# Creativity in Sensors



## malachi.holden.3

As a dominant intuitive, I get the idea that I have a very biased view on what creativity is. I tend to think of it as coming up with new patterns and concepts in your head.

Most type descriptions tend to list creativity as an intuitive trait.

So I have several questions for the sensors on this forum (especially dominant sensors):

1. _Do you consider yourself a creative person?_

2. _If so, are you creative despite being a sensor, or is there some sort of "sensor creativity" that I'm missing out on?_

3. _If not, are you satisfied with your lack of creativity?_


----------



## uncertain

I think it's fine to have your own "biased" idea about what creativity is. Everyone has his own ideas about things. My idea of being creative is just about coming up with new ideas. I have the feeling that for some people, being creative just means having the ability to create things.

I think Ne-type (NPs) are the most creative, and I am just thinking about the arts. I always admire that power. I am not a SJ and not a sensing dominant, but still a sensor. 

To your question:
1. No I don't think I always am. I am at most artistic, but sometimes I have heard others saying that I am creative when I think I am being absolutely uncreative. No idea why.

2. I don't really understand the first part of your question. Are you asking if I am creative without that sensing part?? I can't really imagine, and I mean I will not be a sensor if I eliminate sensing. Idk.
To the second part, it really depends on what you think creativity is. I think I am good with color and shape and line and some other stuff, and sometimes I am able to come up with unusual color combination, (which is kinda rare, actually). For some people, being creative means doing things or making art in a different way, for example stylistically.

3. I guess I am more suited in answering this question. My answer is No. I am always very jealous of creative people, partly because I am an artist.


----------



## jcal

malachi.holden.3 said:


> As a dominant intuitive, I get the idea that I have a very biased view on what creativity is. I tend to think of it as coming up with new patterns and concepts in your head.
> 
> Most type descriptions tend to list creativity as an intuitive trait.
> 
> So I have several questions for the sensors on this forum (especially dominant sensors):
> 
> 1. _Do you consider yourself a creative person?_
> 
> 2. _If so, are you creative despite being a sensor, or is there some sort of "sensor creativity" that I'm missing out on?_
> 
> 3. _If not, are you satisfied with your lack of creativity?_


1. Absolutely, yes.

2. I tend to think of creativity as finding unique solutions to practical problems. My motivation/inspiration may be different than yours, but in the end I still have created a unique combination of elements that nobody else has ever done.

As an example... many years ago I was the Chief Engineer at a company that, as part of it's business, needed to deliver encrypted video channels. The hardware available from any and all manufacturers of such equipment was capable of encrypting only a single channel. We needed to encrypt three channels, and we needed to deliver those channels well before multichannel encryption gear was to be available. I ended up combining some additional equipment never intended for the purpose to allow the single channel encryption system to deliver three encrypted channels. Nobody had ever done that before. The manufacturers were fascinated with my solution and ended up offering it as in interim solution to others facing the same issue. 

I will readily admit that had I not been faced with that specific problem, I would never have had that same solution strike me as some random great idea. I needed the practical problem to focus my thoughts on, but lacking a random inspiration doesn't make the solution any less creative or inventive.

I also know that was not just a one-time event for me... it's more the norm than than the exception. I also believe (and see) plenty of other other sensors coming up with unique and creative solutions to practical problems. It's what we do... usually with little fanfare or recognition... it's just part of the job.


----------



## malachi.holden.3

uncertain said:


> I don't really understand the first part of your question. Are you asking if I am creative without that sensing part?? I can't really imagine, and I mean I will not be a sensor if I eliminate sensing. Idk.


I'm asking whether your creativity goes against your sensing nature, or with it. So would you say, "I'm creative even though I'm a sensor" or "I'm creative _because_ I'm a sensor"?


----------



## uncertain

malachi.holden.3 said:


> I'm asking whether your creativity goes against your sensing nature, or with it. So would you say, "I'm creative even though I'm a sensor" or "I'm creative _because_ I'm a sensor"?


Both.


----------



## aendern

I thought creativity was a stereotypical Sx trait. At least when it comes to the physical creative world -- art, music, poetry, movies, acting, dancing, singing, etc.

Ne is more _innovative_, as in inventing new ways of doing something or thinking about something. Changing perspectives.


