Members by self reported type

[proteanmix]

I think S types are badly misrepresented as dull and unimaginative on many MBTI descriptions, and that even here people fail to see that N and S are not signs of intelligence or aptitude or even of imagination

No way! How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[developer]

Just came back from a meeting and saw what controversy I have started. So, out of bad conscience, I just googled ISFJ, went to the first link (Typelogic, why are they always the first?) and copied the second paragraph for all of you:

ISFJs are often unappreciated, at work, home, and play. Ironically, because they prove over and over that they can be relied on for their loyalty and unstinting, high-quality work, those around them often take them for granted--even take advantage of them. Admittedly, the problem is sometimes aggravated by the ISFJs themselves; for instance, they are notoriously bad at delegating ("If you want it done right, do it yourself"). And although they're hurt by being treated like doormats, they are often unwilling to toot their own horns about their accomplishments because they feel that although they deserve more credit than they're getting, it's somehow wrong to want any sort of reward for doing work (which is supposed to be a virtue in itself). (And as low-profile Is, their actions don't call attention to themselves as with charismatic Es.) Because of all of this, ISFJs are often overworked, and as a result may suffer from psychosomatic illnesses.

Well, in the divison I run I have a department head who is ISFJ (professionally tested). She leads her large team with grace and authority, has an excellent sense for details while at the same time never missing the big picture. She is kind and diplomatic, but nobody of her people would dare to challenge her on an order. So, yes she is an ISFJ, but neither the randomly chosen Typelogic profile nor any other profile gets anywhere close to what she is like. I have another department head who is ISTJ, and it is the same story. Another one ESTJ, one of the finest and smartest people I know, everybody is in awe of her. I could go on, but you get the point.

This is not about whining in one direction or the other (I really could not care less), I just think ist is a fact, that most S - type descriptions are not valid for anybody with an IQ above 90.

Now flame me, if you please......

 

[ptgatsby]

This is not about whining in one direction or the other (I really could not care less), I just think ist is a fact, that most S - type descriptions are not valid for anybody with an IQ above 90.

 

[ygolo]

I have some thoughts on why the S descriptions are not that accurate.

This is just idle theorizing (i.e. I haven't looked for evidence) on my part, but...

1. Most of the theory was developed by Ns. I think Jung, Myers, and Briggs were all Ns (all INs, possibly all INFs). It is not much of a leap to think that a theory developed by Ns would not describe Ss that well. I think it also does less of a job on Ts also. Probably E's too, but I am not in a position to tell. I don't think the official descriptions are more or less flattering. But apparently they are not accurate.
2. The theory was developed to help misfits feel less like a misfit. If you look at the choice to not include Neuroticism or ("clinical") information is some (weak) evidence that this was part of the motivation. Perhaps "misfit" S's will find their descriptions more accurate? Just guessing. A lot of the N's on this site (self-included) are long time, "misfits".

Then again, as pt has pointed out several times, perhaps they just need to come up with an intelligence neutral test (and description set).

 

[Athenian200]

This is not about whining in one direction or the other (I really could not care less), I just think ist is a fact, that most S - type descriptions are not valid for anybody with an IQ above 90.

I think you're just biased because you view the things described as typical Sensor activities as unworthy of attention, or superfluous. S's would be proud of those qualities. It's only from an Intuitive perspective that those things are menial and boring. If anyone dislikes those sort of activities, doesn't care about tradition, isn't very practical, likes abstract fields, etc, then they are N's. It's as simple as that.

Now flame me, if you please......

Consider it done.

 

[Lookin4theBestNU]

Consider it done.

Ummmmmm was that your flame? It seemed a bit more like a firecracker or something. If so, please feel free to "flame me" at anytime.

 

[Wolf]

What about us HPLS people?

 

[ygolo]

I think you're just biased because you view the things described as typical Sensor activities as unworthy of attention, or superfluous. S's would be proud of those qualities. It's only from an Intuitive perspective that those things are menial and boring. If anyone dislikes those sort of activities, doesn't care about tradition, isn't very practical, likes abstract fields, etc, then they are N's. It's as simple as that.

I find the notion of being limited to a career field by "personality type" even more frightening than being limited by IQ. There is no substitute for reflection, exploration, and (if possible) apprentencship to learn what you like and what you are capable of.

I have no idea, whether the descriptions/career fields picked out by MBTI is flattering on unflattering (I read them at the same levelof flattery, roughly), but I consider the career-field stuff wrong on principle. Most fields need diversity (of background, opinion, and style) to stay a striving and vibrant field. I think any type can do any job, and I think every field needs every type.

Note: I don't own a copy of Do What You Are So I don't know what advice it (or any MBTI based source) gives in this regard (because I just dismissed that part off-hand).

Here is part of the Table of Contents of the Amazon Preview, however.

What do you think?

 

[meanlittlechimp]

I think that it reflects a much deeper problem within the MBTI community. Actually, one should expect a lot of ISTJs and ISFJs in a forum like this: MBTI is a very practical and useful tool, and it helps you to get along better with other people, so this should very much appeal to the values of SJs. I see a lot of ISTJs contributing to other online forums (e.g. special interest forums like TimeZone), so the medium should be okay for them as well. This forum here is very friendly and accepting, so the tone should not scare away anybody either.

