MBTI Misconceptions
- Thread starter Quinlan
- Start date
I like the assumptions that S's are automatically more traditional and N's are more original. That's not always the case...I know an INTJ who is extremely traditional (southern Baptist Republican, all the way), and SPs who are very original.
Also, J does not mean "organized." It goes more with closure--whether or not leaving something open ended or unfinished is a big deal. A lot of Js are horribly unorganized (like me)
Also, J does not mean "organized." It goes more with closure--whether or not leaving something open ended or unfinished is a big deal. A lot of Js are horribly unorganized (like me)
- Test results with percentages will not tell you how "F, T, N etc." you are, it will only tell you how sure you are of that preference, not the strength of the preference. So "I just took a test and it said I was 100% N, that must mean I'm very intuitive!" is wrong "I just took a test and it said I was 100% N, that means I'm very certain that I'm an N" is more accurate.
Ahee! :bump2:
Sorry that one makes me laugh cause some people take test results so seriously using percentages scored and function orders ect so literally :doh: use the results than determine what’s right for you through independent study. If you score 100% it means you've chosen 100% of the answers that relate to that preference, there's a damn good chance it's biased by what you already believe to be accurate.
- If you are an Introvert, you don't grow into an Extrovert. I've read once where somewhere someone say their friend grew from an INFJ to an ENFJ, as it was the natural steps of growth, that's not the case, tou do mature and develop your lessor used functions (which in an introvert would be your extraverted functions) but your primary function remains the same.
- Likewise you were never an INTP who became INFJ. You were an INFJ who thought you were an INTP.
Please for the love of all things sacred, believe the man on this one! Functions are developed, they don't morph.
- Tests only know as much about you as you know about yourself.
- A lot of tests are constructed by one or minimal different Types, and as such can be inaccurate and biased regardless of how well you know yourself.
The letters themselves are your type - Wrong
they are the manifestations of the functions.
P and J mean the perceiving function or judging function is extraverted, and you are more inclined to be decided or undecided. Nothing else
FACT: If you are dominated by a perceiving function, you are a perceiver.
Sensors are superficial - Wrong
they are the manifestations of the functions.
P and J mean the perceiving function or judging function is extraverted, and you are more inclined to be decided or undecided. Nothing else
FACT: If you are dominated by a perceiving function, you are a perceiver.
Sensors are superficial - Wrong
I can't remember where I read it but I remember someone saying that iNtuitives make terrible scientists because they form a conclusion before they conduct a test, or omit any observations that don't comply with their hypothesis.
Actually...
http://www.sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfResearchOnPsychologicalTypes.shtml
Intuition and Perception are are strongly linked to intelligence according to this study. Introversion and Thinking types also did slightly better, but N followed by P are the main indicators.
Last edited:
Doesn't discredit what I said. I'm not talking about who is more likely to be gifted or have an IQ off the charts just the generalisations made by some stating iNtuition = intelligent. It doesn’t, there are plenty of stupid iNtuitives and smart Sensors about that any suggestion that someone with intellect = xNxx is presumptuous and adds to the N bias seen in MBTI communities.
The study is interesting though, can’t say I found it too surprising in terms of giftedness.
Ok, ok, not all intuitives are intelligent and not all sensors are dumb. This is true.
However, it's useful to know that if a person has high intelligence, they're more likely to be an intuitive. As a matter of personal anecdote, most of the people I would say are intelligent in my life are certainly intuitives, with the exception of my mother (ISTJ), who has a 120 IQ. Intuitives, almost as a definition, are better apt to understand concepts and put the world together in such a way as to understand it as a whole, while sensors are more apt to understand their personal experiences, which are more limited then a concept or pattern.
Si as a function (which all SJs have as a primary or secondary function) sees the world according to a preconceived notion...by definition this function is generally opposed to learning or adapting, being generally ill-suited (or at least uncomfortable) with learning.
Se as a function (which all SPs have as a primary or secondary function) sees the world according to what sensory input is happening in the moment...by definition this function sees the immediate sensory input, and not how it is connected to a concept or idea (hence why SPs desire a feeling of freedom).
Both Ni and Ne as functions see the world through a connected set of ideas. Ne sees possibility and different points of view, while Ni sees the world through its patterns, understanding complexity with ease. By definition, these functions are more open to possibility, learning, and connecting ideas.
So while N doesn't necessarily mean intelligent, I'd argue that intuition does mean a person is more comfortable with learning. People do tend to excel at activities they enjoy doing, so it's not a far stretch to make the connection that intuitives, who are generally more comfortable with learning, are more likely to excel at it.
Last edited:
Lol. Oh, I know plenty of dumb-as-rocks intuitives...or rather, high-in-the-sky intuitives. The whole "airhead" thing could very well be intuitives imagining things that make little to no sense.
Intelligence has very little to do with common sense, too. It's nice to hear about high IQs, but an IQ test is only as valid as a child's environment. There are several high functioning autistic children who would beat an IQ test off the charts, and there are some inner city children who test low, but that's because they can't understand the questions in a particular framework (they live in certain areas where they have a limited range of experiences, apart from libraries).
I think it's good to really just say we're all gifted in our own way. Me, I am not good at looking at every teeny-tiny detail, and I got burned (badly) at one of my jobs because I couldn't control all the details that popped up. But all the ESFJ/ISFJ women in that office were off the charts in that job. I would have said they *definitely* had more intelligence than I had there.
