[jetser]

People who get typed as intuitives but are really sensors.

There's a certain backlash if you type a famous person, and especially an inventor or a scientist an intuitive...because, sensors can do that type of shit too, right?

Right. So I made this thread because I'm sure there are a dozens of famous typings out there which are mistypings. People who are typed for intuitives but in reality they're sensors.

I start with two, who I think could be mistyped.


Elon Musk - I don't see intuition. I see concrete steps and concrete knowledge and he's no more intuitive than my ISTP cousin who's also very future oriented and also a big fan of him.
I'm not saying he can't be intuitive but he doesn't have to be. Electric cars? The idea has been there since 1900. Trip to the Mars? Like, where else?

Steve Wozniak - I'm baffled about that Steve Jobs gets typed as a sensor while Wozniak is an N.
So the guy that effectively makes and designs circuit boards, builds cases, and is behind every little technical thing Jobs had come up is an N, while the big picture, head in the clouds guy who can't make a thing for himself and rely on people to make his ideas is an S?
Okay...

 

[Stevester]

Literally, every celebrity typed here could make up a list.

According to this place, even the guys from Jackass are INxJs.

 

[jetser]

Literally, every celebrity typed here could make up a list.

According to this place, even the guys from Jackass are INxJs.

Right. But I meant guys who are intuitives in the public opinion.
Like CelebrityTypes types Wozniak as an ENTP and Elon Musk as an INTJ. The latter I see some truth in it, but Wozniak as an intuitive dom is ROTFL.

 

[atamagasuita]

True.. There's some sensors too who i think are intuitives..

 

[angelcat]

Jordan Peterson. He's often typed INXJ, when if you actually watch / listen to him, he's a blatant Te/Ne looper in his psychology classes (ESTJ).

A friend has been reading Karl Marx for her college class and said his writings scream Si-symbolism (the symbolism of sensory objects).

 

[Stevester]

Biased because he's my type and I'm a huge psychology buff, but I'm adamant about Freud being ISTJ, not INTJ.

Michael Pierce makes a really good argument for it in his ISTJ revisited video. He makes tons of creative analogies (i.e. the whole development phases) but they are all highly visual analogies, I mean......''oral'', ''anal'' hello! Could that BE more sensing? Us Si-Doms actually do this all the time, we compare two things that are completely unrelated but through visceral, straight-forward analogies so that anyone can relate to it. Intuitives typically make analogies that are highly abstract and can often only make sense to them (or possibly other intuitives).

 

[VinnieBob]

does it really matter?

 

[Turi]

does it really matter?

Does anything?

 

[jetser]

Biased because he's my type and I'm a huge psychology buff, but I'm adamant about Freud being ISTJ, not INTJ.

Michael Pierce makes a really good argument for it in his ISTJ revisited video. He makes tons of creative analogies (i.e. the whole development phases) but they are all highly visual analogies, I mean......''oral'', ''anal'' hello! Could that BE more sensing? Us Si-Doms actually do this all the time, we compare two things that are completely unrelated but through visceral, straight-forward analogies so that anyone can relate to it. Intuitives typically make analogies that are highly abstract and can often only make sense to them (or possibly other intuitives).

He is actually typed as one: Famous ISTJs - CelebrityTypes.com
(I'm using CelebrityTypes now as a reference, even though I'm not agreeing with it the whole time)

 

[charlie.elliot]

I would say a lot of really famous authors such as J.K. Rowling, George R. R. Martin, Tolkien, Jane Austen, C. S. Lewis, and so on. Not that I know for sure what any of their types are... they could be Intuitives. but I think people see famous authors, especially fantasy/ sci-fi authors, and immediately think "intuitive!" and don't consider sensing types as much as they should.

There are some authors who, in my mind, are very clearly Intuitives, such as Haruki Murakami and David Mitchell. The shit they can write is strange. You know just you're swimming in the mind of an Intuitive, where very ordinary things are suffused with deep meaning and you can tell the authors are just barely coming up with the actual physical words/descriptors to put on their deeply abstract ideas.
By comparison, the first group of authors I met are pretty freaking normal and down-to-earth (and all their books are very rich with evocative sensory detail).

 

[angelcat]

By comparison, the first group of authors I met are pretty freaking normal and down-to-earth (and all their books are very rich with evocative sensory detail).

C.S. Lewis is rich with detail?

I re-read Narnia last year and thought, "there's hardly any sensory details in this book." He describes almost nothing except the parades and Narnia and things. No clue what any of the kids look like or what they were doing while sharing dialogue.

