# How can you tell a person is intuitive or sensing?



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Intuition and Sense to me is the hardest to decipher. Granted, a few are very obvious, most people (especially older people) are subtle.

Do you have any trick or question you place in your convo or socializing to determine if a new acquaintance is intuitive or sensing?


----------



## brajenful (Feb 16, 2014)

If you don't understand it at all, it's probably Ni.


----------



## INTJcuriosity (Sep 8, 2014)

It depends:
1- if the person you are talking with like models (of how things work) or psychology I just say I'm trying to type them and explain the basic of the theory, then I say "if you liked it, google MBTI or Cognitive Functions"
2- if the person doesn't like what I said in the #1:
a) if they talk about concrete stuff, I try to theorize what they are talking about. If they can't follow me or change to another topic very quickly they are a sensor.
b) if they talk about theory/theories I try to find pratical applications and reduce the abstract to concrete by asking questions. If they get lost they are intuitive.
3- if I don't have idea if the person likes/hates what I said in #1:
a)quickly look after SJ behavior, if negative:
a.1)look after NF behavior -- may be with black humor(I'll tell the joke),look for empathy…(usually I know when I'm talking to an NF, they have something "magical")
b)How do they walk/talk + body language(*)?(read: the art of speed-reading people/what every BODY is saying/the definitive book of body language)
*Do they display stress signs if I press them with a decision(Ex: what movie do you want to see? No, don't decide later, decide now)
b.1)if I get that they are "J"(by elimination that they are not "P") they are intuitive.
b.2)if I get they are "P" there's no more route, I need to wait and follow my gut instinct.

OBS: if it is hard to know, probably the preference is intuition. From the people I had a hard time typing jut one were a sensor(confirmed by MBTI original test): ISFP wit low preference for sensing.

EDIT: #2 and #3 are used together.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

Good question!! I have similar troubles deciphering the two. Some of the people I get along with the best tested as sensors even though I thought they would definitely be N's for their strong critical thinking about morality.

One way I can tell they are sensors though is if they can't take that something looks a certain way. If they are very offended by the way something looks, they are probably sensors. My writing teacher turned artist told me about how the supports of her roof were dark brown wood and how, "it just looked repressive and I felt like I was in prison! I couldn't stand it so I painted them white. Everyone told me that people don't do that, but I couldn't let it sit there!"


----------



## olonny (Jun 9, 2014)

chanteuse said:


> Intuition and Sense to me is the hardest to decipher. Granted, a few are very obvious, most people (especially older people) are subtle.
> 
> Do you have any trick or question you place in your convo or socializing to determine if a new acquaintance is intuitive or sensing?


I have a lot of trouble too distinguishing between S and N, but I guess there are a few things that help me discover if I'm dealing with an intuitive or a sensing.

- If they love to explore about their possibilities in the future, how their lives would look like in a long distant period, *THEY ARE PROBABLY N*.
- If it’s all about details, if they can perfectly remember what the other person was wearing, what colours, what material their bag was made of, * THEY ARE PROBABLY S*
- If they don’t like fantastic stories/books/series or, especially, if they may like them but they don’t enjoy discussing about them for hours, what the story might have turned out to be, what the characters are truly like… to sum up, if they don’t enjoy things that don’t exist *THEY ARE PROBABLY S*
- If someone can notice when another person is too evasive, uses irony to show how little they like a specific individual, *THEY ARE PROBABLY N*


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

You were looking for your keys and after 30 minutes of search you finally found them. In the next 30 seconds you are gonna lose them again, another 30 minutes of search, literally. If this happens quite often to you, then you are probably an intuitive. 
It's like you are walking, moving, entering places, looking for exits, visiting them again, playing tunes and words, but you are not here with us, you see forms but you can't figure out their shape, those objects are there for a reason but what's your purpose?, you sense something but what is it?. In other words you may see the keys but you don't notice they are the object you are looking for.
That's basically the main reason why i think i'm one.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

olonny said:


> I have a lot of trouble too distinguishing between S and N, but I guess there are a few things that help me discover if I'm dealing with an intuitive or a sensing.
> 
> - If they love to explore about their possibilities in the future, how their lives would look like in a long distant period, *THEY ARE PROBABLY N*.
> - If it’s all about details, if they can perfectly remember what the other person was wearing, what colours, what material their bag was made of, * THEY ARE PROBABLY S*
> ...


Well I'll be damned!

