# "An intuitive can be a sensor, but a sensor can't be an intuitive."



## L. W. (Nov 23, 2014)

Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

That's a lie


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Being an intuitive means you more naturally trust your intuition over your senses. Being a sensor means your more naturally trust your senses over your intuition. 

We've all got senses and intuitions, and we can all use them to good use, they just come more or less naturally to certain people.


----------



## LucidValvo (Dec 3, 2014)

Well according to cognitive functions that wouldn't work. Si/Se types have Ni/Ne at the bottom of their function stacks and Ni/Ne types have Si/Se at the bottom of their function stacks. That's if you believe in MBTI and type theory though.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Wrong. I used to walk around my school thinking everyone that everyone was a mindless drone on my cynical of days. They only cared about this stupid thing or that stupid thing. Then I realized when prompted by teachers (of all people) these mindless drones revealed their incredible ability to think deeply and make calculated decisions about questions to interpret meaning. 
Here it turned out that they were not mindless at all but that I was indeed senseless not to recognize their mindfulness.


----------



## Catallena (Oct 19, 2014)

Nah that's bullshit. Might've been said by someone who thinks sensing has to do with just using the 5 senses. :laughing:


----------



## Innogen (Oct 22, 2014)

Whoever said that is a dumbo.


----------



## therainandthunder (Aug 10, 2014)

Nope. Nonsense.


----------



## Eventive (Sep 27, 2014)

I think they meant that an intuitor can speak whatever sensors speak, but not always vice versa.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sensors have and do use intuition, but to say they can _be _intuitives is a different matter. It's like saying speaking French _makes _you French. I think this is true of intuitives, too. We can speak the language of sensors, but we are not sensors.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

L. W. said:


> Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


Nope. Probably said by some depressed teenager who is trying to make himself* seem like he is part of a "superior group" and that's why "no one understands him".

*yes, the person who said that could be a she too...just didn't feel like putting the /(female pronoun).


----------



## monthlydinners (Sep 4, 2012)

Basically, they're saying that iNtuitives are sensors with an extra layer. Total bullshit.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Everyone uses both Sensing and Intuition. One is just more cognitively repressed than the other.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)




----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Sounds like a bias.

"Intuitives are so special that they can be both sensors and intuitives! Sensors lack the depth and understanding to cultivate intuition. We don't like them and we want them out of our exclusive club. Go away".

I'm sure the person who said that believes sensors (especially SJ's) lack depth and understanding to join a thread like this and discuss theories and ideas with ease or genuine knowledge, just pretending to know for the sake of developing a hivemind mentality or sabotaging their true "superficiality". Also that intuitives score 155 on an IQ test and sensors around 70.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Eventive said:


> I think they meant that an intuitor can speak whatever sensors speak, but not always vice versa.


this is also how i interpreted it


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

I think function preference is characterized when certain type of cognition is so neurologically stimulating that you automatically default to using it over the other functions.

So, Sensors will always get energy from making use of their sense impressions in a way that I never will. Moreover, Sensors could choose to focus less on the sensory impressions themselves, and more on their conceptual interpretations (what does this mean and why?) , then imagining how the world could (or will) change to be more accord with those interpretations. The thing is they will probably never get as much stimulation from doing that as I do.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Modal Soul said:


> this is also how i interpreted it


I still think it's a biased statement, claiming sensors lack depth and intuitves have all this beautiful understanding of everything.

That's a hyperbole, of course, but I dislike the notion that intuitives always understand sensors and can sense, and yet a sensor is often incapable of being abstract. That's bullshit- all types can be abstract. How much one can abstract is indicative of preference. It's just more of the "intuitives are rare and therefore special" bullshit that's littered all over these forums like salty garbage.

It needs to stop. Imagine how many sj's in particular feel about themselves; I'm sure many worry about being unlikable. Now I'm just getting mushy


----------



## visionaryspirit (Nov 24, 2014)

Everyone has sensing and intuitive functions, the question is how much of each does that individual have and which one they use dominantly.


----------



## Thorweeps (May 17, 2014)

Eventive said:


> I think they meant that an intuitor can speak whatever sensors speak, but not always vice versa.


But isn't that just more of the same "intuitives are awesome, sensors are drones" mentality that is so prevalent on this forum? I agree with @hoopla in the fact this bias is nearly constant and always damaging. Bias needs to be banned, but how does one ban prejudice?


