User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 19

  1. #1
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Why should it be that there are more Sensing types than Intuitives?

    I think most people would agree the world is full of people who can loosely be called 'idiots' ironically an idiot might be the one saying this.

    The point of mentioning this is that there is always a larger population of idiots than those who can be considered intelligent. Many type statistics, (snort), are adamant that the largest percentage of the population is made up of sensing types. This, (combined with biased online descriptions which is where a lot of people find out about and get into the theory with), means that while some consideration is given towards the difficulty in defining different potential types of intelligence and that sensing types clearly do have intelligent people within their ranks, for the most part if a person heavily into MBTI encountered a moron they will often assume, perhaps even without knowing they have already decided, that this person is most likely a sensor.

    However I would like to put forth a different perspective based on the information we are given by type and function descriptions. Firstly most of the people I have known who are stupid tend to take one piece of information and build an entire framework around it, in other words they jump to the general overall view without considering the details along the way. Many times I have met people who almost refuse to check their facts and confirm that what they believe is backed up by evidence. Truely no one is innocent of this pitfall of course, especially myself, but there are different degrees to which a person engages in this.

    In any case, to me this sounds like intuition, not sensing. Sensing is factually based, the facts as the senses tell us building up brick by brick to an overall. But I have heard the argument that what I described above could be called an example of inferior or at least weaker intuition in an unhealthy individual.

    There is an issue with this line of reasoning however, which exposes the flimsy basis for MBTI in general, for example it is easy for me to flip that around and point out that it could be a sign of inferior sensing since the person is excusing factual evidence in front of them to make an intuitive leap.

    Now I understand the tricky problem here, I am not giving people much to go off in terms of context or prior knowledge, this is after all on my premise. However the main point I'm trying to raise is that the argument I presented above is essentially the mirror image of how the theory is often understood by it's general followers and to me this exposes the lack of clear understanding and evidence to confirm MBTI and it's assumptions.

    What if Sensing were glorified in a similar way to Intuition? Many seem to assume that the glorification comes from evidence that suggests the benefit of intuition, but the reality is more akin to a self fulfilling prophecy. However I'm getting sidetracked by S vs N which is not mean to be my point here.

    I don't really care about notions of intelligence or the superiority of any type or dichotomy. What I do care about is why do we believe what we believe in terms of this theory?

    I think it is worth challenging the general perspective to see what might arise from that inspection. Can anyone provide a decent argument as to why any typing cannot just be reversed using the same reasoning?
    Last edited by Cellmold; 06-09-2013 at 02:55 AM.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  2. #2
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,403

    Default

    You make a great argument, and I'm really interested in the responses from others. However, I have one question.

    Why do you think it is then that in mass surveys of people, the majority appear to be sensors?

    Also, I'd just like to comment that most people I know that actually know what MBTI is claim to be N's. It is often hypothesized that intuitors are simply more interested in MBTI than sensors, but I don't buy this 100%. What drew me to MBTI was it's interesting system. Anyone, S or N, can be interested in that sort of thing. So then, if both sensors and intuitors can equally be interested in MBTI, why is it that so many claim to be N's? Even though this is nothing but anecdotal evidence and hypothesis, it still strikes me as strange that there are supposedly many more sensors in this world, but the majority of people that actually know about MBTI are intuitors.

  3. #3
    Member tanstaafl28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    57

    Default

    And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.

  4. #4
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    You make a great argument, and I'm really interested in the responses from others. However, I have one question.

    Why do you think it is then that in mass surveys of people, the majority appear to be sensors?

    Also, I'd just like to comment that most people I know that actually know what MBTI is claim to be N's. It is often hypothesized that intuitors are simply more interested in MBTI than sensors, but I don't buy this 100%. What drew me to MBTI was it's interesting system. Anyone, S or N, can be interested in that sort of thing. So then, if both sensors and intuitors can equally be interested in MBTI, why is it that so many claim to be N's? Even though this is nothing but anecdotal evidence and hypothesis, it still strikes me as strange that there are supposedly many more sensors in this world, but the majority of people that actually know about MBTI are intuitors.
    You raise some interesting points. The question about mass survey's is one I had considered and certainly a bit of a blindspot in my point, I thought perhaps maybe I would have to look at each individual survey to get any real clarity.