I used to wonder why the guys I had dated all have better recall than I. They remembered my outfit, what I said, what I did, what food we had shared, etc. etc. etc.. While I always have a hard time remembering the world I inhabited. After I found out my type I typed my ex BFs. They turned out to be Sensers.

I just haven't seen the correlation between their recall ability with being Sensers.

That's why I aspire to be a spy. I admire their ability to survey the world to remember every detail Big and small. The physical detail only bothers me when I feel stressed out. I'd be obsessed about order and cleanliness, ignoring what really is the issue.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

A superficial way that should work most times is to look at their hobbies.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

emberfly said:


> A superficial way that should work most times is to look at their hobbies.


And maybe the motivation for engaging in a certain hobby.


----------



## 90626 (Apr 17, 2014)

Worriedfunction said:


> And maybe the motivation for engaging in a certain hobby.


I think that is a great approach. ENFJ and ESFJ may have similar interests/hobbies but the motivation is different.

An ENTJ and I were discussing our shared volunteer work with an animal rescue foundation last week. Our motivations for helping are quite different as is our volunteer approach to the cause.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Have a conversation with them, somehow jump onto the topic of how the world is going to end, or where humanity is heading, or ask them what they think the meaning of life is. Maybe ask them who they think they are.

If the conversation fizzles down to what they did on the weekend, or their favourite football team, or they leave because they're bored and not interested, you may have a sensor.

If they're still talking to you three hours later and lost track of the time there's a good chance they're an intuitive.


----------



## Egil (Nov 1, 2014)

Being an N, I find that when I talk to others who are N's it is like we are communicating on the same wavelength. When I talk to S's not so much....


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

olonny said:


> I have a lot of trouble too distinguishing between S and N, but I guess there are a few things that help me discover if I'm dealing with an intuitive or a sensing.
> 
> - If they love to explore about their possibilities in the future, how their lives would look like in a long distant period, *THEY ARE PROBABLY N*.


Doesn't have to be N. Anyone is capable of thinking about and planning the future. 



> - If it’s all about details, if they can perfectly remember what the other person was wearing, what colours, what material their bag was made of, * THEY ARE PROBABLY S*


S isn't about detailed memory.



> - If they don’t like fantastic stories/books/series or, especially, if they may like them but they don’t enjoy discussing about them for hours, what the story might have turned out to be, what the characters are truly like… to sum up, if they don’t enjoy things that don’t exist *THEY ARE PROBABLY S*


Seems more like you correlate N with Ne and S with Se here. Ni would also be as quick to dismiss this for example. Also, concrete thinking isn't the same as S either. 



> - If someone can notice when another person is too evasive, uses irony to show how little they like a specific individual, *THEY ARE PROBABLY N*


That's just emotional intelligence lol.

The actual way of determining whether someone favors intuition or sensation is to study what kind of data they are prone orienting themselves towards when describing and interacting with their environment. Intuition is about whence it came and wither it goes, meaning that it would seek to conjure phantasmal images that are entirely unrelated to the situation at hand. The below quotes are how Jung defined intuition and sensation:



> Intuition
> Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.
> Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition. Thinking, feeling, and sensation are relatively repressed; of these, sensation is the one principally affected, because, as the conscious function of sense, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition. Sensation disturbs intuition's clear, unbiassed, na[umlaut]ive awareness with its importunate sensuous stimuli; for these direct the glance upon the physical superficies, hence upon the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.
> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fullysatisfied. Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.





> Intuition
> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the cooperation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.
> Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.
> ...





> Sensation
> Sensation, in the extraverted attitude, is most definitely conditioned by the object. As sense-perception, sensation is naturally dependent upon the object. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent upon the subject; hence, there is also a subjective sensation, which after its kind is entirely different from the objective. In the extraverted attitude this subjective share of sensation, in so far as its conscious application is concerned, is either inhibited or repressed. As an irrational function, sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them. The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object. Sensation, therefore, is a vital function, equipped with the potentest [sic] vital instinct. In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete. Hence, the orientation of such an individual corresponds with purely concrete reality. The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and, accordingly, possess the qualities of inferior differentiation, i.e. they are marked by a certain negativity, with infantile and archaic tendencies. The function most affected by the repression, is, naturally, the one standing opposite to sensation, viz. intuition, the function of unconscious perception.