----------



## Eventive (Sep 27, 2014)

Thorweeps said:


> But isn't that just more of the same "intuitives are awesome, sensors are drones" mentality that is so prevalent on this forum?


No.



hoopla said:


> I still think it's a biased statement, claiming sensors lack depth and intuitves have all this beautiful understanding of everything.


No one here claimed anything, you're pouring your own opinions. I'm glad that you see it as beautiful, I sometimes think of you like that. 

I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation. Obviously we need both, or we wouldn't be chatting here. It depends on individuals of course, how much they have depth. I don't discriminate, but it's a fact that between two intuitors conversation just flows more naturally, but that doesn't mean I can't have fulfilling discussions with sensors. I guess it's similar for two sensors.




surgery said:


> I think function preference is characterized when certain type of cognition is so neurologically stimulating that you automatically default to using it over the other functions.
> 
> So, Sensors will always get energy from making use of their sense impressions in a way that I never will.


We're all slaves to pleasure, free will and all.


----------



## Thorweeps (May 17, 2014)

Eventive said:


> No.


Actually, yes. Whether you don't see it or don't want to acknowledge it I don't know.

Both the OP's heard phrase and your restatement of it come off as biased.

But I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Eventive said:


> I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. *I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to.* They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation. Obviously we need both, or we wouldn't be chatting here. It depends on individuals of course, how much they have depth. I don't discriminate, but it's a fact that between two intuitors conversation just flows more naturally, but that doesn't mean I can't have fulfilling discussions with sensors. I guess it's similar for two sensors.


While I can certainly understand and respect that the bold line may have been your experience, but I've seen Sensors make the effort to "fit in" with intuitive crowds. And from the outside it seemed effortless at that.

Regardless, the problem with the truth that you see and the OP's quote is that there is a difference between not having to fit in and cannot fit in. The first implies a choice while the latter is an impossibility.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Eventive said:


> I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation..


I see your point, but here you're talking about social expectations whereas the original quote is talking about ability. There's a big difference between me "pretending to be normal" vs actually using a Sensing function. For example, I had an ESFP manager who would look at me like an idiot if I ever talked about something that wasn't totally "real world." So, when I was around her I would curtail my speech to focus more on concrete, everyday things -- stuff that was happening here and now. But, at no point did I actually start to _prefer_ Se. After all, actually having a cognitive preference for Se entails a kind of impulse to actually interact with the external environment, not just being aware of it (even at the exclusion of Intuitive hunches). 

The same thing is true for Te. In a business environment that is heavily Te-laden, I could try to "act more professional", make more effort to plan things out step-by-step or only consider "efficiency" or cost when making decisions, but at no point do I actually develop a preference for Te. It just isn't neurologically stimulating or "comfortable."

So, yes, maybe Sensors don't feel much societal pressure to fake Intuition. But, that doesn't mean they don't have flashes of Intuitive insight nor does it mean that, if pressured, they wouldn't be able to use/prefer Intuition at the same level that you or I would use/prefer Sensing.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

@Eventive

You're right, I am pouring my opinions onto the thread, as are you and everyone else involved. 

Good point, that no one claimed anything, but I still think making such a statement is trying to make a claim, even if the statement is false with no evidence to back it's self up

I used to swear I was intuitive because my whole life I was rejected for being "weird". I have to hid my true self to fit in everyday. And yet I use Si and much more Fe than Ti, making me a sensor. Oh God forbid. I'm one of the normies. That is why I reject such quotes. They may be indicative of an idea rather than a claim, yet many will take it as fact; a claim.

Of course the statement didn't imply sensors can't be weird; it said sensors cannot be intuitive and intuitives can be sensors, which I took to be a sneaky way of implying intuitives have more depth than a sensor. That could be a misinterpretation, yet it's how I see it.

What's funny is we're here debating if sensors lack the depth of an intuitive, and we have you claiming it's easier for sensors to fit in compared to intuitives.I don't agree; if we're going with experiences I was friends with an ESFJ in middle school who was an outcast; bullied, had trouble fitting in. Perhaps she was a rare exception, but something tells me that's not the case. And your claim falls back to the claim that sensors lack depth, and all the other crappy claims about sensors that leads to mistyping and intolerance. I think MBTI should be a tool to understand others, not view them as inferior, if you agree with that.


