[MBTI General] Intuitives are overrated

[prplchknz]

If they think you are not superior if you're an N they call you a S. it doesn't matter, but I know I'm not ISFP. it's fucked up. N and S has nothing to do with how good/smart/superior of a person you are.
also if you read the frame line test, a lot of people who type as n and some of those have called me an s scored better than me on it. yet I'm the S and they're the N

 

[yeghor]

There has never been an S-dominant society, bar enclaves of monks and schools of physicists.

What's the prevailing attitude in your society? Would you explain more about your reasoning?

 

[five sounds]

Nah, I really don't see that happening anymore either. Both sensing functions are discussed here without being slighted. If anything Ne gets a bad rap for being Ni's spazzed out insufferable step brother. But maybe I'm sensitive to that given my type.

 

[EJCC]

Does this really still happen? I can't remember the last time I saw this on TypoC. Maybe on PersonalityCafe.

It's toned down a lot in the past few years, but it's still around. More from NFs and NTs glorifying themselves, and/or assuming things about Sensors (especially re: critical thinking and intelligence), than from explicit dissing.

You could say it's moved from open discrimination to microaggression. But I think a lot of the main offenders have either moved on from the forum, or have been converted. So it's not so bad.

 

[yeghor]

It's toned down a lot in the past few years, but it's still around. More from NFs and NTs glorifying themselves, and/or assuming things about Sensors (especially re: critical thinking and intelligence), than from explicit dissing.

You could say it's moved from open discrimination to microaggression. But I think a lot of the main offenders have either moved on from the forum, or have been converted. So it's not so bad.

Proof or it didn't happen...

 

[HongDou]

It's toned down a lot in the past few years, but it's still around. More from NFs and NTs glorifying themselves, and/or assuming things about Sensors (especially re: critical thinking and intelligence), than from explicit dissing.

You could say it's moved from open discrimination to microaggression.

That, and I think the main victim of stereotyping and bashing online are the ExFJs (Fe-doms are still seen as sheep, hypercritical mothers, two-faced, manipulative, etc). But combine that with the microaggressions against S types, it's no wonder this place and other forums are ESFJ-deprived.

 

[EJCC]

Proof or it didn't happen...

Check out any thread that tries to link intelligence with type.

That, and I think the main victim of stereotyping and bashing online are the ExFJs (Fe-doms are still seen as sheep, hypercritical mothers, two-faced, manipulative, etc). But combine that with the microaggressions against S types, it's no wonder this place and other forums are ESFJ-deprived.

Yeah I agree. Fe-doms seem to be the victims of the most open discrimination on this forum. Most everything else is micro.

 

[yeghor]

Check out any thread that tries to link intelligence with type.

Yeah I agree. Fe-doms seem to be the victims of the most open discrimination on this forum. Most everything else is micro.

Hmm, I guess it didn't happen then.

 

[Hive]

It's toned down a lot in the past few years, but it's still around. More from NFs and NTs glorifying themselves, and/or assuming things about Sensors (especially re: critical thinking and intelligence), than from explicit dissing.

You could say it's moved from open discrimination to microaggression. But I think a lot of the main offenders have either moved on from the forum, or have been converted. So it's not so bad.

Hm. I haven't noticed, but maybe it's the same as not noticing subtle structural racism because you're white. I guess you and other Sensors are better fit to judge.

I like you guys, anyway. When our traits complement each other, I usually prefer hanging out with Sensors. I mentioned my ESFJ best friend who's more grounded and clear-headed than I am, but still able to Ne the fuck out with me.

 

[yeghor]

Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intuitive, as opposed to the general population, most of (w)hom (70%) prefer sensing (Gallagher, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Hoehn & Bireley, 1988; Mills, 1983; Myers & McCaulley, 1985a, 1985b; Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989; Williams, 1992). Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory, and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school male students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985b). Also, Delbridge-Parker and Robinson examined the MBTI preferences of 72 gifted junior high students who were finalists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that the gifted students showed strong preferences for intuition (75%).

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...

Intuitive type descriptions may have been sugarcoated or exaggerated, but so may sensor type descriptions be...
[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION], could you please make a comparison of one intuitive type description and one sensor type description and put forward how one is exaggerated and the other isn't...or how one is mentioned as mundane/common/ordinary and the other as extraordinary?

ex·traor·di·nary adjective : very unusual : very different from what is normal or ordinary... are intuitives extraordinary (eccentric) or not?

 

[cascadeco]

Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intuitive, as opposed to the general population, most of (w)hom (70%) prefer sensing (Gallagher, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Hoehn & Bireley, 1988; Mills, 1983; Myers & McCaulley, 1985a, 1985b; Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989; Williams, 1992). Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory, and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school male students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985b). Also, Delbridge-Parker and Robinson examined the MBTI preferences of 72 gifted junior high students who were finalists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that the gifted students showed strong preferences for intuition (75%).

The issue I see with these sorts of 'stats' (ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove that they were accurately able to assess the mbti types of everyone they said were intuitive vs sensor), is that stats are in the end describing trends, not individuals. So the isolated individual who goes against the group stats will be more likely to mistype. You can't apply trends to individuals.

For example, I'm in the top 2% of aptitude tests. ISFP's are supposed to be amongst the lowest for scores in aptitude tests. Easy for me to mistype, when intuitives are the only ones who are 'supposed' to have aptitude for big picture abstractions/patterns, lowly ISFP's aren't supposed to be able to do well at aptitude tests.

The interesting thing would be if people mistakenly type as INxx because they do well on aptitude assessments (or other such things). What if the supposed INxx's in those stats are actually a slew of other types, they were just labeled INxx for reasons such as being able to comprehend abstractions? Even if it's not actually their preference?

