# I can't tell the difference between S and N in myself or others. Help.



## ItsAlwaysSunny

I just don't see the differences that everyone talks about. Everyday I change my mind about whether I'm a sensor or intuitive type. The functions I most relate to are Ni, Si, Ti, and Fe and I score INFJ 75% of the time I take the online tests, but I don't see any distinct difference between sensors and intuitives that I can truly pinpoint.

Can someone help me figure out the distinction?


----------



## teddy564339

I think at first it's probably the most confusing out of the four preferences, as well as the hardest to see in people. Until I came to PerC, I had a pretty shaky understanding of it myself, but after spending months on PerC, I can see it more clearly than I have before. It's also kind of hard to describe in words, and tricky to pick out because everyone uses both to some degree.

So as I try to give a description, remember that you do *use* both sensing and intuition. You want to try to figure out which one you *prefer*, meaning which one comes more naturally to you. Which one you do more without trying, instead of having to actively do it.

It really is kind of being right handed or left handed. Unless you're 100% ambidextrous, you can use either hand to do anything, but you prefer to use one or the other, and you feel more comfortable naturally using one or the other.

A sensing person is going to naturally think more about reality in the here and now. They focus on what's right in front of them, both in terms of time and in terms of place. They care about details. This is because they prefer using their senses, what they can physically detect. This also explains why they like reality and realistic solutions so much. If it can't realistically be done, it's not all that important. 

They also tend to think sequentially, or linearly...they like to see the step by step process of how something goes from start to finish. Again, this is because this is what their senses tell them.


An intuitive person is much more imaginative. They like thinking about things that aren't real. That's why they think so much about the future instead of what's right in front of them. They would rather think about "what could be" rather than "what is". They are very idealistic, and always want to think about how those ideals *could become* real. In NF's this results in things like romantic poetry, social justice and a utopia of a society we should always work towards. In NT's, this results in things like scientific exploration and theories leading to an improved society. 

Intuitives also are capable of piecing things together from all directions all at once. They don't care about the details, they see the "big picture" of their ideal. That's why they brainstorm so well, they can create being ideas out of nothing, almost instantaneously (at least compared to a sensor). They are able to make a lot of quick mental jumps that a sensor usually can't.


That's why in theoretical conversations an N is likely to leave an S behind...because an S needs all of the details very clearly laid out, in a step-by-step order. N's usually skip all of these details and steps because they find them unnecessary. 

However, that's why in real life S's are at the advantage. To actually see something actually be created or done, the details are important. S's notice and pick up on these details and can realistically get things done, whereas an N has a of trouble doing it.


Simply put: N's are great at coming up with fantastic ideas, and S's are great at carrying them out and making them a reality. So basically....would you rather think about something out of nothing and create the picture mentally, or would you rather someone else do that and you figure out how to make their dream a reality?


----------



## ItsAlwaysSunny

According to what you've written, I would be an intuitive type. I have a lot of ideas that I never carry out.


----------



## fairytales

Thankyou for that clear answer Teddy. Ive always found the N/S distinction particuarly tricky, but I definetly have a firmer grasp on it now.


----------



## SarahWilliams

I think the N/S difference is really difficult to pick up in others. It's pretty easy to get the rest of the letters, but the N/S is difficult. 

Not to mention that if you break it down into functions, it isn't very helpful. Ne (xNxPs) and Se (xSxPs) looks the same to me (randomness, skips from activity to activity). Ni (xNxJs) and Si (xSxJs) also tend to appear similiar to outsiders (logical, adherence to order). 

Usually, I can tell N vs. S based on how much we 'get' each other in conversation. If I'm talking to another N, I can omit important details, and we'll stay on the same page. I can even skip ahead, or run back to an earlier conversation topic, and we'll be on the same page. If I'm talking to an S, I'll confuse them by omitting important information, and then further confuse them by skipping around in the conversation. This isn't to say one way or the other is correct - admittedly I'm literally not stating things that should be said. 

You can also get clues that someone is an S or N. SPs do things for the sake of the experience (let's go clubbing now!). NPs do things for the novelty of it (let's look up when gilligan's island was on the air on wikipedia!). SJs see the world in black and white terms and organize down to the very last detail (these are the rules!) NJs see the world in more global terms, and won't always organize things down to the very last detail. (but what about this exception to the rule...). At least, that's how I recognize these types. 

Also, I agree completely with everything Teddy said. Good points.


----------



## vel

As I understand it sensors pay more attention to perceptions that can be picked up by senses. So when a sensor sees a chair for example he or she will pay attention to how it looks like, the texture, the material, it is too tall or too low, it is comfortable to recline it, does it look new, does it have any scratches, is it too big or too small, etc. An intuitive sees a chair and he or she might remember seeing some alike chairs in antique furniture shop and for some reason under the shades of the building and particular lighting those chairs would remind him of bones. So then the chair under force of intuition is perceived to be a symbol of death. So then intuitive comes up to sensor and says "this chair ... it is like death itself!" and sensors goes "... wha?" because sensor was meanwhile busy thinking about how this chair would complement the rest of his furniture.


----------



## Herp

I like Keirsey's tackle on this. Sensors are more observant, while Intutives are more introspective.

