R
ReflecTcelfeR
Guest
Oops?
^ See, I don't know.
My thought is that the 'S' questions seem to lean more towards Si than Se, so I think it's fairly common for SP's to test as N's.
... My first test was in my teens. My results were INFP. ...
My first test was infj I think. I was in my early twenties. I remember it because I bragged I was the same type as Gandhi. I think Gandhi is infj in Keirsey's book.
You had the official test though right?
Some tests prefer N over S in wording, some don't. That DDLI (I think that is how it is spelled) seemed okay. And the Lenore Thomson one is okay.
I think it's probably easier to just talk about MBTI in terms of preferences.. best "fit".
Oops?
How can you expect accurate results if the interpretation of the results isn't accurate, when the N side is WAY FAVORED.
I was just thinking about philosophers questioning what Reality actually is, and sense we can never REALLY know that what we're feeling, physically, is real or not...
You thought wrong. You even explained why:I always thought of sensors as less abstract and creative than Ns, but far more coordinated and physically able.
Besides, you can still be an intelligent S; the MBTI doesn't try to limit you to sensing, but it implies that you prefer it (i.e. dominant function).
Well, let's not speak tautologically. We have the same viewpoint, clearly, but I was just stating what abilities I associated the traits with. Besides, it is logical to assume that intuition -> creativity and sensing -> physical ability. Although being an N wouldn't necessarily make you creative, it would certainly make you more prone to being so (same deal conversely with S).
It's not really that logical. S and N are perceiving functions, meaning that a person who prefers S will focus on taking in information about more tangible things whereas N will tend to focus on taking in information about abstract things like patterns and relationships between things.
It would be logical to conclude that Ss would be more experienced with tangible things while N would be more experienced with abstract things (given the luxury of indulging in your preferred activities, I suppose). I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could say that experience begets skill, but that isn't necessarily true. If we do assume that experience --> skill, logically Ss would be more skilled at being creative with tangible things, whereas Ns would be more skilled at being creative with abstract things.
Likewise you could say Ss might be more attracted to playing sports than Ns (although my personal experience disagrees, so I'm not sure the theory holds up there), and certainly practice will improve skill, but that has nothing to do with natural talent or coordination/motor skills. Tiger woods is supposed to be INTP, for a ridiculous example.
When I said there might be a correlation, I was talking about the tendency for practice to improve proficiency, which is not necessarily a useful assumption. Not S or N directly making you "prone" to something.
This corresponds closely to my impressions with sensors in regards to historical discussions. Sensors(or people I think are sensors) seem able to get into more of all the minute details en masse that would kill me to try to keep up with. I got a migrane trying to follow one discussion about the different mechanics and battlefield effectiveness of the King Tiger and Iosif Stalin tanks of WWII that went on for 20 pages on one forum. A few paragraph summary would've been more than enough for me.One essential difference is how N sees big picture w/o needing to see details, whereas SFP tends to formulate the big picture by looking at all the details. They really get far more into the specific details and sensations of the art experience, N stays focused on the interconnections.
Before all of this MBTI stuff, I would have taken a little pride in some of my own creativity as just being my own thing. That I'm responsible for it. All of the sudden it's because I was a certain type. Meh.
You keep getting N because, if you answered in an "S" way on the tests, they'd have you believe that you cannot comprehend the abstract, that you are unimaginative, that you do not think about the future...basically a lot of things that all people with normal cognition do on a regular basis. They're basically asking if you're retarded. If yes, then S. If no, then N.
And who is to say ISTJs aren't glad to be called duty fulfillers? I saw some of them on Pers Cafe defending their right to be just that. They don't seem especially bothered by it.
Maybe it's your own bias that makes you think the N descriptions sound cool.
Pfft. Fuck labels like "the Mastermind". Thats pretentious as fuck and I would never want to be labelled as such. Nothing wrong with Duty Fullfiller.
I seem to lack Se altogether, so maybe just having Fi as dominant can make one seem pretty "dreamy" and "head in the clouds", leading to an N score.
Maybe tests need to move away from ability-based question. After all, that is what the functions are about, functional preference.
I got a blatant ENFP to test as ESFP on this test: http://www.worldpersonality.com/
Anyone think it's yet another biased test, or maybe better than most other internet ones?
The point being that creativity is something we attribute to people because of what they do; what people do is going to be different based (loosely if at all) on their personality; and their personality is formed on different distributions of the N and S functions (and T and F functions as well.) The functions share no relationship with creativity.
It would be logical to conclude that Ss would be more experienced with tangible things while N would be more experienced with abstract things (given the luxury of indulging in your preferred activities, I suppose). I suppose if you wanted to stretch it, you could say that experience begets skill, but that isn't necessarily true. If we do assume that experience --> skill, logically Ss would be more skilled at being creative with tangible things, whereas Ns would be more skilled at being creative with abstract things.