Lewis? Probably a Ni-dom. The others, I'd agree with as possible sensors, particularly Tolkien.

Paraphrase of Lewis on Tolkien: "On the walks we take together, he stops and blathers on about little flowers, when there's More Important Things to discuss."

 

[Stevester]

He is actually typed as one: Famous ISTJs - CelebrityTypes.com
(I'm using CelebrityTypes now as a reference, even though I'm not agreeing with it the whole time)

Ugh! Scratch that then. If Celebritytypes have him as ISTJ then that probably means he's INFP :/

 

[charlie.elliot]

C.S. Lewis is rich with detail?

I re-read Narnia last year and thought, "there's hardly any sensory details in this book." He describes almost nothing except the parades and Narnia and things. No clue what any of the kids look like or what they were doing while sharing dialogue.

Lewis? Probably a Ni-dom. The others, I'd agree with as possible sensors, particularly Tolkien.

Paraphrase of Lewis on Tolkien: "On the walks we take together, he stops and blathers on about little flowers, when there's More Important Things to discuss."

Yeah I agree actually, I almost didn't add C. S. Lewis to the list because I'm fairly certain he is Intuitive, but my point is just that people often don't even consider sensing types for those people .

 

[Red Panda]

Stephen King's books are FULL of sensory details, but I dunno his type or how people type him. He describes everything, smells, textures, noise with incredible eloquence. I have no idea if that would be Si or Se, but I lean towards Si because it resonates with me very much and I haven't seen many Se people being aware of their environment in that way, contrary to me and other Si users like my ISTJ mom who notices such things very easily.

 

[Stevester]

I actually think King is INxJ? I mean, the whole entity that takes the shape of a clown to feed on children seems very Ni (or Ne) to me. But his insistence on having his stories set in his home state of Maine, instead of the usual California does smell of Si. He could be an NP type I guess.

Also never read any of his novels, just basing my assessment on the movies, which have been directed by other people so....

 

[Red Panda]

I actually think King is INxJ? I mean, the whole entity that takes the shape of a clown to feed on children seems very Ni (or Ne) to me. But his insistence on having his stories set in his home state of Maine, instead of the usual California does smell of Si. He could be an NP type I guess.

Also never read any of his novels, just basing my assessment on the movies, which have been directed by other people so....

John Wayne Gacy murdered 33 teenage boys in the 70s, a decade before King's book was released. So I would agree otherwise, but it seems he got some inspiration from that. Also 4 years before his book, another novel was released about a clown killing a family in California. King is a pretty amazing writer, he has incredible eloquence in describing scenes and the environment with huge detail, makes you feel you are there. Pet Sematary (sic) is my favourite of his and a pretty disturbing book, especially if you've lost someone. He could be an xNFP, for the combo of Ne-Si and highly emotionally touching/disturbing content. He reaches straight for the F and pokes it with a sharp edge tbh.

 

[ENFPurpleKitti]

i wouldn't rely on methods of writing fiction as a means to type a writer. fiction writers are often trained to provide lots and lots of sensory detail, which i've seen plenty of intuitive writers do (myself and my mom for starters; i know k.m. weiland identifies as intj and you get a good dose of sense-details in her writing). as a matter of fact, intuition seems to be closely tied into world-building, and world-building often comes with plenty of sensory details (types of foods and flavors preferred in a spotlighted culture, what kind of plants are found and in which climates/ seasons, minute details differentiating one breed of dragon (or other critter) from another, and even how a character walks in and evaluates a room, scanning each piece of furniture and identifying the exact type of rug and who must have woven it, etc.).

when typing writers/ celebrities, people like to analyze their fictional works (what kind of books they wrote, what characters they typically played), but those don't get at the true heart of the person. you really need to read their non-fiction, watch their interviews, read their memoirs in order to see them more accurately.

Paraphrase of Lewis on Tolkien: "On the walks we take together, he stops and blathers on about little flowers, when there's More Important Things to discuss."

that's the best indicator of lewis being intuitive over sensing, imo. although i just recently saw him typed as a sensor somewhere either yesterday or the day before, but i don't remember where i saw this. >__>;

 

[mistakenforstranger]

Jordan Peterson. He's often typed INXJ, when if you actually watch / listen to him, he's a blatant Te/Ne looper in his psychology classes (ESTJ).

I've watched him, and I do not see how you come to this conclusion. I'm pretty sure he is a INxJ.

