Are Sensors more "Successful" than Intuitors?

[Turi]

I would never survive the Survivor Series Game. This video, is social pecking at its best. I always thought F was more superior, because, let's face it, they have the ability to manipulate people.

Source?
What makes an F type "superior" at manipulating people, in comparison to any other type? A T type? An S? An N? An I? An E? A P? A J?

I think attempting to type people via 'manipulative abilities' will lead to a slew of mistypes as there is nigh-infinite reasons one might manipulate and just as many versions of manipulation.

 

[chubber]

Source?
What makes an F type "superior" at manipulating people, in comparison to any other type? A T type? An S? An N? An I? An E? A P? A J?

I think attempting to type people via 'manipulative abilities' will lead to a slew of mistypes as there is nigh-infinite reasons one might manipulate and just as many versions of manipulation.

Jung's Map of the Soul: An Introduction

It should be noted that Jung makes a clear distinction between the progression and regression of libido on the one hand and the attitudes of extroversion and introversion on the other.It is easy for the beginner to confuse them. Introverts progress in their own way, adapting to the world in an introverted fashion, while extroverts progress in an extroverted way. The same holds true for regression. For example, an extroverted-thinking type person, who has habitually used thinking to deal with the world and to manipulate people, comes up against a situation in life where that function does not work very effectively and experiences defeat. Relationship problems cannot as rule be solved by extroverted thinking. Here a totally different approach is needed. When this person's superior function is rendered useless, a sense of frustration and defat takes over, for now suddenly other functions are demanded and these are not readily available. So the libido regresses and typically activates the inferior function, in this case the introverted-feeling function. As Jung pointed out, the inferior function is unconscious and carries the slime of the murky depths with it when it comes up into consciousness. An introverted-feeling function is a tool of the ego and is refined, discriminating and rational function that orients one by establishing values. An inferior undifferentiated feeling ffunction surging up from the unconscious, however, provides only a small amount of guidance about values, but rather screams in bright red letters: "This is the most important thing in my whole life! I cannot live without it!" It is highly emotional. The inferior function's lack of adaptive skill is generally all too evident, but the ego is challenged to use emotions and thoughts that come into consciousness in this fashion, and by doing so it begins the task of adapting to the hidden side of the personality, the unconscious.

By contrast, people who get a lot of mileage in the first half of their lives out of their ability to relate well to other people reach a point where this no longer satisfies them. The highly developed extroverted-feeling function does not feed the soul anymore. Other potentials demand to be realized. Perhaps introverted intuitive-thinking projects (studying philosophy or theology) beckon and seem more attractive than another luncheon with friends or one more family gathering over the holidays. The full human life span has many periods of significant transformation.

Anything else you want me to quote for you?

 

[Turi]

Anything else you want me to quote for you?

I would highly recommend actually understanding, or at a bare minimum - reading - your sources, before citing them as evidence to support your claim (it might be wise to recall precisely what your claim actually was, as well).

 

[chubber]

I would highly recommend actually understanding, or at a bare minimum - reading - your sources, before citing them as evidence to support your claim (it might be wise to recall precisely what your claim actually was, as well).

 

[Probabilist]

Intuition= Dr Watson

Sensing= Sherlock Holmes

Dr Watson is not intuitive.

Sherlock might be a sensor.

 

[s.a.]

I'm back from my hiatus and I'd like to thank everyone who has given constructive input thus far in the discussion.

maybe some of the more vocal ones really are dealing with more immediate problems. The kind of problems that tend to focus your attention on the here and now, regardless of questionable typology theories.

This was an intriguing idea for me to read... but I still wonder if there is a relation with this and the "Sensing-Intuiting" dichotomy (or rather, spectrum). This is because individuals who prefer to take in information as follows [Focusing on the reality of how things are, Paying attention to concrete facts and details, Preferring ideas that have practical applications, Liking to describe things in a specific, literal way] have a preference for Sensing, and individuals who prefer to take in information as follows [Imagining the possibilities of how things could be, Noticing the big picture, seeing how everything connects, Enjoying ideas and concepts for their own sake, Liking to describe things in a figurative, poetic way] have a preference for Intuiting.

