The "intuitive bias" debate

[Shadow Play]

Yes, I'm well aware that threads accusing others of intuitive/sensor bias are a dime a dozen, but that's not exactly the point of this thread. Instead of merely accusing others of having a bias, I hope to explore the basis from which these accusations emerge to reach the core of the matter. The basis for sensor bias accusations comes from the (highly questionable) claim that many forumgoers are mistyped Sensors. That is, many of the self-proclaimed Intuitives are Ns if you go by those "silly, superficial" dichotomies tests, but if you look at their functions to see how they think, they're actually Sensors. Technically speaking, if you consistently test as an N, you are an Intuitive. That's that. You would show up in the test data as an N, and this test data may or may not be used for further research correlating type preferences with personality traits. But what does it mean to be an MBTI Intuitive type, anyway?

Here is how Intuition is defined on the official website.

Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I'm interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don't know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.

So, it's about patterns and possibilities, and working with theories.

Here is how Sensing is defined on that same website.

Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I'm concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I'm learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.

It's working with tangible examples of things in the real world.

If we're playing to a basic definition, having an interest in theories for their own sake would make someone an Intuitive, meaning that one would expect an online forum dedicated to personality theories to attract a number of people who like learning about theories. However, the basis for doubt comes from the way in which people approach the discussion of type theories. Typology is frequently used by forumgoers in a concrete way. By that, I mean "x types are like this" or "y types are like that." I understand that correlations between type preferences are not absolute - they're about tendencies - but it seems to often be taken like it's an absolute thing when it's not. When taken as an absolute thing, it leads to stereotypes. You know, the ones where Sensors have good reflexes or Thinkers are good at math. MBTI was not designed to be used that way.

I see this in the way people relate to type descriptions. When many people go through type descriptions, they highlight things that make them go "that's me," or "that's not me," but this approach smacks of cherry picking. By focusing on these stereotypical traits, this loses sight of engaging the idea of a type, of what a type can be like. Besides, a lot of internet type descriptions are abstractions the writer pulled out of their ass. Without some sort of research behind them, traits are just stereotypes that may or may not be meaningless. The best online type descriptions are the ones on Oddly Developed Types, because those at least directly reference statistical data compiled in the MBTI Manual. Personal anecdotes are another example of this problem. "I can't be such and such a type because I know this one person who I have associated with this type, and they don't act that way, so I can't possibly be the same type as them." No one else knows this person, so they could honestly have been made up for all it mattered. We can't actually gauge their type for ourselves. More importantly, narrowing types down to a specific kind of individual limits potential for variation within a type. Types are not pigeonholes.

A large chunk of the problem here comes from the notion of "relating." Whatever typology info being put forward is personalised so that it either jives or does not jive. It's not approached from a detached, theoretical standpoint. I don't see enough breaking down of concepts, or questions about what it means, and how can it be observed and understood, before the concepts are applied impersonally to individuals without centering the ego in the equation. Where's this "attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns?"

Another red flag is the so called "openness to ideas" that everyone goes on about, but I actually find typology forumgoers are generally quite uniform in their perspectives on typology. There's this sort of unwritten status quo which favours the Grant stack as the foundation of MBTI types, and although a few people question its shortcomings once in a while, its hegemony remains unchallenged regardless. I don't see a lot of "well, according to this theory, it would be this, but that writer thought that, and my take on the matter is different..." that I'd expect from a forum which actively challenges preconceived ideas. I don't just mean disagreeing with other individuals, because people disagree all the time, but they disagree over how the theory ought to be implemented while confining themselves to the four walls of their preferred theory. I mean overhauling entire theories from the ground up. Where's the openness to perspectives?

Visual and aural typing are also highly behavioural approaches to typing others. Far too much stock is placed on what type someone supposedly is because of the way they smile, or because they might hesitate before speaking, or because they're enthusiastic about what they're talking about. If mannerisms are to be used at all, at least place their mannerisms within context to see what makes a person express themselves the way they do.

