# This intuitive elitism against sensors is ridiculous.



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

I've read some blogs, I've read some posts and I've met some people who honestly think that Sensors are by definition inferior to intuitives. 

The fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Let's not help feed any trolls; it will only encourage them.


----------



## rawrmosher (Apr 22, 2013)

This this this. 

Inferiority complex I think, they suck socially so they pin it on them being superior to sensors. Obviously they aren't messing up, sensors are just too stupid to get them man.


----------



## ellybot (Oct 18, 2013)

*living with an isfp*

I am unsure to why anyone would think an s Is inferior to n. the majority of people I met so far in this forum have not express those elitism ideology. I am currently live with an isfp and he is very intelligent. it may not be in terms of book smart or memorizing equations but he is able to look at a problem and figure out a solution. It is quite amazing to observe this action happening in front of me. while it would take me a while to figure out the problem while taking the time to research it and find that definite conclusion or solution, he would have already taken the problem and solved it himself. we compliment each other very well.


----------



## GranChi (Jun 16, 2013)

I agree. I was just saying it in another thread, sensors' intelligence is more practical while intuitives' intelligence is more philosophical. That's it; one isn't better than the other.
Myers and Briggs didn't want to make a system that would cause discrimination; in fact, they wanted to do pretty much the opposite.


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

An N friend of mine once asked me to picture a graph in my head and to plot out a set of points on it. I was unable to do so, and he was floored that I was not able to perform such a simple task. However, once I put the problem on paper on front of me, I understood it perfectly, and we moved on.

We just process information differently. Intuitives can often instinctively know/figure out things with little to no information, while Sensors like to have every base covered with solid evidence.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

I sometimes wish I had the eye of detail that sensors had. I do agree the whole elitism thing is just ridiculous.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Volant said:


> An N friend of mine once asked me to picture a graph in my head and to plot out a set of points on it. I was unable to do so, and he was floored that I was not able to perform such a simple task. However, once I put the problem on paper on front of me, I understood it perfectly, and we moved on.
> 
> We just process information differently. Intuitives can often instinctively know/figure out things with little to no information, while Sensors like to have every base covered with solid evidence.


You're still one of my favorite Pokemon.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Maybe the folks who are biased against sensors are just jealous... only they don't want to admit to their great sensor envy...


----------



## Shale (Jan 17, 2012)

Can we see their paycheck to establish if they can call themselves an elite?


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> You're still one of my favorite Pokemon.


Awww <3


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Will they adopt me?



Shale said:


> Can we see their paycheck to establish if they can call themselves an elite?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Elitism and declarations of superiority via bashing of something else, are usually just masks for insecure and fraudulent people.


----------



## Shale (Jan 17, 2012)

walking tourist said:


> Will they adopt me?


To hell with them. I'll adopt you.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sorry guys, if you aren't genius's, then your opinions just aren't worth intuitive genius time. You're subpar. Poorly designed, biased studies prove it.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Volant said:


> Awww <3


Anytime.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> Sorry guys, if you aren't genius's, then your opinions just aren't worth intuitive genius time. You're subpar. Poorly designed, biased studies prove it.


Hey, our studies maybe sub-par, poorly designed, and biased but ummm... what was that 4th thing you said?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> Hey, our studies maybe sub-par, poorly designed, and biased but ummm... what was that 4th thing you said?


Something about genius. Go on, I'm waiting.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> Something about genius. Go on, I'm waiting.


What, something about how there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and we have managed to erase that line?

On a side note, isn't that a picture of Dax, from DS9?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> What, something about how there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and we have managed to erase that line?
> 
> On a side note, isn't a picture of Dax, from DS9?


I'll ignore that line for you because you recognized Jadzia Dax. But only this one time.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

As an elitist, I'm offended.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> I'll ignore that line for you because you recognized Jadzia Dax. But only this one time.


She is one of the best characters from DS9, although, as I recall, that is the earlier uniform from the first and second season of the series.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

There was a time when I thought intuitives were impressively intelligent but then it later occurred to me that the sites I was looking at were pretty superficial and weren't good basis on deciding that. The connection is they tended to type those and historial people often as N (unless there's enough information they gathered for that, I don't know how).

This also happens with smart Fs too, who often get typed as Ts.


----------



## lifefullofwords (Oct 25, 2013)

I think that sometimes people are insecure or jealous but a lot of the time they're just (or also) being arrogant snobs. I've been around a lot of very intelligent Ns who have been told their whole lives how gifted they are. Some of them have massive egos and are rude to people who they deem to be boring or of lesser intelligence.

Also, I find it difficult to understand how people can generalize about Sensors at all when SPs and SJs are so different.


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

I think sensors can be just as bad as intuitive's.


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

There are some people, but I don't think most are.

Most truly intelligent people would not feel the need to be superior.

Sensors can be just as intelligent. Even in the same ways. My brother has an iq probably about equal to mine, if we use something like this to judge it. As well as being somewhat better with people. Less overthinking probably, gets him in trouble sometimes though. He's an ESTP btw.

My ESFP friends are also very good people, which I actually value more than intelligence. Anyone can be born intelligent, but less can be truly good people. And even moreso people who work hard, which is a much better indicator of strength.

Anywho, which types would you thing in particular would be more elitist?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Pffft, who needs such minuscule things like contact with reality?


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

Takadox said:


> There are some people, but I don't think most are.
> 
> Most truly intelligent people would not feel the need to be superior.
> 
> ...


That's kinda ironic don't you think? Asking which type of intuitive is most likely to be an elitist.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Mind Bender said:


> That's kinda ironic don't you think? Asking which type of intuitive is most likely to be an elitist.


Are you implying it's ENTP (his type) or using ''ironic'' in the Alanis Morisette like way that means everything _but_ ironic?

As a disclaimer, l don't believe it is ENTP but that's the only way irony would be close to fitting.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Are you implying it's ENTP (his type) or using ''ironic'' in the Alanis Morisette like way that means everything _but_ ironic?


Is that like 10 000 Sensors when all you need is an Intuitive?


