It's funny you should mention this, because I feel way more in common with other NP's than I do with ISTP's. I even identify with NJ's, to a certian degree. Especially INFJ's but that might be N + high Ti (and my Fe's pretty good for an INTP in RL).

I think I don't even speak the same language as ISTP's, although of all sensors I understand them best.

Not surprising really. Ti is just something done to Ne.

Ne is still the actual stuff that goes through my head.

Ti just says whether it's logically true or false.

I and an ISTP approach life with the same scalpel, but we focus on totally different things.

But T/F still mean a lot. Especially to a T/F dom, because they see F or T as the ultimate other as opposed to Sensing or Intuition.

But S/N still has more to do with making them who they are. They are the fabric upon which T and F stamp their meaning.

The difference between a J dom and P dom is that a P dom gathers more material and a J dom spends more time fiddling with it, but they're still looking at the same stuff.

Which comes in fundamentally different forms, N and S.

Nice post.

 

intuitives are generally deeper thinkers and this leads to them having higher IQs.

"In summary, here's what the statistics indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:

* Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).

* Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is 8 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 2.5 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person (one who seeks closure) is about twice as likely to have a high IQ than a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).

* Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population. The probability is 20% for an INTP, 15% for an INFJ, and 8% for an INFP. These four types account for 66% of the high-IQ population but only 6% of the total population."
-unknown source

 

intuitives are generally deeper thinkers and this leads to them having higher IQs.

"In summary, here's what the statistics indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:

* Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).

* Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is 8 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 2.5 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person (one who seeks closure) is about twice as likely to have a high IQ than a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).

* Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population. The probability is 20% for an INTP, 15% for an INFJ, and 8% for an INFP. These four types account for 66% of the high-IQ population but only 6% of the total population."

Top 1 percent of the population (according to an official assesment anyway) ftw!

In all seriousness, I think those calculations are faulty, because they SEEM (haven't gone over it with a calculator) to be done by letter, not type.

But another study also put those 4 types ontop, albeit in a different order. So I guess the general point stands.

Still, IQ is surely not the only reason why S/N is such a major split...

 

Interesting, sensing/intuition would make a difference on our outlook, while feeling/thinkning creates more of a difference in our judgement. Individual differences would be more varied in the way that we manifest the information brought by the senses/ideas than the manner in which one gather this information; therefore, it is easier for sensors to relate to sensors because "relating" requires to understand the approach in which the information is gathered, while "identifying" with the other person would have to play more with the may that the informaiton is finally organized, or manifested. Perhaps, if you consider the difference in approach, you can identify more with thinkers that come accross similar information than feelers.

Then again, I think human variety will probably be a more influential factor; there is immense variety even within the same types, one only has to look further. Therefore one ENFP could rely more on their feeling function than their intuitive function, which would make it relate more to a ESFP who downplays their Se more than standard deffinition entails.

 

That's true, but I think relation means more than identification, at least to me. Identification is less...personal.

Like if I were a lawyer I could identify with a lawyer in a different country who spoke a different language and practiced a different culture, but I would still realte to someone from my own culture more.

Of course, it depends on the person. I have extremely close connections with many Sensors...that`s not quite what I mean to say. I just feel like I have more in common with intuitives, regardless of the thinking/feeling preference.

But then again I seem to have found I relate to feeling better than the average INTP, or at least am fonder of it...

 

Any data on S/N population compared to other types on this forum?

I predict a sensing type would prefer more visual stimulation than these words and thoughts on this forum.

 

Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "bigger part".

I think what you are seeing is a mistake that many individuals on this site have made, and that is to accept the "test" results as the absolute truth.
The questionnaire is intended to help you assimilate the information that you learn in the MBTI course material. It is only by not properly understanding the material that people make this mistake.

One of the ways that the questionnaire can be misleading is that it indicates the extent to which functions are being used, and assumes the function that is used the most is the dominant function.
What will often be the case however is that many individuals find that their dominant function is misunderstood, even without being aware of it, and will use their secondary, or even tertiary in some cases, as a coping mechanism.
Unfortunately, the causes and the change can often have an adverse, or destructive, effect on a person's life, and this will most likely manifest in some form of neurosis. As a result, the causes should be identified and corrected where possible. The particular causes and stimuli for this misunderstanding and change are many and varied, and the subject for individual investigation, usually with the help of a trained counsellor.

If this behaviour forms a pattern or becomes habit, the individuals use of their secondary, or tertiary, function is strengthened and matures more than that of their dominant preferred function.
But, given the opportunity to be themselves and express themselves without expectation or hindrance, these individuals will revert to a more normal usage of their preferred dominant function.

