Bias and Misconceptions: How NJs Stole Perception from the SJs

It’s no secret that a clear hierarchy of preference has formed among the 16 personality types, with the NJs sitting firmly at the top. Thus, it’s no surprise that NJs seems to be everywhere within the typology community, in spite of claiming to be the rarest of the personality types. Perhaps this is partially because most personality theory content writers are NJs, going as far back as the founders of Myers-Briggs. Of course, if you find content not authored by an NJ, then chances are, the author is an NP. It’s hard to find a typology author or content creator that is a sensor. As a result, the portrayal of sensors is not always accurate.

Of course, everyone knows about the general intuitive bias against the sensors. In fact, the main reason Ryan and I started Practical Typing was because of how often sensors are misrepresented or oversimplified, described merely as shallow counterparts to the intuitive personality types. Unfortunately, the SJs get the worst of this treatment. So while the rarest of the personality types seem to be around every corner within the typology community, the SJs (supposedly the most common of the types) are hard to find.

Don’t worry. I didn’t bring this subject up to rant and rave about the unfairness of it all, and I’m not here to pick a fight with the NJs, or any other intuitive. Instead, I want to discuss a very specific problem in the way that people portray SJs.

Why Fixate on NJs vs SJs?

If I’m not here to pick a fight, why fixate on the SJs and the NJs? It’s quite simple. You see, Introverted Sensing (Si) and Introverted Intuition (Ni) actually have more things in common than people realize, because they are both introverted perceiving functions. As such, Ni plays a similar role in the NJs, as Si does in the SJs. Unfortunately, due to a general misunderstanding of what introverted perceiving does, people attribute aspects of it soley to Ni. As a result, due to this misunderstanding and the misconceptions surrounding SJs, a drastic schism has formed between these two personality type categories. So, while NJs are the most idealized and the most coveted, the SJs have become the least preferred and the most disliked. Naturally, the result is a bunch of SJs mistyping themselves as their NJ variant (e.g. ISTJ will mistype as INTJ).

5 Contributing Factors In the Bias Against SJs

There are five main factors that have contributed to the bias against the SJs. My goal is to clarify these factors, and to discuss the implications. I want to explain the core of the problem, and the misunderstandings surrounding the SJs. Of course, while I am specifically focusing on the SJs vs NJs in this article, I will certainly adress some information applicable to all sensors.

1. The Core Misconception About Sensors

Cognitive functions define thought processes, but in people’s attempts to simplify and explain the personality types, they seem to forget that fact. Intuition, being more blatantly abstract, gets largely attributed to a mental process (and rightfully so), while sensing gets downgraded to a physical act. Sensing has become all about reflexes and hands-on skills, which people like to call a “different type of intelligence.” However, every cognitive function is cerebral, regardless of which one. Furthermore, sensing is as equally cerebral as intuition. The thought processes are just different. (For the record, any personality type can excel at physical skills. This type of intelligence is not exclusive to sensors.)

Unfortunately, I have seen the intuition functions literally described as more cerebral than the sensing functions. (Of course, any normal person, if told that they do less “thinking” than someone else, is going to draw the conclusion that they were just called stupid.) So, while “thinking” or “intelligence” is enhanced in the intuitive function, it is largely removed from the sensing function. This is probably the number one reason that sensors mistype as intuitives.

2. The Idealized NJ Descriptions

The descriptions for the NJ personality types are highly idealized. Meaning, each NJ description portrays an NJ who’s at the peak of intelligence and competency. According to these descriptions, NJs are always highly insightful, excellent at predicting things long in advance, or reading the minds of those around them. They’re described as the psychics, the perfect strategists, the brilliant masterminds, etcetera. Does that sound like a normal person? No. Do you know very many people like that? Probably not. Of course, you might say that that’s because NJs are rare. I would counter that it’s actually because the descriptions have assumed that every NJ will meet a high standard of intelligence and competence. It’s rare to find a description of an NJ who’s just an average person, of average intelligence, even though logically, most people are just average people.

3. The SJ Descriptions

In comparison, how are SJ described? At best, they’re described as the average, everyday person.

