Sensor Bias at MBTIc

[INTJMom]

Oh, I am vain AND a know-it-all. Not sure if I am an elitist or not.

Are you an ESFJ, or did you just put that there to throw us off?

 

[pure_mercury]

Are you an ESFJ, or did you just put that there to throw us off?

I am! When I test, I always get very expressed Extroversion and fairly expressed Judging. I've taken a couple of tests online now, and it's almost always ESFJ (with an ENFJ once). I think that my Feeling/Thinking is probably close, too. So, ExFJ perhaps? I know that it's not the right way to do things, but ESFJ is definitely the closest-sounding to me. I have been called an ENFP, but I really am not the crusading, let's-start-a-revolution type. I am much more detail-oriented and more likely to be the person who cooks you your favorite meal, or remembers the anniversary/favorite song/who directed the movie.

 

[Seanan]

I think that the bias does pop up, though. I am trying to countervail it by engaging people actively.

I'm not there yet and, sincerely, appreciate your efforts. We need more who care that way as we've, unfortunately, got some who set a really bad example. As a beginner, I wasn't aware they are not typical.

That makes me think, maybe some (any type) here who don't put their type on their profile, when they know it actually do have consiences. Perhaps they intend to be A-holes and don't want to influence as to type... hmm food for thought.

I can't find a good quote (not because they aren't there.. I'm just on my first cup) but I would like to address something you said. You maintain that it is the speaker's responsibility to adjust their output to suite the listener... words to that affect. Well, in 20 years of marriage to an "S" that just has never worked for me. I've tried so many different styles of communicating its ridiculous and once he has a viewpoint.. that is unchangable and it doesn't matter if its as minor as who takes out the garbage to a major purchase. So I paid real close attention to your words on that as I'm here to learn types and how to understand them. The trouble I see with your viewpoint is that noone can be constantly changing themselves to accomodate someone else's com style and they may be dealing with multiple types all at once.. which effective communication style would they choose then? I maintain that what each needs to do.. speaker and listener (interchangably) is make a concerted effort to understand what the speaker is saying. I mean don't we all do that while reading for instance? And soften their hearts/judgements so that when miscommunication does occur, no irreparable damage is done.

 

[INTJMom]

I am! When I test, I always get very expressed Extroversion and fairly expressed Judging. I've taken a couple of tests online now, and it's almost always ESFJ (with an ENFJ once). I think that my Feeling/Thinking is probably close, too. So, ExFJ perhaps? I know that it's not the right way to do things, but ESFJ is definitely the closest-sounding to me. I have been called an ENFP, but I really am not the crusading, let's-start-a-revolution type. I am much more detail-oriented and more likely to be the person who cooks you your favorite meal, or remembers the anniversary/favorite song/who directed the movie.

Ah. Because the ESFJs I know are very happy, smily people who like helping others.

 

[pure_mercury]

I'm not there yet and, sincerely, appreciate your efforts. We need more who care that way as we've, unfortunately, got some who set a really bad example. As a beginner, I wasn't aware they are not typical.

That makes me think, maybe some (any type) here who don't put their type on their profile, when they know it actually do have consiences. Perhaps they intend to be A-holes and don't want to influence as to type... hmm food for thought.

I can't find a good quote (not because they aren't there.. I'm just on my first cup) but I would like to address something you said. You maintain that it is the speaker's responsibility to adjust their output to suite the listener... words to that affect. Well, in 20 years of marriage to an "S" that just has never worked for me. I've tried so many different styles of communicating its ridiculous and once he has a viewpoint.. that is unchangable and it doesn't matter if its as minor as who takes out the garbage to a major purchase. So I paid real close attention to your words on that as I'm here to learn types and how to understand them. The trouble I see with your viewpoint is that noone can be constantly changing themselves to accomodate someone else's com style and they may be dealing with multiple types all at once.. which effective communication style would they choose then? I maintain that what each needs to do.. speaker and listener (interchangably) is make a concerted effort to understand what the speaker is saying. I mean don't we all do that while reading for instance? And soften their hearts/judgements so that when miscommunication does occur, no irreparable damage is done.