I think the reason why this forum as well as all other MBTI forums gets so little traction with Sensors is that most of the S type descriptions are offensive for any intelligent person. If you are a calm and orginized person, according to MBTI you can be only a Scientist (INTJ), a Sage (INFJ), a Peacounter (ISTJ), or a Doormat (ISFJ) - sorry for the exaggeration. If you happen to be an N, those descriptions are very flattering (who would not like to be a deep mystic or a super bright mastermind), but if you clearly test on the S side, the options are not flattering at all.

I have a number of super bright ISTJs and ISFJs as friends and associates, and I know the descriptions are way off the mark. Most of you seem to realize that either. But as long as you see what you currently get when you google ISFJ or ISTJ, we will not see many Sensors here.

I agree completely. I think the S descriptions are done poorly by the overwhelming majority of the sources. I avoided telling many S friends to read the written description (and rather try to explain it to them)... because often one of these negative outcomes occur:

[A] they believe it thoroughly and feel dejected (they can't be as smart as Ns)

they mistype themselves and choose N (especially the ones with ivy league educations, high test scores, very accomplished etc)

[C] think the theory is bullshit


Furthermore, I think the majority N types types believe this. It helps confirm their own notions of intellectual superiority since more of their self esteem is involved in how "smart" they are.

I find many S types refreshing in the work place, because they are less likely to have intellectual ego (and occasionally this fact makes actually makes them more productive in solving a theoretical problem - not just sweeping floors).

I personally find dumb N's ten times worse then dumb S's - because the N's really believe they have all the answers (even when they're wrong) while looking down at you condescendingly, the entire time they're talking with you. I usually don't get that sense when an S type disagrees with me on a topic.

 

[meanlittlechimp]

It's only from an Intuitive perspective that those things are menial and boring. If anyone dislikes those sort of activities, doesn't care about tradition, isn't very practical, likes abstract fields, etc, then they are N's. It's as simple as that.

I disagree, many S types also find repetitive physical work boring and demeaning, the same way some N types might find accounting or finance boring. Many S types find tradition boring (namely Artisan types) and moreover - I find many NJs more tradition bound than SPs.

I guarantee you there are many S's in the "abstract" fields you're talking about. I think there are more S's in law, medicine, engineering and politics than N's. N's might be over-represented (considering their portion of the population); but I would bet anything there are more S's in absolute numbers in these "abstract" fields.

 

[niffer]

Note: I don't own a copy of Do What You Are So I don't know what advice it (or any MBTI based source) gives in this regard (because I just dismissed that part off-hand).

Here is part of the Table of Contents of the Amazon Preview, however.


[/QUOTE]

Don't read it. It's useless.

 

[developer]

I agree completely. I think the S descriptions are done poorly by the overwhelming majority of the sources. I avoided telling many S friends to read the written description (and rather try to explain it to them):

[A] they believe it thoroughly and feel dejected (they can't be as smart as Ns)

they mistype themselves and choose N (especially the ones with ivy league educations, high test scores, very accomplished etc)

[C] think the theory is bullshit


Furthermore, I think the majority N types types believe this. It helps confirm their own notions of intellectual superiority since more of their self esteem is involved in how "smart" they are.

I find many S types refreshing in the work place, because they are less likely to have intellectual ego (and occasionally this fact makes actually makes them more productive in solving a theoretical problem - not just sweeping floors).

Thank you for this post! It explains precisely what I wanted to say, just in a clearer and less complicated way than my own attempts. I also appreciate that some Ns on this forum disagree with my point of view. Still, I found it important to make my point because I believe we are missing out on a lot of intellectual diversity in the MBTI community if we do not find ways around this issue.

 

[Jae Rae]

Hello,

I agree there's a prejudice against S being seen as intelligent. The ENTP friend who turned me on to the MBTI originally thought my husband and I were both NTs. My husband is, I'm not. Although I get along well with NTPs and relate closely to the description of INFJ, I test reliably as an ISFJ. My friend often implied that SJs aren't as smart as NTs, and once even said my kids were smart because they had an NT parent (although I wouldn't rule out teasing as an objective).

I read a posting earlier this week in which an SJ was welcomed to the forum with the message "hope this isn't too analytical for you." This seems to sum
up the prejudice pretty well.

 

[Domino]

I'm sorry if you've been talked down to. My ISFJs are computer scientists and forensics personnel and deep sea divers. That to me flies in the face of "not as smart".

 

[Night]

Hello,

I read a posting earlier this week in which an SJ was welcomed to the forum with the message "hope this isn't too analytical for you." This seems to sum
up the prejudice pretty well.

That's nonsense.

I'm sorry that you must deal with (unfounded) prejudice.

It can be difficult for some to dismiss the suspicion that MBTI correlates with intelligence.

 

[alcea rosea]

I think Keirseys Temperament type theory is sometimes more useful than the 16-type theory. I also think the issue with S-N is not so much about intelligence, but of interest. Different temperament types are interested in different issues. It might be that N-types are more interested in intellectual debate but that really doesn't mean that people that are not interested in it are not intelligent!

