Why should it be that there are more Sensing types than Intuitives?

[Cellmold]

I think most people would agree the world is full of people who can loosely be called 'idiots' ironically an idiot might be the one saying this.

The point of mentioning this is that there is always a larger population of idiots than those who can be considered intelligent. Many type statistics, (snort), are adamant that the largest percentage of the population is made up of sensing types. This, (combined with biased online descriptions which is where a lot of people find out about and get into the theory with), means that while some consideration is given towards the difficulty in defining different potential types of intelligence and that sensing types clearly do have intelligent people within their ranks, for the most part if a person heavily into MBTI encountered a moron they will often assume, perhaps even without knowing they have already decided, that this person is most likely a sensor.

However I would like to put forth a different perspective based on the information we are given by type and function descriptions. Firstly most of the people I have known who are stupid tend to take one piece of information and build an entire framework around it, in other words they jump to the general overall view without considering the details along the way. Many times I have met people who almost refuse to check their facts and confirm that what they believe is backed up by evidence. Truely no one is innocent of this pitfall of course, especially myself, but there are different degrees to which a person engages in this.

In any case, to me this sounds like intuition, not sensing. Sensing is factually based, the facts as the senses tell us building up brick by brick to an overall. But I have heard the argument that what I described above could be called an example of inferior or at least weaker intuition in an unhealthy individual.

There is an issue with this line of reasoning however, which exposes the flimsy basis for MBTI in general, for example it is easy for me to flip that around and point out that it could be a sign of inferior sensing since the person is excusing factual evidence in front of them to make an intuitive leap.

Now I understand the tricky problem here, I am not giving people much to go off in terms of context or prior knowledge, this is after all on my premise. However the main point I'm trying to raise is that the argument I presented above is essentially the mirror image of how the theory is often understood by it's general followers and to me this exposes the lack of clear understanding and evidence to confirm MBTI and it's assumptions.

What if Sensing were glorified in a similar way to Intuition? Many seem to assume that the glorification comes from evidence that suggests the benefit of intuition, but the reality is more akin to a self fulfilling prophecy. However I'm getting sidetracked by S vs N which is not mean to be my point here.

I don't really care about notions of intelligence or the superiority of any type or dichotomy. What I do care about is why do we believe what we believe in terms of this theory?

I think it is worth challenging the general perspective to see what might arise from that inspection. Can anyone provide a decent argument as to why any typing cannot just be reversed using the same reasoning?

 

[/DG/]

You make a great argument, and I'm really interested in the responses from others. However, I have one question.

Why do you think it is then that in mass surveys of people, the majority appear to be sensors?

Also, I'd just like to comment that most people I know that actually know what MBTI is claim to be N's. It is often hypothesized that intuitors are simply more interested in MBTI than sensors, but I don't buy this 100%. What drew me to MBTI was it's interesting system. Anyone, S or N, can be interested in that sort of thing. So then, if both sensors and intuitors can equally be interested in MBTI, why is it that so many claim to be N's? Even though this is nothing but anecdotal evidence and hypothesis, it still strikes me as strange that there are supposedly many more sensors in this world, but the majority of people that actually know about MBTI are intuitors.

 

[tanstaafl28]

And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.

 

[Cellmold]

You make a great argument, and I'm really interested in the responses from others. However, I have one question.

Why do you think it is then that in mass surveys of people, the majority appear to be sensors?

Also, I'd just like to comment that most people I know that actually know what MBTI is claim to be N's. It is often hypothesized that intuitors are simply more interested in MBTI than sensors, but I don't buy this 100%. What drew me to MBTI was it's interesting system. Anyone, S or N, can be interested in that sort of thing. So then, if both sensors and intuitors can equally be interested in MBTI, why is it that so many claim to be N's? Even though this is nothing but anecdotal evidence and hypothesis, it still strikes me as strange that there are supposedly many more sensors in this world, but the majority of people that actually know about MBTI are intuitors.

You raise some interesting points. The question about mass survey's is one I had considered and certainly a bit of a blindspot in my point, I thought perhaps maybe I would have to look at each individual survey to get any real clarity.

But it could be part of the same bias I mentioned. However for me to say that with assurity would make me a hypocrite, committing the same twisting of information to suit my means that I had just criticised earlier. My view is that the population is more balanced than usually shown, for example there are definitely sensorific gluttons out there who abuse their senses to the extreme.