----------



## niss

malachi.holden.3 said:


> I'm asking whether your creativity goes against your sensing nature, or with it. So would you say, "I'm creative even though I'm a sensor" or "I'm creative _because_ I'm a sensor"?


Neither.

I am creative because I am intelligent, not because of a preferred cognitive process.


----------



## malachi.holden.3

uncertain said:


> Both.





niss said:


> Neither.


I like it.




niss said:


> I am creative because I am intelligent, not because of a preferred cognitive process.


Now that's interesting. Intelligence to me seems to come from creativity, not vice versa. But I can see it both ways.


----------



## uncertain

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Now that's interesting. Intelligence to me seems to come from creativity, not vice versa. But I can see it both ways.


I dont think they are really related.


----------



## Ghostsoul

1. Do you consider yourself a creative person?
Yes. I am able to create because I chose to. I have so many wild ideas and I personally search for inspiration and I enjoy reformulating them and playing around with them in whatever ways I do or can. 

2. If so, are you creative despite being a sensor, or is there some sort of "sensor creativity" that I'm missing out on?
Yes. Creativity has very little to do with cognitive processes. It's very easy for an Ni dom to not be able to come up with such creative ideas, or link them or do what they want with them. They might be able to use thier Ni in an uncreative way or lack the need to search for inspiration.
*There is no such thing as intuitive creativity or sensor creativity.* 

3. If not, are you satisfied with your lack of creativity?
I do not lack creativity. Neither do all other SJ's and SP's and not all INTJ are creative masterminds.


----------



## niss

malachi.holden.3 said:


> Now that's interesting. Intelligence to me seems to come from creativity, not vice versa. But I can see it both ways.





uncertain said:


> I dont think they are really related.


Of course they are related. Simply look at the animal world. Those that are more intelligent express greater creativity. Similarly, in people, the more intelligent the person, the more likely you are to find creativity.


----------



## Ghostsoul

Double Post


----------



## uncertain

niss said:


> Of course they are related. Simply look at the animal world. Those that are more intelligent express greater creativity. Similarly, in people, the more intelligent the person, the more likely you are to find creativity.


You can be both, you can be neither, you can be intelligent but uncreative, you can be creative but not so intelligent. A kid can be creative but not intelligent. A lawyer or a doctor is intelligent but not necessarily creative.

Personally I think creative people are more likely to also be intelligent than the general population, but I am cautious here about my tendency to glorify them.


----------



## 66393

By coming up with patterns in your head you didn't CREATE anything, did you?


----------



## niss

uncertain said:


> You can be both, you can be neither, you can be intelligent but uncreative, you can be creative but not so intelligent. A kid can be creative but not intelligent. A lawyer or a doctor is intelligent but not necessarily creative.
> 
> Personally I think creative people are more likely to also be intelligent than the general population, but I am cautious here about my tendency to glorify them.


It is possible to quash creativity when intelligence exists, but it is impossible to foster creativity where intelligence does not exist. Or to put it another way, the greater the intelligence, the greater the potential for creativity to be displayed within an individual.


----------



## Discovery

I think sensing types have just as much potential to be creative as intuitive types.. As far as the motivations behind the creativity, and the how exactly their creativity manifests itself, this may differ from type to type, and I'd be interested in seeing any patterns to this.. 

I believe you could arguably find ways to express creativity within each 'realm' of every cognitive function.. For example, a stereotypical ESTP athlete might manifest his/her creativity on the playing field, using their high physical awareness to their advantage in awesome ways. Se as a function is highly attuned to physical form and the physical reality of the environment. If anything, it should exhibit the *most concrete* manifestation of creativity of all the functions! The first example to come to mind would be a fashion designer, using their sensing function to express their creativity in *physical reality*.

In contrast, N-types, especially Ne doms, are probably better equipped to express their creativity in a more theoretical & hypothetical sense. 

My 2 cents..


----------



## uncertain

niss said:


> It is possible to quash creativity when intelligence exists, but it is impossible to foster creativity where intelligence does not exist. Or to put it another way, the greater the intelligence, the greater the potential for creativity to be displayed within an individual.


Well I thought we were talking about people whose brain has reached the minimum capacity/level of intelligence that allow them to be creative, meaning something like 3- or 4-year-old kid. I thought we were in agreement on that basis.


----------



## aendern

kev said:


> By coming up with patterns in your head you didn't CREATE anything, did you?


