[MBTI General] Intuitives are overrated

[yeghor]

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...

Show to me please.

 

[Totenkindly]

Directly responding to the OP:

My impression is that intuitives have generally been underrated in "the Real World" aside from the fortunate few lucky enough to create something useful or popular. Western culture seemed to venerate certain S standards for a long, long time -- if you could produce something tangible, you were successful, but N's were usually treated like crazies or flakes aside from the few rock stars (scientists, writers, musicians, etc.) who got public notoriety. Little career progress, seen as unproductive, self-esteem would suffer, etc.

So there was an early exodus to the Internet by the N's, when it began to reshape from IRC and text interfaces into what we recognize today. The N's seemed quicker to find use for it and not be bothered by the abstracted nature of the communication, and they also finally began to meet each other, realize they weren't alone, and establish communities which obviously then had a much higher percentage of N folks than RL.

Which means when you took surveys and cross-sections of Internet communities, you were getting a higher percentage of N folks than the general population. Also, the N's tended to dominate online in a way they didn't IRL and in some cases throw their weight around.

I do think that as the Internet has become much more widely accepted and all sorts of people find it easy to access through computer, smart phone, gaming, news, smart TV, etc., S's are far more common online than they used to be and the balance is a little more even. But I think if you're getting attitude from N's, it comes in part from the RL imbalance that tends to exist.

Obviously I don't think any type should lord it over another. We all have strengths and weaknesses that impact how a particular situation plays out, and we can learn from each other. I hope it continues to balance out as time passes.

 

[yeghor]

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".

The research I quoted says non-intuitives are about 70% IRL, which makes intuitives a minority...

 

[Sunny Ghost]

Why does S/N always have to devolve to who is better or superior? I don't think a society can function solely on the back of one type or another. They're both vastly important within a single person, as well. The most intelligent and well rounded people have a good grasp on sensing and intuition, and the least adaptable and unintelligent folks seem to only have a firm hand on one of the two tools. This goes for the feeling/thinking department, and introverted/extroverted department, as well.

 

[Typh0n]

Show to me please.

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. - post #33

Why are you talking about research which shows iNtuitives have "higher potential in certain intelligences"? Perhpas I took it out of context, but Id like to know if yo're referring to something specific.

The research I quoted says non-intuitives are about 70% IRL, which makes intuitives a minority...

Which research? Im not one to buy into these types of stats, be forewarned, but you can feel free to show me as I havent seen you quote any research ITT.

 

[yeghor]

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. - post #33

Why are you talking about research which shows iNtuitives have "higher potential in certain intelligences"? Perhpas I took it out of context, but Id like to know if yo're referring to something specific.

Which research? Im not one to buy into these types of stats, be forewarned, but you can feel free to show me as I havent seen you quote any research ITT.

So as to put things into context and explain why N type descriptions might come across as overated as mentioned by OP.

for the research, go back 3 or 4 posts of mine back.

 

[thistlechaser]

Oh yeah, I pretty much agree. The profiles do mention how much more pragmatic & realistic Sensing types are, but I guess that doesn't sound as sexy as "imaginative" or "abstract thinkers". In reality, being pragmatic & realistic is very sexy if it leads to, you know, living life.

This applies more to INxx types than the others, but we're also the most exoticized (yes, even us INFPs, the low man on the iNtuitive totem pole).
ENxx types do seem to DO more, but what is talked less of is how they can be fickle & unstable still, not possessing the steadiness or loyalty of Sensing types (yes, I include SPs with that).

Steadiness and loyalty are two extremely underrated qualities useful for aptitude. I may know a little about everything I set my eyes on, but how much of it will be realized? S types seem to me to be a lot more steadfast in their commitments to furthering a single idea. While N types can see outside, under, and around the box, it seems to me that the S type can see a box, build a new box. See another box, build another box. Slowly, steadily, reliably. I start drawing a box, figure out what's whizzing outside of the box, then ponder the meaning of boxes as constructs, think of what an anti-box might be, then picture boxes as the degrade over time. This is all a lot of mental activity, and I score very highly on aptitude tests, but there's another side to that.

I dropped out of high school at 16, got an honors GED I'm maintaining a 2.3 GPA at a community college, banging my head against the very simplest of subjects trying to reinvent calculus, physics, chemical formula models, etc. Everything except doing real work.