I should have been clearer. You shouldn't "change" yourself to accommodate someone. It's just that the lack of understanding isn't necessarily on the other person's end (sensor or not). It's usually in the middle. Therefore, one should take that into account. Also, that type of behavior (making up your mind and not changing it) is being stubborn, and that is not particular to any one type or function.

 

[Seanan]

Also, that type of behavior (making up your mind and not changing it) is being stubborn, and that is not particular to any one type or function.

Yes, I agree with that but, as a thinking person (type regardless), I cannot ignore the fact that yesterday, in the ensuing type discussion, five people, without talking to each other nor having time to read each other's posts, described dealing in it with the beloved "Ss" at home. Mine happens to be an "SJ" My point was that when this stubborn streak is present, one cannot know if its actually a communication problem.

Edit: but if one finds themselves saying "Don't change the subject" often enough the odds are pretty good its not communication that's the issue.

 

[INTJMom]

I think it's just an optical illusion

I've been thinking about it, and I think the only reason it looks like Ns think Ss are stupid is because there are more Ns here than there are Ss here.

In real life, where there are more Ss than Ns, Ns are the ones who are made to feel stupid. The only people who ever insult my intelligence in real life are S types. They accuse me of not having common sense, or my ideas not being practical, or just plain stupid. Maybe the pendulum swings both ways, but it just doesn't look like it - it's an optical illusion.


And as Xander knows, I will not be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Rajah]

I've said before that I think the biggest divide is S/N. It does not mean you're dumb if you're an S. I do think it means an S and an N process information differently, and have difficulty getting on one another's wavelength. It ends up being the biggest source of frustration. I have strong Ne, and end up getting exasperated when someone doesn't follow the way my warped mind works. It's not anyone's shortcoming; just a difference in thinking process.

 

[redacted]

I've been thinking about it, and I think the only reason it looks like Ns think Ss are stupid is because there are more Ns here than there are Ss here.

In real life, where there are more Ss than Ns, Ns are the ones who are made to feel stupid. The only people who ever insult my intelligence in real life are S types. They accuse me of not having common sense, or my ideas not being practical, or just plain stupid. Maybe the pendulum swings both ways, but it just doesn't look like it - it's an optical illusion.


And as Xander knows, I will not be persuaded otherwise.

i think on top of that is the fact that many of us Ns have been rejected by the S-world for a long time, and we have pent-up aggression that we unfairly displace.

i know i'm guilty of that, at least.

 

[pure_mercury]

I've been thinking about it, and I think the only reason it looks like Ns think Ss are stupid is because there are more Ns here than there are Ss here.

In real life, where there are more Ss than Ns, Ns are the ones who are made to feel stupid. The only people who ever insult my intelligence in real life are S types. They accuse me of not having common sense, or my ideas not being practical, or just plain stupid. Maybe the pendulum swings both ways, but it just doesn't look like it - it's an optical illusion.

That isn't right, either, and people shouldn't be so narrow-minded. It's hard for people to understand the way my mind works, so I have issues there, too. And I love the Jung quotation there.

P.S. I am trying to figure out the types of people I know who truly are stupid, and it's difficult.

 

[INTJMom]

That isn't right, either, and people shouldn't be so narrow-minded. It's hard for people to understand the way my mind works, so I have issues there, too. And I love the Jung quotation there.

P.S. I am trying to figure out the types of people I know who truly are stupid, and it's difficult.

How many people are ACTUALLY stupid?! Give me a break.
You don't have enough respect for other people.

 

[Seanan]

One of the things I've noticed... no, not especially on site, is that when an "N", in communicating, will go to great lengths to explain and go through the steps of their conclusions. Whereas an "S" just states the conclusion with no fillin. This does two things, as I see it, the "S" gets bored with the details and also, sometimes, feels offended thinking the "N" is talking down to them... not so, they're actually being thoughtful. The "N" will question the "S" for the left-out fillin and the "S" gets offended by that as if they think they're being "grilled" or thought to be stoopid. As stated, not true. The "N" is seeking to understand and can't do so with fillin. On the other hand, when the "S" doesn't give fill in, the "N", usually pressing and getting rebuffed, thinks they are being talked down to... or being dictated to depending on the subject. So, yes, communication styles but also hard "hearts."

 

[Rajah]

How many people are ACTUALLY stupid?! Give me a break.