Certainly not. To realize a pattern is not to be creative but rather to see what is right in front of you.


----------



## malachi.holden.3

kev said:


> By coming up with patterns in your head you didn't CREATE anything, did you?


Well, you created patterns in you head, so yes. But if you mean that pattern based thinking isn't necessarily creative, then I agree. An intuitive can spend their time focusing on patterns that have already been created just as easily as they can create patterns themselves.


----------



## niss

uncertain said:


> Well I thought we were talking about people whose brain has reached the minimum capacity/level of intelligence that allow them to be creative, meaning something like 3- or 4-year-old kid. I thought we were in agreement on that basis.


It's a continuum, not a dichotomy.

Regardless of age, intelligence is the greatest factor influencing creativity. It is observable that a person with greater intelligence has a much greater tendency to exhibit creativity. I have no doubt that a person of low intelligence can and does exhibit creativity, but I also have no doubt that the person of high intelligence tends to exhibit a much greater degree of creativity.


----------



## PaladinX

Ghostsoul said:


> Not really, you said that, in your original post you had doubted the idea of sensor creativity.





PaladinX said:


> I honestly think you are misreading the situation. He is simply trying to understand, not make value judgments. How do you know unless you ask questions? Is there a better way that he could've asked?


The issue here is a thinking/feeling divide. Thinking wants to know "what it is" while Feeling wants to know "is it agreeable or not."

So the OP is asking the question "what is sensing creativity?" Some of you are interpreting that as "which type is better or worse?" The former is a question of understanding, while the latter is a question of value.


----------



## Mee2

PaladinX said:


> Why do you keep going on about ISFPs? This is the SJ forum...
> 
> 
> I honestly think you are misreading the situation. He is simply trying to understand, not make value judgments. How do you know unless you ask questions? Is there a better way that he could've asked?


Despite this being the SJ forum, he seems to be asking about sensors in general. I bring up ISFPs because descriptions of them (in particular) suggest a strong creative ability. It's literally, as my post implies, the first thing that one might say about them. 

Perhaps, but surely I'm not alone in thinking that it's a supremely bizarre notion (that sensors struggle with creativity). So what I'm really curious about is where it comes from because I can't see a basis for it anywhere. Considering that, the idea that it comes from some kind of weird sensor hate - similar to the kind that has everyone describing them as unintelligent - isn't all that far-fetched.


----------



## Ghostsoul

PaladinX said:


> The issue here is a thinking/feeling divide. Thinking wants to know "what it is" while Feeling wants to know "is it agreeable or not."
> 
> So the OP is asking the question "what is sensing creativity?" Some of you are interpreting that as "which type is better or worse?" The former is a question of understanding, while the latter is a question of value.


_'As a dominant intuitive, I get the idea that I have a very biased view on what creativity is. I tend to think of it as coming up with new patterns and concepts in your head.'_

Just seemed to imply that. 
They could have phrased it 'How are you creative?' or 'What do you like to do with your creativity?' 
But they had to go on about how they were a dominant Intuitive, they could have explained what intuitive creativity was like without explaining the bias they had.
That is why it is being misinterpreted.


----------



## malachi.holden.3

Mee2 said:


> Well, I really can't see where you got this idea that sensors aren't creative from. Unless you'd like to argue that these ISFPs, despite their tendency towards art, still don't display the kind of creative aptitude expressed by their INFP cousins... Yes, unless you want to argue that, I struggle to see how you'd get such an idea from type descriptions. And if you look at lists of famous intuitives/sensors, you'll find admirably creative people strongly represented in both categories. So what are you basing this on?


I got it mainly from type descriptions. There seems to be an air of describing intuition as creative.

Also, I was specifically thinking about Si as a function more so than Se. Si tends to be described as wanting to keep things the same, so I was wondering how that works with creating new things.

Probably should have made that clearer in the OP.


----------



## PaladinX

Mee2 said:


> Despite this being the SJ forum, he seems to be asking about sensors in general.


I know that. I'm nitpicking because you are being very specific about ISFPs. I was curious about what that type, specifically, had to do with anything. 



> I bring up ISFPs because descriptions of them (in particular) suggest a strong creative ability. It's literally, as my post implies, the first thing that one might say about them.


Honestly, IMO, I think people who prefer Feeling tend to be more creative in the general sense. 