    But it could be part of the same bias I mentioned. However for me to say that with assurity would make me a hypocrite, committing the same twisting of information to suit my means that I had just criticised earlier. My view is that the population is more balanced than usually shown, for example there are definitely sensorific gluttons out there who abuse their senses to the extreme.

    But there are also a lot of people who believe in magical ideas and assumptions, with little basis in evidence, instead a reliance on hunches. The amount of times I have, (anecdotal I know), come across the arguing couple who each throw unfounded accusations at each other from across a street. Of course people might raise the point of F vs T, but why should F and T be so much different when filtered with S or N? Surely N with T or F would have similar pitfalls to those of S with T or F.

    The difference in perception would change some views and styles of cognition, but F siding with emotional validity and T siding with logical validity..would that change?

    MBTI certainly is a system of merit and interest, but the way it is employed is so often disappointing.

    Quote Originally Posted by tanstaafl28 View Post
    And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.
    Of course I'm aware of that, in fact it's pretty much a given, but I was never asking what causes this, I was trying to get people to understand a point and a different perspective.

    It was more about the 'Why should this be accepted as such?' rather than the "This is how it happens'.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  5. #5
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    I know this is long but it's just my opinion

    The first thing that comes to mind is novelty. Operating off of the premise that the world is largely comprised of sensors there is a sense of novelty that goes along with using intuition. Picture an alternate universe where some humans have the ability to fly while most walk. Those that can fly will be revered in some sense because they can do something out of the ordinary. Now picture another universe where those that can fly can't walk. The people with wings might be looked at as mutated and sub human because they can't do something that majority of the population can do.

    I think human nature to revere or ostracize people that are outside of the norm has a lot to do with the way we view intuitive people. So take an intuitive person who is intelligent and they will be thought of intelligent because they are intuitive. They demonstrate intelligence in a novel sense that is not expressed in the majority of the population. Now look at an intuitive who is unintelligent and they will be stupid because they are intuitive. They have their head in the clouds and miss things that are readily apparent to most people. I feel as though sensors making up the majority of the population acts and the norm or the median. Initiatives will most likely fall on one end of the spectrum or the other. Either novel and intelligent or eccentric and intellectually impaired. Therefore there may be some really intelligent intuitive people. That is not to say that sensors can't be their equals but they probably wouldn't be looked at through the same lens of novelty that the intuitive person would be. Some sensors may be chronically stupid. However, an intuitive person with the same affliction might be viewed as even more so because their preference intuition over the sensing majority.

    Just to clarify I don't think all initiatives are either especially stupid or exceptionally intelligent. Some may be of average intelligence as well. I just feel that w.e their specialty is they tend to find an “abnormal” way to do it which might give the illusion of intelligence when it is actually merely adjustment to the world around them.

    Now getting to your point regarding the theory being flipped. I think the problem lies in personal perception. I believe we all use the functions to some extent so it's more beneficial to look at the process. Going back to your example of inferior intuition and inferior sensing stupidity. If the person failed to see the information right in front of them because they were so busy intuiting things that weren't even there then that is intuition with a failure of sensation. If the person was so busy being overly literal that they missed a connection then that is sensation with the failure of intuition. Both will result in an incorrect conclusion but the process is clearly different. On your end all you are seeing is the person being stupid. It might be hard for you to decipher what process the person is using from the outside looking in.

    This joke comes to mind
    A wife asked her husband, "Could you please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk, and if they have eggs, get six?"A short time later the husband came home with six cartons of milk. His wife asked him, "Why did you buy six cartons of milk?"He replied, "They had eggs".

    Intuitive husband could have gotten 6 cartons of milk because he made the connection of if they have milk get 6 "cartons of milk". He filled in the blank for her based off his own wrong assumption.

    Sensing husband could have come back with 6 cartons of milk because she did not explicitly say "get six eggs". He was being too literal and wasn't able to make the jump that she wanted 6 eggs.

