the only issue i have with them is they're more grounded and rational. They don't understand/like my idealism. i'm sure if i found one with similar values we'd get along fine
An example is when someone starts to talk about an individual, and you know that they brought the person up for a reason, but then they going into factoids of minimal importance. Of particular vexation is when an individual is mentioned and then the person proceeds to mention who their family and friends are, what they do for work, and how long they've known each other. I am thinking to myself ("Ok, do I need to remember these facts? Is this going to help me understand what's coming up next?), and my brain has to work to keep track of these details, and still try to follow the point. And then the point is, "Yeah, so he went to Coldplay last year, too, and he said they were good live." I am thinking...("ok...I already knew you were headed toward that statement...so that's it? ok.)
I've never met a sensor who does that. Sounds more like an ENFP.
ISTPs in particular are very concerned about getting to the point in any discussion. However, like all P-types we don't mind digressing if the point has already been made, or if it's a stupid point.
Re details, I do occasionally get stuck on details when someone else is trying to make a point. I can see how that's annoying for the other person, but a small erroneous detail can sometimes make it hard to follow their logic.
I agree with rousse--that isn't really a sensor trait. It's more of a trait found in the BORE MBTI type. :crazy:
As a sensor, I communicate for facts. If relevance cannot be established, you're losing me--fast.
i had tatproblem with sensor friend of mnie she'd alwasy complain"does it matter"and no it ddin't but i just don't care about relevance.
Ah yes...the sensors. For me, it's not that sensors don't talk about interesting things, it's how they talk about things. In my experience, a lot of sensors seem to share many of the tangible details about the topic that my mind has to then analyze to determine what bearing it has on the idea or the point, and whether it's important or not. If the details are germane, or entertaining, or useful, I can connect them with the point and I'm happy. But if you are continuing to talk, and I already know your point, and you are mostly sharing details, my brain will be in a massive struggle to listen.
This is pretty much what I interpret Matchbook to be referring to - you communicate for facts. I generally have no interest in dry data. I only want to know the MEANING. A few important supporting facts is nice, but not nearly as much as analyzing what they imply. To me, facts don't establish relevancy and reality is not very interesting unless they can be connected to something of significance beyond the obvious.As a sensor, I communicate for facts. If relevance cannot be established, you're losing me--fast.
This is pretty much what I interpret Matchbook to be referring to - you communicate for facts. I generally have no interest in dry data. I only want to know the MEANING. A few important supporting facts is nice, but not nearly as much as analyzing what they imply. To me, facts don't establish relevancy and reality is not very interesting unless they can be connected to something of significance beyond the obvious.
From my perspective, sensors often communicate info for the sake of the info, and intuitives ideas for the sake of ideas, and each can seem pointless to the other.
Yeah, I see your point. I determine the meaning in my own mind, connecting the dots and drawing conclusions internally. Give me the facts and I'll ask questions if I need clarification, and then I'll determine for myself what it means.
I dislike rambling long winded answers to simple questions like darkestar mentioned (How was your day?). I also dislike stories that try to get me to come to a specific conclusion as red flags go up and I feel I am being "sold" on an idea. Give me too much irrelevant data and I feel as though I am in a jungle of tall grass and am having to cut through the grass to get to the real information that is trying to be conveyed.
Thinking out loud also bugs me--SWMBO does a lot of this.:crazy:
I view this communication difference as partially a gender issue, too. Most times it seems that women use conversation as a method of connecting whereas guys tend to be less talkative in their conversations and in relating the events of their day.
It is interesting how we relate, though. Good thread.
This could be an ISFJ thing...or just a "my mom" thing... I was at the store last night with my mom and she was talking the poor salesgirls ear off about the outfit she bought for this event she's going to... I could tell the girl didn't care and just wanted to get away and my mom went on and on and on......... I walked off, came back, and she was still talking.... I finally rescued the poor girl by telling my mom we really had to go... I also know an ESFP who goes on and on and onnnnnnn.... You don't even have to ask him a question...he just starts talking the second you make eye contact (which I have learned to avoid like the plague). Both ISTJ's I know don't ramble on at all...they usually get to the point which is refreshing. And some of our conversations are very deep and interesting.
As an INFP I can babble on and on about things I'm really into...for example I can go on for hours about my favorite band. To somebody who isn't into my favorite band....I'm sure their eyes would glaze over. But my intuition also tells me they're not interested...so I stop talking... I think the ISFJ & ESFP's I mentioned are both oblivious as to whether or not you are remotely interested in what they're talking about.