Prejudice against Sensors?

[Lady_X]

A sensor has the same capacity as an intuitive to retain and learn existing or new information. Their preference is what makes them different, capacity is irrelevant.

of course...didn't in any way intend to imply otherwise..

 

[SillySapienne]

i must be desensitized having been married to in INTJ for 11 years but I didn't find his post that bad.

frustration due to points not getting across usually lead to these types of posts. that and ENTP's aren't known for being soft spoken. ;P

Good point, and he is arguing with one of his own kind, so I'm sure no feelings are being hurt, just intellectual egos.

Fine, I give up, let them draw blood, I'll watch and enjoy what transpires.

 

[ajblaise]

A sensor has the same capacity as an intuitive to retain and learn existing or new information. Their preference is what makes them different, capacity is irrelevant.

I don't know, I sure don't have the capacity to pay all my attention to the here-and-now for long. I can for a little while, but then mistakes start popping up.

 

[Lady_X]

I don't know, I sure don't have the capacity to pay all my attention to the here-and-now for long. I can for a little while, but then mistakes start popping up.

you're right...i don't either...because i have hard time just reading text w/o thinking of a bunch of related things and getting lost in it...and then forget where i am and then i can't access the information correctly because i can't remember how much of it came from me or the book...ahh...it's embarrassing....much better if it's something i really care about though...and something i'm interested in applying.

 

[simulatedworld]

Minor is giving yourself too much credit. It's a major point. As it's simplest understanding: There's a reason why you can't generalize whatever information you get out of a person, BACK on to themselves. It's circular and introduces bias. Such as those inherent in momentary time sampling.



Minor, tiny, small, he wailed, begged with repetition,
(please stop picking on me for this, please, please, please, can't you see it's so small that you should ignore, ignore it please, for the love of god)

Are you threatened by other's knowledge? That's not very ENTP of you. Oh wait, that might be a 'generalization' on my part.

I don't agree that you can't generalize information about a person back onto himself. If I tell you that I like chocolate cake, chocolate cookies, and chocolate brownies, can you reasonably infer that I probably like chocolate eclair?

Sure; you might be wrong, but most people would find this suggestive of the idea that I probably like other foods containing chocolate.

You are right that some confirmation bias can cause problems...hence the imperfection of the system. But if MBTI didn't have some kind of repeatable use in terms of observations about the behavior of others, why would any of us be here on this forum discussing it? Why would we be interested in it at all? Why aren't we all also posting on a bunch of astrology forums?

I'm not threatened by your knowledge, and I see now that you're trying to bait an emotional reaction out of me. I am actually reading through that wiki article at the moment, for my edification.

I still don't think "the concept you're describing, valid though it may be, isn't technically called a generalization in formal statistical theory" is all that important, here. I mean, thanks for pointing it out and all, but it sounds as if you're more concerned with needling me over this minor discrepancy than with responding conceptually, because you think I'm so deathly terrified of being wrong that it will bring my entire view on this concept crashing down in flames. (And/or produce an amusing emotional reaction for you to laugh at.)

Well, here you go, if it's what you wanted:

Apparently I was wrong about the technical definition of a generalization. My apologies.

 

[ptgatsby]

I've yet to come across any information that 70-75% of people *test* as S, just that it's assumed people are. If you have a link or a source, please show me. Seriously.

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

It's between 65% and 75%, FWIW. People normally refer to it as 75% because it reached popular culture with Keirsey and his ilk.

The funniest thing about all this is that I've had the discussion about the "poor old introverts who are so misunderstood and have to live in an E's world". Course, that was until it became more common knowledge that they are actually 50:50. SO much for that excuse, so I guess we are stuck on being N. Which is sad, considering how much life favors Ns over Ss. Whatever.

--

Re: Generalizations

MBTI generalizes because it's built on an unvalidated theory, hence the model that is is forced into is not validated, as far as I am concerned. The instrument in and of itself is considered valid and semi-reliable in so much as it has the constructs to make it so, "sorter" stuff aside. So in this case, while I tend to agree with Qre:us, the Simulated and Qre:us can be talking about entirely separate things (in the technical sense.)

 

[simulatedworld]

Re: Generalizations

MBTI generalizes because it's built on an unvalidated theory, hence the model that is is forced into is not validated, as far as I am concerned. The instrument in and of itself is considered valid and semi-reliable in so much as it has the constructs to make it so, "sorter" stuff aside. So in this case, while I tend to agree with Qre:us, the Simulated and Qre:us can be talking about entirely separate things (in the technical sense.)