> Perhaps, but surely I'm not alone in thinking that it's a supremely bizarre notion (that sensors struggle with creativity). So what I'm really curious about is where it comes from because I can't see a basis for it anywhere. Considering that, the idea that it comes from some kind of weird sensor hate - similar to the kind that has everyone describing them as unintelligent - isn't all that far-fetched.


I don't think it's such a bizarre notion. It's a really common one. I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't call it an abnormal assumption.

If you were curious about where it comes from in general, why didn't you just ask rather than make a comment about the OP creating more sensor hate (which was clearly not his intention)?



Ghostsoul said:


> _'As a dominant intuitive, I get the idea that I have a very biased view on what creativity is. I tend to think of it as coming up with new patterns and concepts in your head.'_
> 
> Just seemed to imply that.
> ...
> But they had to go on about how they were a dominant Intuitive, they could have explained what intuitive creativity was like without explaining the bias they had.
> That is why it is being misinterpreted.


So is your point of contention that he admitted having a biased view?

The way I interpreted the OP is as follows:

"I admit that I have a skewed perception of creativity. This is how I see it. How do you?"



> They could have phrased it 'How are you creative?' or 'What do you like to do with your creativity?'


Thanks for the tips!


----------



## malachi.holden.3

Ghostsoul said:


> _'As a dominant intuitive, I get the idea that I have a very biased view on what creativity is. I tend to think of it as coming up with new patterns and concepts in your head.'_
> 
> Just seemed to imply that.
> *They could have phrased it 'How are you creative?' or 'What do you like to do with your creativity?'*
> But they had to go on about how they were a dominant Intuitive, they could have explained what intuitive creativity was like without explaining the bias they had.
> That is why it is being misinterpreted.


I was talking about just the essence of what I've picked up on in relation to S types. The reason I didn't phrase it the way you suggest (in bold) is because I wasn't sure that creativity was considered an inherently positive thing to have. I thought that maybe some types don't strive after it as a goal; for instance: even though smiles and warm, affectionate feelings are generally considered good things, many thinking type personalities don't want to have anything to do with it. I wanted to know if (for certain types, mainly SJs) creativity is considered to be in the same catagory -- something good, but not worth striving after.


----------



## uncertain

malachi.holden.3 said:


> I was talking about just the essence of what I've picked up on in relation to S types. The reason I didn't phrase it the way you suggest (in bold) is because I wasn't sure that creativity was considered an inherently positive thing to have. I thought that maybe some types don't strive after it as a goal; for instance: *even though smiles and warm, affectionate feelings are generally considered good things, many thinking type personalities don't want to have anything to do with it.* I wanted to know if (for certain types, mainly SJs) creativity is considered to be in the same catagory -- something good, but not worth striving after.


I don't think anyone would abhor creativity in the way thinking types treat smiles and affection. I don't think we strive after everything we deemed positive as a goal though. I am like that with most things in life. (but yes I want to be more creative.)


----------



## To_august

malachi.holden.3 said:


> 1. _Do you consider yourself a creative person?_


Yes. I like to imagine different kinds of stories, plots and characters, evolve them over time, create music videos for inspiring songs. I used to write poems, but lately I shifted to havng fun with short riddles, that keep popping into my head. I also like to make different fancy hand-made stuff.


malachi.holden.3 said:


> 2. _If so, are you creative despite being a sensor, or is there some sort of "sensor creativity" that I'm missing out on?_


Why "despite"? As if sensing is some preventing barrier to creativity, lol.


----------



## Mee2

PaladinX said:


> I know that. I'm nitpicking because you are being very specific about ISFPs. I was curious about what that type, specifically, had to do with anything.


I explained that in the very next sentence. Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to get me to admit that I think ISFPs are more creative than other types so that you can accuse me of being a hypocrite? Not going to happen. 



PaladinX said:


> Honestly, IMO, I think people who prefer Feeling tend to be more creative in the general sense.


And why would you think that? I certainly can't find any evidence for it. 



PaladinX said:


> I don't think it's such a bizarre notion. It's a really common one. I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't call it an abnormal assumption.
> 
> If you were curious about where it comes from in general, why didn't you just ask rather than make a comment about the OP creating more sensor hate (which was clearly not his intention)?


I've come across people describing sensors as unintelligent, but this is the first time I've ever come across someone speculating about a possible lack of creativity. 