I can't help but wonder whether functionistas might have a point, even if their solution to the issue only serves to compound the issue rather than solve it. What if the problem is how these concepts are defined, either because of perceived inadequacies in the way concepts are defined, or because of a lack of consensus on how a concept should be defined? I think there's this sense that official definitions or descriptions have limitations as to how they describe concepts. It seems like functionistas take issue with things such as Intuition being described as "theories" when it's this more specific notion, one which doesn't describe many Intuitives even though they are - for better or worse - defined that way in the MBTI model. Alternately, there's something to the idea that, as a field skewered heavily towards Intuitives, descriptions of Sensors might be comparatively limited since they're written from the perspective of Intuitives.

However, even if there's a legitimate point, they're just as prone to falling into the same potholes as the dichotomies-centric people they accuse of doing so. Functions themselves are no less prone to being stereotyped: Te is efficiency; Fe is conforming to group values; Si looks to the past; Fi looks to the future. And for all their misrepresentation of dichotomies as binary opposites, functionistas trap themselves into these binary systems which state that each type has to prefer one function over another, or where you can't possibly be close to the middle on one or more dichotomies because of functions. To get around the problem of function preferences, people use loops and axes to claim they simultaneously use opposite functions. Hell, why not just ditch the MBTI dichotomies all together if they're just some superficial code which needs deciphering?

 

[rav3n]

Frankly, I don't reject dichotomies, Grant stackings, enneagram or big five, finding utility and interesting discourse in all of them. What I do reject are the dichotomists who are quick to bash other ways, demanding openness they don't personally evidence.

 

[Shadow Play]

Frankly, I don't reject dichotomies, Grant stackings, enneagram or big five, finding utility and interesting discourse in all of them. What I do reject are the dichotomists who are quick to bash other ways, demanding openness they don't personally evidence.

Fair point. For what it's worth, there have been times where I've stepped outside the dichotomies myself to look at things from a different lens, such as pondering what someone's best fitting Jungian type might be.

Even though it may not come across that way in the tone of my post, I wasn't specifically bashing functions. I was also making an honest attempt at representing the argument functions proponents make about an intuitive bias, with the majority of the post describing limitations that can also come with a dichotomies perspective. I don't take any typology system that seriously at all, as of late, and I've written an extensive criticism of MBTI dichotomies in this post.

I see this in the way people relate to type descriptions. When many people go through type descriptions, they highlight things that make them go "that's me," or "that's not me," but this approach smacks of cherry picking. By focusing on these stereotypical traits, this loses sight of engaging the idea of a type, of what a type can be like. Besides, a lot of internet type descriptions are abstractions the writer pulled out of their ass. Without some sort of research behind them, traits are just stereotypes that may or may not be meaningless. The best online type descriptions are the ones on Oddly Developed Types, because those at least directly reference statistical data compiled in the MBTI Manual. Personal anecdotes are another example of this problem. "I can't be such and such a type because I know this one person who I have associated with this type, and they don't act that way, so I can't possibly be the same type as them." No one else knows this person, so they could honestly have been made up for all it mattered. We can't actually gauge their type for ourselves. More importantly, narrowing types down to a specific kind of individual limits potential for variation within a type. Types are not pigeonholes.

The type profiles I'm referring to are any type profiles which aren't backed by research, even those ones which don't mention functions at all.

I can't help but wonder whether functionistas might have a point, even if their solution to the issue only serves to compound the issue rather than solve it. What if the problem is how these concepts are defined, either because of perceived inadequacies in the way concepts are defined, or because of a lack of consensus on how a concept should be defined? I think there's this sense that official definitions or descriptions have limitations as to how they describe concepts. It seems like functionistas take issue with things such as Intuition being described as "theories" when it's this more specific notion, one which doesn't describe many Intuitives even though they are - for better or worse - defined that way in the MBTI model. Alternately, there's something to the idea that, as a field skewered heavily towards Intuitives, descriptions of Sensors might be comparatively limited since they're written from the perspective of Intuitives.

