Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 108 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I realise this thread-title isn't especially politically correct but this is a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time, how do sensors and intutives defy their natural stereotypes?
I don't know any ultra-smart sensors and I don't know any dumb intuitives, however I do know types of both stereotypes, and I really don't want to have to accept that it's impossible for a sensor to be ultra-smart and an intuitive to be an idiot, however I'm at a loss personally because I have to admit, the portrayal of intuition as an innovative force makes it hard to conceive of how a person could have it and also be a moron. I can comprehend a smart sensor more easily, however they are supposedly less gifted at foresight and unifying abstract concepts, which seem to be the hallmark of the truly gifted intellectuals, does this mean they can't ever be more than just 'reasonably intelligent'? If a genius sensor can exist, how would this be?
I am reluctant to post this due to its inherently typist nature, but the burning curiosity to answer these questions is proving too much for me. Does anyone have an answer?
 

·
Old Man
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
Dumb Intuition happens when you connect all of the wrong dots, it can also be a rather scatter-brained method. A dumb Intuitive will often talk nothing but nonsense, like, literal nonsense. Without a secret hidden meaning or truth.

Sensors do not have an inability to grasp the abstract, that's just a wrong portrayal. They build to an abstract conclusion, an intelligent Sensor can make strong concrete connections in abstract things. Straight-lines that connect, in a chaotic mess, Sensing is a beautiful thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
You'd have to take a step back from the descriptions and see the greater picture that a type is.

Any person is able to use intuition, sensing, thinking or feeling. They'll only do it in their way. So, if a intuitive wants is willing to let go of the prejudices, it will find itself working in the here and now. If a sensor wants to let go of the same prejudices, it will stop living in the moment to see what lies behind. No one is dumb, they're just afraid of going outside of their comfort zone.

And when we're afraid of something, we start downplaying that very thing. The intuitive is calling the sensor dumb because they're afraid to accept the reality, and may be prone to overanalyze everything. At the same time, the sensor is calling the intuitive dumb because they're afraid of seeing things over the surface, and may be prone to take things as they are.

Intelligence is an arbritary measure. A booksmart person could be not well versed in daily matters. A streetsmart person may not know theories written on books. When it comes to measure who's smarter, how do you know?

A 'dumb' intuitive is a person that cannot live in the moment. Ask him about quantum physics, and it'll explain you everything in depth. But ask it to set a lab experiment manually, and they may find themselves struggling with the job. A 'genius' sensor is a person that is able to perform a heart surgery easily, but find themselves struggling to explain how the amount of proteins in the blood may affect the blood pressure.

Of course, these are very lousy examples, but you get the point. Sensors aren't dumb just because they're more tied to reality than intuitives. And intuitives aren't smart because they're imaginative while sensors are pratical. Anyone is able to innovate if they want to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Dumb Intuition happens when you connect all of the wrong dots, it can also be a rather scatter-brained method. A dumb Intuitive will often talk nothing but nonsense, like, literal nonsense. Without a secret hidden meaning or truth.

Sensors do not have an inability to grasp the abstract, that's just a wrong portrayal. They build to an abstract conclusion, an intelligent Sensor can make strong concrete connections in abstract things. Straight-lines that connect, in a chaotic mess, Sensing is a beautiful thing.
Interesting, I have met people who spout utter rubbish that I see no connection between it and their previous thought, I wondered if this could be faulty intuition early on but felt discouraged after I starting reading around and began to feel like this 'faulty intuition' was faulty because it was an underdeveloped tertiary/inferior function that they blunderingly used when there was nothing they could come up by their normal method. However, I should have considered the obvious fact that if sensors can be idiots because they get hung-up on details that aren't actually relevant to anything, then intuitives could similarly get the 'wrong' pattern.

Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?

I'm relieved to get this kind of response, some of the N vs S topics that start up around here truly worry me, I was afraid of adding another rotting carcass to the pile...
 

·
Old Man
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?
Yeah, a Sensor doesn't even have to be a genius for that, just intelligent. A good deal of "Intuitives" are mistyped, due them believing if you have original thought, you must be an N.