----------



## Jason104 (Sep 18, 2010)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Are you implying it's ENTP (his type) or using ''ironic'' in the Alanis Morisette way that means everything _but_ ironic?
> 
> As a disclaimer, l don't believe it is is ENTP but that's the only way irony would be close to fitting.


No I think its ironic that he is against said elitism but he is simultaneously asking people to post which personality they feel is the most likely to be an elitist so that in turn people can bash that personality. I think any intuitive can be an elitist towards sensors.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> Is that like 10 000 Sensors when all you need is an Intuitive?


l've got one hand in my pocket, and the other one is...

wait, shit. what was l doing again?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> l've got one hand in my pocket, and the other one is...
> 
> wait, shit. what was l doing again?


You oughta know


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

but her head over feet distracted her


----------



## Calvin (Jun 21, 2012)

These "I hate stereotypes" threads by INTJs are getting a little annoying as well.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Dedication said:


> I've read some blogs, I've read some posts and I've met some people who honestly think that Sensors are by definition inferior to intuitives.
> 
> The fuck is wrong with you?


Si>Ni>Se>Ne 
When Ni = dom Ni>>>all others combined.
When Si = dom Si makes ppl dumb.

Please let me know if you need more help with this established echelon.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Oooh, thank you. Hugs. Let's adopt each other!:kitteh:



Shale said:


> To hell with them. I'll adopt you.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

I bet all the intuitives most guilty of being elitist will read this and think to themselves: "Yeah, I hate when _they_ do that kinda thing."


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Y'know, with all our crashing into poles and losing our keys, _somehow _​we've gotta feel superior.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Xenophobia, pretty much.

And a desire to feel superior. There's a concept in economics wherein whoever owns something places it in higher regard than the identical thing someone else owns. I think that applies here. "This type is better because I'm this type, so this type must be good".

Another reason is probably the emphasis on higher education and extreme academics in our culture.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)




----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

That's funny OP because most of the people who seemed like intuitive elitests were INTJ's but you've changed my view on that assumption.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> That's funny OP because most of the people who seemed like intuitive elitests were INTJ's but you've changed my view on that assumption.


This. I have encountered lots of INTJs from another forums who preach things like "all feelers should not be allowed to exist" and "sensors are bottomfeeders" kind of stuff. I have grouped them as "assburger INTJ's" , but the positive thing about INTJs is that when one of them makes an ignorant claim, two other INTJs appear and call bullshit on it.

The stupidest thing you can ever do is saying that one myers-briggs type is above the others. No type is above others, each type has their share of stupid or ridiculous people and some of the brightest people ever.


----------



## peoplesayimanahole (May 21, 2013)

GranChi said:


> I agree. I was just saying it in another thread, sensors' intelligence is more practical while intuitives' intelligence is more philosophical. That's it; one isn't better than the other.
> Myers and Briggs didn't want to make a system that would cause discrimination; in fact, they wanted to do pretty much the opposite.


This. I agree with you fully. Though I have witnessed both sensors and intuitives acting superior to the others. Sensors usually say they're better because they get shit done and are more practical than those abstract theoretical nerds, while intuitive berate sensors for not seeing the big picture and being to concerned with things intuitives don't deem as important.

It doesn't really matter overall, most people want to be recognized for their own merit so they will try to make their skills appear more attractive. I wouldn't call it intuitive elitism. It might just be that intuitives frequent specific internet forums more or you're in a specific field that happens to have a higher number of intuitives.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> the positive thing about INTJs is that when one of them makes an ignorant claim, two other INTJs appear and call bullshit on it.


:laughing: That's so true!


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else, even -- and sometimes especially -- smart people make this mistake. It's nicer to have people associated with you to say they're smart too, they have this quality you have, you see! Trust me though, when it comes to it this person will see themselves as smarter than the rest of the group wherever possible. 

And it's human nature to assume you're above another group of people, we've seen it again and again and we'll keep seeing it. We're social animals, but also territorial. And we do have a social hierarchy, where we want to be the most valuable/dominant. To protect our own self image, to make ourselves more dominant for better survival, we need someone to be below us.

Plus, the flattering descriptions of MBTI types don't help. In reality, it's easier to be the practical, sociable, hard-working and organised etc. etc. person....but in the media and discussion the special snowflake who's innovative and ignored and overlooked is preferred. We've seen the story a thousand times. The sensors are the ones who ignored the genius, right? The ones who said "the world is flat!". The sensors are the _average_ people. And the intuitive is the main character who goes against the grain, in a fantastic act of bravery....usually reflective of how the author would like to see themselves. 

What a load of horseshit.


----------



## occasus (Oct 21, 2013)

I honestly prefer I's to S's, but they most definitely are not inferior.


----------



## SkillandVerve (Sep 8, 2013)

ellybot said:


> I am unsure to why anyone would think an s Is inferior to n. the majority of people I met so far in this forum have not express those elitism ideology. I am currently live with an isfp and he is very intelligent. it may not be in terms of book smart or memorizing equations but he is able to look at a problem and figure out a solution. It is quite amazing to observe this action happening in front of me. while it would take me a while to figure out the problem while taking the time to research it and find that definite conclusion or solution, he would have already taken the problem and solved it himself. we compliment each other very well.



I can relate to this to a great extent as I am with an ESFP.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Don't you know, according to official statistics, intuitives are rarer than sensors, and therefore have higher value, due to scarcity.

It is simple economics.


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

S are fine to me, they become a problem when they try to dictate something to me because their Si/Te or Si/Fe tell them to, even if it doesn't make sense, or when a Se/Ti laugh at me because I'd rather spend some time home instead of going out for whatever reason. It's not a superiority complex; it's an annoyance's one.

My best friend is ISFJ, so is my grandma with who I'm living with atm, so I'd lie if I said I hated them. They are incredibly clever and they are some of the most intelligent people I've met.


----------



## Shale (Jan 17, 2012)

Oh the negativity. Get off the internet and live life ... it's actually a pretty cool experience if you try.


