# The Differences Between S and N



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

So many times people explain it as, "Well, iNtuitives like playing with theories" and "iNtuitives will be the ones interested in psychology". Sometimes people somehow get under the impression that being iNtuitive is better than being a Sensor. I think part of this has to do with how people describe the differences between Sensors and iNtuitives. Some people take the names quite literally and are under the impression that Sensors aren't intuitive. 

Wait. Back up. Sensors are intuitive people. Having intuition and be an iNtuitive type are different.

I know that my ESFJ mother is very much interested in theories and psychology and learning. I feel like saying, therefore, that iNtuitives will be the ones interested in playing with theories doesn't cut it if we're searching for differences here. 

So what would you say the main differences between Sensors and iNtuitives are? Sometimes I myself get confused. I went through a period of doubt where I wondered whether or not I was an ESFP or ENFP. I use Sensing quite a lot. Apparently, though, my Ne always comes out higher. Why? What would you say the main differences are?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I agree, dividing by what each type is more likely to be interested in doesn't cut it. There's far too much overlap for that to be useful.

I've come to understand the main differences like this: it's what you focus on first when learning a new subject or in a new environment. I notice when I talk to SPs or SJs (especially SPs) they want to know as many details as possible. They tend to ask a lot of questions about specific details of what you are describing to them. I guess that from these details, they stitch together the big picture (Se-then-Ni or Si-then-Ne). They go details --> big picture.

By contrast, I've noticed that Ns go big picture --> details. Generalities first, then specifics. (Ni-then-Se or Ne-then-Si) 

I think that if you take two equally-competent experts in a field, one S and one N, they will have equal knowledge about that field. But, as beginners in that field, the S person would still have studied with details/specifics first, and the N would have studied the generalities first.

To your good points, when we talk about people as Ss or Ns, we need to remember that we are really saying "prefers Si over Ne or Se over Ni" and "prefers Ne over Si or Ni over Se"...it's not an absolute black-and-white thing. In recent years my ESFJ mother has also become interested in psychology (unfortunately not MBTI haha)


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Wilson - That's a good way of putting it. ^^ When I first am learning something, I want the big picture. I also ask a lot of "Why" questions. I need to understand the "why" of the concept, and only then I get the "how". I suppose it would be safe to say that for Sensors it may be reversed; they need the "how" and then they get the "why"? Eh, that could be just me. I notice a lot of people say Sensors are more "hands on" and are more concrete, but I know that I am very hands on. However, this is simply because I am very kinesthetic and auditory as opposed to visual. 

Yes, it is important to note that it is best to compare Se and Ne together and Si and Ni to really get the differences boiled down.

What is the deal with the connection between Sensors and awareness of the environment? Somehow there is this idea floating around that iNtuitives aren't very "aware" of their surroundings while Sensors are.  I'm not entirely sure about this.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

@JuliaBell - I agree about the "why" questions... not asking for specifics but still asking questions. I've heard that Ss are more "hands on" too but you make a good point about kinesthetic learning. I'm pretty visual and not very kinesthetic so I'm not "hands on". I don't know if there are correlations between type and learning style... It would seem that STPs for example are more kinesthetic.



> What is the deal with the connection between Sensors and awareness of the environment? Somehow there is this idea floating around that iNtuitives aren't very "aware" of their surroundings while Sensors are.  I'm not entirely sure about this.


I'm not sure either haha. I don't know if this applies to other Ns, but even when I _actively try_ to be aware of the environment, I still can't stay present. I space out (daydream) involuntarily and only realize when I come back "to" that I've been spacing out. Sometimes I space out when talking and the sentence ends up totally jumbled, combining what I meant to say with what I thought of. In the chemistry lab (I study chem) I end up spacing out too which can be unsafe. I just start daydreaming about something in the middle of the lab, while doing things that I intend to concentrate on.

Anyway, not to go on and on lol, but I doubt an ESP with dominant Se is always aware of the environment. If it's a boring environment or not suited to their interests they'll probably space out too. But when they _try_ to concentrate, i.e. when they care or want to stay in the moment, they probably can.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Wilson - Good point. ^^ I don't think learning types directly correlate with MBTI types. Kinesthetic learners are only 5% of the population, auditory learners are 30%, and visual learners are about 65%. If Sensing types are more "hands on" and therefore more kinesthetic, you'd think there'd be more kinesthetic learners out there. 

