Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
But isn't that just more of the same "intuitives are awesome, sensors are drones" mentality that is so prevalent on this forum?
No.

I still think it's a biased statement, claiming sensors lack depth and intuitves have all this beautiful understanding of everything.
No one here claimed anything, you're pouring your own opinions. I'm glad that you see it as beautiful, I sometimes think of you like that. ;)

I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation. Obviously we need both, or we wouldn't be chatting here. It depends on individuals of course, how much they have depth. I don't discriminate, but it's a fact that between two intuitors conversation just flows more naturally, but that doesn't mean I can't have fulfilling discussions with sensors. I guess it's similar for two sensors.


I think function preference is characterized when certain type of cognition is so neurologically stimulating that you automatically default to using it over the other functions.

So, Sensors will always get energy from making use of their sense impressions in a way that I never will.
We're all slaves to pleasure, free will and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation. Obviously we need both, or we wouldn't be chatting here. It depends on individuals of course, how much they have depth. I don't discriminate, but it's a fact that between two intuitors conversation just flows more naturally, but that doesn't mean I can't have fulfilling discussions with sensors. I guess it's similar for two sensors.
While I can certainly understand and respect that the bold line may have been your experience, but I've seen Sensors make the effort to "fit in" with intuitive crowds. And from the outside it seemed effortless at that.

Regardless, the problem with the truth that you see and the OP's quote is that there is a difference between not having to fit in and cannot fit in. The first implies a choice while the latter is an impossibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surgery

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation..
I see your point, but here you're talking about social expectations whereas the original quote is talking about ability. There's a big difference between me "pretending to be normal" vs actually using a Sensing function. For example, I had an ESFP manager who would look at me like an idiot if I ever talked about something that wasn't totally "real world." So, when I was around her I would curtail my speech to focus more on concrete, everyday things -- stuff that was happening here and now. But, at no point did I actually start to prefer Se. After all, actually having a cognitive preference for Se entails a kind of impulse to actually interact with the external environment, not just being aware of it (even at the exclusion of Intuitive hunches).

The same thing is true for Te. In a business environment that is heavily Te-laden, I could try to "act more professional", make more effort to plan things out step-by-step or only consider "efficiency" or cost when making decisions, but at no point do I actually develop a preference for Te. It just isn't neurologically stimulating or "comfortable."

So, yes, maybe Sensors don't feel much societal pressure to fake Intuition. But, that doesn't mean they don't have flashes of Intuitive insight nor does it mean that, if pressured, they wouldn't be able to use/prefer Intuition at the same level that you or I would use/prefer Sensing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monemi

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
@Eventive

You're right, I am pouring my opinions onto the thread, as are you and everyone else involved.

Good point, that no one claimed anything, but I still think making such a statement is trying to make a claim, even if the statement is false with no evidence to back it's self up

I used to swear I was intuitive because my whole life I was rejected for being "weird". I have to hid my true self to fit in everyday. And yet I use Si and much more Fe than Ti, making me a sensor. Oh God forbid. I'm one of the normies. That is why I reject such quotes. They may be indicative of an idea rather than a claim, yet many will take it as fact; a claim.

Of course the statement didn't imply sensors can't be weird; it said sensors cannot be intuitive and intuitives can be sensors, which I took to be a sneaky way of implying intuitives have more depth than a sensor. That could be a misinterpretation, yet it's how I see it.

What's funny is we're here debating if sensors lack the depth of an intuitive, and we have you claiming it's easier for sensors to fit in compared to intuitives.I don't agree; if we're going with experiences I was friends with an ESFJ in middle school who was an outcast; bullied, had trouble fitting in. Perhaps she was a rare exception, but something tells me that's not the case. And your claim falls back to the claim that sensors lack depth, and all the other crappy claims about sensors that leads to mistyping and intolerance. I think MBTI should be a tool to understand others, not view them as inferior, if you agree with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monemi

·
Not a Robot
Joined
·
2,150 Posts
@Eventive

You're right, I am pouring my opinions onto the thread, as are you and everyone else involved.

Good point, that no one claimed anything, but I still think making such a statement is trying to make a claim, even if the statement is false with no evidence to back it's self up

I used to swear I was intuitive because my whole life I was rejected for being "weird". I have to hid my true self to fit in everyday. And yet I use Si and much more Fe than Ti, making me a sensor. Oh God forbid. I'm one of the normies. That is why I reject such quotes. They may be indicative of an idea rather than a claim, yet many will take it as fact; a claim.

