[MBTI General] S descriptions of Ns?

[Salomé]

bored with this now...

... bluemonday

call me blue

, you do realize that sarah was saying that the Ss she knows who are interested in type all started out identifying as Ns but later come to identify as Ss (and that none of the Ns did the opposite)? What does the minority of Ns (whether there are 1/7 as you said or 1/3-1/4 as ptgatsby said, and which you refer to as proving your point :rolli have to do with that?

First of all, I was proving my point, not hers (altruism isn't my bag).

Secondly, No, I don't realise that. She may, or may not have meant that, but what she actually said was:

everyone I know who is interested in type identifies first with the iNtuitive descriptions. EVERYONE. Pretty remarkable, huh? And only later do some of them come to realize that they might prefer sensing, thanks to reading more accurate descriptions of the 16 types.

" none of the Ns did the opposite" seems to be your extrapolation.
See - I can pay attention to details.

However, relevance?

Sarah's point, or one of them (her main point seems to be that she is p*ssed off with the condescension and perceived superiority of Ns in this forum and elsewhere) is:
"Something's clearly wrong with the way these tests are worded, seeing as how so many people are being misled by them."

(Now this suggests that these people who "identify with iNtuitive descriptions" initially, also test as intuitives, although she doesn't really clarify this point.)
If I believed the MBTI test was so error-prone I would have a fundamental problem with the test in question, and I wouldn't accord it credence. And I would probably be more interested in writing a new test, than in "creating a website or a blog for ISFPs about our type preferences". Since, if the test is suspect, why should I believe that there is such as thing as an ISFP as defined by the MBTI?

Put another way, I find MBTI compelling in part because of its accuracy in predicting types and typical behavior. If I didn't, I'd file it under BS and that would be that. (It's currently filed under "pending").

Regarding Ss testing as Ns, there are so many reasons why this might happen. Since Sarah hasn't listed which of the many flavours of test she is referring too, no assessment can be made as to the validity of the test in question.

If it is the official MBTI test, and not just something some first year psych student has knocked up in his spare time, there are a number of possible explanations:-
Perhaps these people that test as Ns, but subsequently self-type as S, are in fact Ns, with little self-knowledge, or perhaps they are not highly differentiated. Or perhaps they are influenced by a cultural preference for S (note I do believe there is a cultural preference for S, in most industrial societies). Or perhaps they are too bloody stoopid to understand the questions. Who knows?

The point of bringing statistics into it is that, even though this discrepancy may be true in Sarah's experience, it is not universally true, since the majority of people test initially and indefinitely as S. Hence, I would call into question the negative connotations regarding S-ness (...perhaps eSsence would be a better word), which Sarah suggests are implicit in the test.

Phew, this is too much like hard work.

Note to self: stay out of the S forums.

 

[Randomnity]

i think these posts of yours should have their own thread in order for them to have a better shot at being seen/read/appreciated.

I think bluemonday's posts here should also have their own thread in order for them to have a better shot at being seen/read/appreciated.

 

[digesthisickness]

I think bluemonday's posts here should also have their own thread in order for them to have a better shot at being seen/read/appreciated.

ha!

 

[Salomé]

I think bluemonday's posts here should also have their own thread in order for them to have a better shot at being seen/read/appreciated.

"Flirt harder! I'm INTP" - Anon

 

[ptgatsby]

First of all, I was proving my point, not hers (altruism isn't my bag).

I don't tend to nitpick... well, actually I do...

But the whole thing is that this wasn't any form of support or rejection of Sarah's comments. It was a non sequitur that you got insulting over when asked about.

However, it is logically possible that those that self-test automatically identify with Ns because only Ns self-test, that part I don't disagree with. Well, I kind of disagree, but not the logic of it

Anyway, you explain why there is an issue anyway. Ns are into type, Ns create type, Ns write description and I assert that Ns are biased towards their type (which would be normal). Not MBTI as such, although it suffers from it as well, but Ns themselves create their own culture and attitude around being Ns, both creating the only minority group (which is virtually by design) and strongly identifying many traits (normally the good ones) against it.

 

[Salomé]

I don't tend to nitpick... well, actually I do...

But the whole thing is that this wasn't any form of support or rejection of Sarah's comments. It was a non sequitur that you got insulting over when asked about.