> Sensation
> Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. 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. Such qualities betray a more or less influential cooperation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object. 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. Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness—it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for whom the subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

I determine the difference by taking a close look at what exactly it is that they're observing (or possibly get shocked/occasionally frustrated if you happen to not do the same). 

Most *Se* I've met will pick up on the very subtle. I've had an ESTP ask me about a tiny scar I genuinely didn't even know I had. They're the type of people probably most likely to notice money on the ground. Very "there" while observing movies they're interested in and good at recalling physical details in them. I've noticed a lot of the males around me who had it had a thing for sort of... applying themselves to their environment (they'll see a poll and maybe jump up and grab it, etc). I've had an ISFP be slightly frustrated at me for not noticing any of this. She's discussed being very aware of her environment, what's happening around it etc. They might pick up on subtle sort of actions in the environment better than others (say they see someone getting pick-pocketed etc). They're very present and it'll be obvious in the way they discuss things and what exactly they discuss. 

Most *Si* I've met had an incredibly sort of specific "forensic" sort of ability. She'll come to me room and notice when something is changed, when I added something to it, took something away. She'll be able to pick up on outfits I've never worn before. Very very specific with taste (she can easily call out when something is "a little too spicy" "too salty" "needs a little more X"). My aunt will automatically notice if the house has been vacuumed or not. It depends on what the specific individual with Si focus is on. But these sort of things will generally stand out when they verbalize it. 

These sort of things make it fairly obvious for me to determine which exactly they are. But I think I pick up on them in individuals possibly quicker because it's almost a sort of "wow" since it's very different from what I have.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Involving the intuitives and experiences with them. 

Most *Ne* I've met were very reactive (and I don't mean that in some sort of emotional, sensitive way). The mentally bounciest of all the other. They're the quickest to sort of take vagueness and create something out of it (ex: say a random phrase and they'll figure out a way to make some sort of sense or possibly invention out of it.) They're quickest to sort of... pick up on possibility in something which in it's current state lacks it (ability to see improvement and possible growth better than some). I have a ENxP friend like this. And it's really a never ending sort of string. X is to Y is to J is to M is to B. I will keep up and eventually just sort of wish I could strangle her. We can be sitting there and she will be quickly flipping topics, she's come up with countless after countless of possible youtube videos that I and her can make. There's not a particular amount of genuine meaning or depth in it, it's just sort of a flipping quality and a 'fresh' unique one at that often. enthusiasm after enthusiasm and may often get lost in it. When observed by others it may be difficult to sort of patchy and unconnected even though it all is. It's a very 'glowing' sort of function. 

I understand what *Ni* is in others when around them but I can't really express how it comes off. There will be certain things which you can only discuss with them and no one else but them and you'll just sort of know it. I believe it's sort of... something you just sort of... hmm. It's a sort of incorporation of everything. It isn't a sort of always active bam bam bam like Ne. The energy won't be as enthusiastic but it'll have a grand sort of depth to it that may not necessarily come off as obvious right away. I have a xNTJ friend I am close to and we go hiking often and then just sort of sit up on the mountain. There is something far more personal about it than with Ne. It's a sort of... incorporation of past present future and produces 'essence'. It's not bouncing 'possibilities or what could be' it's sort of... that sort of "aha" moment discussed is produced by the sort of... pulling into together of all suddently and then all set. I sort of see it as something which speeds and speeds with time. Kind of start off.. slow and then somehow triggered and turbo speed (creating the sort of 'out of no where' deal) It incorporates to something much bigger and developed... perspectives, I guess, interpretations in a sense through the observation of current society. There is something sort of 'surface quality there' about Ne ideas which lack in the Ni. It's not as interested in the creation of multiple and reproduction of creation, it's interested much more in sort of cores. Anyway, it's just as distinct as all the others. I wish I was more articulate to be able to express it as better and in a more tangible way. I hope that's somewhat helpful. But it is very very distinct when you know what to look for.

Anyone feel free to correct if I'm wrong about anything in particular.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

Sensors gotta sense
Intuitors gotta intuit
Potatoes gotta potate


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

All right; the epitome *Se*: I went walking yesterday with my cousin and saw a large boulder. I wanted to climb the boulder for the sake of climbing the boulder. I was not wearing sneakers or climbing shoes. I didn't care. I just wanted the rush of climbing, and I was too confident in my own abilities. I climbed the boulder, got to the top, basked in all my five senses, started to climb down, caught my heel on a rock, and fell hard onto my right foot, leaving me a sprained foot, ankle, and hairline fracture. Even so, I stuck the landing. 