Of course the statement didn't imply sensors can't be weird; it said sensors cannot be intuitive and intuitives can be sensors, which I took to be a sneaky way of implying intuitives have more depth than a sensor. That could be a misinterpretation, yet it's how I see it.

What's funny is we're here debating if sensors lack the depth of an intuitive, and we have you claiming it's easier for sensors to fit in compared to intuitives.I don't agree; if we're going with experiences I was friends with an ESFJ in middle school who was an outcast; bullied, had trouble fitting in. Perhaps she was a rare exception, but something tells me that's not the case. And your claim falls back to the claim that sensors lack depth, and all the other crappy claims about sensors that leads to mistyping and intolerance. I think MBTI should be a tool to understand others, not view them as inferior, if you agree with that.
I agree with your entire post, but especially related to the bold parts. Some of the wackiest people I know are ISTJs.

I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.

In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,854 Posts
I agree with your entire post, but I especially related to the bold parts. Some of the wackiest people I know are ISTJs.

I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.

In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?
I'm fairly certain my dad is an ISTP, which means his tertiary function (Ni) is my dominant. We have an interesting dynamic. We either clash or get into really intense, and lengthy conversations. The other night we actually had one such convo in which he was complaining about other family members being scatterbrained. He said that he tends to go on tangents but they're connected. So it seems we are the same way there. But I've noticed he has a bit more patience to deal with details (like he'll watch a 50-minute, long video with some guy droning on about how to replace part of a computer.. I would've just googled it and tried to get it over with ASAP.) But he also is a bit ADD from my perspective when it comes to talking about more theoretical things or statistical findings (ex. "but you know that's just a generalization *changes subject*")

In regards to the OP, in this example my dad has more of a N/S balance than I do (I have dom Ni/inferior Se, he has aux Se/tertiary Ni.) This is basically the same for INTP and ENTJ, but reversed.

I think N/S balance would depend on the functional stack.

N's and S's can do each other's "tasks" (i.e. functions), but I think they are performed indirectly via the more dominant function. For example in my case. You don't see INTJ's just not doing sensory things, ever. But S activities for an INTJ are more a consequence of the N and T processes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.

In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?
I think all of this is important.

See, I am capable of comprehending or discussing ideas or abstract thought; I even enjoy it. I wrote a journal entry a few days ago; I won't get into all the details, but it was a weird tangent that turned into a metaphor for the media. And yet I'll think "that reminds me of" "oh it's like"... "oh here's a story from my childhood," "Remember that time...?" all the little past things in the world. As well as repeating the same story without intention, as that's how my brain works. But I think there are many sensors who are capable of creative of abstract thought, some less than others, but they still exist and that shouldn't be discounted.

Your last point is my favorite. It's a claim I've seen over and over again- "You see mostly intuitives on this forum because MBTI/Jung is an abstract concept". 1) How do we know a good chunk of intuitives here aren't sensors fooled due to such a statement? "I really enjoy MBTI, therefore I'm a sensor. Tada". 2) Sensors can comprehend jung, but perhaps in ways that differ from intuitives, and they can type others, but perhaps in a different path from intuitives. Everyone can have the same hobby, but it's all about how we got there. So stop with the snobbery; accept your fellow man. Good ol Fe.

Also if we want to embark on your point that we all get to an understanding in different ways, I'll assume intuitives and sensors can understand each other, but both will reach different destinations. How about using creative strategies to attempt to understand each other rather than pulling the two apart?
 
  • Like
Reactions: s2theizay

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,053 Posts
Most individuals have a preference towards either sensing or intuition, however a sliver of the population may have no measurable preference regarding their sensing or intuition functions.
Maybe you overheard reference to the idea that some individuals have an X to depict neutrality of their second function rather than either an S or an N in that place.
However I've no idea why a neutral individual mistyped as a sensor couldn't seamlessly utilize intuition just as effortlessly as a neutral individual mistyped as intuitive could utilize their sensing functions.

Philosophers & astrologers used to argue that Planet Earth is flat, so who knows what psychologists will propose to be the norm years from today.
I'd concede that I don't know a definitive answer to the question which you've posed, but keep a salt shaker in hand because many of us are wannabe know-it-alls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
I'd concede that I don't know a definitive answer to the question which you've posed, but keep a salt shaker in hand because many of us are wannabe know-it-alls.