Being a small group of people, Intuitives like to self-pleasure for being special. It's a different way of thinking, it's not inherently smarter at all. People looking for groups to belong to, because being so different sucks; but again, don't assume different = Intuitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,437 Posts
Sensing and intuiting are just two ways of taking in information, that can often come to the exact same conclusion. I am highly intuiting, and my partner is highly sensing. We both tend to come to the same conclusion on almost everything, and are both highly intellectual, but we use different tools to get to that point. He senses every detail of a situation and comes to a logical linear conclusion based off of these facts, while I use my intuition to feel out the connections between several details and choose one conclusion from several. There are many instances when he recognizes many subtle details that I completely miss, and other times when I consider a possible alternate explanation that he didn't think of.

Basically, neither is more intelligent, or more capable of understanding abstract concepts. In fact, I find that some Sensing types are more likely to see the extremely abstract concepts, because they are the only ones to find the more unusual details of a situation. Example:

N: "This person was forced out of office twice in his career, so he must be either a poor leader, unreliable or unpopular."
S: "This person was elected back into office after being forced out twice, so he must be pretty amazing."

"Which of these things is not like the other: cat, truck, snake?"
N: "The truck, because it's not an animal, not alive or not a predator."
S: "The cat, because it has fur."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,808 Posts
You don't know any ultra-smart sensors? Really? Why the hell not?? Sensors are in positions of power the world over, run companies, and make up at least half of all public school teachers, and assuredly much of the armed forces, et al.

Many brilliant artists, musicians, and directors are Sensors.

What you seem to be confusing here is "average people" with "exceptional people." You're also making the mistake of thinking that big picture thinking is the ultimate measure of intellect. A person could lack your ability to see the big picture but memorize facts like a pro, notice details that you miss, be capable of physical feats you could never possibly accomplish (including saving lives...I could be wrong but I think a lot of EMTs are probably Sensing Thinkers), etc.

Many doctors, math and history professors, and politicians are SJs. Not to mention big business and the legal profession and its SJ dominance.

Genius is something rare and exceptional, and may be associated with Intuition because geniuses usually are severely lacking in a practical area and are only highly accomplished in their area of expertise. For example, Albert Einstein was thought to be retarded in elementary school and sometimes forgot to put his pants on. A psych prof I had in college told us we should think of "genius" as a sort of disability...
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
I definitely know many very intelligent sensors. You can't only measure intelligence in the "N way". In reality, outside of MBTI forums, the N way is sometimes not even regarded as brilliant, but as just a bunch of BS :laughing:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
Sensing and intuiting are just two ways of taking in information, that can often come to the exact same conclusion. I am highly intuiting, and my partner is highly sensing. We both tend to come to the same conclusion on almost everything, and are both highly intellectual, but we use different tools to get to that point. He senses every detail of a situation and comes to a logical linear conclusion based off of these facts, while I use my intuition to feel out the connections between several details and choose one conclusion from several. There are many instances when he recognizes many subtle details that I completely miss, and other times when I consider a possible alternate explanation that he didn't think of.

Basically, neither is more intelligent, or more capable of understanding abstract concepts. In fact, I find that some Sensing types are more likely to see the extremely abstract concepts, because they are the only ones to find the more unusual details of a situation. Example:

N: "This person was forced out of office twice in his career, so he must be either a poor leader, unreliable or unpopular."
S: "This person was elected back into office after being forced out twice, so he must be pretty amazing."

"Which of these things is not like the other: cat, truck, snake?"
N: "The truck, because it's not an animal, not alive or not a predator."
S: "The cat, because it has fur."
I can follow you on the second, and I find that creative, but the first is moronic, just saying. It's people like that sensor that get shitty politicians reelected, but that's neither here nor there.

Sensors and Intuitives would be inherently equal if the conclusions both sides came to were applicable and can be put to good use. Abstraction and Innovation are two very different things. Sure the Sensor can probably come up with an idea that no one has ever thought of (I'd say because it's ridiculous, but it's the foundation for innovation so it's necessary), but the Intuitive gives it purpose.