Anyways, learning styles is why I don't think it exactly has to do with "hands on" or "concreteness" when it comes to S versus N. A very kinesthetic iNtuitive may accidentally be mistyped simply because they are exactly that - kinesthetic. And naturally, kinesthetic learners learn best by latching onto something more "concrete". 

Funnily enough, if you ask most ENFP's how they best learn, they always tend to answer, "Just do it." 

I think for the clumsiness thing, perhaps it is best to ask WHY you are so clumsy. A Sensor might say they are clumsy because they were busy talking/their attention was on something/somebody else while an iNtuitive may say they were lost in their thoughts.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

JuliaBell said:


> @_Wilson_ - Good point. ^^ I don't think learning types directly correlate with MBTI types. Kinesthetic learners are only 5% of the population, auditory learners are 30%, and visual learners are about 65%. If Sensing types are more "hands on" and therefore more kinesthetic, you'd think there'd be more kinesthetic learners out there.
> 
> Anyways, learning styles is why I don't think it exactly has to do with "hands on" or "concreteness" when it comes to S versus N. A very kinesthetic iNtuitive may accidentally be mistyped simply because they are exactly that - kinesthetic. And naturally, kinesthetic learners learn best by latching onto something more "concrete".


Granted. All good points. Perhaps a better distinction than "concrete" is specific/detailed vs. general then. I guess kinesthetic Ns might prefer concrete things but still not be detailed.



> Funnily enough, if you ask most ENFP's how they best learn, they always tend to answer, "Just do it."


That's very interesting. I would have expected that from SPs more than NPs. I'm probably not an ENFP but I find I have to read to learn stuff...diagrams and things help too... and observation. (That's pretty visual now that I think of it) But I don't actually do things unless I have to. lol.



> I think for the clumsiness thing, perhaps it is best to ask WHY you are so clumsy. A Sensor might say they are clumsy because they were busy talking/their attention was on something/somebody else while an iNtuitive may say they were lost in their thoughts.


I wasn't really talking about clumsiness. More like daydreaming or just this...lack of present-ness in the world. I still think your point is valid, though. I know an ISFP who regularly trips over stuff below his eye level because he's looking at something more interesting/shiny/pretty/etc. at eye level. lol. On the other hand, I tend to trip (or whatever) because I'm daydreaming


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

@Wilson:



> guess that from these details, they stitch together the big picture (Se-then-Ni or Si-then-Ne). They go details --> big picture.


Exactly. The reverse seems strange; you can generalize from details, but making details out of whole cloth seems like making stuff up.



> To your good points, when we talk about people as Ss or Ns, we need to remember that we are really saying "prefers Si over Ne or Se over Ni" and "prefers Ne over Si or Ni over Se"...it's not an absolute black-and-white thing. In recent years my ESFJ mother has also become interested in psychology (unfortunately not MBTI haha)


Well... I am very interested in psychology but am distinctly not Ne. It isn't a matter of "oh, I like this more"; Ne seems to serve the purpose of knocking down all my Si frameworks, and I'm sure to a Ne dominant Si serves to tie up their "freedom".

As a Si dominant, I can understand things like a "big picture" from my Si, no need for Ne. I think the idea of N being the whole big picture is a bit of a Ne one; I would like to see a Ni type like @LiquidLight or @Spades explain how his/her Ni is different from this. I feel like it works on some sort of internal framework too, but my idea of an internal framework is irrevocably connected with the sensing nature of mine.

@JuliaBell:



> Funnily enough, if you ask most ENFP's how they best learn, they always tend to answer, "Just do it."





> What is the deal with the connection between Sensors and awareness of the environment? Somehow there is this idea floating around that iNtuitives aren't very "aware" of their surroundings while Sensors are.  I'm not entirely sure about this.


Yeah, the second notion is a big "???" to introverted sensing. We even relate to our surroundings introvertedly; we identify them with our introverted conceptions. To paraphrase another member, a fire is "warm". The fire _is_ warm. Predicate nominative (adjective, but who cares for semantics?). Our personal, crystallized notion of a warm fire is what we are experiencing.

