Sensors in MBTI

[Hiraeth]

I have been interested in understanding myself and other people for a long time, ever since I was really little when I looked into things like astrology and palm reading. I first came across MBTI first in high school and tested, from what I can remember, as an ISFP. I took a test again in college and came out as borderline ISFP and INFP, and then took many tests online and always came out as an INFP. I started researching online and then ended up joining this forum in hopes of learning more about MBTI and other typology systems. I had first believed I was an INFP, since I can relate to many of the descriptive details about the type, but later changed to ISFP after understanding the cognitive functions better.

 

[five sounds]

You're a sensor? Which one? ISFP??? .-.

Phobie is some kinda st.

 

[Yama]

And in response to the OP, it's absolutely true that the average S in the MBTI test won't be as interested in personality.
But when it comes to reasonable interpretations of functions theory, not so anymore

S/N does not dictate interests. Just cognition.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if half of the internet intuitives are mistyped sensors anyway.

 

[Showbread]

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if half of the internet intuitives are mistyped sensors anyway.

ACCURATE.

 

[Agent Washington]

I'm just pretending imma sensor but actually imma intuitive

...is that a vagina dentata cupcake

 

[GavinElster]

S/N does not dictate interests. Just cognition.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if half of the internet intuitives are mistyped sensors anyway.

First, in the post you quoted, you find *TWO* different things: the MBTI test and functions theory, which are a priori not the same. Statements you make about cognition refer to the latter, not to the former. The former is actually just a statistically based instrument, and so it is only appropriate to ask of what correlates with it, not really what it "is" and "isn't" -- and resoundingly stats on the MBTI test will involve correlates with interests, as WELL as cognition.

Second, there is a sense in which I'd agree that S/N does not *dictate* interests even in the statistically based instrument. That sense is, once again, that such an instrument dictates nothing whatsoever, but it does have correlates. Functions at least have some sort of philosophical definition, hence it is more appropriate to talk of what they definitively are and are not.
We can of course debate how vague or specific the definition is, but at least there's a scope for the kind of answer you seem to seek.

This isn't the conventional wisdom, but it is the more nuanced point of view. Your point of view arises if we accept the doctrine that the MBTI is an indicator to functions types, and not an independent instrument. That, to me, is more or less an inadmissible point of view, given I think the way the MBTI was constructed seems to expressly move away from Jungian functions theory and aim to enter the realm of standardized psychometric methods, and the kind of information those methods can provide is quite different from the kind a functions theory would purport to.

 

[GavinElster]

The shorter version of my point is that S just doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. It's getting at the same overall idea, but it's not precisely the same in different contexts. We can certainly endeavor to extract the version of the idea which best synthesizes all the different points of view on S, but a priori, we have the MBTI test, we have socionics S, we have Jung's S, we have Dario Nardi's/Linda Berens' version of S (more adapted to the MBTI's associated functions theory model), and so on.

The idea that people who take the test and genuinely score N are often S's is simply wrong if we mean they scored N because they don't know themselves; that forgets that the test just isn't the same as functions theory. If we mean they scored N but yet are not Ns in the best functions theory perspective, that is separate, and perfectly possible.

 

[GavinElster]

I've encountered a reasonable number of people scoring N every time on MBTI (eg ENTP) but who identify as SLE on socionics. They aren't wrong. N on the test correlates strongly with Openness in the Big 5 (in fact, the test seems to be better correlated with the Big 5 than with Jung's typology in various ways), and this correlation means that someone could, theoretically, be extremely open to sensations and have a vivid relation with them. Someone who is unconventional, curious, open to novel sensations and in frequent quest of them, reflective, etc, can be a great SLE, but might not be the less unconventional, more pragmatic figure captured by the test's S type.

Actually, a part of me thinks that being low on Openness would correspond partly to not having any function strongly differentiated. Being conventional corresponds to being driven more by the collective, which precisely means the ego is less differentiated from the unconscious. It's easier to be carried by generic complexes in such a circumstance.