----------



## bowsbroken (Oct 16, 2013)

Seems to me that Ns are actually slower. S goes from A to B. Ns take longer to get from A to B and have a little adventure in the middle. By the time it comes to C, Ns don't have enough energy to continue, so no paycheck.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I think this topic is far overcooked. Anyone who has been on this forum for over a year or two knows that the bias was much worse and much more pronounced then than it is now. It's not that it isn't still a problem now and then, but it is also the case that people talk almost incessantly about how Sensors are vicitimized by Intuitives who think they're superior. There is a _weekly _thread on how stupid typism is, and how Intuitives are no better or worse than Sensors. 

We get it. They're equal. Typism is stupid and not acceptable. Now it's time to move on and treat them that way by cutting the nonsensical justifications of how Sensors are more intelligent at X and Intuitives are more intelligent at Y, as if that category defines the person's entire entity. That isn't helping - it's continuing the stereotypes. The real solution is for people to stop identifying themselves and others so closely with four letters in the first place.


----------



## anon (Oct 19, 2009)

The elitism sure is rather silly. It distracts people from the real issues and the real way things happen off the internet and out of our minds. Sometimes the internet makes it seem like S and N are doomed to never get along, when in actual fact, people are people, and some people get along while others don't. It's not always S vs N.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Volant said:


> An N friend of mine once asked me to picture a graph in my head and to plot out a set of points on it. I was unable to do so, and he was floored that I was not able to perform such a simple task. However, once I put the problem on paper on front of me, I understood it perfectly, and we moved on.
> 
> We just process information differently. Intuitives can often instinctively know/figure out things with little to no information, while Sensors like to have every base covered with solid evidence.



Yeah we all process information differently, and a lot of the ways we process things differently have nothing to do with our type. Your friend's higher skill for visualization has zilch to do with him being an intuitive. 


Until we stop tangling S/N into pseudo IQ test sorts of variances, the elitism won't end.


Until we see types at the core for what they are, as a kind of mindset, then there will always be that...... person who will devise a sort of test or barrier to confirm the superiority of the intuitive race.


----------



## LordDarthMoominKirby (Nov 2, 2013)

No type is better than the other. It's like saying one lima bean is better than another identical lima bean.


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

Dewymorning said:


> Don't you know, according to official statistics, intuitives are rarer than sensors, and therefore have higher value, due to scarcity.
> 
> It is simple economics.


In this same vein, this must make homosexuals superior.

You breeders are just jealous of our fabulousness and comfortable shoes.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Dedication said:


> I've read some blogs, I've read some posts and I've met some people who honestly think that Sensors are by definition inferior to intuitives.
> 
> The fuck is wrong with you?


I could ask the same thing a bunch of sensors attacking and humiliating me for ages because of my Fi and N. 

It goes both ways.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> I could ask the same thing a bunch of sensors attacking and humiliating me for ages because of my Fi and N.
> 
> It goes both ways.


Where are sensors calling people up on using Fi and N? They literally pulled you up on Fi and N? I've never seen sensors anywhere pulling people up on using cognitive function. Just intuitives on here making bullshit claims about sensors.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

monemi said:


> Where are sensors calling people up on using Fi and N? They literally pulled you up on Fi and N? I've never seen sensors anywhere pulling people up on using cognitive function. Just intuitives on here making bullshit claims about sensors.


My whole life. Being labeled as dumb because of being somewhat detached (absentminded) and having thoughtful look (despite being an excellent pupil), because I don't follow trends or pay importance/attention to what's for them uber-important sensory stuff. Attacks on my Fi is volumes long and I don't care to share it now. Not to say all sensors are like this, but many are.


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Your friend's higher skill for visualization has zilch to do with him being an intuitive.


Ok, then.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Volant said:


> Ok, then.


Ha, sorry if it seemed like I ranting directly at you. Just trying to make a point to the thread in general....


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

If there's too many discussions about conflicting perception, should there be a separate subforum for the controversial debates about typism and typists and anti-typists?


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

All the amazing sensors I've come across on here have shown many times over that they're just as good as any intuitive, if not better. <3


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Anybody who involves themselves with this elitism has totally missed the entire point of personality typology in the first place. Really, it could in face be argued that they are the inferior ones.



Nightchill said:


> My whole life. Being labeled as dumb because of being somewhat detached (absentminded) and having thoughtful look (despite being an excellent pupil), because I don't follow trends or pay importance/attention to what's for them uber-important sensory stuff. Attacks on my Fi is volumes long and I don't care to share it now. Not to say all sensors are like this, but many are.


You're not alone in this, and these feelings are not specific to intuitive types. But guess what; the way you were treated by these people, its not because those people were sensors, its because they were assholes. You're attacking a very large group of people over the actions of a few individuals and I know enough good people who are sensors to know that your judgement is wrong.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> My whole life. Being labeled as dumb because of being somewhat detached (absentminded) and having thoughtful look (despite being an excellent pupil), because I don't follow trends or pay importance/attention to what's for them uber-important sensory stuff. Attacks on my Fi is volumes long and I don't care to share it now. Not to say all sensors are like this, but many are.


So there's no way intuitives have never made fun of you for this stuff? Come off it. The general population aren't walking around with a clipboard checking off Fi and N behaviour. Most people don't give two fucks about cognitive functions. You're blaming sensors for feeling marginalized. You can't just drum it all up to a cognitive function. MBTI isn't here for you to find a scapegoat to blame your problems on.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

atypeofuser said:


> If there's too many discussions about conflicting perception, should there be a separate subforum for the controversial debates about typism and typists and anti-typists?


I doubt it. The people that really need to hear it aren't going to go looking for it.


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Ha, sorry if it seemed like I ranting directly at you. Just trying to make a point to the thread in general....


No, it's ok; I'm just having a bad day today. XD


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

occasus said:


> I honestly prefer I's to S's, but they most definitely are not inferior.


*I* stands for *I*ntrovert. *N *stand for i*N*tuitive.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Volant said:


> No, it's ok; I'm just having a bad day today. XD


Then let us....DANCE!


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

When I first read the description of INTJs, I thought they would all be arrogant and elitist. Instead, all the INTJs I know (about eight) are boringly humble and nice people...
I want at least one elitist INTJ to play with.