For instance, people are creatures of habit. Even the most chaotic and impulsive of people fall into habits and routines. It’s human nature; It’s easy; It’s lazy; It’s living in your comfort zone. We are all prone to that to some degree. Unfortunately, in typology, that tendency has become primarily attributed to the SJs. It’s one of the main things they’re known for. As far the descriptions are concerned, they permanently live in their little routine-based, tradition-based, comfort zone, never wanting change and never wanting to move beyond their maintenance mode. But, everyone is a creature of habit to some degree, so one of the most ordinary human tendencies has been made a defining characteristic of the SJs. No wonder others only view them as boring normies.

Alternatively, if not described as the average, everyday person, SJs are described in their unhealthy state, the one that’s stuck in the past and incapable of adapting. (Yes, this is an imbalanced, unhealthy state, indicative of underdeveloped Ne. It should not be the norm.) So, essentially, SJ descriptions either double down on the average manifestation of an SJ, or describe the unhealthy SJ.

Now, I’m not going to deny that SJs are extra prone to falling into routine, maintaining what is, avoiding change, and fixating on the past. From a theory standpoint, these are their most likely pitfalls. But, where is the idealized description of an SJ? The one that describes the intelligent, competent, and healthy SJ?

4. Ni Perception vs Si Perception

When people discuss NJs, the perception aspect of their personality type gets a lot of focus. Ni is well known for its foresight and visionary quality. It’s why they’re known for being future-oriented, thinking several steps ahead, and etcetera.

On the other hand, perception in the SJs is typically just described as a fixation on the past. Supposedly, SJs blindly maintain what has always been without thinking beyond it. They refuse to adapt, and get in the way of progress. Essentially, Si has been reduced to nothing more than a cognitive function that studies the past and nixes anything that does not line up with it. That’s an extremely narrow view of Si, and it’s the reason why everyone seems to think that being an SJ automatically means that you have a good memory. The problem then becomes that anyone with a good memory can start recalling the past as good as an SJ supposedly can. So, what makes the SJ special? How is the SJ’s perception of the past any different from anyone else’s?

5. The “Guardian” Label

I’m not a big fan of the Keirsey temperaments, for reasons I’ve outlined in My ISTP Struggle with the Keirsey Temperaments. My gripe with the Guardian temperament specifically is that it places the focus on the judging function, thereby diminishing the role of the perceiving function. After all, the guardian is guarding a structure or a system. While the NJs are foreseeing, strategizing, and forming their visions for the future, what are SJs doing? They’re preserving the past. They’re rigidly adhering to (and enforcing) what is and has always been. That’s extraverted judging (Te or Fe), with some unhealthy Si sprinkled in.

So, What Does Si Do as a Perceiving Function?

SJs, when intelligent, excel at risk analysis and prediction. The relationship between intuitives and SJs tends to be fraught with conflict because of this. You see, when intuitives start sharing their “visions” and “ideas”, the SJs immediately compare that idea to their mental database of known information, and then project it out into the future, plotting out its path in their minds. In the process, they begin generating negative outcomes, all the potential ways this “new thing” might go wrong or deviate from its intended purpose. That’s the actual role their Si/Ne is usually playing. The NJ primarily values the vision. The NP primarily values the idea. The SJ values known, proven information, and thus wants to eliminate (or illuminate) any unknowns. A vision has no value if you fall off a cliff on your path to achieve it.

So, the healthy, competent, and intelligent SJs will take the information from their internal analysis and determine if the idea is worth it (based on their entire function stack). If they see it as too destabilizing, or fraught with too many unknowns, they’ll nix the idea outright. Dominant Si especially will demand a higher standard from ideas. They have to flesh out the unknowns. They must account for risk, or they will view the person as ill prepared, and about to do something stupid. However, if the SJ gets on board with the idea, they’ll start planning for it and accounting for it. Unfortunately, the rest of the world usually just diminishes the SJs role down to “those people who stubbornly resist anything new.”

In Conclusion…

If you’ve been following Practical Typing for a long time (or if you’ve explored it in depth), you may have noticed that we’ve written a lot of content comparing SJs to NJs, or Si to Ni. The imbalance described above is the reason why we’ve fixated on that subject so much. People mistake many competent and intelligent SJs for NJs simply because they’re using their entire function stack effectively, including Si. I write articles like this hoping that more SJs will realize that they’re actually SJs, and that ultimately, people’s perspective on these personality types will change for the better.