# Sensors are "shallow" while intuitives are "deep"



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Lol I don't get this concept. I'm N and I'm as shallow and materialistic as they come, I just think alot and say random things.

Why do people seem to believe that all intuitives are transcendalist that are just above everything that has to do with society, while sensors are all well dressed, dumb whores? Seems pretty pretentious. same thing happens with T vs. F, if you're a jerk or a narcissist you're automatically a T


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I'm deeper than your swimming pool. 

But I don't think that Ns are any less shallow than Ss are and vice versa.


----------



## Holgrave (Oct 11, 2011)

Just part of the anti-sensor stereotype.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I think this is relating to one's overall mindset. Not shallow as in superficial, rather as in not making deep connections. 

The thing is that deep thinkers/intuiters can *CHOOSE* to play along with societies values, and traditions, or not. 

Shallow thinkers/intuiters seem to have an issue comprehending _*WHY *_​someone would defy society and the culture.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> I think this is relating to one's overall mindset. Not shallow as in superficial, rather as in not making deep connections.
> 
> The thing is that deep thinkers/intuiters can *CHOOSE* to play along with societies values, and traditions, or not.
> 
> Shallow thinkers/intuiters seem to have an issue comprehending _*WHY *_​someone would defy society and the culture.


it goes both ways. Some intuitives can't comprehend why sensors (supposedly) choose to abide by society's rules


----------



## Faux (May 31, 2012)

Come on, now. Sensors are well-dressed, _pragmatic_ whores, and I love you.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

My ISTJ husband can be deep and he's definitely not superficial. He's just not interested in dwelling into 101 possibilities or perspectives of things, like me who is INFJ does. Whenever I can be successful at engagin him enough on certain topics, he would throw a simple yet meaningful comment that would amaze me. He is good at seeing how things work in a deep level, he just keeps it simple instead.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I am so deep, you cannot Se me.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't get all these stereotypes. Either you are mistyped, or you are human, probably both, or neither. 

You are more than just your type. You are allowed to be you, no matter what your type happens to be.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

It's not even worth the big deal people make it to be. Do what makes you happy, whatever you feel good at doing/being. Is it seen as shallow? So be it. In my opinion, trying and forcing yourself to appear/be deep is more shallow than actual shallow is.
Niether is better nor lesser. Do you really care?


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I am shallow because I am a sensor and I am deep because I am an introvert.
So that makes me a swimming pool, with a deep end and a shallow end?
hahahahahaha!


----------



## surra (Oct 1, 2012)

Yeah.. Maybe the problem lies in the type descriptions. They are not as deep and humanistic and comprehensive as they should be to create good analysis of types. Look into Socionics more.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> I am shallow because I am a sensor and I am deep because I am an introvert.
> So that makes me a swimming pool, with a deep end and a shallow end?
> hahahahahaha!


me too! let's make a super exclusive club of deep shallow introverted sensors.


----------



## War pigs (Sep 12, 2012)

Ns are wayyyy deeper, it's how it is !


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

13 others said:


> In my opinion, trying and forcing yourself to appear/be deep is more shallow than actual shallow is.


yes x1,000,000

I feel bad for people who you can tell try so hard to appear really deep, or people who try too hard to appear any way. Their lives must be so stressful. And then they try so hard, and they just come across as annoying. It's awful.

Like, _maybe_ S's are more likely to try too hard to fit in, but then N's are more likely to try too hard _not_ to fit in. Special snowflake and all that. Either way, it's just as fake.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

That's because you live in the Id.

Intelligence, shallowness or deepness is not type related. I know so many Sensors that are insightful and so many iNtuitives that are plain stupid. MBTI personality types are supposed to complement each other. At least, that's how I want to approach it.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

Se sees the object, details, and Ne sees the motion, and the potential paths. Se will tend to see the physical path, where Ne might see paths not there. 

Si creates models, and if they do not fit the system, they rip down the system. Ni creates systems, and if they do not fit the model, they rip down the model.

That's my take on the S/N differences anyways. You can do anything with any cognitive function. You can be a poet with Te, scientist with Fe, or a soccer player with Ni, whatever. 

Also, deep. Fuck deep. I dislike words like "deep" in general, as it could mean thousands of things. Why are people considered deep if the things they come up with are only recognized because they communicate in a way that others can understand easily? Appealing to others by sacrificing the purity of anything feels immoral to me. 