To quote a member from the INTP forum, i'll say.



Cognisant said:


> In the metaphorical MBTI robot adjusting the settings to "Sensor" increases the frame-rate experienced by the robot's AI, which decreases the amount of processing power spent on each individual frame and abstract thought processes, while adjusting the settings to "iNtuitive" does the opposite.
> 
> In effect Sensors are more in touch with reality, using fast/simple processing, while iNtuitives are more detached, using slower/deeper processing.


----------



## CounterPoint

The intuitive makes good-faith assumptions that chain of details leading to a conclusion is static from what it was in the past and can be extrapolated into the future. This perspective frees up attention span by not revisiting what is already certain. They push large pieces of patterns and trends around to form a global perspective. This is why some Ns are very efficient and strategic (ignoring wasteful redundant actions).

A sensor does not make these assumptions about the details, instead preferring to confirm and study them first while taking nothing for granted, and then chain them together piece by piece to arrive at a conclusion. To a sensor, the details lead into the future, so follow them. This is why sensors are known as “step by step” processors, very pragmatic and precise.


----------



## SL1D3R

I'm a Sensor. Here is an example from last night.

As I was sitting in the living room watching television with my (then) girlfriend, I was suddenly aware of a feeling of loneliness and tranquility. It was odd sitting together with a strange person, sharing brief moments in time. I was alone with my thoughts, but shared the physical, the real and distinct moments; as seconds, minutes, and hours passed. I was both sad and happy.

My perception is difficult to explain, but I hope you understand the gist of "sensing."


----------



## Capsicum

vel said:


> As I understand it sensors pay more attention to perceptions that can be picked up by senses. So when a sensor sees a chair for example he or she will pay attention to how it looks like, the texture, the material, it is too tall or too low, it is comfortable to recline it, does it look new, does it have any scratches, is it too big or too small, etc. An intuitive sees a chair and he or she might remember seeing some alike chairs in antique furniture shop and for some reason under the shades of the building and particular lighting those chairs would remind him of bones. So then the chair under force of intuition is perceived to be a symbol of death. So then intuitive comes up to sensor and says "this chair ... it is like death itself!" and sensors goes "... wha?" because sensor was meanwhile busy thinking about how this chair would complement the rest of his furniture.


From a sensor:

When I see a chair I think... nothing.

It's a chair!


----------



## Hastings

I argue that the chair is and has never been a "chair". It is only a springboard for mental associations to a chair archetype.

My dominant function is Ni. I tend to make pretty big jumps in my mental associations. When I sit on the train with my girlfriend, she might ask "What are you thinking of?" and I might answer "Jules Verne. Ought to read more from him.". Five minutes later she might ask again and I will answer "Apartheid, what if it happened in our country"?. Little of it connected to the physical world around us.


----------



## Capsicum

cactus_waltz said:


> My dominant function is Ni. I tend to make pretty big jumps in my mental associations. When I sit on the train with my girlfriend, she might ask "What are you thinking of?" and I might answer "Jules Verne. Ought to read more from him.". Five minutes later she might ask again and I will answer "Apartheid, what if it happened in our country"?. Little of it connected to the physical world around us.


I do the same sort of thing myself... I don't think it's intuition. I think we're just deep in thought about random stuff. Then again ISTPs and INFJs have Ti and Ni as their first and third functions... so perhaps both?



> I argue that the chair is and has never been a "chair". It is only a springboard for mental associations to a chair archetype.


I argue that there is no reason to think about the chair, as a chair is a chair and will never become anything more than it already is. Even if the chair fits the chair archetype, it's a chair; only good for sitting on, using as a semi-dangerous temporary structural support or for throwing at people. :bored:


----------



## lib

I like the example somebody else gave on PerC. A group was asked to split into two: Sensors to one end of the room and iNtuitives to the other. Then the two groups were given an orange each and asked to describe it.
S: orange color, about so and so many ounzes, peel plus softer inner, etc.
N: can make juice from squeezing it, add as flavor to milkshake, use the juice plus scrapings of the peel for baking cakes or making desserts etc.


----------



## Roux

Hmm, so what if half the time I think 'Oh, a chair! I've seen that before on TV. They sell it in Ikea...' and other times I think ' Chair. It's white. Looks uncomfortable. Moving on...' Does that make me a sensor or an intuitive?

And I do come up with a lot of ideas for projects. Sometimes I'll actually focus on the details of getting it done. Other times I think, it's a nice idea but I won't be able to make it/build it.


----------



## tantrum

If you are an intuitive (especially in your first function) you tend to be very keen to discover or develop new concepts and ideas. That is basically a driving force in your life. So as a true intuitive you are very comfortable making up your mind about anything without sufficient knowledge of the surrounding facts. 

The clearer the picture is to the intuitive and the more details he knows about a subject the more his interest should fade as there is nothing new to explore.

I compare the way intuitive think with the way I handle an equation with unknown variables. The fact that I do not know the exact result because I lack the full picture does not stop me from speculating about its implications, in fact I enjoy it. 
I think this is the point where I differ from a sensor. Sensors are only likely to pursue an idea or concept if they feel they have enough facts to support it. This is why they often think of intuitive as being with their heads in the clouds.
On the other hand intuitive are very confident to predict the unknown and are interested to figure out unknown territory. They seem to base their confidence in their intuition on a better developed ability to perceive patterns in their daily life.


