User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 129

  1. #31
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intuitive, as opposed to the general population, most of (w)hom (70%) prefer sensing (Gallagher, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Hoehn & Bireley, 1988; Mills, 1983; Myers & McCaulley, 1985a, 1985b; Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989; Williams, 1992). Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory, and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school male students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985b). Also, Delbridge-Parker and Robinson examined the MBTI preferences of 72 gifted junior high students who were finalists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that the gifted students showed strong preferences for intuition (75%).
    The issue I see with these sorts of 'stats' (ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove that they were accurately able to assess the mbti types of everyone they said were intuitive vs sensor), is that stats are in the end describing trends, not individuals. So the isolated individual who goes against the group stats will be more likely to mistype. You can't apply trends to individuals.

    For example, I'm in the top 2% of aptitude tests. ISFP's are supposed to be amongst the lowest for scores in aptitude tests. Easy for me to mistype, when intuitives are the only ones who are 'supposed' to have aptitude for big picture abstractions/patterns, lowly ISFP's aren't supposed to be able to do well at aptitude tests.

    The interesting thing would be if people mistakenly type as INxx because they do well on aptitude assessments (or other such things). What if the supposed INxx's in those stats are actually a slew of other types, they were just labeled INxx for reasons such as being able to comprehend abstractions? Even if it's not actually their preference?
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Who overrated them? Seriously, I've always felt underrated.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    The issue I see with these sorts of 'stats' (ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove that they were accurately able to assess the mbti types of everyone they said were intuitive vs sensor), is that stats are in the end describing trends, not individuals. So the isolated individual who goes against the group stats will be more likely to mistype. You can't apply trends to individuals.

    For example, I'm in the top 2% of aptitude tests. ISFP's are supposed to be amongst the lowest for scores in aptitude tests. Easy for me to mistype, when intuitives are the only ones who are 'supposed' to have aptitude for big picture abstractions/patterns, lowly ISFP's aren't supposed to be able to do well at aptitude tests.

    The interesting thing would be if people mistakenly type as INxx because they do well on aptitude assessments (or other such things). What if the supposed INxx's in those stats are actually a slew of other types, they were just labeled INxx for reasons such as being able to comprehend abstractions? Even if it's not actually their preference?
    You are taking this from a viewpoint of some kind of inferiority complex and turning it around as if mentioning this research is intended as an insult to non-intuitives.

    When someone or a research says intuitives have a higher propensity for higher potential in certain intelligences, one has to accept it as a reality (notwithstanding the accuracy of the research or lack thereof). I won't deliberately look for opportunities to mention this out of context at every opportunity to belittle others, but OTOH I won't refrain from mentioning it so that others won't feel bad about their type if it serves to support or refute an argument.

    I am still waiting for the OP to point out how N type definitions are overrated and non-N type definitions are not.

  4. #34
    ndovjtjcaqidthi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eluded_One View Post
    The grass is always greener on the other side
    I like being lost in my imagination.

    *Floats away*

  5. #35
    outrun my gun Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    ENTj None
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Ns are the minority IRL.
    Not true.

    Perhpas there are slightly less Ns than Ss "in real life"(you dont participate in real life?), or perhaps slightly more. I dont know, but the difference is not such that Ns can be called a "minority".

  6. #36
    inside the lines EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    17,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    You are taking this from a viewpoint of some kind of inferiority complex and turning it around as if mentioning this research is intended as an insult to non-intuitives.

    When someone or a research says intuitives have a higher propensity for higher potential in certain intelligences, one has to accept it as a reality (notwithstanding the accuracy of the research or lack thereof).
    That's not actually what the research you cited said. It said that students in gifted programs are more likely to test as N. This could be from mistyping, as @cascadeco mentioned -- I'm as likely to test N as S, in part because I'm fine with learning about theory and most online tests seem to think that all Sensors have trouble with theory. Not to mention that, if type descriptions are correct about most SPs doing poorly in school, then a lower Sensor presence in gifted programs should say nothing about their intelligence, but only about how well they do in school. Highly intelligent people are often bored with coursework because they don't consider it relevant -- for an N example, look to Albert Einstein.