Like I'm pretty positive that sensors created adhesive glue but an intuitive turned it into a post-it note (Don't quote me on this, this was merely an example I created). They're both essential progress, but coming up with an idea completely different from everyone is not as useful as taking that idea and molding it and giving it purpose. Making the connections and applying them.

This is where the dispute lies in my opinion. I'm sure that sensors are very intelligent in their own right. Capable of abstraction , but they're not capable of connecting large quantities of dots and streamlining them into a cohesive format. They're practical and do things out of practicality. They can practically entire the realm of abstraction, but that doesn't compare to the imaginative head first dive that intuitives take.

I think of Sensors as do-er types and that bothers me because they don't explore all of their options before hand, they pick one and go with it. And Sensors view intuitives as people that spend their time in la-la land coming up with situations and never acting on them. Having no real world applications

Genius is something rare and exceptional, and may be associated with Intuition because geniuses usually are severely lacking in a practical area and are only highly accomplished in their area of expertise. For example, Albert Einstein was thought to be retarded in elementary school and sometimes forgot to put his pants on. A psych prof I had in college told us we should think of "genius" as a sort of disability...
Really gifted kids are misunderstood as children. Especially back when Einstein was a kid. I don't see what forgetting to put your pants on has anything to do with things. Genius is a blessing and a curse, I'll agree with you there, but I'll take unraveling the theory of relativity and laying the foundations for quantum mechanics over having practical intelligence any day. What's the point of being an intelligent sentient being without pursuing knowledge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,437 Posts
I can follow you on the second, and I find that creative, but the first is moronic, just saying. It's people like that sensor that get shitty politicians reelected, but that's neither here nor there.

Sensors and Intuitives would be inherently equal if the conclusions both sides came to were applicable and can be put to good use. Abstraction and Innovation are two very different things. Sure the Sensor can probably come up with an idea that no one has ever thought of (I'd say because it's ridiculous, but it's the foundation for innovation so it's necessary), but the Intuitive gives it purpose.

Like I'm pretty positive that sensors created adhesive glue but an intuitive turned it into a post-it note. They're both essential progress, but coming up with an idea completely different from everyone is not as useful as taking that idea and molding it and giving it purpose. Making the connections and applying them.

This is where the dispute lies in my opinion. I'm sure that sensors are very intelligent in their own right. Capable of abstraction, but they're not capable of connecting large quantities of dots and streamlining them into a cohesive format.

I think of Sensors as do-er types and that bothers me because they don't explore all of their options before hand. And Sensors view intuitives as people that spend their time in la-la land coming up with situations and never acting on them.
I think you are associating all Sensors with inverted focus and all iNuitives with extroverted focus. ISTPs (my boyfriend's type) are extremely good at finding practical applications for things and connecting the dots, while INTPs (my type) are known to focus on individual details, but care nothing for the big picture or how things effect the rest of the world.

And calling Sensors do-er types? What does that have to do with how they process information? You really should look into all of the personality types and their different functions before you go grouping four completely different types of people into the same general personality type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
i'm finding it hard to believe that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors when all of this "waow u are so simpul lol" comes from intuitives, based on the fact that many sensors find abstract thought ridiculous. abstract thought is not the defining characteristic of intelligence, and just because i prefer concrete reality doesn't make me incapable of doing it. basically: just because i prefer to think concretely doesn't mean i cannot think abstractly. and just because i am able to think abstractly does not mean i am an abstract person.

most of the standard definitions of intelligence cater to sensors, so i am not sure where you get the idea that the only standard of genius is an intuitive one. memory and recall are one of the most important aspects of a person's intelligence, the ability to understand and interact with your surrounding environment, the ability to assimilate and learn new information, the ability to practically survive, reading comprehension, visual perception, etc. you would see all of these things on the performance part of a legitimate i.q test. math, spatial perception, visual identification, memory/recall, understanding your environment, motor skills, etc.

