# Am I S or N?



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm almost certain on my other three preferences, but this one eternally confuses me. Here's a few things that point towards me being either:

*Sensation*
- I live very much in the present, I hate thinking of the future.
- I have very sensitive senses, usually I'm the first to realise a change in the surroundings 
- I have a lot of appreciation for aesthetic beauty in the real world
- I don't usually think about what things could be, I like things as they are and don't like thinking about how they could be changed/improved. I _can_ think of those things, it just doesn't occur naturally when I see something. I appreciate the world for what it is.

*Intuition*
- I've always been told I have a wild imagination, and that leads me to creating many fantasy images in my mind
- I'm often lost in thought and daydreaming, but I'm not completely oblivious to my environment like some intuitives
- Sometimes I get a gut feeling about something, and act on it. Half of the time it ends up being wrong, though.
- I often see the big picture rather than the details. Unless I'm in a new place, I don't start scanning my environment for details of something. I've always been told I have great attention to detail, though. I've always struggled with figuring out whether I see the big picture or details, actually.

I've looked up cognitive functions, and yes, it turns out I use Se and Ne both pretty well. They've both come naturally to me since a pretty early age.

As I said before, I supposedly have a wild imagination, but I also get told I have a ridiculously good memory for sensual information. I never forget what something tasted or smelled like, and I could describe places I've been before down to the very last detail. Is that Se at work? On the other hand, I'm interested in what could be true and am able to make connections somewhat easily - fairly Ne-like. The thing is, when I find a possibility, I strive to find whether it's true or not, so I can pin it down to a fact. Then my mind feels accomplished.

I have the dreamy and free-flowing mind of an NF, but also the present-living and fun-loving mentality of an SP. It's confusing the hell out of me. Have any of you been in this situation before? What's a really easy way to distinguish yourself between S and N?

Any help is much appreciated! :frustrating:
-


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

> On the other hand, I'm interested in what could be true and am able to make connections somewhat easily - fairly Ne-like.


Types with a function as their dominant find that that function is almost automatic; not "I make connections somewhat easily" but "I connect everything with something else" (by the way, my example could actually be characteristic of an introverted perception dominant like INXJs or ISXJs). 



> The thing is, when I find a possibility, I strive to find whether it's true or not, so I can pin it down to a fact. Then my mind feels accomplished.


Find out whether it's true- reminds me of T, but I want to know; what do you mean by "finding whether it's true or not"? What criteria do you use?


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I had some trouble with this one too. I found myself asking the same questions as you. I realized my mistake. It's important to remember that all of us sense and use intuition. There's a lot of stereotypes out there about Sensors. 

Most of what I'm going to say is coming from this thread : http://personalitycafe.com/enfp-forum-inspirers/90581-enfp-versus-esfp-common-stereotypes.html . I've already done some thinking on this particular matter. XD

One is the details versus big picture. I used to think this too until Spades rephrased this. _Most_ people prefer the bigger picture, however they mean different things by saying they want the "big picture". Here's a quote:



> *Se* sees everything in the present moment as it is. The big picture is how all the sensory elements tie together in that moment.
> *Ne* sees everything in the present moment as it could be. The big picture is how all the implied ideas tie together in that moment.
> *Si* sees everything as a continuous process, accumulating from the past to the present moment. The big picture is the process.
> *Ni* sees everything as an unfolding process, projecting from the present moment into the future. The big picture is the process.
> ...


Also, don't pay attention to the stereotype saying that Sensors are better with hands-on learning stuff and prefer things to be "concrete". This is touching on the three different learning styles: auditory, kinesthetic, and visual. The fact is, only 5% of the population is kinesthetic, 30% is auditory, and 65% is visual. If Sensors tended to be more kinesthetic and auditory, we'd see much less of them. Many iNtuitives are kinesthetic, and many Sensors are visual. It can also be the other way around. Kinesthetic learners by nature learn best when presented with something concrete, or by simply jumping in and "doing it". 

Rather, I think when it comes to learning it is better to focus on the How and the Why. Sensors generally learn best by learning the "How" first, and only then do they best grasp the "Why". For iNtuitives it is the opposite - they must learn the "Why" to fully grasp "How". You can see this best in subjects like math. 