Cosmicsense said:


> I think this is relating to one's overall mindset. Not shallow as in superficial, rather as in not making deep connections.
> 
> The thing is that deep thinkers/intuiters can *CHOOSE* to play along with societies values, and traditions, or not.
> 
> Shallow thinkers/intuiters seem to have an issue comprehending _*WHY *_​someone would defy society and the culture.


No offense, but this is silly and means nothing. I feel offended if this is what others think as "deep", I'm about as detached from social conventions as possible, understand why they are in place and why others defy them but I don't think that makes me "deep" at all. It means I participated in basic elementary education that didn't suck, and noticed a pattern in why people throughout history defy society and culture. 

I also fucking hate the word deep. It's a term that has been twisted and masturbated on for years and years...all it does is pigeonhole people and say "YOU are this and YOU are not" that hurts people and makes me livid.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I find it hilarious when people start out with, "no offense" and then start to say things which are at least slightly offensive.

It's good stuff 

No worries, you just seem like an xNFP being an xNFP and arguing semantics for the sake of Fi.

All good!


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> That's because you live in the Id.
> 
> Intelligence, shallowness or deepness is not type related. I know so many Sensors that are insightful and so many iNtuitives that are plain stupid. MBTI personality types are supposed to complement each other. At least, that's how I want to approach it.


Who was this meant for?! It doesn't seem to fit the OP. Are you replying to me??

Someone living in the ID would be a psychopath. I'm far from one! 

Type is most certainly related to all three. Just look at the questions. Intuition takes depth. Sensation does not. Intellect is certainly type related. We have objective data to prove this. Your anecdotal evidence is illogical. Any type can be intelligent, but were talking in general terms. Intuitives simply are more intelligent on the whole. Again, look to the test itself. 

Sounds like Fi is blinding you, just like the other guy. Why is truth such a dirty word?!


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> Who was this meant for?! It doesn't seem to fit the OP. Are you replying to me??
> 
> Someone living in the ID would be a psychopath. I'm far from one!
> 
> ...


Perhaps because such generalities serve more to falsely empower and falsely demean rather than raise any type of benefit?

Their 'Fi' is allowing them to see the individual individually; I see no problem with this.


----------



## stone100674 (Jun 22, 2012)

C/P from MBTI and intelligence: An accurate depiction (can't seem to put a link in)
A commonly held misconception within the MBTI community is that iNtuitives are smarter than Sensors. They are thought to have higher intelligence, but this belief is misguided. In an assessment of famous people with high IQs, the vast majority of them are iNtuitive. However, IQ tests measure only two types of intelligences: linguistic and logical-mathematical. In addition to these, there are six other types of intelligence: spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Sensors would probably outscore iNtuitives in several of these areas. Perhaps MBTI users should come to see iNtuitives, who make up 25 percent of the population, as having a unique type of intelligence instead of superior intelligence.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with any functional stacking. 

Generalizations are useful until they're not. They can only go so far. You don't see any good point in mine. All good!


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Not necessarily shallow but more-so I don't think S's look into concepts as deeply as we do. Remember, S's don't like anything that they deem as "impractical".


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

JoanCrawford said:


> Not necessarily shallow but more-so *I don't think S's look into concepts as deeply as we do*. Remember, S's don't like anything that they deem as "impractical".


Umm ... that would be incorrect. All types look into what interests them. And deep/narrow vs. shallow/wide is usually attributable to introvert vs. extrovert.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> I find it hilarious when people start out with, "no offense" and then start to say things which are at least slightly offensive.
> 
> It's good stuff
> 
> ...


I don't like charged wording that raises one group of people over another. It's like saying whites are smarter than blacks, which they are not. I don't fuck with that, and surprised you are okay with such dreadfully harsh generalizations that are used to make others feel bad. It's silly, and you know it is because you didn't respond to anything I said other than "haha fi". 

Cognitive functions are how you think...Ne and Ni are about building off patterns and developing systems...nothing to do with depth. Depth has nothing to do with type. This whole conversation feels dirty.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

I am a very unwell dressed 'S' and unshallow (not sure exactly how deep I would be considered, but definitely not shallow). In fact, I would like to shit in the face of anybody who judges S's as being shallow....because I am so 'deep'.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

JoanCrawford said:


> Not necessarily shallow but more-so I don't think S's look into concepts as deeply as we do. Remember, S's don't like anything that they deem as "impractical".


Very untrue....just depends on the concept. We can consider something just as deeply as N's to where there are some concepts that N's may not exactly think so deeply on....just depends merely on the interest we each have on said concept. We are just as capable of deep thought as anybody else...it just usually has to have more of a solid understanding behind it rather than wondering on abstract ideas that aren't as concrete if you will.


