Prejudice against Sensors?

[Qre:us]

The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.

MBTI is survey research. In survey research, when we talk of validity, it has nothing to do with the test-taker himself.

Here's what types of validity are *ahem* valid for methodological knowledge regarding the validity of a survey tool:
Measurement Validity Types

I've never heard of any validity with regards to the test-taker. The one that comes closest, when you want to use the test-taker himself/herself, is actually called reliability, more specifically, test-retest reliability.
Test-Retest Reliability

The generalization part comes when it takes your personally stated preferences on these external stimuli and makes guesses about how you will respond to other, similar external stimuli in the future. It's behavioralism, and it IS a generalization because it takes a small sampling of your own behavioral preference and then tries to infer information about other situations.

Um, not quite. For your edification, what generalizability refers to in survey methodology.
Generalizability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SillySapienne]

I think sensors, (esp. SJs), feelers, and extroverts get hated on in this particular community.

Oh well, let the haters hate.

I am prejudiced against ignorant assholes of all types and kinds. I view them as harmful and dreadful wastes of human space.

 

[Tigerlily]

I think sensors, (esp. SJs), feelers, and extroverts get hated on in this particular community.

Oh well, let the haters hate.

I am prejudiced against ignorant assholes of all types and kinds. I view them as harmful and dreadful wastes of human space.

werd lady.

 

[PeaceBaby]

...my ESFJ mother thinks such perceptual differences are lies that I made up to avoid responsibility. I see her perspective and she doesn't see mine; that's where most of the anti-SJ bigotry comes from, get it?

Agreed; most SJ's I know don't "believe" there are real, tangible differences until they understand about functional strengths and communication styles.

I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results are the same.

It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).

And yes, it is better to walk into the testing not really having any comprehension of what it is trying to discern. Some of the online tests will not produce as consistent a result as actually taking the real thing.

And that ties back somewhat to what I said before - doing this testing too young has drawbacks - although it can validate some of your own personal tendencies, there's a deeper trap in forming prejudices.

We all need to learn to get along ... and growth happens our entire lives. Seeking out or excluding a specific 4 letter combo from your life can be very limiting.

It's like deciding you don't like a certain food as a child ... then when you are older, sampling it again and loving it. You just don't have enough context at any given moment to see the big picture, or realize that we are changing all the time and need different experiences as we go along.

 

[simulatedworld]

You misunderstood. I didn't question your confidence in the validity in MBTI but in the testing of it. What else could 100% N mean if not that you have 0% S? Why then do you place importance "being that I score 100% N" earlier? (Btw, I don't believe in percentages based off of tests. I'm just throwing that out there.).

I placed importance on that just to show that I'm really far to the N side of preference. You can ignore the 100%; the number itself wasn't the important part.

Did I say it had to be perfect in order to be useful? I merely pointed out that the system isn't or our understanding of it isn't. I wasn't placing value on its imperfection.

I completely agree that neither the system nor our understanding of it is perfect. See below.

"You people"? lol The point wasn't that the system isn't scientifically proven, hence unusable, but that an NT wouldn't so easily believe in the system (tho' I was teasing you, you missed it =/). They may still play with it but not be so quick to believe it works. Follow?

I don't "believe in the system" any further than my personal direct experience with its application has provided me with success in predicting the behaviors of others. Part of my understanding of the MBTI system is that it makes mistakes; I don't have any kind of blind faith in its accuracy, which I assume is what you intended to imply with your comment about "self-respecting NTs."

Why would you make such a comment if not to imply that I possess overconfidence in MBTI's accuracy?

You didn't understand this, then?:


I'ma sayin' that the MBTI system isn't a generalization itself, but our interpretation of the collectivity of Types, which are formed through cognitive processes in order to create a pattern, are. The basic outline and interpretation of the Types are generalized. Not the system.

Our interpretation of the system is the only way in which we can truly experience or conceptualize it. I'm not interested in toying around with such trivial semantics. If it makes you feel better, then fine, I was referring to the outline and interpretation of the types and not the system itself. Chalk up one incredibly minor and borderline totally irrelevant victory for you.