But there are also a lot of people who believe in magical ideas and assumptions, with little basis in evidence, instead a reliance on hunches. The amount of times I have, (anecdotal I know), come across the arguing couple who each throw unfounded accusations at each other from across a street. Of course people might raise the point of F vs T, but why should F and T be so much different when filtered with S or N? Surely N with T or F would have similar pitfalls to those of S with T or F.

The difference in perception would change some views and styles of cognition, but F siding with emotional validity and T siding with logical validity..would that change?

MBTI certainly is a system of merit and interest, but the way it is employed is so often disappointing.

And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.

Of course I'm aware of that, in fact it's pretty much a given, but I was never asking what causes this, I was trying to get people to understand a point and a different perspective.

It was more about the 'Why should this be accepted as such?' rather than the "This is how it happens'.

 

[iNtrovert]

I know this is long but it's just my opinion

The first thing that comes to mind is novelty. Operating off of the premise that the world is largely comprised of sensors there is a sense of novelty that goes along with using intuition. Picture an alternate universe where some humans have the ability to fly while most walk. Those that can fly will be revered in some sense because they can do something out of the ordinary. Now picture another universe where those that can fly can't walk. The people with wings might be looked at as mutated and sub human because they can't do something that majority of the population can do.

I think human nature to revere or ostracize people that are outside of the norm has a lot to do with the way we view intuitive people. So take an intuitive person who is intelligent and they will be thought of intelligent because they are intuitive. They demonstrate intelligence in a novel sense that is not expressed in the majority of the population. Now look at an intuitive who is unintelligent and they will be stupid because they are intuitive. They have their head in the clouds and miss things that are readily apparent to most people. I feel as though sensors making up the majority of the population acts and the norm or the median. Initiatives will most likely fall on one end of the spectrum or the other. Either novel and intelligent or eccentric and intellectually impaired. Therefore there may be some really intelligent intuitive people. That is not to say that sensors can't be their equals but they probably wouldn't be looked at through the same lens of novelty that the intuitive person would be. Some sensors may be chronically stupid. However, an intuitive person with the same affliction might be viewed as even more so because their preference intuition over the sensing majority.

Just to clarify I don't think all initiatives are either especially stupid or exceptionally intelligent. Some may be of average intelligence as well. I just feel that w.e their specialty is they tend to find an “abnormal” way to do it which might give the illusion of intelligence when it is actually merely adjustment to the world around them.

Now getting to your point regarding the theory being flipped. I think the problem lies in personal perception. I believe we all use the functions to some extent so it's more beneficial to look at the process. Going back to your example of inferior intuition and inferior sensing stupidity. If the person failed to see the information right in front of them because they were so busy intuiting things that weren't even there then that is intuition with a failure of sensation. If the person was so busy being overly literal that they missed a connection then that is sensation with the failure of intuition. Both will result in an incorrect conclusion but the process is clearly different. On your end all you are seeing is the person being stupid. It might be hard for you to decipher what process the person is using from the outside looking in.

This joke comes to mind
A wife asked her husband, "Could you please go shopping for me and buy one carton of milk, and if they have eggs, get six?"A short time later the husband came home with six cartons of milk. His wife asked him, "Why did you buy six cartons of milk?"He replied, "They had eggs".

Intuitive husband could have gotten 6 cartons of milk because he made the connection of if they have milk get 6 "cartons of milk". He filled in the blank for her based off his own wrong assumption.

Sensing husband could have come back with 6 cartons of milk because she did not explicitly say "get six eggs". He was being too literal and wasn't able to make the jump that she wanted 6 eggs.

They both came back with 6 cartons of milk but the process they used to come to the incorrect concision was different. At first glance you might say this is a sensor being to literal but it really could be intuition leading someone astray. The only way to know would be to unearth their cognitive process and that's what MBTI attempts to do.

If I understand you correctly, your question is how do we know the converse doesn't apply?(Intuitive husband got 6 cartons of milk because he has a failure of sensation and took things too literally and the Sensor husband had failure of intuition and made the jump prematurely.)

I consider myself to be intuitive and I didn't even get this joke the first time I read it. My initial thought was they had eggs so why didn't you get 6? So I read it again and had a good laugh. It was just so unbelievably literal I missed it. I think intuitive people would have automatically made that jump. In this case to get it wrong they would have to second guess their gut and became very literal

Sensors might not make the jump right away but I do feel they would be more inclined to ask for more information when they weren't sure. They might think “ok this is what she said but I don't think that's what she means.” They'd probably just come right out and ask "so you want six eggs?" looking for more details and clarification if they didn't understand. To come to the wrong conclusion here they might trust their undeveloped intuition and chose not ask for more details to round out their initial literal conclusion.