----------



## s2theizay (Nov 12, 2014)

hoopla said:


> @Eventive
> 
> You're right, I am pouring my opinions onto the thread, as are you and everyone else involved.
> 
> ...


I agree with your entire post, but especially related to the bold parts. Some of the wackiest people I know are ISTJs.

I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.

In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

s2theizay said:


> I agree with your entire post, but I especially related to the bold parts. Some of the wackiest people I know are ISTJs.
> 
> I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.
> 
> In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?


I'm fairly certain my dad is an ISTP, which means his tertiary function (Ni) is my dominant. We have an interesting dynamic. We either clash or get into really intense, and lengthy conversations. The other night we actually had one such convo in which he was complaining about other family members being scatterbrained. He said that he tends to go on tangents but they're connected. So it seems we are the same way there. But I've noticed he has a bit more patience to deal with details (like he'll watch a 50-minute, long video with some guy droning on about how to replace part of a computer.. I would've just googled it and tried to get it over with ASAP.) But he also is a bit ADD from my perspective when it comes to talking about more theoretical things or statistical findings (ex. "but you know that's just a generalization *changes subject*")

In regards to the OP, in this example my dad has more of a N/S balance than I do (I have dom Ni/inferior Se, he has aux Se/tertiary Ni.) This is basically the same for INTP and ENTJ, but reversed.

I think N/S balance would depend on the functional stack. 

N's and S's can do each other's "tasks" (i.e. functions), but I think they are performed indirectly via the more dominant function. For example in my case. You don't see INTJ's just not doing sensory things, ever. But S activities for an INTJ are more a consequence of the N and T processes.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

s2theizay said:


> I really think the differences we find between ourselves is about relevance. A while back, there was a post by an ESFJ on why she didn't enjoy the random tangents that Ns can be known for. She said that it took a lot of energy to focus on something that wasn't relevant to everyday life. (This is a summary, I don't remember the exact wording) She was totally capable of following an esoteric discussion, but there was no useful endpoint and it felt like a waste of energy. That's how I feel when people talk about most day-to-day things. It takes far more energy than I am willing to expend, because I don't see the value.
> 
> In the end, we all have similar capabilities, but different strengths. People often come to similar conclusions about something, but through different paths. If we get to the same place, why does it matter how we got there?


I think all of this is important.

See, I am capable of comprehending or discussing ideas or abstract thought; I even enjoy it. I wrote a journal entry a few days ago; I won't get into all the details, but it was a weird tangent that turned into a metaphor for the media. And yet I'll think "that reminds me of" "oh it's like"... "oh here's a story from my childhood," "Remember that time...?" all the little past things in the world. As well as repeating the same story without intention, as that's how my brain works. But I think there are many sensors who are capable of creative of abstract thought, some less than others, but they still exist and that shouldn't be discounted.

Your last point is my favorite. It's a claim I've seen over and over again- "You see mostly intuitives on this forum because MBTI/Jung is an abstract concept". 1) How do we know a good chunk of intuitives here aren't sensors fooled due to such a statement? "I really enjoy MBTI, therefore I'm a sensor. Tada". 2) Sensors can comprehend jung, but perhaps in ways that differ from intuitives, and they can type others, but perhaps in a different path from intuitives. Everyone can have the same hobby, but it's all about how we got there. So stop with the snobbery; accept your fellow man. Good ol Fe.

Also if we want to embark on your point that we all get to an understanding in different ways, I'll assume intuitives and sensors can understand each other, but both will reach different destinations. How about using creative strategies to attempt to understand each other rather than pulling the two apart?


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Sensing/intuition are just preferences, so I don't agree with this statement. However, I do find that intuitives can understand sensors more easily than sensors can understand intuitives.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Most individuals have a preference towards either sensing or intuition, however a sliver of the population may have no measurable preference regarding their sensing or intuition functions.
Maybe you overheard reference to the idea that some individuals have an X to depict neutrality of their second function rather than either an S or an N in that place.
However I've no idea why a neutral individual mistyped as a sensor couldn't seamlessly utilize intuition just as effortlessly as a neutral individual mistyped as intuitive could utilize their sensing functions.

