Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Isn't it frustrating how you can give an obvious sensor the test and they'll get an intuitive type? Questions like "I like to see all the possibilities in a situation" make most people feel insecure and boring as fuck, forcing them into an intuitive type. Then they read the description and say, "THAT'S ME!" My best friend who now agrees he's ISTJ used to always test as ENTP or INTJ and his intuition percentages would be higher than mine.

The test is a load of shit because F guys will type as Te types so they don't look weak, dominant sensing peoples will type as dominant intuition peoples etc.

I think people should just read Jung and reject MBTI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
No, stupid people will give stupid answers.
The test works so long as you're completely honest, for example...

The test is a load of shit because F guys will type as Te types so they don't look weak, dominant sensing peoples will type as dominant intuition peoples etc.
I don't care about appearing weak, I just want to be myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Isn't it frustrating how you can give an obvious sensor the test and they'll get an intuitive type? Questions like "I like to see all the possibilities in a situation" make most people feel insecure and boring as fuck, forcing them into an intuitive type. Then they read the description and say, "THAT'S ME!" My best friend who now agrees he's ISTJ used to always test as ENTP or INTJ and his intuition percentages would be higher than mine.

The test is a load of shit because F guys will type as Te types so they don't look weak, dominant sensing peoples will type as dominant intuition peoples etc.

I think people should just read Jung and reject MBTI
Here we go again. Every few weeks another poster steps up to peddle the myth that the MBTI's items are skewed in a way that tends to push S's toward N results.

Funnily enough, when that idea got put to the test, it failed miserably. The study showed that N's mistype as S's substantially more often than S's mistype as N's.

According to the official MBTI folks, somewhere between 25% and 30% of people come out N when they take the MBTI (see, e.g., here and here), which makes S/N the only MBTI dimension that isn't pretty close to 50/50. If the MBTI is actually N-biased (as you seem to think), and if they fixed it so it wasn't biased, how small an elite do you think the N's would turn out to be?

As an additional note: You say people "should just read Jung and reject MBTI." That's a sentiment I most often hear expressed by people who have little real familiarity with what Jung actually wrote and with the nature of the adjustments Briggs and Myers made to Jung. Here's a long post contrasting Jung's view of Si-doms with Myers' view of SJs, and explaining that virtually nobody respectable today — including function-centric theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — subscribes to Jung's perspective on introverted sensation. How about you? Are you one of that small handful of true believers who think Jung's Si-dom portrait does an admirable job capturing all those SJs you've dealt with in real life?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,689 Posts
Anecdote, I have no inclination to want to be an intuitive. It seems to me it's just intuitives who are all excited about being intuitives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Isn't it frustrating how you can give an obvious sensor the test and they'll get an intuitive type? Questions like "I like to see all the possibilities in a situation" make most people feel insecure and boring as fuck, forcing them into an intuitive type. Then they read the description and say, "THAT'S ME!" My best friend who now agrees he's ISTJ used to always test as ENTP or INTJ and his intuition percentages would be higher than mine.

The test is a load of shit because F guys will type as Te types so they don't look weak, dominant sensing peoples will type as dominant intuition peoples etc.

I think people should just read Jung and reject MBTI
Ever considered that you are narrow-minded regarding what constitutes intuition?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Here we go again. Every few weeks another poster steps up to peddle the myth that the MBTI's items are skewed in a way that tends to push S's toward N results.

Funnily enough, when that idea got put to the test, it failed miserably. The study showed that N's mistype as S's substantially more often than S's mistype as N's.

According to the official MBTI folks, somewhere between 25% and 30% of people come out N when they take the MBTI (see, e.g., here and here), which makes S/N the only MBTI dimension that isn't pretty close to 50/50. If the MBTI is actually N-biased (as you seem to think), and if they fixed it so it wasn't biased, how small an elite do you think the N's would turn out to be?