----------



## Capsicum

tantrum said:


> I think this is the point where I differ from a sensor. Sensors are only likely to pursue an idea or concept if they feel they have enough facts to support it. This is why they often think of intuitive as being with their heads in the clouds.
> On the other hand intuitive are very confident to predict the unknown and are interested to figure out unknown territory. They seem to base their confidence in their intuition on a better developed ability to perceive patterns in their daily life.


Have you seen ESxP types in action?

They're always flying by the seat of their pants and are probably happier with diving into the unknown than any other type. Doesn't mean they don't think things through, but they're happy to get involved in something they don't know much about and maybe learn a thing or two. Se demands _action_, after all.

INxJ types, on the other hand... Ni isn't known for being spontaneous.


----------



## tantrum

Capsicum said:


> Have you seen ESxP types in action?
> 
> They're always flying by the seat of their pants and are probably happier with diving into the unknown than any other type. Doesn't mean they don't think things through, but they're happy to get involved in something they don't know much about and maybe learn a thing or two. Se demands _action_, after all.
> 
> INxJ types, on the other hand... Ni isn't known for being spontaneous.



The point is that your Se-lead sensors are not likely to speculate about the unknown. They take it at face value and would not interpret any more into what is there, even if is is something new they are pursuing. You see, I did not say intuitives like the unknown. They love to speculate about the unknown in an abstract way that does not need to be based on facts. They less facts they have, they more they enjoy filling in the blanks. Just when they get to see the big picture they tend to leave and pursue another thought.


----------



## Abuwabu

Capsicum said:


> From a sensor:
> 
> When I see a chair I think... nothing.
> 
> It's a chair!


Hahahah — that's *exactly* what I was thinking.


----------



## Aelthwyn

In my observation of the Ss and Ns I know here's some basic differences. I'm not sure if it follows the official definitions properly, but I think it's close.

Sensing: primarily concerned with the outer world of physical sensations. Their primary action is in the world of the body, not the mind. Their body, and particularly hands are their tool to observe and act upon the world around them.
Thus it follows that Sensing is more related to Judging and Percieving which are also concerned with how you act in the world. (Hence SPs and SJs)
Ss seem more driven to action. They seem to get bored when they can't be Doing something, when there isn't something entertaining to see-hear-taste-feel-do. They are 'tuned in' to the world around them and like to engage with their physical surroundings. They want to know Who What When Where and How. They want to see theories in action. They want to see ideas made real. They seem to focus on experiences. This doesn't mean they can't like Fantasy, or can't be idealistic or creative. But they seem to have more of a drive to Make the dream come alive. They like practical application and seem to value usefull things. They seem to not like days when they've just been sitting around not accomplishing/experiencing anything. 

Intuition: primarily concerned with the inner or immaterial world of emotion and thoughts/concepts. Their action is mental/spiritual action. Their tools logic and emotion.
Thus it follows that Intuition is more related to Thinking and Feeling which are inner methods of dealing with the world.
(Hence NFs and NTs)
Intuitives seem more contemplative. To them, the action takes place in the mind. They are always finding their minds drawing them in from the outside to think about things - to process and analyse. Thy are always asking Why. Their brains are wired to make connections between things, see relationships, and search for the underlying causes. Thus they naturally jump from single case scenarios to 'the grand scheme.' They seek Understanding, and thrive off theories and ideas. Their ideas don't always galvanize them into action in the outer world however. They tend to live much more in their heads than in their hands.


----------



## TheWaffle

Aelthwyn said:


> In my observation of the Ss and Ns I know here's some basic differences. I'm not sure if it follows the official definitions properly, but I think it's close.
> 
> Sensing: primarily concerned with the outer world of physical sensations. Their primary action is in the world of the body, not the mind. Their body, and particularly hands are their tool to observe and act upon the world around them.
> Thus it follows that Sensing is more related to Judging and Percieving which are also concerned with how you act in the world. (Hence SPs and SJs)
> Ss seem more driven to action. They seem to get bored when they can't be Doing something, when there isn't something entertaining to see-hear-taste-feel-do. They are 'tuned in' to the world around them and like to engage with their physical surroundings. They want to know Who What When Where and How. They want to see theories in action. They want to see ideas made real. They seem to focus on experiences. This doesn't mean they can't like Fantasy, or can't be idealistic or creative. But they seem to have more of a drive to Make the dream come alive. They like practical application and seem to value usefull things. They seem to not like days when they've just been sitting around not accomplishing/experiencing anything.


Sounds more like Se than just general Sensing.