I think that Ne types don't realize how extroverted their intuition is sometimes. 



> I suppose it would be safe to say that for Sensors it may be reversed; they need the "how" and then they get the "why"? Eh, that could be just me.


Exactly! In math I seek "why" through "how". For example, the fact that any non zero number to the zeroth power equals one bothered me because there wasn't really an explanation for what was going behind there, what you were doing to the numbers. Therefore without a how I could not see a why.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Ah, I thought you were talking about clumsiness. XD Oh well. 



Wilson said:


> That's very interesting. I would have expected that from SPs more than NPs. I'm probably not an ENFP but I find I have to read to learn stuff...diagrams and things help too... and observation. (That's pretty visual now that I think of it) But I don't actually do things unless I have to. lol.


I know.  I find it strange as well. A bit. Then again, people who use Ne are often very much experimenters. 



> *Ne, or extroverted iNtuition,* is dominant for ENxP, secondary for INxP, tertiary for ESxJ and inferior for ISxJ. It is an outwardly exploratory attitude that encourages us to change, reinvent and experiment with the external world in order to find new and interesting combinations and patterns. Ne looks for novel outcomes and imagines how the things around you could be changed into other, more interesting things. Ne sees new information as part of a larger, emerging, as of yet unseen pattern that extends far beyond the self, and whose meaning will continue to change as the context grows and we discover more of the all-encompassing pattern. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ne will often broaden the context until the issue seems insignificant by comparison to the much bigger and more expansive ideas it imagines.


What I get out of this is that Ne always seeks to find the broad picture. I know when I start thinking of an idea, the more I think about it, the broader and bigger I make it. At the same time, I'm making it bigger but because of this I'm making it much more simple. A very much, "It all boils down to such and such" sort of attitude. It is a "Give me the big picture here" attitude. 



> * Se, or extroverted Sensing,* is dominant for ESxP, secondary for ISxP, tertiary for ENxJ and inferior for INxJ. It is the attitude that what is directly apparent in our immediate physical surroundings is the most important thing to go by. Se leads you to follow your gut instincts, pay very close attention to what's going on around you, and respond to things in the moment in whatever way will make the strongest and most immediate guttural, sensory impact on others. Se users are so present-focused that they're often on the cutting edge of new trends because they place so much emphasis on what is current and new. They like to learn things via a hands-on, figure-it-out-by-experimenting-as-you-go, direct experiential approach (in this way they are similar to Ne) but they are more focused on what is immediately tangible than on what their surroundings might be changed into. They usually pay a lot of attention to their physical appearance and are very good with reading body language and using it to immediately size up a person or a situation and respond instinctively. They can be quite impulsive and prone to overindulgence in sensory pleasures, but they also know how to work a crowd and they tend to make themselves into reflections of current popular trends--whatever will make an impact.


Perhaps S-types are the ones least likely (not all the time) to be People Watchers. ^^ Haha. It seems S types are always constantly absorbed in what they are into. They don't "take a step back" or try to gain a bigger picture. It is as you said; details versus the general. 

My mom is a Sensor. She is very intuitive when it comes to knowing what a person needs. She knows because she tries to relate by basing what the other person it going through by thinking back to past experiences. She has a harder time relating if there's no similarity, but she always tries. She will attempt to feel how the person it feeling at the exact moment and attempt to comfort them, generally by offering physical material things. Si right there. XD

I can relate to a person both by thinking back on past experiences and simply placing myself in the other person's shoes while in a sense "probing" the person's mind to see how they may be feeling, and try to connect why they feel that way to the circumstances surrounding them. I comfort by being there to hear what they have to say and then saying something like, "I know you feel this way because..." and then go on to try and help them perhaps 'sort' through their feelings. 

This right here seems like a good difference at least between Ne and Si: 



> Si is the opposite of Ne because rather than relate new information to some larger external, constantly changing pattern, it tries to relate all new information to something it already knows, some sensory data that it's absorbed from its past experiences. This leads to the classic Ne vs. Si battle: Ne wants to try something new just for the sake of doing something different and finding something interesting; Si wants to stick to what we've done before because its vivid memories of direct experience allow us to relate the new information to that past information we've already absorbed.