However, it is logically possible that those that self-test automatically identify with Ns because only Ns self-test, that part I don't disagree with. Well, I kind of disagree, but not the logic of it

Anyway, you explain why there is an issue anyway. Ns are into type, Ns create type, Ns write description and I assert that Ns are biased towards their type (which would be normal). Not MBTI as such, although it suffers from it as well, but Ns themselves create their own culture and attitude around being Ns, both creating the only minority group (which is virtually by design) and strongly identifying many traits (normally the good ones) against it.

I confess I'm flumoxed shock: <-- me, being flumoxed)

I don't understand most of this. Are you talking to me?

nonseq - is she in this thread? I don't remember insulting anyone. Seriously

If MBTI suffers from bias then it is invalid as a psychological testing tool, period.

Ns create culture, period.

Creating a minority group? Do you really believe Myers et al sat down and said, now then, how can we invent a test which creates an artificial minority elite and makes everyone else feel like sh*t about themselves? Honestly?

Perhaps you just have an inferiority complex and are unable to appreciate the excellence of S yourself?

You will find in much of the literature and many personal accounts, how agonizing and isolating it can be to grow up as an N in an S-world. Then you might stop being jealous of us.

 

[Fiver]

I think it's pretty funny that I inadvertantly started this smack-down (on a really old thread) because of how much I actually wanted to understand and value what it meant to perfer sensing -- to enhance my appreciation and understanding of all the fabulous Ss.

Therefore, I very much appreciate everyone's well thought out posts.

I'm an NT (assuming my typing is correct) female and since I don't get many opportunites in my worldto enjoy other NTs, this forum is fun for me. However, I don't enjoy the part of this thread that plays into the NT-negative stereotype. It just doesn't seem necessary.

 

[Simplexity]

I think part of the reason it sort of devolved into that is because it is fundamentally difficult to really envision how someone is, it is much better to get a sense of that by how they approach things, that is why looking at it from an applied point of view is much more telling. I think that is why a lot of S's really appreciated Sarah's approach. I think there was a similar thread earlier that looked at communication and I think there was a lot more head way made in that because of that fact.

It's sort of inherent to think your way is the best way and alternate ways aren't as valuable or at least understandable thats why when you try and explain how someone is your prejudices permeate through to your posts. That is one of the toughest things about psychology and why you frequently hear the "first year psych" label on posts or people that don't see that distinction and why the spillover effect happens so easily with N's being in the minority.

That's why I think it is really helpful when I sort of see the reference points of people so I can truly understand what they key on and how their decisions are based and justified. It really just ends up being a pissing match once someone introduces intelligence and its manifestations because then people just reference how what they do is the best way and it becomes unreadable.

 

[ptgatsby]

nonseq - is she in this thread? I don't remember insulting anyone. Seriously

It means not relating to the topic at hand. Kind of like saying:

"The sky is blue";"yah, but apples are red".

Insulting - I probably should of used the word dismissive, in reflection. How it felt doesn't actually mean you expressed it that way.

If you are being sarcastic/clever, you can refer to dismissive above.

If MBTI suffers from bias then it is invalid as a psychological testing tool, period.

Shocking

Creating a minority group? Do you really believe Myers et al sat down and said, now then, how can we invent a test which creates an artificial minority elite and makes everyone else feel like sh*t about themselves? Honestly?

Well, the compounds make it impossible to answer, so in pieces;


Creating a minority group?


It does.


Do you really believe Myers et al sat down and said,


I'm pretty sure they had lots of discussions about how to apply the theory, yes.



now then, how can we invent a test which creates an artificial minority elite


No, it developped by identifying functions from Jung and developping a test that would reflect her observations of people, which happened to involve a small group of Ns, by defintion. It is a by-product of the nature of functions being absolute, rather than a continium.


and makes everyone else feel like sh*t about themselves?


Nope, she was pretty professional, even if it didn't get validated to much later. A great deal of effort was done to make everyone comfortable, hiding any biases behind generalities and "it's not any better, just different", despite obvious correlations.

Although it still hasn't been normalized, due to resistance from the functional view. *shrug* It depends on if you want to see that as bias, or purity.


Honestly?


I tend to be, yes, when loaded questions don't imply otherwise.