----------



## teddy564339

Aelthwyn said:


> In my observation of the Ss and Ns I know here's some basic differences. I'm not sure if it follows the official definitions properly, but I think it's close.
> 
> Sensing: primarily concerned with the outer world of physical sensations. Their primary action is in the world of the body, not the mind. Their body, and particularly hands are their tool to observe and act upon the world around them.
> Thus it follows that Sensing is more related to Judging and Percieving which are also concerned with how you act in the world. (Hence SPs and SJs)
> Ss seem more driven to action. They seem to get bored when they can't be Doing something, when there isn't something entertaining to see-hear-taste-feel-do. They are 'tuned in' to the world around them and like to engage with their physical surroundings. They want to know Who What When Where and How. They want to see theories in action. They want to see ideas made real. They seem to focus on experiences. This doesn't mean they can't like Fantasy, or can't be idealistic or creative. But they seem to have more of a drive to Make the dream come alive. They like practical application and seem to value usefull things. They seem to not like days when they've just been sitting around not accomplishing/experiencing anything.
> 
> Intuition: primarily concerned with the inner or immaterial world of emotion and thoughts/concepts. Their action is mental/spiritual action. Their tools logic and emotion.
> Thus it follows that Intuition is more related to Thinking and Feeling which are inner methods of dealing with the world.
> (Hence NFs and NTs)
> Intuitives seem more contemplative. To them, the action takes place in the mind. They are always finding their minds drawing them in from the outside to think about things - to process and analyse. Thy are always asking Why. Their brains are wired to make connections between things, see relationships, and search for the underlying causes. Thus they naturally jump from single case scenarios to 'the grand scheme.' They seek Understanding, and thrive off theories and ideas. Their ideas don't always galvanize them into action in the outer world however. They tend to live much more in their heads than in their hands.


I agree with The Waffle...I think you're mixing sensing and intution with a bit of introversion and extroversion. These aren't quite the descriptions, but these almost sound like descriptions of Se and Ni.

I for example, have dominant Si, and this is very driven by a lot of personal thought and emotion. I do a lot of contemplating. But, what I'm contemplating about is a lot more realistic and sensory...I focus a lot on past, real memories. It's just not as "big picture" and theoretical and imaginative as intuition is. 


So I generally agree with your descriptions here, but not quite.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

*sigh* I'm starting to think that I straddle the borderline between sensor and intuitive so much that it's not even funny.

The thing with me is that I only use intuition when I want to. When I see a chair or an onion or anything else, I don't think that much about it. However, if I felt like it, I could use it. Surely intuitives don't _constantly_ get ideas from _everything_ they see, do they?  I mean, sometimes it happens with me, but it doesn't always happen.


----------



## SarahWilliams

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> *sigh* I'm starting to think that I straddle the borderline between sensor and intuitive so much that it's not even funny.
> 
> The thing with me is that I only use intuition when I want to. When I see a chair or an onion or anything else, I don't think that much about it. However, if I felt like it, I could use it. Surely intuitives don't _constantly_ get ideas from _everything_ they see, do they?  I mean, sometimes it happens with me, but it doesn't always happen.


Um, I think it would be really overwhelming if you went full intuition on every object you see. 

I think the majority of the time, *everyone* sees a chair as a chair. There's no reason for me to contemplate the meaning of life everytime I see a chair. 

I'm not sure I can speak for other intuitives, but I think I have an off-on relationship with intuiton. Maybe this is Se vs. Ni? In certain moods, things are what they are - and I have little need to analyze the heck out of something. In other moods, I can't help but think of every possibility that exists. 

For example, I love modern art. Sometimes seeing a Pollock inspires a range of thoughts like: action, break from tradition, ground, reexamining the use of foreground in paintings, etc. I want to read about his life, and understand his motivations. I want to watch the movie of his life and watch how his painting technique evolves.

And sometimes, viewing a Pollock just looks like pretty splotches of paint on a canvas.


----------



## Hastings

SarahWilliams said:


> I'm not sure I can speak for other intuitives, but I think I have an off-on relationship with intuiton. Maybe this is Se vs. Ni? In certain moods, things are what they are - and I have little need to analyze the heck out of something. In other moods, I can't help but think of every possibility that exists.


The letters that indicate our types are preferences. Any person is assumed to fluctuate between any functions depending on context, but there are the functions with which we will feel more at home and define us in the long run.

I can be S when the situation calls for it or when my N is having an off day, but I do feel it is with my N that I really shine and have my best moments.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

SarahWilliams said:


> Um, I think it would be really overwhelming if you went full intuition on every object you see.


Yes. Yes it would. :laughing:



SarahWilliams said:


> I think the majority of the time, *everyone* sees a chair as a chair. There's no reason for me to contemplate the meaning of life everytime I see a chair.


I suppose I was just generalizing. I mean, with the way it was written, it sounded as if anyone who doesn't automatically think of something when they see an object is not an intuitive. ^_^U


----------



## Ray Mabry

I think that one of the key differences between the two is that *Sensors* generally don't seem to trust or understand that which they can't see, or more accurately, sense. If their 5 senses do not pick up on it then they often have difficulty understanding it and even if they come to an understanding they often cannot trust something until it is made concrete and observable in some way and rightfully so.
*Intuitives* on the other hand have a hard time trusting the surface of things. The 5 senses for them do not readily supply them with all of the information they need to know about an object or situation. Their intuitive sense does. So they basically only use the 5 senses as more of a "vehicle" and not as a means of understanding.
This generally leads to misunderstandings between the two types. Of couse when types cannot see beyond their own perspecive, *Sensors* see *Intuitives* as crazy or out of touch with reality and often feel they are imagining things or reading too much into things and *Intuitives* generally see *Sensors* as too trusting of their perceptions and somewhat naive or unfocused on the true meaning behind the the things they sense.
*Intuitive* processes are nearly invisible and partially unconscious while *Sensing* processes are fairly visible and not only obvious but completely conscious so there are many many misunderstandings just based on this.

and of course, one thing to mention is that *Sensors* are all about concrete details and *Intuitives* are more about the big picture and generalize details their intuition feels is unimportant to the big picture. (I'll also note that in this process of generalization the details not seen as important to the big picture become interchangeable: A small example of this is when attention is not given to the color of an object because it often doesn't matter to the big picture and can really any color can be attributed to an object, in most cases, without changing it's meaning to the bigger picture.)