The only judgemental idea I prefer to make is the fact that anybody who enjoys ''The Jersey Shore'' or that shit about those Kardashians or similar reality shows...those are the ones incapable of ''deep thoughts''...serious lack of brain activity going on there. (If you enjoy those....yes, I know, I'm an asshole....but you watch that crap)


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> Who was this meant for?! It doesn't seem to fit the OP. Are you replying to me??
> 
> Someone living in the ID would be a psychopath. I'm far from one!
> 
> ...


If it was meant for you, I would have quoted you or mentioned you.

The Op claims to be shallow...etc. Than you live too much in the Id. In this case I related it also to the Enneagram. (Type 3, 7, 8 Id aggression)









As for you, I don't know if you're a psychopath. 

As for intellect, if we take the ISTJ, Si-Fe-Ti-Ne, the auxiliary and inferior functions start to develop on a later age. But this means they have the potential to be just as smart as an INTP. And an INTP has the potential to become just as empathetic (in their own way) as a ENFJ for example. The question is, can they live up to their potential?

By the way, my point was that types complement each other and they all have their own forms of intellect and wisdom. I never said anything about IQ test or EQ tests or anything of sorts in my previous post. You did.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> I'm deeper than your swimming pool.
> 
> But I don't think that Ns are any less shallow than Ss are and vice versa.


That's political correct but it depends on how one defines shallow. I mean, some N descriptions actually say "deep" and "conceptual" while implying or saying S folk are more "earthy" and "here and now," which seems to characterize the latter as more unsophisticated and *gasp* less intelligent. I'm not saying that N or S are any particular, let alone hierarchical, way...but it is the prevailing notion in many MBTI circles...what are the N and S differences then? haha


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Mmmm stereotypes....
Yummy!

I have nothing to add.
I'm just here for the post count...


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

hornet said:


> Mmmm stereotypes....
> Yummy!
> 
> I have nothing to add.
> I'm just here for the post count...


Stereotypes aren't always wrong, but they're not usually entirely right either. :kitteh:


----------



## Malkovich (Feb 18, 2010)

I think it's more that they tend not to take as much pleasure in chewing over something they've already figured out over and over ad nauseam. They also tend not to define themselves by how "deep" they are as much as an NT or an NF typically would, so they don't push that aspect of themselves at the front line.

I mean, I can't count the times I figured something out and felt so amazed about this revolutionary breakthrough, only to share it with an S person and just get a simple, _"yeah, I know that and I agree with that"_ in return. They just... figure shit out, and think what they think, and don't dwell on it or endlessly debate it like Ns do.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Actually kind of insulted by those saying N's have more intellect than S's. That would like saying that we T's have a lot more logic and F's are just very illogical. 

It's just a matter of how it's used/expressed that throw people into assuming these stereotypes.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Joseph said:


> I don't like charged wording that raises one group of people over another. It's like saying whites are smarter than blacks, which they are not. *I don't fuck with that, and surprised you are okay with such dreadfully harsh generalizations that are used to make others feel bad.* It's silly, and you know it is because you didn't respond to anything I said other than "haha fi".


You honestly think that's the ONLY reason? Blows my mind. It's not silly. I was just pointing out that your Fi seems to be dominating in the way you're describing things. Guess I'm leaning towards INFP at this point for ya.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Stereotypes aren't always wrong, but they're not usually entirely right either. :kitteh:


Which aptly describes MBTI, and psychology in general.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Malkovich said:


> I think it's more that they tend not to take as much pleasure in chewing over something they've already figured out over and over ad nauseam. They also tend not to define themselves by how "deep" they are as much as an NT or an NF typically would, so they don't push that aspect of themselves at the front line.
> 
> I mean, I can't count the times I figured something out and felt so amazed about this revolutionary breakthrough, only to share it with an S person and just get a simple, _"yeah, I know that and I agree with that"_ in return. They just... figure shit out, and think what they think, and don't dwell on it or endlessly debate it like Ns do.


I think there's a lot of truth to this. S's are trying to be "practical" where as intuitives are often lost in thought for the sake of the process itself. Where I think there is a sign of higher intellect is the fact that continuing to think on these things is what may lead to breakthroughs, and further insights which S's would not figure out. 

I think it may take some N's a lot of time to figure some things out that S's "just get" because they're more in tune with what may be referred to as "common sense". Guess you could just say it's different strokes for different folks. 

