[MBTI General] Anti-sensor bias

[Poki]

It sure is interesting how a bunch of self-typed intuitives are so bad at the abstract pattern recognition typology requires.

Or how many people look at a type like ISTP and judge them as an S as opposed to a T. In the process applying Dom S traits to an ISTP because...it just seems "intuitive"

 

[magpie]

The means to type yourself and others does not lie in tests or descriptions. You need to identify the pattern itself on the purest frequency without interference. Go past the tests and descriptions to the most objective measure - the pattern itself. Doing this is something both sensors and intuitives are capable of, as long as they're smart. Sensors with ego problems type themselves as intuitives. Smart sensors, on the other hand, are able to recognize the typological pattern and type themselves accurately. Intuitives with ego problems will also type themselves as intuitives, therefore blindly hitting the mark out of sheer dumb luck.

 

[Poki]

It doesn't help that type descriptions use "meaning" as if that actually "means" anything. This type will do XYZ...WRONG. This type means they follow this function more. Anyone with programming skills understands functions are nothing more then something that takes data in and creates data out. Lets take me and my GF. I am ISTP and she is ENFP. She is much more concerned about what can be, but sucks at application to what is. I am more concerned about what is, though I am not quite as interested to what can be. Because of this she does more research and I whittle it down to fit what is or vice-versa.

Our latest discussion. We went to a UBuildIt seminar. She at the end asked if we could upfront a couple thousand so we can lock it in and start seeing what it takes to build a house. I agree that its a good idea, but we have a house we are still working on and have to get it ready to rent in 3 months, as well as closing on another house that needs to be fixed up. While its a good thing for the future, we are no where near ready to tie up several thousand to start a process we cant even come close to doing anything with other then coming up with possibilities that will change umpteen million times before we are ready to start in 3-4 years. Not to mention she is starting nursing school as well in a couple months.

 

[Eric B]

The lack of rigor and the fact that the same people get different types when they take the test a second time.

That's from people's own lack of "clarity of preference". This changes as they become aware more of their preference, as reflected by what they answer on the questionnaire. The test is not designed as something that says "This score says what you are"; it's just a guide telling you what your own self-knowledge is pointing towards at the time you take it.

 

[magpie]

That's from people's own lack of "clarity of preference". This changes as they become aware more of their preference, as reflected by what they answer on the questionnaire. The test is not designed as something that says "This score says what you are"; it's just a guide telling you what your own self-knowledge is pointing towards at the time you take it.

What about sensors who are imaginative, intelligent, and interested in possibilities? They pick those options on the typology tests and come out intuitive. The issue in that case isn't with knowing thyself. The issue lies in black and white descriptions and typing methods.

 

[Agent Washington]

The only tests that actually seem to 'correct' sensor bias are the ones that attempt to score by functions, I believe. Even so, it's really more of a "clear preferences" thing, and there's a lot of definitions that really need to be fine-tuned - since modern psychology has essentially gone through such tremendous change and yet here we are, using definitions that fundamentally seem out of date.

 

[reckful]

I'm an S who's come out as N on every MBTI, cognitive function, and socionics test I've ever taken.
...
Ingenious has more positive connotations than practical. Fascinating is more of a compliment than sensible.
...
You can only claim forum participation is skewed toward Ns because you're rejecting the existence of anti-sensor test and description bias. In reality, typology forums aren't actually skewed toward N. There are just tons of mistyped sensors viewing themselves as intuitives for the very reasons the OP stated.

You acknowledge that you've "come out as N on every MBTI, cognitive function, and socionics test [you've] ever taken."

Every one you have ever taken.

Probably needless to say, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that that's because you're an N who has mistyped yourself as an S, that kind of throws the rest of your post in a different light, right?

In any case, opinions are opinions and facts are facts, and as a factual matter, "ingenious" doesn't have "more positive connotations than practical" for the 70% or so Americans who choose "practical" when they take the MBTI; and "fascinating" isn't considered "more of a compliment than sensible" for the 70% or so Americans who choose "sensible" when they take the MBTI.

And maybe the great majority of those "tons" of forumites who you're claiming are "mistyped sensors" are actually MBTI N's — and are only "sensors" under whatever alternative typology it is that you've typed yourself S with.

You're free to subscribe to whatever typology you like, magpie, but it doesn't sound to me like yours is the MBTI.

Just in case you're open to some reconsideration along those lines, you may want to look at this post, and this post.