i'm obviously not saying intuitives don't have any of these qualities, but these are generally qualities that sensors have even as a stereotype. how often have you heard of the guy who could solve complex math problems in his head? he was probably an istj. this isn't really an applicable definition of intelligence, but it seems to be the things that we base most of our perceptions of intelligence on. having a good memory can fool anybody into thinking they are intelligent. i know i do!

the basic point of this is that if you notice the stereotypes regarding intelligence you will generally notice a lot of sensors fitting into those stereotypes. thus i find it difficult to comprehend you have never met an intelligent sensor, or a sensor you could describe as "intelligent". creativity is not the defining measure of intelligence, and neither are any of the qualities i have listed. intelligence is the ability to be complex, to gather data and interpret it adequately. intuitives and sensors are both capable of doing this.

pretty much i am getting the impression that these mbti tests place abstract thought into primarily intuitive domain, which it isn't. i am capable of abstract thought, but i prefer realistic and concrete thought. in the sci-fi series star trek, i would say most vulcans would fit into the sensor stereotype quite nicely. and the entire race is viewed as intellectually superior by many people! (one of their most prized attributes is after-all their eidetic memory). what i am trying to get at is that i am getting the feeling that many sensors probably test as intuitives because they are capable of thinking abstractly and are good at it. it isn't a skill exclusive to those with an n.

i am not the only intelligent sensor on this forum. and i am intelligent. you can argue with me all you want on that point but i know what i am. you would have to have a very skewed perception of what intelligence means in order to classify me as stupid.

i am capable of seeing multiple perspectives, i am capable of thinking about non-concrete things. one of the questions on an mbti test i took was "do you often contemplate the fate of humanity, blablabla" and i answered yes, because i generally do tend to think about it. on that test i scored as an infj. i have scored as an infj multiple times because of tests that take "capability and activity of thinking about things that can't be seen" as "intuitive". and as i have said multiple times, it isn't exclusive to an intuitive mindset. it is just preferred by the intuitive mindset.

this whole talk of sensors being simple and intuitives being smart because of their ability to connect the abstract dots is as ridiculous as saying introverts are incapable of talking to anybody and extroverts are the supreme life of every single party, or that thinking types are incapable of feeling any kind of emotion and feeling types are incapable of thinking logically. it's ludicrous. how many people have you probably mistyped because of this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
I think you are associating all Sensors with inverted focus and all iNuitives with extroverted focus. ISTPs (my boyfriend's type) are extremely good at finding practical applications for things and connecting the dots, while INTPs (my type) are known to focus on individual details, but care nothing for the big picture or how things effect the rest of the world.

And calling Sensors do-er types? What does that have to do with how they process information? You really should look into all of the personality types and their different functions before you go grouping four completely different types of people into the same general personality type.
To be fair that was a poor choice of words. My post in general is sort of all over the place, but it's like 4am and I realize that was a horrible way to describe my train of thought. I mean it more as a linear fashion. Like taking an idea and going with it full force in a line drive method. Not really exploring other veins of the idea. Whereas an intuitive type is more of a word cloud type of thinker. Exploring other avenues and adjacent ideas, etc.

What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.

That's also not to say that all intuitives are smarter, I've met my fair share of rather dumb intuitives and incredibly smart sensors.
 

·
Cafe Legend and MOTM Jan 2011
Joined
·
15,420 Posts
Smart S types tend to have exceptional common sense that can seem almost mystical, and have a very powerful awareness of how things work. They can be good at understanding everything from complex mathematics to very subtle social intricacies that are totally lost on someone like me. It seems strange to me that in a world where sensing types are in the majority, a person could be so isolated from others that one would have never met an intelligent one.

Dumb N types make the wrong connections between ideas, or lack the discernment to determine what is true. They might believe in things that are not scientifically possible because the ideas make sense in their heads without necessarily being based on reality. Again, it seems strange to me that a person could go through life without ever having met a stupid one.