I think in a sense this is the same for Se as well. What I have noticed that most sources constantly say about Se vs. Ne is how Ne is very much "in the future" whereas Se is "in the moment". I think this can be connected to the whole details vs. general as well. I could say Se gets caught up in the details (the details of the moment) and Ne gets caught up in the "whole" of what is going on. A Sensing type may be more interested in "What is going on?" and iNtuitive may be more interested in, "What could happen?"

EDIT:

Wow my thoughts are all over the place. x_X 

@Owfin - Yes! I'd love more people's opinions on this. I want to _get down to it._ Haha. ^^ Give me the big picture, the main point. XD What's the main differences and why? --> My Ne speaking right here. 

I think that if I try to now organize my thoughts, I feel like a lot of the differences in at least Se versus Ne come down to general versus specific. I'm not saying S has a hard time seeing the big picture - it is just that they _like_ and tend to see and better learn by the details. 

If we're going to contrast Ni and Si, I'd say that Si looks at the present and compares that situation to a similar past event (goes off of experiences) whereas Ni will look at the present situation and will right then and there begin thinking about what could happen. I think Ni is still more "take a step back and look at the bigger picture" than Si.


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

An S would come up with an idea based on the details, while N would come up with an idea based on the concept/general "feel" of it. Let's say building something with Legos (or any other building blocks), N would have an idea in their mind of what it will be/what it will look like, while S would build something based on the instructions, or build something as they go along and see where it takes them.

Another way to look at it... if you had to figure out a way to do something, an N would take almost like a shape/archetype view of the plan, while an S would work with the details.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

@Owfin

I once made a post about what "the big picture" means to each perceiving function. I'm pretty sure most people would say they prefer the big picture to the details, but they are referring to different things. Let me try to recreate this:

*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.

Si and Ne work *together* to incorporate present intuitive data into their sensory process, giving a big picture.
Se and Ni work *together* to incorporate present sensory data into their intuitive process, giving a big picture.

Everyone senses *and* intuits. We wouldn't be human without these basic functions. The side toward which we lean in the above (super brief) descriptions helps determine what our type is.

This is just a rough overview, not to be taken as fact =)


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

@JuliaBell

Exactly. Intuitives are big picture people and sensors are more detail people. Let's take the enneagram for example. When I first was introduced to the enneagram, I didn't care about the specifics of each type. I jumped right at a type description of types 1-9 immediately. I didn't feel the need to go into the specifics. I just got the general idea right away. Also, if the correlation between what it said about me was about 90% accurate with a few details off, I would say, "Oh well, it's for the most part right, so it must be true." I then showed this theory to an ENFJ, INTJ, and ENFP friend and they all did the same. Then, I showed the theory to an ESFP, and he about 9/10 type details fit his description, and he was like "Nope, this doesn't describe me at all." I said, "But look dude, look at how clearly it fits you." He then says, "If it isn't fully right, it's not right at all." This made no sense to me. 

On a side not, yes a lot of intuitives have a poor awareness of their outer surroundings.

Finally, yes I see a finished project before I do a project. I don't do it as I go.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Spades said:


> @Owfin
> 
> I once made a post about what "the big picture" means to each perceiving function. I'm pretty sure most people would say they prefer the big picture to the details, but they are referring to different things. Let me try to recreate this:
> 
> ...


Funny what you say about Ne... and I think you're exactly right. I know I see things "as it is". I like to step back and see that. But I feel like some piece of my mind is always delving into something. Lots of "could"s. I see things as it is, but I am always looking forwards. I am always looking at possibilities. Hardly ever do I look behind. 

Sometimes I wonder, though, how to tell if I use Ne more than Se or Si... I always come out that way on tests and I feel different from my heavy Sensing family, but somehow I always feel like I don't exactly grasp the difference within myself.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

N vs. S has NOTHING to do with abstraction/theory vs. concrete experience, that's an intelligence thing more than anything else.

N vs. S is about preferring "gut feelings*" (unconscious perceptions) vs. one's conscious perceptions.

