# The Sensing Secret is not quite as iNtuitive as it may appear



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I have realized more and more that, in order to better understand this, and to more quickly identify what someone is, I'll have to take a step back and think more about my conversations. I hate doing that. It makes my conversations sound awkward and forced. If it goes on too long, I become so frustrated with Extroversion I introvert. Oh well. Here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> Be back with the results...


Keep us posted.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> For instance, an N might appreciate reading more than a sensor, because it would keep the N mentally occupied. Whereas a sensor might prefer sports, because it keeps him or her physically occupied. Keep in mind, there are S's who like reading, and Ns who like sports. this is just an example.


I wouldn't draw the line at mental/physical. I think Ns would prefer books filled with symbolism and metaphors whereas Ss would prefer reading about more concrete things. I think NTs are prone to reading non-fiction while SPs tend to prefer stuff like fantasy and escapism. STJs probably the typical best-seller crime books. NFs seem to like reading about human nature - especially abuses in foreign cultures or about dystopian worlds. That's what I've noticed in people I know anyway. They all like books though.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

I have the prefect video for you. Sorry if someone already posted it.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

Stephen said:


> That's absolutely fair, and I agree. I was thinking of things in terms of the OP's question about spotting whether people are S/N immediately.


I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I have the prefect video for you. Sorry if someone already posted it.


Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

HarpFluffy said:


> I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.


Lol. SJs have ordinary eyes......OF COURSE!

I seriously need a break from this forum....

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-Collected-Works-Vol-6/dp/0691018138 while I'm gone, could somebody please check this book out? Sorry if this is spamming but it's for a good cause, the lack of IGNORANCE means less retards and sensor hate. If you don't want to spend money, if you actually like to be right about something, then you can always get a pdf by looking up the book title then added ".pdf" to the end of it. Thank you.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

HarpFluffy said:


> I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.





Aßbiscuits said:


> *Lol. SJs have ordinary eyes......OF COURSE!*
> 
> I seriously need a break from this forum....
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-Collected-Works-Vol-6/dp/0691018138 while I'm gone, could somebody please check this book out? Sorry if this is spamming but it's for a good cause, the lack of IGNORANCE means less sensor hate. If you don't want to spend money, if you actually like to be right about something, then you can always get a pdf by looking up the book title then added ".pdf" to the end of it. Thank you.


The eyes don't have it.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

Stephen said:


> Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.


Did he mention eyes too? That's funny. I didn't watch the video before posting, and still haven't.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Stephen said:


> Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.


I actually think it's all very valid.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I actually think it's all very valid.


Even in the small set of each of the confirmed types that I know, none of what he said is true.


----------



## RogueWave (Mar 16, 2011)

The problem is that it is very tempting to utilize the MBTI to predict and ascertain things about people that in reality have very little to do with MBTI.

Like how "sensors like small talk". No. Nobody _likes _small talk. There is no one waking up in the morning and going "Hot damn, I can't wait to uncomfortably talk to strangers about gas prices and the weather!". 

Or, "sensors cannot understand theory". No, they can. If they couldn't understand theory, there wouldn't be any sensors on this site, and there are plenty. Is theory where their minds wonder when they have free time? Maybe, maybe not. When faced with a problem are they going to theorize, speculate, and build castles in the sky? Probably not. It's not what they _prefer_. But when it's the only option, many of them will do it anyway contrary to their _preference_ because they have the _ability_.

My _preference _is to be a sarcastic, wise cracking, slacker, who likes to theorize, speculate, and analyze. But frequently I'm polite, industrious, routinized, and fall back on what's worked before and get shit done. I do this because that's what being a functioning member of society demands of me, and I have the _ability _to meet those demands, even though they are a far cry from my _preference_.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Stephen said:


> Even in the small set of each of the confirmed types that I know, none of what he said is true.


I know it to be true, for several N's. I don't think that SJ's do the stare anywhere as bad as he made it seem. However I've started using this more, and then seeing if it correlates after they type themselves. With some variation it seems to hold up pretty well.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Ti/Ni makes me theoretical. Se allows me to apply it in a practical way.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

HarpFluffy said:


> I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.


Wow. I'm trying to think of a less reliable way of determining this, and I'm only coming up with the first letter of the name of the street that people live on.