Judging from the replies in this thread, there seems to be differences in the ways individuals are qualifying the term, "intellect". It seems this may account for the differences in opinions. All good.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> Very untrue....just depends on the concept. We can consider something just as deeply as N's to where there are some concepts that N's may not exactly think so deeply on....just depends merely on the interest we each have on said concept. We are just as capable of deep thought as anybody else...it just usually has to have more of a solid understanding behind it rather than wondering on abstract ideas that aren't as concrete if you will.
> 
> 
> The only judgemental idea I prefer to make is the fact that anybody *who enjoys ''The Jersey Shore'' or that shit about those Kardashians or similar reality shows...those are the ones incapable of ''deep thoughts''...serious lack of brain activity going on there. (If you enjoy those....yes, I know, I'm an asshole....but you watch that crap)*


As an N in a predominantly N field, I can assure you that we love this shit sometimes. It's like Daria watching sick-sad-world; it really is so mind-blowing how idiotic shit can get. You'll find a lot of deep-thinkers watching these shows as a 'brain-off' mode. It's just fun shit in essence. 



All in Twilight said:


> If it was meant for you, I would have quoted you or mentioned you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another thing is the definition of 'shallow' and 'deep and 'intelligence'. Ns can be quite shallow, restricting themselves to a select few interests and forgoing others (especially really J NJs). In that case, I rather hear an SP or someone talk rather than take one subject and talk about it for 8 days. In this case, the N would be 'shallow'; it may be a deep pond, but spread the waters out and it's paper-thin. 

Intelligence/creativity is often used in the abstracted sense, so it does favor NP/NJ thought (more of the former, IMO), but people forget how useless intelligence in any sense can be without application.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Another thing is the definition of 'shallow' and 'deep and 'intelligence'. Ns can be quite shallow, restricting themselves to a select few interests and forgoing others (especially really J NJs). In that case, I rather hear an SP or someone talk rather than take one subject and talk about it for 8 days. In this case, the N would be 'shallow'; it may be a deep pond, but spread the waters out and it's paper-thin.
> 
> Intelligence/creativity is often used in the abstracted sense, so it does favor NP/NJ thought (more of the former, IMO), but people forget how useless intelligence in any sense can be without application.


This is all very sweet of you but I really have no idea what you're trying tell me. xD Of course iNtuitives can be shallow, isn't this something I have said before here? Why do you think I switched to Freud? 

As for NP/NJ and creativity, try explaining this to a painter for example.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@ All in Twilight

Are you assuming nj/np can't be creative in arts? I knew an INTJ that was pretty good with a paintbrush. Do you think most great artists are sensors? Maybe so, maybe not.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

All introverts are weak, all extroverts are arrogant egotists, all sensors are stupid, all intuitives are shallow, all thinkers are unemotional/unempathetic, all feelers are too sensitive and irrational, all perceivers are too rash, all judgers are too anal....there, did I get enough stereotypes in there....seems to be the point of this thread :tongue::frustrating:.

Lol k, last (pointless) post for me in this thread..unsubscribing, have fun :kitteh:


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

niss said:


> Umm ... that would be incorrect. All types look into what interests them. And deep/narrow vs. shallow/wide is usually attributable to introvert vs. extrovert.


 Yes, this is precisely the point.

It is a matter of introversion vs extroversion. As the subject orientates outwards it is more likely to be shallow. The reverse for inward orientation.

But as usual, what has happened is that people haven't read any of the theory at all and have made stereotypes based on their interpretation of it. So they did a test and decided they were X type, and then see all other types -- or forms of types --- in relation to their understanding of themselves as X. 

If you don't use the labels invented by the theory, and instead utilise them in a way completely contradictory to the theory, you can not discuss that theory in a meaningless way.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> @ All in Twilight
> 
> Are you assuming nj/np can't be creative in arts? I knew an INTJ that was pretty good with a paintbrush. Do you think most great artists are sensors? Maybe so, maybe not.


What I am saying is that an ISFP can be just as creative as an INFP but the results would just look very different. Probably due to the different approach they have towards structure for example.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> *All introverts are weak, all extroverts are arrogant egotists, all sensors are stupid, all intuitives are shallow, all thinkers are unemotional/unempathetic, all feelers are too sensitive and irrational, all perceivers are too rash, all judgers are too anal*....there, did I get enough stereotypes in there....seems to be the point of this thread :tongue::frustrating:.
> 
> Lol k, last (pointless) post for me in this thread..unsubscribing, have fun :kitteh:


There's truth in many of those statements. :kitteh:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> *Which aptly describes MBTI*, and psychology in general.