Now really I mostly, but not solely, speak of those with sensing as a dominant function which would be ESxP. ISxP aren't as involved in their sensing function although, of course, it does show up in a more obvious manner although it is under less conscious control than their dominant functions. They are slightly closer to some form of intuition as well which serves them some purpose although it becomes subordinate to their dominant and auxiliary functions and can even become "mixed in" with other functions being that it isn't entirely differentiated. So it becomes tricky to fully box ISxP's under sensing on a functional level although they still are more so sensing than anything else because their intuition is not pure and is not completely free of the influence of their dominant and auxiliary functions.

*EDIT:* Also I just wanted to add I didn't mean to leave out Ni or Si. This actually applies to them as well but I was mostly thinking of Extroverted Sensing and Extroverted Intuition when trying to illustrate the differences between the types so I only really mentioned ESxP and ISxP. I guess though ESxx and ISxx can be substituted there really. And also I wanted to point out that the last paragraph about ISxP can also be flipped to some degree and used to assume how INxP's (or I guess really INxx) relate to sensing.


----------



## teddy564339

Ray's last post was fantastic. I hadn't really thought about that, but it's true...Sensors do usually tend to take things at face value, Intuitives tend to look for deeper meaning. My brother, who I think is an ENFP, would always tell me when we were growing up that I never "looked beyond the obvious." When we were kids he thought I was stupid because of that.


And Ray is also right in saying that it makes a difference whether not S/N is your dominant function or not. Someone with an auxiliary S/N function would not show these attributes as strongly as an S/N dom would. Like in the example with my brother and I, he has dominant Ne and I have dominant Si...so that would make that difference stand out even more to us. So that plays into the whole thing as well.


----------



## Filigeedreamer

To continue with the chair example:

My ex was an ESTP, and we both liked old furnature, but our aprouch was very different. We actually bought a chair from a junk shop while we were together and we had _very_ different reactions to it.

Me: Oh! look at that chair...it makes me feel nostalgic, and it captures a sense of comfort and whimsy. It makes me think of libaries, and cosy cottages...and that wicker part, that reminds me of a chair I had as a child, it's so delicate and lovly, it looks like lots of little stars...and the pattern on the cushion makes me think of William Morris, and his organic forms, growth and beauty...I could put it by the fire place and create a cosy little nook, infact I could use the fire place to store magazines rather than buy a magazine rack, and it goes with my mirror, and those curved arm rests, they feel so elegant. It is an expression of tradition, and warmth, and timeless style..I really want that chair.
Him: I kind of like the variation in the coloure of the varnish...
Me: why?
Him: uh, because I do? 
Me: that's really it?
Him: I...just think rustic things look cool.
Me: so can we buy the chair?
Him: isn't it sort of old ladyish?
Me: not how I am going to do it, so it's like a grand study sort of thing...
Him: *dubiousely* I'll take your word for it. 
*my INFP friend sees the chair when we bring it home.*
INFP: that is amazing! It makes me think of libarys, and Sherlocke Holmes...smoking jackets...intelligence and style..._god_, I want that chair.Where did you get it? *note how the Ni user is more direct and cuts right to the heart of the issue, not expanding outwards constantly or going on major tangents, in comparison to my Ne response.*

S users arn't looking at something and seeing all it's possibilities, or in terms of essence and connotations with ideas or archetypes. They see a thing, not abstractions from that thing, or it as respresenting anything other than what it _literally_ is. It's a kind of old fashioned looking chair, good for sitting on, the variation in the varnish looks cool, what are those two N users going on about? When it's set up as the N users imagined, in a study envirment and with whmsical things, they can see what they were getting at more clearly...but's it's still just a chair. Silly N users. 

Though this is Se biased.


----------



## human

I don't think sensors' views necessarily lack depth at all. My husband is a sensor, and I'm intuitive. I notice a big difference when we shop. He can pick up an orange and spend quite a bit of time noticing its details, determining if it'll be tasty and wonderful. It's not that I don't notice the orange, but I can't stick as long with the experience itself. I watch him, wondering what he's experiencing, thinking about where we'll go next or about the social problems of fruit imports or trying not to interrupt him to ask him what he thinks of the problem of binary oppositions as a common worldview. Sometimes (I'm a little embarrassed to admit), I bring a book to read. No matter how hard I try, I can't be with the orange like he can. I admire that.