Agreed; thanks for getting the point. Hint: It wasn't about the technical definition of the word generalization.

 

[ajblaise]

you're right...i don't either...because i have hard time just reading text w/o thinking of a bunch of related things and getting lost in it...and then forget where i am and then i can't access the information correctly because i can't remember how much of it came from me or the book...ahh...it's embarrassing....much better if it's something i really care about though...and something i'm interested in applying.

Yeah I get that, I can read an entire page or few pages whilst retaining zero of the information before noticing and snapping out of it. It's more of a problem for me when I'm not paying attention to my surroundings and I trip/stub/hit/bump into something. I have the scars to prove it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

:hi:

 

[Quinlan]

I don't know, I sure don't have the capacity to pay all my attention to the here-and-now for long. I can for a little while, but then mistakes start popping up.

you're right...i don't either...because i have hard time just reading text w/o thinking of a bunch of related things and getting lost in it...and then forget where i am and then i can't access the information correctly because i can't remember how much of it came from me or the book...ahh...it's embarrassing....much better if it's something i really care about though...and something i'm interested in applying.

You have the capacity to, but you prefer not to and give up "when mistakes start popping up". If you really wanted to, and applied yourself from a young age your Se could easily be better than an Se dom that has not developed/refined it in the same way.

I have always taken MBTI to be about preference rather than ability/capacity, and I'm fairly sure that's how it was meant to be used.

 

[Qre:us]

I'm not threatened by your knowledge, and I see now that you're trying to bait an emotional reaction out of me. I am actually reading through that wiki article at the moment, for my edification.

GOOD BOY! Here's a chocolate cookie!

I don't agree that you can't generalize information about a person back onto himself. If I tell you that I like chocolate cake, chocolate cookies, and chocolate brownies, can you reasonably infer that I probably like chocolate eclair?

Yes, but, we're talking about chocolate here, not cognitive processes. The mind is a complex thing. Which is my point in directing you to stay strictly within the limitations of definitions used in survey research, esp. those that try to quantify socio and/or psychological phenomena. Generalizability in such cases is a very tricky matter because you're trying to predict what a person will do/think by what he's done/thought before, but, unlike chocolate, it's on matters that are not even concrete - such as intuition versus sensing. To be able to parse out whether one is using intuition versus sensing, and generalizing to other situations, raises a heck of a lot more issues than predicting if you are vanilla or chocolate kinda guy.

You are right that some confirmation bias can cause problems...hence the imperfection of the system. But if MBTI didn't have some kind of repeatable use in terms of observations about the behavior of others, why would any of us be here on this forum discussing it? Why would we be interested in it at all? Why aren't we all also posting on a bunch of astrology forums?

You could try an astrology forum, no one is stopping you.

(And/or produce an amusing emotional reaction for you to laugh at.)

I promise to never laugh at you. I'm a lady, I only giggle.

Well, here you go, if it's what you wanted:

Apparently I was wrong about the technical definition of a generalization. My apologies.

Um...thanks.

 

[Quinlan]

Yeah I get that, I can read an entire page or few pages whilst retaining zero of the information before noticing and snapping out of it.

I do that too.

 

[ajblaise]

You have the capacity to, but you prefer not to and give up "when mistakes start popping up". If you really wanted to, and applied yourself from a young age your Se could easily be better than an Se dom that has not developed/refined it in the same way.

I have always taken MBTI to be about preference rather than ability/capacity, and I'm fairly sure that's who it was meant to be used.

Well it's definitely not a conscious decision to give up. But yeah, with practice I could sure increase my capacity for it. It helps if there is something in the outside environment that is causing adrenaline to rise. Then I'm super focused on it.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

You have the capacity to, but you prefer not to and give up "when mistakes start popping up". If you really wanted to, and applied yourself from a young age your Se could easily be better than an Se dom that has not developed/refined it in the same way.

I remember trying at a young age to pay attention to my surroundings and details. At least where I grew up, having such abilities were really important. I've partially succeeded but whenever I'm not hypervigilant about it, which is not so rare, I make stupid mistakes like address a letter to myself

 

[SillySapienne]

I think Qre:us and simulatedworld should have some hot, steamy, love/hate monkey sex!!!