----------



## HarpFluffy (Feb 15, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> Wow. I'm trying to think of a less reliable way of determining this, and I'm only coming up with the first letter of the name of the street that people live on.


No need to knock my plan, redman. You would be surprised how many subtle clues you can learn about people from their eyes -- whether they're telling the truth, what they think of you, how much sleep they've had. All I'm suggesting is some of that may work for MBTI too. And who really cares if it's reliable? MBTI is a fun way to categorize people, but when you try to be exact the model starts to fall apart.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

HarpFluffy said:


> No need to knock my plan, redman. You would be surprised how many subtle clues you can learn about people from their eyes -- whether they're telling the truth, what they think of you, how much sleep they've had. All I'm suggesting is some of that may work for MBTI too. And who really cares if it's reliable? MBTI is a fun way to categorize people, but when you try to be exact the model starts to fall apart.


Your plan needs knocking. This is a message board after all and we're discussing ideas, which means some ideas are open to criticism. My criticism, incidentally, was not _ad hominem_.

Some of the brightest people with the "liveliest" eyes I've ever encountered are Sensors. Some of the people with the dullest, heavy-lidded eyes have been N's. I see no pattern there, and I say that as someone who believes that body language _can_ give away hints as to thoughts and emotions. 

I agree that MBTI starts to fall apart if you try to be exact. Any system for defining people does. People are non-linear and incredibly (and unpredictably) variable. MBTI is very useful within its limitations, however. I've likened MBTI to a map grid of the human population, with your MBTI type conceptually amounting simply to you being located in grid square B-3, for example. 

A two dimensional map grid still leaves a lot of potential variance within each grid square, howeer, and also lacks terrain features, weather, population, and any number of other factors which would add a lot of important map detail. 

Likewise, MBTI types are simply bundles of characteristics that people have different combinations (and amounts) of, and moreover don't account for role modeling, mental illness, trauma, drug use, social norms, and any number of other variables that help to define each of us and our temperaments and personalities.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I actually think it's all very valid.


Ignore the robot. His argument boils down to "WTF. Dude said A. Now he's at L? Everyone knows B comes after A. This guy is whack." Expect an Si to not see how eyes could have anything to do with something other than eyes.

I actually got criticized a lot growing up for lack of eye contact because my eyes were constantly moving around when talking. People, especially SJs, see that as lack of authenticity. But when I am truly being authentic, my eyes just jump around as my brain goes through thoughts. When I do make full eye contact and do not move my eyes around, it is a controlled process, something I am forcing myself to do because it is expected, to get what I want out of the person.... Essentially for me making eye contact is a sign of deception ;-)


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

I didn't like that video very much. He seems quite the ENTj (who too often can be cocky against those they think inferior). As for my earlier experiment (for those who know what I am talking about), I spent that night noticing the nuances of the talking trying to label my friend as a type. Later that night I made her take the test. Unfortunately she was pretty borderline on almost ALL of her traits except for extroversion, but I think still, to truly discover which one is which, I need to experience more sensors. In my classes, most people are intuitive types because it is the hardest set of classes, and I know many of these people's thoughts.

Though I have a system for those. I have noticed some people who struggle with the big ideas, especially in seminars. In those cases, I would hazard a guess that they are Sensors, but it is really hard to know. Maybe there are no real definitive easy give-aways, and you just have to know the person pretty well.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> Ignore the robot. His argument boils down to "WTF. Dude said A. Now he's at L? Everyone knows B comes after A. This guy is whack." Expect an Si to not see how eyes could have anything to do with something other than eyes.


No. "The robot" discovered this theory a while ago and examined and researched it, and determined it was BS. Expect an Si to correct you when he knows you're wrong.



> People, especially SJs, see that as lack of authenticity.


I know at least one confirmed SJ whose eyes dart this way.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Stephen said:


> No. "The robot" discovered this theory a while ago and examined and researched it, and determined it was BS. Expect an Si to correct you when he knows you're wrong.


To clarify, I did not mean "robot" in a derogatory sense, but in reference to your avatar.

Determined it was BS on what grounds? That is, you know, the relevant part. Without reference to evidence or an argument, just saying "I concluded it before" may be enough for your own Si categorization but is not enough to convince others.




> I know at least one confirmed SJ whose eyes dart this way.


One counterexample does not disprove a trend when it is meant to apply to "most" but not "all" of a group.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> One counterexample does not disprove a trend when it is meant to apply to "most" but not "all" of a group.


"The exception does not the rule make."


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I didn't like that video very much. He seems quite the ENTj (who too often can be cocky against those they think inferior). As for my earlier experiment (for those who know what I am talking about), I spent that night noticing the nuances of the talking trying to label my friend as a type. Later that night I made her take the test. Unfortunately she was pretty borderline on almost ALL of her traits except for extroversion, but I think still, to truly discover which one is which, I need to experience more sensors. In my classes, most people are intuitive types because it is the hardest set of classes, and I know many of these people's thoughts.
> 
> Though I have a system for those. I have noticed some people who struggle with the big ideas, especially in seminars. In those cases, I would hazard a guess that they are Sensors, but it is really hard to know. Maybe there are no real definitive easy give-aways, and you just have to know the person pretty well.


He is an INTJ. Regardless you are correct about the being cocky part.


----------



## bluenlgy (Apr 27, 2011)

Looking back, the people who I had natural liking for are all Ns. I did not believe my intuition was this accurate until I did a complete analysis of their thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs. 

There were two ESTPs who I mistook for N, because they always talked about politics and systems, but never liked them too much to my own confusion, until I found theirs was actually a utilitarian manifestation of Se. This was confirmed when I discovered: 1) while they liked topics relating to the "big picture", they showed zero interest in the theories underlying the big picture; 2) their passion for material wealth was unbelievably strong, and the only reason they discussed system was to figure out how much they could gain from one such system (they all loved to say people do X just for the money); 3) their close friends were mostly SPs and SJs.

In the beginning I tried to tell S/N people by analyzing them, but after many trials I've learned to trust my gut. T is no match for N when it comes to the areas of human, especially human interaction and relationship.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

It must be a sad moment to realize that a suspected ENTP friend is an ESTP . I only know one other ENTP (I think) and we're friends, but circumstance has forced us not to be close friends. All I want from life is a nice ENTP friend


----------



## AJ2011 (Jun 2, 2011)

Stephen said:


> Yeah, I've seen that video before. I totally disagree with him. It's disgusting. He's insulting sensors (especially SJs) by saying they can't see what's not right in front of them. He's yet another intuitive with no real understanding of either trait. He also thinks you can type someone by their eye movements. It's absurd.


My friend showed that to me thinking I was an INTJ and I would enjoy it. I thought he was a moron, especially with respect to his description of eye movement.

I think the best way I found to find out whether someone is a sensor or not is by understanding how they process information and retain memories as you're having a discussion with them. People who filter the memories and abstract the relationships in real time without necessarily retaining any of the names seemed to usually be intuitives. People who captured the memories enveloped in an ongoing storyline seemed to usually be sensors. Of course, people have all the cognitive functions, so everyone will experience various levels and types of processing for information and data retention. You could test their processes by breaking the storyline, adding new characters in nonsensical ways, etc. and see how quickly they determine the break.

Some of the most difficult cases for me have been engineers/scientists, because IXTJ is fairly similar. You may eventually find out their preferences through more involved conversations or experience over time. Everyone has use of all their cognitive functions, so the idea is to find their prioritization. So, even though everyone may be capable of nonlinear thought processes, some people seem to have them more often and may even prefer it.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> It must be a sad moment to realize that a suspected ENTP friend is an ESTP . I only know one other ENTP (I think) and we're friends, but circumstance has forced us not to be close friends. All I want from life is a nice ENTP friend


Why should it be sad? That friend would have been an ESTP all along, it isn't like they magically change when you change the label.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

edit: i wrote something with the intention of showing a different perspective but after reading through and realizing that the person's post wasn't a joke, it would just look like i'm making fun of them... so... i'm writing this instead... which is just as unhelpful--even more so since this is just sort of derailing the thread (at least for a single post), but yet i feel compelled to do so... this may be a symptom of my sleeping meds--or just me being me and feeling the need to explain an empty box with my name next to it... anyhow :tongue:.


* EDIT:upon even further reading i've found a way to make this post "relevant". 
*
@JohnGalt

not trying to start fight man, but... this kind of irks me, since it doesn't make sense--you know, in the hypocritical kind of way... ahem:



> That is, you know, the relevant part. Without reference to evidence or an argument, just saying "I concluded it before" may be enough for your own Si categorization but is not enough to convince others.


you demand "reference and evidence" in order to validate another's argument, but don't give any for your own...



> People, especially SJs, see that as lack of authenticity.


... it seems you and the "SJs" have quite a bit in common :tongue:... but seriously, you give an example, he gives an example in the same fashion, yet yours is the correct one when it should be undone by your own line of reasoning...?

my good ISTJ friend doesn't make a lot of eye contact either, and by the definitions of yourself and the idiot in the video... he should be an N, right? but he's not--so where does this lead us?



> One counterexample does not disprove a trend when it is meant to apply to "most" but not "all" of a group.


... then how about two counterexamples? :tongue:

*side note:*

does the the guy in the video seem angry to anyone else? i think if he was half as smart, or half as arrogant--(i mean angry at something)--then he could have made a half-way intelligent, informative video on the distinctions between S and N. compartmentalization only gets you so far before it becomes detrimental--and taking your misplaced anger out on a group that has done nothing to you, and letting your anger forge you into an ignoramus... ah, human nature at it's greatest, no? :tongue:


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

The video did have value. Just it was too offensive to Ns and Ss alike. The value I have found in watching people's eyes, but you cannot boil it down to "Sensors stare blindly". That would be stupid. But Si dominants do seem to have a certain way of the eyes, many times when they are not focusing on anything, they will have a sort of glazed-over stare (this is taken only from two examples, limited sample size, no control). Ne's and Se's seem to be more lively in that they will look all around, and when talking to you, you will feel very engaged. But that's just part of who they are. Maybe the sort of abstraction that is typically associated with Ni's such as staring off into space just thinking, is common in Si, it's just they are more experiencing. IDK, can this last theory be substantiated?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> The video did have value. Just it was too offensive to Ns and Ss alike. The value I have found in watching people's eyes, but you cannot boil it down to "Sensors stare blindly". That would be stupid. But Si dominants do seem to have a certain way of the eyes, many times when they are not focusing on anything, they will have a sort of glazed-over stare (this is taken only from two examples, limited sample size, no control). Ne's and Se's seem to be more lively in that they will look all around, and when talking to you, you will feel very engaged. But that's just part of who they are. Maybe the sort of abstraction that is typically associated with Ni's such as staring off into space just thinking, is common in Si, it's just they are more experiencing. IDK, can this last theory be substantiated?


Glazed over stare is a good way of describing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "experiencing", but when I am staring in this way at something, I am distant from what is factually there. I may have drawn some line from my idea of the subject, but it tends to prick other thoughts and I mentally ramble yonder. I wonder if a Ni dominant watches their thoughts weave to make a big picture in their mental ruminations. 

My thoughts connect, but they don't coalesce into a whole. When I conjure up an abstract concept, I tunnel through links to other thoughts and other objects. I keep the links I already have, but I dig new ones too. But I never really notice the links, I just travel from one thought to another. My focus is on the thoughts. Thoughts are in a way almost "stations" on a road for me.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Glazed over stare is a good way of describing it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "experiencing", but when I am staring in this way at something, I am distant from what is factually there. I may have drawn some line from my idea of the subject, but it tends to prick other thoughts and I mentally ramble yonder. I wonder if a Ni dominant watches their thoughts weave to make a big picture in their mental ruminations.
> 
> My thoughts connect, but they don't coalesce into a whole. When I conjure up an abstract concept, I tunnel through links to other thoughts and other objects. I keep the links I already have, but I dig new ones too. But I never really notice the links, I just travel from one thought to another. My focus is on the thoughts. Thoughts are in a way almost "stations" on a road for me.


I think it interesting that you and I have flip-flopped dominant and inferior functions. You have Si and I have Ne. So what is it that Si mainly does in you? How do you think it would be expressed in an inferior?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I think it interesting that you and I have flip-flopped dominant and inferior functions. You have Si and I have Ne. So what is it that Si mainly does in you? How do you think it would be expressed in an inferior?


Keep in mind that that description was describing me in my daydreaming moods. I'm a bit more efficient normally.

Si finds information about something that is already in my mind. It is like I take it in a whole box, but the contents are unknown, and I unpack it with Si.

In an inferior, I imagine that it would be skimming the surface more and have more limited subject matter.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I know it to be true, for several N's. I don't think that SJ's do the stare anywhere as bad as he made it seem. However I've started using this more, and then seeing if it correlates after they type themselves. With some variation it seems to hold up pretty well.


I have noticed it too. I also notice sensors doing it when they access their intuition, so I think when he says that intuitives do one thing while sensors do another, he means that the rapid eye movement is what happens when using intuition is being used. Also, while not as caricature as what he was doing, I believe what he was trying to communicate is true. I have noticed that when SJs (that's the example he used) recall information, they do kind of pick a point in space and stare. Furthermore, when I recall information pertaining to Si, I do the exact same thing. Obviously there are going to be variations, but this entire MBTI thing relies on generalizations. It's natural that there are going to be variations in everything when it is applied into the real world. I haven't noticed the same thing with SPs, but I haven't been around many SPs since I watched that video so I haven't checked.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Why should it be sad? That friend would have been an ESTP all along, it isn't like they magically change when you change the label.


Se-Ne interaction isn't as fun as Ne-Ne interaction. Ne-Ne interaction grows stronger over time and continues to get more interesting. Se-Ne interaction gets to a wall where nothing is fun anymore. At least in my experience.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I have noticed it too. I also notice sensors doing it when they access their intuition, so I think when he says that intuitives do one thing while sensors do another, he means that the rapid eye movement is what happens when using intuition is being used. Also, while not as caricature as what he was doing, I believe what he was trying to communicate is true. I have noticed that when SJs (that's the example he used) recall information, they do kind of pick a point in space and stare. Furthermore, when I recall information pertaining to Si, I do the exact same thing. Obviously there are going to be variations, but this entire MBTI thing relies on generalizations. It's natural that there are going to be variations in everything when it is applied into the real world. I haven't noticed the same thing with SPs, but I haven't been around many SPs since I watched that video so I haven't checked.


I agree with everything you just said. Very good observation about the " access their intuition ". Even me being an ENTJ with Se when I do use Si I stare. So yeah like you said there will be variations.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

I enjoy this guy's take on it


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> I enjoy this guy's take on it


I don't. 10charactersofhatred


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

Owfin said:


> I don't. 10charactersofhatred


I can understand why you might think so. He comes off as, what's the word I'm looking for here, ... a bit of an ass. There's certainly a different way he could have phrased it. At least that's my girlfriends reaction to it. An ISFJ. She takes his tone really personal because, to her, it sounds like he thinks one function is better than the other. It's not, and I don't think he really believes that either. There are different tools that work better for different jobs. You wouldn't use a hammer when you'd need a saw, which makes neither the hammer or the saw better than the other one, just better suited for specific tasks. 

Or do you think he's wrong about how sensing and intuition work? If so I'd be interested on your take on it.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> Or do you think he's wrong about how sensing and intuition work? If so I'd be interested on your take on it.


I'm not sure about Se types, but I do not repeat other people's information. When information comes in, it gets filtered, not just sucked in a big chunk. There is a lot that goes on before I "spit it back out".


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

If I'm curious about a person's intuitive/sensing leanings, I like to toss out bad pun or some kind of play on words at a random unsuspecting moment, like "oh the huge manatee!", or perhaps "for a kangaroo, she could sure pack a wallaby." From observing people who I know are sensors, unless they're expecting word play they don't give an immediate aha! response (grin or groan), although they may smile with everyone else; until of course they realize they should be looking for the second level reading of the sentence. It seems to be a decent litmus test.

On the other side of this idea though, I wonder if sensors sometimes get the same little chuckle when they see one of us looking for our glasses when they're right on our head.


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

HarpFluffy said:


> I think you can tell by looking at their eyes oftentimes. NFs tend to have passionate, droopy eyes. SPs kind of look past you or around you, but never "into" you. SJs have ordinary eyes. I don't know how else to describe them. NTs eyes look like they're up to somethin'.


Hehe. That's because NTs are always up to something. I do notice that the eyes can be different among the for groups. NTs definitely have a scheming look, because we're always planning and laying out multiple angles in our heads. This requires concentration and thus our brows furrow and we get that squinty look.


----------

