Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,822 Posts
@Vesh I've never thought of it the way you put it, but that makes way more sense than any theory I've come up with before. I do think it was heavily related to the fact that it didn't FEEL like a serious thing when he asked me out -- despite the words having been said -- so subconsciously I didn't take it as one. And, obviously that isn't his fault still.

Also I think that that situation was kind of atypical, unless other people step up and report something similar. A lot of people who cheat are fully consciously aware in the moment that they're cheating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
It’s unrelated to type- base on people I know irl and reading posts on perC - perceivers are more likely to cheat due to temptations and then regret it - j- type bc they’re unsatisfied with the attention or efforts that their partner puts into their relationships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree perceivers will do it without thinking
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,322 Posts
Extroverts since they meet more people and have more opportunities being presented to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
incision said:
I'd say P types more than J types, strictly because there's correlation between J/P and Conscientiousness.
Seconding this as the best logical, evidence-based answer so far.

Sensors, because iNuitives often have much deeper moral believes.
Ehhhh I can see how/why Ns may be more likely to delve into moral philosophy, but I don't see how that would logically extend to them actually adhering more firmly to a particular standard of behavior.

Surreal Snake said:
Sensors because there are many more of them in society
I've seen this statistic floating around before, but I'm not really convinced by it. I've seen 3:1 S:N ratio suggested... that seems really high. The problem in every case is validity. How does one know if a test is accurate? Is there such a thing as an "accurate" type? We also need to get a truly randomized pool of people, which would mean completely random culture, language, education level, interests, and so on. I don't really understand how in good faith any organization can publish and promote type "statistics" like that when there's no scientific way they're properly valid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I think sensors are more likely to cheat, because contrary to popular belief, most sensors, including SJs, are much more likely to become dissatisfied in their relationships. And not because of ideals, either, but because of unreasonable expectations, for the most part. Intuitives are less likely to be in relationships, and if they are dissatisfied with any current situation, they'd rather just break it off than cheat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
The absolute minimum, ma'am
Really? I've actually gone through lists of people before (friends, school, work, etc.) and tried to guess at average populations. I always end up much closer to 50/50. But obviously there are significant validity issues with that. What makes you think it's such a high ratio?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,171 Posts
Really? I've actually gone through lists of people before (friends, school, work, etc.) and tried to guess at average populations. I always end up much closer to 50/50. But obviously there are significant validity issues with that. What makes you think it's such a high ratio?
I agree with this quite much- I don’t find sensors more common than intuitive, it could be the area that I’m from but intuitives type are not uncommon here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: angelfish

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,980 Posts
Really? I've actually gone through lists of people before (friends, school, work, etc.) and tried to guess at average populations. I always end up much closer to 50/50. But obviously there are significant validity issues with that. What makes you think it's such a high ratio?
I think it's higher even. Most of the people you think are Ns from your school are likely S or borderline. The way these two groups are stereotyped is usually at fault.. Especially how sensors are seen as that sporty person who doesnt get high grades. But really most of them are erudite, into science or literature, many have great grades because they actually care, etc. I think in my class of about 50 we were max 5 Ns and I only know me and another one for sure.
S is about seeing the more obvious and stronger stimuli as important and using it as referential for decisions and building ones worldview, so it's understandably far more easily developed biologically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
What makes you think it's such a high ratio?
'Official' sources + personal experience.

Really? I've actually gone through lists of people before (friends, school, work, etc.) and tried to guess at average populations. I always end up much closer to 50/50. But obviously there are significant validity issues with that.
If you're seeing an even split... well, you either: (1) happen to be in highly concentrated N-territory (either by chance, or because you're in 'one of those fields' - arts, IT, psychology, philosophy, etc.), or (2) aren't very good at typing people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
I think it's higher even. Most of the people you think are Ns from your school are likely S or borderline. The way these two groups are stereotyped is usually at fault.. Especially how sensors are seen as that sporty person who doesnt get high grades. But really most of them are erudite, into science or literature, many have great grades because they actually care, etc. I think in my class of about 50 we were max 5 Ns and I only know me and another one for sure.
S is about seeing the more obvious and stronger stimuli as important and using it as referential for decisions and building ones worldview, so it's understandably far more easily developed biologically.
I can agree that S is more immediately useful and applicable, but I don't know that I think it's more easily developed. That sounds like the sort of simplification of S that neutral typing moves away from. We don't assign that bias with other factors - clearly Introversion is less useful and applicable than Extraversion, and Perceiving less so than Judging, but we don't suggest that E or P are somehow less sophisticated processes and therefore much more prevalent.

'Official' sources + personal experience.

If you're seeing an even split... well, you either: (1) happen to be in highly concentrated N-territory (either by chance, or because you're in 'one of those fields' - arts, IT, psychology, philosophy, etc.), or (2) aren't very good at typing people.
Regarding my self-selection pools and my skill at typing, surely both are possible. I don't disagree that my school program and friend groups could have been N-heavy, but I doubt that all of my groups in my previous workplaces (especially food service, allied health, standard business office) were. As for me, also possible I tend to type more N, though I'm not sure why I wouldn't identify a heavy N bias even though I can easily identify a heavy F bias in the people I tend to know.

