

"You people"? lol The point wasn't that the system isn't scientifically proven, hence unusable, but that an NT wouldn't so easily believe in the system (tho' I was teasing you, you missed it =/). They may still play with it but not be so quick to believe it works. Follow?


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

You didn't understand this, then?:
moi said:
You can say that our Types, collectively, are a generalization based off of specific processes working in tandem to create a pattern. Our interpretation of them becomes generalized, not the system itself.

I'ma sayin' that the MBTI system isn't a generalization itself, but our interpretation of the collectivity of Types, which are formed through cognitive processes in order to create a pattern, are. The basic outline and interpretation of the Types are generalized. Not the system.

SW said:
Yes, MBTI gives applicable operations in terms of behaviors and thoughts, but the test itself spends 70 questions asking you directly which of these thoughts and behaviors describe you best. The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.

Ever heard of confirmation bias?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So are you NF or NT?

According to my opponents here, why bothering specifying? If we label Geoff an NF, we must, apparently, be able to prove that 100% of NFs on the planet have exactly his characteristics, or the entire system is totally worthless.

What a joke.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
According to my opponents here, why bothering specifying? If we label Geoff an NF, we must, apparently, be able to prove that 100% of NFs on the planet have exactly his characteristics, or the entire system is totally worthless.

What a joke.
you're cute and funny. don't ever stop being you. lol
 
Top