For one, Peterson isn't even a Te-dom, and I doubt he even uses Te as a function. You can maybe make a case for auxiliary Te, but if you watch his talk with Sam Harris, he won't even agree that there is such a thing as an objectively true fact. I posted this a few months ago.

I'm not too familiar with Peterson's work, but he doesn't seem like he values Te very much at all. He only values it to the extent that he needs to as a psychologist/professor in a university to have credibility. He seems to be very Jungian in his approach. In the interview with Sam Harris, he wouldn't even agree with Harris that there is such a thing as an objective truth on its own terms. For Peterson, scientific, or objective, truth is always tied up with morality and the ethical ends. Harris, on the other hand, who I would say represents Te, says facts are truth, while Peterson says if it isn't moral, it isn't true: "If it doesn't serve life, it's not true." He's basically using Ti (w/Fe) to redefine "objective" truth: "Well, then I would say I don't think facts are necessarily true," while Harris can't see past this formulation. Facts are facts regardless of the moral outcome. Te.

This breakdown in their viewpoints on a Te vs Ti conception of "truth" starts around 50:00, but especially see 58:20 - 1:00:00.

A Te-dom/user would never argue over the definition of a "fact", as they tend to take facts at face-value (like Harris does) and use them as the burden of proof in their arguments. As another example, watch anything from Ben Shapiro. He always cites statistical evidence to prove his claims. That's a Te-dom approach. When does Peterson ever do this? He actually talks about his MBTI type in this video at 43:00, and thinks he typed as ESTJ or ENTJ. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

Again, this is a very clear Ti way of answering this question, especially starting at 1:35. He's basically criticizing the Te-dom approach at 2:18 - 3:30 in favor of Ti:

 

I also don't know how you can say he's a Sensor. Every video I've watched he talks completely in abstractions. It's like he's swimming in ideas. He's also said he's tested very high in Openness on Big 5, which most often correlates to Intuition in MBTI. I think his preference for N (Ni) over S (Si) is pretty obvious, and doesn't need much explanation. Saying he's a Sensor would be like saying Donald Trump is an Intuitive lol.

And if you take this as evidence, this is pretty clear inferior Se. As he says, intellectually obsessed, but not in great shape physically. That is the Ni-dom + inferior Se dilemma haha.

 

A friend has been reading Karl Marx for her college class and said his writings scream Si-symbolism (the symbolism of sensory objects).

Screams Si-symbolism? I haven't even read Marx, and I can already tell he wouldn't be a Si-dom. Marxism basically overthrows the status quo.

"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Yeah, that isn't the worldview of a Si-dom. The Si-doms I know have a hard time changing their daily routine let alone the state of the world lol. There is no SJ and/or Si-dom (philosophy) to be found here.

Same with Freud. Not a ISTJ. Way too radical and revolutionary for his time. That's a ridiculous typing. CelebrityTypes.com :stupid:

 

[mistakenforstranger]

I would say a lot of really famous authors such as J.K. Rowling, George R. R. Martin, Tolkien, Jane Austen, C. S. Lewis, and so on. Not that I know for sure what any of their types are... they could be Intuitives. but I think people see famous authors, especially fantasy/ sci-fi authors, and immediately think "intuitive!" and don't consider sensing types as much as they should.

There are some authors who, in my mind, are very clearly Intuitives, such as Haruki Murakami and David Mitchell. The shit they can write is strange. You know just you're swimming in the mind of an Intuitive, where very ordinary things are suffused with deep meaning and you can tell the authors are just barely coming up with the actual physical words/descriptors to put on their deeply abstract ideas.
By comparison, the first group of authors I met are pretty freaking normal and down-to-earth (and all their books are very rich with evocative sensory detail).

Yeah, because hobbits and wizards are very down-to-earth subjects. If you want actual SJ authors, read Tom Clancy (STJ) or Nicholas Sparks (SFJ). Now that's down-to-earth. Those authors you mentioned may use Si (or not), but I highly doubt they are Sensors. I agree with @PurpleKitti that we should also look at interviews, biographies, to determine the type of the person instead of always seeing their work as the clearest representation of their personality. For example, everyone types Nietzsche as an INTJ based on his philosophy, but he's a pretty clear INFJ if you become familiar with his life story.

 

[Red Panda]

@mistakenforstranger
I agree with you about Peterson except the I/E part, I believe he's said he is E and at the very least in one lecture he was expressing how introversion is a strange thing that we can't explain very well and introverted people have a very different way of experiencing things (something along these lines). He was talking as if he's not introverted himself, showing no direct understanding of it from personal experience.