I agree. The MBTI is a best-fit taxonomy. :happy:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> I am a very unwell dressed 'S' and unshallow (not sure exactly how deep I would be considered, but definitely not shallow). In fact, I would like to shit in the face of anybody who judges S's as being shallow....because I am so 'deep'.


Sample size of one? :laughing: I'm not even sure Ss are being called shallow. Folks are maybe implying Ss (on average) are more shallow than their intuitive counterparts. It's like this - I could say Kobe is worse now than LeBron; Kobe can still ball though. In fact, Kobe's still all-star caliber. :crazy:


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

unctuousbutler said:


> There's truth in many of those statements. :kitteh:


There's no truth in those statements...they all include the word ''all''. That's the problem with stereotypes...a rather large portion of the certain people could be nothing like the statements, yet people will go on with the assumption that they are.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> There's no truth in those statements...they all include the word ''all''. That's the problem with stereotypes...a rather large portion of the certain people could be nothing like the statements, yet people will go on with the assumption that they are.


There still could be some truth there - I could say all black people are on welfare. That's clearly not true, but_ some_ black people_ are_ on welfare. Ergo, some truth. :tongue:


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Truth is in saying that *some *black people are on welfare. Once you make a statement of *all *black people being on welfare, the statement becomes false with the word ''all''. No truth. Almost like saying that there is some truth in 2+2=5 because there is 4 in 5....the very statement itself is just wrong. Get away from stereotypes....it does nobody any good and just encourages false assumptions. :kitteh:


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> Mmmm stereotypes....
> Yummy!
> 
> I have nothing to add.
> I'm just here for the post count...


speaking of stereotypes you ISFPs sure love to end your sentences with "....." And a  face


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> Truth is in saying that *some *black people are on welfare. Once you make a statement of *all *black people being on welfare, the statement becomes false with the word ''all''.


That's incorrect. There's still some truth in the categorical. :wink:


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

But it does no good for anybody to make such a statement. Some black people are on welfare...so are a lot of white people, so are a bunch of other people. There's just no point in basing anything off of stereotypes, because once you do then you are nullifying your entire statement.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> But it does no good for anybody to make such a statement. Some black people are on welfare...so are a lot of white people, so are a bunch of other people.


There you might be on firmer ground. :kitteh:

Then again, you made the original "all" categorical series, albeit facetiously.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

I hate the threads that are all about typing anyone famous or fictional characters.

Basically it goes like this:
Smart creative deep-Ntuitive
Dumb generic shallow-Sensor

I Se it all the time.(ripping off @firedell s lame pun lol)

Those are the threads where stereotypes come out a lot against sensors.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

cityofcircuits said:


> Smart creative deep-Ntuitive
> Dumb generic shallow-Sensor


That's the ticket! Although perhaps a finer point than I would have employed. :tongue:

Alas, I wish things were that simple. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is an intuitive though. :laughing:


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

cityofcircuits said:


> I Se it all the time.(ripping off @_firedell_ s lame pun lol)


Hey bro! That was a well thought out joke, thank you. I was trying to make us sensors look witty. How dare you call it lame.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

firedell said:


> Hey bro! That was a well thought out joke, thank you. I was trying to make us sensors look witty. How dare you call it lame.


_We_ sensors...all right, now I'm being an asshole. :laughing:


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

unctuousbutler said:


> _We_ sensors...all right, now I'm being an asshole. :laughing:


Oh no, you didn't.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

This is kind of a bad assumption. I mean, S doms have intuition anyway, it's just often rationalized negatively (I mean, negative rationalization of intuition sounds like it will make for a deep enough person anyhow in a way). I mean, to say just because someone doesn't appear "deep" makes them "shallow" is pretty much a reasoning fallacy - it's not like, because you're not one, you're the other, necessarily. No idea where people jump to that conclusion. Secondly, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't even fit Si doms, because Si is abstract and esoteric (although most info online tends to misrepresent it BIG TIME - if you read about it in Jung, it really has nothing to do with most of those ideas about being conservative - and then, is being "conservative" even considered "shallow" stereotypically (I never thought so - depends on what one's getting at here)? I mean, why Si even gets dragged into those debates is kind of beyond me). It's probably a wonder you don't often find these types into this stuff anyway, just because they aren't even accurately represented in MBTI - many probably mistype as intuitives if they aren't too aware of any negative relationship to intuition. I can see where an Se dominating orientation might sometimes be seen as shallow (sort of a person who acts like "reality's just there" with a disregard that there's more beyond the object, which would be a result of their inferior intuition, not really dominant sensation), although if you're bringing persona into this, this assumption probably holds no water at all. I mean, from my experiences and conversations with both Si doms and Ni doms, both types tend to view their "complement" as shallow quite often - it's kind of a common projection onto Ne doms and Se doms - like Ni doms might feel like Se doms aren't really saying anything substantial and Si doms might feel like Ne doms are just spewing gibberish that doesn't seem relevant to anything.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Shallow and deep mean different things to different people. Si dom feelers believe they are very deep. What they mean is they are caring, loyal or non-materialistic. Without the N factor, what is there but to seek comfort, convenience, love, sex, security, respect, or to be thought of as a good citizen, to be reliable, to be a decent member of the heard. Nothing is wrong with any of those things as a motivation. But the N needs to belive in something more.