Philosophers & astrologers used to argue that Planet Earth is flat, so who knows what psychologists will propose to be the norm years from today.
I'd concede that I don't know a definitive answer to the question which you've posed, but keep a salt shaker in hand because many of us are wannabe know-it-alls.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

double posts. I can hear you laugh at me


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> I'd concede that I don't know a definitive answer to the question which you've posed, but keep a salt shaker in hand because many of us are wannabe know-it-alls.



Good point as well. I take most of what's said here with a grain of salt, unless I really feel right about it or it makes lots of sense. I can't really articulate what makes me trust an idea; I just do. And then sometimes a contradictory things happens, and then I realize the statement is no longer true, or perhaps a semi-truth. We're learning all the time. It's important to question everything you here, especially on this wannabe know-it-all community we call personalitycafe.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Who said that?
Can you teach them MBTI please.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Statement in OP's post is a sure fire way to get some people up in arms. ;-)

Personally, I admire sensors' ability to actually see things. My 76-yr-old ISFJ mom doesn't live with me but only visit to catsit. However, she knows more about my neighbors in the complex better than I could ever (and I've lived there close to 20 years). She just watches.

In my world, the only difference to me is how much I reveal. I feel much more in sync and at ease talking to my intuitive friends (INFP, INFJ, INTJ) than with my sensor family/friends (ISFJ, ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ESFJ. ESTJ, ESFP).


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

chanteuse said:


> Statement in OP's post is a sure fire way to get some people up in arms. ;-)
> 
> Personally, I admire sensors' ability to actually see things. My 76-yr-old ISFJ mom doesn't live with me but only visit to catsit. However, she knows more about my neighbors in the complex better than I could ever (and I've lived there close to 20 years). She just watches.
> 
> In my world, the only difference to me is how much I reveal. I feel much more in sync and at ease talking to my intuitive friends (INFP, INFJ, INTJ) than with my sensor family/friends (ISFJ, ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ESFJ. ESTJ, ESFP).


And there goes another backhanded compliment.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

The URL of this thread reads: intuitive-can-sensor-but-sensor-cant-intuitive-4

I can only assume that means three threads similar to this one have been made before. But of course sensors can use intuition. Ne/Si and Se/Ni are paired together, and never stop operating alongside one another. The question is, which one is your core component? Which of the functions in that pair plays second fiddle?

In dichotomies, are sensors associated with anything good? Apart from being responsible and consistent. But one of the most pissing off questions in a test is this:

"You feel more comfortable sticking to conventional ways." I checked and found that answering yes veered you t'wards Sensing.

Contrast with David Keirsey's: "Artisans (SPs) pride themselves on being unconventional."

And then people start believing that this is what typology is all about. It actually makes me pretty angry that one's system of personality and understanding has been distorted into simplistic senselessness.

In fact, David Keirsey's comments on temperaments are basically:

SJs are useful pawns. They can't think for themselves though, so they need people to lead them who can think.
NFs are basically the illogical, irrational version of NTs. I mean, both have idealistic visions that will allow them to change the world and stuff, but NFs can't use logic.
SPs are just massive distraction devices from all of the world's problems. At the very least, they do something that other temperaments can't do.
NTs are creative and rational, meaning that they can create and shape an effective system for society, and a good way of living. Furthermore, when a working system is in place, they will vigorously support and maintain that system.

In short, you're never gonna associate with some of those temperaments unless you have serious confidence issues.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

An Obese Skeleton said:


> The URL of this thread reads: intuitive-can-sensor-but-sensor-cant-intuitive-4
> 
> I can only assume that means three threads similar to this one have been made before.


No... it means you were on page 4 when you copied the URL, the four is the page number 

On topic, it's one of those strange assumptions that doesn't seem to totally disappear, even though most seem aware that it's a flawed reading of the theory, probably rooted at least partly in the idea that "sensing" is a specific reference to use of one's five senses, and any such use constitutes "being a sensor". Quite simply, MBTI isn't about one's capabilities - although I think it could reasonably be posited that a person's capabilities will alter depending on their preferences, that's not the principal focus of type.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

L. W. said:


> Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


I would say there are some intuitives who, at times, can manage to handle the details _almost as good as a sensor_, but it's harder for a sensor to skip the step-by-step the way intuitives do. It would probably be easier for an intuitive to _pull off_ looking like a sensor than it would be for a sensor to pull off looking like an intuitive, but that's not quite the same thing.