It's rare that people are intentionally malicious, so I never assume that it's the case. But intentional or not, speculating about a particular category of people's lack of creativity does kinda cast them as "lesser."


----------



## malachi.holden.3

Mee2 said:


> I explained that in the very next sentence. Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to get me to admit that I think ISFPs are more creative than other types so that you can accuse me of being a hypocrite? Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you think that? I certainly can't find any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've come across people describing sensors as unintelligent, but this is the first time I've ever come across someone speculating about a possible lack of creativity.
> 
> *It's rare that people are intentionally malicious, so I never assume that it's the case. But intentional or not, speculating about a particular category of people's lack of creativity does kinda cast them as "lesser."*


So that's why I asked of those who might identify as non-creative if they were satisfied with their lack of creativity. I agree that being uncreative may _seem_ lesser, but hey, who knows? I wanted to see if someone might give a reason for being uncreative but still awesome.


----------



## PaladinX

Mee2 said:


> I explained that in the very next sentence. Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to get me to admit that I think ISFPs are more creative than other types so that you can accuse me of being a hypocrite? Not going to happen.


Your feeling is inaccurate. I was merely offering an explanation for why I questioned you on it. I acknowledge and appreciate that you did answer my question.



> And why would you think that? I certainly can't find any evidence for it.


From my experience discussing and debating functions/dichotomies here on PerC and other typology forums.

EDIT: I was answering to something I completely made up. Oops!

It's just a general impression that I have. And I think when I say "creative in the general sense" I mean "creative in the artistic sense." I find Thinkers, in general, to be creative in a more technical sense. I can't quite describe what I mean, but it's something along those lines.

Also, stuff like in this paragraph from Psychological Types:



> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the* artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment*, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.


kind of adds to that assumption.



> I've come across people describing sensors as unintelligent, but this is the first time I've ever come across someone speculating about a possible lack of creativity.
> 
> It's rare that people are intentionally malicious, so I never assume that it's the case. But intentional or not, speculating about a particular category of people's lack of creativity does kinda cast them as "lesser."


The MBTI associates creativity/imagination with Intuition.

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/273458-mbti-reference.html#post8367034

From there, many people tend to interpret the association of creativity with intuition in a black-and-white manner and therefore Sensors must lack it. I think that is a false assumption, but that's beside the point.


----------



## JTHearts

@PaladinX

Then the MBTI is wrong


----------



## PaladinX

john.thomas said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> Then the MBTI is wrong


Why?


----------



## JTHearts

PaladinX said:


> Why?


Only in that aspect of course, but obviously sensors are just as creative as intuitives and whoever wrote that part of the MBTI reference must be biased and trying to make others feel badly about themselves.


----------



## PaladinX

john.thomas said:


> Only in that aspect of course, but obviously sensors are just as creative as intuitives and whoever wrote that part of the MBTI reference must be biased and trying to make others feel badly about themselves.


I disagree with your cynical outlook. My intention is not to be offensive, but to me it sounds really crazy to assume that Isabel Myers was nefariously out to make sensors feel bad about themselves. 

I agree that individuals who prefer sensing can be just as creative as individuals who prefer intuition and I don't think it is the MBTI's position to imply otherwise.

With that said, in what way is the function of sensation creative?

EDIT:

FWIW, here is MBTI's reasoning (MBTI Manual 3rd Edition, pg 191):



> In type theory, creation of something entirely new should be related to a preference for Intuition. Intuition is the mode of perception that is oriented to possibilities and the future and to seeing hitherto unknown patterns. Creativity therefore is expected to be associated with primarily with a preference for Intuition and secondarily with a preference for the perceiving attitude, which gives curiosity and receptiveness.


It is followed by a wealth of statistical studies and whatnot that I'm not very good at interpreting. :S Something about IPAR samples and chi square something or others. I failed Stats.


----------



## Mee2

PaladinX said:


> It's just a general impression that I have. And I think when I say "creative in the general sense" I mean "creative in the artistic sense." I find Thinkers, in general, to be creative in a more technical sense. I can't quite describe what I mean, but it's something along those lines.


I thought you might, but even then it doesn't really make sense. Would Miles Davis, a thinker, have been even more creative (artistically) had he instead been a feeler? How about Fellini or Frank Zappa? I don't think anyone can answer questions like that, and that they can't be answered is precisely why these ideas (that thinkers are less creative) are so meaningless. That there are less "artistic" thinkers says absolutely nothing about the creative aptitude of thinkers in general. The same could be said about feelers who are creative in a more "technical" sense - and there are just as many examples.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer

emberfly said:


> Certainly not. To realize a pattern is not to be creative but rather to see what is right in front of you.