You've mentioned that the more vocal ones are dealing with more immediate problems, but perhaps everyone at any given point in life is dealing with problems both immediate and in the far future, the only variation being the magnitude of these problems, respectively. I think that, objectively speaking, two out of the remaining three participants were dealing with immediate problems of somewhat high magnitude (a question of where there next month's income would be coming from), where the third individual was not (Hodan wanted new car tires). However, there were a few participants who were not of the remaining three that had either somewhat immediate problems of a lower magnitude (Joe, wanting to fix his car cosmetically, and Abbe wanting to attend his brother's wedding) or future problems of high magnitude (Ilah having depleted her child's college fund to bail her parents out from jail).

Noooo. It's about ambition, perverseness and a little bit of luck. None of those are determined by functions.

I personally think it's brash to say cognitive functions have absolutely no application or relevance to the matter whatsoever.

I personally keep having the impression irl that sensing is actually "the lack of intuition", as mentioned before too.
Whereas vice versa, inferior sensing functions, are not lacking but overshadowed by dominant intuitive functions. An absent minded professor for instance as stereotypical example.

This is an idea worth delving into, do you have any sources talking about this in further depth (i.e. sensing apparently manifesting itself as a lack of intuition)?

 

[s.a.]

I think on average, there are correlations between personality type and "success" from the standpoint of monetary rewards. This study analyzed 2500 people and what they made.

https://www.truity.com/sites/default/files/PersonalityType-CareerAchievementStudy.pdf

ESTJs, ENTJs and ISTJs on average make the most money. ENTJs manage the most people. The reason is that they gravitate towards managerial positions with higher frequency than other types. There was another study that I don't have access to here in which data was collected over many years and it showed that 95% of the uppermost executive ranks were four types - ESTJ, ISTJ, INTJ and ENTJ. INTJs and ENTJs were a far high proportion of executives given their relatively rarity in the population - like with 15% of the to top executives being INTJs when they only represented 3% of the population. There are a lot more ESTJs and ISTJs than ENTJs and INTJs so there are more STs in these roles. . Anyways, it's TJs that tend to rise towards the top naturally. I think that data comes mostly from traditional organizations sending their people through management development programs.

I think your post has been most useful to me by far. This is more the route I was hoping to go (yet hadn't foreseen) with my original post. Thank you for sharing the first document (Career Achievement Study), I think it will help me in exploring other topics similar to this.

Thinking about it, there are more sensors than intuitives. So, it makes sense that a greater number of sensors are successful. This is also, of course, dependent on how you define success. Plus, any type can be successful, some just have different altitudes for it in different fields of work.

This was a great thing to note, about Sensors being more abundant in the world. I had no absolute definition of success (hence the quotations in the original title of this thread), and more or less referred to it as obtaining what one wants in the wider world, or especially in a social context, regardless of ethics at play.

 

[s.a.]

I would never survive the Survivor Series Game. This video, is social pecking at its best. I always thought F was more superior, because, let's face it, they have the ability to manipulate people.

Agh. I hadn't praised the video for sake of concept, I simply considered the situation the contestants were put into as a good example of observing how people interact with each other. Feelers may have the ability to manipulate people, but when you consider the amount and degree to which they can do so (i.e. most people could probably see through that), it could be of little relevance here.

Source?
What makes an F type "superior" at manipulating people, in comparison to any other type? A T type? An S? An N? An I? An E? A P? A J?

I think attempting to type people via 'manipulative abilities' will lead to a slew of mistypes as there is nigh-infinite reasons one might manipulate and just as many versions of manipulation.

...said better than I could have said it.

 

[s.a.]

Here's my first attempt at typing the contestants, with my reasoning (through quotes of the contestants). They're ordered consecutively by who was ranked off (Joe first).
Joe: INFP
Ilah: INFP
Abbe: ExFx
Kat: ESTx
Hodan: ESxP
Kris: ExTJ
Shakera: ESTP

Anyone able to approximately yet confidently type the contestants (to the best of their abilities)?

 

[Poki]

The most successful person is the person who has found something to do that they are good at. Function doesn't matter. You can run statistics as anytime you have a group you can always run statistics and come up with percentages. But it doesn't mean that there is an actual correlation between the statistics you ran and the groupings you placed them in.

and perseverance...that is a huge factor as well that's not type based.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

I'd agree if someone said that Financially sensors are more successful than intuitor. They are energetically gifted to respond practically with professionalism principle that makes their career last long.
Intuitor in the e-book age, will have a much challenge with their writer's career. Who want to buy book, if they can have it for free?