Bias against "S" types

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Andy K Octopus

I have noticed their seems to be considerable "bias" against S types here from some posters. I just read a comment about how some person couldn't be an "S" because "S" types lack "vision" and "creativity". I think that S v. N has nothing to do with intelligence or imagination or creativity.

For example, my girlfriend is an ESFX---she isn't dense (she is a graduate student at Johns Hopkins and is an Autism specialist), she just takes in information and communicates differently than I do as an INFJ. My best female friend is an ISFJ, and she is every bit as witty, well read and interesting as anyone I have ever met (she knows a little about everything), and both of them, as SF types, are extremely amicable and easy to be around.

The way I see the S v. N divide is more like do you make decisions based on hunches or abstract concepts vs. do you like to have cold, hard facts to make decisions on. N's tend to be a little more "eccentric" for all intents and purposes.

Another of my male best friends, an ISTJ, fits that type to a T (with an extra dose of J-ness) He is one of the nicest funniest people I have ever met, and his mind is sharper than a razor blade. He takes in everything around him (he observes events in a detached way, kind of like an owl) and analyzes it thoroughly. He always is wrestling with picking apart personalities and other things in his head. He has wide and varied interests, and a very colorful personality but like people with too much "J" he is also anal retentive like crazy. He is also the most successful of all my friends, monetarily, and he has 2 wonderful children that are being raised in a wonderful home. But he is defintely an STJ, not an NTJ.

I am just saying, these are three solidly "S" people that are very interesting people to me. They have very complex personalities, very agile minds and a whole lot to offer me, as an INFJ, just by sharing their thoughts with me.

Yes.
It is shameful.

In the INTPc it is worse.

It is a question of young kids who have had life too easy.
The endless IQ talk is a part of the parcel.

Understanding is not about type or IQ.

[Santtu]

Warning: The message below is a flame. Viewer discretion adviced.
I dislike how N is described some vague tendency to believe in shit without reason. With well-developed T, truth could not be further from that.

From my POV, S people need more often to have the points hammered in their brains for them to get them. S people doubt real, long-established scientific results that affect billions of people on the basis of their own haphazard observations. S confuse the terms "real" and "practical" with what they are able to understand or care about, which is often limited to smaller things. More often than not this means, "what am I going to get from this?"

If they do start to "believe" in science, then they let the science magazine editors think for themselves.

S people roam in the endless ocean of useless information tidbits like baseball scoring charts, years, recipies, quotes, anecdotes and if-then connections of the simplest kind. If anyone oversimplifies it's the S (exaggeration intended

In my country, people extremely widely hold the opionion that university graduates earn less and are more often unemployed, because the subject matter taught in universities is so unpractical.

Again latest statistics proved this to be exactly the opposite, graduates earning more and having a lower unemployment rate. Well, duh, facts are S's domain, so did loads of Ss embrace this new information? Noooooo.

THe newspaper forums were filled with people telling examples of university people they know who supposedly do badly in the work they are, and how (dogmatically speaking) the released information can't be true in light of the "well-known-fact" that university studies are indeed worthless.

S are arrogant bastards who mistake their short-sightedness for their "practical skills". I have to say for S's defences that it does take quite an (intuitive) leap to translate university studies in subject X into being employed in business Y. For S, everything matches for the same kind of shit. Carpenter school graduates become, uh, carpenters.

That's enough ranting for today. I'll go sign up for this semester's studies (really).

This flame bought to you by Angry Student productions ltd.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Santtu

Warning: The message below is a flame. Viewer discretion adviced.

This flame bought to you by Angry Student productions ltd.

You've proven the point of the author quite well. That was SO biased that even a brainwashed lackey would have been able to read through the backwards logic.

We'll certainly keep in mind how open minded and tolerant you are in the future...

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by athenian200

You've proven the point of the author quite well. That was SO biased that even a brainwashed lackey would have been able to read through the backwards logic.

We'll certainly keep in mind how open minded and tolerant you are in the future...

Always happy to confirm what is expected of my stereotype

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by Andy K Octopus

no problem. I just thought that directing or adding negative intonations to any characteristic is inherently wrong and against the spirit of these types of boards.

S types are no less intelligent, or interesting or creative than Ns. Their description might not be as intriguing, but in real life, you will meet a lot of fascinating S people

I agree that S types are no less intelligent or creative than N's. But how interesting a person is depends on what common interests you share. I have a harder time striking up a conversation with most S's than I do with the typical N. I'm a strong N, so it's simply easier for me to talk with other N's.

I'm not saying that everyone finds S's boring, quite the contrary in fact. But not only do I find them uninteresting, I'm sure they feel the same way about me. (Also I'm generalizing since I do have quite a few S friends.)

Originally Posted by Santtu

I dislike how N is described some vague tendency to believe in shit without reason. With well-developed T, truth could not be further from that.

From my POV, S people need more often to have the points hammered in their brains for them to get them. S people doubt real, long-established scientific results that affect billions of people on the basis of their own haphazard observations. S confuse the terms "real" and "practical" with what they are able to understand or care about, which is often limited to smaller things. More often than not this means, "what am I going to get from this?"

If they do start to "believe" in science, then they let the science magazine editors think for themselves.

S people roam in the endless ocean of useless information tidbits like baseball scoring charts, years, recipies, quotes, anecdotes and if-then connections of the simplest kind. If anyone oversimplifies it's the S (exaggeration intended

In my country, people extremely widely hold the opionion that university graduates earn less and are more often unemployed, because the subject matter taught in universities is so unpractical.