This may or may not be something mystical or metaphysical. Some of us need to buid our own company. One example of the difference might be how ESXJ could design or build something using tertiary Ne, but the motivation is how pretty they will look wearing their creation and how this will help them get a mate, or what they might buy or how respected they could become because of a discovery. An ENTP who invents or builds, while they may hope to gain financial reward, the real motivation to create is because creating is the nature of who they are, and a significant part of what it means to be alive! N's deal with complexities that S's are oblivious to.

The difference is not about good or bad, the S approach is so much more simplistic, not in the sense of being dumb, just less complicated. S's don't have to weigh cause and effect for possibilities they don't even see or have no motivation to consider.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Shallow and deep mean different things to different people. Si dom feelers believe they are very deep. What they mean is they are caring, loyal or non-materialistic. Without the N factor, what is there but to seek *comfort, convenience, love, sex, security, respect, or to be thought of as a good citizen, to be reliable, to be a decent member of the heard*. Nothing is wrong with any of those things as a motivation. But the N needs to belive in something more.


I'm not a feeler, but I certainly am an Si dom and I don't seek these things....If nothing is wrong with any of these things why is it worded as such a bad thing?



> This may or may not be something mystical or metaphysical. Some of us need to buid our own company. One example of the difference might be how ESXJ could design or build something using tertiary Ne, but the motivation is how pretty they will look wearing their creation and how this will help them get a mate, or what they might buy or how respected they could become because of a discovery. An ENTP who invents or builds, while they may hope to gain financial reward, the real motivation to create is because creating is the nature of who they are, and a significant part of what it means to be alive! *N's deal with complexities that S's are oblivious to*.


Wait, wait wait. Are you saying non-Ne doms only invent/create things because of the sexual/status reward they may or may not gain from it? Also what does that last sentence even mean? Am I being an oblivious sensor here? 



> The difference is not about good or bad, the S approach is so much more simplistic, not in the sense of being dumb, just less complicated. S's don't have to weigh cause and effect for possibilities they don't even see or have no motivation to consider.


I don't want to get into yet another sensors vs. intuitives debate but...are you basically saying sensors are simple, primitive humans who do things only to be seen as something and to get some sexy time?


----------



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

I think when describing an idea that has been filtered through Ne, it can sound really complex because it's like taking apart a pattern bit by bit. A Si user can sum up an idea or topic through few words and in a direct manner, giving the impression of shallowness or close-mindedness. 

IMO.


----------



## ajackson17 (Sep 6, 2012)

So who is the Rush Limbaugh of the intuitives and the Uncle Ruckus of the Sensors?


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Old Intern said:


> Shallow and deep mean different things to different people. Si dom feelers believe they are very deep. What they mean is they are caring, loyal or non-materialistic. Without the N factor, what is there but to seek comfort, convenience, love, sex, security, respect, or to be thought of as a good citizen, to be reliable, to be a decent member of the heard. Nothing is wrong with any of those things as a motivation. But the N needs to belive in something more.
> 
> This may or may not be something mystical or metaphysical. Some of us need to buid our own company. One example of the difference might be how ESXJ could design or build something using tertiary Ne, but the motivation is how pretty they will look wearing their creation and how this will help them get a mate, or what they might buy or how respected they could become because of a discovery. An ENTP who invents or builds, while they may hope to gain financial reward, the real motivation to create is because creating is the nature of who they are, and a significant part of what it means to be alive! N's deal with complexities that S's are oblivious to.
> 
> The difference is not about good or bad, the S approach is so much more simplistic, not in the sense of being dumb, just less complicated. S's don't have to weigh cause and effect for possibilities they don't even see or have no motivation to consider.












I have no idea what you are saying here at all. And before you jump the gun I understood what you said, but no idea how you made such conclusions. Plus, I wanted to use this gif.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

firedell said:


> I have no idea what you are saying here at all. And before you jump the gun I understood what you said, but no idea how you made such conclusions. Plus, I wanted to use this gif.


