Shadow Play
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2018
- Messages
- 236
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.
So, it's about patterns and possibilities, and working with theories.
Here is how Sensing is defined on that same website.
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?
Here is how Intuition is defined on the official website.
The Myers & Briggs Foundation said: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.
The Myers & Briggs Foundation said: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?