*Si *tends to be more cautious and not as competitive as Se. extremely detail oriented and believes in doing it right the first time. While all types can create comparisons, Si is more likely to imply the past onto the present; i.e. my istj father believes very much that the "working man and stay-at-home woman" model was effective; something I totally disagree with {because it doesn't make sense to my Ti, and my high Fi finds that notion abhorrent.} 

*Ne *jumps and leaps between ideas. Can often be whimsical. {I think of Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter} Some of my Ne dom/aux friends can make some thirty connections and references within one sentence--leaving me to try and interpret what it is they're trying to say. Ne-doms also tend to see tons and tons of possibilities, for better or for worse. 

*Ni *is visionary and dedicated to those visions; they make those visions happen, so they're not necessarily Gandalf or Dumbledore; but they can tend to be bossy to try and achieve those goals; a healthier Ni dom/aux is just tremendously driven. Ni doms/auxes are fairly rare. My intj friend often snaps at me at random; she's devastated that she hasn't achieved her goals by 23 {married with kids--that's just a very strange goal to me} and often brings this up--she lets everybody know her vision through her Te; and it is totally unwavering. 

But yeah, there's different kinds of sensing, and different kinds of intuition. and on top of it, every sensor has some level of intuition, and every intuitive has some level of sensing. It really helps to read about the functions.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

Intuitors act sophisticated and sensors don't.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

YamahaMotors said:


> Intuitors act sophisticated and sensors don't.


Wrong :dry:


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm an N and my husband is an S.

How you can usually distinguish is by how they retell/summarize experiences.

N's like myself then to *get to the point *of the story fairly quickly. Mentioning only the more basic and intergral parts to the story. N's also discuss abstract ideas quite often. Topics like *philosophy, morality*, asking questions to justify supports, discussing the definitions of certain ideas.

S's like my husband like to *immerse the listener *into their world. They describe a great amount of detail involving the senses. What they saw or heard, what someone said and how they said it. They like to discuss things that are *tangible *(like the features of their favourite vehicle). They spend a great deal of time flourishing experiences so that they can accurately portray the feelings and meanings to the listener.

My quick rough shorthanded way (and this may not always be accurate - and doesn't take the details of introverted/extroverted sensing/intuitive functions into account) is to engage in conversation.
S's discuss tangible and immediate topics. N's discuss what-if's and reasons behind reasons.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

emberfly said:


> A superficial way that should work most times is to look at their hobbies.


Estimating whether S/N based upon an individuals hobbies may not be very reliable, but offer an example if you wouldn't mind too much.


----------



## Sharpnel (Aug 3, 2014)

According to the main website, the ones on cloud nine are usually the intuitive people (a.k.a furniture-tackler).
The ones walking around blindfolded as if they memorized the path are sensing people.

Okay, bad joke.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

It is interesting how with some people it's really obvious and with others it's very difficult to tell. I probably can't offer anything that hasn't been heard before and which sounds kind of stereotypical.... you can't reduce people to stereotypes of course, but the stereotypes exist because of general trends. 

I feel like usually I just experience a kind of mutual 'spark' when meeting another intuitive - at least in a situation that is more than a formal introduction, one where there is actual conversation involved - and the conversation usually just naturally falls into and flows along the 'abstract' vein. They will often introduce, or pick up the thought-threads that take a concrete conversation in the theoretical direction with ease. When this seems to be the norm when talking with that person I think it's generally a good sign that they are Intuitives. Not that I don't know Ss who can enjoy these types of conversations, but I tend to get a sense that they don't usually _initiate_ the theoretical conversations as much themselves and get bored of such topics a little more quickly, while intuitives seem to just keep sparking new theories and speculations to put forth and just keep it going. I feel like I may start with a specific story or information about everyday stuff but this will usually lead my thoughts off into general observations about culture or mankind or 'meaning of life' sort of ideas, often speculating about how opinions or worldviews developed or where they could end up in another hundred years or how they influence other areas of life and other ideas. When I start in with speculating like this I feel like my N friends will catch on and have their own ideas sparked and will offer those, while more often it seems like the Sensors I know will focus more on clarifying what I am saying and asking me questions or sharing something that they recall reading or hearing, rather than throwing their own new thoughts out there on the spot. I'm not saying they don't have their own ideas or opinions, but that their focus _during the conversation_ is not so much on generating or refining their own ideas out loud as it is on taking in the data you are providing and sharing data they have and they may also seem to get frustrated when I'm seeming to make something really complicated and they want to sum it up in a nice easy saying that can be applied to actual situations. Sometimes they also seem to 'argue' with general observations because they think I'm still talking about the specific situation that sparked my thought and if my generalizing doesn't exactly fit the situation then they will point that out - at which point I often have to clarify that I'm not actually just talking about that anymore, and then they often seem to get a little frustrated with me for making that jump or seem less engaged because the general seems less relevant and I get the impression that they wonder why I'm still talking about this then. 

