[MBTI General] Anti-sensor bias

[AGameOfChance]

Here's what I've been able to gather about sensor bias:

1. The way that sensing is described in the MBTI tends to be much less flattering than intuition.

2. Because of this, 90% of people who take the test, when presented with a question asking them to choose between an intuitive and sensing response, will go with the intuitive response.

3. (I suspect that) because of this, the only people who are actually going to score as a sensor on the test will be the most extreme possible versions of their respective sensor type and probably not all that fun for a lot of people to deal with. Thus, the negative sensor stereotype is re-enforced.


Now, a few questions:

-Are there any tests that correct the sensor bias?

-Is there a good estimate of how many intuitives are actually mistyped sensors?

-Could you actually flip this around and design a test that has an anti-intuitive bias rather than an anti-sensor bias? What would the people who actually manage to score as intuitive on that test look like in contrast to the ISTJ accountant, ESFP cheerleader, etc?

 

[GavinElster]

To my knowledge, in the dichotomies tests, most people (in the WHOLE of the pool, NOT this forum/internet typology forums) actually score S, not N. In N-centric communities which are interested in stuff like personality for the sake of learning/not for practical reasons, it's more common to score N.

There's a sense in which I do think there's a mismatch between a Jungian N and the dichotomies N, and it's more likely that a dichotomies N would view Jung's concept of a sensation type as flattering.
For example, the typical scientific mind was considered by Jung as resting in the sensation-thinking zone, likely because ultimately their allegiance is to factual theories, not speculative theories.

It's also worth noting that N of the MBTI correlates well with the Big 5's last factor, and this Big 5 version involves increased usage of the senses, not decreased. I would say that for hardcore Jung enthusiasts, this is to be understood as follows: to some extent, just as Jung was vague on the line between sensation-intuition and extraversion-introversion, he was also vague about the sense in which the collective vs individual dichotomy related to a) undifferentiated vs differentiated, b) extraversion vs introversion.
That is, the manner in which the individual tapped the principle of a function could be contaminated by the collective unconscious, or could be more individual/adapted to the ego...it seems to me that, while this was traditionally presented as having to do with the undifferentiated vs differentiated dichotomy, in practice individuals who are extraverted were so influenced by the collective standards of the time (according to Jung) that it's somewhat unclear at what point this doesn't relate to his concept of inferior differentiation. After all, even if we grant that collective-standards-of-time does not equate with collective unconscious, both are instances of Jung saying how there's a less ego-driven/individual slant on the function, and also in a sense a shallower tapping into it, with possible exception of introverted sensation's case.

And I theorize that that is why in a sense, Big 5's Openness to Experience has some resemblance to Jung's concept of differentiation -- that is, the willingness to tap into a mode of information with depth is related to the concept of differentiating a function, but this fifth factor is also heavily related to Jung's concept of introversion, ie the more reflective temperament.

 

[reckful]

Here's what I've been able to gather about sensor bias:

1. The way that sensing is described in the MBTI tends to be much less flattering than intuition.

2. Because of this, 90% of people who take the test, when presented with a question asking them to choose between an intuitive and sensing response, will go with the intuitive response.

3. (I suspect that) because of this, the only people who are actually going to score as a sensor on the test will be the most extreme possible versions of their respective sensor type and probably not all that fun for a lot of people to deal with. Thus, the negative sensor stereotype is re-enforced.

S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't very close to 50/50, buuut — are you sitting down? — the skew is in the S direction. Less than 30% of Americans come out N on the official MBTI, according to the stats posted by the official MBTI folks.

And I don't buy the idea that there's a big N skew in online tests. I've been participating in type-me exercises for over seven years now — including seeing lots of people's results on the official MBTI — and it's pretty rare, in my experience, for an MBTI forum member to come out N on HumanMetrics or one of the other unofficial online tests and come out S on the official MBTI.

Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.

• If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
• Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
• Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
• Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?

N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?!

But again... around 70% of the U.S. population prefers the S responses to those items. Because they're S's.

MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.

 

[Eric B]

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.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

I actually wonder why Se's description are full of crap. I mean, it's very simple. - ABLE to use fully their senses. Like who cannot even do that? Well maybe if you're disabled. Lol xD

It's kind of weird.. Because i get intuitive most of the time. I scored there the highest. XD

But ofcourse i also have the Se side. XD Ne/Se preference.

Like ofcourse, when answering a test, would you use your 5 senses? XD ofcourse you'll use your head. Your Intuition. XD

It seems like most people got an Intuitive results. XD but accdg to the survey, sensors are higher in number than intuitives..

And i don't think only Intuitives love psychology and shit.

That's why some sensors are mistaken for being intuitives.

I don't even get this Intuition vs sensing preference because i fucking use both..

Ofcourse when I'm using the Internet and interacting with the online world i use my Intuition obviously.

But in real world its sensing because you see for fuck sake. You hear, you don’t really use your head that much specially when you're busy doing something!

So your preference changes by your circumstances. XD right?!!

Especially with Ti or Fi preference..

You'll use both depending on the situation. Right?!!!

