Do tests favor N over S?

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Oops?

 

[Thalassa]

^ See, I don't know.

My thought is that the 'S' questions seem to lean more towards Si than Se, so I think it's fairly common for SP's to test as N's.

Yes. This.


I also want to echo that I think the ISFP description of Artist is really cool, and I actually relate to some of their traits (I love nature, and enjoy sleeping for long periods of time for example) and I don't think there's anything wrong with the ESFP description, either, as performer or actor, whatever it is. That's neat-o.

And who is to say ISTJs aren't glad to be called duty fulfillers? I saw some of them on Pers Cafe defending their right to be just that. They don't seem especially bothered by it.

Maybe it's your own bias that makes you think the N descriptions sound cool.

I mean, I remember (incorrectly) testing as INFJ and being HELLA DISAPPOINTED. I did NOT want to be an INFJ, and it was amusing to me when I came to forums and learned more about personality theory that this type was coveted, that people would intentionally slant toward INFJs even if they were really INFPs or ISFJs. I always thought INFP sounded much better.

 

[wolfy]

... My first test was in my teens. My results were INFP. ...

My first test was infj I think. I was in my early twenties. I remember it because I bragged I was the same type as Gandhi. I think Gandhi is infj in Keirsey's book.

You had the official test though right?

Some tests prefer N over S in wording, some don't. That DDLI (I think that is how it is spelled) seemed okay. And the Lenore Thomson one is okay.

 

[KDude]

My first test was infj I think. I was in my early twenties. I remember it because I bragged I was the same type as Gandhi. I think Gandhi is infj in Keirsey's book.

You had the official test though right?

Some tests prefer N over S in wording, some don't. That DDLI (I think that is how it is spelled) seemed okay. And the Lenore Thomson one is okay.

Yeah, it was official. I've taken another official test since then and it was INFP too. I guess they were nearly 15 years apart. I have a lot of my own anecdotes on how I see myself differently from SPs, but I could do the same with some INFPs. I think it's probably easier to just talk about MBTI in terms of preferences.. best "fit".

 

[To-A-T]

I think it's probably easier to just talk about MBTI in terms of preferences.. best "fit".

Exactly. I'm an ESFX, showing almost pretty equally the qualities of ESFP and ESFJ. I have an ENFJ friend who displays several qualities of the ENTJ. They're all just guidelines and noone is ever going to fit one exactly. However, I do think the distinction between N and S is usually a little more defined.

 

[Orangey]

Oops?

I guess what I meant was; could you maybe make that intelligible?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I was just thinking about philosophers questioning what Reality actually is, and sense we can never REALLY know that what we're feeling, physically, is real or not the Sensing aspect of perceiving is itself extremely complicated and abstract.

edit. Assuming you believe in such philosophical ideas.

 

[NegativeZero]

How can you expect accurate results if the interpretation of the results isn't accurate, when the N side is WAY FAVORED.

I always thought of sensors as less abstract and creative than Ns, but far more coordinated and physically able. Besides, you can still be an intelligent S; the MBTI doesn't try to limit you to sensing, but it implies that you prefer it (i.e. dominant function).

I was just thinking about philosophers questioning what Reality actually is, and sense we can never REALLY know that what we're feeling, physically, is real or not...

The hard problem of consciousness.

 

[Randomnity]

I always thought of sensors as less abstract and creative than Ns, but far more coordinated and physically able.

You thought wrong. You even explained why:

Besides, you can still be an intelligent S; the MBTI doesn't try to limit you to sensing, but it implies that you prefer it (i.e. dominant function).

 

[NegativeZero]

I don't see how I contradicted myself. If I prefer Pepsi, then I am still capable of drinking Coke.

 

[Randomnity]

MBTI describes preference, not ability.

Hence, intuitives are not more creative and sensors are not more coordinated, at least not by definition. There might be a correlation, of course, but one doesn't cause the other.