----------



## boogiestomp (Jan 7, 2014)

Haha. the amount of bias that goes into that statement is overwhelming. 
I like to think the same ones espousing this kind of "N-elitism" are the same ones who score high on an online buzzfeed IQ test and shove it into every one else's face.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

"An intuitive can be a sensor, but a sensor can't be an intuitive."
makes no logical sense.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

An Obese Skeleton said:


> Contrast with David Keirsey's: "Artisans (SPs) pride themselves on being unconventional."
> 
> And then people start believing that this is what typology is all about. It actually makes me pretty angry that one's system of personality and understanding has been distorted into simplistic senselessness.
> 
> ...


David Keirsey, much good, no biases. Many respects and highly esteems in MBTI community


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

yes this is a true thing


----------



## cheapsunglasses (May 13, 2014)

The egotistical bias in this thread is staggering and insulting! :frustrating: 

A preference for one function does NOT mean that the opposite function is absent. Sensors use as much intuition as intuits use their senses. Intuits can speak sensor just as well as sensors can speak intuit. Sensors can "pass" as intuits just as well as intuits can "pass" as sensors. Functions do not define the person and preferences are just that, a preference. Neither function is better than the other. They are separate functions that work in pairs. Both types use both. Just as intuits feel other intuits "get" them and sensors don't, sensors feel other sensors "get" them and intuits don't. Each possesses a preference that is the weakness of the other. So, each has a strength and each has a weakness. To insinuate that one is better than the other speaks to a lack of understanding of the theory. 

MBTI is about understanding yourself so you can better understand others. There is no contest, no winner… unless you count understanding others as a win. It's certainly not about which function is better than others.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

@cheapsunglasses
What's funny is I've met sensors whom I feel don't understand me and intuitives who totally get me and vice versa. It's not this black and white, cut and dry "hey we're sensors we're going to get along!" type of deal that most people make it out to be. People forget there are different stages of development, that people come from different backgrounds, as well as all the different degrees and angles that can constitute different subtypes of a particular "thing", function in this case. Different layers, different levels, yet still the same function. I want to study this in depth, see if there are different factors that can make types turn out different, as well as different degrees of the types in general. If I collect enough info (and time), I may create a new theory. I for one, feel I would have became the naive cornball isfj stereotype if it weren't through the hell I went through as a child, which is why in some ways, I don't regret my past. It molded my future.


----------



## AliceKettle (Feb 2, 2014)

That's not true. I'm an ISFP, and I actually have a well-developed tertiary Ni and shadow Ne function. In the long run though I'm a sensor because I essentially focus on the present, spacing out or thinking about the random things (Ne) happens when I become bored, tired, or anxious. I have developed a great sense of self-reflection and personal growth over the years too (Ni).


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

L. W. said:


> Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


Nah. An intuitive can't be a sensor.

Weird thing is, my sensor parents understand me better everyday as they get older.


----------



## littlemisscustard (Jan 7, 2015)

B3LIAL said:


> Being an intuitive means you more naturally trust your intuition over your senses. Being a sensor means your more naturally trust your senses over your intuition.
> 
> We've all got senses and intuitions, and we can all use them to good use, they just come more or less naturally to certain people.


You speak my mind. All humans are born with five senses, and gut feeling.So I think sensors can use their intuition sometimes as well as an intuitive person use their senses.


----------



## Caneaster (Jan 18, 2015)

L. W. said:


> Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


I think it's pretty ignorant. In some ways, I can see the logic behind it in the sense that SJs (and Ss in general) make up the majority, so it's unavoidable that an intuitive would eventually need to learn to communicate more concretely to avoid being misunderstood by said majority who wouldn't feel the need to learn to speak most abstractly to appease the minority, but that still wouldn't justify the title in the OP; it would only mean that sensors _choose_ not to learn to speak more abstractly rather than _can't_.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Almost sounds like an intuitive can make sense, and a sensing type can't *not* make sense.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

JTHearts said:


> That's a lie


Thats true


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Whenever anyone says, "I heard _someone_ say this _somewhere_." completely negates any merit the statement might actually have. But in this case, the statement in itself is complete dreck anyways.


