User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 138

  1. #1
    Senior Member Retmeishka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Socionics
    SLI
    Posts
    239

    Default I think that most 'intuitives' are mistyped sensors, and the test needs redesigned.

    This is too much of a topic for me to try talking about at this time of night, but I can't sleep, and yet, I'm tired. So it will probably be a rather poor quality of writing.

    I have wanted to talk about this for a while. I believe that almost all of the people calling themselves intuitives are actually sensors. I estimate that 80% to 90% of them are sensors.

    The MBTI test needs to be drastically rewritten. Since we don't have the power to change the official MBTI test, I would want a group of people to create an open-source test, with a different name (not MBTI).

    Let me tell you how I interpret some of the questions. I don't have the test here in front of me so I am recalling them from memory, which means I can't recall many of them.

    Are you more focused on:
    what is possible
    what is actual

    How did I answer that question? I liked 'what is possible' because there are so many things that I just don't like about the real world. I am dissatisfied with many things and I wish things were different than they actually are. So ANYBODY who feels disgruntled and dissatisfied with the world as it is will say they like the idea of 'what is possible' instead of 'what is actual,' and they will be labeled an intuitive. I always have a list of 'possibilities,' or options, or different ways something could be done, but that doesn't make me an intuitive.

    In fact, I might argue that intuitives like to think about things that are IMpossible! They like logical contradictions and putting together ideas to create things that don't really exist. 'What is possible' doesn't describe that - it would be described as 'what is impossible.'

    Much of the conflict between sensors and intuitives happens when an intuitive suggests an idea that is too abstract and general to work in reality, and the sensors tell them it's impossible and they need to work out the details.

    Meanwhile, the intuitives think that they themselves are suggesting other 'possible' ways of doing things or seeing things, and that everyone else is seeing only what is already there. So the test question says 'what is possible/actual.' And the sensors would respond by saying that the intuitives' ideas are impossible, and listing a whole bunch of details to show why some idea can't be done in reality.

    The word 'possible' might mean something different to intuitives than it does to sensors.

    I could go on and on about this for a long time. It would help if I were looking at the test itself so that I could give more examples.

    I'd like to see a test where a question described a real situation that you might experience and then it asks you what you would do. Instead of choosing from ONLY TWO answers (why should there be only two answers to choose from?) you could choose ALL THAT APPLY from a long list of answers. Each question could be thoroughly ripped apart and mined for information.

    I don't like the 'You go to a party, what do you do?' question, but that's the only example I can think of. And then they would list a bunch of things that REAL intuitives do when they walk into a room full of people - and it could test for Ne and Ni both - and things that real sensors do when they walk into a room full of people. It would talk about every function that you might use in that situation and you can check off more than one answer. Again, there's no reason to make every question have only two answers to choose from.

    The MBTI test isn't working. I am SURE there are thousands of 'intuitives' who are actually sensors. There is a stigma saying sensors are bad and intuitives are good and special and wonderful. I used to test as INTP, INTJ, and INFP. It was hard for me to change it to ISFP. I wanted to feel that I was special and better than the 'ordinary' people around me.

    But how can you ever learn how to use the intuitive functions and the other functions if you haven't even admitted that you're actually a sensor? I have tried to understand the other functions, based on their descriptions, and based on watching how other people talk and act. Usually, if they say something unthinkable that I never could have come up with myself, it's intuition. If I skim over it quickly and feel as though the words don't mean anything to me, then it's intuition.

    I have found that if I try to use the other functions besides my dominant and supportive, I almost always slip back into the habitual way of thinking. It's so hard to understand them or see them or grasp what they are. It works better if I make sure to use two at once - use one of the perceiving functions with one of the judging functions - don't try to just use only one by itself. It helps if I read books that I know have been written by intuitives, the very abstract books that are almost impossible to understand. So I can slightly use the other functions.

    But I am saying, if this is so hard for me to do, it's probably hard for everyone else to do it too. Everyone else probably has just as much difficulty understanding the functions that aren't their own. So how would you know if you were totally mistaken about your type? If you can't recognize or understand the real thing?

    The test needs to be totally redesigned and it will have little resemblance to the original test. I don't want to bother trying to convince the 'owners' of the official MBTI test to change it. An open source test would be fine.