I love sensors, by the way. Even if sometimes they don't laugh at all my great stories, they're usually clever, dependable and open people. With an N, I feel like sometimes inside their head they could be imagining excruciating ways to kill me, and I wouldn't know it. With a sensor at least, they'd skip the imagining part and just construct the death trap. What you see is what you get.


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> Then let us....DANCE!


Thank you, @Wellsy...I needed that. *dances*

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EmRyLhRDOUg/UPSzbUMMCqI/AAAAAAAAB58/0eeZf6nF3Ug/s1600/pikachu.gif


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

napkineater said:


> In this same vein, this must make homosexuals superior.
> 
> You breeders are just jealous of our fabulousness and comfortable shoes.


lol^

Well theoretically speaking, minorities have a harder time in society until they are understood. In the case of homosexuality, it is much less harder now than it used to be a few years ago. But _for intuitive, since they are a minority that unless you know MBTI you don't even know they exist, they have a constant judgement on them coming from the S majority, making their life harder_. What we assist on places like Personality Cafe is simply a "retaliation" (aka vengeance) of a minority of iNtuitives who can't stand Sensing people anymore. I'd like to emphasize the word "minority", as most of us are in good relationship with Sensors.

The bullied becomes the bully. Not that it's a good thing, but understandable.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

You are right in saying that its wrong to be an intuitive elitist(ivory tower estrangement), he's probably a basement dwelling lamer. On a different note, intuitives are generally underappreciated in society, and I think it has always been that way generally. This can cook up a lot of emotions of loneliness and possibly insanity. Exceptions always exist with intuitive appreciation, whether you go from a different society or a different intuitive person. Ancient Greece would likely value intuitives, and well, William Shakespeare is probably universally valued, or Newton, because they were just so gifted that it is amazing. Average intuitives with a lack of ability or drive to contribute to something that is intuitively driven, will probably not succeed in an environment of sensors.

If you appear to be different, and operate completely different socially or otherwise, many people will think you are a square and reject you. Sensors do not appreciate the contributions to human glory that intuitives have dedicated themselves to, or if they do in their mind, they may still not be able to shake the fact that socially, this guy is just not on my plain.

I may be wrong as always. Any ways the guy you are referring to might be a probably a total dweeb.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Van Meter said:


> You are right in saying that its wrong to be an intuitive elitist(ivory tower estrangement), he's probably a basement dwelling lamer.


The intuitive elitists to me do seem to be the ivory tower types whose sensing side is so ridiculously underdeveloped that they just can't function as a human being. This to me is just as bad as sensors whose intuitive side is near nonexistent. Both types are basket cases, as most people are capable of using both intuition and sensation, just as they are thinking and feeling.



Van Meter said:


> If you appear to be different, and operate completely different socially or otherwise, many people will think you are a square and reject you. Sensors do not appreciate the contributions to human glory that intuitives have dedicated themselves to, or if they do in their mind, they may still not be able to shake the fact that socially, this guy is just not on my plain.


But at some point in your life, if you're never rejected by society or people, then maybe you're simply going through life without doing anything right.


----------



## Number Six (Mar 4, 2013)

I said someone ate like a horse...you know, long face, masticating cowish chewing, more side to side than up and down......kinda makes you think of Sarah Jessica Parker eating celery sticks because that's the stereotype...and my boss looked at me like I was brain damaged.

It made me realize that everyone is different. SOME ARE STOOPID!!! I have held it against anyone I decide is a sensor ever since because they do not understand my brilliance ;o!

(true story! except for the last bit ;D)


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> The intuitive elitists to me do seem to be the ivory tower types whose sensing side is so ridiculously underdeveloped that they just can't function as a human being. This to me is just as bad as sensors whose intuitive side is near nonexistent. Both types are basket cases, as most people are capable of using both intuition and sensation, just as they are thinking and feeling.
> 
> 
> 
> But at some point in your life, if you're never rejected by society or people, then maybe you're simply going through life without doing anything right.


Agreed. I was trying to maybe pinpoint the extremes of the spectrum, and how some people can fail to appreciate one who may be very different. The best person is always one who can utilize all of their resources. Infjs for example, tend to have a weakness of not having the motivation to live life fully, so how can you ever implement anything that you ever believed or came up with if you don't actually live with no regrets, fears, or inhibitions, or how do you even function with people who don't have those qualities as a problem in their lives? Gotta get lead in the pencil in order to write.


----------



## Cossack (Jul 26, 2013)

We're all people. To me, it's disturbingly similar to racism.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Number Six said:


> I said someone ate like a horse...you know, long face, masticating cowish chewing, more side to side than up and down......kinda makes you think of Sarah Jessica Parker eating celery sticks because that's the stereotype...and my boss looked at me like I was brain damaged.
> 
> It made me realize that everyone is different. SOME ARE STOOPID!!! I have held it against anyone I decide is a sensor ever since because they do not understand my brilliance ;o!
> 
> (true story! except for the last bit ;D)


Sometimes people think my humour is too dark. I've concluded I'm wasted on them and save it for people I know will get it. I'm fucking hilarious even if they don't know it.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Well perhaps we should make it less intuitive so people can't do it so easily.


----------



## Meltboy (May 14, 2013)

My opinion is that N's are told to feel special and as such of course they do.

Read any N type profile and you'll see that they pretty much say "you are special and incredible". Nearly every (if not every) one says that they don't follow the crowd and they are the people who change the world in some way.
INFJ's profile in particular stands out to me as ridiculous in this respect. They apparently are the rarest type *as well* as being psychic!!! <<< Who wouldn't look at that and think "Hell yeah! I'm awesome!!"?


From what I've found; 99% of N's who believe they're superior, have no reason to believe so other than the fact they tested as XNXX and the profile describes them as unique and important.
I haven't met many (if any) people who can then back their beliefs up. Not many people can claim to be true innovators or people who have made an impact on the world despite this being something that is supposedly a trait of their type.