Also, I feel like the intuitive people I know at least are less likely to make much conversation about what they are doing or what you have been doing, when they do tell you some of these details of their lives it's because they are illustrating or getting at a 'deeper' concept behind them, whereas I feel like the sensing people I know don't need a 'deeper' reason to want to share information about what they've been up to - it feels like the simple relating of events is an important way for them to share in your life which stands on it's own. For example with my ISFP mother-in-law (who I'm close to) 'catching up' conversations usually consist of her being eager to tell me about how her garden is doing and that she got a really huge zuccinni this year, that the lake is starting to freeze over now, that she went into town the other day with a friend to see a movie, that she's thinking she needs to go through things and get rid of some stuff, that she's been experimenting with making bread, etc. and she wants to ask what I have been doing and is genuinely interested in hearing me relate my day-to-day experience of life. In contrast with my INFP friend 'catching up' conversations are more likely to start out with something like: I've started reading this new author and she has a really interesting perspective on the world which gave me this idea for a new story I've been thinking about which is mainly illustrating a culture in which families don't just pass down the family name but the new generation is actually a reincarnation of the grandparents that died before they were born so they're really the same people just having sort of a different start in life so you can see how circumstances shape a person in comparison to their natural personality. The main character is a young man coming to grips with how he raised his son who is now raising him and dealing with the idea of being consistent to his previous beliefs vs. allowing himself to change and grow with the new perspective he has. And then I'll start in with ideas about this like asking questions about how much they remember from their previous life and how much they have to re-learn a children, or perhaps how her story reminds me of some observation I had the other day about a different culture while watching some movie, and maybe she'll respond with speculating about how that culture could have gotten that way, etc. And at the end of the conversation it's likely neither of us knows anything about how her sister got engaged or how the city chopped off half the tree in their front yard because it was too close to the phone lines, or how she's had a cold the last week and a half, or how I've been enjoying all the fall leaves and experimenting with making homemade soup or that my husband is being trained for a new position at work, or how they had a horrible storm back where my mom lives and now she has to repair her brand new house only a couple weeks after moving in. My ISFP mother-in-law would never forget to share details about what's going on in her life, and _might_ mention some 'abstract' things she's been thinking about if they feel really significant to her life, while my INFP friend would never forget to share the exciting new things she's been contemplating, and _might_ mention some of the concrete stuff going on in her life if it seemed important enough, like something I'd _need_ to know about. 

I feel like my intuitive friends primarily get together just to Talk, while the sensing people i know are a lot more likely to plan something to Do together. That could just be the people I know, but it seems like such a trend would make sense being related to S vs. N. It's like a difference of _focusing_ on sharing ideas vs. sharing experiences (obviously both happen with everyone, the focus is just different). When spending time with friends, I feel like I notice that Intuitive people seem to mainly be satisfied by feeling like they have gained further understanding of something or had a really interesting thought, the Sensing people seem to mainly be satisfied by feeling like they have accomplished something with a tangible result or have experienced something new.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> Involving the intuitives and experiences with them.
> 
> Most *Ne* I've met were very reactive (and I don't mean that in some sort of emotional, sensitive way). The mentally bounciest of all the other. They're the quickest to sort of take vagueness and create something out of it (ex: say a random phrase and they'll figure out a way to make some sort of sense or possibly invention out of it.) They're quickest to sort of... pick up on possibility in something which in it's current state lacks it (ability to see improvement and possible growth better than some). I have a ENxP friend like this. And it's really a never ending sort of string. X is to Y is to J is to M is to B. I will keep up and eventually just sort of wish I could strangle her. We can be sitting there and she will be quickly flipping topics, she's come up with countless after countless of possible youtube videos that I and her can make. There's not a particular amount of genuine meaning or depth in it, it's just sort of a flipping quality and a 'fresh' unique one at that often. enthusiasm after enthusiasm and may often get lost in it. When observed by others it may be difficult to sort of patchy and unconnected even though it all is. It's a very 'glowing' sort of function.
> 
> ...