Also, there's the silly stereotype that iNtuitives are more clumsy and out of it than Sensors. Please do not believe it. Both can be clumsy, they just have different reasons generally as to _why_ they are clumsy. ^^ Haha. A Sensing type may be more clumsy because they get so preoccupied with something such as talking or looking at something that they will do something klutzy. An iNtuitive type may be more clumsy because they get so lost in their mind that they do something klutzy.

My ESTJ sister comments that after we come back from a social event, I don't necessarily remember what people wore, what coloured eyes they had, etc (although it is possible artsy iNtuitives would), but I do remember conversations I had and all things related to Feelings. I'm not entirely sure if that helps you or not. I notice that most NF types would agree to this.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Owfin said:


> Find out whether it's true- reminds me of T, but I want to know; what do you mean by "finding whether it's true or not"? What criteria do you use?


Say there's a sudden breakthrough in the world of medical science that could change the way hospitals treat cancer. It'd really interest me to read it at first, but after that, I'd forget about it. The real interest comes when it's proven as true, and actually works. I won't actually go into research to figure out for myself if it's true, I'll just let the experts dwell on that. I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's how it works for me.

@JuliaBell, thanks for your post, it's cleared a lot of things up. From that quote by Spades, I do relate to Se the most. I can't relate to Si and Ni because they think of something as a changing process, and I do use Ne in that context sometimes, but it doesn't come naturally. What's natural for me is to look at something and think "It is what it is - that looks nice."

The bit about how and why does make sense, too. Usually I don't think why until I've learned how, but there are some exceptions. 

Your last paragraph is very helpful too, I've just been out to eat and I can remember details of the place we went - the decor was mostly red and brown, pans and kitchen equpiment were hung on the walls, there was a guy on the table next to us with dark brown curly hair and wearing all blue clothes, who had a mother dressed in yellow and a father with grey-ish clothes... the waitress had brown hair lazily tied up... you get the idea. 

From what you've posted, I do lean more towards Se, as I had originally thought, but your post helped me confirm that! The only things that really convince me I'm an iNtuitive are my daydreaming habits and love of the surreal.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> Say there's a sudden breakthrough in the world of medical science that could change the way hospitals treat cancer. It'd really interest me to read it at first, but after that, I'd forget about it. The real interest comes when it's proven as true, and actually works. I won't actually go into research to figure out for myself if it's true, I'll just let the experts dwell on that. I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's how it works for me.


Hmm, I think you are Se then. You want things to be actualized before you put stock in them.


----------



## apprehended (Sep 24, 2010)

Have you given any thought to your "intuitive" experiences just simply being tertiary Ni?


----------



## Enormous Hatred (Jul 29, 2011)

I think you're an INFP who is sort of "stuck" on tertiary Si. What you describe about yourself in terms of sensation is internalized impressions. "I'm the first to realize a change in surroundings" would generally be recognized as an Si thing. You also said "Sometimes I get a gut feeling about something", which is often associated with intuition (and feeling, which speaks to the lack of distinction in "feeling" terms—don't fall into this trap). But it can also be Si in the same sense as the prior example. If your databank doesn't hold a similar experience (or holds one that conflicts with reality), you will experience conflict in your perceptions. Ni experiences routine from a fresh perspective each and every time.



> I also get told I have a ridiculously good memory for sensual information. I never forget what something tasted or smelled like, and I could describe places I've been before down to the very last detail. Is that Se at work?


No, that is also Si. It is dealing with your own subjective sense of what you've experienced.

I think what happened here is you realized you identify most with Feeling and Sensation and took this to mean you are ISFP, but what really happened was you came to neglect your sense of change in the _immediate _context (Ne) and now instead focus on how your internally perceive these differences (Si). Fi paired with Si would point to INFP (or ISTJ depending on how you look at it).

Tell me if this analysis sounds anything like yourself.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm 100% sure you are a sensor. Most of the descriptions you described in iNtuitive are what Sensors are capable of doing. When you have sex with someone, do you like to go along with the flow, letting each other's actions take it to the next thing, or do you start imagining a lot of things around you during sex. iNtuitives think of possibilities during sex. 