HOWEVER, apparently I'm not very intelligent in any form if you look at my signature XD.
I'm the guy who can _kind_ of play the guitar and I'm _ok_ at talking to people ='D


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Nothing to do with the OP but I find it interesting that I tend to look for conflict specially in the topics I have firm beliefs in because I admit I came here to this thread expecting something to disagree with. It's like when I intentionally look for anti-gay opinions in youtube or when I imagine someone confronting me due to my sexuality and I mentally prepare a response.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

napkineater said:


> In this same vein, this must make homosexuals superior.
> 
> You breeders are just jealous of our fabulousness and comfortable shoes.


Exactly.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Nightchill said:


> My whole life. Being labeled as dumb because of being somewhat detached (absentminded) and having thoughtful look (despite being an excellent pupil), because I don't follow trends or pay importance/attention to what's for them uber-important sensory stuff. Attacks on my Fi is volumes long and I don't care to share it now. Not to say all sensors are like this, but many are.


And we're sure, I mean if I could ask you to get me the paperwork of the Sensors who just humiliated you, I mean, you could produce the trucks, at least 10 trucks, filled with every slight, from every sensor, who said "I'm a sensor and you're my target Ms. Intuitive?" Get me those files ASAP. I'm 39, I think I've avoided Myers-Briggs tests like the plague,I've never heard of the terms sensor and intuitive, till I got on this board, and I think most Sensors, don't even care to know Jung.

I think you're making a whole lot of nothing into something. I struggled with seizures most of my life, and sometimes I stare off in the distance. I wouldn't say I'm absentminded, and yet I can be out of it. Also, I'm probably older than you, so I know the cult of Steve Jobs. I do not go out getting ipads,ipods,iphones, because, I'm broke, I do not have cable to watch _Breaking Bad, the Wire,Mad Men_, sure I know they are out there,my parents have cable. So there you have it, a Sensor who does the exact same things as an Intuitive, call it, a there are lots of people across the spectrum that do these things. Still, you misunderstand the sensor you passionately rail against. I'm going to guess,leave some room that I'm wrong,that you are a vegetarian. You're doing it for moral reasons. INFPs don't have any Se, so you might eat food,but, you don't savor the experience of trying new foods. A Sensor will go to town trying new foods, to experience, because, we enjoy the experience the food brings to our mouths. A INFP will never get that, because, Sensing is their weakest function. To compensate, you guys take a fox and the grapes attitude, 'oh well we sensors must be hedonistic, and hedonism is bad anyway, glad I'm not one.' I don't label myself hedonistic though. I also think, after hearing Sermons about this to the INFP crowd, INFP has a problem with being in the present,enjoying the moment, it's always the future. "No we shouldn't get that new stereo system, it's not in our budget." "Let's not get that dessert,I'll get fat". 

And I love how you railed against us Sensors,but took the Dennis Miller approach..."of course, I could be wrong", with the last sentence, "not to say all sensors are like this,but many are". I'm converted. Don Henley once said"you keep carrying all that anger, it'll eat you up inside." One thing I learned from the Intuitive was the Buddha quote, "anger is like holding a hot piece of coal, and expecting the other person to get burned." Learn to let go.


----------



## Number Six (Mar 4, 2013)

monemi said:


> Sometimes people think my humour is too dark. I've concluded I'm wasted on them and save it for people I know will get it. I'm fucking hilarious even if they don't know it.


I don't like to say "ESTP's" or "XXXX" are anything, but ESTP's are hilarious. It's the quick thinking that does it for me, same with ENTPs (flip sake I'm just stereotyping all over my breakfast porridge now...). And so high energy...I don't think we mix very well because I'm quite low key most of the time and probably give the impression I hate everything and everyone due to info overload taking up most of my energy and they don't have much to work with, but I think most funny people are wasted in general. People just think "stupid dick" instead of thinking "hahahahaha, stupid dick! I love it!"

People are too eager to eat offense rather than appreciate the funny side. ;P Keep up the good work, ma cheri.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

bowsbroken said:


> Seems to me that Ns are actually slower. S goes from A to B. Ns take longer to get from A to B and have a little adventure in the middle. By the time it comes to C, Ns don't have enough energy to continue, so no paycheck.


I'm not quite sure about that. I could jump from A straight to Z, but good luck trying to explain how I did it...


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Meltboy said:


> INFJ's profile in particular stands out to me as ridiculous in this respect. They apparently are the rarest type *as well* as being psychic!!! <<< Who wouldn't look at that and think "Hell yeah! I'm awesome!!"?


I could agree with you there. I remember reading that and thinking it was rather ridiculous myself.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

monemi said:


> So there's no way intuitives have never made fun of you for this stuff? Come off it. The general population aren't walking around with a clipboard checking off Fi and N behaviour. Most people don't give two fucks about cognitive functions. You're blaming sensors for feeling marginalized. You can't just drum it all up to a cognitive function. MBTI isn't here for you to find a scapegoat to blame your problems on.


mbti type is not just a label one wears, mbti asserts the way we are. I was attacked because of the way I am.
Si and Fe doms attacked me way more often and fervently than others. 

I don't care for this little war, but it's interesting to observe it really goes both ways. 

Absentminded = dumb freak 
NFi approach= abomination





The_Wanderer said:


> You're not alone in this, and these feelings are not specific to intuitive types. But guess what; the way you were treated by these people, its not because those people were sensors, its because they were assholes. You're attacking a very large group of people over the actions of a few individuals and I know enough good people who are sensors to know that your judgement is wrong.


If you're about to claim I said 'all sensors are ______', just don't.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> mbti type is not just a label one wears, mbti asserts the way we are. I was attacked because of the way I am.
> Si and Fe doms attacked me way more often and fervently than others.
> 
> I don't care for this little war, but it's interesting to observe it really goes both ways.
> ...


There are lots of people that use Fi and N and don't get made fun of. Plenty of people that are absentminded and no one thinks they're dumb freaks. You're projecting your issues on cognitive functions.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Somehow we got through a thread without a too stupid remark. This shows how far Per C has come along.