_(* Jungian F has to do with evaluation (good, bad, pretty, ugly, etc.), not "feeling" in the sense used in English)_

I will use two hypothetical hunters as an example, one an Se Dominant, the other an Ne Dominant.

When the Se Dom hunter is asked how he found the deer, he'll give you a summary of the "clues" that led him to his quarry. When the Ne hunter is asked, he says "I just knew" or "I had a feeling" or "my gut told me".


Si vs. Ni is a bit harder to describe, but both involve subjective and personal reactions to one's perceptions that are out of proportion to the actual sensory stimulus. The difference is that Si involves a "direct" reaction (sensation X causes emotion Y or mood Z) while with Ni in between the perception and the reaction there is a mental image that comes out of nowhere and seems unrelated to the perception. It is this image that the Ni-user reacts to rather that the perception itself.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Wilson said:


> @JuliaBell - I agree about the "why" questions... not asking for specifics but still asking questions. I've heard that Ss are more "hands on" too but you make a good point about kinesthetic learning. I'm pretty visual and not very kinesthetic so I'm not "hands on". I don't know if there are correlations between type and learning style... It would seem that STPs for example are more kinesthetic.


The ISTP I know is highly kinesthetic. He not only played sports growing up, but it seems like almost everything he's good at or learns is physical (skating, biking, weight lifting, climbing up on the roof, rowdy sexing, his dogs, a little cooking, tanning, and then video games). We hooked up because he was teaching me how to do a certain kind of exercise.

However, I know a highly kinesthetic ISTJ, too. Fitness is pretty much his life. He does things like research tennis in depth and detail. He's also always busy cleaning, and played sports growing up as well. 

I'm somewhat kinesthetic, but not to the degree they are. I need to do things (like let me do it, get out my way) and I'm happier doing work like cooking, waiting tables, massage, and dancing than I am doing writing if it's not creative writing. I had a job as a freelance writer doing a more technical or academic kind of writing and I felt like I was slowly going insane. 

I still do a lot of reading, though, and obviously writing/chatting on-line. 












JuliaBell said:


> Funnily enough, if you ask most ENFP's how they best learn, they always tend to answer, "Just do it."


I honestly think these might be ESFPs. I don't know that many ENFPs, as a whole, as a majority, would say "Just do it."


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

@_JuliaBell_ , I meant to respond more fully but I've been enjoying the amazing weather today. I'll address this tomorrow *reserves space*.

*Edit*: Okay I'm back!

A lot of good points have been brought up here. Something I've heard being said was "Sensing = seeing what *is* there, Intuition = Seeing what *isn't* there". Sensing is noticing, intuition is postulating.

*Se*: Focus on what is physically there.
*Ne*: Focus on what isn't physically there.
*Si*: Focus on personal impression of what is physically there.
*Ni*: Focus on personal impression of what isn't physically there.

(No wonder Ni seems so weird to outside observers...heck, to everyone =P)

This is all perceiving so far, how it's interpreted depends on the judging functions.

I did an MBTI workshop at my university which was supposed to demonstrate this (it was run by a staff member, not an MBTI professional though). We were asked to look at a picture for 15 seconds. After that, we were supposed to say what we saw. An ESTJ girl said "I saw 4 animals". This stood out to me because I didn't notice how many animals there were. What I saw was "This would make a cool video game" (Ne?) and "I think I know what the purpose of this exercise is" (Ni). An ISTJ talked about how it's a jungle and it has animals and flowers in it. I noticed that an iNtuitive Fine Arts major noticed the detail in colour and shading, which demonstrates that our perception is influenced by our upbringing, not something we are born with. An INFJ thought she saw a heart in the picture (yes, actually!)


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

The Great One said:


> @JuliaBell
> 
> Exactly. Intuitives are big picture people and sensors are more detail people. Let's take the enneagram for example. When I first was introduced to the enneagram, I didn't care about the specifics of each type. I jumped right at a type description of types 1-9 immediately. I didn't feel the need to go into the specifics. I just got the general idea right away. Also, if the correlation between what it said about me was about 90% accurate with a few details off, I would say, "Oh well, it's for the most part right, so it must be true." I then showed this theory to an ENFJ, INTJ, and ENFP friend and they all did the same. Then, I showed the theory to an ESFP, and he about 9/10 type details fit his description, and he was like "Nope, this doesn't describe me at all." I said, "But look dude, look at how clearly it fits you." He then says, "If it isn't fully right, it's not right at all." This made no sense to me.
> 
> ...