 

[VicDaMan]

Lol just wanted to add with so many mistypes I begin to think I might be a sensor as well, but I'm pretty sure I'm an Intj because of Ni, My tunnel vision is so so so so incredibly bad, it feels like after I make a decision or plan my walk to do something I don't see anything to my sides. Btw I got into mbti when i was around 11 or 12 because I was trying to find the secret of my innate nature, I didn't know what my type was so I decided I would act as all 16 and decide which one I was after acting. My experiment ended last year and I settled that I was an INTJ because I would use Ni and Te to conduct my experiments and basically do everything else in my life like that.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Lol just wanted to add with so many mistypes I begin to think I might be a sensor as well, but I'm pretty sure I'm an Intj because of Ni, My tunnel vision is so so so so incredibly bad, it feels like after I make a decision or plan my walk to do something I don't see anything to my sides. Btw I got into mbti when i was around 11 or 12 because I was trying to find the secret of my innate nature, I didn't know what my type was so I decided I would act as all 16 and decide which one I was after acting. My experiment ended last year and I settled that I was an INTJ because I would use Ni and Te to conduct my experiments and basically do everything else in my life like that.

You brought up a good point though, it is really hard to tell between Si and Ni people sometimes. I confuse them all the time. But honestly I am not sure, Si's look like they have tunnel vision to me sometimes(partly why I can't tell lol). But to this day I do not know if they just look like they do, or if they actually do(at least to some extent).

 

[VicDaMan]

Hmm that is good but I feel like the Si's tunnel vision is more invested in routine and it's usually alot more phsyical, I've considered that I was an Istj multiple times, but I don't really use Si much. My memory recall for specific facts is terrible, and you're right about Si and Ni falling into pretty bad tunnel vison. From what I've seen Istj's and Intj's are the most prone to tunnel visioning.

 

[Korvinagor]

Hmm that is good but I feel like the Si's tunnel vision is more invested in routine and it's usually alot more phsyical, I've considered that I was an Istj multiple times, but I don't really use Si much. My memory recall for specific facts is terrible, and you're right about Si and Ni falling into pretty bad tunnel vison. From what I've seen Istj's and Intj's are the most prone to tunnel visioning.

Is that so...? I've heard that the introverted functions by their very nature are detached from the physical world. Hence why they're difficult to identify.

 

[Carpe Vinum]

Well one of the best things about this forum is seeing stereotypes broken all the time. We have Sensors who love esoteric subjects, and Intuitives who are into bodybuilding. It's great.

Sometimes 'taste' just has nothing to do with function. And sometimes it just depends on the maturity of our functions.

 

[Agent Washington]

You brought up a good point though, it is really hard to tell between Si and Ni people sometimes. I confuse them all the time. But honestly I am not sure, Si's look like they have tunnel vision to me sometimes(partly why I can't tell lol). But to this day I do not know if they just look like they do, or if they actually do(at least to some extent).

Ni tunnel vision is the ... most interesting to observe, because it's abstract 'clarity' that's usually out of touch with reality. Si tunnel visioning is just series of flashbacks upon series of flashbacks, like looking into an endless set of mirrors. Both are subjective, of course, and depend on the tert function.

Introverted judging functions provide for some interesting feedback loops as well. What I'd love to see more of is INTPs describing their loop, because there's still a possibility that I'm INTP and their type descriptions still fit me best.
[MENTION=31637]Korvinagor[/MENTION] is right; introverted functions aren't easily seen because they're just not extraverted. Especially perceiving ones. That's why it's so hard to tell.

 

[Yama]

You brought up a good point though, it is really hard to tell between Si and Ni people sometimes. I confuse them all the time. But honestly I am not sure, Si's look like they have tunnel vision to me sometimes(partly why I can't tell lol). But to this day I do not know if they just look like they do, or if they actually do(at least to some extent).