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

Brian1 said:


> INFPs don't have any Se, so you might eat food,but, you don't savor the experience of trying new foods. A Sensor will go to town trying new foods, to experience, because, we enjoy the experience the food brings to our mouths. A INFP will never get that, because, Sensing is their weakest function.


Actually, if we're taking a cognitive functions approach, sensing is not the INFP's weakest function. Extroverted thinking is. Se is _my_ weakest function. 



> I also think, after hearing Sermons about this to the INFP crowd, INFP has a problem with being in the present,enjoying the moment, it's always the future. *"No we shouldn't get that new stereo system, it's not in our budget." "Let's not get that dessert,I'll get fat".*


And not to quibble, but that sounds like the perspective of a J (including SJ) rather than any INFPs I know, lol. 

It certainly describes me, in any case!


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Alright, well, it's up there. Not really going argue with your conclusion here....



Ballast said:


> Actually, if we're taking a cognitive functions approach, sensing is not the INFP's weakest function. Extroverted thinking is. Se is _my_ weakest function.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

Brian1 said:


> Alright, well, it's up there. Not really going argue with your conclusion here....


Yes, it certainly is, that is true. 

But for an N, I had the benefit of growing up with SP parents so I had plenty of exposure to some of the few things my Se won't concede on, such as decent food. I may forget to eat sometimes, but when I don't, that food had better be top quality.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

monemi said:


> There are lots of people that use Fi and N and don't get made fun of. Plenty of people that are absentminded and no one thinks they're dumb freaks. You're projecting your issues on cognitive functions.


Actually, before I joined here, I remember seeing a poll about bullying, infps reported one of the highest rates as victims, if not the highest. If everything has so little to do with personality type, why is it that way?

Fyi you miss my initial point: if the issue of thisevil intuitive vs sensors war bs is asserted, why don't we cover war of what are stereotypically seen as sensors against stereotypical intuitives. As I said it goes in both directions and so why cover just one side of the story.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> Actually, before I joined here, I remember seeing a poll about bullying, infps reported one of the highest rates as victims, if not the highest. If everything has so little to do with personality type, why is it that way?
> 
> Fyi you miss my initial point: if the issue of thisevil intuitive vs sensors war bs is asserted, why don't we cover war of what are stereotypically seen as sensors against stereotypical intuitives. As I said it goes in both directions and so why cover just one side of the story.


I'm sure that was a highly scientific poll. 

The elitism is happening here. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> Actually, before I joined here, I remember seeing a poll about bullying, infps reported one of the highest rates as victims, if not the highest. If everything has so little to do with personality type, why is it that way?


Well, INFPs are among the most common types here. I think introverts are usually more susceptible to bullying. But an intuitive who can assert himself and falls under the norm is not likely to be bullied. Likewise, a sensor who doesn't can be bullied. If bullies seem to be sensors it's probably only because the majority of people are sensors.


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Well, I wish I had more sensor inside me. I would stop bumping on the road lights all the time and I would notice things at first glance... not after 5 freaking years. :[


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

It seems like with INFPs it kind of swings both ways. Some people really romanticize them in a glass rose way while they can often be given unnecessary flak.
I think it's just that while we are likely to come across them in real life, there's some who may not strike a lot of people as really being that type (this is general/anecdotal, not specific). Yet a bunch of people on the internet happen to identify as such.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Well, INFPs are among the most common types here. I think introverts are usually more susceptible to bullying. But an intuitive who can assert himself and falls under the norm is not likely to be bullied. Likewise, a sensor who doesn't can be bullied. If bullies seem to be sensors it's probably only because the majority of people are sensors.


This is not INFP forum exclusively. And they outshone many introverts with their result.



Wonszu said:


> ...


And here we go. In a society/social circle that values S virtues, you'd be considered as inferior, if not outright dumb. Nowadays we have society and market that values abstract thinking or at least that which is, stereotypically or not, associated with it, so we have groups of self-proclaimedintuitives who think n and the package make them supeiror by default.

Nothing all that new, except now that it's turned against s that make up for the majority of population it's more noticeable.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> This is not INFP forum exclusively. And they outshone many introverts with their result.


I know, I was talking about PerCafe. People tend towards introversion and intuition. And I thought this was an S vs. N thing not an INFPs vs. the world...



> And here we go. In a society/social circle that values S virtues, you'd be considered as inferior, if not outright dumb. Nowadays we have society and market that values abstract thinking or at least that which is, stereotypically or not, associated with it, so we have groups of self-proclaimedintuitives who think n and the package make them supeiror by default.
> 
> Nothing all that new, except now that it's turned against s that make up for the majority of population it's more noticeable.


In my case, I've never actually experienced being judged due to a lack of sensing and I've been judged/bullied due to a lot of things.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> All of what? Can you name the IQ test you are referring to?
> 
> What I am getting at is that, having done the WAIS IQ test, I don't see how those abilities listed would help you necessarily. How does reading between the lines aid in simple arithmetic, knowing who Catharine the great was, or how to arrange blocks to match a picture shape?


Most of what you've written is "knowledge." Furthermore, g-factor. Lastly, I kindly said I was not getting into this. If you'd like to debate it, please see my debate thread with similar commentary:

The many different kinds of IQ tests use a wide variety of methods. Some tests are visual, some are verbal, some tests only use abstract-reasoning problems, and some tests concentrate on arithmetic, spatial imagery, reading, vocabulary, memory or general knowledge. The psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904 made the first formal factor analysis of correlations between the tests. He found a single common factor explained the positive correlations among tests. This is an argument still accepted in principle by many psychometricians 

"Blocks fitting" is reading between the lines; you have to see beyond "blocks" to the concept connecting them.

The g-factor is assumed to have significance greater than any of the individual pieces you've mentioned. Also, if you didn't think any of those aided, why did you not just state how they didn't? Also, what does your having taken the test have to do with this?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Most of what you've written is "knowledge." Furthermore, g-factor.


Ok. Not sure what you are getting at with this. Call it what you want, but these are things that are tested on one of the more common IQ testing instruments.