I think you hit the nail on the head. I talked to an ENTP woman today. I don't even know what to think. There is no plan of action for that. I told her, "You are so unstructured, it drives me crazy. It disturbs me." I was joking, but wow. I know I am uptight, but she is like a baseline that really drives it home. 

I have profiles of people. I know our history, and all that. I adjust to each person. It is a continuing story. We pick up where we left off before.

Both are totally out of control. I had somebody refer to me as "philosophical telegraph". I am choppy.


----------



## pukeyshibas (Dec 10, 2013)

marbleous said:


> One way I can tell they are sensors though is if they can't take that something looks a certain way. If they are very offended by the way something looks, they are probably sensors. My writing teacher turned artist told me about how the supports of her roof were dark brown wood and how, "it just looked repressive and I felt like I was in prison! I couldn't stand it so I painted them white. Everyone told me that people don't do that, but I couldn't let it sit there!"


That seems to make sense but I feel like that could just be Se? I dunno, I have an INTJ friend who is like that. He cares about food presentation. He got annoyed because he didn't like the way my hair looked one time. If he likes generally likes something, but an aesthetic detail of it is off, it's a significant factor for his overall opinion of said thing. It's odd to me. I don't understand it. Even when I notice small visual details, which I almost never do, I don't think much of them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

pukeyshibas said:


> That seems to make sense but I feel like that could just be Se? I dunno, I have an INTJ friend who is like that. He cares about food presentation. He got annoyed because he didn't like the way my hair looked one time. If he likes generally likes something, but an aesthetic detail of it is off, it's a significant factor for his overall opinion of said thing. It's odd to me. I don't understand it. Even when I notice small visual details, which I almost never do, I don't think much of them.


Details being out of place annoys me too. My father too. He is an INTJ. Very anal about hygiene and that sort of thing. But doesn't pay attention to other stuff. 

You could have a ghost drive my car for a minute, leave nothing changed or anything. I can tell somebody has driven it. Something is off. Little imperfections can annoy me a lot. I think it may be because Ni is like warp speed. We hone in on those cracks. The first thing I do when I walk into any environment, is see everything wrong with it. Every error in the place. It is like a murder scene. And it can't be cleaned up. Ever. Though I sometimes try.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I was just thinking of the difference between Ni vs Ne, and it reminds me of diffusion. Because Ni is the most concentrated thing ever. All it does is expand on others, because that is all it can do. Where else can it go? It has to go out and get bigger. I try to break everything. I put my weight on it, and see if it can support me. Nearly everything breaks. What happens when it breaks? I fall. I crash to the ground. Ne is the opposite. It is like this pollen that just floats aimlessly, continually spreading out, perhaps eventually into nothingness. It is looking to be ordered. It is so asking for it. 

I put this stuff to the test. I push Ni so hard on people. It buries them. I can tell you I have every world religion totally figured out, and explain it in less than a minute. I think I can anyway. Nearly every other subject anyone else is talking about too. Of course that overwhelms people. I did that today, and she kept taking it. Never seen that before. Usually it just shuts everybody up and kills the conversation. Because I think conversations are things where people communicate for information. So I provide that. 

So Ne is like this furious buzzsaw. You see it in movies where the person is trapped, and gonna get cut up. Everything is eaten by it. And Ni is this rock that cannot be pushed back. So this blade is used to going through everything, and this rock is used to breaking through everything, and then they meet. Neither object was designed with the other in mind. 

The most left picture is Ni. It has to balance out with something. It will try all ways. Many of them are not good.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Mollusk said:


> I think that is a great approach. ENFJ and ESFJ may have similar interests/hobbies but the motivation is different.
> 
> An ENTJ and I were discussing our shared volunteer work with an animal rescue foundation last week. Our motivations for helping are quite different as is our volunteer approach to the cause.


Asking a motivation also challenges people to really think about it, well some people. I have met those who blow off the question with something simple and a bit superficial. But then again maybe their motivation really is as simple as they claim, which is not a bad thing.


----------



## tsyspublic (Sep 28, 2014)

> A superficial way that should work most times is to look at their hobbies.


100% agree
hobbies tells 90% of his functions, that is why employers require that question in the resume.

a n example: if someone goes deep in a hobby and become pro in this point you will find his dominant function.


----------

