User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 129

  1. #41
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    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...
    Show to me please.

  2. #42
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,338

    Default

    Directly responding to the OP:

    My impression is that intuitives have generally been underrated in "the Real World" aside from the fortunate few lucky enough to create something useful or popular. Western culture seemed to venerate certain S standards for a long, long time -- if you could produce something tangible, you were successful, but N's were usually treated like crazies or flakes aside from the few rock stars (scientists, writers, musicians, etc.) who got public notoriety. Little career progress, seen as unproductive, self-esteem would suffer, etc.

    So there was an early exodus to the Internet by the N's, when it began to reshape from IRC and text interfaces into what we recognize today. The N's seemed quicker to find use for it and not be bothered by the abstracted nature of the communication, and they also finally began to meet each other, realize they weren't alone, and establish communities which obviously then had a much higher percentage of N folks than RL.

    Which means when you took surveys and cross-sections of Internet communities, you were getting a higher percentage of N folks than the general population. Also, the N's tended to dominate online in a way they didn't IRL and in some cases throw their weight around.

    I do think that as the Internet has become much more widely accepted and all sorts of people find it easy to access through computer, smart phone, gaming, news, smart TV, etc., S's are far more common online than they used to be and the balance is a little more even. But I think if you're getting attitude from N's, it comes in part from the RL imbalance that tends to exist.

    Obviously I don't think any type should lord it over another. We all have strengths and weaknesses that impact how a particular situation plays out, and we can learn from each other. I hope it continues to balance out as time passes.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #43
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    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".
    The research I quoted says non-intuitives are about 70% IRL, which makes intuitives a minority...

  4. #44
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Why does S/N always have to devolve to who is better or superior? I don't think a society can function solely on the back of one type or another. They're both vastly important within a single person, as well. The most intelligent and well rounded people have a good grasp on sensing and intuition, and the least adaptable and unintelligent folks seem to only have a firm hand on one of the two tools. This goes for the feeling/thinking department, and introverted/extroverted department, as well.
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  5. #45
    captain steve williams Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LIE Ni
    Posts
    2,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Show to me please.
    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. - post #33

    Why are you talking about research which shows iNtuitives have "higher potential in certain intelligences"? Perhpas I took it out of context, but Id like to know if yo're referring to something specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    The research I quoted says non-intuitives are about 70% IRL, which makes intuitives a minority...
    Which research? Im not one to buy into these types of stats, be forewarned, but you can feel free to show me as I havent seen you quote any research ITT.

  6. #46
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    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. - post #33

    Why are you talking about research which shows iNtuitives have "higher potential in certain intelligences"? Perhpas I took it out of context, but Id like to know if yo're referring to something specific.

    Which research? Im not one to buy into these types of stats, be forewarned, but you can feel free to show me as I havent seen you quote any research ITT.
    So as to put things into context and explain why N type descriptions might come across as overated as mentioned by OP.

    for the research, go back 3 or 4 posts of mine back.

  7. #47
    Member thistlechaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Oh yeah, I pretty much agree. The profiles do mention how much more pragmatic & realistic Sensing types are, but I guess that doesn't sound as sexy as "imaginative" or "abstract thinkers". In reality, being pragmatic & realistic is very sexy if it leads to, you know, living life.

    This applies more to INxx types than the others, but we're also the most exoticized (yes, even us INFPs, the low man on the iNtuitive totem pole).
    ENxx types do seem to DO more, but what is talked less of is how they can be fickle & unstable still, not possessing the steadiness or loyalty of Sensing types (yes, I include SPs with that).
    Steadiness and loyalty are two extremely underrated qualities useful for aptitude. I may know a little about everything I set my eyes on, but how much of it will be realized? S types seem to me to be a lot more steadfast in their commitments to furthering a single idea. While N types can see outside, under, and around the box, it seems to me that the S type can see a box, build a new box. See another box, build another box. Slowly, steadily, reliably. I start drawing a box, figure out what's whizzing outside of the box, then ponder the meaning of boxes as constructs, think of what an anti-box might be, then picture boxes as the degrade over time. This is all a lot of mental activity, and I score very highly on aptitude tests, but there's another side to that.

