# Sensor or Intuition - interesting article if you're confused which one you use.



## xxWanderer

I found this article about sensor vs intuition I thought it'd be useful when trying to figure out which you are.
This one gives you many examples so you'd be able to tell which you were.
Also sometimes during the tests I don't quite always understand the living in the moment or future questions , so i'm never that sure what they were really asking.
This seems to clear it up.
Sensor or Intuitive - The Forest or the Trees?

I'm not sure how accurate it is but for me a sensor it seems true , I wonder if this seems true for any of the intuition types reading this.


----------



## Inguz

I find it confusing. I can relate to Ni, but not at all Si, so bunling Se/Si and Ni/Ne together like that I find it difficult to see myself as either or.


----------



## irulee

What the article said about intuitives are true for me. I don't even know where to start on how right they are, almost everything they said seems to make sense in my case.

The only thing I might not agree to/be confused about is probaly the subjects in school for intuitives and favoring not traditional things. There's just some new things I really don't like.

Anyways, thanks for posting this, I really was confused on the two, and I now have a better understanding. Maybe I'll apply this in real life(see who's who).


----------



## pretyhowtown

Meh, I relate to both.


----------



## WickerDeer

I find a lot of this confusing.

FYI, I've gotten confused about sensing vs. intuition before, mucho.

Like--so sensers are supposed to see a leaf and be all, "oh, there is red, yellow, bright green, and brown spots on the leaf." Whereas, intuitives are like "oh, this leaf reminds me of my grandma."

Well, I don't get that. Don't you have to recognize something physical about the leaf to be reminded of your grandma?

Also, why would sensors, according to the article, favor things like the death penalty, which make sense in principle (IMO) but not in practice? (social programs vs. more police and prisons). I just don't understand how if a leaf reminds you of grandma, the death penalty will remind you of all the statistical evidence for social programs--and the leaf with all its colors will remind you of prisons and cops b/c those are the most direct and simple ways to address social problems? 

The colors on a leaf are complicated--and cops and prisons aren't a complicated solution. So what is the connection there?

I am spouting some of my own political views--but I don't see the relationship between these aspects of "traditional" social values and fresh views of a leaf--or visa versa (fresh social values and traditional views of the leaf).

This post is a bit biased.


----------



## WickerDeer

If someone was to take a "traditional" view of the leaf--it would look like a tear-drop turned on it's side. It would be stripped down of detail. But if someone was to view the leaf with fresh eyes--they would see it in all it's complexity. 

However, someone who would take a complex view of social issues would not be able to see the leaf in it's complexity, but to be reminded of their grandma? I can see how this could happen, but I do not see how it can be a rule.


----------



## NuthatchXi

How very unexpectedly interesting. If the article IS accurate, I'm either closer to the S border than I thought I was, or my Se is simply well-developed. I suspect the latter. The article planted a seed of doubt, but I'm still pretty dang sure I'm an INFJ. Anyway, my reactions:

1. In regards to the flower example...I'm extremely tactile, and very sensual in my approach to life. I'm also very quick to focus on my connection to the item at hand, like the N example. Call this one a draw, I guess? Assuming the article is right on this point, which I'm not at all sure of.
2. In regards to the camera lens example, I'm much more big picture than not. N wins.
3. In regards to not noticing the open drawer...I suspect I would definitely have noticed its existence before! S win, I suppose.
4. Treehouse example: N wins.
5. The creativity/less dependence on raw data to make up our minds: N wins utterly.
6. I dislike the "fighting crime" example, because I think the subject used obscures the point. However, I'm certainly more theoretical in my approach, so N technically wins. New and untried innovations are only appropriate, however, if they've been thought through _practically. _Also, do many Intuitives really like new ideas purely because they're new? I certainly hope not. That's not a very thoughtful conclusion. That's about as clear-thinking as liking traditional things purely because they're traditional... 

Hmm. Actually, upon further reflection, I don't like the article. It's not completely useless, but it creates all sorts of frustrating, unnecessary dichotomies. The things that it keeps bringing up, like feeling more comfortable when a business venture is validated by something...that's called "not being an impractical fool," not "being a Sensor."  That sort of thinking may be in some ways be correlated to sensors, but it's hardly directly indicative of them. Also, you can be equally good at coming up with ideas and implementing them efficiently! Isn't follow-through more of a P vs. J thing, in any case? I know tons of NJs and most of them are fantastic at both ideas and followthrough. *shrug* The way they describe Ns sounds so airy-fairy-caught-in-the-clouds, but while it may be true sometimes, how many, say, INTJs or ENTJs do you know that fit that description? Lol!:tongue:

In any case, interesting read; thanks for sharing! Having reread it—despite my qualms about it—I'm further convinced that I am an N, but it has marked a few S-like traits (mostly, "being aware of my surroundings" and "perceiving information from my senses sharply") in my mind. I will have to investigate those traits further...*is curious*


----------



## Entropic

I think this article is really misleading and provides with a very idea of what sensing and intuition is. First of all, there is a great difference between Si, Se, Ni and Ne. Bunching them up as if they are the same thing is not going to work. In some instances I for example see intuition being confused with the combination of SiNe, and in other instances I see them mentioning how SiTe would be equal to S in general. 