 

[NegativeZero]

Well, let's not speak tautologically. We have the same viewpoint, clearly, but I was just stating what abilities I associated the traits with. Besides, it is logical to assume that intuition -> creativity and sensing -> physical ability. Although being an N wouldn't necessarily make you creative, it would certainly make you more prone to being so (same deal conversely with S).

 

[Randomnity]

Well, let's not speak tautologically. We have the same viewpoint, clearly, but I was just stating what abilities I associated the traits with. Besides, it is logical to assume that intuition -> creativity and sensing -> physical ability. Although being an N wouldn't necessarily make you creative, it would certainly make you more prone to being so (same deal conversely with S).

It's not really that logical. S and N are perceiving functions, meaning that a person who prefers S will focus on taking in information about more tangible things whereas N will tend to focus on taking in information about abstract things like patterns and relationships between things.

It would be logical to conclude that Ss would be more experienced with tangible things while N would be more experienced with abstract things (given the luxury of indulging in your preferred activities, I suppose). I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could say that experience begets skill, but that isn't necessarily true. If we do assume that experience --> skill, logically Ss would be more skilled at being creative with tangible things, whereas Ns would be more skilled at being creative with abstract things.

Likewise you could say Ss might be more attracted to playing sports than Ns (although my personal experience disagrees, so I'm not sure the theory holds up there), and certainly practice will improve skill, but that has nothing to do with natural talent or coordination/motor skills. Tiger woods is supposed to be INTP, for a ridiculous example.

When I said there might be a correlation, I was talking about the tendency for practice to improve proficiency, which is not necessarily a useful assumption. Not S or N directly making you "prone" to something.

 

[Orangey]

It's not really that logical. S and N are perceiving functions, meaning that a person who prefers S will focus on taking in information about more tangible things whereas N will tend to focus on taking in information about abstract things like patterns and relationships between things.

It would be logical to conclude that Ss would be more experienced with tangible things while N would be more experienced with abstract things (given the luxury of indulging in your preferred activities, I suppose). I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could say that experience begets skill, but that isn't necessarily true. If we do assume that experience --> skill, logically Ss would be more skilled at being creative with tangible things, whereas Ns would be more skilled at being creative with abstract things.

Likewise you could say Ss might be more attracted to playing sports than Ns (although my personal experience disagrees, so I'm not sure the theory holds up there), and certainly practice will improve skill, but that has nothing to do with natural talent or coordination/motor skills. Tiger woods is supposed to be INTP, for a ridiculous example.

When I said there might be a correlation, I was talking about the tendency for practice to improve proficiency, which is not necessarily a useful assumption. Not S or N directly making you "prone" to something.

+1

The point being that creativity is something we attribute to people because of what they do; what people do is going to be different based (loosely if at all) on their personality; and their personality is formed on different distributions of the N and S functions (and T and F functions as well.) The functions share no relationship with creativity.

 

[KDude]

Before all of this MBTI stuff, I would have taken a little pride in some of my own creativity as just being my own thing. That I'm responsible for it. All of the sudden it's because I was a certain type. Meh.

 

[Sniffles]

One essential difference is how N sees big picture w/o needing to see details, whereas SFP tends to formulate the big picture by looking at all the details. They really get far more into the specific details and sensations of the art experience, N stays focused on the interconnections.

This corresponds closely to my impressions with sensors in regards to historical discussions. Sensors(or people I think are sensors) seem able to get into more of all the minute details en masse that would kill me to try to keep up with. I got a migrane trying to follow one discussion about the different mechanics and battlefield effectiveness of the King Tiger and Iosif Stalin tanks of WWII that went on for 20 pages on one forum. A few paragraph summary would've been more than enough for me.

 

[skylights]

Before all of this MBTI stuff, I would have taken a little pride in some of my own creativity as just being my own thing. That I'm responsible for it. All of the sudden it's because I was a certain type. Meh.

your type might give you the probability, but it doesn't give you the actual motivation nor the content.