As an additional note: You say people "should just read Jung and reject MBTI." That's a sentiment I most often hear expressed by people who have little real familiarity with what Jung actually wrote and with the nature of the adjustments Briggs and Myers made to Jung. Here's a long post contrasting Jung's view of Si-doms with Myers' view of SJs, and explaining that virtually nobody respectable today — including function-centric theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — subscribes to Jung's perspective on introverted sensation. How about you? Are you one of that small handful of true believers who think Jung's Si-dom portrait does an admirable job capturing all those SJs you've dealt with in real life?
Here we go again. Every thread that borders on controversial has to be deemed unworthy by the little MBTI policemen.

I like how you pick the one function that Jung didn't really nail. But on the other hand Myers and Briggs simplified Si and Se far too much, making intuition look like superpowerz. Si may just not be understood very well because Si users (at least the ones I know) have a lot of trouble explaining themselves or their cognition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
930 Posts
Personally I think it would be awesome to be a sensor, but sadly I'm pretty clearly not >.< as for claiming F guys will type as Te types, I think you mean insecure F guys will type as Te types.

Maybe it's cause I'm Fi , but I don't feel like I'm incredibly feminine >.<
 

·
Nerf Herder
Joined
·
7,072 Posts
The tests are fairly accurate so long as the participants are actually honest. It's not the tests' fault that people give answers based on their own insecurity. If they're honest then the tests will be too. Of course that's not to say that the tests are 100% accurate but they do well enough to give somebody a good starting point, but reading the actual material on the different types and functions is still necessary in order to really be accurate, the subject just has to be honest with themselves is all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falling Leaves

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Personally I think it would be awesome to be a sensor, but sadly I'm pretty clearly not >.< as for claiming F guys will type as Te types, I think you mean insecure F guys will type as Te types.

Maybe it's cause I'm Fi , but I don't feel like I'm incredibly feminine >.<
Neither do I. I like to believe that oestrogen or homosexuality makes you feminine, not Fi.

It's obviously a global conspiracy to contract all males within the limited framework of TJ. :dry: My guess is that they're afraid of FP combined with testosterone.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12 Posts
It is a constant source of surprise to me how little people know themselves. To help someone out with job interviews, I once suggested she try an online MBTI test as a starting point to get her to view herself from another perspective. She couldn't however get her head round answering the questions as who she is, rather than 'what she should be at work.' She answered how she thought someone in the role she wanted to apply for should behave, without being able to consider than different people in the same role might behave differently. She never told me the result.

Of course, I don't believe that online tests can give anywhere near an accurate representation of someone's personality. The questions are often strange and misleading. One I remember asked me if I valued sequential organisation, or something like that. Yes, I do value it. I value it considerably because I DON'T possess it! Yet I suspect would have shifted me violently towards a false judging or sensing preference had I answered that I did value it. I may have initially come to MBTI via an online test, and immediately identified with INFP, but I have spent much time researching and reading, from Jung to Keirsey, to validate this. I think when taking online tests, it is too easy for people to fall into the trap of answering for who they want to be, or mistakenly think they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
@FixationForcep

How do you decide whether someone is a sensor or an intuitive?
After knowing someone personally, it's not hard to understand their perspective and preferences. I've met people who SEEM intuitive, but once you "get in their head" you realize that they're only behaving like an intuitive, but their cognition is elsewhere. That goes for any type/function. Maybe when certain people take the test they just can't get past their persona/complexes?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
After knowing someone personally, it's not hard to understand their perspective and preferences. I've met people who SEEM intuitive, but once you "get in their head" you realize that they're only behaving like an intuitive, but their cognition is elsewhere. That goes for any type/function. Maybe when certain people take the test they just can't get past their persona/complexes?
That doesn't really answer the question. How do you know that someone's "cognition is elsewhere"? What exactly do you look for to determine that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,743 Posts
If you truly subscribe to the idea of rejecting MBTI, and taking Jung, the main hype should be about determining your dominant type, not whether you're an intuitive or sensor -- it's likely that an F or T dominant in lifetime will naturally encounter both these functions, and sure, prefer one, but not necessarily consistently. Whereas the MBTI is based upon an idea that people's sixteen types are coded by their T/F and N/S preferences, and that these preferences remain quite consistent in helping sorting differences between two with different preferences. This is the principal reason there are 16, not 8, types in the MBTI. The concept of rational/irrational orientation is not new (to those who use the type dynamics version of MBTI they know this mostly carried over from the past work), and the concept of introversion/extroversion is not new (although it is far from an exact fit to the "original"). The concept of defining someone's type largely equally by two among the N/S and T/F is decidedly a more MBTI thing, even though it was acknowledged pre-MBTI that one could have an "artistic intuition", i.e. N>F likely.