I myself love to analyze myself and others people's personalities. I also love to discuss about deep life matters and feeling things and sometimes also mystical issues. I found out that I connect easiest with NF, NT and SP types when discussing the things I am very interested in. I have found out that SJ's are usually not interested in the topics I am. They are usually more interested in the real issues. As one ESTJ said to me "I do not like any nonsense, I'm realistic and like to talk about realistic issues." She thought all the things N-people like to speculate about were totally nonsense. She was not interested about so called intellectual debate. That does not mean that she was not intelligent in any way, it just meant that she was not interested. We had very nice discussions with her about our families, our dogs, even some personality issues but we never went into very "deep" in those conversations because she wanted to keep it that way and I respected it.

 

[digesthisickness]

Hello,

I agree there's a prejudice against S being seen as intelligent. The ENTP friend who turned me on to the MBTI originally thought my husband and I were both NTs. My husband is, I'm not. Although I get along well with NTPs and relate closely to the description of INFJ, I test reliably as an ISFJ. My friend often implied that SJs aren't as smart as NTs, and once even said my kids were smart because they had an NT parent (although I wouldn't rule out teasing as an objective).

I read a posting earlier this week in which an SJ was welcomed to the forum with the message "hope this isn't too analytical for you." This seems to sum
up the prejudice pretty well.

if your friend is that bad at typing and that close-minded, then the friend probably mistyped themselves.

it happens a lot.

 

[DeannaBelle]

I believe that the descirptions are fairly accurate, but they are written in language "N." The prototype for each personality draws on symbolism than the "S" may not see.

For example, someone mentioned that their ISTP med student friends did not feel they jived with the "Mechanic" label. But if you can see the mechanic as a metaphor, then the discription is right on! Mechanics seek to identify what's wrong and improve it.... Is that NOT what doctors do? Yes, many doctors are mechanics of the body.

My profile calls me a "Healer," I have no interest in the arts of medicine, but I can accept that title because I understand the metaphor.

About ISFJ's.... No, there's no social bias in the desription! They usually do "follow the rules" and behave well. If you think following the rules means following the rules for fifty years ago, then you have a problem. Today, our social rules are much more lenient, so ISFP's will behave accordingly. Unfortunately, the SJ type is highly subjective to the cultural norms. They do follow the currently established rules, accoring to their own cultures and time periods.

I do not follow the rules, I follow values. Therefore, I am sometimes more conservative in my choices than some ISFJs (because I do not set my values according to culture' ruling), but I am also more more unconventional in how I approach life.

I do believe that the discriptions of the "S" types sound rather boring... Perhaps because the "N" types are sometimes bored by them as people. I think better discriptions, in terms of the language an "S" would use, would be well to be underway.

Although we see the practial implications of personality typing, I have yet to meet an "S" who truly views this a valuable tool. Also, they do not care for speculations or theories.

 

[sui generis]

Don't read it. It's useless.

I had it recommended to me by a career counselor, and I liked parts of it. I liked the parts of it that were about figuring out my type, since they helped my type (especially the E and S parts of it) make more sense to me. The career stuff (pretty much the entire point of the book) kind of sucked. None of the expected careers for my type sound appealing to me.

Although we see the practial implications of personality typing, I have yet to meet an "S" who truly views this a valuable tool. Also, they do not care for speculations or theories.

:hi:
I agree that we don't care about speculations or theories, instead preferring real-world or tangible experience. Personally, though, I like personality typing BECAUSE it has real-world implications; there are types that I generally get along with, and types that I don't, and it explains (or at least attempts to explain) why people generally take on the roles that they do.

 

[biv017]

I read a posting earlier this week in which an SJ was welcomed to the forum with the message "hope this isn't too analytical for you." This seems to sum up the prejudice pretty well.

I am a 50/50 split between ISFJ and ISTJ - most tests lean me towards ISFJ though. Personally I'm very proud of the ISFJ side of my personality.

I find this quote amusing because I am contantly described by others as being very "analytical"... after all, ISFJ's do have their "rich, inner storehouse" of information about people, relationships, etc which is drawn on in everyday life. Its not that we can't be intellectual, but we would rather use our skills to build relationships than to pursue intellectualism itself.

Personally, though, I like personality typing BECAUSE it has real-world implications

I completely agree! There's a number of practical, real world applications.

As has been stated earlier, these tests should be more about preferences than ability. Too often the typecasting of SJ's relegates us to certain occupations just because we value order, stability and structure. There are actually a number of "alternative" careers that offer these values but are also intellectually rigorous. For example, one job I absolutely loved and thrived in was in the field of research/statistics - it satisfied my preferences for structure and predictability, but also involved working in a close and supportive team (satisfying F(e)). Yet you will never find this on any "typical" ISFJ career lists.

I guess it goes to show that there is more to a career than just your personality. Don't get me wrong, I have benefited greatly from learning about myself and the kind of work environment I am most comfortable in. But you also need to take it with a grain of salt and realise that other things like interests, skills and abilities come into play in determining which career is right for you.