Good point as well. I take most of what's said here with a grain of salt, unless I really feel right about it or it makes lots of sense. I can't really articulate what makes me trust an idea; I just do. And then sometimes a contradictory things happens, and then I realize the statement is no longer true, or perhaps a semi-truth. We're learning all the time. It's important to question everything you here, especially on this wannabe know-it-all community we call personalitycafe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StunnedFox

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,530 Posts
Statement in OP's post is a sure fire way to get some people up in arms. ;-)

Personally, I admire sensors' ability to actually see things. My 76-yr-old ISFJ mom doesn't live with me but only visit to catsit. However, she knows more about my neighbors in the complex better than I could ever (and I've lived there close to 20 years). She just watches.

In my world, the only difference to me is how much I reveal. I feel much more in sync and at ease talking to my intuitive friends (INFP, INFJ, INTJ) than with my sensor family/friends (ISFJ, ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ESFJ. ESTJ, ESFP).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,689 Posts
Statement in OP's post is a sure fire way to get some people up in arms. ;-)

Personally, I admire sensors' ability to actually see things. My 76-yr-old ISFJ mom doesn't live with me but only visit to catsit. However, she knows more about my neighbors in the complex better than I could ever (and I've lived there close to 20 years). She just watches.

In my world, the only difference to me is how much I reveal. I feel much more in sync and at ease talking to my intuitive friends (INFP, INFJ, INTJ) than with my sensor family/friends (ISFJ, ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ESFJ. ESTJ, ESFP).
And there goes another backhanded compliment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
The URL of this thread reads: intuitive-can-sensor-but-sensor-cant-intuitive-4

I can only assume that means three threads similar to this one have been made before. But of course sensors can use intuition. Ne/Si and Se/Ni are paired together, and never stop operating alongside one another. The question is, which one is your core component? Which of the functions in that pair plays second fiddle?

In dichotomies, are sensors associated with anything good? Apart from being responsible and consistent. But one of the most pissing off questions in a test is this:

"You feel more comfortable sticking to conventional ways." I checked and found that answering yes veered you t'wards Sensing.

Contrast with David Keirsey's: "Artisans (SPs) pride themselves on being unconventional."

And then people start believing that this is what typology is all about. It actually makes me pretty angry that one's system of personality and understanding has been distorted into simplistic senselessness.

In fact, David Keirsey's comments on temperaments are basically:

SJs are useful pawns. They can't think for themselves though, so they need people to lead them who can think.
NFs are basically the illogical, irrational version of NTs. I mean, both have idealistic visions that will allow them to change the world and stuff, but NFs can't use logic.
SPs are just massive distraction devices from all of the world's problems. At the very least, they do something that other temperaments can't do.
NTs are creative and rational, meaning that they can create and shape an effective system for society, and a good way of living. Furthermore, when a working system is in place, they will vigorously support and maintain that system.

In short, you're never gonna associate with some of those temperaments unless you have serious confidence issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
The URL of this thread reads: intuitive-can-sensor-but-sensor-cant-intuitive-4

I can only assume that means three threads similar to this one have been made before.
No... it means you were on page 4 when you copied the URL, the four is the page number :p

On topic, it's one of those strange assumptions that doesn't seem to totally disappear, even though most seem aware that it's a flawed reading of the theory, probably rooted at least partly in the idea that "sensing" is a specific reference to use of one's five senses, and any such use constitutes "being a sensor". Quite simply, MBTI isn't about one's capabilities - although I think it could reasonably be posited that a person's capabilities will alter depending on their preferences, that's not the principal focus of type.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,418 Posts
Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?
I would say there are some intuitives who, at times, can manage to handle the details almost as good as a sensor, but it's harder for a sensor to skip the step-by-step the way intuitives do. It would probably be easier for an intuitive to pull off looking like a sensor than it would be for a sensor to pull off looking like an intuitive, but that's not quite the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Haha. the amount of bias that goes into that statement is overwhelming.
I like to think the same ones espousing this kind of "N-elitism" are the same ones who score high on an online buzzfeed IQ test and shove it into every one else's face.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,949 Posts
"An intuitive can be a sensor, but a sensor can't be an intuitive."
makes no logical sense.
 
21 - 40 of 99 Posts
Top