(My general position is always simple -- I take none of these things in their entirety as they are, not because I think they're wrong but because their descriptive power varies based on what one is looking for.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
It also depends on which system or theory you choose to believe. I always get pretty 50/50 on myers-briggs and socionics in terms of sensing and intuition, although kiersey, which most people tend to deter away from, but in my opinion seems to make the most sense out of all three, determines the actual behavioral personality (how one keeps themselves, how slowly or quickly they move through time, e.g. how nimble someone is at grabbing something off the kitchen cabinet, etc.). I always get INFP, which makes a lot of sense to me, because in my mind I picture ISFPs as the nimble artisans who notice color and shape and are able to move things around without thinking about the meaning of those colors and shapes within placement; as an INFP I'm rather clumsy, notice color and shape, although I hate doing practical things, I'd rather think about the idea of the colors and shapes within the placement. I also fantasise and romantisise events happening, which makes me believe I am impractical and incapable of routine, practical everyday life. I just get bored too easily.

If someone can prove that the paragraph above is written by an S, explain why, because I would really like to find out more about the truth to my cognition..

See? There you go, INFP. Objections?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,967 Posts
It's not that difficult to conceptualize that everyone has a sensing function in their top 4 and everyone has an intuitive function in their top 4 and, depending upon their current development of either within their functional stack, it's feasible that the test will pick up on that and misinterpret what it means- then reaching an erroneous conclusion. The tests are written by human beings and taken by human beings- there's plenty of subjective bias in an online test to be had on both sides. Age should be taken into consideration and these tests should provide examples of context so the taker isn't left to draw their own conclusion about what the question is ACTUALLY asking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,743 Posts
FixationForcep said:
The test is a load of shit because F guys will type as Te types so they don't look weak, dominant sensing peoples will type as dominant intuition peoples etc.


Might be true.

However, whenever someone claims to be able to type someone based on the functions better than the test can, I snort pretty hard (no offense, I don't know you, and I can't judge your abilities one way or another), because the trend I've seen is the conclusions people come to are so terribly lacking in depth, so based on little rules of thumb they've cooked up as to what constitutes Se or Te or Ti or whatever, that I'm likely to treat their diagnoses with a grain of salt. (BTW, I don't make many diagnoses myself, so not like I claim to do better...there are a few cases I get very strong vibes from and will explain to the person in question so they can perhaps gain some ideas on how it's working in them, and if they so choose work it into their analysis of themselves.)

I suggest you attempt hard to notice how pathetically not better informed many cognitive functions typings are as well, and then see if you still have the same faith in typing based on Jung ;)...maybe you will. I have no such faith.
Also, might I add, there is no reason an intuitive need have better skill at intuition in any specific context. The sensation type who has a conflicted relation with intuition can still sense-tuit, i.e. they may not be able to pay attention to/generate intuitive info very directly, but in context of something where their S and, say, T are utilized clearly, the intuition can serve one well even if indirectly, and very heavily sort of held in a grip by sensation, i.e. you can still notice patterns important to what you pursue primarily with S and T (if you pursue that thing with skill, especially -- a property independent of the functions), but it all has to be grounded in that which is perceived as "actual" in some sense.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top