Your dom functions are the ones you chose because they yield the most desirable results for you and have adopted them as your primary mode of thinking. So I’m inclined to believe that coming to the wrong conclusion or being stupid would be due to how often you fall pray to the blind spot of your preferred functions as well as improper use of your inferior (or possibly shadow?). This happens regardless of preference for sensation or intuition.

 

[miss fortune]

I've always seen the "I'm an extra special intuitive while everyone else is stupid and dull sensors" phenomenon as similar to how constituents will consistently rate their congressperson as awesome but will rate congress as terrible... they're more familiar with their congressperson and therefore know what they're up to on a more intimate level than those other jerks. Similar to how we can see how we think and feel but can just make assumptions about others. How can we be sure about the complexities of the thinking of others... or feelings or whatever? We're not them

I also can't trust those surveys on type... first off just look at how inconsistent those who KNOW about type are in typing themselves... and we want to trust somebody assessing strangers who they don't really know on a personal basis? Furthermore, if asked after reading the descriptions (yay for biased descriptions! ) most people will type themselves as intuitive because who DOESN'T find their thoughts to be intuitive... they're assessing themselves for goodness sake!

Plus... I've never seen the methodology or raw data on any of these "surveys" and therefore they are an object of suspicion (and scorn... who feels the need not to print the most interesting part of research?!? )

Everybody uses sensing and everybody uses intuition... and everyone is quite capable of showing both intelligence and idiocy. For instance, this morning I managed to walk into work with my pants on inside out and I probably would have made it through the day that way if someone hadn't pointed it out to me... I know that I'm not an idiot, but that was pretty dumb It's just part of human nature... unfortunately, so is the tendency to think that we and ours are special and that others are less so... to find an us and a them, to put it in the most common terms. Ingroups and outgroups have always defined society and typology is just another means of doing that... I can hope that we'd learn, but I kind of doubt it

 

[garbage]

Well, the test statistics themselves reflect it.

But (a) these stats get interpreted as 'unwashed masses' vs. 'special snowflakes', which compounds the problem; and (b) the test isn't exactly valid, and so the kernel to the whole shebang is questionable.

 

[Mole]

And yet it would seem this whole thing could be explained through willful ignorance. If one are so invested in a given idea that they feel forced to reject any facts that might undermine it, then you're an idiot.

I'd go for 'invincible ignorance'.

 

[WALMART]

Any book on psychology/sociology/statistics will teach you that intuition is something to be greatly forewarned of.


How it grew to the status it holds in MBTI circles I have no clue, because Jung makes it pretty apparent that intuits are not more skilled with their intuition, they prefer their intuition.


I think back to the debate we held recently, "Evidence versus Logic".


I do think there are more sensors than intuits, perhaps. Can you guess why?

 

[wolfy]

I do think there are more sensors than intuits, perhaps. Can you guess why?

Because it is a more practical way of dealing with reality?
Because this isn't the Matrix?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I don't think N's are underrepresented at all. I think it's more even than people think.

 

[Cellmold]

I know this is long but it's just my opinion

The first thing that comes to mind is novelty. Operating off of the premise that the world is largely comprised of sensors there is a sense of novelty that goes along with using intuition. Picture an alternate universe where some humans have the ability to fly while most walk. Those that can fly will be revered in some sense because they can do something out of the ordinary. Now picture another universe where those that can fly can't walk. The people with wings might be looked at as mutated and sub human because they can't do something that majority of the population can do.

I think human nature to revere or ostracize people that are outside of the norm has a lot to do with the way we view intuitive people. So take an intuitive person who is intelligent and they will be thought of intelligent because they are intuitive. They demonstrate intelligence in a novel sense that is not expressed in the majority of the population. Now look at an intuitive who is unintelligent and they will be stupid because they are intuitive. They have their head in the clouds and miss things that are readily apparent to most people. I feel as though sensors making up the majority of the population acts and the norm or the median. Initiatives will most likely fall on one end of the spectrum or the other. Either novel and intelligent or eccentric and intellectually impaired. Therefore there may be some really intelligent intuitive people. That is not to say that sensors can't be their equals but they probably wouldn't be looked at through the same lens of novelty that the intuitive person would be. Some sensors may be chronically stupid. However, an intuitive person with the same affliction might be viewed as even more so because their preference intuition over the sensing majority.