Until I can find a way to do something consistently, I'm gonna have a lot of trouble producing anything worthwhile. I tend to do best when I'm paired up with an "S" type who can help me to declutter the crap in my head and figure out a plan of action. At the moment, I feel like being an N type is overrated, but I'm also feeling really frustrated about the wall I keep hitting with productivity. I don't think one type really has more total advantages than the other, they're just different advantages. It seems to me that the real questions are:

How likely is it for any given S or N type to have a particular strength?
And then, what is the worth of that particular strength to society as a whole?

The second part is tricky. Many people disagree about what is good for society, what goals society should be going for. How do we agree on an ideal? How do we measure progress towards that ideal? It depends on how you define these things. What do you, personally value? Can you separate your values from societal values? Should the two be different or the same?

Actually they may be underrated by S dominant societies, as weirdos or procastinators or no-gooders. Because they do not necessarily produce tangible or visible products.

I think both have uses in the society. Ns may serve as visionaries and innovators in their respective environment and help the society get out of a rut, or may lead them to their demise.

Being an intuitive may imply an inability to deal with the present and real circumstances and an escape into fantasy to deal with that. That inclination may be a result of the individual's physiology, physical and mental capabilities.

A strong N might signify an overactive central nervous system and brain activity, hence might imply that Ns may have a higher potential to get better at certain intelligence domains than Ss or even Ts.

Perhaps certain N types manifesting less frequently than other types in the society should make them a valued resource.

Great points. I imagine there have been leaders with vastly different moral alignments who were Ns. If strong Ns were to have overactive CNSs and brain activity, there may be a high potential for them to be have high specific intelligences, but at what cost? How functional are Ns compared to Ss? Is society more conducive to Ss, with little support or consideration given to those with overactive brains? Can such a cost be easily summed up and accounted for in future health and welfare planning strategies? If it is a rare, valued thing, should they be protected more than other personality types? Do some people have more "worth" than others in a society? This goes back again to my question about determining what is "good" for a society, and then for the individual, and then whether or not these things should be expected to be the same.

Online, intuitives are probably overrated - due to type descriptions glorifying them.

In real life, I don't think that's the case.

I think with regards to N descriptions, they're going to attract mistypes from S's who don't fit in / relate to their peers (as N descriptions emphasize the 'differentness'), as it's an illusion that all S's just totally fit in and such due to S-dominated (supposedly) world -- as well as smart S's who can see the big picture. There's definitely an N=uber-intelligent leaning that isn't usually emphasized in most S descriptions. [I still wonder how many people type stupid N's as S's, just because they're stupid N's, and N descriptions make it sound as if all N's are blessed with miraculous insight and intelligence, lol] The stereotypes continue online, though it's subtle. I do think it's becoming less of a problem though.

But yeah, as [MENTION=21508]Agnes[/MENTION] noted, the other element is that I think many people are more balanced, have learned to go beyond their preferences, so don't mirror the archetypes to a T. So the descriptions become less relevant to those people I think.

This is also a great point. I've been guilty of assuming that all S types will get along in society better than I do, simply because they're S types. My own brand of 4ish special differentness manifests pretty strongly here, in that I often feel at a disadvantage in society and that all S types have more resources tailored to their needs and strengths. I have trouble sticking to a schedule. Flexible scheduling would be the number one biggest thing to help me get along better and realize my full potential. Additionally, I don't prefer having a boss or talking to people that I haven't pre-determined to be worth my time. When I talk to someone, it's typically for a reason. I hardly ever idly chit chat. I don't like office gossip, but I'd love to hear about how my coworker is struggling to leave her husband and really likes cookies. I'll bring her cookies more, and try to support her. If the office paired me up to work with her, though, I might be pretty fussy about having to go at her pace, explain things to her, delegate tasks, etc. I tend to have my own dreams and designs for things and don't adapt well to spontaneous team environments. S types, on the other hand--on average, they do tend to have less troubles with spur of the moment changes, socializing with people who won't be "useful" for their plan of the day, just being in the moment and caring about current affairs and goings-on, in general. Someone please correct me if this assessment is incorrect, though, as I already know I'm biased towards overestimating the strengths of S's from my perspective within my frustrated morass.

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.

Hahaha. Ni's spazzed out, insufferable step brother. Love this! Wait, what was I doing? Oh yea, my taxes. And studying molecular structures. Also, maybe food. I need a team of S's who like my ideas who will build all of the things. Sigh.