The problem that strikes me, though, is that none of us can really ever be verified as "correct" in this regard, unless somehow we get all these people we're discussing to dig into MBTI and self-analyze. I'm saying this even about the "official" sources. I am not necessarily saying that I am correct in thinking that the overall N:S ratio is lower than the MBTI Foundation's published statistics. What I am saying is that I don't think we can develop a good idea of what the percentages are. For that we would need a truly random pool, accurately assessed (in other words, participants being able to analyze and self-verify their results), amidst all cultures across the globe.

And that's why I tend to balk in this thread - cherry-picking which types are "most likely" to cheat is really not a valid or arguably even ethical usage of MBTI. If we're going to talk about cheating, let's talk about the actual factors that are empirically demonstrated to go into cheating - because not only has research been done into that, but it's actually surprising and (at least I think) interesting, or perhaps even more interestingly individuals' reasoning behind cheating. Certainly ranking types can be an engaging puzzle, but is it real? Is it useful? Is it fair?
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,980 Posts
I can agree that S is more immediately useful and applicable, but I don't know that I think it's more easily developed. That sounds like the sort of simplification of S that neutral typing moves away from. We don't assign that bias with other factors - clearly Introversion is less useful and applicable than Extraversion, and Perceiving less so than Judging, but we don't suggest that E or P are somehow less sophisticated processes and therefore much more prevalent.
What's useful and applicable depends on what the environment pressures towards, and with that in mind we can investigate our evolution as a species in relation to cognition. And I see this as the more neutral approach. BTW this has always been what S was about, since Jung first wrote about his observations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Regarding my self-selection pools and my skill at typing, surely both are possible. I don't disagree that my school program and friend groups could have been N-heavy, but I doubt that all of my groups in my previous workplaces (especially food service, allied health, standard business office) were. As for me, also possible I tend to type more N, though I'm not sure why I wouldn't identify a heavy N bias even though I can easily identify a heavy F bias in the people I tend to know.

The problem that strikes me, though, is that none of us can really ever be verified as "correct" in this regard, unless somehow we get all these people we're discussing to dig into MBTI and self-analyze. I'm saying this even about the "official" sources.

I am not necessarily saying that I am correct in thinking that the overall N:S ratio is lower than the MBTI Foundation's published statistics. What I am saying is that I don't think we can develop a good idea of what the percentages are. For that we would need a truly random pool, accurately assessed (in other words, participants being able to analyze and self-verify their results), amidst all cultures across the globe.
There has been mass scale testing in universities when MBTI was quite hot. Using the "official tool". But then again, even that test isn't foolproof (at all!) because any type of questionnaire in which a person must judge his own behavior is extremely prone to error. Although I must say that N/S seems like the most sound dichotomy of the four as far as mistyping goes (but that's a very personal opinion based on a very small sample size).
In any case, MBTI as ambiguity written all over it. Yet, if we somehow agreed on a universal definition of what N/S really is, apply this theory, look at the figures; I'm convinced we'd end up with more or less the same ratio, something very close to 3-to-1, 3.5-to-1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,094 Posts
Highly unlikely type-related.

Being intuitive for guys can have its advantages too, especially NF.

Both are very capable, and also depends on the relationship/commitment and quality of relationship.

Wild guess- also more likely hormonally (natural pheromones, emotionally, psychologically) related.

SJs just as adulterous as compared to the rest of the bunch.

And it doesn’t matter if one is deemed attractive by society or not, the probability is just as equal.

What makes someone less likely to? Besides opportunity. Depends- takes two to tango. Takes one or both partners to break the bond of trust. And in other cases (swingers), they’re open and enjoy it. No cheating there. And it’s definitely a weird secret society underground thing that seems to relate to hedonism trying to put beat mundane rich suburban lifestyles (and/or a couple’s natural inclinations to- value judgement aside).

Best not to generalize. You’d be surprised. Sexuality and the propensity for adultery are much more myriad and complex than what appears on the surface.
 

·
私を愛して
ESTJ; LSE; 3w4; Sp/Sx
Joined
·
14,683 Posts
Who is more likely to cheat sensors or intuitives
Terrible people.
 

·
Registered
♂️ INFJ 5w4 // IEI-Ni
Joined
·
2,930 Posts
Why is this even a question? No matter whether you say sensor or intuitive, you're going to come across like a typist dick.

It's a faulty question that assumes the type of perception a person primarily uses is a factor in their commitment issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,751 Posts
I would guess the types that are prone to needing to consume the new more often that others.

For me, I abhor lying but my version of "infidelity" is being disengaged.
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,569 Posts
Cheating is more due to circumstances. Personality type is probably more relevant for how someone will try to excuse it.
 

·
Registered
ISFJ
Joined
·
145 Posts
Sensors, they're more impulsive. Specifically ESFJ's, seen it happen multiple times.

That being said, it's not an excuse and I wouldn't reconsider my relationship with someone or assume things just because of their personality type. Keep communication open.
 
41 - 60 of 61 Posts
Top