I understand your point and your analogy. But you already stated that this is under the premise that sensors make up the majority of the population, however my point is operating on a premise counter to this assumption. I seek to challenge that viewpoint. Although as an explanation to the glorification of N over S you put that across well. But I was never confused or unaware as to why there might be a leaning towards perceiving N types as novel.

The point being that this does not answer my question. Novelty being informed by an abnormal quality of N still only works when you presume the premise of sensors making up the majority of the worlds population. You said that was what your initial paragraph was operating under, fair enough, so why tell me then? I don't need to be told that human beings either celebrate or vilify difference in those around them. What I don't understand is why being different should necessarily indicate intuition? And from this glean why anyone would see sensing types as the majority.

Genius for example is usually operating on a level that the average cannot reach or even see. Why would genius lean towards either one side or the other? Abstraction for example is the notion of removing the literal and leaving, more or less, the general principal. If we see a leather sphere most will identify it as a ball, because the literal reality of that being a leather sphere is less important to the notion of understanding what it represents in function. All human beings do this all the time, often without being aware of it. A double yellow line outside a business complex is not just paint on tarmac, it is a warning against parking too long in that area.

Because of this all human beings are abstract, not just a certain sub-set of the population. We can of course discuss degrees. I do agree with the idea of Intuitives being more abstract than Sensors. However abstraction has to be applied and refined like any other understanding. So a sensor with genius level intellect could easily be more abstract in his/her conceptions than a dull Intuitive because he is able to make connections with a more efficient brain.

Your dom functions are the ones you chose because they yield the most desirable results for you and have adopted them as your primary mode of thinking. So I’m inclined to believe that coming to the wrong conclusion or being stupid would be due to how often you fall pray to the blind spot of your preferred functions as well as improper use of your inferior (or possibly shadow?). This happens regardless of preference for sensation or intuition.

In terms of the bolded, we are creatures adaptive to our environment, of course as we have progressed we have become more adept at adapting our environment to ourselves. But our environment still informs us, if we did indeed choose the functions that yield the most beneficial results, why do sensing parents end up with intuitive children and vice versa? Why are people often so inherently different despite living in the same conditions?

We don't even need MBTI to understand and observe this difference, in fact it was observance of this very point that led Jung to write Psychological Types. After all if it was about those functions that had the most beneficial effect and results, then this would be heavily dependent on environment.

Once you mull that over for some time, it becomes very convoluted as to what is informing what. So a child is intuitive but his/her parents are sensing, were the parents from a heavily sensory environment? What if they had lived in the same place all their lives? Why would the intuitive child choose a function set that runs counter to the environment around him/her?

That's hardly biologically efficient and when we are concerning environment, it is all about efficiency and survival. If anything this better presents my own view because if there are a great number of people running counter to their environment, (both sensing and intuitive types), then it explains, from one angle, why there are so many unhealthy and unhappy people in life.

Of course there are also the innumerable other issues that contribute to such a state as well, but this isn't a discussion about those.

 

[WALMART]

Because it is a more practical way of dealing with reality?
Because this isn't the Matrix?

That sounds fair enough.

Some days I can't tell intuitors from sensors in my mind. Some days the contrast is stark as night and day. Others it seems the same way, though in direct contradiction to previously held beliefs.

I really don't think I'm suited for this type of thought.

 

[lunalum]

Just because we see people using intuition all the time doesn't mean they're all intuitive types. On the contrary, intuition that is more repressed can be more volatile and more seen. And bad intuition isn't a symptom of inferior sensation.....

But I don't quite buy that there is some sort of grand design to have sensors outnumber intuitives to balance out the universe, maybe they are something more like 50/50, though I must admit that the Si type appears to be much more frequent than the Ni type.

 

[Cellmold]

Just because we see people using intuition all the time doesn't mean they're all intuitive types. On the contrary, intuition that is more repressed can be more volatile and more seen. And bad intuition isn't a symptom of inferior sensation.....

I don't understand this post, you are making counter points to points I haven't actually made. I've never thought that signs of intuition only come from intuitive types and how can you judge what is bad intuition? My point was that there is no reason not to think that there are more intuitives than generally assumed and that the structure of the theory can easily be twisted to explain any angle you want.