You seem to have the most appropriate stash of gifs. I'm jealous.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*FixationForcep *
I wouldn't say the summing up thing is correct. You can see how intj's, around here (love you guys) but you go into a lot of detail. Detail may be more of an introversion thing. S's learn what they belive they need to learn because of whatever reason that they belive they need to learn it, they call this being practical, and it is practical.

Many things we now take for granted as being practical, did not start out that way. Most of science, invention, medicine, and even product development, is not purely practical. Someone has to be willing to make associations and follow where an experiment leads without knowing exactly where it is going. Being practical means going with what you are already sure of.

ISFP's are the most N like of the S's the way that ENTP's are the most introverted of extroverts?
love to see annimated gif's by the way, fun stuff.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

So you are essentially saying that Sensation types do not have any sort of hobbies? They just kind of do what is needed of them with some sort of goal in mind?


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> *FixationForcep *
> I wouldn't say the summing up thing is correct. You can see how intj's, around here (love you guys) but you go into a lot of detail. Detail may be more of an introversion thing. S's learn what they belive they need to learn because of whatever reason that they belive they need to learn it, they call this being practical, and it is practical.
> 
> Many things we now take for granted as being practical, did not start out that way. Most of science, invention, medicine, and even product development, is not purely practical. Someone has to be willing to make associations and follow where an experiment leads without knowing exactly where it is going. Being practical means going with what you are already sure of.
> ...


Sensors learn what they want to learn...I went through a phase a year or two ago where all I did in my free time was google translate phrases into every language because I thought it was interesting. Practical? Nope. Pretty sure I won't ever go to Serbia (sorry Serbians--your language scares me a bit). Right now I spend all my free time researching personality types. Practical? In a sense, but also not really. It's INTERESTING. I don't care if it's practical.

You're right that most of the things we call practical now were once not, but if you're saying that intuitives are the only ones who can come up with that stuff because sensors don't think it's practical...I feel a lengthy debate coming on.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

Derrrr......










I'm a sensor and I can't follow any of this, its too deep....
Well, back to clanging rocks together derrrrr


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@*pizzapie * you have interests that serve the practical purposes of being interesting and filling your time with something you value or enjoy. I was not calling anyone dumb. I'll bet though, that you have time on your hands to do this. N life choices (leading or secondary N) are different than something being a hobby.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @*pizzapie * you have interests that serve the practical purposes of being interesting and filling your time with something you value or enjoy. I was not calling anyone dumb. I'll bet though, that you have time on your hands to do this. N life choices (leading or secondary N) are different than something being a hobby.


I still don't get the point you're trying to make here. Hobbies are hobbies


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Hobbies are hobbies, exactly. But the need to create, invent, imagine, and be learning something new, testing something new, discovering, is a lot more than a hobbby to an NT. Cant speak for NF's because I don't know that I know too many. It's about the leading functions way of being in the world - it's not extra.

Many times I've been in a group of women and one is complaining about something; She's not a stupid person, she's accomplished but she is complaining about something in a relationship that makes me say to myself "How could you not see that coming".
It's more than emotion or brains, and I'm not talking about being psychic.

I can't *not* see the situation, be a pretty good judge of character and consider the causes and effects. I have to weigh what I know is likely to get results or not, and see the red flags, or whatever, but it is all processed. Some people just don't opperate with any sense of what is likely or unlikely.


----------



## magi83 (Sep 25, 2012)

I think the bias it is mostly against extroverted sensors (EST/FJs in particular seem to get a really hard time) it's a simple case of a non sequitur:-

Most people are shallow
Most people are extraverted sensors
Therefore Extraverted sensors are shallow

Let's be honest. There are a lot of shallow stupid people around. A lot of those people are going to be extraverted sensors by virtue of the fact that they are more common types. Because these people are 'extraverts' they are more likely to rub up against other people as they go through life. Even if the proportion of 'shallow' extraverted sensors is no higher than any other type, we are more likely to have encountered these individuals than 'shallow' people of other types.

That's my theory anyway.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

magi83 said:


> I think the bias it is mostly against extroverted sensors (EST/FJs in particular seem to get a really hard time) it's a simple case of a non sequitur:-
> 
> Most people are shallow
> Most people are extraverted sensors
> ...