Of course, it depends on what you do with it. It's not creative to just notice the pattern and move on, but you need creativity to understand the pattern, to test where the pattern comes from. 

The stereotypical Se creativity is the athlete who comes up with a new way to do their sport, like a gymnast coming up with a way to do a figure that no-one had ever deemed possible, or a football player who develops a new system of defense, midfield and forwards that works differently, but better than any other position.

In science, you need creativity to think of unknown correlations, so that you can realize what an unknown causation might be.


----------



## uncertain

@*PaladinX*


> FWIW, here is MBTI's reasoning (MBTI Manual 3rd Edition, pg 191):
> 
> 
> 
> In type theory, creation of something entirely new should be related to a preference for Intuition. Intuition is the mode of perception that is oriented to possibilities and the future and to seeing hitherto unknown patterns. Creativity therefore is expected to be associated with primarily with a preference for Intuition and secondarily with a preference for the perceiving attitude, which gives curiosity and receptiveness.
Click to expand...

I think this:
Everyone use sensing and intuition. Sensors have a lot of use and familiarity with Se or Si and less intuition. They have plenty of sensory data, or can easily find and utilize those information, so all they need is a little intuition to ignite or connect their S data. Then they can make something "creative." They supply that one intuitive idea with tons of sensory information. I know if I have a great idea, I can make a piece of art about it. I am pretty good at drawing out the image in my brain--is that Se? or just a skill?--but the problem is a lot of time I don't have that image to start with.

Yes I still generate cool idea once in a while and I thought that's intuition. But now I think more about it, the "great ideas" that I have the ability to visualize are very likely a product of the combination of my S and N.

Of course, a sensor can still create a landscape painting without intuition, but whether or not you think it's creative is up to you. When I add color to my drawing at home, a lot of time I don't use local color but unusual color choice and color combination that looks good. "Let's start with some orange." (add some orange) "What if I use red here?" (So I add red) "You know what? a blue green here!" (add blue green) Dah! Looks cool! I have no idea if it's Se or Ne or Ni. Is that creative? Maybe.

On the other hand, intuitives are good with Ne or Ni. They have a lot of intuition but often lack sensory information. In creative activity Ns try to compensate their lack of sensing with a lot of Ne or Ni. Their Se or Si will give them some help to allow their Ne/Ni idea to become something more tangible. So I think intuitives are creative in their head, but not necessarily good at carrying it out into the world.


----------



## uncertain

stultum said:


> you need creativity to understand the pattern, to test where the pattern comes from.


Interesting. I would like to hear more about this


----------



## To_august

PaladinX said:


> With that said, in what way is the function of sensation creative?


Sensors creativity is rooted in tangible world. Its realm are shapes, colours, sounds, aesthetics, and actually everything that can be accessed by sensory means and interpreted through eather subjective lens, or through the lens of objective manipulation and potential. 

And yes, intuitive creativity would be different in that regard, because they focus on different kinds of information.

Here are some excerpts about Si, as this is the function I feel more adept with. Though I disagree with some behavioral aspects of descriptions, these ones can illustrate my point the best. 



Socionics take on Si and ISFp particularly said:


> This element is defined by the ability to recreate previously experienced aesthetic sensations. *An excellent example is Peter Paul Rubens, who created his paintings not from nature, but from his memory of once experienced aesthetic sensations. By paintings, he sought to evoke in the viewer certain aesthetic experiences. Such creativity constitutes the recreation of an object that is able to provide other people with aesthetic sensations that were intended by its creator. *When an individual of this type is preparing something, he starts from envisioning all the associated qualities that the final product will have.
> 
> *They are usually skilled at the art of recreation, enjoyment, and positive aesthetic experience... Often unable to express their feelings well using words, the SEI will instead create "art" (artwork, food, writing, or any other aesthetic situations) to illustrate the comfort or discomfort that they are experiencing internally.* SEIs try to make their living space comforting and appealing to the senses and strive to improve the lives of those they are close to.





Jung on Introverted Sensation said:


> In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. *What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. *
> 
> *How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. *The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation, although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulant.


----------