Perhaps you just have an inferiority complex and are unable to appreciate the excellence of S yourself?

I highly doubt that is the case. I'm virtually the last person on the board that would take being a S as something inferior. If anything, you can consider my S fixation to come from being on both sides, and seeing how the same N identification was poison.

You will find in much of the literature and many personal accounts, how agonizing and isolating it can be to grow up as an N in an S-world. Then you might stop being jealous of us.

I've heard it all before, and rejected it many times. It's a symptom of being in a minority group, not because you are that different. You can complain about being intelligent and excluded - and that would cover me. You could talk about being different than others, excluded and even bullied - and that would cover me. You could talk about being told to settle down and focus - and that would cover me.

You were rejected because you were IxTP more than INTP in almost every dimension. Going forward, the N won't hold you back in career, or relationships or life in general.

I identified with being N for a long time and had the same mentality. I have plenty to say on the topic because of that. It took a long time for me to realise that the items I blamed were not factors. Even in the case of intelligence, the one that could be considered related, there are enough high intelligence Ss that only the fringe cases would be notable - and they don't make up the majority of the Ns (by definition, fringe cases would be more than two deviations above norm, much less than the N population).

--

All of this is pointless, anyway. There are two things, though, that I want to be clear about. I did take exception to you being dismissive when challenged and weaving S into that.

I'm good natured about the dismissive tactics, even if others aren't. However, I'm not tolerant about dismissive tactics woven with Ss. If you think of it as "dismissive tactics woven with women", it'll reflect how I feel about it. It would be like saying that I have to do all this because, well, geeze, women just aren't able to understand. It would dismiss your POV using a -ism, and not surprisingly, some people will get worked up over it.

Anyway, I highly doubt you meant for it to come across that way, it just got carried away. The whole thing was just bad communication. I blame the internet (But note that you continue to do the same thing - "jealous of us" - and I don't think you would like it if I became condescending to you. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that this is just how you are, and aren't taking swipes out of malice.)

 

[Fiver]

I identified with being N for a long time and had the same mentality. I have plenty to say on the topic because of that.

I am interested to hear more about how/why you changed your identification.

 

[ptgatsby]

I am interested to hear more about how/why you changed your identification.

My rant starts here - please feel free to post in that thread/blog if (you, or anyone) if you have any particular problems or questions.

 

[Jeffster]

my not believing that the're anything the matter with being gay (as in homosexual.)

STOP GOING OFF-TOPIC

 

[Salomé]

I'm not on your wavelength dude.

All of this is pointless, anyway.

now there's something we can agree on.

 

[Cimarron]

I've come to think of the Intuitive factor as "creativity, originality, generating ideas (as opposed to improving ideas)", while Sensing would have more "awareness". I got there by assuming my type is correct, then discerning what traits I don't have and calling those "N". Don't know how well that works.

 

[sarah]

Sarah's point, or one of them (her main point seems to be that she is p*ssed off with the condescension and perceived superiority of Ns in this forum and elsewhere) is:
"Something's clearly wrong with the way these tests are worded, seeing as how so many people are being misled by them."

(Now this suggests that these people who "identify with iNtuitive descriptions" initially, also test as intuitives, although she doesn't really clarify this point.) If I believed the MBTI test was so error-prone I would have a fundamental problem with the test in question, and I wouldn't accord it credence. And I would probably be more interested in writing a new test, than in "creating a website or a blog for ISFPs about our type preferences". Since, if the test is suspect, why should I believe that there is such as thing as an ISFP as defined by the MBTI? Put another way, I find MBTI compelling in part because of its accuracy in predicting types and typical behavior. If I didn't, I'd file it under BS and that would be that. (It's currently filed under "pending").

Blue, are you qualified to administer the MBTI? Do you use type professionally in any way? I'm wondering why you're defending the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. How on earth can you know that the MBTI is "compelling in its' accuracy?" Have you ever talked with type practitioners who complain about the INaccuracy of that instrument? I have. Even highly respected type theorists also complain about it. There are articles written on the subject by type theorists and practitioners both on the APTI website as well as 16types.com, if you'd care to actually find out what is being discussed professionally in the world of type.