I also never said that bad intution is a symptom of inferior sensation, in fact in my example I never said it was bad at all.

I did however claim they were not very intelligent individuals, however that is quantified.

 

[Riva]

Survival of the fittest assholes! Do you think the human race would have survived for this long if the majority of humans were .... inxps? Could you imagine that? Lets just thank chromosomes for not being able to record cog-functions because if it did some of us wouldn't exist.

 

[lunalum]

I don't understand this post, you are making counter points to points I haven't actually made. I've never thought that signs of intuition only come from intuitive types and how can you judge what is bad intuition? My point was that there is no reason not to think that there are more intuitives than generally assumed and that the structure of the theory can easily be twisted to explain any angle you want.

I was responding to your claim that the theory could be twisted to explain any angle, and as much as this is true, my claim is that there's only so far you can twist it.... I wasn't necessarily responding to you directly. I have to admit though, the line at which to draw something as a "bad" intuition (and no, I can't define it either) is a tricky and controversial one.

Sure, there's no reason not to think there are not more intuitives than the usual claimed 25%, but the question remains of whether one would think that there are more.

 

[skylights]

I think Si-heavy people are pretty common, followed by Ne and Se, questionable as to which is more common, and lastly Ni.

I think most of it is special snowflake syndrome. N ain't special, but for some reason people seem to think it is.

 

[Lark]

I think most people would agree the world is full of people who can loosely be called 'idiots' ironically an idiot might be the one saying this.

The point of mentioning this is that there is always a larger population of idiots than those who can be considered intelligent. Many type statistics, (snort), are adamant that the largest percentage of the population is made up of sensing types. This, (combined with biased online descriptions which is where a lot of people find out about and get into the theory with), means that while some consideration is given towards the difficulty in defining different potential types of intelligence and that sensing types clearly do have intelligent people within their ranks, for the most part if a person heavily into MBTI encountered a moron they will often assume, perhaps even without knowing they have already decided, that this person is most likely a sensor.

However I would like to put forth a different perspective based on the information we are given by type and function descriptions. Firstly most of the people I have known who are stupid tend to take one piece of information and build an entire framework around it, in other words they jump to the general overall view without considering the details along the way. Many times I have met people who almost refuse to check their facts and confirm that what they believe is backed up by evidence. Truely no one is innocent of this pitfall of course, especially myself, but there are different degrees to which a person engages in this.

In any case, to me this sounds like intuition, not sensing. Sensing is factually based, the facts as the senses tell us building up brick by brick to an overall. But I have heard the argument that what I described above could be called an example of inferior or at least weaker intuition in an unhealthy individual.

There is an issue with this line of reasoning however, which exposes the flimsy basis for MBTI in general, for example it is easy for me to flip that around and point out that it could be a sign of inferior sensing since the person is excusing factual evidence in front of them to make an intuitive leap.

Now I understand the tricky problem here, I am not giving people much to go off in terms of context or prior knowledge, this is after all on my premise. However the main point I'm trying to raise is that the argument I presented above is essentially the mirror image of how the theory is often understood by it's general followers and to me this exposes the lack of clear understanding and evidence to confirm MBTI and it's assumptions.

What if Sensing were glorified in a similar way to Intuition? Many seem to assume that the glorification comes from evidence that suggests the benefit of intuition, but the reality is more akin to a self fulfilling prophecy. However I'm getting sidetracked by S vs N which is not mean to be my point here.

I don't really care about notions of intelligence or the superiority of any type or dichotomy. What I do care about is why do we believe what we believe in terms of this theory?

I think it is worth challenging the general perspective to see what might arise from that inspection. Can anyone provide a decent argument as to why any typing cannot just be reversed using the same reasoning?

Jung actually did glorify sensing and thought it was superior to intuition, which he thought was widespread and typical whereas sensing was rare.

Authors like Conan Doyle in their characterisations of characters like Sherlock Holmes have reflected this too. Watson and all the other characters are intuitives and reach conclusions which dont correspond to the facts and deductions based upon the facts all the time.

While I think sensors and intuitors can both be unreflective, there's a lot of unreflective and descriptive or superficial understandings of MBTI too, they're likely to be unreflective about the same things, that's what makes people idiots, being blind to their own faults, being narcissistic and unable to accurately assess themselves or others, the whole Dunning-Krueger thing, in a word thoughtless, not MBTI typology.