----------



## NeedMoreKnowledge

Ray Mabry said:


> I think that one of the key differences between the two is that *Sensors* generally don't seem to trust or understand that which they can't see, or more accurately, sense. If their 5 senses do not pick up on it then they often have difficulty understanding it and even if they come to an understanding they often cannot trust something until it is made concrete and observable in some way and rightfully so.
> *Intuitives* on the other hand have a hard time trusting the surface of things. The 5 senses for them do not readily supply them with all of the information they need to know about an object or situation. Their intuitive sense does. So they basically only use the 5 senses as more of a "vehicle" and not as a means of understanding.
> This generally leads to misunderstandings between the two types. Of couse when types cannot see beyond their own perspecive, *Sensors* see *Intuitives* as crazy or out of touch with reality and often feel they are imagining things or reading too much into things and *Intuitives* generally see *Sensors* as too trusting of their perceptions and somewhat naive or unfocused on the true meaning behind the the things they sense.
> *Intuitive* processes are nearly invisible and partially unconscious while *Sensing* processes are fairly visible and not only obvious but completely conscious so there are many many misunderstandings just based on this.
> 
> and of course, one thing to mention is that *Sensors* are all about concrete details and *Intuitives* are more about the big picture and generalize details their intuition feels is unimportant to the big picture. (I'll also note that in this process of generalization the details not seen as important to the big picture become interchangeable: A small example of this is when attention is not given to the color of an object because it often doesn't matter to the big picture and can really any color can be attributed to an object, in most cases, without changing it's meaning to the bigger picture.)
> 
> Now really I mostly, but not solely, speak of those with sensing as a dominant function which would be ESxP. ISxP aren't as involved in their sensing function although, of course, it does show up in a more obvious manner although it is under less conscious control than their dominant functions. They are slightly closer to some form of intuition as well which serves them some purpose although it becomes subordinate to their dominant and auxiliary functions and can even become "mixed in" with other functions being that it isn't entirely differentiated. So it becomes tricky to fully box ISxP's under sensing on a functional level although they still are more so sensing than anything else because their intuition is not pure and is not completely free of the influence of their dominant and auxiliary functions.


Well thought out, thanks for this.


----------



## poetic cafe

For me, it's pretty easy to determine S/N in the course of a conversation. But then again, I am extremely intuitive, so I naturally weed out (aka "scare away") sensing types.

Personally, I hate pleasantries (How are you? I am fine. And how are you? I am fine too) There is soemthing so formulaic about them that I find them to be superficial. One way for me to determine if someone is a fellow intuitive is to make an unexpected response, and gauge how they react. If they look at me like I have a third limb growing out of my forehead, then they're a sensing type. If they come right back with something just as unusual, then they're likely an XNXP. If they smile pleasantly and seem to get the joke, then they're likely an XNXJ.


----------



## Seeker99

Ray Mabry said:


> *Intuitives* on the other hand have a hard time trusting the surface of things. The 5 senses for them do not readily supply them with all of the information they need to know about an object or situation. Their intuitive sense does. So they basically only use the 5 senses as more of a "vehicle" and not as a means of understanding.


I actually really, really relate to this. 

I guess I'm a crazy iNtuitive ISFJ, my Ni is just being repressed by an insane amount of Si. :crazy:


----------



## Functianalyst

SL1D3R said:


> I'm a Sensor. Here is an example from last night.
> 
> As I was sitting in the living room watching television with my (then) girlfriend, I was suddenly aware of a feeling of loneliness and tranquility. It was odd sitting together with a strange person, sharing brief moments in time. I was alone with my thoughts, but shared the physical, the real and distinct moments; as seconds, minutes, and hours passed. I was both sad and happy.
> 
> My perception is difficult to explain, but I hope you understand the gist of "sensing."


Actually, you're a feeling type and I am a thinking type. We get caught up in this S vs N ordeal when actually there are four functions S-N-T-F and two attitudes E-I making for eight function preferences. That being said, the OP is looking at type too general and need to determine which is the dominant function. As an ISTP I use Ni better than NP types and SJs use Ne better than NJ types. The same goes for NP types using Si better than SP types and SJs use Ne better than NJ types.


----------



## Thalassa

Honestly, don't take this the wrong way, but I think sensors see less differences between intuitives and sensors. I think intuitives are painfully aware of it before they even realize a word exists to describe the concept.


----------



## Functianalyst

fourtines said:


> Honestly, don't take this the wrong way, but I think sensors see less differences between intuitives and sensors. I think intuitives are painfully aware of it before they even realize a word exists to describe the concept.


Not sure who you are making your statement to, but it still goes back to what are being considered sensing and intuiting types. Ni and Ne dominant types are intuiting types. Si and Se dominant types are sensing types. The remainder are thinking (the ETJs and ITPs) and feeling (the ENJ and IFP) types. 

So I would be interested in how ISJ and ESP types see less differences than ENP and INJ types.


----------



## Thalassa

Functianalyst said:


> Not sure who you are making your statement to, but it still goes back to what are being considered sensing and intuiting types. Ni and Ne dominant types are intuiting types. Si and Se dominant types are sensing types. The remainder are thinking (the ETJs and ITPs) and feeling (the ENJ and IFP) types.
> 
> So I would be interested in how ISJ and ESP types see less differences than ENP and INJ types.


 
I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just giving my experience of what the OP is talking about - S/N has never seemed a hard thing for me to determine, in fact it's one of the core concepts of type theory that made me go "aha!" 