> Lastly, I kindly said I was not getting into this. If you'd like to debate it, please see my debate thread with similar commentary:


Not in the post I quoted. I did not otherwise realize that this point was not up for discussion. Furthermore, I asked a simple question for specific information and you provided a general vague answer. I am otherwise not interested in debating the topic. I was curious what test you were referring to or if you were just generalizing.



> Also, if you didn't think any of those aided, why did you not just state how they didn't?


I was wondering what test you were referring to, in case it was different from the one I took. 



> Also, what does your having taken the test have to do with this?


Does it help if I rephrased "having took the WAIS IQ test" to "In my experience?" Reading between the lines isn't always a good thing. Sometimes people just say things. 

Out of further curiosity, if my IQ is 99th percentile, does that make me an intuitive?


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

I've never seen sensors as inferior in any way. I know this has been said over and over, but there are absolutely different ways to receive and process information. I would kill to have the attention to detail that my sensor relatives have.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Ok. Not sure what you are getting at with this. Call it what you want, but these are things that are tested on one of the more common IQ testing instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know why you want specifics when the whole test is geared in a fashion such that it tests a general ability to learn from experience via abstracted reasoning (that which is not immediately visible/discernible) 

Sometimes I think these things speak for themselves, but here you go:



> or how to arrange blocks to match a picture shape?


I:


> I solve problems by *leaping between different ideas and possibilities*.


So you have maybe 7 blocks to rearrange into an image. Assumably they can't be repeated, so let's say you need 5 of them. You have 7*6*5*4*3 or 2,520 combinations to go through. You have to leap and decide which is the best. Often, the person does this without 2,519 trials, so yes, they are using intuition in this, according to theory. 

With arithmetic series; you similarly need to find the pattern that is occuring before you can process it in a rote fashion. Again, you need to that one possibility/idea in the framework. According to theory when you go, "Oh, that's just doubled x plus 2 minus the previous number" you are using N--for you "Ni" 

The pattern was not obviously in front of you in both cases.



> was curious what test you were referring to or if you were just generalizing.


This is a general statement. I said IQ is correlated to these abilities--not that a specific type of test tests for it in XYZ section. The entirety of g-factor (which is what is aimed to be tested) is "intuitively" based 



> Does it help if I rephrased "having took the WAIS IQ test" to "In my experience?" Reading between the lines isn't always a good thing. Sometimes people just say things.
> 
> Out of further curiosity, if my IQ is 99th percentile, does that make me an intuitive?


According to theory, you'd have a much, much higher chance of being an N type (almost exclusively). To me, type does not exist, which has been my overarching point. So to me (and it seems most of psychologists, as they don't buy into type) you wouldn't be an intuitive, you wouldn't be an ISTP, you'd be someone who has a genius level IQ--period.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I don't know why you want specifics when the whole test is geared in a fashion such that it tests a general ability to learn from experience via abstracted reasoning (that which is not immediately visible/discernible)
> 
> Sometimes I think these things speak for themselves, but here you go:
> 
> ...


Why do I have to be trying to prove or not prove something? Why can't I just be looking to inform myself?

What do you mean when you say type does not exist? Are you referring to MBTI types? Jungian psychological types? Both?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Why do I have to be trying to prove or not prove something? Why can't I just be looking to inform myself?
> 
> What do you mean when you say type does not exist? Are you referring to MBTI types? Jungian psychological types? Both?


It's just an odd question. I don't get why someone would ask that, honestly. The entire exam is on seeing a pattern in what is not obvious, and pattern recognition is almost the sole domain of N-functions in Jungarian theory.

Both--neither exist in actuality. Or at least not to a method by which can currently be determined by any valid psychometric.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> It's just an odd question. I don't get why someone would ask that, honestly. The entire exam is on seeing a pattern, and pattern recognition is almost the sole domain of N-functions in Jungarian theory.
> 
> Both--neither exist in actuality. Or at least not to a method by which can currently be determined by any valid psychometric.


I'm an odd person. 

Why do you not believe? Is it because it cannot be measured? Jung himself did not believe his theory was measurable by scientific method. Regardless, do you not think people have tendencies towards one form of judgment or the other, or whether people rely on that which can be perceived by the senses or intuition? If you don't believe, why do you come to this site?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm an odd person.
> 
> Why do you not believe? Is it because it cannot be measured? Jung himself did not believe his theory was measurable by scientific method. Regardless, do you not think people have tendencies towards one form of judgment or the other, or whether people rely on that which can be perceived by the senses or intuition? If you don't believe, why do you come to this site?


*Why do you not believe?

* Believe is interesting. I like to quote my favorite TV show character ever here with, "I want to believe."
It would condense about 3 years of serious psych study to a few paragraphs. It hasn't shown to be worth its salt in predictive potential. All studies I can find seem to suggest it's not much more than astrology or any type of achetype-based metric. According to science, this is not a good way of categorizing. 

*Is it because it cannot be measured?*
Not only this--it doesn't even know what to measure. Every equation has variables, and then the person must decide how to test the strength of those variables. Everyone uses their own variables. It's totally unstandardized, with everyone having their own type of way of typing. That's why questionnaires are invented--no one knows what to test for and how. Not good again.



> *Jung himself did not believe his theory was measurable by scientific method. Regardless, do you not think people have tendencies towards one form of judgment or the other, or whether people rely on that which can be perceived by the senses or intuition?*


I believe people have types of behaviors that can be lumped together. Psychology seems to as well. I just know the dangers of such: racism, sexism, etc. Ultimately, if we don't have a strong basis --or at least a conjecture--for HOW to categorize, this is just a dream. Jung's dream is splendidly rich, but it's a dream as it has thus far been nullified by other theories that do stand up.
*
If you don't believe, why do you come to this site?*
I did at one point--very much so. This decision is fairly recent (perhaps a week ago)? After talking to about 3-4 people heavily sought after for type here (all of whom typed me differently with very tight internal logic), in conjunction with 2+ years of seeing people type into oblivion--I just had to admit to myself: This theory is rightfully not adopted in psychology because of its poor resolution and unknown test variables. 

