typological mythbusting

[Nocapszy]

typology mythbusting

well as i've said before, for the most part i don't race anymore -- i'm retired to stud -- but i figured i have a few more things to offer so here goes.

starting with this garbage about "sensor bias"

i'm not a sensorist... or whatever you'd call it (does the group have enough constituents to merit word-smithing?)

they [mostly being kiersey, a man i thoroughly disagree with on a great lot of typology, including the subtypes] say that NTs are usually hyper-critical thinkers and more astute than the STs and the NFs are hyper-sensitive feelers and more caring/empathic than the SFs.

these things are probably true.

hear me out.

it's a myth that Thinking/Feeling is necessarily a stronger force in the iNtuitive types.
the truth is* a preference for iNtuition isn't what helps Judgement. it's not as if Intuitive information is easier to work with, or better information or any of that.

prior to this thread, this has been the assumption -- that intuition is just plain better.
well that's nonsense.

what puts the intuitors in the lead is the fact that there is so much more for Thinking and Feeling to work with.

iNtuition is a function which depends in part on the immediate sense impressions and with other sense impressions.
stop right there -- no i'm not describing Si. that's not the end of it.

along with that, intuition is capable of generating a bond of hypothesis between these two. this bond is what the intuitor makes himself aware of.
this is the truth: iNtuitives, you do notice concrete details.
you just don't make yourself consciously aware of them until they become relevant.

by contrast, sensation makes the user aware of those things which the intuitor used to generate an abstraction, rather than the abstraction itself.

therein lies the distinction between the Ss and the Ns. this is something to look for.

all conscious thought is done by Thinking or Feeling. everything from complicated mathematics to simply cognizing the existence of a watch on a desk.

an ISTP and an INTP might be equally brilliant mechanics, just as the same two might be equally brilliant theoretical physicists.

this is the key: the faculty of perception in an ISTP will notice the wrench; the contours, the lettering, the color, the [...] where an INTP will remember about the bolt and form the hypothetical bond and it occurs to him that he can use it to tighten or loosen the bolt.

both of these types are taking in information about the wrench.

Sensors, after having taken in everything they can about the wrench itself can't really learn anything more about it without access to something it can be used on.

S_Ps learn to become very resourceful in devising ways [often through "impulses"] of forcing the object to offer more information about itself.

the iNtuitive on the other hand does not necessarily require environmental stimulation.
as a matter of fact, they can continue to form abstractions which can themselves be used to birth newer ideas/hunches.

in case you can't yet see, the Sensor is limited by his environment.
the iNtuitor is limited only by his mind.

if the iNtuitor isn't born stupid, their judgement faculty will surely have much more information to work with, and will likely be more finely tuned.

the same way a curious Sensor might be discouraged from doing "naughty" things by mommy and daddy, an iNtuitive might be discouraged from thinking 'bad' things [i don't know... parents are fucking stupid] so there's going to be some give-and-take for both versions.

oh and all that stuff i said about IS/NTPs and mechanical things applies for IS/NFP and Feeler stuff.
i just didn't go into detail 'cause i don't really know what Feelers think about.
i sometimes think i do, but then i get shown up by an astute F, and it's happened enough times that i have to admit that i just don't know what you guys think about. i can't keep track.

---------------------------------------------

sensor bias is the only one i have for now.
i put a star in there somewhere and i was going to address it but i forgot what it was about and i'm not about to scroll up.

 

[redacted]

You're still talking about Sensors and Intuitors as if they're two distinct groups.

 

[Nocapszy]

as PeeCee as it might be, pretending there isn't a divide is just ignorant.
we reference them differently because they are different.

i'd actually prefer to distinguish between P and J [in my opinion, the only division that ever really mattered, and ironically, the most outrageously misunderstood] but the last time i tried that, no one even bothered to read what i had to say.

 

[entropie]

Well I am missing a more holistic approach aswell. You can have Sensors, who are still very strong in their intuition and vice versa.

I am not a big fan of singleing out individual functions in human beings, to me out of context makes em loose their content.

 

[redacted]

as PeeCee as it might be, pretending there isn't a divide is just ignorant.
we reference them differently because they are different.

i'd actually prefer to distinguish between P and J [in my opinion, the only division that ever really mattered, and ironically, the most outrageously misunderstood] but the last time i tried that, no one even bothered to read what i had to say.

There are two groups, but they're not entirely polar. That's all.

 

[Stanton Moore]

It's where you go after the initial sense impression that makes the difference. DO you stay primarily in the world of the concrete or do you 'go inside' and play with what you have gathered?

What is intuition if not a sorting of information? It may be mostly subconscious, but it's still an ordering/sorting.

I don't see what's so mysterious about intuition. It's just a form of pattern recognition. It can be learned.

 

[garbage]

i'd actually prefer to distinguish between P and J [in my opinion, the only division that ever really mattered, and ironically, the most outrageously misunderstood] but the last time i tried that, no one even bothered to read what i had to say.

Do you have any links to your material on P/J?

 

[Quinlan]

I don't see what's so mysterious about intuition. It's just a form of pattern recognition. It can be learned.

Some people like to put themselves on pedestals, which is fine, if their use of N is so advanced and different from the norm it's more likely that they will stand apart from the majority of both sensors and intuitives (who fall somewhere near the middle).

