Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Why do I always get the impression

  1. #1
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why do I always get the impression...

    That xNxx types think they're so much better/smarter than us Sensors?

  2. #2
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wait, you don't like them because they surprise you?

  3. #3
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is one of the few sites that promotes the debunking of this stereotype.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #4
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh yeah, I never meant this particular site. In fact it's why I like it here so much; People don't automatically talk down to me like I can't understand concepts or something.

  5. #5
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's an MBTI bias - the intuitive MBTI profiles are portrayed as being more intelligent or whatever compared to the sensing MBTI profiles. I think one of the women who developed the theory had typed herself INFP, and by some strange coincidence they're supposedly the rarest type according to a lot of statistics. Probably similar to the alpha bias that Socionics started with - the woman whose name I won't even try to spell who founded it was a self-typed ENTp, and so all of a sudden the early ENTp profiles were made out to be God's gift to the world. Well, maybe not quite that much, I don't know. But that's the impression I gather - glorification of the founder's type.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson
    I think it's an MBTI bias - the intuitive MBTI profiles are portrayed as being more intelligent or whatever compared to the sensing MBTI profiles. I think one of the women who developed the theory had typed herself INFP, and by some strange coincidence they're supposedly the rarest type according to a lot of statistics. Probably similar to the alpha bias that Socionics started with - the woman whose name I won't even try to spell who founded it was a self-typed ENTp, and so all of a sudden the early ENTp profiles were made out to be God's gift to the world. Well, maybe not quite that much, I don't know. But that's the impression I gather - glorification of the founder's type.
    OMG MBTI IS BIASED??

  7. #7
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    OMG MBTI IS BIASED??
    I know! I nearly defenestrated myself in shock when I found out.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  8. #8
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    N types consider S types to be superficial, simplistic, over practical.
    S types consider N types to be dreamy, floating, useless, unpractical.

    (IMO)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    N types consider S types to be superficial, simplistic, over practical.
    S types consider N types to be dreamy, floating, useless, unpractical.
    You mean we're not dreamy, floating, useless, unpractical?
    And this, too, shall pass away.


    ILI

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlameReborn
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    N types consider S types to be superficial, simplistic, over practical.
    S types consider N types to be dreamy, floating, useless, unpractical.
    You mean we're not dreamy, floating, useless, unpractical?
    yeah you're right, probably we are, but then again, in the end we could be more practical and usefull then the S people think we are.

  11. #11
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I think this is one of the few sites that promotes the debunking of this stereotype.
    Agreed.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  12. #12
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There have been a few threads on this forum stating that N types are smarter than S types because, according to the authors, S types can't do N, but N types can do S.

    A number of people here still correlate intelligence with N, with T, and particularly with NT/TN.
    grrrrr
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  13. #13
    liveandletlive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,290
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    There have been a few threads on this forum stating that N types are smarter than S types because, according to the authors, S types can't do N, but N types can do S.

    A number of people here still correlate intelligence with N, with T, and particularly with NT/TN.
    grrrrr
    i agree! ironically this is a very S thing of them to do! This also may seem very S of me, but what good is intelligence is you can't apply/use it in the real world? Don't get me wrong you all know what my suggestive function is obviously, but S definitely has its advantages too. I think that because S seems "normal" that this stigma comes about.
    ESFp-Fi sub
    6w7 sx/so/sp

  14. #14
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liveandletlive
    i agree! ironically this is a very S thing of them to do! This also may seem very S of me, but what good is intelligence is you can't apply/use it in the real world? Don't get me wrong you all know what my suggestive function is obviously, but S definitely has its advantages too. I think that because S seems "normal" that this stigma comes about.
    the part I bolded: exactly!!!!
    that's also how I feel about intelligence tests. It doesn't matter how high a number a person scores if they can't flippin use it in the real world.

    also, there's a reason that N types seek out S types!! and you've hit the nail on the head as to one major reason why.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  15. #15
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Often in MBTI-ish descriptions, S seems to be defined as the absence of N. S is described as involving "the use of the 5 senses." Since Ns can also "use their 5 senses," S is left sounding rather mundane and unremarkable.

    It's sort of like saying

    N = {m, a, p, q, r+z, c*l, g^2, v, w/j, ... and all manner of wonderful things!}
    S = Not N = um, those other things... 5 senses, yeah.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •