# Why do you think theres so much weird bias against Sensors and having depth?



## Gomez.ArtherJ (Nov 16, 2014)

I can be deep. But you wouldn't know it.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

If you think of depth as _layers _of perception then intuition does reveal more depth because it starts with sensory information and dives beneath it to intuit its abstract qualities and connections. So intuition is deeper in this sense. But if you think of depth as richness or vividness of perception, then sensation might carry more depth. Depth also refers to a person's thoughts and feelings, the T and F functions. Depth of thought and feeling are related to depth of perception and are influenced by factors such as intelligence, education, experience, maturity, and so on. So a person's apparent depth consists in more than his perceptions and trying to type someone on this basis alone can be misleading. An intelligent older sensor, for example, will usually have more depth of _personality _than a less intelligent younger intuitive.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

At the risk of stereotyping, many Intuitives (especially younger ones) have very (ironically) shallow (borderline pretentious) notions of what _depth_ really is. Intuitives in general are more likely to value discussions about concepts or ideas that they consider deep while many Sensors simply don't see the point. That doesn't mean they don't have equally deep thoughts or can't follow an "intellectual" conversation. They just, often times, have other interests or feel there are better things to do with their time.

I get the feeling that many people, especially Intuitives, think of Sensors as shallow people in general... can I remind you that _every_ human being, no matter how they appear to you, has depth and personality. Sometimes these so-called "shallow" people _like _being perceived in that way... perhaps to be accepted, or to be popular, or to protect themselves, or for any number of reasons... that in itself is depth. Myers Briggs is supposed to teach you to accept, understand and value how other people think, feel and approach their lives. Your way isn't inherently better and neither is someone else's. 

Stop reducing people to their functions. You have to understand how they all come together and form an individual's personality and even then you won't get a full picture of who they really are. 

And so what if some people don't value your notions of "depth?" That doesn't make them unintelligent or inferior in _any_ way. Don't pat yourself on the back for liking philosophy or whatever else you consider "deep."


----------



## Gomez.ArtherJ (Nov 16, 2014)

this is all boring


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I think it's less a spectrum issue and more a Venn diagram issue.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

tangosthenes said:


> I think it's less a spectrum issue and more a Venn diagram issue.


Perhaps, who knows. All we know for certain is that bias is an issue, especially when typing oneself and others.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I feel that way about 'intuitives' who basically make shit up. Intuition isn't special knowledge or skill.


----------



## Crimplene for men (Nov 6, 2014)

As an intuitive (an INTP with very strong Ne), I think that a lot of Intuitives have been raised in an environment that favours Sensing, or at least this is the case for me. I experienced a Sensing backlash in my teens and still deal with the fallout. 

To generalise, the issue I have on a day to day basis with Sensors is that they seem to place a lot of importance on things I generally don't give a shit about and then act as though I have some sort of character flaw because i don't give a shit about the stuff that they do.

To be succinct, they seem to place more importance on tradition, social norms and things that more Intuitive types would probably find really boring, but that's not to say that Sensors are boring people - far from it. I suppose they generally come off as less flexible and tolerant in my experience.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Like on other sub forums especially on the typing sections theres always "so and so can't be a Sensor, they are Intuitive, because...." and then the listed reason is usually in regards to ones depth or insight?
> 
> Do people not understand that being more literal does not always mean not having depth or insight?
> 
> ...


Since Sensors are at home with dealing mainly with what is "real" and tangible. What is "obvious" to everybody does not seem to have so much depth/
iNtuitives who deal with things that are not there, and brings them out into light to be seen, seems more depth and creative.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Gomez.ArtherJ said:


> this is all boring


Good point!

A natural interest in practical, and a deathly aversion for BORING unpractical, might be interpreted as lack of depth


----------



## NTlazerman (Nov 28, 2014)

I really would not like to take any opinion here, but the way I see it, sensors see the world from a first person perspective, as intuitives see it from a third person perspective. Therefore sensors are actually "in the game" while intuitives see themselves as one of the characters in the game.

None is better. Though I would never change what I am.

To sum it up:
Sensors think that Intuitives are interested about trivial things.
Intuitives think that Sensors are interested about trivial things.

It's a matter of preference, not depth.


----------



## Gomez.ArtherJ (Nov 16, 2014)

Zee Bee said:


> Good point!
> 
> A natural interest in practical, and a deathly aversion for BORING unpractical, might be interpreted as lack of depth


u wut m8

if thats sarcasm its poorly constructed rebuttal. a real man would put things in words his opponent would understand.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

NTlazerman said:


> I really would not like to take any opinion here, but the way I see it, sensors see the world from a first person perspective, as intuitives see it from a third person perspective. Therefore sensors are actually "in the game" while intuitives see themselves as one of the character in the game.
> 
> None is better. Though I would never change what I am.
> 
> ...


I wonder about that first point - "first person" vs. "third person" - because my instinctive reaction was that it sounds more like introversion vs. extraversion: the introvert looks at things primarily subjectively, in relation to themselves, whilst extraverts look at things primarily externally, in relation to what's out there ("things" isn't the best word selection on my part, it's too concrete a term I think, but hopefully the point is clear enough despite this). It's actually particularly interesting, I think, because oftentimes introversion and intuition get conflated (what's subjective vs. what's abstract), and likewise extraversion and sensing (objective vs. concrete), so it's interesting to see a potential parallel between intuition and extraversion, and introversion and sensing, in this way...


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

NTlazerman said:


> I really would not like to take any opinion here, but the way I see it, sensors see the world from a first person perspective, as intuitives see it from a third person perspective. Therefore sensors are actually "in the game" while intuitives see themselves as one of the characters in the game.
> 
> None is better. Though I would never change what I am.
> 
> ...


Eh.

That's a bit of a stretch. I mean some people do, I'm sure. 

But I don't think that anybody's interested in trivial things; to each subjective person the things they are interested in are certainly not trivial; whether it's reading Chekhov or working out all day. 

did anyone just assign a stereotype? because my ISTJ dad's the one interested in Russian literature and my ENFJ mom's the one who's interested in fitness. 

this whole debate is so frustrating. my ISFJ cousin is one of the most spiritual and deep people that I know. my ENTJ friend is one of the most practical people I know. One of my NP friend feels tremendous fear about talking about philosophy whereas I'm perfectly comfortable questioning the state of the universe. 

in short: stereotypes are really stupid as a whole =/ I honestly don't think many people waste and/or spend time wondering what intuitives or sensors wonder about as a whole; perhaps as individuals--but that's why conversation was invented. 

then again I'm focused on my own internal views and external surroundings so who am I to say?


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

Neuroscience of Personality by Dario Nardi is very helpful @Cinnamon83

I would not pay attention to what people have to say about sensors. Most of them barely grasp Jungian cognitive functions or understand the science as it is. I hope you find your answers.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Crimplene for men said:


> As an intuitive (an INTP with very strong Ne), I think that a lot of Intuitives have been raised in an environment that favours Sensing, or at least this is the case for me. I experienced a Sensing backlash in my teens and still deal with the fallout.
> 
> *To generalise, the issue I have on a day to day basis with Sensors is that they seem to place a lot of importance on things I generally don't give a shit about and then act as though I have some sort of character flaw because i don't give a shit about the stuff that they do.*
> 
> To be succinct, they seem to place more importance on tradition, social norms and things that more Intuitive types would probably find really boring, but that's not to say that Sensors are boring people - far from it. I suppose they generally come off as less flexible and tolerant in my experience.


There's the thing: Intuitives do the _same_ exact thing to Sensors on this forum. You don't like my completely unpractical theoretical blah blah blah? (no offense, but some of you Ne users are on a completely different planet  ) Wow, Sensors are so shallow. (translation: you're dumb & I'm smart because I value different things)

And as for that last bit, you're mistaken. Many Intuitives (think ENxJs and even ENTPs with high Fe to an extent) are very good with social norms (sometimes for manipulation). In fact, even better than some Si-users. You're right that many Si-users (not Sensors in general; most Se-users will adapt to social norms because it comfortable, not to say they value them in any way) sometimes place seemingly illogical value on tradition and social norms, however.

On that note, let's go back to the theme of what I'm trying to get across: You aren't better than people for valuing different things. That's the core issue between Sensors and Intuitives from my perspective, and for "deep" people many Intuitives (and Sensors, too, I'm not excluding, but that isn't an issue on the forum... in real life though definitely) have a lot of trouble grasping that concept.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

So what does depth even mean? Look how deep topics go? What does deep even mean? The words are open to various interpretations and never has a specified meaning. What I got from depth is not even N talk.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

N is about "big picture, top down" S is about "details, build up"
I only associate depth with introversion vs extroversion. Introverts will dig deep to the core of the earth on a few ideas but extroverts will circumnavigate the world in search for a wider array of ideas. What's better would seem relative to your own preference.


----------



## Crimplene for men (Nov 6, 2014)

Eckis said:


> There's the thing: Intuitives do the _same_ exact thing to Sensors on this forum. You don't like my completely unpractical theoretical blah blah blah? (no offense, but some of you Ne users are on a completely different planet  ) Wow, Sensors are so shallow. (translation: you're dumb & I'm smart because I value different things)


I really have no beef with Sensors on the forum and some friends offline are Sensors too. I don't categorize people in terms of personality type and discriminate as Sensors = bad and Intuitives = good. 



Eckis said:


> And as for that last bit, you're mistaken. Many Intuitives (think ENxJs and even ENTPs with high Fe to an extent) are very good with social norms (sometimes for manipulation). In fact, even better than some Si-users. You're right that many Si-users (not Sensors in general; most Se-users will adapt to social norms because it comfortable, not to say they value them in any way) sometimes place seemingly illogical value on tradition and social norms, however.


I think you have taken what I wrote the wrong way. I wasn't trying to snub Sensors, but it's just my personal observation. I suppose what I was trying to say is that on the whole, they are more likely to be concerned with their status and the status of others. Some thinkers even adapt to social norms and I most certainly do in a professional context. However, when it comes to my personal life, I tend to cut loose - just because I can. 





Eckis said:


> On that note, let's go back to the theme of what I'm trying to get across: You aren't better than people for valuing different things. That's the core issue between Sensors and Intuitives from my perspective, and for "deep" people many Intuitives (and Sensors, too, I'm not excluding, but that isn't an issue on the forum... in real life though definitely) have a lot of trouble grasping that concept.


I never said that one was better than the other. I just often have a sense of being a bit browbeaten by some of the Sensors I know. My main issue with Sensors that I know is the fact that they will tend to blatantly tell me what I should be doing. Again, this goes back to me not giving a shit about that stuff. However, I never do the same to them, because I know that they wouldn't welcome my opinions. So, I just don't understand why they think it's acceptable for them to do so to me?? 

Notice that I haven't said anything about them being less intelligent or shallow. One of my good friends is an ESFJ and she's a very warm and caring person. She really cares about animal rights and the environment, which is far from shallow in my opinion. 

I wouldn't get too worked up about whether other people think you're shallow because you're a Sensor. It's just 4 letters and a person would have to be very unimaginative to write a whole chunk of the population off because of of their 'type'. Anyway, we can't even say for sure how accurate this method is, since it's largely down to human interpretation.


----------



## SmilingWriter (Dec 27, 2014)

I think I can help in a real world sense. My sister is Isfj and I am Enfp. We do not get along very often. She is very goal oriented, action focused, and traditional. I am person oriented, thought focused, and nontraditional. We agree on very little and get confused with each other all the time. 

If I were to just base my opinion on S types by my experience with my sister alone, I would say I'm more "deep" than she is. But I know from others' relationships with my sister that she can be incredibly deep and caring when it comes to her friends and colleagues. And, I have plenty of S type friends who I can have very intelligent and deep conversations with. We are usually in a group of S's and N's, so there's confirmation of validity in each type's argument. 

As a sidebar, N's also tend to come against bias that we aren't good with details and memory. I'm actually HSP to an extent. I have acute vision and hearing and touch senses. I can also pick up on details that others might have missed. The only difference is that my sensing is not always "On". I do suffer from diving into my thoughts and shutting out the world. I've had moments while driving when I can't remember what happened in the last 15-20 mile stretch of road because I was "lost in thought." (Btw, I like my N when driving on a highway because it can get really boring, so I can just entertain myself with what-if scenarios. Lol)


----------