You may be a hybrid like me. I'm borderline between S/N as well as E/I.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

@Enormous Hatred, I've read about dominant-tertiary loops, I identify with both Fi-Ni and Fi-Si, oddly enough. I used to be a lot more avoidant than I am now, but it's still there a little in the form of social anxiety. As for Fi-Ni, I do get paranoid over certain things, but I never let that get the better of me. I always have a little paranoid thought in the back of my mind, even if it's irrational. Either way, I don't think I have enough Se or Ne as I'm supposed to.

Could you describe more how Si supposedly differentiates from Ne in terms of perception? I don't think Si comes naturally to me, using Si supposedly involves seeing something as a continuous changing process. I don't really see that, I just think of something new as being there, and that's it.

@Coke, anything in particular that makes you think so? Though I suppose the previous answers of most people are agreeing that I'm a sensor too.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I think you are Se too. This stood out to me:



> I don't usually think about what things could be, I like things as they are and don't like thinking about how they could be changed/improved. I _can_ think of those things, it just doesn't occur naturally when I see something. I appreciate the world for what it is.


I think this is pretty much Se. I mean, you are definitely capable of thinking of improvements, it's just not where you go first.

Other things like gut feelings can just as easily be Ni. Perhaps you even have a well-developed Ni, so SeNi can look Ne-ish? I don't know. But you seem Se to me.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Kitzara said:


> @Enormous Hatred, I've read about dominant-tertiary loops, I identify with both Fi-Ni and Fi-Si, oddly enough. I used to be a lot more avoidant than I am now, but it's still there a little in the form of social anxiety. As for Fi-Ni, I do get paranoid over certain things, but I never let that get the better of me. I always have a little paranoid thought in the back of my mind, even if it's irrational. Either way, I don't think I have enough Se or Ne as I'm supposed to.
> 
> Could you describe more how Si supposedly differentiates from Ne in terms of perception? I don't think Si comes naturally to me, using Si supposedly involves seeing something as a continuous changing process. I don't really see that, I just think of something new as being there, and that's it.
> 
> @Coke, anything in particular that makes you think so? Though I suppose the previous answers of most people are agreeing that I'm a sensor too.


My INFP friend thinks about the issues going around the world and has a YouTube channel dedicated to it. He links various issues to non-related issues--an Ne trait. My ISFP friend has a vivid imagination of a beautiful magical place. She is very into Disney, due to the fantastical nature of the film. She loves the stories, animation, voice acting, and every little detail about the films. My INFP friend sees past this, and notices the issues and ideas that are present in the films. For example, in Snow White, the ISFP friend loves the look of the place, the characters, the sheer imaginative grand scale the film contains. My INFP friend loves the idea portrayed in the film--don't trust old hags.

Anyone could have vivid imagination. Saying that only Ne has imagination, then are Se's just dumbfuck computers who only say the most obvious sensory things? "Oh hey, it's an elephant. It's gray. It's fat. I has two horns. Yup. I have no imagination whatsoever cuz I'm not Ne. DERP!!!"

MBTI is a dangerous tool if you don't know how to use it the way it's supposed to be used.

I ate the cake. The cake is the truth.


----------



## Enormous Hatred (Jul 29, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> Could you describe more how Si supposedly differentiates from Ne in terms of perception? I don't think Si comes naturally to me, using Si supposedly involves seeing something as a continuous changing process. I don't really see that, I just think of something new as being there, and that's it.


Si and Ne are functional opposites, but it should be said that in spite of this they are complementary viewpoints.

When you "switch on" the Si mindset, you're going to look at some new piece of data in front of you and relate it to something you already know. This is how the connection is formed: You'll be able to identify with whatever it is because it resonates with you in respect to an impression you've stored (this is the basis of learning—you need a reference point or else the data is isolated and therefore incomprehensible).

The Ne mindset, on the other hand, is oriented toward the future. It is entirely dependent on what is currently happening, but it's trying to figure out what could occur (please note that Ne is quite similar to Se in the sense that both are mostly dependent on external perceptions, or "the environment"). It's funny that you attributed "continuous changing process" to Si when in fact this is the perfect description of Ne. But as I said, the two functions are two sides of the same coin, and one can't exist without one another. Without Si, Ne would be stuck on changing and toying with things and not even contrast it to old ways that were possibly superior. Without Ne, Si is stuck just doing what's familiar without considering any implications.