Here, I'm noting that there's a point to be made about limitations in the way dichotomies are described, such as the way Intuition and Sensing are characterised.

 

[Pionart]

Technically speaking, if you consistently test as an N, you are an Intuitive. That's that.

I'm not totally clear on what you mean by "technically", but an intuitive is someone whose first or second function is intuition.

Typology is frequently used by forumgoers in a concrete way. By that, I mean "x types are like this" or "y types are like that."

Those sound like abstract statements to me, not concrete ones.

Abstract and concrete - Wikipedia

"Tennis" is an abstract term, "a tennis match" is a concrete term. So if the person says "X type is like this" that would be abstract, whereas if they said "This person, who is X type, is like this" then it would be concrete.

 

[Shadow Play]

I'm not totally clear on what you mean by "technically", but an intuitive is someone whose first or second function is intuition.

Why couldn't it be both? Those types which have an N preference are, at least theoretically speaking, both Intuitives by dichotomies and Intuitives with a preferred Intuitive function.

Those sound like abstract statements to me, not concrete ones.

Abstract and concrete - Wikipedia

"Tennis" is an abstract term, "a tennis match" is a concrete term. So if the person says "X type is like this" that would be abstract, whereas if they said "This person, who is X type, is like this" then it would be concrete.

I'm referring to stereotypes based on concrete examples of real world types. For example, you suspect ten people are ESFJs, and all of them are friendly. You believe their friendliness has a typology related explanation, and this forms the basis of a blanket stereotype saying "ESFJs are friendly." Is that observation completely invalid? Not necessarily, but it's limited if one takes the correlation of friendliness with type to be an absolute rule.

 

[Pionart]

Visual and aural typing are also highly behavioural approaches to typing others. Far too much stock is placed on what type someone supposedly is because of the way they smile, or because they might hesitate before speaking, or because they're enthusiastic about what they're talking about. If mannerisms are to be used at all, at least place their mannerisms within context to see what makes a person express themselves the way they do.

Fe and Fi result in different kinds of smiles (I can't differentiate them a lot of the time, but it seems theoretically sound to suppose that they would).
Things like pauses and stuttering during speech generally indicate introverted judgement overriding extroverted judgement. If they're not naturally articulate they're probably a P type.
Enthusiasm is an indicator of extroversion/an extroverted function.

Typing by physiological cues is a subtle art. It requires reading the way that a particular maneuver effects the person's overall energy. You probably think it's not nuanced, when lack of nuance is just a result of lack of skill on the part of the reader.

Why couldn't it be both? Those types which have an N preference are, at least theoretically speaking, both Intuitives by dichotomies and Intuitives with a preferred Intuitive function.

Being intuitive doesn't necessarily mean you'll score as an intuitive on a test.

I'm referring to stereotypes based on concrete examples of real world types. For example, you suspect ten people are ESFJs, and all of them are friendly. You believe their friendliness has a typology related explanation, and this forms the basis of a blanket stereotype saying "ESFJs are friendly." Is that observation completely invalid? Not necessarily, but it's limited if one takes the correlation of friendliness with type to be an absolute rule.

I believe forming a generalisation like that does indicate intuition, specifically extroverted intuition.

 

[Shadow Play]

Fe and Fi result in different kinds of smiles (I can't differentiate them a lot of the time, but it seems theoretically sound to suppose that they would).
Things like pauses and stuttering during speech generally indicate introverted judgement overriding extroverted judgement. If they're not naturally articulate they're probably a P type.
Enthusiasm is an indicator of extroversion/an extroverted function.

Typing by physiological cues is a subtle art. It requires reading the way that a particular maneuver effects the person's overall energy. You probably think it's not nuanced, when lack of nuance is just a result of lack of skill on the part of the reader.

I agree that enthusiasm can be an indicator of extraversion, at least when it comes to expression of enthusiasm, but even an introvert can be uncharacteristically expressive when something's really stirred a response out of them. Hence why context matters. Why is that person being so uncharacteristically expressive in their enthusiasm?