What a lovely way for them to temporarily make nice-nice, doncha think?

 

[Qre:us]

I think Qre:us and simulatedworld should have some hot, steamy, love/hate monkey sex!!!

What a lovely way for them to temporarily make nice-nice, doncha think?

If only he bends over without speaking too much. Grunts are allowed.

 

[SillySapienne]

If only he bends over without speaking too much. Grunts are allowed.

LOLLLLLLL!!!!!

 

[MrME]

What a lovely way for them to temporarily make nice-nice, doncha think?

Only if there are pictures and/or video.

</joking>

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, but, we're talking about chocolate here, not cognitive processes. The mind is a complex thing. Which is my point in directing you to stay strictly within the limitations of definitions used in survey research, esp. those that try to quantify socio and/or psychological phenomena. Generalizability in such cases is a very tricky matter because you're trying to predict what a person will do/think by what he's done/thought before, but, unlike chocolate, it's on matters that are not even concrete - such as intuition versus sensing. To be able to parse out whether one is using intuition versus sensing, and generalizing to other situations, raises a heck of a lot more issues than predicting if you are vanilla or chocolate kinda guy.

Does my personal experience in predicting the behavior of certain people based on such generalizations not actually matter? Why is "he's done this most of the time in the past" not a good indicator that he'll probably do it the next time that situation comes up?

It's not a small sample size, either--my personal relations with just about everyone I know have improved since I started studying MBTI, because I have a much better understanding of their motivations and value systems than I used to.

I think there's a slight misunderstanding here, too, at the part where you talk about being able to parse out whether one is using iNtuition or Sensing--

I don't think that's actually what I'm trying to do. My interest in MBTI is based solely on predictability of behavioral patterns, and I use MBTI simply as an arbitrary categorization system. If I observe repeated behavior x in a person, and I attribute it to Si, for instance--I see what you mean in that it might actually be due to Fe, or some other function, or some phenomenon totally unrelated to/unexplained by MBTI.

But, it still doesn't damage the added predictability I get about that person's behavior from categorizing it that way--the end result seems the same, no matter what arbitrary labels we place on the motivations for predictable behavior.

 

[Qre:us]

I think there's a slight misunderstanding here, too, at the part where you talk about being able to parse out whether one is using iNtuition or Sensing--

I don't think that's actually what I'm trying to do. My interest in MBTI is based solely on predictability of behavioral patterns, and I use MBTI simply as an arbitrary categorization system. If I observe repeated behavior x in a person, and I attribute it to Si, for instance--I see what you mean in that it might actually be due to Fe, or some other function, or some phenomenon totally unrelated to/unexplained by MBTI.

Yup, this is kinda what I'm getting at. You can be seeing a person using a MIX of functions. Or, a function that they feel is most beneficial to a situation.

As well, another point of why it is very assumptive to have stereotypes based on such categories as intuition/sensing- For example, we can't fully know whether those who self-identify themselves as a sensor doesn't really have the capacity for intuition. They can be more intuitive than a person who self-identifies themselves as an intuit. Not because each of these people have labeled themselves wrong, but, because it is only a commentary that is self-contained. Meaning, they have the capacity to intuit but they rely more on sensing, which makes no commentary on their level of intuition in comparison to another. Because the other, who relies primarily on intuition may have his/her ceiling level of intuition be less than the person who primarily relies on sensing (but still has the capacity for intuition).

Which brings us back nicely to the topic of this thread and why such prejudice against sensors is kinda non-sensical.

Hence,

Does my personal experience in predicting the behavior of certain people based on such generalizations not actually matter? Why is "he's done this most of the time in the past" not a good indicator that he'll probably do it the next time that situation comes up?

It's not a small sample size, either--my personal relations with just about everyone I know have improved since I started studying MBTI, because I have a much better understanding of their motivations and value systems than I used to.
But, it still doesn't damage the added predictability I get about that person's behavior from categorizing it that way--the end result seems the same, no matter what arbitrary labels we place on the motivations for predictable behavior.

Is all very good to do, and I agree, quite useful, but, we must contain whatever predictions we make about a person to themselves. Which makes any kind of comparisons between sensors and intuits redundant.

Only to the level of sensing and intuition within one individual can we go, beyond that we play a dangerous game of assumptions.