    I guess that's enough for now. Sometimes I go on writing a book-length monologue and I will try not to do that.

  2. #2
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Tests have a strong iNtuitive bias, nothing beats personal study, stereotypes should be ignored and that's tough to do unless you remove all preconceptions.

    I agree there are many mistyped Sensors but I think the percentages you chose are a bit too extreme.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    You are right because there is not a proper distinction between the irrational and rational functions.

    S + N: irrational functions that make spontaneous decisions about 'like' or 'dislike' with no real reasons behind that.

    T + F: rational functions that gradually make decisions by building up a series of rational steps.

    What is tested as T or F is often S or N. F and T testing is a mess.

    The moral: MBTI tests are a mess unless it is from the MBTI institute which is more thorough and benchmarked but even then there is a high error margin. The best way to learn about cognitive functions is to throw away MBTI manual rev 3 and stick to Psychological Types and Socionics (which is slightly different, but more linear/less fuzzy).

    Also most people fail to grasp that Fe and Fi are the same function but with different attitudes. The tests follow this opinion.

  4. #4
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Retmeishka View Post
    I have wanted to talk about this for a while. I believe that almost all of the people calling themselves intuitives are actually sensors. I estimate that 80% to 90% of them are sensors.
    Actually, the official statistics indicate that Intuitives are fairly rare relative to sensors, according to the actual test. The thing is, most people don't take the real MBTI test, they take some online test that has no quality control.

    If you're not relying on the statistics from the actual test, then where does your assumption that most people should be sensors come from? Perhaps the original statistics were wrong because there are a lot of people who condition themselves to act like sensors. For all we know, the proportion of Sensors to Intutives could be 50/50, but most of the Intutives do a good job of hiding their preference. In Socionics, there was actually a theory that people tend to mimic their Sensing duals in an environment where their main skillset isn't appreciated, and it can be difficult to find their actual type. If anything, I think that there are more Intutives in the population than people assume. I've had some very abstract-thinkers test as S, because they were brought up in a certain kind of environment where tradition was valued. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are more likely to mistype as S, while Liberals are more likely to mistype as N.



    The MBTI test needs to be drastically rewritten. Since we don't have the power to change the official MBTI test, I would want a group of people to create an open-source test, with a different name (not MBTI).
    Well, if you seriously believe it's flawed, we should try that idea. It may turn out to be the key to showing some people their real type. It has been suggested that there are flaws in the MBTI testing methodology before, and I've always agreed that there might be. Thus, I like to look at a lot of alternative systems and see what's working there that isn't in MBTI, and vice-versa. I think that ultimately, the biggest flaw of MBTI is that it relies on a standardized test, when only an individual can determine their true Jungian type through careful self-analysis. I think it may be possible to write a good test, but I think you would need something more complex than a multiple-choice question. You would need essay questions, things that give you a window into the person's mind. You would need to observe their behavior over an extended period of time without their knowledge. You need... so many things, to get a better idea of type. And I wish that they had started creating tests that incorporated such procedures.
    Let me tell you how I interpret some of the questions. I don't have the test here in front of me so I am recalling them from memory, which means I can't recall many of them.

    Are you more focused on:
    what is possible
    what is actual

    How did I answer that question? I liked 'what is possible' because there are so many things that I just don't like about the real world. I am dissatisfied with many things and I wish things were different than they actually are. So ANYBODY who feels disgruntled and dissatisfied with the world as it is will say they like the idea of 'what is possible' instead of 'what is actual,' and they will be labeled an intuitive. I always have a list of 'possibilities,' or options, or different ways something could be done, but that doesn't make me an intuitive.

    In fact, I might argue that intuitives like to think about things that are IMpossible! They like logical contradictions and putting together ideas to create things that don't really exist. 'What is possible' doesn't describe that - it would be described as 'what is impossible.'
    I can relate to you feeling dissatisfied and wishing things were different, but the thing is, I actually DO like to think about things that other people consider impossible. I just don't believe that anything is impossible, I believe that we haven't figured out how to do it yet. Doesn't matter if it's time travel, understanding the human brain, creating a utopia, or changing human nature. I believe it can be done if we try hard enough. So basically, by your definition, I would still be an Intuitive.