    For the examples you requested, look only to descriptions of Ni-dominance as being "psychic" or some kind of magical intuition that is magically always right -- when by contrast SPs are salt-of-the-earth, grounded types without the capacity for higher knowledge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nørrsken impersonating EJCC
    It's strange. I keep banning morons, but they keep signing up? What is this?
    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
    conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  7. #37
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    28,811

    Default

    it's simple people think they're correct about everything, and do not like to look at evidence that goes "you're wrong" so basically people who do know stuff gets ignored because it doesn't fit into the other person's world view. they think their formula for life is good, and force it on you. and so basically you get viewed as the idiot, something's wrong with you. and I think that the world will not end if I say you're wrong. because you're wrong
    *yodelling* AAAaaaaAAaaiiiiiiayyyyyyyy


    by @agentwashington

  8. #38
    Just a note... LittleV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    279

    Default

    To put it out there... I know some ESFP professors/researchers - and they're usually fair with me. I've been around ST's my whole life... except the xSTP's can find ways to make me feel right at home. ESFJ's can be very sweet... it really depends on whether they're neurotic. Neurotic extraverts in general can push their moods onto others quite forcefully, whether it's intended or not.

    Here is an example of a stable esFJ (ESE-Fe) whose mentioned that her friends would consider her independent, reserved, creative and mysterious. She's also described herself as someone who thinks differently and loves to write poetry. She's one of the more genuine people I've seen in the media... and reminds me very much of my college roommate, whom I'm still friends with today; my friend's also shy... and loves to travel, be outdoors, be productive, and help out her family. I could tell she didn't always 'get' why I'd choose to do certain things... but she's very respectable and we've gotten very close. We care a lot about each other; she was there as I'd gone through my 'growing up' period... and the first person I'd opened up to since leaving home, when I was very eager to begin a new chapter.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    That's not actually what the research you cited said. It said that students in gifted programs are more likely to test as N. This could be from mistyping, as @cascadeco mentioned -- I'm as likely to test N as S, in part because I'm fine with learning about theory and most online tests seem to think that all Sensors have trouble with theory. Not to mention that, if type descriptions are correct about most SPs doing poorly in school, then a lower Sensor presence in gifted programs should say nothing about their intelligence, but only about how well they do in school. Highly intelligent people are often bored with coursework because they don't consider it relevant -- for an N example, look to Albert Einstein.

    For the examples you requested, look only to descriptions of Ni-dominance as being "psychic" or some kind of magical intuition that is magically always right -- when by contrast SPs are salt-of-the-earth, grounded types without the capacity for higher knowledge.
    I think it's the same as what I said if one assumes they are correctly typed... I don't have the means to check the origibal papers mentioned but am assuming that thry have been subjected to some kind of academic scrutiny...

    What does it mean to be gifted then? Is it something different then what I said in my post? If yes how?

    Perhaps the descriptions are not that off... perhaps they are as close as one get to being psychic...

    Could you please provide examples as to how Ns are overated and non-Ns are underrated?

  10. #40
    outrun my gun Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    ENTj None
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post

    Could you please provide examples as to how Ns are overated and non-Ns are underrated?
    I know it was addressed to EJCC, not me, but Ill answer anyways.

    Ns are described as gifted visionaries whereas Ss are descirbed as being somewhat "banal".

    If you want an example of this, look at some your posts ITT...

Similar Threads

  1. I think that most 'intuitives' are mistyped sensors, and the test needs redesigned.
    By Retmeishka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 01:44 PM
  2. Believing "The Beatles" are overrated and type :)
    By BlueScreen in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-14-2009, 03:45 AM
  3. Thinking "The Beatles" are overrated and type :)
    By BlueScreen in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2009, 10:16 AM
  4. [MBTItm] INFJs-are you prone to getting concrete info to verify intuition?
    By karenk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-19-2009, 04:21 AM
  5. Are extraverted intuitives better actors in general?
    By Royal Xavier in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 11:08 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