 

[Shadow Play]

I believe forming a generalisation like that does indicate intuition, specifically extroverted intuition.

I could argue that it indicates Introverted Thinking.

 

[Pionart]

I agree that enthusiasm can be an indicator of extraversion, at least when it comes to expression of enthusiasm, but even an introvert can be uncharacteristically expressive when something's really stirred a response out of them. Hence why context matters. Why is that person being so uncharacteristically expressive in their enthusiasm?

Like I said, it's a nuanced art, and you seem to assume it's not.

I could argue that it indicates Introverted Thinking.

Could you elaborate on this?

Ti used in conjunction with Ne would of course have that quality, but Ti used in conjunction with Se? I don't think it would.

 

[Pionart]

Ti used in conjunction with Ne would of course have that quality, but Ti used in conjunction with Se? I don't think it would.

To elaborate on what I mean: this statement of mine was probably based in introverted thinking.

Now, I wasn't forming a generalisation of what Ti and Ne do, I had in mind a specific concrete process. I could only form the Ti judgement by having something "in front of me" of which I could take a look at. The thing I was looking at was abstract in the sense of being a concept, but that's the Ni that started off the whole process.

I don't necessarily have too thorough of an understanding of how abstractness works, and similar ideas, but would you say that the statement of mine which I just quoted was an abstraction?

 

[Shadow Play]

Could you elaborate on this?

Ti used in conjunction with Ne would of course have that quality, but Ti used in conjunction with Se? I don't think it would.

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as ‘originality’, or in more pronounced cases’ as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives.

It's about taking subjective data, developing a pattern to project onto everything, and excluding data which fits outside of that pattern.

It depends on how you define abstract and concrete. Concrete can be defined as existing in a material or physical form. To give an example of an idea is to make the idea concrete, since you're describing it in tangible terms as an object which exists in this world. Abstraction is to focus on the underlying idea, often finding patterns in things. So, to define types in terms of ways in which people act or behave in the real world would be concrete thinking, but abstraction is about the why of what makes people do what they do.

 

[rav3n]

A lot of the pro-dichotomy arguments are premised on statistics created and housed by the MBTI dichotomies money making machine. Analogous, quoting the bible to prove the bible.

 

[Pionart]

It's about taking subjective data, developing a pattern to project onto everything, and excluding data which fits outside of that pattern.

It depends on how you define abstract and concrete. Concrete can be defined as existing in a material or physical form. To give an example of an idea is to make the idea concrete, since you're describing it in tangible terms as an object which exists in this world. Abstraction is to focus on the underlying idea, often finding patterns in things. So, to define types in terms of ways in which people act or behave in the real world would be concrete thinking, but abstraction is about the why of what makes people do what they do.

Isn't the term "pattern" almost synonymous with intuition?

I agree that giving an example of something is concrete i.e. based in sensation.

I would say that abstraction can look at the concrete examples, but it sees these in terms of the patterns that manifest, not the specific details of any one example.

 

[Shadow Play]

A lot of the pro-dichotomy arguments are premised on statistics created and housed by the MBTI dichotomies money making machine. Analogous, quoting the bible to prove the bible.

Like I said, I also happen to be sceptical of dichotomies.

One can, to a certain extent, work around this limitation by comparing similar personality traits both with MBTI data and Big Five data, and through noting the ways in which their overlapping dimensions correlate, draw conclusions about types. To give one example, primary psychopathy correlates with a T preference and low Agreeableness, and secondary psychopathy correlates with a P preference and low Conscientiousness. Assuming that the respective dimensions of both systems are an accurate way of measuring temperaments, those sorts of overlaps can potentially bolster the credibility of statistical data. But the problem is the questionable accuracy of those dimensions. Factor analysis lacks a universally recognised basis for pinpointing a solution when there are different numbers of factors. This means factor analysis is dependant on the analyst's own interpretation of data. It's quite possible that the factors of both MBTI and Big Five are either multiple factors rolled into single ones, or single factors split across multiple ones. There's some kind of correlation between S/J and N/P which suggests a potential factor.

