I already know a priori that this topic is dangerous, as it is a social commentary on what I have been observing of typology in social contexts. What it means to be a particular type in a community, your personal identification, what others perceive of you, all of this takes a great toll on not only each person but the theories as distinct wholes. In many ways typology has been become a tool of leverage, and I suppose this where the intuitive and sensing bias can be pointed out (and not in the jaded context that it is often utilized).
One thing that always caught my eye and that I gave attention to was sakinorva's preference indicators. Using a capital letter, minus sign + capital letter, lowercase letter, and minus sign + lowercase letter (ex: N, -N, n, -n), you were able to assign preferences in strengths of 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25 (strongest to weakest) to the MBTI dichotomies. We know this practically as we can say that for instance, some huge stickler for structure and cogency like Plato would be 1.0 J, while someone a lot more spacier and less conscientious (say Friedrich Nietzsche) would be something like 0.5 or 0.25 J in comparison. I do not think I have to give multiple examples for people to understand this perceived hierarchy that is created here. Now, why would I point out some random function on a different typology site? I think this function of sakinorva is a codified view of how we often think in regards to typology. Someone who is a 'stereotype' of some type would theoretically be say, 1.0 ILI while someone borderline between ILI and IEI might only be 0.5 ILI and thus 0.5 IEI. Perhaps we do not think so quantitively, but it makes sense at least in abstract.
We create a hierarchy in our own minds of what it means to be a certain type. Let us say we have an idea of what a stereotypical EIE means. When we think of any stereotypical EIE, we bunch up a variety of examples with many distinct similarities even when we recognize why each of these EIE individuals is vastly different from the next. We likely do this for all the 'weaker' instances, what 0.75 EIE means to me, what 0.5 EIE means to me, etc. How does this affect our thinking? When we wrongly attribute people into these groups, we change our own dynamic of how we view these types as a whole. We create this jaded view where let's say an obvious EIE is only someone like Friedrich Nietzsche, Kanye West, David Bowie. People who are not this larger-than-life, creative genius, social pariah + social messiah is not going to be an EIE in this person's mind, at least not an obvious one.
Additionally, we often overestimate what is means to be an intuitive. I may revise my previous statements on the intuitive bias thread. I do think there is intuitive bias, where people vote intuitive for characters they like and sensing for those they dislike. But I think this problem is often oversimplified. I do not believe that any character that is ISFP voted as INFP means that people love intuitive types as a whole and hate sensing types as a whole (although in any specific instance this is certainly possible). Or vice versa, with people who love this specific sensing type over the 'intuitive version' of the type. We create inequal, irrational, and irate standards of what it means to enact a particular function with strength. I think that what it means to be an Ne dom can simply mean to spam unfunny images in a discord server. What it means to be an Ni dom just means claiming as such with the supposed vigor and confidence of one. But I think it is used as social leverage. Even bullying and harassment, if you will.
The ideation of being intuitive is often coveted with a certain degree of decadence, respect, power, and potential. People who are intuitive will be listened to more, their opinions are more highly valued, and their social leverage will be much stronger than those who are sensing. Now I propose to you, let us say you have an intuitive person whose opinions are always treasured and taken as deeply as Jung's word himself, who constantly philosophizes and proves to the world that their aphorisms are intelligent and intensely crafted. What would be the greatest and also easiest way to topple this person and take it all away? I would argue that trying to accuse this person of being a sensor would remove at least a decent chunk of this credibility. It is rather effortless after all, 'why not xxxx for you' or 'xx function is obvious' are both common assertions on both the site and in the community. It takes much less effort in comparison to actually toppling someone's ideas on the level that they are proclaiming them from. Now, I do not always believe these kind of things are done with evil intent. I do not assume ill intent on anyone that only questions someone else's typing, merely mentioning the possibility that someone might actually be a sensor. After all, this would entail that being sensing is inherently bad or inferior. I do not believe in such travesties, despite me possibly being unconsciously biased in multiple past incidents, which are largely undetectable to me or the world.
Politics is a common topic where this strategy is utilized. Let's say we have a politician with opinions we do not agree with. Typing them as ESTJ would equate them to the archetype of the overt pragmatist and traditionalist, someone with views of the 18th century. We cannot allow someone like them to control our social discourse! We know that the collectivized image of the ESTJ is poor. Denying this is futile. But what of the ENTJ? You mean the historical leader type? The type that excelled at conquering societies and controlling the socio-political paradigm? We shall assign it to the politicians we wish to bolster as our perceived idols. Obviously, these are not the only two types used with typing politicians, but you can fill in the blanks for most other types.
There seems to be a general coping method as well in our own typing; a combination of our subconsciusly collective guilt as well as the gambler's fallacy. We believe that because we typed many, many individuals as intuitive, the next figure we cannot piece out must be sensor. I believe that we want to have 'diversity of type', and thus we feel a practical necessity to type large individuals as sensing, even if they realistically are an intuitive type! Compare this as you will to real life social issues, but I believe the parallels are here in typology too. We feel a need (perhaps unconscious) to coddle sensing types, as if they need the big brother intuitives to defend them. I consider this specific instance disgusting and pathetic, even if unintended.
This all goes back to what I say earlier of the decimal based strengths. What it means to be a 1.0 intuitive can entail people that we like, people we want to be typed that way (after all, the 1.0/"obvious" EIE examples I listed earlier were all people I deeply admire). We may do this for our friends, our ideological allies, or our idols. We let sensory details slide, as if they mean nothing because we already had a typing a priori for this figure. Or we beget the intuitive strengths of someone we despise in order to hone in on a particular negative trait we assign to sensing types. I do not think any individual is particularly innocent or guilty, and I do not think every intuitive typing is done with irrational or undeserved love and sensing with hate or malice. However, I think collectively we are guilty as a typology community, and identifying this problem is merely the beginning of this major dilemma.