    They both came back with 6 cartons of milk but the process they used to come to the incorrect concision was different. At first glance you might say this is a sensor being to literal but it really could be intuition leading someone astray. The only way to know would be to unearth their cognitive process and that's what MBTI attempts to do.

    If I understand you correctly, your question is how do we know the converse doesn't apply?(Intuitive husband got 6 cartons of milk because he has a failure of sensation and took things too literally and the Sensor husband had failure of intuition and made the jump prematurely.)

    I consider myself to be intuitive and I didn't even get this joke the first time I read it. My initial thought was they had eggs so why didn't you get 6? So I read it again and had a good laugh. It was just so unbelievably literal I missed it. I think intuitive people would have automatically made that jump. In this case to get it wrong they would have to second guess their gut and became very literal

    Sensors might not make the jump right away but I do feel they would be more inclined to ask for more information when they weren't sure. They might think “ok this is what she said but I don't think that's what she means.” They'd probably just come right out and ask "so you want six eggs?" looking for more details and clarification if they didn't understand. To come to the wrong conclusion here they might trust their undeveloped intuition and chose not ask for more details to round out their initial literal conclusion.

    Your dom functions are the ones you chose because they yield the most desirable results for you and have adopted them as your primary mode of thinking. So I’m inclined to believe that coming to the wrong conclusion or being stupid would be due to how often you fall pray to the blind spot of your preferred functions as well as improper use of your inferior (or possibly shadow?). This happens regardless of preference for sensation or intuition.
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

  6. #6
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    I've always seen the "I'm an extra special intuitive while everyone else is stupid and dull sensors" phenomenon as similar to how constituents will consistently rate their congressperson as awesome but will rate congress as terrible... they're more familiar with their congressperson and therefore know what they're up to on a more intimate level than those other jerks. Similar to how we can see how we think and feel but can just make assumptions about others. How can we be sure about the complexities of the thinking of others... or feelings or whatever? We're not them

    I also can't trust those surveys on type... first off just look at how inconsistent those who KNOW about type are in typing themselves... and we want to trust somebody assessing strangers who they don't really know on a personal basis? Furthermore, if asked after reading the descriptions (yay for biased descriptions! ) most people will type themselves as intuitive because who DOESN'T find their thoughts to be intuitive... they're assessing themselves for goodness sake!

    Plus... I've never seen the methodology or raw data on any of these "surveys" and therefore they are an object of suspicion (and scorn... who feels the need not to print the most interesting part of research?!? )

    Everybody uses sensing and everybody uses intuition... and everyone is quite capable of showing both intelligence and idiocy. For instance, this morning I managed to walk into work with my pants on inside out and I probably would have made it through the day that way if someone hadn't pointed it out to me... I know that I'm not an idiot, but that was pretty dumb It's just part of human nature... unfortunately, so is the tendency to think that we and ours are special and that others are less so... to find an us and a them, to put it in the most common terms. Ingroups and outgroups have always defined society and typology is just another means of doing that... I can hope that we'd learn, but I kind of doubt it
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  7. #7
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Well, the test statistics themselves reflect it.

    But (a) these stats get interpreted as 'unwashed masses' vs. 'special snowflakes', which compounds the problem; and (b) the test isn't exactly valid, and so the kernel to the whole shebang is questionable.

  8. #8
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by tanstaafl28 View Post
    And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.
    I'd go for 'invincible ignorance'.

  9. #9
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Any book on psychology/sociology/statistics will teach you that intuition is something to be greatly forewarned of.


    How it grew to the status it holds in MBTI circles I have no clue, because Jung makes it pretty apparent that intuits are not more skilled with their intuition, they prefer their intuition.


    I think back to the debate we held recently, "Evidence versus Logic".


    I do think there are more sensors than intuits, perhaps. Can you guess why?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    I do think there are more sensors than intuits, perhaps. Can you guess why?
    Because it is a more practical way of dealing with reality?
    Because this isn't the Matrix?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-10-2016, 10:41 AM
  2. Who sets the standards? Why is it so? Should it be different?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-18-2011, 09:00 AM
  3. 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
  4. Why is it unfair that you are not female/male?
    By nolla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:32 PM
  5. Why is it good that God exists?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 11:13 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