S descriptions of Ns?

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by ygolo

Is this true? If so, what do people believe is the reason for that?

For the 'was a x, now a y', I have two major issues.

The first is that the group I identified with was hostile to another group. Having been through that in various flavors, outside of the type-ism, I am very intolerant of that behaviour, and when it comes out directly, I get quite irritated. This is reactionary, and as such, not everyone will understand it.

The second part of that is that I also have perspective on what it means to be both. For all intents and purposes, MBTI Ns are imbalanced. The nature of population distribution says that all Ns are at the tail end, essentially starting one standard deviation above normal. It isn't so much that this is a disadvantage, but identification within that kind of distribution is harmful. Any N should be seeking balance. So, when I actively see Ns rejecting balance to remain inside N (compound that with doing it because they want to be 'special' rather than it being their nature), it is universally unhealthy and brings back memories of what I was trying to force myself to be.

That's the catch with personalities - it's just that in MBTI, the effective range of ~30-70% that are Ss are the only ones that are naturally balanced on the divide, which would include 35-40% of the population, almost all defined as Ss.

How do you describe 75% of the population meaningfully, in a few phrases? Of course you can isolate the 'top' group of 25% and describe them in glowing terms, but what about the 50-75%? You know, the ones with strong N tendencies as well, but more balanced? What about the 25-50%, the ones with weaker S tendencies, but still generally balanced? Only the 1-25% group would be "opposite" to the N population, really.

If we applied the same distribution to the other divides, what do you think would happen? We do have one example - introverts and extroverts have been under the illusion they are outnumbered. I still hear "poor introverts" from time to time.

Identification is very dangerous. MBTI can help you understand yourself, but it can also lead to a great deal of bias. All of the 'poor N' stuff falls apart at the slightest touch. The N definition literally gives almost all the advantages to that side of the equation, and not surprisingly, has weak validity. The reason why most of the population can identify with being N is because the N descriptions can be extremely broad - everything from creative, to intelligent, to leadership, etc. It captures all of those that would normally be in the 50-100%, if not more, as a result. The second is that it essentially engineers tail end support for what would normally be considered 'strongly expressed' and 'worse', both meaning that balanced individuals that should be 'X' within MBTI are denoted as Ss and that those that do end up in the N world are well outside norm, leading to the whole 'I'm different and special'. Again, both are engineered by distribution and is not generally supported (ignoring function theory).

Those that test N should be 'happy' that they tested that, then work very hard to become balanced - not embrace it. Their only real disadvantage is in being imbalanced. And looking down on those that are balanced are laughable at best, since they tend to have most of the N advantages anyway.

[bluemonday]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The second part of that is that I also have perspective on what it means to be both. For all intents and purposes, MBTI Ns are imbalanced. The nature of population distribution says that all Ns are at the tail end, essentially starting one standard deviation above normal. It isn't so much that this is a disadvantage, but identification within that kind of distribution is harmful.

B.S.
All you have perspective on is being confused.
And you don't even have perspective on that.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by ygolo

Just curious.

It seems like those who are most vocal about N bias in the Myers-Briggs system are those who are borderline on the N-S preference or self-identified as N before before switching to an S type.

Is this true? If so, what do people believe is the reason for that?

Incidentally, I tested as ISTP my senior year of high-school with one of those paper tests (I don't know which form). I joined MBTIc, INTPc and MBTI-nebulous as an IxxP (I am rather close on the T-F preference as well). But later decided I was INTP based on the Understanding Yourself and Others series of books.

I identify more as EnFJ, with my strong sensing qualities not coming from Si, but Se. I've been studying MBTI for four years now and the more I gather knowledge from different sources the better I'm able to strip out all the typist BS that surrounds Si and Se and see how many I've developed many of those qualities. If they're natural or forced development I don't know. Like Sarah said, I think it's much better use language like "a preference for ____ function" because preference means that you have the ability and wherewithal to do others, but you're Old Faithful is your preference. It's more flexible like that.

And I've also figured that a lot of people need MBTI because it gives them a sense of identify. The way some people write about Ni or Ti or whatever on the forum lets me know how much this has become part of their being. I guess I have more salient characteristics that I base my identity around, not whether I'm Fe or Fi or what not. When you base your identity on something it takes a lot to even begin to tear it apart or see if it's founded on something solid and substantial.

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I'm so happy you're back!

S/N is the most salient function on most MBTI forums, not any other dichotomy. When I read how people prove their intuitiveness on the forum it tends to be in the form of exaggerated intuitive qualities like eccentricity, lack of basic sensing abilities ("I walk into walls!"), and disassociation from reality. When I read what balanced intuition is, it's none of those things. The same thing goes with sensing. No imagination, no creativity, do as you're told and don't ask any questions. The language created around intuition and sensing that's so bogus and biased it's unbelievable. I don't even bother explaining it to people anymore.

Take introverted sensing for example. I find that ISJs, especially older ones have this treasure trove of homespun wisdom that is incredibly insightful and accurate in analyzing people and situations. But that ability seems to be within the domain of Ni if you believe the MBTI hype.