Isn't the term "pattern" almost synonymous with intuition?

I agree that giving an example of something is concrete i.e. based in sensation.

I would say that abstraction can look at the concrete examples, but it sees these in terms of the patterns that manifest, not the specific details of any one example.

Remember that Myers - wrongfully or not - shifted the domain of abstraction from Introversion to Intuition. Jung thought introverts were abstract.

 

[Pionart]

Remember that Myers - wrongfully or not - shifted the domain of abstraction from Introversion to Intuition. Jung thought introverts were abstract.

I'm interested in the truth of how typology works, not what Jung said.

 

[rav3n]

Like I said, I also happen to be sceptical of dichotomies.

One can, to a certain extent, work around this limitation by comparing similar personality traits both with MBTI data and Big Five data, and through noting the ways in which their overlapping dimensions correlate, draw conclusions about types. To give one example, primary psychopathy correlates with a T preference and low Agreeableness, and secondary psychopathy correlates with a P preference and low conscientiousness. Assuming that the respective dimensions of both systems are an accurate way of measuring temperaments, those sorts of overlaps can potentially bolster the credibility of statistical data. But the problem is the questionable accuracy of those dimensions. Factor analysis lacks a universally recognised basis for pinpointing a solution when there are different numbers of factors. This means factor analysis is dependant on the analyst's own interpretation of data. It's quite possible that the factors of both MBTI and Big Five are either multiple factors rolled into single ones, or a single factor split across multiple ones. There's some kind of correlation between S/J and N/P which suggests a potential factor.



Remember that Myers - wrongfully or not - shifted the domain of abstraction from Introversion to Intuition. Jung thought introverts were abstract.

Well, if you're being honest, dichotomies and cognitive functions are pseudo science at best. This doesn't mean there aren't human insights to be garnered from the theories but the fanboing is bullshit.

 

[Shadow Play]

I'm interested in the truth of how typology works, not what Jung said.

Except the problem is there are multiple ways of defining functions. You say Ti, and I have to ask "do you mean Ti in terms of the function jerry rigged to TP, or Ti the way Jung described it?" Without a consensus on definition, I find myself needing to cite someone else's opinion so we can make clear what framework we're working with here. I, for one, think that if abstraction is to be represented through dichotomies at all, Intuition is the more accurate dichotomy for it, not Introversion.

Well, if you're being honest, dichotomies and cognitive functions are pseudo science at best. This doesn't mean there aren't human insights to be garnered from the theories but the fanboing is bullshit.

There are what I see as shades of pseudoscience, from ones which have questionable credibility, to ones with no credibility whatsoever. The Big Five and Horoscopes occupy opposite ends of this spectrum.

 

[rav3n]

There are what I see as shades of pseudoscience, from ones which have questionable credibility, to ones with no credibility whatsoever. The Big Five and Horoscopes occupy opposite ends of this spectrum.

Since I wasn't talking about these two, they're irrelevant tangents to my point.

 

[Shadow Play]

Since I wasn't talking about these two, they're irrelevant tangents to my point.

I see dichotomies as being in the same ballpark as the Big Five, and functions as being in the same ballpark as Horoscopes; particularly the Grant stacks. The notion that TJs and FPs are more like each other than they are to TPs and FJs is as credible as the notion that two people born in the same month will share personality traits in common because they were born that month.

 

[Pionart]

Except the problem is there are multiple ways of defining functions. You say Ti, and I have to ask "do you mean Ti in terms of the function jerry rigged to TP, or Ti the way Jung described it?" Without a consensus on definition, I find myself needing to cite someone else's opinion so we can make clear what framework we're working with here. I, for one, think that if abstraction is to be represented through dichotomies at all, Intuition is the more accurate dichotomy for it, not Introversion.

I'm assuming that Ti is an actual process that occurs in the mind, so Ti isn't what person A, B or C said about it, it's what it is in reality.