Hope that answered the question well enough. I also feel the need to state I borrowed a few points from @simulatedworld's function analysis (who incidentally also wrote that dominant-tertiary loop article). Edit: I tried to link to this other forum where he posted it, but it censored the URL. So I guess I'll just give him a mention and be on my way.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

> Say there's a sudden breakthrough in the world of medical science that could change the way hospitals treat cancer. It'd really interest me to read it at first, but after that, I'd forget about it. The real interest comes when it's proven as true, and actually works. I won't actually go into research to figure out for myself if it's true, I'll just let the experts dwell on that. I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's how it works for me.


See that's why I think I'm more of an N. I would be interested in it until it was proven true, and became standard practice. Once it was standard practice, I would view it as dull and go onto the next idea.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> "I'm the first to realize a change in surroundings" would generally be recognized as an Si thing.


This is so totally Se - hello, it's referencing the environment 100% directly.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> No, that is also Si. It is dealing with your own subjective sense of what you've experienced.


No. What the OP was describing were very objective sensory memories, like smell, taste, etc. Si is highly impressionistic perception that goes beyond the literal, even in memories. It isn't memory.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Enormous Hatred said:


> When you "switch on" the Si mindset, you're going to look at some new piece of data in front of you and relate it to something you already know. This is how the connection is formed: You'll be able to identify with whatever it is because it resonates with you in respect to an impression you've stored (this is the basis of learning—you need a reference point or else the data is isolated and therefore incomprehensible).


The thing is about Si is that to Si, it's perception of reality = reality. You look at the thing in front of you and identify with your internal conception of it. You know how in grammar, a linking verb + a predicate nominative/adjective renames the subject as the predicate? It's a lot like that. 



LiquidLight said:


> Introverted Sensing is the projection of your own manifestation of an archetype onto an object so that in essence your own personal perception of the object (the fire is inviting - an archetypal reference relating your own manifestation of what _inviting_ is) becomes more important than the intrinsic qualities of the object (the fire is hot or orange). Extraverted Sensing simply sees the object as it is, without projecting anything more into it. So introverted sensing becomes a highly impressionistic perception, wherein how an object comes across to you takes precedence. So for example Ansel Adams would likely be a Se-type capturing the object as is, where Monet or Van Gogh would most certainly be Si-types (in fact Jung uses Van Gogh as a reference for Introverted Sensing).


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Coke said:


> My INFP friend thinks about the issues going around the world and has a YouTube channel dedicated to it. He links various issues to non-related issues--an Ne trait. My ISFP friend has a vivid imagination of a beautiful magical place. She is very into Disney, due to the fantastical nature of the film. She loves the stories, animation, voice acting, and every little detail about the films. My INFP friend sees past this, and notices the issues and ideas that are present in the films. For example, in Snow White, the ISFP friend loves the look of the place, the characters, the sheer imaginative grand scale the film contains. My INFP friend loves the idea portrayed in the film--don't trust old hags.


That's an angle I've never looked at it from. Reading that, I relate more to your ISFP friend - I'd enjoy the imagination, colours and design of the film. I might consider the real meaning behind it if somebody else mentions it, though. Whenever we'd have story time in primary school, we'd always get asked at the end what the moral of the story was, and I'd never be able to figure it out. I'd just enjoy the story and the scenes involved!



Owfin said:


> The thing is about Si is that to Si, it's perception of reality = reality. You look at the thing in front of you and identify with your internal conception of it. You know how in grammar, a linking verb + a predicate nominative/adjective renames the subject as the predicate? It's a lot like that.


That's actually really interesting. I never knew Si was so... complex? I don't know what to call it, but I didn't realise that Si does this at all. Se seems so plain and boring compared to the other functions now!


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Kitzara said:


> That's actually really interesting. I never knew Si was so... complex? I don't know what to call it, but I didn't realise that Si does this at all. Se seems so plain and boring compared to the other functions now!


I'm sure dominant Se types can tell you stuff that's awesome about Se. 

I personally find Se fascinating.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Yea Si is all about what _you_ perceive, not the object's innate qualities. Se looks at things as they are without trying to project anything personal onto that perception (that's what Ni is for in a Se-type).


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Owfin said:


> I'm sure dominant Se types can tell you stuff that's awesome about Se.
> 
> I personally find Se fascinating.


I'd go and find an ESxP, but they're too rare on here! Shame, really.


----------