 

^^

That's not what the original poster meant, and if she did, she is confused. J-doms are more similar to people who use the same perceiving function than their dominant function. An INTP has more in common with an INFP than an ISTP. Even if they are normally developed. We still use Ti more than Ne. But we identify with INFP's more.

Of course, this depends on the person, but this is a trend that seems to have some backing, and holds true for me.

It may sound confusing, and I admit I don't understand it myself. It's not even like I identify with intuition first and foremost. It's that having it as your top perceiving function, whether in first or second place, means you perceive the world in a fundamentally different way from Sensors. We spend more time judging, but the same feed of intuitiveness is going through our heads. For sensors, it is the literal feed. Intuitive material is always there, even if it is not new perception for us as much. So we feel more at home in the presence of intuition than (in my case) with thinking. Even though I do more thinking, the stuff I think about is so different I can't relate.

It's sort of hard to explain if you're not one of us. You don't notice because you attribute it to being your dominant function, but there's a gulf between sensing and intuition that surpasses thinking and feeling, I suspect because they are perceiving functions. It's not that Ne itself takes up more of my mind, but it is the most important function. Not the master, not the most used, not my best. The most important. The most crucial. It would seem that all intuitives are fundamentally intuitives, even if not mostly, not thinkers or feelers. Same with Sensors.

Without perception, you have nothing. You can't judge if you don't perceive, but you can perceive mindlessly.

It's hard for me to encapsulate what I mean...I hope this helps.

PS. If any J doms disagree, please say. I could well be crazy. But I just feel a kinship with other N's I don't with STP's. Perhaps because we are rarer? Maybe, but I think it's in the nature of what perception is.

 

^^
That's not what the original poster meant, and if she did, she is confused.

Think about what you just said for a moment.
I looks awfully like you don't know what she meant either.

Let the original poster speak for herself rather than having you hijack the thread!

 

Perhaps I was confusing and yes, I used words rather callously (reading it over I'm sure it appeared dismissive...not what I meant at all). I'm sorry for that. I just wasn't thinking...I meant no offense to anyone. What interactions I have had with the OP so far have been good and it would distress me if she were hurt by them. My intention was to edify, not insult, and if I have it was only through poorly chosen words. My motive was to help her, so it would make no sense to hijack the thread. I am a secondary N and the exact sort of person an N-dom would want answering this question (at least I imagine), personal inadequacies aside.

Since your reply was not the actual answer to why some J-dom N's identify more with their N (although for a few it might be), but rather a very correct answer to a different question, I thought you misunderstood what she was asking. I didn't think she thought it was about function order. IF she thought it was about function order, or say Ne actually being more prominent, then she was confused. Quite innocently. Obviously if all ENTJ's naturally had a stronger N, functional order would make no sense.

I think answering the question the OP posed (or at least clarifying it) is not the same thing as hijacking a thread. I wanted to clear things up if that was the case, for you and her, and provide an answer to the question she posed. Because that, as far as I have seen, is not the reason that many J-doms identify more with their secondary P. It is actually because the perceiving function is closer to one's identity, for reasons I laid forth on but (I fear) did an inadequate job of explaining. This is a confusing issue.

What I meant by that was this: what she is seeing is very real, but IF what she thinks she is seeing is what you thought she was seeing (overdeveloped secondary functions, which does happen, yes), than she is innocently confused. Because, usually, that is not the reason for N/S having more influence in terms of identity in an IP or EJ's life. My Ti is definitely in charge, and I can assure you I feel more in common with iNtuitives than Thinkers generally, and many other INTP's do as well. Perhaps not all, but many. And that is saying something, because normally it is extremely uncommon for the dominant function to be underdeveloped. Especially for introverts.

I hope I have made things clear now. I did not mean to offend anyone by what I said and am merely trying to answer the question. I do hope my thoughts are clear, because I can assure you there was no malice behind them.

 

The title question is:
“Do intuition and sensing play a bigger part in how we thing than thinking and feeling?”
To which the answer is, NO.

Rephrased in light of the first paragraph, the question becomes:
“Does the preferred secondary function play a bigger part in cognitive process than the preferred dominant function?”
To which the answer is, NO, under normal circumstances, and YES, when the preferred dominant function is suppressed.

In my first post in this thread, I showed how a misinterpretation can occur, gave a reason for why we often see suppression of the dominant function, and suggested how it might be recognised and corrected.

Apart from the OP's first paragraph, the main body of the post is her own observations and attempts at correlating the data.