    The thing you don't seem to realize, is that a lot of people who identify as Sensors, don't believe that anything they haven't already seen, heard of, or experienced ,is possible. Even something that seems like a very obvious possibility to anyone who has done the research.
    Much of the conflict between sensors and intuitives happens when an intuitive suggests an idea that is too abstract and general to work in reality, and the sensors tell them it's impossible and they need to work out the details.
    I get told that as well... sometimes I can work out the details, but most of the time I can't figure out how. I'm actually pretty dysfunctional and dependent on others because of my inability to work out the details needed to accomplish anything. I have a vague idea of what I'm trying to do, but I can never get there on my own, or figure out all of what I need to do to make something happen. I've largely given up my life to sitting around with my daydreams and fantasies, don't even want to live in the real world anymore.
    Meanwhile, the intuitives think that they themselves are suggesting other 'possible' ways of doing things or seeing things, and that everyone else is seeing only what is already there. So the test question says 'what is possible/actual.' And the sensors would respond by saying that the intuitives' ideas are impossible, and listing a whole bunch of details to show why some idea can't be done in reality.
    I would never suggest that someone's idea was impossible, though I would point out negative consequences of what might happen if it were adopted. Basically, I might point that if their idea were adopted, the result might be a nightmare. Whenever a possible scenario is proposed, I visualize the ways that it might play out in my head, and that never includes the scenario failing to come about.

    I don't think that many Intuitives here would do those things. At least, I wouldn't.
    The word 'possible' might mean something different to intuitives than it does to sensors.
    LOL. I think it might. I believe that anything is possible. The word "if" also means something different. For instance, I once suggested that IF something very unlikely happened due to a particular political change that many people were resisting, I would change my view on a topic, which I honestly would. Then, someone else proceeded to tell me that they thought it was unlikely, explaining in ridiculous detail why it was unlikely, and presumed that I agreed with the person whom I was debating! It was really frustrating. Just because I admitted that IF something very unlikely happened that had negative consequences in light of a change, that I would change my views, doesn't mean I think that it's likely, it just means I'm acknowledging the possibility. They didn't seem to understand that.
    I could go on and on about this for a long time. It would help if I were looking at the test itself so that I could give more examples.
    There are some free online tests you could look at. A lot of them have very similar questions to the original MBTI. You should at least look at some and see if they jog your memory so you can comment more thoroughly.
    I'd like to see a test where a question described a real situation that you might experience and then it asks you what you would do. Instead of choosing from ONLY TWO answers (why should there be only two answers to choose from?) you could choose ALL THAT APPLY from a long list of answers. Each question could be thoroughly ripped apart and mined for information.
    Ah, but the question is, what if the person STILL managed to visualize an answer that wasn't on that list, and the answer they visualized gave important information? See, that's why I think that the questions should just be completely open-ended, and the answer should be evaluated by a trained specialist who understands the theory well.

    I don't like the 'You go to a party, what do you do?' question, but that's the only example I can think of. And then they would list a bunch of things that REAL intuitives do when they walk into a room full of people - and it could test for Ne and Ni both - and things that real sensors do when they walk into a room full of people. It would talk about every function that you might use in that situation and you can check off more than one answer. Again, there's no reason to make every question have only two answers to choose from.
    One response for each function, huh? That sounds like an interesting idea. I think the tests should focus more on functions than dichotomies. It's at least worth a try. Only question is... how would we go about it, and how would we get people to take the test?
    The MBTI test isn't working. I am SURE there are thousands of 'intuitives' who are actually sensors. There is a stigma saying sensors are bad and intuitives are good and special and wonderful. I used to test as INTP, INTJ, and INFP. It was hard for me to change it to ISFP. I wanted to feel that I was special and better than the 'ordinary' people around me.
    To be honest with you, all these questions you're asking seem to fit an INTx more than an ISFP. You're analyzing the system so closely. I do think that you might be an ISTP, but I don't see Fi at all. I see more Ti.
    But how can you ever learn how to use the intuitive functions and the other functions if you haven't even admitted that you're actually a sensor? I have tried to understand the other functions, based on their descriptions, and based on watching how other people talk and act. Usually, if they say something unthinkable that I never could have come up with myself, it's intuition. If I skim over it quickly and feel as though the words don't mean anything to me, then it's intuition.
    Well, I do think that people should be honest with themselves about their type, whatever it is. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who mistype themselves both ways because they want to be a different type than the one they are.