 

[hacbad macbar]

Who overrated them? Seriously, I've always felt underrated.

 

[yeghor]

The issue I see with these sorts of 'stats' (ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove that they were accurately able to assess the mbti types of everyone they said were intuitive vs sensor), is that stats are in the end describing trends, not individuals. So the isolated individual who goes against the group stats will be more likely to mistype. You can't apply trends to individuals.

For example, I'm in the top 2% of aptitude tests. ISFP's are supposed to be amongst the lowest for scores in aptitude tests. Easy for me to mistype, when intuitives are the only ones who are 'supposed' to have aptitude for big picture abstractions/patterns, lowly ISFP's aren't supposed to be able to do well at aptitude tests.

The interesting thing would be if people mistakenly type as INxx because they do well on aptitude assessments (or other such things). What if the supposed INxx's in those stats are actually a slew of other types, they were just labeled INxx for reasons such as being able to comprehend abstractions? Even if it's not actually their preference?

You are taking this from a viewpoint of some kind of inferiority complex and turning it around as if mentioning this research is intended as an insult to non-intuitives.

When someone or a research says intuitives have a higher propensity for higher potential in certain intelligences, one has to accept it as a reality (notwithstanding the accuracy of the research or lack thereof). I won't deliberately look for opportunities to mention this out of context at every opportunity to belittle others, but OTOH I won't refrain from mentioning it so that others won't feel bad about their type if it serves to support or refute an argument.

I am still waiting for the OP to point out how N type definitions are overrated and non-N type definitions are not.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

The grass is always greener on the other side

I like being lost in my imagination.

*Floats away*

 

[Typh0n]

Ns are the minority IRL.

Not true.

Perhpas there are slightly less Ns than Ss "in real life"(you dont participate in real life?), or perhaps slightly more. I dont know, but the difference is not such that Ns can be called a "minority".

 

[EJCC]

You are taking this from a viewpoint of some kind of inferiority complex and turning it around as if mentioning this research is intended as an insult to non-intuitives.

When someone or a research says intuitives have a higher propensity for higher potential in certain intelligences, one has to accept it as a reality (notwithstanding the accuracy of the research or lack thereof).

That's not actually what the research you cited said. It said that students in gifted programs are more likely to test as N. This could be from mistyping, as [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] mentioned -- I'm as likely to test N as S, in part because I'm fine with learning about theory and most online tests seem to think that all Sensors have trouble with theory. Not to mention that, if type descriptions are correct about most SPs doing poorly in school, then a lower Sensor presence in gifted programs should say nothing about their intelligence, but only about how well they do in school. Highly intelligent people are often bored with coursework because they don't consider it relevant -- for an N example, look to Albert Einstein.

For the examples you requested, look only to descriptions of Ni-dominance as being "psychic" or some kind of magical intuition that is magically always right -- when by contrast SPs are salt-of-the-earth, grounded types without the capacity for higher knowledge.

 

[prplchknz]

it's simple people think they're correct about everything, and do not like to look at evidence that goes "you're wrong" so basically people who do know stuff gets ignored because it doesn't fit into the other person's world view. they think their formula for life is good, and force it on you. and so basically you get viewed as the idiot, something's wrong with you. and I think that the world will not end if I say you're wrong. because you're wrong

 

[LittleV]

To put it out there... I know some ESFP professors/researchers - and they're usually fair with me. I've been around ST's my whole life... except the xSTP's can find ways to make me feel right at home. ESFJ's can be very sweet... it really depends on whether they're neurotic. Neurotic extraverts in general can push their moods onto others quite forcefully, whether it's intended or not.

Here is an example of a stable esFJ (ESE-Fe) whose mentioned that her friends would consider her independent, reserved, creative and mysterious. She's also described herself as someone who thinks differently and loves to write poetry. She's one of the more genuine people I've seen in the media... and reminds me very much of my college roommate, whom I'm still friends with today; my friend's also shy... and loves to travel, be outdoors, be productive, and help out her family. I could tell she didn't always 'get' why I'd choose to do certain things... but she's very respectable and we've gotten very close. We care a lot about each other; she was there as I'd gone through my 'growing up' period... and the first person I'd opened up to since leaving home, when I was very eager to begin a new chapter.

 

[yeghor]

That's not actually what the research you cited said. It said that students in gifted programs are more likely to test as N. This could be from mistyping, as [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] mentioned -- I'm as likely to test N as S, in part because I'm fine with learning about theory and most online tests seem to think that all Sensors have trouble with theory. Not to mention that, if type descriptions are correct about most SPs doing poorly in school, then a lower Sensor presence in gifted programs should say nothing about their intelligence, but only about how well they do in school. Highly intelligent people are often bored with coursework because they don't consider it relevant -- for an N example, look to Albert Einstein.

For the examples you requested, look only to descriptions of Ni-dominance as being "psychic" or some kind of magical intuition that is magically always right -- when by contrast SPs are salt-of-the-earth, grounded types without the capacity for higher knowledge.

I think it's the same as what I said if one assumes they are correctly typed... I don't have the means to check the origibal papers mentioned but am assuming that thry have been subjected to some kind of academic scrutiny...

What does it mean to be gifted then? Is it something different then what I said in my post? If yes how?

Perhaps the descriptions are not that off... perhaps they are as close as one get to being psychic...

Could you please provide examples as to how Ns are overated and non-Ns are underrated?

 

[Typh0n]

Could you please provide examples as to how Ns are overated and non-Ns are underrated?

I know it was addressed to EJCC, not me, but Ill answer anyways.

Ns are described as gifted visionaries whereas Ss are descirbed as being somewhat "banal".

If you want an example of this, look at some your posts ITT...