 

[Typh0n]

So as to put things into context and explain why N type descriptions might come across as overated as mentioned by OP.

Ok, that makes sense.

for the research, go back 3 or 4 posts of mine back.

Edit: Nevermind I saw the reserach, but I dont really think it says much. Just that iNtuitives are better at certain aptitude tests.

All in all, I dont really think this site overrates iNtuitives, maybe on PC they do though. Not here. I dont think MBTI descriptions do either, FWIW.

 

[EJCC]

Why does S/N always have to devolve to who is better or superior? I don't think a society can function solely on the back of one type or another. They're both vastly important within a single person, as well. The most intelligent and well rounded people have a good grasp on sensing and intuition, and the least adaptable and unintelligent folks seem to only have a firm hand on one of the two tools. This goes for the feeling/thinking department, and introverted/extroverted department, as well.

I agree with you. However, my answer to your question would be: Because one of the "microaggressions" I was talking about relates to the fact that sometimes, when people explain this same viewpoint, it is very condescending to Sensors. As if to say, Ns are leaders, but leaders can't function without followers.

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...

Regardless of academic scrutiny, you can't assume that the tests are infallible. Nor can you when you read about any similar study that includes a test.

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

I presume the way it was used in your quote, related to whether or not a student had passed an exam that would have put them into a gifted program. Per the theory of multiple intelligences -- which I believe is not involved in the selection of students into gifted programs -- this would not measure all aspects of students' intelligence.

This is a digression, however.

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

"Maybe it's not biased... maybe they actually ARE superior."

This is a perfect example of everything I've been talking about.

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

The "psychic" thing is definitely an example of a type being overrated. I know plenty of INFJs, and they are not psychic, or anything close.

I may stop here, because it appears that your view of Ns thinking on a higher plane is so ingrained that there will be no convincing you. Especially considering the part I quoted and bolded above.

 

[yeghor]

I agree with you. However, my answer to your question would be: Because one of the "microaggressions" I was talking about relates to the fact that sometimes, when people explain this same viewpoint, it is very condescending to Sensors. As if to say, Ns are leaders, but leaders can't function without followers.
Regardless of academic scrutiny, you can't assume that the tests are infallible. Nor can you when you read about any similar study that includes a test.

I presume the way it was used in your quote, related to whether or not a student had passed an exam that would have put them into a gifted program. Per the theory of multiple intelligences -- which I believe is not involved in the selection of students into gifted programs -- this would not measure all aspects of students' intelligence.

This is a digression, however.

"Maybe it's not biased... maybe they actually ARE superior."

This is a perfect example of everything I've been talking about.

The "psychic" thing is definitely an example of a type being overrated. I know plenty of INFJs, and they are not psychic, or anything close.

I may stop here, because it appears that your view of Ns thinking on a higher plane is so ingrained that there will be no convincing you. Especially considering the part I quoted and bolded above.

You are distorting my words...where did I say superior? Why being pseudo-psychic is superior? When and when not?

Where did I say they are more intelligent? Show to me.

 

[EJCC]

You are distorting my words...where did I say superior? Why being pseudo-psychic is superior? When and when not?

Do you NOT think that being psychic would be superior? I would think that general consensus would show that superhuman looks better than human.

Where did I say they are more intelligent? Show to me.

I was thinking of the below post -- however, I failed to read it correctly. Apologies.

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).

 

[yeghor]

Do you NOT think that being psychic would be superior? I would think that general consensus would show that superhuman looks better than human.

I was thinking of the below post -- however, I failed to read it correctly. Apologies.

Instinctively kowing what people think about you, automatically reading it on their faces and caring about it...not always a good thing when the silent feedback is negative...

 

[EJCC]

Instinctively kowing what people think about you, automatically reading it on their faces and caring about it...not always a good thing when the silent feedback is negative...

True. And I understand that from having so many INFJs in my life -- the constant processing and cog-turning seems stressful and exhausting a lot of the time.

However, you're describing it reasonably, whereas using overblown words like "psychic" is part of the problem with the descriptions I and others have been describing.

Here's an example from typelogic.com:

Their amazing ability to deduce the inner workings of the mind, will and emotions of others gives INFJs their reputation as prophets and seers.

In contrast (same website):

Punctuality is a watchword of the ISTJ. The secretary, clerk, or business(wo)man by whom others set their clocks is likely to be an ISTJ.