 

[Stanton Moore]

Some people like to put themselves on pedestals, which is fine, if their use of N is so advanced and different from the norm it's more likely that they will stand apart from the majority of both sensors and intuitives (who fall somewhere near the middle).

There are intuitives who are quite advanced (Jiddu Chrisnamurti is a great example), but why can't there be sensors who are also as advanced? Perhaps a painter or sculpter would qualify. I don't know the answer to that, but I see no reason to think that it's not true.
But the fact remains: intuitives have to have raw material for intuition (sensory info) and sensors need to act on the info they gather (possibly via intution). In the end, the two things are inseperable. the fact that people see this as some sort of tangible divide is a shortcoming of the theory IME.
I can't divide people into two camps, because I can't see where S ends and N begins in myself.

 

[Quinlan]

There are intuitives who are quite advanced (Jiddu Chrisnamurti is a great example), but why can't there be sensors who are also as advanced? Perhaps a painter or sculpter would qualify. I don't know the answer to that, but I see no reason to think that it's not true.
But the fact remains: intuitives have to have raw material for intuition (sensory info) and sensors need to act on the info they gather (possibly via intution). In the end, the two things are inseperable. the fact that people see this as some sort of tangible divide is a shortcoming of the theory IME.
I can't divide people into two camps, because I can't see where S ends and N begins in myself.

Absolutely agree with that. Trying to split the two into very distinctive groups is just pretending that the outliers of either side are representitive of the whole, when most people fall somewhere between and use both functions. Typing would be a heck of a lot easier if there were things that only intuitives and only sensors could do but that just isn't the case. I'm not sure why some people resist the idea of everyone using all the functions to varying degrees (perhaps it makes the functions seem more mundane and if the functions are mundane then there is no basis for that person to feel special anymore).

 

[Jaguar]

Why do you think I don't have a type listed?
N and S are interdependent, not independent.

I use both N and S.

Here's a hilarious test result:

INTP - 75%
ESTJ - 75%
ISTP - 75%
ENTJ - 75%

Type Dynamics Results

Te - 26

Ti - 26

Si - 18

Ni - 18

Ne - 17

Se - 17

Fi - 9

Fe - 9

 

[professor goodstain]

Something to ponder...extrasensory perception

Is there a relation among MBTI and ESP? besides the two being theory

 

[FC3S]

Let's nip the MBTI stereotypes in the bud.

MBTI has eight functions, while everyone uses them at some point, they have a preference, or so the theory goes.

That means an S uses N, just not with as much frequency, they also favor the S. End of story no?

 

[Nocapszy]

There are two groups, but they're not entirely polar. That's all.

where in my post did i say that they were?
in fact, i challenge you to sift through my entire post history and find an instance where i said that.

 

[Nocapszy]

Why do you think I don't have a type listed?
N and S are interdependent, not independent.

as a matter of fact, they're not.

jung named the functions rather irresponsibly.
the names he chose induce a lot of cognitive dissonance.

if you read my OP you'd see the true distinction between Sensory perception and iNtuitive perception. the tipping point is perception.

I use both N and S.

you're human too?
i'm sorry to hear that.

i assume this is supposed to be an expression of contentedness after having proved me/whoever you were talking to wrong.

it didn't work, so i suggest you put one of these on and get back to the books.

tests are a joke. don't bring them up in my threads.

 

[Nocapszy]

There are intuitives who are quite advanced (Jiddu Chrisnamurti is a great example), but why can't there be sensors who are also as advanced?

listen carefully:

no one has said that they can't.
i was simply explaining why it's easier and more likely for an iNtuitive to gain the upper hand in using their Judgement functions.

this is to say, iNtuition figuratively flourishes Judgement.

i can't understand why you people think i'm talking about guarantees and sure-things.
i don't even think i used the word "all" in my OP. i don't think i used "every" either, and if i did, i'm certain i didn't use it in modification of a description a typological tendency.

 

[FC3S]

listen carefully:

no one has said that they can't.
i was simply explaining why it's easier and more likely for an iNtuitive to gain the upper hand in using their Judgement functions.

this is to say, iNtuition figuratively flourishes Judgement.

i can't understand why you people think i'm talking about guarantees and sure-things.
i don't even think i used the word "all" in my OP. i don't think i used "every" either, and if i did, i'm certain i didn't use it in modification of a description a typological tendency.

Because MBTI is a system of absolutes and the community is biased towards it. Can you really blame them? I'm guilty of falling in this trap myself.

Welcome to being human, I've been a member since 1984.

 

[Nocapszy]

Because MBTI is a system of absolutes and the community is biased towards it.

you're perfectly right.

MBTI is about absolutes. this is a mistake when talking about the types.
when referencing functions, absolutes are the only way to work.

something has to be rigid for the other something to be flexible.

i don't use MBTI. you could have seen that by the fact that i mention function names [these have been omitted by Meyers and Briggs].

what i do is called neo-jungian typology.
even Jung screwed a lot up.

 

[Nocapszy]

everyone else -- sit tight; i'll have some new stuff later.
also i'm still taking questions/discussion on what's already here.

 

[redacted]

where in my post did i say that they were?
in fact, i challenge you to sift through my entire post history and find an instance where i said that.

I guess I was just trying to clarify for everyone else. I thought that needed to be mentioned (which it did, clearly)