Maybe you misidentified the stupid intuitives as sensors, and misidentified the smart sensors as intuitives. We have had several people even here, at this forum, who fall into each of the categories you claim to have never encountered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,437 Posts
To be fair that was a poor choice of words. My post in general is sort of all over the place, but it's like 4am and I realize that was a horrible way to describe my train of thought. I mean it more as a linear fashion. Like taking an idea and going with it full force in a line drive method. Not really exploring other veins of the idea. Whereas an intuitive type is more of a word cloud type of thinker. Exploring other avenues and adjacent ideas, etc.

What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.

That's also not to say that all intuitives are smarter, I've met my fair share of rather dumb intuitives and incredibly smart sensors.
Lol, I applaud you for not fighting what I said. x3 I've been getting tired of that lately.

I see what you mean, about the one-track mind. Sensors are definitely more linear in their thinking (by definition...) and it can seem to us iNtuiting types like they're just plain oblivious. But the way I think about it is in terms of balance. You know the old saying, "Measure twice, cut once" ? Sensing types consider all the information around them, think very slowly and deeply about that, and then come to one solid conclusion. Intuiting types pick out a few of the details they notice and come to several conclusions, then choose the one they believe is best. Both methods work when it comes to processing information, just in different ways. It takes both types to cover every possible option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Interesting, I have met people who spout utter rubbish that I see no connection between it and their previous thought, I wondered if this could be faulty intuition early on but felt discouraged after I starting reading around and began to feel like this 'faulty intuition' was faulty because it was an underdeveloped tertiary/inferior function that they blunderingly used when there was nothing they could come up by their normal method. However, I should have considered the obvious fact that if sensors can be idiots because they get hung-up on details that aren't actually relevant to anything, then intuitives could similarly get the 'wrong' pattern.

Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?

I'm relieved to get this kind of response, some of the N vs S topics that start up around here truly worry me, I was afraid of adding another rotting carcass to the pile...
There are a lot of misconceptions about MBTI. The S/N issue is part of that.

I'm going to break the mold a little bit here as far as S vs. N. To answer your main question, yes there can be smart Sensors and dumb iNtuitives. Disclaimer: The following does not harbor any ill or self glorifying intent...to put things in to perspective, I was called(and thought) I was stupid around 80% of my life. I'm only posting the following to aid the topic and break the stereotypical mold of Sensors.

I'll spare you the details, but I was mostly an, "F" student my entire school career(school never interested me). I was thought to be stupid by students and teachers, alike. I even had a few teachers tell me I was stupid and would never amount to anything. One day, my 6th grade year, I got so tired of hearing that I was stupid, I decided to prove everyone wrong. I put my nose to the grindstone and ended up learning about 6 months of math within 15-20 minutes. A quiz was given on the same day and I aced it. Similar results occurred my other classes, as well. After a week, I lost interest in school and seeing I proved my point, I went back to doing nothing-getting, "F's."

Then came my freshman year of high school. I wound up having to take an IQ test and scored a 136...my sophomore year I ended up taking another and scored a 147(200 is the highest possible and 140+ is considered, "genius"). A year later I dropped out. About 6 months after I dropped out, I took the test required to acquire a G.E.D. without studying...keep in mind, I did nothing in school...hadn't learned a thing. I was still on Algebra I at the end of my sophomore year with an, "F"(the G.E.D. test covered Geometry which I had yet to learn, amongst other subjects). I ended up teaching myself how to do Algebra and Geometry during the testing period-passing all subjects with no less than an 83%(got 99% on Literature). So that goes to show you that Sensors can be smart.

As far as S and N dealing with theories, I'm going to break the mold a little bit here, too. There's this notion that Sensors can't understand theories or relate to anything abstract. I call bull on that stereotype, too. I've out-theoried(not a word) iNtuitives. I've listened to, "N" theories and had no difficulty understanding them, even at times pointed out flaws in their theories. Even abstractions and metaphors aren't a problem for me, I just prefer a more bold and concrete approach. I think as Sensors we just aren't as interested in theories(not that we can't understand them). We'd rather do and apply what knowledge we have towards something tangible, wielding results. We have a different perspective, if you will.