----------



## L. W. (Nov 23, 2014)

So I guess we've settled it as bullshit?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I get what it's saying, but it's just wrong.



L. W. said:


> So I guess we've settled it as bullshit?


Yes


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

I think that at some point one has to use functions beyond 4th one; however, that intuitive can be sensors and vice versa, I do not think so! I would be much better at noticing things around me. Sometimes that could be rather annoying.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Eventive said:


> I still find some truth in the original quote. At least from my own experience, I have had to adapt to the sensor world; growing up around them etc. And that only made me a better person. I don't see many sensors trying to fit in, because they don't have to. They're not worse or better, just different methods of operation. Obviously we need both, or we wouldn't be chatting here. It depends on individuals of course, how much they have depth. I don't discriminate, but it's a fact that between two intuitors conversation just flows more naturally, but that doesn't mean I can't have fulfilling discussions with sensors. I guess it's similar for two sensors.


I actually find this to be untrue in my life. I enjoy talking with my INTP wife on topics she enjoys, but she absolutely cannot reciprocate. She can find no interest in things that truly interest me--music being a big one, but not the only. I pretty much gave up playing any instrument because it is nothing but noise and a distraction to her. I listen to music with headphones, too. But like I said, there are other things that I could do, but find that they bother, if not scare her. And trying to converse on these topics? Forget it. 

On the other hand, my ENFJ daughter and I cover the range of topics, and she loves music. My INFJ daughter, on the other hand, well 1. she's a bit less patient with me on things like MBTI, but other topics, she's just fine discussing them with me--topics that she enjoys, but again, getting back into more material things--she glazes over. On the other hand, my INTJ friend and I can discuss several things--both conceptual and material, with a rich smattering between them--A.I. or physics, etc. I grant that his immediate grasp is quicker than mine, but he honestly likes to explain these things, and I make a willing student, and quickly grasp what he's trying to say (in my second language, not my first, so it's harder for me to grasp were he speaking English). 

If I had to speculate, I would say this. NPs struggle with SPs, and NJs with SJs, while SPs and NJs do better crossing the borders, and SJs with NPs. I say that having watched my wife converse with my ISFJ friend for long periods of time on topics I thought he couldn't bear. He would listen to her, ask insightful questions, and shortly be able to converse quite capably with her--kind of like my INTJ friend and I. So, my speculation has to do with conversing along the same axes, vs. across the axes. That's my theory anyway... and one I've held for a while, thanks to Socionics and personal observation.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Silly.

We all use senses and intuition in one form or another. 

Cognitively, there are certain strengths, and certain weaknesses.

For example-- Even though I value and love Si to bits, I'm actually more skilled with Se, even though I don't value it and find it boring psychologically.

We all use 8 functions. We each have 4 valued functions. And it varies on how skilled we are at the other 4.

See my thread on Dimensionality and Typing in the Socionics sub-forum for more information on that.


----------



## L. W. (Nov 23, 2014)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> Whenever anyone says, "I heard _someone_ say this _somewhere_." completely negates any merit the statement might actually have. But in this case, the statement in itself is complete dreck anyways.


I didn't actually hear it. It was a figure of speech. I read it on some blog I don't remember.


----------



## L. W. (Nov 23, 2014)

Thanks for all of your answers!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

L. W. said:


> Heard someone say that somewhere. What do you make of it?


Intuitives have a sort of flexibility that allows them to mimic what sensors do for short periods of time, but we can't sustain it for long. We just don't have the patience for details that sensors do. We'd rather stick to what we're good at: "The bigger picture." Do I think it gives intuitives an advantage in some instances? Yes I do. Does that mean intuitives are somehow superior to sensors? No I do not.


----------



## L. W. (Nov 23, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Intuitives have a sort of flexibility that allows them to mimic what sensors do for short periods of time, but we can't sustain it for long. We just don't have the patience for details that sensors do. We'd rather stick to what we're good at: "The bigger picture." Do I think it gives intuitives an advantage in some instances? Yes I do. Does that mean intuitives are somehow superior to sensors? No I do not.


That makes a lot of sense. I'm in the middle of figuring out my type, and what you just said about intuitives fits me well. Mmm, that is quite helpful.


----------