    I dropped out of high school at 16, got an honors GED I'm maintaining a 2.3 GPA at a community college, banging my head against the very simplest of subjects trying to reinvent calculus, physics, chemical formula models, etc. Everything except doing real work.

    Until I can find a way to do something consistently, I'm gonna have a lot of trouble producing anything worthwhile. I tend to do best when I'm paired up with an "S" type who can help me to declutter the crap in my head and figure out a plan of action. At the moment, I feel like being an N type is overrated, but I'm also feeling really frustrated about the wall I keep hitting with productivity. I don't think one type really has more total advantages than the other, they're just different advantages. It seems to me that the real questions are:

    How likely is it for any given S or N type to have a particular strength?
    And then, what is the worth of that particular strength to society as a whole?

    The second part is tricky. Many people disagree about what is good for society, what goals society should be going for. How do we agree on an ideal? How do we measure progress towards that ideal? It depends on how you define these things. What do you, personally value? Can you separate your values from societal values? Should the two be different or the same?



    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Actually they may be underrated by S dominant societies, as weirdos or procastinators or no-gooders. Because they do not necessarily produce tangible or visible products.

    I think both have uses in the society. Ns may serve as visionaries and innovators in their respective environment and help the society get out of a rut, or may lead them to their demise.

    Being an intuitive may imply an inability to deal with the present and real circumstances and an escape into fantasy to deal with that. That inclination may be a result of the individual's physiology, physical and mental capabilities.

    A strong N might signify an overactive central nervous system and brain activity, hence might imply that Ns may have a higher potential to get better at certain intelligence domains than Ss or even Ts.

    Perhaps certain N types manifesting less frequently than other types in the society should make them a valued resource.
    Great points. I imagine there have been leaders with vastly different moral alignments who were Ns. If strong Ns were to have overactive CNSs and brain activity, there may be a high potential for them to be have high specific intelligences, but at what cost? How functional are Ns compared to Ss? Is society more conducive to Ss, with little support or consideration given to those with overactive brains? Can such a cost be easily summed up and accounted for in future health and welfare planning strategies? If it is a rare, valued thing, should they be protected more than other personality types? Do some people have more "worth" than others in a society? This goes back again to my question about determining what is "good" for a society, and then for the individual, and then whether or not these things should be expected to be the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Online, intuitives are probably overrated - due to type descriptions glorifying them.

    In real life, I don't think that's the case.

    I think with regards to N descriptions, they're going to attract mistypes from S's who don't fit in / relate to their peers (as N descriptions emphasize the 'differentness'), as it's an illusion that all S's just totally fit in and such due to S-dominated (supposedly) world -- as well as smart S's who can see the big picture. There's definitely an N=uber-intelligent leaning that isn't usually emphasized in most S descriptions. [I still wonder how many people type stupid N's as S's, just because they're stupid N's, and N descriptions make it sound as if all N's are blessed with miraculous insight and intelligence, lol] The stereotypes continue online, though it's subtle. I do think it's becoming less of a problem though.

    But yeah, as @Agnes noted, the other element is that I think many people are more balanced, have learned to go beyond their preferences, so don't mirror the archetypes to a T. So the descriptions become less relevant to those people I think.
    This is also a great point. I've been guilty of assuming that all S types will get along in society better than I do, simply because they're S types. My own brand of 4ish special differentness manifests pretty strongly here, in that I often feel at a disadvantage in society and that all S types have more resources tailored to their needs and strengths. I have trouble sticking to a schedule. Flexible scheduling would be the number one biggest thing to help me get along better and realize my full potential. Additionally, I don't prefer having a boss or talking to people that I haven't pre-determined to be worth my time. When I talk to someone, it's typically for a reason. I hardly ever idly chit chat. I don't like office gossip, but I'd love to hear about how my coworker is struggling to leave her husband and really likes cookies. I'll bring her cookies more, and try to support her. If the office paired me up to work with her, though, I might be pretty fussy about having to go at her pace, explain things to her, delegate tasks, etc. I tend to have my own dreams and designs for things and don't adapt well to spontaneous team environments. S types, on the other hand--on average, they do tend to have less troubles with spur of the moment changes, socializing with people who won't be "useful" for their plan of the day, just being in the moment and caring about current affairs and goings-on, in general. Someone please correct me if this assessment is incorrect, though, as I already know I'm biased towards overestimating the strengths of S's from my perspective within my frustrated morass.

