An ISTP’s Rant About Conspiracy Theories

People say a lot of different things about sensors. Some of it is right, and of course, some of it is wrong. Certain things are said out of frustration, which I try to ignore. (We all butt up against annoying people.) Other stuff, which typically amounts to misconceptions, I can’t help, but find a bit irritating. There’s a certain take on ISTPs and conspiracy theories that falls into that latter category.

I guess I should explain what I’m talking about.

I see people, typically NJs, claim that a tendency to obsess over conspiracy theories is a sign of low Ni. The logic typically goes that conspiracy theories are obviously a bad use of Ni, so only the SPs will fall prey to them, since their Ni is low. For whatever the reason (maybe Ti subjective logic or perhaps Ni being in the tertiary position rather than inferior), I’ve seen ISTPs honed in on specifically, and accused of this tendency. As an ISTP myself, I’d like to share my perspective on the matter, both personally and from a cognitive theory standpoint.

This ISTP’s Personal Opinion on Conspiracy Theories

For the record, I’m not about to say that no ISTP will ever be interested in conspiracy theories, but I personally am not. Not in the least. But of course, we all have our unique interests, quirks, etc. Some ISTPs may get into conspiracy theories. Who knows. However, I don’t think there’s logical support for making conspiracy theories primarily the realm of SPs. I’ll share my reasoning in the sections below, along with why I personally have no interest in them.

Some Thoughts To Consider

1. What people consider to be a “conspiracy theory” is often subjective

From what I’ve seen, the phrase “conspiracy theory” tends to be used in a derogatory way. One person will view a certain theory as ridiculous, label it a conspiracy theory, and label anyone who considers it a conspiracy theorist. However, the person who believes in that conspiracy theory, doesn’t always label it as such, because they view it as truth. That’s the catch. To one person, it’s truth; to another, it’s a conspiracy theory. You can’t really know the difference until the theory gets absolutely and concretely proven or disproven within reality.

I’ve seen plenty of intuitives latch onto something that their intuition determines to be truth, something that they’ve “read between the lines”. Of course, they’re not going to personally label what they’ve latched onto as a “conspiracy theory”. It’s going to be an underlying pattern, or a secret truth, and all those who fail to see it are often accused of being close-minded or not seeing the “big picture”.

2. Se, or Extraverted Sensing, focuses on objective reality

People like to accuse sensors of only taking things at face value, being close-minded, and never looking below the surface. Considering that, it’s ironic that some people try to label SPs as the conspiracy theorists. But setting that aside, do you know what Extraverted Sensing is, by definition? It’s a focus on objective reality; a focus on “what is”. Se concerns itself with what is tangible, verifiable, and actionable within reality.

As an ISTP, I’ve never seen a value in conspiracy theories, because so many of them are all doom and gloom, with no actionable value. From a practical standpoint, there’s not often anything you can really do about the potential knowledge that a conspiracy theory contributes. It’s usually just knowing for the sake of knowing. Maybe you get bragging rights, if you’re into that sort of thing, because you can claim some secret insight that few people have. I’ve personally never seen the point. To be frank, I usually avoid people who get too deep into conspiracy theories, because it’s a buzz kill. If knowing provides me no real world value, I’d rather be ignorant.

So, with that being said, does it really make sense to claim that SPs are going to be ones who spend a lot of time preoccupying themselves with unverifiable theories that have a tenuous connection to reality at best?

3. Cognitive function placement defines range of use

Having a cognitive function high in your function stack does not guarantee you will never use the function poorly. It simply means that you can do more things with it. You will use it in more situations, and rely on it more heavily. Typically, in a healthy individual, the result is someone who uses it well, but if we look at reality for a second, we have to admit that some people just aren’t healthy, no matter what type you might label them as.

When someone starts slipping into a state of imbalance, the first stage is over-using their dominant function, without any relief balance from the lower functions, especially the auxiliary. It’s not until after that approach fails that the person will fall into a grip state. So, in the first stage, an INXJ will lean extremely heavily on Ni, probably losing touch with reality in the process. Of course, this scenario is specifically addressing unhealthy states. The other thing that’s important to remember is that…

4. Anyone can be wrong

Granted, any rational person is aware of this. I’ve even seen people explain that NJs can be wrong, but that (in their opinion) doesn’t include getting caught up in a false, conspiracy theory. (They don’t say it exactly like that, but that’s my summary.) I can’t help but wonder; how exactly is an NJ allowed to be wrong, if not via latching onto a niche, complex, paranoid-sounding theory? Of course, this can be expanded to intuitives in general, since conspiracy theories are generally attributed to the realm of intuition. (I’ve never seen anyone say otherwise.)

In Conclusion…

Once again, I’m not saying that SPs can’t be into conspiracy theories, and my goal was not to pick on the intuitives. I don’t collectively view intuitives as paranoid. As with all other types, some are, and some aren’t. I just wanted to present a sensor’s perspective on this whole thing, because sometimes, I really feel like that’s lacking in the typology community.

I have seen SPs get into conspiracy theories, but I’ve personally seen it more often in the intuitive types. Of course, this is one of those things that’s self-affirming, right? A personality theory enthusiast who’s using conspiracy theories as a key indicator, might type someone as a sensor whom I would label an intuitive. Thus, they can make the claim that only sensors fall prey to conspiracy theories, while I claim that it’s more of an intuitive thing. Round and round we go.

Bottom line: something like this shouldn’t be a key indicator, especially since it is so subjective. Whether someone is right or wrong should be irrelevant; the thought process that they follow to get to their conclusion is what’s important, not the conclusion itself.

Someone who spends a lot of time in unverifiable, impractical theories is not actively using their sensing function, because the sensing function will demand that a connection be made to tangible reality. This could mean an ESXP or ISXJ in the grip, an ISXP or ESXJ in a loop, or an intuitive type. You can’t immediately eliminate any specific type grouping based on what you’ve deemed to be paranoia, because when it comes right down to it, anyone can fall prey to paranoia or falsehoods, regardless of their personality type.