Again latest statistics proved this to be exactly the opposite, graduates earning more and having a lower unemployment rate. Well, duh, facts are S's domain, so did loads of Ss embrace this new information? Noooooo.

THe newspaper forums were filled with people telling examples of university people they know who supposedly do badly in the work they are, and how (dogmatically speaking) the released information can't be true in light of the "well-known-fact" that university studies are indeed worthless.

S are arrogant bastards who mistake their short-sightedness for their "practical skills". I have to say for S's defences that it does take quite an (intuitive) leap to translate university studies in subject X into being employed in business Y. For S, everything matches for the same kind of shit. Carpenter school graduates become, uh, carpenters.

That's enough ranting for today. I'll go sign up for this semester's studies (really).

This flame bought to you by Angry Student productions ltd.

How can you be sure that this attitude that you are describing comes from S's and not N's? :P

[Splittet]

I have developed a distaste of everything archetypical SJ. So sure, I admit I am biased against SJs and Ss (but I have both SJ and SP friends I love). I think most Ns are, although not as much as me (why is complicated, has to do with some philosophical stuff and my self-image), consciously or unconsciously, simply because most Ns get better along with fellow Ns.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

How can you be sure that this attitude that you are describing comes from S's and not N's? :P

Hm, I was quite straightforward in my evaluation, but it was thru an intermediate association. I've come to associate S to liking "immediately understandable practical benefits", and N to liking "theories, which can be put into practical use, if given some thought".

The kind of commenting seen on those (newspaper) forums made my S-alarm go off.

[Santtu]

I just read one blog entry from these forums and something is starting to become clear to me.

Whereas I feel offended for having my N-type initiatives being promptly evaluated as "impractical", from what I understand, that may be just honest truth-seeking on S types part. I read about the exasperation of one S who got tired of what he considered empty claims, as they were provided without data and references.

I got convinced that it's not short-sightedness or stupidity that makes a person to need such convincing data. It is how ideas can be presented for persons coming from different backgrounds and having reasonable doubts against spurious claims. N does get misunderstood in the process.

Perhaps its naivety on N's part that they expect that all the facts and source material is readily available to their target audience without having to point it out. What kinds of thought patterns could make person neglect to provide details? I asked that question myself and wondered, why do *I* do that.

I have a poor episodic memory, meaning recollection of when some events happened. I am often unable to provide the source of my data, as I dont remember where it came from. WHen I first saw the data, I made the judgement of whether to use it or not, and tested mentally what prior knowledge it supports and what it refutes. My main task from that point was to put the data on "trial", to test it from different angles to see if it's to be relied upon. Remembering where it came from just didn't get stored so exactly, for if I read a minor news on a newspaper, I can follow the links and see where it goes to.

I often notice getting good results in presentation when I study for something in an exacting way, reference my work and make detailed account of the thought process. Moreover, it helps when I make an appealing introduction, state the requirements and show the benefits gained from my proposal. I understand how such thing may be needed for something serious.

It makes me sad to think of the trouble of doing all that, if I consider all that a chore, so that everything around the main idea is just some filler that you have to write/tell to please your audience. I just wish that some people wouldn't need so many details, as I'm not trying to fool them into anything. I also think it's not fair to share the job so that I do a great trouble in preparing my case, so that the recipent has everything in easy bits and he/she can then approve or reject it. Well, most often approve it.

The imbalance of work to be done in presenting and accepting an idea is a problem when the one presenting the idea won't personally benefit from it so much. In such cases, I would just wish to have my idea accepted with lesser trouble.

[developer]

Recently, there was a thread on this forum about why there are not more Sensors signing up. Well, I guess this thread provides the answer.

Personally, I think that David Keirsey's book is one of the main reasons for this bias on the net. While it describes Ns prettty well, it is incredibly condescending about Ss. Lots of MBTI websites quote Kersey and so this biased attitude spreads around. Some people hail Keirsey like a guru, but I think he did significant damage to the MBTI community.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by developer

Recently, there was a thread on this forum about why there are not more Sensors signing up. Well, I guess this thread provides the answer.

Personally, I think that David Keirsey's book is one of the main reasons for this bias on the net. While it describes Ns prettty well, it is incredibly condescending about Ss. Lots of MBTI websites quote Kersey and so this biased attitude spreads around. Some people hail Keirsey like a guru, but I think he did significant damage to the MBTI community.

That may have influenced my negative thinking of S type as well, as Keirsey's Please Understand Me II was the book where I found out about MBTI. Even with all the disclaimers giving equal chance to all the temperaments, I finished reading with thinking NF as the most desirable, followed ny NT, SP and SJ.

Perhaps it is due to "conditioning" to bad typewatching habits that I've become to associate being judged with SJ and being ridiculed with SP.

I have thought about person's capacity for acceptance and goodness a lot. I remember advocating mutual understanding and appreciation a while back, and I found it rewarding. It was during that time when I read Keirsey's book, and I didn't notice a bad effect right then, quite the contrary.

I only turned to the Dark Side of Typewatching when I experienced a work-related burnout and the resulting depression ;P But who S can say that they haven't found N's outright silly, like flawed versions of S, who dont dance as well, are akward, make less effective administrators, and everything what matters to each invividual S. This was not an attempt to provide a balanced view of S's capabilities.

In practice, I love or hate people regardless of their MBTI type, shoe size or whatnot. When I have more capacity for appreciation, I'll start to appreciate Keirsey's S as well.