    Quote Originally Posted by five sounds View Post
    Nah, I really don't see that happening anymore either. Both sensing functions are discussed here without being slighted. If anything Ne gets a bad rap for being Ni's spazzed out insufferable step brother. But maybe I'm sensitive to that given my type. :p
    Hahaha. Ni's spazzed out, insufferable step brother. Love this! Wait, what was I doing? Oh yea, my taxes. And studying molecular structures. Also, maybe food. I need a team of S's who like my ideas who will build all of the things. Sigh.
    549 Tritype

  8. #48
    captain steve williams Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LIE Ni
    Posts
    2,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    So as to put things into context and explain why N type descriptions might come across as overated as mentioned by OP.
    Ok, that makes sense.

    for the research, go back 3 or 4 posts of mine back.
    Edit: Nevermind I saw the reserach, but I dont really think it says much. Just that iNtuitives are better at certain aptitude tests.

    All in all, I dont really think this site overrates iNtuitives, maybe on PC they do though. Not here. I dont think MBTI descriptions do either, FWIW.

  9. #49
    [bento boxed] EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyAnnaJoan View Post
    Why does S/N always have to devolve to who is better or superior? I don't think a society can function solely on the back of one type or another. They're both vastly important within a single person, as well. The most intelligent and well rounded people have a good grasp on sensing and intuition, and the least adaptable and unintelligent folks seem to only have a firm hand on one of the two tools. This goes for the feeling/thinking department, and introverted/extroverted department, as well.
    I agree with you. However, my answer to your question would be: Because one of the "microaggressions" I was talking about relates to the fact that sometimes, when people explain this same viewpoint, it is very condescending to Sensors. As if to say, Ns are leaders, but leaders can't function without followers.
    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    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...
    Regardless of academic scrutiny, you can't assume that the tests are infallible. Nor can you when you read about any similar study that includes a test.
    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    What does it mean to be gifted then? Is it something different then what I said in my post? If yes how?
    I presume the way it was used in your quote, related to whether or not a student had passed an exam that would have put them into a gifted program. Per the theory of multiple intelligences -- which I believe is not involved in the selection of students into gifted programs -- this would not measure all aspects of students' intelligence.

    This is a digression, however.
    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Perhaps the descriptions are not that off... perhaps they are as close as one get to being psychic...
    "Maybe it's not biased... maybe they actually ARE superior."

    This is a perfect example of everything I've been talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Could you please provide examples as to how Ns are overated and non-Ns are underrated?
    The "psychic" thing is definitely an example of a type being overrated. I know plenty of INFJs, and they are not psychic, or anything close.

    I may stop here, because it appears that your view of Ns thinking on a higher plane is so ingrained that there will be no convincing you. Especially considering the part I quoted and bolded above.
    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"

    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!

  10. #50
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    I agree with you. However, my answer to your question would be: Because one of the "microaggressions" I was talking about relates to the fact that sometimes, when people explain this same viewpoint, it is very condescending to Sensors. As if to say, Ns are leaders, but leaders can't function without followers.
    Regardless of academic scrutiny, you can't assume that the tests are infallible. Nor can you when you read about any similar study that includes a test.

    I presume the way it was used in your quote, related to whether or not a student had passed an exam that would have put them into a gifted program. Per the theory of multiple intelligences -- which I believe is not involved in the selection of students into gifted programs -- this would not measure all aspects of students' intelligence.

    This is a digression, however.

    "Maybe it's not biased... maybe they actually ARE superior."

    This is a perfect example of everything I've been talking about.

    The "psychic" thing is definitely an example of a type being overrated. I know plenty of INFJs, and they are not psychic, or anything close.

    I may stop here, because it appears that your view of Ns thinking on a higher plane is so ingrained that there will be no convincing you. Especially considering the part I quoted and bolded above.
    You are distorting my words...where did I say superior? Why being pseudo-psychic is superior? When and when not?

    Where did I say they are more intelligent? Show to me.

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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO