Originally Posted by
Braingel
A lot of Si types will not be very apt at typing beyond their own concrete, sensory experience.. Si egos rely on their own subjective sensory interpretation to type, which often involves physical details of a person, or very concrete, surface qualities of a person relative to their experience.. You see this on the forum in Qaz and formerly in Sol.. You also can see this on Juan Sandoval, but with Juan, he will be slightly more accurate in his systemic making of a sensory-based system, because he has had a broader context to type people than of the former two.
Since these types of sensors rely on concrete experience, they if they do not have a broad enough pool of experience, are very, very prone to mistyping a person, because they literally look for patterns relative to their own experience of physical traits, or surface qualities like tone.. They aren’t able to rawly grasp the patterns of a person’s overall cognitive patterns, and mistake their experience of superficial qualities or physical characteristics as being a type.
I realize that this has its own advantage for certain topics… But when it comes to psychology, or topics where assumptions do not do well, it leads to a great deal of confirmative bias, and as well as the halo effect.. This set of processing can be very good in something like general, non complex medicine, or with some aesthetician-related career.. I am not calling this stupid, or of not having its place in existence.. But it just really doesn’t work well with something as abstract as human psychology.
Sensors without Ti often alter definitions and arbitrate typology to a sort of industrial way of psychology, that looks at a half-baked archetype, that sweeps on the surface traits of psychology.. Kiersy would’ve been a good exemplar of this.. In classical socionics, Viktor Gulenko would actually be an ESI, with a Ti-Ne super ego.. He does this quite a lot in his whole “type image” way of typing. Yes, Gulenko is an INTP by most modern typological systems, because of his areas of focus, and whatnot, but these miss the essence of how info focuses, and of why something averts upon.
LSI’s can be too rigid in how they view things, as they’ve polr Ne, but they do tends more toward a looking at someone’s inner working..