But by the same token, I have an ESFJ friend who astounds me by her lack of foresight. She can't plan beyond a certain point because she can't see the bigger picture. And I have to have grace for her, because I really do love her. She just frustrates me.
But that's all tangent stuff - I think some of the misconceptions have to stop, and soon! I'm on another MBTI list where one poor SP girl feels like everyone has it out for SPs, and I just want to cuddle her to pieces. She needs to find this board.
Intelligence has very little to do with common sense, too. It's nice to hear about high IQs, but an IQ test is only as valid as a child's environment. There are several high functioning autistic children who would beat an IQ test off the charts, and there are some inner city children who test low, but that's because they can't understand the questions in a particular framework (they live in certain areas where they have a limited range of experiences, apart from libraries).
I think it's good to really just say we're all gifted in our own way. Me, I am not good at looking at every teeny-tiny detail, and I got burned (badly) at one of my jobs because I couldn't control all the details that popped up. But all the ESFJ/ISFJ women in that office were off the charts in that job. I would have said they *definitely* had more intelligence than I had there.
But by the same token, I have an ESFJ friend who astounds me by her lack of foresight. She can't plan beyond a certain point because she can't see the bigger picture. And I have to have grace for her, because I really do love her. She just frustrates me.
But that's all tangent stuff - I think some of the misconceptions have to stop, and soon! I'm on another MBTI list where one poor SP girl feels like everyone has it out for SPs, and I just want to cuddle her to pieces. She needs to find this board.
I really wouldn't touch the intelligence thing with a 6-foot stick. Intelligence is more relative than anything, and people usually vary on what they consider intelligent and dumb (until you get to really gifted or really dumb, and then it starts to become more universal).
I think that each type has the potential to a certain type of intelligence; for instance, an S type might be better with concrete applications whereas an N type might be better with abstract theories. Who's smarter, though, is much harder to say.
IQ can go to hell, for all I care :B
But overall, I think "intelligence" in terms of ability to learn is more or less separate from MBTI, I think we should probably keep it that way...
I think that each type has the potential to a certain type of intelligence; for instance, an S type might be better with concrete applications whereas an N type might be better with abstract theories. Who's smarter, though, is much harder to say.
IQ can go to hell, for all I care :B
But overall, I think "intelligence" in terms of ability to learn is more or less separate from MBTI, I think we should probably keep it that way...
Well, see, intelligence is roughly just a person's ability to learn new information, and breaking down the 4 functions in question here (Si, Se, Ni, Ne) reveals, imo, that intuitives are going to be more comfortable with new information, even to the point of seeking it out. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that people are better at, or at least more likely to master, something they are comfortable with doing.
Which is actually one of the misconceptions; the functions don't determine how WELL any information is collected or attained. It only describes the method by which it is done.
Se/Si collects via their senses. It is better focused towards concrete information and more easily applicable.
Ne/Ni collects via intuitive leaps and hops. It is more abstract and better with theory.
However, if an S type doesn't have reliable input via the senses, their info might be wrong. Likewise, if an N takes a leap and a hop along the wrong tangent, their info might be wrong too.
Neither is "better." They are simply different. N's don't necessarily seek out new information, although they might be more interested in theory. However, that's only one sort of intelligence, and only people who are apt at understand will seek it. S's do much the same, although sometimes the intelligence they pursue is of a different nature, such as being more practical than theoretical.
Se/Si collects via their senses. It is better focused towards concrete information and more easily applicable.
Ne/Ni collects via intuitive leaps and hops. It is more abstract and better with theory.
However, if an S type doesn't have reliable input via the senses, their info might be wrong. Likewise, if an N takes a leap and a hop along the wrong tangent, their info might be wrong too.
Neither is "better." They are simply different. N's don't necessarily seek out new information, although they might be more interested in theory. However, that's only one sort of intelligence, and only people who are apt at understand will seek it. S's do much the same, although sometimes the intelligence they pursue is of a different nature, such as being more practical than theoretical.
Which part? The detail part? Ah, that's a story...one thing Sensors are very good at are seeing the minute details. They can look deep into something and remember the small parts, while the N folk look at the whole picture.
So when it came to *really* finding the devil in the details, I couldn't keep up with my S counterparts. I wanted to see the bigger picture (and I kept wanting to know why things were done *this* way when there were better ways of accomplishing them). And I got up with the whole time thing and the non-confrontational thing...let's just say it got messy for me.
As for my Sensor friend, she gets really into the details of how perfect each individual thing must be, and I just say it's okay the way it is - the main issue is getting the puppy *done.*
Last edited:
I think GO has put it perfectly, as soon as you start talking about intelligence bias almost always come into play, a lot of intuitives inherently value a more intellectual intelligence over practical intelligence.
Unless you are defining intelligence very narrowly then I can't see how type could be related. Anyway you are comparing apples (eg. a smart ESFJ) with oranges (eg. a smart INTJ) they will both excel in different areas and who is to say which kind of intelligence has more value?
Unless you are defining intelligence very narrowly then I can't see how type could be related. Anyway you are comparing apples (eg. a smart ESFJ) with oranges (eg. a smart INTJ) they will both excel in different areas and who is to say which kind of intelligence has more value?