The following are my own observations of the data:

I'm only asking because I've noticed a lot of supporting intuition users on this site identifying more as intuitive types than as feeling or thinking types.
I've probably seen that more with intuitors only because there are more intuitors on this site. But I have seen some ISTPs(who seem to be the most common sensor type on here) who seem to identify more often with Se-users than with Ti-dominants.

In these cases, we see individuals who are using their stated preferred secondary function where their stated preferred dominant function fails them. This is likely to be due to a suppression of the dominant function, and/or a misdiagnosed preference of the dominant function. It has nothing to do with the rational or arational (J or P) function playing a bigger, better or stronger part in general cognition.

For instance, INFPs labelling themselves more often as Ne-types than as Fi-types. I would think that they may identify more with ISFPs. I understand that with ENFPs, they may see some similarities in the fact that they have the same cognitive functions, but how far would actual similarities go?

If given the opportunity to express themselves without expectation or hindrance, in any situation, you will see rational dominants expressing themselves as rational dominants, and arational dominants expressing themselves as arational dominants. BUT, we all have sociological constraints and expectations placed upon us, and sometimes those restrictions require us to not display certain types of behaviour or restrict the ways we are 'allowed' to think.
To demonstrate this concept, lets look at a male who has mistyped himself as INTP, and should have been typed INFP. This person may, in effect, be saying that he perceives feeling types as feminine and, as he values his masculinity, decides to describe himself as a thinking type. The result is that he neglects his dominant function, because he's not actually a thinking type and he doesn't want to appear as a feeling type. He still has to relate to other people, so he uses his secondary function, iNtuition. (He may even recognise that he has a greater affinity for value based judgements, ie. Feeling, than most INTPs, but refuses to acknowledge it as part of his personality because he perceives it as feminine.)
The main thing that can be seen by the trained eye, is that he has not understood the MBTI course material, which in no way implies feeling as feminine.
Once this individual gains a proper understanding of feeling as the value based decision making function and release any false ideas about it being feminine, he will be able to embrace it as a part of his personality and start to identify to a greater degree with those of his dominant type. He would no long be restricted by a falsely imposed expectation. It doesn't mean that he can't make logic based Judgements, but that he prefers to make value based Judgements.

I've seen INFJs and INTJs who seem to identify well with each other as Ni-doms/Se-inferiors, even though they don't share any other cognitive function similarities, obviously.

I (being INTJ) get along great with my INFJ brother, and I don't have any issues with ENTJs. But, for the most part, I find myself in conflict with ISTJs and ESTJs because there is very little common ground. We both have Te as our secondary function, but that only allows us to talk logically with each other, it doesn't reconcile our conclusions.

Though that also makes me wonder...If intuition and sensing do play a bigger part in our cognition, then would INTPs and INFPs, for example, have a stronger way to identify with each others' brain processes even though they don't share dominant functions? And would that be different with ESFPs and ENFPs?

INTPs, INFPs, ENTPs and ENFPs are able to identify through the common Ne function, but as has already been noted, INTPs and ISTPs or ESTPs, despite having a common way of communicating, find it difficult to reconcile their conclusions.

I think I have address the entire OP thoroughly, and in conclusion I reiterate the original modified question and my answer:
“Does the preferred secondary function play a bigger part in cognitive process than the preferred dominant function?”
To which the answer is, NO, under normal circumstances, and YES, when the preferred dominant function is suppressed.

And, thank-you nevermore for providing inspiration for my case-in-point. If you're wondering what I mean, just think about how this sounds:

My Ti is definitely in charge, and I can assure you I feel more in common with iNtuitives than Thinkers generally

Were I to go through your other posts I'm sure I could find more evidence that you are Fi dominant.

 

Maybe you're right, but for whatever reason I still feel like I have more in common with N's generally than ISTP's. I am using the word "feel" here because it is the most appropriate word to use in this context, not because I am values based. (I mean, "I think like I have more in common with INFP's???".) It's fine that you think I am INFP; I am not, nor do I associate values-based judgment with femininity. The society I live in is values-based. I also consider masculinity (as popularly presented to society, nothing to do with individual men here) a base and contemptible ideal riddled with overindulgence in inane sensory experiences, a lack of profound thought, and needless, fruitless risk taking. I certainly do not like to think of myself as feminine, and I can assure you I am not, but if I feared I were it would not be a motivation for identifying as a thinking type.

If I am any Feeling type at all, I am an INFJ with a very strong Ti.

"I deem for the INFP to the type that is most like the INTP."

~ Solitary Walker

Not the best command of English perhaps, but he seemed to think the ISTP was not our closest cousin either...

 

I'm not sure but it sounds logical, I have a friend that I eat with everyday at lunch and he's an INFP, we get along extremely well.