Hmm that is good but I feel like the Si's tunnel vision is more invested in routine and it's usually alot more phsyical, I've considered that I was an Istj multiple times, but I don't really use Si much. My memory recall for specific facts is terrible, and you're right about Si and Ni falling into pretty bad tunnel vison. From what I've seen Istj's and Intj's are the most prone to tunnel visioning.

Ni and Si are both Pi and thus really similar. I'm sorry I'm on my phone right now so I can't give you the link, but I give a pretty good description of Si on the first page of my ask on ISFJ thread in the SJ subforum

 

[BlackCat]

I got into MBTI by sheer chance. Was bored when I was 14 in 2004 and had my first computer, I used a browser extension called Stumbleupon and some of my interests were "psychology" and "personality". Before I knew it I stumbled onto the MBTI test, as well as other personality type tests, and I was hooked.

I was mistyped as INFP at first, but I was pretty depressed back in those days. And also there was a ton of misinformation spread about Sensing types, and a general air of Intuitive bias before more people got into it. Kiersey is to blame for this I think, his SP descriptions are pretty terrible at explaining why they think the way they think. It's rather observations of behavior, which is very different from how people think.

I made the switch to ISFP in 2009. I started to realize in 2013 when I became less depressive that I actually was an Extrovert, but the signs were always there that I was SeFi when I go back and read my old posts. Socionics pretty much confirmed my type for me. And now I'm here today.

 

[BlackCat]

I think it's a huge misconception that sensing types aren't as introspective as intuitive types. It's simply a different focus on the world, a focus on different things in the world from intuitive types. That's about it. I think self reflection and interest in why things are the way for you isn't relevant to type, but more of a personal interest. That also applies to an interest in why other people do the things that they do, and think so differently.

 

[GavinElster]

See, the thing is, ES types *ARE* in general less introspective than IN types by all indicators, if we are going by what the MBTI test measures. We can use alternate theories like Jung's or socionics, but as long as we're going by something that's based on statistical correlates, and is measuring a version of the Big 5 scales, the simple fact is IN does correlate with introspective tendencies. The first and fifth factors of the Big 5 are what correspond to MBTI's I/E and S/N. And it's most certainly true that the Big 5 bears this empirical correlate out.

Yes, one can formulate a theory where IN does NOT mean that any longer, but one has to be clear it is now a new theory. Yes, one might think this new theory is more interesting than the Big 5, and I might agree with that.

This could easily mean that someone who scores N all the time on the test types as a sensor because they read Jung or whatever. That's entirely fine, but we have to acknowledge why it is they score N, and to say the best explanation is that they're delusional is missing something huge about how different these theories are precisely formulated.

I'm one of the most introspective people out there, but I'm not typing based on the MBTI scales, obviously based on some interpretation of functions theory.

 

[BlackCat]

For me, Se is the primary mode of seeing the world, and Fi interprets what happens in the world if necessary. There is a degree of introspection, but it's usually about things actually happening. Fi is introspective regardless, but maybe not to the degree that occurs with INXX types. It took a while for my Fi to fully mature into actually introspect beyond the "why" of the situation. Introspection is more of an introvert thing than intuitive thing IMO.

 

[GavinElster]

Introspection is more of an introvert thing than intuitive thing

Well what I'm saying is INXX has two meanings! One is the test's contents, the other is more cognitive functions theory oriented. I think most people with deep knowledge of both realize they're not really the same.

Going by the former, you MIGHT BE an INXX! To realize that's not incompatible with the latter, you simply have to realize the test IS measuring traits, interests, etc, whereas functions try to be more cognition-oriented.

There are actually many definitions of "introversion." Jung's definition certainly is far from what the first factor of the Big 5 (which is the established definition in more modern circles) is measuring.

I think if we're going by the Big 5 story, it's more characteristic by the official data released of Openness than Introversion. Openness is the analogue of the test's N construct.