Tests tell you a lot about the test-maker's idea of what it might be like to have certain preferences. They also can tell you what you think you know about yourself. What I was trying to say originally was that that a lot of people I know who actually prefer Sensing believe at first that they prefer iNtuition as a result of taking the MBTI and the Keirsey test. It doesn't seem to matter what quality the test is -- "S"s many times get "N" results despite their actual preferences, which they only discover once they've bothered to read material on psychological type and understand the patterns of the four temperaments.

If it is the official MBTI test, and not just something some first year psych student has knocked up in his spare time, there are a number of possible explanations:-
Perhaps these people that test as Ns, but subsequently self-type as S, are in fact Ns, with little self-knowledge, or perhaps they are not highly differentiated.

I'd say the test questions are worded in a way that is confusing, and the N responses are just more desirable for many people regardless of their preference for Sensing.

Or perhaps they are influenced by a cultural preference for S (note I do believe there is a cultural preference for S, in most industrial societies). Or perhaps they are too bloody stoopid to understand the questions. Who knows?

Oh, so now you question the intelligence of anyone who identifies with test answers that don't fit their actual preferences? Can you show me how these two are related? I'd love to know whether people here consider themselves "bloody stoopid" simply because they may chose to identify with words and phrases that related in some way to how they choose to live their lives, even if it turned out those phrases didn't correspond with what they believe is their best fit type.

Sarah
ISFP

 

[sarah]

I've come to think of the Intuitive factor as "creativity, originality, generating ideas (as opposed to improving ideas)", while Sensing would have more "awareness". I got there by assuming my type is correct, then discerning what traits I don't have and calling those "N". Don't know how well that works.

As an artist, I consider myself creative, original, and an idea generator. I do not have a preference for intuition, and I do not like it when those words are believed to be linked ONLY with the N temperaments.

Sarah
ISFP

 

[Cimarron]

As an artist, I consider myself creative, original, and an idea generator. I do not have a preference for intuition, and I do not like it when those words are believed to be linked ONLY with the N temperaments.

All right, well, I'll take that into consideration. I'm still trying to get a hold of what Intuition is, exactly. I told you my process, which was just based on personal experience and identification. Hope your day goes well!

 

[sarah]

I confess I'm flumoxed shock: <-- me, being flumoxed)
Creating a minority group? Do you really believe Myers et al sat down and said, now then, how can we invent a test which creates an artificial minority elite and makes everyone else feel like sh*t about themselves? Honestly?

I think Myers imagined what it might be like to prefer Sensing, but didn't get a lot of the details right, and linked words that apply to everyone to just the intuitive types. The result is people not being able to identify with Sensing, even if they do happen to fit the SJ or SP temperaments.

If words such as creative, idea generator, seeing the big picture, etc. were not ERRONEOUSLY linked to having a preference for intuition, then there wouldn't be so much confusion. Actually, instead of calling people "intuitives" or "sensors", as though people can't use both, more accurate terms would be "having a preference for intuition" and "having a preference for sensing".

You will find in much of the literature and many personal accounts, how agonizing and isolating it can be to grow up as an N in an S-world.

I don't know how many times I've already said on this list that I sympathize with anyone here who has been victimized by people who don't understand or appreciate your preferences. Would it astonish you to know that SPs are regularly put down --quite harshly, too-- for their lifestyle preferences?

Sarah
ISFP

 

[sarah]

My rant starts here - please feel free to post in that thread/blog if (you, or anyone) if you have any particular problems or questions.

WOW! ptgatsby, I love your rant! It says a lot of what I've always thought, although I was waffling back and forth between INFP and ISFP for years before finally realizing which temperament pattern really fit me.

By the way, I also loathe Type Talk at Work with a passion. I was amused to see one type practitioner on another discussion list I belong to complain that author Otto Kroeger is responsible for a lot of the bias against Ss.

Sarah
ISFP

 

[ygolo]

Just curious.

It seems like those who are most vocal about N bias in the Myers-Briggs system are those who are borderline on the N-S preference or self-identified as N before before switching to an S type.

Is this true? If so, what do people believe is the reason for that?

Incidentally, I tested as ISTP my senior year of high-school with one of those paper tests (I don't know which form). I joined MBTIc, INTPc and MBTI-nebulous as an IxxP (I am rather close on the T-F preference as well). But later decided I was INTP based on the Understanding Yourself and Others series of books.