 

[Eric B]

What about sensors who are imaginative, intelligent, and interested in possibilities? They pick those options on the typology tests and come out intuitive. The issue in that case isn't with knowing thyself. The issue lies in black and white descriptions and typing methods.

I was responding to an objection about people's results changing. That is likely from self-awareness changing, but it could also be from development (of the nonpreferred functions). In that case, their new awareness is possibly overshadowing what they previously recognized and took for granted, and so, it is still ultimately a matter of self-awareness, as the newly developed functions haven't become "preferred".
The point was, that there are reasons that a person's result's could change for reasons other than the theory being "unscientific".
(Which reflects an S perspective, because the theory is "abstract", and thus things are a bit more malleable and harder to "prove" empirically, and the "science" field wants things to be more "solid" or concrete).

 

[Poki]

Oh, yeah...i forgot. They hate tripping over thick pockets of air too, thats another reason for anti-sensor bias. They hate our ability to see heavy pockets of air with our heightened senses.

 

[Hiraeth]

I can run my mouth on this topic all day, but I’ve decided to hold my tongue for now. I will say that I am an ‘S’ who has typed as an ISFP on almost every test I took when I was younger, but usually borderline on S and N, and now only tests as an INFP. I am also an artist who works with fantasy, symbolism, and surrealism, areas of interest that are associated with NF types. I appear as an intuitive stereotypically on the surface based on my interests in mystical and esoteric subjects, my creativity, imagination, and absent-mindedness, but I most certainly am an ISFP. Maybe I must be one of the rare sensors then, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who is somewhat like me is immediately considered an intuitive.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

So to be science you must be successful? I thought science was



So the method of breaking down and researching typology is actually what determines if its science or not, not the actual definition that people come up with or the groupings. From a scientific analytical point of view, the fact that people get different results feeds back into the understanding of people. Part of it is called knowledge of the system. Any scientific theory can be applied incorrectly if adequate knowledge is not obtained. We also have lots of theories and formulations that only work in certain situations, but fail at the micro level. These are still considered science even though they can be proven inapplicable when heavily scrutinized. A proper test would actually take into account people misperception of what they read as well as how well they can see who they are.

With your definition we have a lot of so called scientists that aren't really scientists because all they are doing is trying to prove/create theories that are not bullet proof yet.

Okay fair enough. But some people still type based of gut feelings, so it's not always scientific. I guess tests are technically scientific, even though they have flaws. It depends on how you type I guess. But you saying motion is science does not disprove my point.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Most of my friends are SJs and they all are very artistically and creatively inclined, as well as do numerous activities that would be considered N pastimes, yet they all score and type as SJs. My friends are hardly representations of the general population, but I think that the tests, if they yield consistent results overtime and the person is answering honestly, with a good understanding of the questions, and is currently in a psychologically healthy place, should be accurate for the most part. As people have already stated, typology forums will attract more intuitives, and so being like "there are too many intuitives on this forum. Some must be mistyped!" Is very much like saying "Most people don't write novels, so a bunch of the people on this writing forum must not actually write novels!"

 

[Poki]

In other words, even the perception that S descriptions are "less flattering" is looking at it through an N lens. S's themselves wouldn't find those descriptions unflattering because of the fact that they are what their ego prefers.

Or we watch Ns fall flat on their face day in and day out and say...holy shit...i dont wanna be like that. Or to twist it in a way that matches your...our ego is hurt by being N...

I dont mean literally fall flat on face.

 

[magpie]

You acknowledge that you've "come out as N on every MBTI, cognitive function, and socionics test [you've] ever taken."

Every one you have ever taken.

Probably needless to say, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that that's because you're an N who has mistyped yourself as an S, that kind of throws the rest of your post in a different light, right?

In any case, opinions are opinions and facts are facts, and as a factual matter, "ingenious" doesn't have "more positive connotations than practical" for the 70% or so Americans who choose "practical" when they take the MBTI; and "fascinating" isn't considered "more of a compliment than sensible" for the 70% or so Americans who choose "sensible" when they take the MBTI.

And maybe the great majority of those "tons" of forumites who you're claiming are "mistyped sensors" are actually MBTI N's — and are only "sensors" under whatever alternative typology it is that you've typed yourself S with.

You're free to subscribe to whatever typology you like, magpie, but it doesn't sound to me like yours is the MBTI.

Just in case you're open to some reconsideration along those lines, you may want to look at this post, and this post.

MBTI represents a universal human pattern. MBTI is a representation of it. The pattern itself is objective. MBTI tests and descriptions give a vague outline of the pattern but fall apart when used as dogma and taken literally word for word in the most black and white fashion possible. You can't see the pattern. You just see the description.