*Why am I still here?*
I honestly never spent most time in type threads because I always thought of myself as not being that "good" at it. I enjoy the atmosphere here. Spam/Debate/Critical Thinking/Sex sections are lulz and interesting.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Wonszu said:


> So yes, it's fun to be intuitive but sometimes it's tedious and frustrating. N and S has their own flaws and advantages and they aren't better or worse in my opinion. They are equal in their differences.


Nobody claims otherwise, except perhaps this thread that fails to acknowledge mockery that inuitives face as well. 

And I have 'issues' and I'm the villain for ever mentioning it, boo hoo.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Takadox said:


> Depends on the engineering. I happen to be an electrical one. Details are important, but not nearly as much as being able to abstractly think about the problem. But it's not like Sensors can't do that too.


Except I don't think concrete vs abstract thinking has anything to do with sensation vs intuition and I think that's just another dumb stereotype as if sensors can't deal with abstraction. Ability to abstract is related to intelligence, not sensation or intuition. It only describes the kind of data we prefer to look at i.e. physical vs ideational. An example of concrete intuition is to say the grim reaper represents death. Concrete because it doesn't abstract what death is e.g. the end of life is an abstraction.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Nightchill said:


> My whole life. Being labeled as dumb because of being somewhat detached (absentminded) and having thoughtful look (despite being an excellent pupil), because I don't follow trends or pay importance/attention to what's for them uber-important sensory stuff. Attacks on my Fi is volumes long and I don't care to share it now. Not to say all sensors are like this, but many are.




I've experienced just as much of the social alienation and misunderstanding that intuitives claim to receive from 'sensors'. On the other hand, I've known plenty of socially well-adjusted Ns throughout my adolescence.


----------



## DDWolfie (Oct 27, 2013)

Can please someone give me the definition of inferiority?Because i will say that sensors are miles under intuitives when it comes to build standards and beliefs which are gonna followed by other people, that society is formed by N's and followed by S's, in other words N's rule.But i would never say that intuitives are above sensors in terms of human rights if that is you meaning.I mean come on, me -a beggar- have i the same skills with a prime minister?"No mate, no way sorry" you will answer me (especially the sensors) you are INFERIOR.But have i the same human rights?Yes.But that has nothing to do with that isn't it?So.Don't get stuck to the words.After all this is sensor characteristic (humor-humor, yes i have some).Anyway sorry if that looks mean, i don't want this i signed up here because i read some cool conversations and it would be honor me to have a part.But i really want to talk about truths, something which is not happening in this thread because you have guilts.I love my isfp mother,isfp little sister, esfp and estp cousins istp,isfp,isfj best buddies but a lot of times they can't understand SHIT.And they admit it.As my isfj best friend who said that doesn't want me in his job because i can't do SHIT.The same night me and him was drunk and joking together and bang some chicks also!I have a life outside the internet and these days especially are going to happen a lot of good things to me but inhere i want truths.Hey i forgot new guy here!!Hello people!


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

This topic totally foreign to me. So people are connection that others are against sensors or something? this is foreign to me.

:laughing:


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Except I don't think concrete vs abstract thinking has anything to do with sensation vs intuition and I think that's just another dumb stereotype as if sensors can't deal with abstraction. Ability to abstract is related to intelligence, not sensation or intuition. It only describes the kind of data we prefer to look at i.e. physical vs ideational. An example of concrete intuition is to say the grim reaper represents death. Concrete because it doesn't abstract what death is e.g. the end of life is an abstraction.


I didn't mean to imply that the perceiving function is responsible for abstract or concrete reasoning. Yes it is mostly explained in the g factor. 

I was replying to someone who said engineering was all about details, and I merely stated that from my point of view it is mostly abstract reasoning. And just in case it would be thought that I was saying that was the domain of intuitives, I stated that of course sensors can do it as well. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

Hey also btw I am a sensor and to be honest I am very smart. I can pick up on things fast, learn well and I am your basic bright person... -n- I see that intuitive means you use your brain and "6th. Sense" to make decisions, while sensors use their five senses. Well the five senses are part of your brain! So guess what sensors use their brain a lot too lol


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> IMO, it's built into the theory. What else would you interpret from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know what really annoys me with these questions? There are only two options on each question. Often, I see patterns in things or sort of jump ahead to an answer. But until I've worked through the facts and have an accurate picture, I hold off on an answer. I need evidence to back up my assertions. If I don't have evidence, any patterns mean jack shit without proof. I am pragmatic but I also like doing things that are new and different. And so on and so forth. 

Everyone does these things. Who the hell actually only does one or the other? Isn't everyone a full mix of both? It all varies so much from one situation to the next. The best way to solve a problem is to adapt to the current situation. If you don't have time, find a pattern and go with it. Optimally, I'd have time to theorize, find evidence, discuss, experiment on a smaller scale and reach a consensus. It's time consuming but more likely to make sure that we get the right answer the first time. 

I dislike the nature of questions that only give two options. It's so limiting.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> Nobody claims otherwise, except perhaps this thread that fails to acknowledge mockery that inuitives face as well.
> 
> And I have 'issues' and I'm the villain for ever mentioning it, boo hoo.


Where's your hard evidence that it's sensors that mock you? Where's your evidence that intuitives are more likely to be mocked by sensors? Where do you get off on thinking that it's okay to be typist because you have faced adversity?


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

ridiculous? more like immature, insecure, mental-jerk-off's... 

what's _ridiculous_ is the number of these threads and the intensity to which people take offense. i imagine conversations like this to take place if the government was deciding to euthanize everyone's second-born as a form of population control... not about something that doesn't matter. 

we are both (especially for the perception dominants)--the other half is just "sleeping", waiting to lend an invisible hand.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Dedication said:


> I've read some blogs, I've read some posts and I've met some people who honestly think that Sensors are by definition inferior to intuitives.
> 
> The fuck is wrong with you?


Are you an Uncle Tom?


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 1, 2013)

atypeofuser said:


> This topic totally foreign to me. So people are connection that others are against sensors or something? this is foreign to me.
> 
> :laughing:


I don't get it either. I didn't even know there was a sensor/intuitive battle...totally lost.


----------