I was watching this program on National Geographic about airlifting food and supplies to philanthropic workers in the Congo and other war torn parts of Africa. One of the pilots who does it I immediately identified as ESTP. He said he was flying private charter flights here in America and caught wind of the problems aid workers were having distributing food and didn't understand why the people couldn't be helped. He started non-profit organization to do this very dangerous work. This is how I see more SPs using their Se, not for dancing on tables or jumping off cliffs. But it's like most people on the forum continuously hone in on stereotypically manifestations of a the Sensing function and they don't know how to identify SPs or SJs unless they're doing something they're typically suppoed to be doing. And that's what makes me sad about MBTI because it's something I enjoy learning about and it's so applicable corrupted and misused in such a manner. Andd then on top of that it gets wrapped up with people who sound like they're so intelligent and have got it figured out but all they're doing is perpetuating stereotypes. It really makes me angry.

But then again, I think, does this even affect me in my real life? No, it doesn't. I don't have ESFJ or ENFJ stamped on my forehead so why should I get upset about anything that's said on the forum about what my supposed character traits and qualities are? So that's the point I'm at right now.

[sarah]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

I identify more as EnFJ, with my strong sensing I was watching this program on National Geographic about airlifting food and supplies to philanthropic workers in the Congo and other war torn parts of Africa. One of the pilots who does it I immediately identified as ESTP. He said he was flying private charter flights here in America and caught wind of the problems aid workers were having distributing food and didn't understand why the people couldn't be helped. He started non-profit organization to do this very dangerous work. This is how I see more SPs using their Se, not for dancing on tables or jumping off cliffs. But it's like most people on the forum continuously hone in on stereotypically manifestations of a the Sensing function and they don't know how to identify SPs or SJs unless they're doing something they're typically suppoed to be doing. And that's what makes me sad about MBTI because it's something I enjoy learning about and it's so applicable corrupted and misused in such a manner. Andd then on top of that it gets wrapped up with people who sound like they're so intelligent and have got it figured out but all they're doing is perpetuating stereotypes. It really makes me angry.

Thank you, proteanmix! This is exactly how I understand Se -- it's about taking decisive practical actions in the present moment in order to make a positive impact on events in the present moment, and it certainly isn't limited to certain types of activities.

I really do appreciate that some people on this forum read about and understand the theory itself and don't just talk about MBTI scores as though they were sacred. Thanks for that. And thanks to all of you who care about actually using type theory in positive ways instead of as a weapon of discrimination.

Sarah
ISFP

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by bluemonday

B.S.
All you have perspective on is being confused.
And you don't even have perspective on that.

So much for benefit of the doubt, hmmph. I've spent enough time entertaining you - I won't be responding again until you post something with content.

Originally Posted by proteanmix

But then again, I think, does this even affect me in my real life? No, it doesn't. I don't have ESFJ or ENFJ stamped on my forehead so why should I get upset about anything that's said on the forum about what my supposed character traits and qualities are? So that's the point I'm at right now.

That's what I found too. I mean, it does help to understand people and their reactions, but not in such absolute terms. MBTI helped me look for different traits, how they interact and so forth... but the whole 'dichtomy' thing doesn't help make good decisions on a daily basis, and so stamping people doesn't make any sense. Deal inside each situation using MBTI to help you bridge the gap between preferences!

People tend to embrace the differences in a tribal "they are different than me". MBTI is meant so that if you are in a room of different types and you are trying to communicate, you can adjust yourself to help foster communication. Not excuse the inability through 'they are different' (along with the whole superiority thing that comes with the tribal us vs them thing.)

Plus, in most communication, it is the gap that matters - the relative strength between each person. I can't relate to all ISTPs at all! I wish MBTI had more of that, but I do think that because MBTI is fuzzy, it lets people use it in fuzzy environments without having to be 'exactly right'. That can be useful, especially in communication (dynamic situations).

(I think communication is the best example, but often it can be used to understand the larger picture - what friends want to do, why your mate is irritated, why a work meeting isn't going forward, etc.)

[bluemonday]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

So much for benefit of the doubt, hmmph. I've spent enough time entertaining you - I won't be responding again until you post something with content.

that won't be any time soon

i love it when i get a "hmmph"
i can just see you, sitting there, hmmphing away....

[Kaizer]

Originally Posted by sarah

I really do appreciate that some people on this forum read about and understand the theory itself and don't just talk about MBTI scores as though they were sacred. Thanks for that. And thanks to all of you who care about actually using type theory in positive ways instead of as a weapon of discrimination.

Sarah
ISFP

Very true. I saw type as an explanation with a relatively approximated (75% mean they say) accuracy and one which came across as an affirmation/validation of certain aspects of life so that as a result of a slightly (or maybe to quite an extent) better understanding of how ppl understand, think , receive inputs and communicate in general we could better use our abilities to make life better, more wholesome.. basically be better human beings in the total sense of the being 'human' and being a 'being'. To use it to discriminate against others and to take away from life instead of enriching it seems to be quite a base motivation in that it takes away from life/humanity etc instead of enriching it.

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by sarah

Actually, instead of calling people "intuitives" or "sensors", as though people can't use both, more accurate terms would be "having a preference for intuition" and "having a preference for sensing".

I disagree with you here, I'd much rather be called a "sensor" than someone say I "have a preference for sensing." The second one makes it sound like I evaluated the choices and picked the one I like better, when it reality it just sorta happens by itself.

[bluemonday]

Originally Posted by Jeffster

I disagree with you here, I'd much rather be called a "sensor"

You're a sensor.

You're welcome.

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by bluemonday

You're a sensor.

You're welcome.