Also, 70% of the population having a particular opinion of a word is just that - an opinion of a word. It's a fact that that percentage has an opinion of the word but that says nothing factual about the word itself.

 

[GavinElster]

Well anyone who says the MBTI correlates with the Big 5 can't be taking it literally -- acknowledging a correlation between a priori different models is acknowledging a general pattern, not the literal contents of a test.

The question is whether someone's version of the MBTI actually statistically correlates to it, or is only symbolically related in some extremely indirect way.


So if anything the debate here is symbolic and/or very indirect relation vs statistical relation, not abstract vs literal.
To the extent someone says the MBTI patterns and the actual test relate very indirectly, this begs the question if there's any data-driven way to tie back his/her version of the patterns to the official MBTI. If not, why call it MBTI? We can just call it "some typology vaguely inspired by the MBTI"!

I always felt these types of worries to be chasing one's tail, though, because just make one's definitions/goals clear, and there's no problem. It's pretty clear the N/S dichotomies test version is getting at a certain idea, and that Jung isn't getting at the same idea. There's no reason to say what the mbti is getting at is the Jungian thing. Why do that? Why not just say they have some parallels, and other differences?

 

[Ophiuchus_Serpent]

The intuitive bias on forums is either because everybody wants to see themselves as visionary or because most sensor types in life are out busy having fun and living in the moment while the intuitives are going online looking for validation of their existence.

I have no idea what my type is but I always score INTJ so lets go with that. When I chat with my younger brother, I can strongly see he is a total sensor type.
I tell you what, sensor types are awesome people usually and have abilities us intuitive types wish we had secretly.
Here is a conversation with my bro
Bro: Hey when Mum read my text message what did she say?
Me: Well.......she said.......errrr.... she said something like.........you know....well, the main point is you have nothing to worry about. The main vibe is she isn't angry with you.
My brother looks at me unconvinced, as he wants the facts. The details of what she said
Then there is my brother remembering the exact dates for everything in his life. He can recite conversations so incredibly well it is like he has a record button hidden on him somewhere.
When we both went shopping together, I noticed we both looked at our shopping list together. He analysed everything and I just looked at my list thinking "Mehhh it looks about right."
So, compared to my bro I must be an intuitive type as I just go for a big picture style answer and my brother really loves to detail his converations. It's amazing to listen to him but it drains me terribly, if I have to be honest.

 

[Yama]

Sensors: this is our experience as sensors
Intuitives: wrong
Sensors: don't you think, as sensors, that we understand sensing better?
Intuitives: nope

 

[Peter Deadpan]

LOL, I think people need to stop believing in typology statistics. Typology is not a science, and the methods for getting statistics are poor from what I've heard. How accurate is a telephone survey?

Also a fair point. I've been very logically critical of typology lately.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Also a fair point. I've been very logically critical of typology lately.

Being critical of it is where the fun begins.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

Story short, not just because someone is intuitive, he's already better..
And sensors are not that stupid as they're described as.

Besides, each intuitive and sensors are better in specific things. They have different specialties.
Like in being creative, i think intuitive is better in handling that.
Sensors on the other hand, is better on doing things by hand. Probably because they're much keener..

But it doesn't mean they aren't creative. They're also creative but intuitives are more creative but suck in doing stuffs. But ofcourse, not every intuitive suck at doing stuffs.

Judging someone by his type is bullshit.

In psychology forums, judgemental bs is apparent.

In psychology discords too.

It's too stupid people label someone as something.

Like if they see me as an InfP, they will already judge me as sensitive.

Then if i am an entp, they'll describe me immediately as a troll.

That's why i don't put my mbti, because it's bullshit.

I remembered last year, my mbti is infp, i went to istp forums, estp forums, they said i don't Belong there because I'm very "sensitive"

Wtf. XD

Then i removed my mbti, people thought I'm an esfp, or estp. What the heckkkk.

That's how dumb people are.

So don't trust the four letters.

My mbti is STFU.

And as for this thread,

I know an istj, he's the coolest person i know like he's good at his job i respect him and he inspire me to do better with my job.

With an esfp, i love esfp a lot because duhh! XD

I love estp too. XD

I love istp too. I know two istp and i love how they are very transparent people.

That's all. Lol. XD

And esfj too!

Esfj take care of me a lot! XD like i always feel like imma kid because they take care of me too much..

So, sensors are great people just like intuitives.

There's no use putting them down. Because no one is better.

We're all the same regardless of this four letter typing.