bored with this now...
Secondly, No, I don't realise that. She may, or may not have meant that, but what she actually said was:
" none of the Ns did the opposite" seems to be your extrapolation.Originally Posted by Sarah;
See - I can pay attention to details.
Sarah's point, or one of them (her main point seems to be that she is p*ssed off with the condescension and perceived superiority of Ns in this forum and elsewhere) is:
"Something's clearly wrong with the way these tests are worded, seeing as how so many people are being misled by them."
(Now this suggests that these people who "identify with iNtuitive descriptions" initially, also test as intuitives, although she doesn't really clarify this point.)
If I believed the MBTI test was so error-prone I would have a fundamental problem with the test in question, and I wouldn't accord it credence. And I would probably be more interested in writing a new test, than in "creating a website or a blog for ISFPs about our type preferences". Since, if the test is suspect, why should I believe that there is such as thing as an ISFP as defined by the MBTI?
Put another way, I find MBTI compelling in part because of its accuracy in predicting types and typical behavior. If I didn't, I'd file it under BS and that would be that. (It's currently filed under "pending").
Regarding Ss testing as Ns, there are so many reasons why this might happen. Since Sarah hasn't listed which of the many flavours of test she is referring too, no assessment can be made as to the validity of the test in question.
If it is the official MBTI test, and not just something some first year psych student has knocked up in his spare time, there are a number of possible explanations:-
Perhaps these people that test as Ns, but subsequently self-type as S, are in fact Ns, with little self-knowledge, or perhaps they are not highly differentiated. Or perhaps they are influenced by a cultural preference for S (note I do believe there is a cultural preference for S, in most industrial societies). Or perhaps they are too bloody stoopid to understand the questions. Who knows?
The point of bringing statistics into it is that, even though this discrepancy may be true in Sarah's experience, it is not universally true, since the majority of people test initially and indefinitely as S. Hence, I would call into question the negative connotations regarding S-ness (...perhaps eSsence would be a better word), which Sarah suggests are implicit in the test.
Phew, this is too much like hard work.
Note to self: stay out of the S forums.