I know the details thing is right. The reason why I have "sensorating anecdotally at a forum near you" is because I've really annoyed some NTs with my detailed, specific personal stories as the answer to 90% of life. LOL.

I don't know if an ESFP would be more likely to reject a type as not being him or her, though. I mean, I don't know that's the difference between S and N.

Like I know an ISTJ who is SJ and proud. He even reads the Keirsey matrix and is like OMG that's me. I showed him 9w1 with sx/so stacking and he said "how do they know?" Like it's eerie it relates to him so much.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Exactly. The reverse seems strange; you can generalize from details, but making details out of whole cloth seems like making stuff up.


It's like zooming in. If you are interested in a specific area of the cloth more than other areas, and you zoom in on that area, you'll see it more closely. You'll see the details. You could even get a magnifying glass or a microscope. You could zoom to whatever level of detail you wanted. But it wouldn't be making stuff up.

Thanks for your input, by the way!



> Well... I am very interested in psychology but am distinctly not Ne. It isn't a matter of "oh, I like this more"; Ne seems to serve the purpose of knocking down all my Si frameworks, and I'm sure to a Ne dominant Si serves to tie up their "freedom".


I think you are right...there are problems with using the word "preference" because maybe the so-called preference isn't conscious...

It's interesting that you can see the big picture through Si...


@TaylorS - I think the "gut feeling" is what I have been referring to (not in this thread) as "emerging impressions". It may not be possible to trace the impression back to its source(s), but it's still usually right. The vast majority of the time anyway.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

phantom_cat said:


> An S would come up with an idea based on the details, while N would come up with an idea based on the concept/general "feel" of it. Let's say building something with Legos (or any other building blocks), N would have an idea in their mind of what it will be/what it will look like, while S would build something based on the instructions, or build something as they go along and see where it takes them.
> 
> Another way to look at it... if you had to figure out a way to do something, an N would take almost like a shape/archetype view of the plan, while an S would work with the details.


Hmm...well, I don't neccessarily follow the instructions when playing with legos. I just build anything I want; if the legos are supposed to make a airplane, I'll try making it a car, or a ship, or even a house. Or a tower. But that's just me. 

And yeah, I think Sensors can see the big picture. It's just not what they do first; they do it in a different order then Intuitives do. And well, I'm not sure what to think of some of the stereotypes of Intuitives, such as them being daydreamers or not paying attention to their environment. Really, I think that's a bit of a Introvert thing. I can see an Introvert easily getting lost in their thoughts, though I'm sure there's Extroverts like that too.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Spades said:


> @_JuliaBell_ , I meant to respond more fully but I've been enjoying the amazing weather today. I'll address this tomorrow *reserves space*.
> 
> *Edit*: Okay I'm back!
> 
> ...


That is is a good way of putting it. ^^ 

Hmm.. I wonder what I'd see in the picture.  Colour use always strikes me first and I notice a mood more than anything else.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> N vs. S is about preferring "gut feelings*" (unconscious perceptions) vs. one's conscious perceptions.
> 
> When the Se Dom hunter is asked how he found the deer, he'll give you a summary of the "clues" that led him to his quarry. When the Ne hunter is asked, he says "I just knew" or "I had a feeling" or "my gut told me".


I think you are using the colloquial definition of "intuition". Yes, the intuitive process is unconscious, but since every perceiving function works with a judging function, perceptions are rationalized at least to some extent. Saying "it was a gut feeling" usually isn't satisfying enough, even for an N-dom. They typically justify it with logic or values.



JuliaBell said:


> That is is a good way of putting it. ^^
> 
> Hmm.. I wonder what I'd see in the picture.  Colour use always strikes me first and I notice a mood more than anything else.


Yep, I notice colours too, I'm a huge aesthete. The noticing of mood might have to do with your Fi.

Also, I agree that this whole idea is silly: sensors always being aware of their environment and intuitives not. As an HSP, I'm very aware of any disturbances in my physical surroundings.


----------