Ever heard of confirmation bias?

This can surely be a problem for people who have already studied the system and/or have some idea of what type they think they are/should be. Most people have never even heard of it, though, nor do they have any idea what the potential results might be--which provides some very useful unbiased neutrality when testing new people.

 

[Quinlan]

I've never done the official test, when I first did online tests I came out as INTP, that didn't seem right, next couple of times it was INTJ and that wasn't right either so I looked into INFJ descriptions, that seemed closer! maybe this was me! I would notice the introverted and feeling parts of the description fit, and managed to think of intuition and judging in a way that it could apply to me. I then lurked around some mbti boards (this one included I think) and online descriptions and decided there was no way I could be an S, the way they were described they seemed so inferior, moronic even. So I never really looked into the S descriptions very deeply, I was sure I was an N. Eventually it hit me out of nowhere, even though I live a lot in my head, I am also always focused on the external world, I learnt about the processes and finally everything clicked into place and I could actually relate to ISFP.

Morally of the story: Sometimes people suck at typing themselves, especially with the amount of crap and bias floating around on the net.

 

[Qre:us]

(It's 52 cards, btw.)

Thanks. My type makes me always account for the two jokers. (even though I divided correctly to derive at 26)

Yes, and the fact that a deck of cards is finite is why I can use precise numerical probabilities to describe it, but not with MBTI; however, the principle of increased predictability is still the same, and still based entirely on the concept of generalizations.
As for your next paragraph, well, I think you've just restated my point, and at this point I suspect that you may misunderstand the definition of "generalization":

–noun
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.

A general statement, idea, or principle. A generalization doesn't have to describe ALL members of a given group or class in order to have validity. As long as it describes a majority of them a majority of the time, it's useful.

For another example, here's a generalization: Black people are better at basketball than white people.

Of course, there are certainly great white basketball players. There are probably even more black people who suck at basketball, but neither of these facts reduces the value of said generalization. Obviously examples abound of white people who play basketball better than black people, and yet the generalization itself still rings true. It's a question of averages, not of applying exact or rigid labels to every individual member of a particular group. This is the very definition of a generalization.

Please see my post #161

 

[simulatedworld]

MBTI is survey research. In survey research, when we talk of validity, it has nothing to do with the test-taker himself.

Here's what types of validity are *ahem* valid for methodological knowledge regarding the validity of a survey tool:
Measurement Validity Types

I've never heard of any validity with regards to the test-taker. The one that comes closest, when you want to use the test-taker himself/herself, is actually called reliability, more specifically, test-retest reliability.
Test-Retest Reliability


Um, not quite. For your edification, what generalizability refers to in survey methodology.
Generalizability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great, link me to a long wiki article and hope I don't bother reading it, then claim I'm ignorant/defeated when I don't respond.

By now, I'm quite sure that you understood my point, despite any possible errors in technical terminology. Apologies for my lack of background in statistics, but all of my conceptual points have been solid. If what I've been explaining is not actually called a "generalization" in stat lingo, then congrats, you got me on that minor point.

But, anyone who understands that word in common usage will understand exactly why I used it and exactly what I meant. It's cute that you're flaunting your statistics knowledge (or, at least, your ability to link to wiki articles containing statistics knowledge), but you're arguing such a tiny point of semantics that I don't even care anymore.

It's still obvious that a system which declares only four things about a person and attempts to construct a psychological profile based on answering 70 questions is generalizing (you can replace that word with whatever equivalent word doesn't throw a bee in your bonnet about precise, esoteric terminology.)

It's also obvious that any potential validity in such a system must stem from the fact that the data used to generalize about a given person's internal motivations is provided by the person himself--because no one knows you better than you know you. Way to try and derail the conversation by whining about semantics, but you haven't done anything to disprove the root concepts behind what I'm saying.

And you wonder why anti-S bias abounds. Concepts, not memorized terms, my friend.