 

[lunalum]

You keep getting N because, if you answered in an "S" way on the tests, they'd have you believe that you cannot comprehend the abstract, that you are unimaginative, that you do not think about the future...basically a lot of things that all people with normal cognition do on a regular basis. They're basically asking if you're retarded. If yes, then S. If no, then N.

I think you are reading things in the questions that aren't there.

And yes, you still get to be an S even though you had the capacity to make that mistake...

And who is to say ISTJs aren't glad to be called duty fulfillers? I saw some of them on Pers Cafe defending their right to be just that. They don't seem especially bothered by it.

Maybe it's your own bias that makes you think the N descriptions sound cool.

Pfft. Fuck labels like "the Mastermind". Thats pretentious as fuck and I would never want to be labelled as such. Nothing wrong with Duty Fullfiller.

Yeah, I think part of it is that Ss tend to like the more realistic but still awesome titles and see the grandiose ones as pretentious. But I can see how this is still leaving out the Ss who want each title to be as grandiose as the other. I'm not sure how this will happen unless the Ns let their titles be toned down a little.

I seem to lack Se altogether, so maybe just having Fi as dominant can make one seem pretty "dreamy" and "head in the clouds", leading to an N score.

I've noticed this problem too. The test needs to be more careful with with not mixing up N and Fi.

Maybe tests need to move away from ability-based question. After all, that is what the functions are about, functional preference.

Exactly

I got a blatant ENFP to test as ESFP on this test: http://www.worldpersonality.com/

Anyone think it's yet another biased test, or maybe better than most other internet ones?

This appears to be an average, somewhat biased test. It is doing that thing with mixing up the N and the Fi.

The point being that creativity is something we attribute to people because of what they do; what people do is going to be different based (loosely if at all) on their personality; and their personality is formed on different distributions of the N and S functions (and T and F functions as well.) The functions share no relationship with creativity.

Are you ruling out a function correlation of preference for creativity also, or just the function correlation for creative ability?

 

[NegativeZero]

It would be logical to conclude that Ss would be more experienced with tangible things while N would be more experienced with abstract things (given the luxury of indulging in your preferred activities, I suppose). I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could say that experience begets skill, but that isn't necessarily true. If we do assume that experience --> skill, logically Ss would be more skilled at being creative with tangible things, whereas Ns would be more skilled at being creative with abstract things.

It's far more logical to assume what I said than to assume what you're positing. Your statement presupposes preferred activities, even though you go onto say that doesn't make sense (i.e. Tiger Woods being an INTP and Ns liking sports despite it being an "S function").

Also, I think we are talking past each other. I am not trying to say that experience begets skill and that is clearly not the case for many things. For example, singing and painting are two "skills" that you probably cannot learn without a solid base of talent. I am not trying to pigeonhole intuitives and sensors into activities; I am trying to determine what traits they may have based on their perceiving functions.

While it is possible to be creative with tangible things, tangible things are not necessarily creative. Paints, a paintbrush, and a canvas are not necessarily creative. However, they can be used to invoke some very creative paintings, but the actual composition of the painting itself is more N than S; it's like using a sensing function to aggregate an intuitive creation. Conversely to what I just said, and this might be stretching it, an S may prefer drawing whatever they're observing while an N might prefer drawing directly from their thoughts and emotions. Of course, they can function reversed as well.

Moreover, I never said that sensors couldn't be creative. I also never said that intuitives couldn't be physically coordinated. That obviously isn't the case because nobody is 100% a sensor or intuitive, and they couldn't function if they were. I just said that it is logical to assume that an N function would warrant creativity while an S function would warrant physical ability. Abilities are more of a matter of personal interests and how your perceiving functions happen to manifest, but "creativity" and "physical ability" are traits that we can determine with some degree of certainty based on S/N readings.

(Yes, I know that I said abilities are a matter of personal interests but then go on to list "physical ability" as a trait. It's a matter of context, of course).