I'm not saying sensors aren't aware of it at all. Even before either of us knew anything of real value about this theory, my ESFJ ex was always noticing that I was "the same kind of person" as people I know who test INTP, INFJ, etc. and this made me completely different from what he considered a normal world view for himself, and most other people.

I think ISFP might be very confused about S/N because they often experience the same feeling of being "different" and not being quite sure why. I've also heard some people say that ISxP are closest to being Ns of S types, and ENxJs, particularly ENTJs, are the closest N to being S.

So maybe you are correct, maybe this is just my perception because I am ENFP, and I think INxJs are pretty keenly aware of the difference too. 

However, I've noticed on other type forums sensors - ISTJs, ISTPs - basically saying they don't see that much difference between Sensors and Intuitives, denying it exists, or engaging in outright arguments when Intuitive people try to explain the difference in perception.

Didn't mean to offend anyone.


----------



## Functianalyst

fourtines said:


> I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just giving my experience of what the OP is talking about - S/N has never seemed a hard thing for me to determine, in fact it's one of the core concepts of type theory that made me go "aha!"
> 
> I'm not saying sensors aren't aware of it at all. Even before either of us knew anything of real value about this theory, my ESFJ ex was always noticing that I was "the same kind of person" as people I know who test INTP, INFJ, etc. and this made me completely different from what he considered a normal world view for himself, and most other people.
> 
> I think ISFP might be very confused about S/N because they often experience the same feeling of being "different" and not being quite sure why. I've also heard some people say that ISxP are closest to being Ns of S types, and ENxJs, particularly ENTJs, are the closest N to being S.
> 
> So maybe you are correct, maybe this is just my perception because I am ENFP, and I think INxJs are pretty keenly aware of the difference too.
> 
> However, I've noticed on other type forums sensors - ISTJs, ISTPs - basically saying they don't see that much difference between Sensors and Intuitives, denying it exists, or engaging in outright arguments when Intuitive people try to explain the difference in perception.
> 
> Didn't mean to offend anyone.


You're right, you are alluding to feeling types not sensing types. I don't think as an ISTP I see little difference. I see little difference between what you refer to as intuiting vs. sensing types for several reasons. For example INTP and ISTP both use the same dominant function (Ti) therefore may have little use of their auxiliary. The same goes for ESTJ and ENTJ who both dominate with Te, ESFJ and ENFJ who both dominate with Fe, etc. Also Ni and Si are similar per Jung as is Se and Ne. So to make that distinction about ISTP may be correct, only because Jung says there are no differences and because for years I thought I was INTP and saw little to no difference.


----------



## IonOfAeons

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> *sigh* I'm starting to think that I straddle the borderline between sensor and intuitive so much that it's not even funny.
> 
> The thing with me is that I only use intuition when I want to. When I see a chair or an onion or anything else, I don't think that much about it. However, if I felt like it, I could use it. Surely intuitives don't _constantly_ get ideas from _everything_ they see, do they?  I mean, sometimes it happens with me, but it doesn't always happen.





SarahWilliams said:


> Um, I think it would be really overwhelming if you went full intuition on every object you see.
> 
> I think the majority of the time, *everyone* sees a chair as a chair. There's no reason for me to contemplate the meaning of life everytime I see a chair.
> 
> I'm not sure I can speak for other intuitives, but I think I have an off-on relationship with intuiton. Maybe this is Se vs. Ni? In certain moods, things are what they are - and I have little need to analyze the heck out of something. In other moods, I can't help but think of every possibility that exists.
> 
> For example, I love modern art. Sometimes seeing a Pollock inspires a range of thoughts like: action, break from tradition, ground, reexamining the use of foreground in paintings, etc. I want to read about his life, and understand his motivations. I want to watch the movie of his life and watch how his painting technique evolves.
> 
> And sometimes, viewing a Pollock just looks like pretty splotches of paint on a canvas.


It works in reverse too. I'm quite capable of identifying a lot of different possibilities if I'm in the right mood. I think symbolism is interesting and I've talked about chemistry with intuitives who're also interested without getting lost with what they're saying.
But if I'm not in the right mood, it's just going to be 'huh, sure.' to most things you say.
And presumably, depending on your ratio of N vs S, you might switch between them more or less often.



Ray Mabry said:


> I think that one of the key differences between the two is that *Sensors* generally don't seem to trust or understand that which they can't see, or more accurately, sense. If their 5 senses do not pick up on it then they often have difficulty understanding it and even if they come to an understanding they often cannot trust something until it is made concrete and observable in some way and rightfully so.
> *Intuitives* on the other hand have a hard time trusting the surface of things. The 5 senses for them do not readily supply them with all of the information they need to know about an object or situation. Their intuitive sense does. So they basically only use the 5 senses as more of a "vehicle" and not as a means of understanding.
> This generally leads to misunderstandings between the two types. Of couse when types cannot see beyond their own perspecive, *Sensors* see *Intuitives* as crazy or out of touch with reality and often feel they are imagining things or reading too much into things and *Intuitives* generally see *Sensors* as too trusting of their perceptions and somewhat naive or unfocused on the true meaning behind the the things they sense.
> *Intuitive* processes are nearly invisible and partially unconscious while *Sensing* processes are fairly visible and not only obvious but completely conscious so there are many many misunderstandings just based on this.
> 
> and of course, one thing to mention is that *Sensors* are all about concrete details and *Intuitives* are more about the big picture and generalize details their intuition feels is unimportant to the big picture. (I'll also note that in this process of generalization the details not seen as important to the big picture become interchangeable: A small example of this is when attention is not given to the color of an object because it often doesn't matter to the big picture and can really any color can be attributed to an object, in most cases, without changing it's meaning to the bigger picture.)
> 
> Now really I mostly, but not solely, speak of those with sensing as a dominant function which would be ESxP. ISxP aren't as involved in their sensing function although, of course, it does show up in a more obvious manner although it is under less conscious control than their dominant functions. They are slightly closer to some form of intuition as well which serves them some purpose although it becomes subordinate to their dominant and auxiliary functions and can even become "mixed in" with other functions being that it isn't entirely differentiated. So it becomes tricky to fully box ISxP's under sensing on a functional level although they still are more so sensing than anything else because their intuition is not pure and is not completely free of the influence of their dominant and auxiliary functions.
> 
> *EDIT:* Also I just wanted to add I didn't mean to leave out Ni or Si. This actually applies to them as well but I was mostly thinking of Extroverted Sensing and Extroverted Intuition when trying to illustrate the differences between the types so I only really mentioned ESxP and ISxP. I guess though ESxx and ISxx can be substituted there really. And also I wanted to point out that the last paragraph about ISxP can also be flipped to some degree and used to assume how INxP's (or I guess really INxx) relate to sensing.


Interesting perspective, though I'd dispute some of your points on sensors. If an idea conceivably makes sense to me then I'll give it some weight. You would be correct that I wouldn't ever say it was 100% correct, but that's because I believe alternative explanations can be provided for any theory. It's more to do that nothing is permanently defined, not because I can't see it.
I get accused of reading into things too much all the time. Mostly because I get annoyed with people telling me that something is one way and that's all it could ever be. It's interesting to deconstruct things, because most things can be constructed in several different ways. When I'm bored I do this with people's language because I've got sick of them repeating stock phrases with no consideration for what they're actually saying instead of trying to cultivate something more.


----------



## Ray Mabry

IonOfAeons said:


> It works in reverse too. I'm quite capable of identifying a lot of different possibilities if I'm in the right mood. I think symbolism is interesting and I've talked about chemistry with intuitives who're also interested without getting lost with what they're saying.
> But if I'm not in the right mood, it's just going to be 'huh, sure.' to most things you say.
> And presumably, depending on your ratio of N vs S, you might switch between them more or less often.
> 
> 
> Interesting perspective, though I'd dispute some of your points on sensors. If an idea conceivably makes sense to me then I'll give it some weight. You would be correct that I wouldn't ever say it was 100% correct, but that's because I believe alternative explanations can be provided for any theory. It's more to do that nothing is permanently defined, not because I can't see it.
> I get accused of reading into things too much all the time. Mostly because I get annoyed with people telling me that something is one way and that's all it could ever be. It's interesting to deconstruct things, because most things can be constructed in several different ways. When I'm bored I do this with people's language because I've got sick of them repeating stock phrases with no consideration for what they're actually saying instead of trying to cultivate something more.


You wouldn't be considered a sensing type though at least not from my interpretation of Jung's theory. You are Ti dominant. While Se is used to support your dominant function it isn't really the same as being a pure sensing type so it's kind of hard to say what an ISTP sees because Se isn't fully differentiated.

It's just as Ti and Fe are with me. I prefer Ti and use it to support Ne most of the time but Fe does play a fairly active role as well in a lot of my decisions. I tend to relate to Fe in sometimes a less positive way than I do to Ti but generally speaking I wouldn't be a "pure" thinking type because it is secondary to me. So when I say sensing I am mostly keeping ESxP types in mind and when referring to intuition ENxP types were mostly kept in mind too.


----------



## IonOfAeons

Ray Mabry said:


> You wouldn't be considered a sensing type though at least not from my interpretation of Jung's theory. You are Ti dominant. While Se is used to support your dominant function it isn't really the same as being a pure sensing type so it's kind of hard to say what an ISTP sees because Se isn't fully differentiated.
> 
> It's just as Ti and Fe are with me. I prefer Ti and use it to support Ne most of the time but Fe does play a fairly active role as well in a lot of my decisions. I tend to relate to Fe in sometimes a less positive way than I do to Ti but generally speaking I wouldn't be a "pure" thinking type because it is secondary to me. So when I say sensing I am mostly keeping ESxP types in mind and when referring to intuition ENxP types were mostly kept in mind too.


Fair point. I don't know if I'm imagining it or not, but it seems a lot like ENxPs and INxPs are more similar than ESxPs and ISxPs for some reason, perhaps the perceiving functions differentiate differently? 
I have considered that having sensing in an auxiliary probably makes a big difference because Ni will be less polarised to it than in an Se-dominant (though that's just conjecture).
I'd be interested to talk to an intuitive in real life though... Most of them express themselves quite concisely on this site so they're pretty easy to follow, but presumably they're more 'all over the place mentally' in RL?


----------