 

[Lady_X]

I've never done the official test, when I first did online tests I came out as INTP, that didn't seem right, next couple of times it was INTJ and that wasn't right either so I looked into INFJ descriptions, that seemed closer! maybe this was me! I would notice the introverted and feeling parts of the description fit, and managed to think of intuition and judging in a way that it could apply to me. I then lurked around some mbti boards (this one included I think) and online descriptions and decided there was no way I could be an S, the way they were described they seemed so inferior, moronic even. So I never really looked into the S descriptions very deeply, I was sure I was an N. Eventually it hit me out of nowhere, even though I live a lot in my head, I am also always focused on the external world, I learnt about the processes and finally everything clicked into place and I could actually relate to ISFP.

Morally of the story: Sometimes people suck at typing themselves, especially with the amount of crap and bias floating around on the net.

very good point!

 

[zarc]

I don't have any kind of blind faith in its accuracy, which I assume is what you intended to imply with your comment about "self-respecting NTs."

Why would you make such a comment if not to imply that I possess overconfidence in MBTI's accuracy?

Not only did you miss it the first time, you missed it when I actually said I was "teasing you". Again, again, that was all previously aimed at your overconfidence in the validity of.... the TESTing of it. Ze test. This is my second time explaining it. C'mon. You've had enough to grasp, understand me now. I roar.

Our interpretation of the system is the only way in which we can truly experience or conceptualize it. I'm not interested in toying around with such trivial semantics. If it makes you feel better, then fine, I was referring to the outline and interpretation of the types and not the system itself. Chalk up one incredibly minor and borderline totally irrelevant victory for you.

If it makes me feel better...? lol No, it's a minor and borderline totally irrelevant lose for you. I could care less, honestly. Understand it or don't, accept it or don't. I'm not forcing you to.

This can surely be a problem for people who have already studied the system and/or have some idea of what type they think they are/should be. Most people have never even heard of it, though, nor do they have any idea what the potential results might be--which provides some very useful unbiased neutrality when testing new people.

Depending on which tests, the questions themselves are normally flawed and inherently biased towards a favourable implication to N, which lead people to make errors due to lack of understanding and association. See Quinlan above. I used to come up INTJ a few times before I had any further understanding of MBTI or knew what the terms meant.

Anyway, enough playing here. We've hijacked this thread long enough. My apologies Qre:us.

 

[wolfy]

The reason there is a bias on the forum is simply because there are ten times as many N's here. And ten times as many posts.

People are using a simple heuristic to think about the two functions.
intuition = cerebral
sensing = physical

And from there equating cerebral with mental skill and physical with physical skill.
Somebody might say that there are all levels of intelligence within each type but I'm not talking about what exists in actuality I'm simply talking about the heuristic that a lot of people here are using.

It's not only on the net that there is a bias towards mental skill. Physical skill has been devalued in modern society.

So it's no wonder the people who are using this way of thinking about intuition think they are Gods gift.

 

[simulatedworld]

The questions themselves are flawed and inherently biased towards N, which lead people to make errors due to lack of understanding and association. See Quinlan below. I used to come up INTJ a few times before I had any further understanding of MBTI.

If the questions are biased toward N, why do 70-75% of people still test as xSxx?

 

[Lady_X]

well a sensor still has great capacity to retain information though. the difference is just that you will be learning existing ideas rather than going off in tangents and creating new ones from them...right? i mean you're going to apply your knowledge to things you know or have experienced...where i might be more prone to invent a different way of doing it...right?

 

[SillySapienne]

Great, link me to a long wiki article and hope I don't bother reading it, then claim I'm ignorant/defeated when I don't respond.

By now, I'm quite sure that you understood my point, despite any possible errors in technical terminology. Apologies for my lack of background in statistics, but all of my conceptual points have been solid. If what I've been explaining is not actually called a "generalization" in stat lingo, then congrats, you got me on that minor point.

But, anyone who understands that word in common usage will understand exactly why I used it and exactly what I meant. It's cute that you're flaunting your statistics knowledge (or, at least, your ability to link to wiki articles containing statistics knowledge), but you're arguing such a tiny point of semantics that I don't even care anymore.

