Don't be silly purps, most Ns are stupid too.Yeah I'm not sure because typing someone as a sensor was a way to underhandily call someone stupid back in the day.
Yeah, I think thats another thing that bugs most people...stereotyping.I do get annoyed when people I know don't believe I'm introverted by citing times where I showed extroverted behavior. They don't understand the circumstances or energy that may have gone into that.
Just Because I'm Friendly Doesn't Mean I'm Not an Introvert
Yeah, I think thats another thing that bugs most people...stereotyping.
Personally, I think it's difficult to accurately type anyone over the internet.
Despite being called a "personality" type, it's less about one's outward personality and more about their inner workings.
Agree about the internet to some extent, as I think it's possible to really get to know people online more intimately...but as for inward/outward...whats inward will manifest outwardly. What makes the difference is categorizing and labelling before you see that happen sufficiently vs seeking actual understanding of their actions and whats behind them. Its problematic to try to take surface level observations and attach your own typology reasons as to why those are there, as opposed to understanding why those manifestations are what they are and then aligning what you learn about the person with the type.Personally, I think it's difficult to accurately type anyone over the internet.
Despite being called a "personality" type, it's less about one's outward personality and more about their inner workings.
I find it offensive only if someone insists they know better than the person whose type they are discussing. It is fine to present your own analysis and to disagree with someone's self-typing, but this is one of those cases where people just need to agree to disagree. Unless we know a member exceedingly well, our typing is based on just a small part of who they are as a person. This is why I put a premium on the observations that someone uses to justify a typing rather than on the end result type itself. I can fold those observations in with those of other people to help me get a more complete picture, including seeing into whatever blind spots I have.We're on a typology forum, suck it up buttercup. I only really get offended if I feel like I'm being "gatekept" from being the type that I type as. If someone gives me a well thought out explanation, I'll be curious to listen. Sometimes when people pick at me it feels like they're putting words in my mouth or I feel like I'm being misunderstood, but that's not going to keep me from getting input from other people. I'm thirsty for typings.
Sometimes people mistakenly attach a higher value to being high in intuition cause it is rare and being rare has an intrinsic value right? Yet the real reason that intuitives are rare is because it is a deviation from the normal, and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.
The more intuitive you are, the weirder you become in contrast to "normal/average" and the more you stand apart from the normal/average. That means you end up being alone in crowds. You cannot be popular and well-integrated in normal society and also high in intuition at the same time. This is especially true if you are a dominant intuitive.
Have you ever talked to ENFPs, ENTPs, ENTJs, and ENFJs?
Not to mention, just because you're a certain type, it doesn't necessarily mean you'd be good at one thing over another, or have it predetermined you'd just be magically good that. There would be a lot more consistency between types if that were true.
There's breaking down stereotypes and all, but breaking down stereotypes by replacing them with other stereotypes, which is essentially still going by stereotypes doesn't quite work for the same reason as I had stated above. What you said in the bolded also fuels the typical INTX ego-boost (or IN-- types in general, though it seems to be worse in NTs) they have of believing that they are niche and elite with points of view that 'everyone out there' can't understand, which is how a lot of people flock to them to begin with. They fail to integrate because they are enabled by type descriptions that glorify them and handwaving their poor social skills, such as the above. People take it as being told that their experiences are to be expected but to stay in complacence instead of to understand and develop themselves, which is a huge waste of typology (and knowledge in general, in my opinion). Some people hold this deviance as a badge of pride and a reason to shut themselves off from anyone or any body of knowledge they deem 'inferior'.
A lukewarm, "Oh no, don't worry, we're bad too!" isn't the answer. What is valued by anyone and any society differs on a per individual and per society basis, regardless of type. The answer is to stop comparing who's more shiny (and stop being bothered by it) and focus on what works for you. Otherwise, it's like being jealous of someone else's shoe size when what you should be doing is focusing on and finding yours. It deepens the understanding of the type more than just understanding the type through how other types view them. Call it as you see it. Assess it as it is. No need to pander to what people feel about them just to make them feel better. Typology is supposed to enlighten you to who you are, weak points and all, and avoiding that discomfort risks the individual missing the point.
Enough of this N-elitism in either direction.
There's nothing about elitism in my post. I am saying that the loneliness is not a deliberate attempt by dominant intuitives to see themselves "above" the crowd. It is a reality that casts them "outside" the demeanor of average/normal people. Average does not insinuate inferiority. Average defines what is considered "normal" and what is more prevalent in a group of things. An average/normal apple is red and spherical. A purple apple is a deviation from the average, it does not mean because purple apple is very rare, it is automatically "better" then the average apple.
There is no mention of "above" or "better" in my post. You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally.
You did not use the word, but your presentation leads to it, as I have explained. I also further illustrated how it can be read by both those who want to type as intuitives and who do types as intuitives and how it is a problem. Average and normal are different, just like rare does not mean 'good' or elite, and following that, a deviation also does not necessarily mean that it is unfortunate or a defect. Your logic was inconsistent, and your post did not help dispel the N-elitism that is present in type communities and type descriptions. Ousting them specially and predetermining who they are adds to that elitism and misinformation, even if it is something 'negative'.
This is exactly what stereotypes do to you. When you have a predetermined notion of what something means, you cannot understand anything that deviates.
It has everything to do with you because it was borne out of your sloppy post, which I have taken the time to dismantle.
Assess things as they are. You do not need to pander to what others feel about it. Putting down intuitives, or elevating them panders to people's subjective evaluation and opinions of the type, which is not a good diagnostic or descriptor of what the type actually is. This is true for anything.
How would you define normal in a group of things?
Assumptions and sloppy thinking always find a way to snake themselves out.and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.