Ex: Naturally, when I read Chinese proverbs, I take them at face value. "A bit of fragrance clings to the hand that gives flowers." When I first read that, I immediately start getting pictures in my head of flowers and a hand picking them/giving them to another hand. I also picture different fragrances, while developing the smell of flowers in my nose and imagine my hand smelling like them(best way to describe it). A very concrete, literal interpretation of what was read... that is what's natural for me and if I didn't know that was meant to have a deeper meaning, I probably wouldn't look much deeper in to it(although I could). When I do look deeper in to it, I get "He who is good to others will receive goodness/goodness will become part of him." Again looking deeper in to it isn't my natural response, but I have no difficulty doing so, if needed.

Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing? Yes. I used to think I was an iNtuitive because of this. I've often been able to figure things out long before some people do because of how quickly I pick up the pieces(details) and put them together. Ex: I remember my friend showing me an episode of, "Psych" and saying, "You'll never figure this out." (I don't know much about the show, but the episode I saw kind of had a detective feel to it..."X happened, Y happened, Z is happening what's going on?") I sat down and after about 10-15 minutes of the episode(long before the reveal) I said, "Schizophrenia." He said, "What? How did you know that? You've seen this before haven't you?" And then I explained. "No...etc...such and such happened etc." He couldn't believe it.

Think of Sherlock Holmes, even though he's fictional. Many mistake him for an INTP, when he's actually an ISTP. He picks up on details quickly and builds a picture very quickly. (Not comparing myself to him)

That's about it for my rant. Again, I wasn't intending to toot my own horn or brag or anything...I honestly wasn't even going to say anything until I saw this topic. I just wanted to clear the air a little bit, as far as this topic goes. I think intelligence or lack thereof has a lot more to do with mental barriers and false notions than anything else. Don't let type hold you back and stick you in a box...same goes for other people. You are who you are and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. And yes, we all have limits, but only you can find them...and I'm sure when you do, you'll find that you have a lot less than you think.

Edit:"Smart S types tend to have exceptional common sense that can seem almost mystical, and have a very powerful awareness of how things work. They can be good at understanding everything from complex mathematics to very subtle social intricacies that are totally lost on someone like me. It seems strange to me that in a world where sensing types are in the majority, a person could be so isolated from others that one would have never met an intelligent one." (post from snail) I agree with this completely. There's more to it than that, but I'd say for what's written that's very accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,790 Posts
What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.
The way I see it, our preferences work in a circular way:
Every good trait we have also results in bad things happening "on the other side", and vice versa. A kind person might be easier to fool than a more cynical one - but the cynical one isn't likely to be as pleasant to spend time with, just to give an example of how I think.

So, to give you my view of things: Have you ever seen an INTP in analysis paralysis mode? In MBTI terms, that's probably caused by a dominant-tertiary loop, with Ti and Si ganging up on Ne, ignoring it's input. In effect, you get what is probably one of the most genius-prone personality types of them all, becoming a locked-down, turned-into-oneself, paranoid fool who takes no account of the actual situation but only sees everything that might go wrong ("and surely will", as the self-fulfilling prophecy goes).

The same could probably be said of "broken"/immature Sensor types, that don't take into account more than their acute needs and wants - young ESFPs are notorious for that. It's not that people with an ESFP personality are especially stupid - quite the opposite, actually, if you count street-smarts with the same scoring system as you count book-smarts. But no, it's not very likely that an ESFP will be the next physics or physiology/medicine Nobel prize winner...