It's still obvious that a system which declares only four things about a person and attempts to construct a psychological profile based on answering 70 questions is generalizing (you can replace that word with whatever equivalent word doesn't throw a bee in your bonnet about precise, esoteric terminology.)

It's also obvious that any potential validity in such a system must stem from the fact that the data used to generalize about a given person's internal motivations is provided by the person himself--because no one knows you better than you know you. Way to try and derail the conversation by whining about semantics, but you haven't done anything to disprove the root concepts behind what I'm saying.

And you wonder why anti-S bias abounds. Concepts, not memorized terms, my friend.

Holy balls, man!!!

:horor:

I can't disagree with any of your points, here, but the way in which you go about delivering them is definitely cocky and flat-out mean.

Getting in an argument with you would probably lead me to .

You can still assert your points while being a bit more, hmm, tender, I guess.

 

[simulatedworld]

well a sensor still has great capacity to retain information though. the difference is just that you will be learning existing ideas rather than going off in tangents and creating new ones from them...right? i mean you're going to apply your knowledge to things you know or have experienced...where i might be more prone to invent a different way of doing it...right?

Right, the key is that you're more prone to doing it that way...not that you never do it the tried-and-true way. It's just so ridiculous to me that anyone expects some kind of double blind study to prove MBTI; all you need is a basic understanding of the four variables and an ability to observe those preferences in others.

In reality, all MBTI is doing is creating a mental storehouse of behavioral data on others, making guesses at the motivations for it, and then using those guesses to attempt to predict future behaviors in those specific people. The better you know someone, the more accurately you can do this--MBTI types are just arbitrary labels used entirely for categorization purposes. They're starting points, nothing more, and they shouldn't be interpreted rigidly.

 

[Qre:us]

Great, link me to a long wiki article and hope I don't bother reading it, then claim I'm ignorant/defeated when I don't respond.

Lame counter. Do BETTER! At least my Ne isn't faulty enough to glean a page and within seconds pick up at least one or two holes.

Are you a sensor posing as an intuit?

Just cuz I'm nice like that, here's a shorter recap to the two main types of generalizability:
External Validity

By now, I'm quite sure that you understood my point, despite any possible errors in technical terminology. Apologies for my lack of background in statistics, but all of my conceptual points have been solid. If what I've been explaining is not actually called a "generalization" in stat lingo, then congrats, you got me on that minor point.

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.

But, anyone who understands that word in common usage will understand exactly why I used it and exactly what I meant. It's cute that you're flaunting your statistics knowledge (or, at least, your ability to link to wiki articles containing statistics knowledge), but you're arguing such a tiny point of semantics that I don't even care anymore.

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.

And you wonder why anti-S bias abounds. Concepts, not memorized terms, my friend.

You got me. That darn S dominant predisposition of mine rears its ugly head. Sigh. You're so good at these 'generalizations', I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

 

[Quinlan]

well a sensor still has great capacity to retain information though. the difference is just that you will be learning existing ideas rather than going off in tangents and creating new ones from them...right? i mean you're going to apply your knowledge to things you know or have experienced...where i might be more prone to invent a different way of doing it...right?

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.

 

[ajblaise]

So we all agree there is a bias against sensors here, especially SJs. But I'll say that the sensors on this forum get treated very well and are usually well liked, at least it seems that way. Maybe it would be a different story if there were more of them here.

 

[zarc]

If the questions are biased toward N, why do 70-75% of people still test as xSxx?

Cuz I haven't slept in two days and I'm now lazy. I wrote this earlier:

There's no validating information about type division anyway, just estimates at best.

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.

 

[Tigerlily]

Holy balls, man!!!

:horor:

I can't disagree with any of your points, here, but the way in which you go about delivering them is definitely cocky and flat-out mean.

Getting in an argument with you would probably lead me to .

You can still assert your points while being a bit more, hmm, tender, I guess.

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. they're also usually good debaters.