I knew an ISFJ -- artsy and progressive and boundary-pushing -- who was so deeply offended by ISFJ descriptions, similar to the above ISTJ snippet, that she swore off the MBTI altogether. She thought it described her as being like a closed-minded old lady who takes casseroles to church every Sunday and works at a reception desk. I believe the description she referred to was from this same site?

 

[cascadeco]

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.

Perhaps there's a bit of an inferiority complex, hard to say, but I don't think that was really the point I was trying to make.

I was questioning the Stats/research itself, and the fact that the Stats aren't terribly meaningful if people self-report as INxx or N *because* they're good at such things as aptitude tests and then think that means they're N. To be honest, the Aptitude/IQ thing is frequently used to fluff up N's feathers -- it's been used repeatedly on the forum. It actually is a good example of what the OP is asserting about N's online, tbh... this tendency to do so, as tied to N=intelligence.

I guess I'd ask you... what was YOUR purpose in bringing up this particular set of stats in this thread? What are you trying to articulate/demonstrate?

 

[yeghor]

Perhaps there's a bit of an inferiority complex, hard to say, but I don't think that was really the point I was trying to make.

I was questioning the Stats/research itself, and the fact that the Stats aren't terribly meaningful if people self-report as INxx or N *because* they're good at such things as aptitude tests and then think that means they're N. To be honest, the Aptitude/IQ thing is frequently used to fluff up N's feathers -- it's been used repeatedly on the forum. It actually is a good example of what the OP is asserting about N's online, tbh... this tendency to do so, as tied to N=intelligence.

I guess I'd ask you... what was YOUR purpose in bringing up this particular set of stats in this thread? What are you trying to articulate/demonstrate?

This is the second time I was asked about this in this thread. There must be some underlying pattern behind it.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...itives-overrated-post2305260.html#post2305260

 

[yeghor]

Here's an example from typelogic.com:

Quote Originally Posted by on INFJs
Their amazing ability to deduce the inner workings of the mind, will and emotions of others gives INFJs their reputation as prophets and seers.
In contrast (same website):

Quote Originally Posted by on ISTJs
Punctuality is a watchword of the ISTJ. The secretary, clerk, or business(wo)man by whom others set their clocks is likely to be an ISTJ?

Compare these two set of traits:

What are the common characteristics of prophets? | Institute in Basic Life Principles

INFJ strengths and weaknesses | 16 Personality Types

As a sidenote, while growing up, I've aspired to the characteristics of the prophets as they are (ideally) described in holy books...There was of course a more primitive drive behind all that. To be perfect (as the idealized versions of the prophets) so as to secure love (basically from parents). I couldn't reach the ideal and it collapsed on me.

Also about the seer thing, I think it has connections to the holy scripts of the past:

A prophet is a seer, which implies that the basic nature of his commission is characterised by observation and watchfulness. There is no element of the spiritistic in the Hebrew concept. There is no element of fortune-telling implied. Shamanistic connotations may not be added. Shamanistic methods and techniques belong to another, entirely different kingdom. Trance states and altered states of consciousness belong to the realm of magic and is a sign of the flesh in charge and in operation.

The practices of the diviner is, and has to be, sharply renounced and rebuked by a true seer. Prediction for the sake of establishing a track record, for the sake of seeming to be able to know and to have been divinely commissioned, is no valid evidence of the prophetic. Predictions does not substantiate claims of representing Heaven.

The Seer represents the prophetic dimension by means of his ability to observe, by his inclination towards watchfulness. He is the watchman, the protector. He walks the narrow paths of the border areas of the Kingdom, drawing strength for this isolated work of defence from the vivid visions and experiences of the heartlands of God's domains. The prophet's home is a Mizpah, a watchtower, a place for proper judgment and discernment, 1 Samuel 7:6.

Of Watchmen and Seers: A few notes about ‘offices’ of Prophets | Judah's Glory Blog

Seer

Anyway, I agree that those descriptions sound as if telling about a superhuman of some kind... The thing is that they should be read as describing someone with a relatively higher inclination for such abilities and practices, which have nothing to do with special powers but, I believe, with the individual's central nervous system and brain activity.

 

[WALMART]

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

The attitude that prevails is always the same, those with their will put forth.