Secondly, I see a tendency where they generalize N and S into Se and Ne mostly. And of course, the one that bugs me when I read things like this the most is the continual overlook of how capable Si at providing with gut feelings. I have said before that I think there are only two functions capable of doing this: Si and Ni. This is because both are introverted perceiving functions and they both build models that are continually checked with reality. When these models clash with what reality is, Si or Ni will create gut feelings for somewhat different reasons. Whereas Si creates gut feelings because previous models created by experience do not match what reality is, Ni will create gut feelings because it reads deeper symbolic meaning that do not seem to fit with currently known data about the subject. 

I suppose I could break this down further but I am running out of time. Suffice to say, it depicts a highly generalized picture of what sensing and intuition is. It's more complicated than that, especially if the inferior or tertiary function is well-developed. ISTPs are known to constantly seek out theories that interest them with Ni, and engage the theories using NiSeTi. If their Ni is really well-developed, it would be hard for the ISTP to see him- or herself as a sensor. Similarly, an ISTP in an NiTi loop would definitely not experience him or -herself as a sensor. 

And then they mix in too many examples that are related to the other functions or entire functions combinations. That's always the problem with general descriptions. If they were really intent on clarifying the divide, they should've written the article by first describing the Jungian functions and how they work, especially in tandem with their pairings. Same goes for introversion and extraversion that is also so extremely misunderstood.


----------



## Entropic

NuthatchXi said:


> How very unexpectedly interesting. If the article IS accurate, I'm either closer to the S border than I thought I was, or my Se is simply well-developed. I suspect the latter. The article planted a seed of doubt, but I'm still pretty dang sure I'm an INFJ. Anyway, my reactions:
> 
> 1. In regards to the flower example...I'm extremely tactile, and very sensual in my approach to life. I'm also very quick to focus on my connection to the item at hand, like the N example. Call this one a draw, I guess? Assuming the article is right on this point, which I'm not at all sure of.
> 2. In regards to the camera lens example, I'm much more big picture than not. N wins.
> 3. In regards to not noticing the open drawer...I suspect I would definitely have noticed its existence before! S win, I suppose.
> 4. Treehouse example: N wins.
> 5. The creativity/less dependence on raw data to make up our minds: N wins utterly.
> 6. I dislike the "fighting crime" example, because I think the subject used obscures the point. However, I'm certainly more theoretical in my approach, so N technically wins. New and untried innovations are only appropriate, however, if they've been thought through _practically. _Also, do many Intuitives really like new ideas purely because they're new? I certainly hope not. That's not a very thoughtful conclusion. That's about as clear-thinking as liking traditional things purely because they're traditional...
> 
> Hmm. Actually, upon further reflection, I don't like the article. It's not completely useless, but it creates all sorts of frustrating, unnecessary dichotomies. The things that it keeps bringing up, like feeling more comfortable when a business venture is validated by something...that's called "not being an impractical fool," not "being a Sensor."  That sort of thinking may be in some ways be correlated to sensors, but it's hardly directly indicative of them. Also, you can be equally good at coming up with ideas and implementing them efficiently! Isn't follow-through more of a P vs. J thing, in any case? I know tons of NJs and most of them are fantastic at both ideas and followthrough. *shrug* The way they describe Ns sounds so airy-fairy-caught-in-the-clouds, but while it may be true sometimes, how many, say, INTJs or ENTJs do you know that fit that description? Lol!:tongue:
> 
> In any case, interesting read; thanks for sharing! Having reread it—despite my qualms about it—I'm further convinced that I am an N, but it has marked a few S-like traits (mostly, "being aware of my surroundings" and "perceiving information from my senses sharply") in my mind. I will have to investigate those traits further...*is curious*


Yes, follow-through is a J/P thing. Ps like to create new projects and are energized by the idea of the project. Js are energized by finishing it. Generally speaking at least. It's not quite AS simple, as usual.


----------



## xxWanderer

Here's another one not sure if it's good or not.
Sensing and Intuition - How You Take In Information

Or this seems better http://www.annholm.net/2012/04/sensing-versus-intuition-an-exercise-to-identify-your-preference/ .


----------



## StellarTwirl

mizzcasual said:


> Or this seems better Sensing versus Intuition: An Exercise to Identify Your Preference | AnnHolm.net .


I looked at the picture and thought: _They're cheating. Do the dogs sitting across from them realize it? Why are they cheating? They're smaller than the other dogs ... could that have something to do with it? Maybe they feel they're at a disadvantage somehow? This makes me think of The Last Supper. Is the center dog Jesus? Is the pitbull Judas? _


Then I read the Sensing answer and thought: _Wow. No wonder I'm always losing stuff._ :laughing:


----------



## xxWanderer

I looked at it generally and just thought there's dogs sitting around a poker table playing cards.


----------