So as has already been said: Having an S or an N (in any direction) as your primary data-gathering function doesn't say diddly squat about how intelligent you are or how useful your brain is in a certain situation, and most tests are pretty bad at measuring more than one application of your intelligence.
Just for example, I (ISTP) soak up theoretical data as a sponge and make the necessary logical connections pretty fast, as long as I see the practical application for things. I got certified with a 93% score as an administrator for a system that we're about to start using, after reading through >500 pages of textbook material once in two evenings. The INTJ I went with didn't have any worse circumstances for taking the test, but flunked with a 62% score. How's that for big-picture thinking?
On the other hand, he has the ability to retain information that's plain boring and useless. Oh, and unlike him, I don't suck at skiing and surfing. :crazy:

So what I'm basically trying to say to the world in general, is this: Shut the hell up about "N"s and "S"s until you can present relevant big-picture data. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I'm just going to reiterate what many other people here have said that it's not about N or S being more or less intelligent; it's about what process you choose to use to get to your conclusions. Like xReBoRN7 I tested really high at school (though unlike him I actually chose to work hard - at least in primary school. In high school I did cruise a bit because I was able to get decent grades without any effort). Our school system used to measure us against all the other students in the country and gave a score based on how many other students of your age you beat. I scored 95+ on all but maths (which I got 85 for) which means I was better than 95% of the other children in the country of my age (and 85% of them for maths). Ironically, until I came to this forum and came up against this attitude of 'sensors are only good at street smarts' or 'sensors are stupid' I never questioned my intelligence. In a way it's been good because I've had to really analyse myself and realise that, yes, I'm still intelligent; it's the people who think Ss can't be smart who have got things a bit screwed up. If we care about IQ I have a higher tested one than my ENFP husband. If we don't care about that, I can run rings around him intellectually because while he's definitely an N he doesn't really care about academics and theorising. He's not dumb but he values other things, whereas I value education and academia. Neither S nor N is more or less intelligent in and of itself; they are just different ways of approaching a topic.

And I agree with all those who say I don't believe someone can have never met a dumb N or a smart S. That seems incredibly statistically unlikely.

What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything.
I do have to disagree with this comment. My thought process isn't one-track at all. It pulls in a whole bunch of things from my past experiences and sees the possibilities in the connections between them. I often say to myself 'xyz is the usual thing to do with this bunch of ideas, but I want something new' and then I will consciously try and find something different to do with the connections I have a hold of. I have a really good solid grasp of the practicalities of whatever I'm thinking about, but I'm not at all restricted by them. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, but the idea that we don't account for outside things is rubbish. Every time I come up with an idea there is always a sense of 'but if a happens then that would change b and I'd have to incorporate c ...' it's just that the ideas that push those thoughts come from a logically connected pathway. That's not to say it's a one-track straight-down-the-road a to b to c to d path. My pathways have many detours to collect other information, it's just that they are all connected. I don't like 'holes' in my thought process, but that doesn't make it 'one-track' if that makes sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
97 Posts
Everything that everyone said in here is BS. Why? BECAUSE MBTI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE. We are humans. All the same. There is no ISTP human, no ENTJ human, none of that bull. Do you have a brain? Then you do have intelligence, you are smart, only thing that might bother you is that not everybody perceives information the same way. I have no clue but am laughing at all of you for taking stereotypes way too seriously and juxtaposing MBTI with intelligence. Maybe you are dumb, and I am smart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Everything that everyone said in here is BS. Why? BECAUSE MBTI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE. We are humans. All the same. There is no ISTP human, no ENTJ human, none of that bull. Do you have a brain? Then you do have intelligence, you are smart, only thing that might bother you is that not everybody perceives information the same way. I have no clue but am laughing at all of you for taking stereotypes way too seriously and juxtaposing MBTI with intelligence. Maybe you are dumb, and I am smart.
You obviously didn't read anything that was posted here aside from maybe the OP. Most of what's been said in this thread is that MBTI has no correlation to intelligence...at least 3 posts just above you each state that.

Maybe before commenting on an entire thread and all of its posters, you should take the time to read all of its posts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
97 Posts
You obviously didn't read anything that was posted here aside from maybe the OP. Most of what's been said in this thread is that MBTI has no correlation to intelligence...at least 3 posts just above you each state that.

Maybe before commenting on an entire thread and all of its posters, you should take the time to read all of its posts.
You guys are discussing stereotypes. I think that is sillier than riding your motorcycle down a hill with a massive landslide.
 
1 - 20 of 108 Posts
Top