Sense types are defined by a characteristic suppression of intuition, while intuitive types are defined by a characteristic suppression of sensation.

While sense types are guided merely by that which happens, intuitive types are the helmsman of humanity's advance.

Only most recently has the prevailing attitude shifted towards the laws of science, to guide ourselves merely by what exists, regardless of individual will and its subsidiary, the intellect.

 

[EJCC]

Anyway, I agree that those descriptions sound as if telling about a superhuman of some kind... The thing is that they should be read as describing someone with a relatively higher inclination for such abilities and practices, which have nothing to do with special powers but, I believe, with the individual's central nervous system and brain activity.

I would argue that it shouldn't be necessary to explain how they SHOULD be read. The phrasing is problematic enough that it has created this entire debate -- which is confusing and frustrating for newbies and experienced armchair-typologists alike. I know from experience, with the ISFJ I mentioned and with others, that descriptions like that can 1) put people off of the MBTI entirely (on one extreme), and 2) make people unduly arrogant about their own type (on another extreme).

Take this as another example, from the thread relating to the "ENTJ, Destroyer of Worlds" article in The Onion:

Was that a parody? Some online ENTJs really do say shit like this seriously which makes me cringe and want to tear them a new one. :shudders:

They wouldn't say things like that if they weren't misinterpreting type descriptions -- and if type descriptions didn't frequently spin ENTJs in a particular way, then they wouldn't say things like that quite so frequently.

(Andante, I hope you don't mind that I quoted you here -- the aim was constructive.)

 

[yeghor]

I would argue that it shouldn't be necessary to explain how they SHOULD be read. The phrasing is problematic enough that it has created this entire debate -- which is confusing and frustrating for newbies and experienced armchair-typologists alike. I know from experience, with the ISFJ I mentioned and with others, that descriptions like that can 1) put people off of the MBTI entirely (on one extreme), and 2) make people unduly arrogant about their own type (on another extreme).

Take this as another example, from the thread relating to the "ENTJ, Destroyer of Worlds" article in The Onion:

They wouldn't say things like that if they weren't misinterpreting type descriptions -- and if type descriptions didn't frequently spin ENTJs in a particular way, then they wouldn't say things like that quite so frequently.

(Andante, I hope you don't mind that I quoted you here -- the aim was constructive.)

Next time you see your friend you may suggest her to use this site... Their type descriptions are more evenhanded. If she still feels offended by it, there must be something wrong in her typing.

I personally like this site's descriptions better:

ISFJ personality | 16 Personality Types

About the ENTJ thing, an ENTJ would not brag about himself\herself in word but in deed, which brings me to the fact that there are many people who are mistyped.

Check this ENTJ description for instance ENTJ personality | 16 Personality Types

People should learn to discern between good and bad type descriptions and stop reacting to certain types of people based on those descriptions, a good type description being one that moves away from mystification and towards rationalization.

I do not condone bragging about one's type or using type to belittle people. Our typing represent our inclinations, preferences and things that we give more weight to in expense of others. So each type has strong and weak suits.

 

[EJCC]

While sense types are guided merely by that which happens, intuitive types are the helmsman of humanity's advance.

Only most recently has the prevailing attitude shifted towards the laws of science, to guide ourselves merely by what exists, regardless of individual will and its subsidiary, the intellect.

This is incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of what Sensing really is.

I admit to not having the most detailed understanding of Se, and would ask that those with better understanding be the ones to step forward here -- however I have a very good understanding of Si, and can safely say that Si has little to do with "what exists". It has to do with what you remember, what you know from past experience, what you have absorbed from any number of sources and consolidated to create your general worldview. I have said elsewhere on the forum and will say here as well that I am absolutely horrible at living "in the moment" -- 99% of the time, my mind has wandered to what I need to do, what will happen ten minutes from now, a day from now, years and years in advance -- or it has wandered back to things I have done, or witnessed, in the past. I'm about as bad with "sensing" as it relates to bodily needs as any average N on this forum.

As for S/N and the "advancement of humanity" -- you need only look at type descriptions, even biased ones, to find Sensors who have strived for that same advancement. SJs, for example, are very frequently the ones who call the emperor out for having no clothes, or who strive against injustice in some other form. More proof that the stereotype of SJs always being "establishmentarian" is incorrect. They are for whatever moral code they have found that they believe is the most "right" -- whether it be their family's, the establishment's, or something else they've found.