I cannot really understand all these bs. XD

Like i am not very comfortable saying I'm an intuitive or a sensor because i use both.

So, yeah mbti fails to specify these things..

Some people also say, if you're an intuitive you're only an intuitive. That's bullshit. It's just a preference. XD you can prefer to be one thing or another. Why limit yourself? Or why would you limit people on other possible things they can do?

Sterotypes are bs. For real.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't very close to 50/50, buuut — are you sitting down? — the skew is in the S direction. Less than 30% of Americans come out N on the official MBTI, according to the stats posted by the official MBTI folks.

And I don't buy the idea that there's a big N skew in online tests. I've been participating in type-me exercises for over seven years now — including seeing lots of people's results on the official MBTI — and it's pretty rare, in my experience, for an MBTI forum member to come out N on HumanMetrics or one of the other unofficial online tests and come out S on the official MBTI.

Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.

• If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
• Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
• Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
• Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?

N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?!

But again... around 70% of the U.S. population prefers the S responses to those items. Because they're S's.

MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.

And based on your questions, what if your prefer both? Like for real because you're open to try both? What would that make you, then? XD

 

[reckful]

And based on your questions, what if your prefer both? Like for real because you're open to try both? What would that make you, then? XD

Preferring one test item to another when forced to choose (they don't call that format "forced choice" for nothing) doesn't mean someone isn't "open to try both" (as you put it).

And you can't "prefer both," since "prefer," by definition, means tending to prefer one over the other. Buuut you don't necessarily have to have a preference. For more on the middleness possibility, see this post.

 

[Yama]

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.

I am an S and I think they're very unflattering

 

[Littleclaypot]

I love sensors. You guys are so intelligent and logical.. I wanna be one of you.

 

[Dreamer]

I'm still trying to come to a definition for Se for myself that doesn't feel so flat. It's the one function I feel, people just got lazy and finished up explaining the functions so they just quickly scribbled down some words then headed out to Starbucks.

I know there's something more to it, there just HAS to be. All the other functions I was bale to extract more from the typical definitions, and was able to see them in a way that truly made sense for me as to their reason for being. Se is totally just an afterthought and that seriously bugs me.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.

Thank you. People need to stop comparing the population of forums to the general population.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I think personally the anti-sensor ideas are more from ignorance than actual looking down. Intuition has been painted as this magic tool that allows people to get insights into the universe and into metaphysics while sensing is good for like making tools or finding your way to the toilet when I think sensing is far more complex than that. I find sensors also like abstract topics but they approach it in a S way as opposed to a N way like hmm they will relate it to something real as opposed to other ideas.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Thank you. People need to stop comparing the population of forums to the general population.

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?

 

[Poki]

Here's what I've been able to gather about sensor bias:

1. The way that sensing is described in the MBTI tends to be much less flattering than intuition.

2. Because of this, 90% of people who take the test, when presented with a question asking them to choose between an intuitive and sensing response, will go with the intuitive response.

3. (I suspect that) because of this, the only people who are actually going to score as a sensor on the test will be the most extreme possible versions of their respective sensor type and probably not all that fun for a lot of people to deal with. Thus, the negative sensor stereotype is re-enforced.


Now, a few questions:

-Are there any tests that correct the sensor bias?

-Is there a good estimate of how many intuitives are actually mistyped sensors?

-Could you actually flip this around and design a test that has an anti-intuitive bias rather than an anti-sensor bias? What would the people who actually manage to score as intuitive on that test look like in contrast to the ISTJ accountant, ESFP cheerleader, etc?

Ns are just pissed because we Ss don't walk into poles

 

[Poki]

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?

What makes it not a science?

 

[Smilephantomhive]

What makes it not a science?

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

 

[magpie]

S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't very close to 50/50, buuut — are you sitting down? — the skew is in the S direction. Less than 30% of Americans come out N on the official MBTI, according to the stats posted by the official MBTI folks.

I'm an S who's come out as N on every MBTI, cognitive function, and socionics test I've ever taken.

Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.

• If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
• Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
• Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
• Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?

N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?!

Ingenious has more positive connotations than practical. Fascinating is more of a compliment than sensible.

MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.

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.

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.

This isn't true at all.

 

[Poki]

I think personally the anti-sensor ideas are more from ignorance than actual looking down. Intuition has been painted as this magic tool that allows people to get insights into the universe and into metaphysics while sensing is good for like making tools or finding your way to the toilet when I think sensing is far more complex than that. I find sensors also like abstract topics but they approach it in a S way as opposed to a N way like hmm they will relate it to something real as opposed to other ideas.

imagine driving a car...I said a car, not a flying car with guns and warp speed. I know, I know a flying car with all that stuff is a car...if it actually existed. This matters because when we have flying cars with guns that go warp speed, the N is no longer thinking about flying cars with guns and warp speed. They are still thinking about what doesn't exist beyond that. Granted, this is more likened to Ne Ni is the ones who work to make it happen or have decided its impossible and a waste of time to even put any thought into it.

 

[magpie]

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

 

[Poki]

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

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

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

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.