If you're referring to people who'd score in the bottom half when given an IQ test... then I'd say roughly 50%.

 

[pure_mercury]

How many people are ACTUALLY stupid?! Give me a break.
You don't have enough respect for other people.

That's a rather strange thing to say after I just spent several posts promoting understanding people's ways of thinking. There is a spectrum of intelligence in the world; it just isn't claimed by any one race, or belief system, or personality trait.

 

[zarc]

How many people are ACTUALLY stupid?! Give me a break.
You don't have enough respect for other people.

I think he was mostly joking. Right, p_m?--nvm, I see I was right.

Aside from his post, this is unrelated, joking can be a form of stress release, especially given all the harping on Ss here or elsewhere, it's sometimes fun to tease against Ns (and vice versa or XXXX/XXX/XX/X play fighting all out brawls!)-- StereoTypes are sometimes used for light humour, with no intention of harm, though there can be if openly thrown about and misunderstood by others. We see it in humour all the time with other kinds of stereotypes by comedians. Oh, and isn't there something said about comedians showing the true nature/reflection of hidden society at the time? Or something similar? err

 

[Rajah]

One of the things I've noticed... no, not especially on site, is that when an "N", in communicating, will go to great lengths to explain and go through the steps of their conclusions. Whereas an "S" just states the conclusion with no fillin. This does two things, as I see it, the "S" gets bored with the details and also, sometimes, feels offended thinking the "N" is talking down to them... not so, they're actually being thoughtful. The "N" will question the "S" for the left-out fillin and the "S" gets offended by that as if they think they're being "grilled" or thought to be stoopid. As stated, not true. The "N" is seeking to understand and can't do so with fillin. On the other hand, when the "S" doesn't give fill in, the "N", usually pressing and getting rebuffed, thinks they are being talked down to... or being dictated to depending on the subject. So, yes, communication styles but also hard "hearts."

Huh... I see the exact opposite. I see the N stating a conclusion but figuring the steps to get there are so obvious they don't need stated. Whereas the S is a detail-oriented kind of guy, and goes through each step in excruciating, mind-numbing detail.

 

[Seanan]

Huh... I see the exact opposite. I see the N stating a conclusion but figuring the steps to get there are so obvious they don't need stated. Whereas the S is a detail-oriented kind of guy, and goes through each step in excruciating, mind-numbing detail.

Weird.... not my experience at all!

wonder if it could be gender-based...

I don't know... I've been told I'm pretty typical... if you'll look at some of my posts, you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[pure_mercury]

One of the things I've noticed... no, not especially on site, is that when an "N", in communicating, will go to great lengths to explain and go through the steps of their conclusions. Whereas an "S" just states the conclusion with no fillin. This does two things, as I see it, the "S" gets bored with the details and also, sometimes, feels offended thinking the "N" is talking down to them... not so, they're actually being thoughtful. The "N" will question the "S" for the left-out fillin and the "S" gets offended by that as if they think they're being "grilled" or thought to be stoopid. As stated, not true. The "N" is seeking to understand and can't do so with fillin. On the other hand, when the "S" doesn't give fill in, the "N", usually pressing and getting rebuffed, thinks they are being talked down to... or being dictated to depending on the subject. So, yes, communication styles but also hard "hearts."

See, I think of "details" to be in the same boat as hard factual data ("nuts and bolts"), and more the realm of the sensors I know, whereas the conceptual and theoretical elements would be more the intuitive realm. Am I off to people here?

 

[Seanan]

See, I think of "details" to be in the same boat as hard factual data ("nuts and bolts"), and more the realm of the sensors I know, whereas the conceptual and theoretical elements would be more the intuitive realm. Am I off to people here?

I wasn't addressing thinking style... just communication style. And, when an "N" is trying to fillin on that.... blah, blah, blah

Edit... this post and last... I'm having trouble communicating today. lol

 

[pure_mercury]

I wasn't addressing thinking style... just communication style. And, when an "N" is trying to fillin on that.... blah, blah, blah

Edit... this post and last... I'm having trouble communicating today. lol

Ah, well, I go off and blab on a for a while, too, but I like to throw in some interesting facts, figures, and anecdotes, too.