    It's important to learn the functions. The functions are how we see past the dichotomies.
    I have found that if I try to use the other functions besides my dominant and supportive, I almost always slip back into the habitual way of thinking. It's so hard to understand them or see them or grasp what they are. It works better if I make sure to use two at once - use one of the perceiving functions with one of the judging functions - don't try to just use only one by itself. It helps if I read books that I know have been written by intuitives, the very abstract books that are almost impossible to understand. So I can slightly use the other functions.
    What sort of books are you talking about? I'm curious as to what kind of books you consider abstract and "impossible" to understand.
    But I am saying, if this is so hard for me to do, it's probably hard for everyone else to do it too. Everyone else probably has just as much difficulty understanding the functions that aren't their own. So how would you know if you were totally mistaken about your type? If you can't recognize or understand the real thing?
    If I were totally mistaken about my type, that would throw my entire frame of reference off, and there would be no way for me to draw a valid conclusion about the system. However, we don't have any way of knowing for certain whether a particular type is correct or not. It's not as though we can just measure someone's brain and determine it objectively. I think the only way we'll ever be able to measure the system, and thus people's type, objectively, is through more neurological research. The fMRI looks promising, but it might ultimately be something we've never heard of that allows the breakthrough.

    Until then, however, all I can do is rely on my own belief that the test makes sense, and my type is right. To keep playing with it and trying to tease new patterns out of it, explain and develop sociological theories. That seems like a worthwhile pursuit while we wait for ways of testing the test to be developed, because it deals with such a fascinating subject... categorizing human nature, and defining the things that it is made up of.

    The test needs to be totally redesigned and it will have little resemblance to the original test. I don't want to bother trying to convince the 'owners' of the official MBTI test to change it. An open source test would be fine.
    If you ask me, open source is ALWAYS better than something proprietary. I dream of a world where everything is open source, and patents and "ownership" are obsolete, backwards concepts.

  5. #5
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    yeah, open source would be sweet.

    i feel like Se and Ne run really close to each other sometimes... sometimes close enough that there is hardly any boundary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Tests have a strong iNtuitive bias, nothing beats personal study, stereotypes should be ignored and that's tough to do unless you remove all preconceptions.

    I agree there are many mistyped Sensors but I think the percentages you chose are a bit too extreme.
    agreed with this

    Quote Originally Posted by Retmeiskha
    In fact, I might argue that intuitives like to think about things that are IMpossible! They like logical contradictions and putting together ideas to create things that don't really exist. 'What is possible' doesn't describe that - it would be described as 'what is impossible.' [...]

    The word 'possible' might mean something different to intuitives than it does to sensors.
    lol. yeah. i was just writing in the Ne/Ni thread about how i think in Ne-world, everything is "possible". it's like kinetic energy... it could be transformed... it just hasn't, yet, for whatever reason.

    incidentally, i think most introvert/extravert questions are shit, too. "i like to go to parties" versus "i like to read books". what?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Cybin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    105

    Default

    PThe tests are ridiculous and I've never been able to take them seriously. At least any I've come across online (I've never seen the real MBTI). "Do you prefer empathy or rationality?" Besides being a blatant "Do you want points to your T score or F score?" the question has no context. Most of the questions I can't answer because it would be so context specific. The tests also ask behavior questions for a theory on cognition, and fail to differentiate between functions instead using the four dichotomies. There's the cognitive function test, but it's not any better.

    I think many S types to mistype as N for biased stereotypes. I think F types mistype as T and E and I is all over the place because of stereotypes. Particularly ENPs test as I and ISPs test as E because of the way the questions are designed. P and J are especially difficult for introverts because they don't display the typical traits as readily as their dominant function is Ji for Ps and Pi for Js.