I think you have a valid point, but do you mean introverted sensing? Extraverted sensors are ESxPs...ESxJs have introverted sensing as their auxilary


----------



## magi83 (Sep 25, 2012)

pizzapie said:


> I think you have a valid point, but do you mean introverted sensing? Extraverted sensors are ESxPs...ESxJs have introverted sensing as their auxilary


Sorry - the term I used was indeed ambiguous.

By extroverted sensors I meant ESxx types - so extroverts with a sensing function as their dominant or auxiliary.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

magi83 said:


> Sorry - the term I used was indeed ambiguous.
> 
> By extroverted sensors I meant ESxx types - so extroverts with a sensing function as their dominant or auxiliary.


Gotcha gotcha  carry on


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

As someone said initially in this thread: It has to do with predisposition of INTEREST, not necessarily ability. If you Sensors out there could have seen the million times I have seen the eyes of Sensors glaze over when I rant my new "insights".... Then you would understand why many Ns on these forums complain and feel lonely. Here on PerC is a large concentration of NTs and NFs; much larger that would be statistically correct if PerC memebers would be a statistical normal disposition of the society. That is in fact due to the fact that Ns have a hard time finding what they (and I) deem "interesting" people around in real life. Interesting consists partly of them relishing or at least tolerating or debating the thoughts thus put forth. Among the Sensor brethren and sisters there are quite few that are so inclined. You, of course, are more so. But check the stats.

Also, if you have a brain that does not stop grinding theories or ponderings, and if you constantly strive to learn new things to understand the world and better yourself: Would that not make a difference in brain performance in the end? Flexing a muscle does produce more muscle fibre and strength... Overthinking and theorizing the underpinnings of the Universe and Everything do produce neuron connections for those calculations. Thus Ns should be - in the long run - statistically better at thinking Big, so to speak. Whether that is useful in everyday life is a completely different matter, as is the likelihood that it makes you a happier person. But most (or at least statistically vastly overrrepresented) of the great thinkers and proficient people that have influenced us seem to have been Ns.... And many more that do not, of course. But considering that Ns only ,make up for about 20% or so of the population it seems our overthinking might be needed for something..

I just cannot find the joy in the things my Sensor friends find so much joy in, especially everyday life stuff. I am handicapped in that sense. And the Sensors around me are very uninterested in the things I am truly interested in... Just a fact of life for me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

ajackson17 said:


> So who is the Rush Limbaugh of the intuitives and the Uncle Ruckus of the Sensors?


Honestly, I don't even think Limbaugh and his company are really necessarily sensors (maybe Mark Levin/Glenn Beck are - I kind of doubt the rest are though) - aux. sensing and tert. intuition is like a non-issue in terms of ability (contrary to baseless claims around the internet that aux. functions really mean something about a person's conspicuous abilities - this wouldn't really be that noticeable to the outside world as a way to differentiate between these two functions - you would have to compare the aux. and tert. to the dominant to see which one comes closer to the dominant - not the aux. and tert. to each other - that would hard, since the person only uses these as reinforcement of the dominant for the most part). A sensor to Jung would be someone who downplays intuition in favor of sensation - I don't think most of those Limbaugh types particularly downplay intuition or play up sensation conspicuously against intuition (Levin's the only one that ever kind of struck me as gonzo with intuition - Glenn Beck seems rather phony with it as well). Limbaugh strikes me as a Te dom first-and-foremost. What'shisname who's like #2 in the country is often conceded to be an Fe dom (ESFJ?), which I can buy.


----------



## discoriver (Jan 9, 2013)

removed


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Glen Beck could be ENTP? Not saying it because of liking or not liking him. He is emotional and dramatic, and I'm not saying that is fake, but I don't think his career was something he just fell into. I mean it started out to be a job, an opportunity, but his type of message, and today's economy, and what other talk show hosts have done . . . . he knows exactly what he is doing. He has geared a lot of how he presents himself to maximize what people want to hear, today and in the near future, it is marketing genius. A prime example of Ne - Ti. Ti crafted presentations, Ne future and opportunistic motivation.

Leaving Fox news and being on internet TV . . . marketing genius; he knew it was time for someone who is not pegged too far into the "Rush" category. And then again, Rush became a category, like Scope, or Spaghetti O's. Not sure what my type guess would be on him. *@ajackson17* not a direct answer to your question but you did introduce an interesting thought.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

@ENTPreneur

My eyes usually gloss over when someone goes on a rant about something I could care less about.
Whether its a sensor thing is funny, cuz when I rant and ramble with my N friends about something they have little interest in, I see their eyes gloss over too.
If its a subject my N friends and I both enjoy, nobody is bored, its very exciting, that interchange of thoughts and ideas.


----------