    Basically, the assumption is
    E/I = Loud and social/quiet loner
    S/N = Dumb / Smart
    F/T = Emotional / Smart
    P/J = Flexible and fun / Stick up the ass

    There's so much there left out, and biases galore to fill the space. MB has no meat without function theory, and tests really suck.
    Last edited by Cybin; 02-01-2011 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Redundant department of redundancy

  7. #7
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    I think its likely that some Intuitors are actually Sensors but I doubt it is 80% of them. I am inclined to think that if there is a degree of doubt, they're a Sensor. The anti-Sensor discourse and BS stereotypes are the cause of the confusion - either because the render S undesirable and/or they simply paint an inaccurate picture of them
    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    incidentally, i think most introvert/extravert questions are shit, too. "i like to go to parties" versus "i like to read books". what?
    I know . Actually I have probably the most trouble with the F vs. T questions. I often feel like I'm being made to chose between being a reasonable, rational but cold and heartless robot and an nonsensical, bleeding heart, sentimental sap. The best example of this is the "justice vs. mercy" questions; I believe in both and don't think them mutually exclusive!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybin View Post
    Basically, the basic assumption is
    E/I = Loud and social/quiet loner
    S/N = Dumb / Smart
    F/T = Emotional / Smart
    P/J = Flexible and fun / Stick up the ass
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  8. #8
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Incidentally, I've been thinking about this today. Funny someone raised a thread for it. It's true, as far as I see it. A lot of people who'd typed as intuitives may really not be - and are actually sensors. I also believe there's a huge distinction between an Intuitive, and a Sensor that we're miles off explaining it coherently. For instance, a sensor is said to *live in the moment* whereas the intuitive tends to be *future oriented*. But I really can't buy into this contrast because it takes effort to be able to think about the future, and focus on future oriented goals. The fact that an intuitive does this, just really means a sensor doesn't *not* - but *can't* do it. Both obviously *live* in the present moment, but it seems to me, it needs a sensor to be more forcibly aware of it, whereas it is natural for the intuitive. It's like me playing a videogame, and understanding the mode of play just by 'knowing' what to do. If I were a sensor, or if it were a sensor (in any case), (s)he'd struggle on what to do as a whole, and instead rely on sensory methods to *do this, do that, go this way, go that way, shoot like this, oh perhaps I could try this move* (and then theorise). Theorising is a SENSOR's need - NOT an intuitive's! Sensors need a manual, where it's all pretty much clear for the intuitive. I also don't think philosophers (per se) were exactly intuitives. I actually think sensors looked at intuitives, which gave them a rush of any thing that'd crossed the *mind* that's to jargon. But again, there is a huge distinction between an S, and an N. This would only really indicate, at least on a biological level, that intuitives have well-developed cognitives where the sensors do not. Sensors live like this because they react to, and rely on their stimuli to aid their path ahead. I think this is why they rely on memory, and the ability to recall - to help the senses get results. They need *clues*. Another thing is looking at how the mbti types are based. They're on a continuum. You can't be totally N on the continuum, nor could you absolutely be S - but rather somewhere in between, or smack on in the middle. However, I've also thought that this may be a misrepresentation, and it's only the N that is on the continuum, and S was put there as "zero intuition", which overall shows "you can be so much of an intuitive, but if you're not an intuitive, it must mean you're a sensor - and that's it".

  9. #9
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Not everyone wants to be an intuitive. Life would be hella' lot easier if I was a sensor.

  10. #10
    Senior Member guesswho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Of course, there's nothing wrong with the theory itself, but with the way it's applied.

    Also.

    Being iNtuitive does not mean you are intuitive. You can also be fantasy oriented for example, that doesn't make you intuitive.
    And the tests are dumb.
    Do you daydream?
    Are you an abstract thinker or a concrete thinker ? (AS IF PEOPLE ARE PERFECTLY AWARE OF THE WAY THEY THINK)

    etc.

Similar Threads

  1. Can this be the reason why Ns think that sensors are "stupid" ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 03-10-2015, 05:02 PM
  2. How is it that some people are Sensors and others Intuitives?
    By trickyleg in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 04:03 PM
  3. What are the most sought after personality types? and the ones you detest...
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
  4. Why do you think that you are misunderstood ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-08-2009, 01:41 AM

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