# Intuition vs sensing?



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Hi everyone

I'm experiencing a very disturbing thing. Even before I found out about MBTI, I'd already noticed/felt the difference between sensors and intuitives. My feeling was that sensors, even really brilliant ones had a sort of "blindness", like there are some things they just can't wrap their heads around, and it gives them a narrower scope in life. I don't have this feeling about any other functions.

This really destabilizes me, because I really want to believe that every type has as many advantages and disadvantages as any other (obviously). What I guess I'm saying is, I don't want to be an intuitive elitist, this feeling probably only comes from the fact that I don't quite understand sensing, possibly because many MBTI descriptions present it as less appealing.

Can anybody present it to me in a way that would defeat my bias on the function as a dominant?

(and I ask of you to please not get offended or brush me off as a typist, I'm really just trying to understand)


----------



## Mioonebet (Jul 1, 2012)

I see no one as of yet has responed to ease your concerns. I can only respond not to help explain but to sympathize. I too have the very same problem, although I can like and love some sensors, there is a great divide between us. There's a void in our attemps to connect because there are things I think and feel that they " just don't get", and intuatives do. It makes me sad and feel as if I can only relate to them on a superficial level. They frustrate me alot with their simplicstic explainations and point of veiw and lack of insight. My best friend who's INTP, feels the same. Sorry, I can't help, but I wanted you to know I can relate.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Mioonebet said:


> I see no one as of yet has responed to ease your concerns. I can only respond not to help explain but to sympathize. I too have the very same problem, although I can like and love some sensors, there is a great divide between us. There's a void in our attemps to connect because there are things I think and feel that they " just don't get", and intuatives do. It makes me sad and feel as if I can only relate to them on a superficial level. They frustrate me alot with their simplicstic explainations and point of veiw and lack of insight. My best friend who's INTP, feels the same. Sorry, I can't help, but I wanted you to know I can relate.


Oh thank goodness I'm not a monster. I've looked at this in every possible direction. The most positive I could find is that they live truly in the present without over thinking everything, which I feel gives them a sort of wisdom of "just enjoy life", but this turns out not to be true for a lot of sensors, because they do end up over thinking, they just do it over what I see as menial details (from my experience of course, no generalization is intended). I have found ESFP and ESTP to be exceptions to this somehow.

I often feel I forget to live because I spend so much time in my own head.. But I still wouldn't trade in my capacity for lateral thinking just for "blissful oblivion"


----------



## Mioonebet (Jul 1, 2012)

S J 's scare the hell out of me, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laughing:


----------



## shefa (Aug 23, 2012)

SJ's get important things done and keep things together. Theory alone cannot sustain a society. The world would crumble if not for the sensors.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

shefa said:


> SJ's get important things done and keep things together. Theory alone cannot sustain a society. The world would crumble if not for the sensors.


Ick, this sounds like _Brave New World_ to me, don't know if you ever read it... It's about a society which scientifically engineers part of their population to be less independent/intelligent and more docile. Depressing as hell.

Besides society would just have developed differently if any type had been missing (I made a thread about that without much success: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/136436-world-if-any-given-type-were-missing.html)
It only developed as such a system because it was made up of people who functioned as followers of established systems


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Hmm I guess that anyone is capable of abstract thinking, S is not purely S just as N is not purely N (thought maybe in some cases it is?). What I noticed is that my ISTJ husband can do some thinking, thought he does focus more in the present and the real world, while I can be more "timeless" and not so in touch with the real world. I don't see it as bad thought, he is more capable at understanding how reality works and is working currently than me, while I'm good at wondering at possibilities.

Thought it does annoy me that if it is not what he is interested in or his filed of expertise, then it's very hard to get him to learn something. Like training our dog, I can repeat the simplest rules he should follow yet he still fails to do so. 

But really, they are not any less intellectual or intelligent. They just don't go abstract and are more on the earth and what's there, and understanding these. I get annoyed by how hard sometimes it is to engage my husband in my Ni talks, but when he opinates on some topic, he can be very precise and intelligent.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I'm experiencing a very disturbing thing. Even before I found out about MBTI, I'd already noticed/felt the difference between sensors and intuitives. My feeling was that sensors, even really brilliant ones had a sort of "blindness", like there are some things they just can't wrap their heads around, and it gives them a narrower scope in life. I don't have this feeling about any other functions.
> 
> ...


I think it is true that "every type has as many advantages and disadvantages as any other."
With that being said, sensors also have some advantages over intuitives.

One common thing intuitives say is that "we (intuitives) have difficulty focus on the physical reality, can't see the world as it is," though today I still can't quite understand and believe that. Another thing is that "we (intuitives) are head in the clouds and not practical and down-to-earth as sensors."

But these are advantages of sensors only if you see them as advantages.

http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/46254-benefits-being-sensor.html


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Seriously? Seems like a personal issue IMO. lf you're aware of you bias, you are perfectly capable of doing the research to get the information you need.

Asking people to "help" you overcome your elitism sounds less than sincere lol.

Anyway, think of it this way:both types see half of the picture.

Intuitives don't necessarily have the entire picture because they have a wider scope. We can easily miss details, sensors can see the details first, AND later see the big picture that we do. Just like we can trace back and see the narrower focus.

A world full of just one type would be less balanced and...would probably consist of most of us theorizing about how we're going to do things until we're 80 lol.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I'm experiencing a very disturbing thing. Even before I found out about MBTI, I'd already noticed/felt the difference between sensors and intuitives. My feeling was that sensors, even really brilliant ones had a sort of "blindness", like there are some things they just can't wrap their heads around, and it gives them a narrower scope in life. I don't have this feeling about any other functions.
> 
> ...


Absolutely know what you are talking about. There are things I miss or seem oblivious to that sensors tune into too though. I don't remember what flavor of ice cream I had at some event that was important for someone else to reminisce about. I consider myself clerically and athletically challenged, which I think is a side effect of living in my head.

Something I'm working on
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-functions-part-2-4-see-judging-part-one.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/138698-judging-functions-my-theory-part-one.html
I want to qualify it by saying I may edit these if I hear sound arguments from people who have been posting longer than me. And would love to hear if this resonates with your experience (or not) so far.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Hurricane, that is a very good point you bring up. I understand your concern. There's a huge bias against Sensors out there still. The thing is, we glorify traits like creativity, following ones' instinct. We call people who are interested in theory and philosophy the "intellectuals" of society. The revolutionaries, the open minded, the people who bring out change, the "idealists". MBTI calls Intuitives "creative" and "instinctive" and "theoretical" and "ideas-oriented" and all about "trying new things". MBTI pins traits like "repetition", "practicality", "down-to-earth", and "concrete" on Sensors. It's all false. Please do not believe it. This is the result of bias and misinformation. 

Then there's the Keirsey temperaments. You know them. NF, NT, SJ, SP. The thing is, these temperaments do not correlate with MBTI, not truly. Many ISTJs, for example, when taking the Keirsey temperament test get "NT" as their result. Simply because Keirsey tries and makes out SJs to be the manipulating common orderly business people of society, sticklers for tradition. (And if you notice, most teens getting into MBTI type their parents as SJs. Because parents are more likely to seem annoying, orderly, overbearing, and micromanaging. And if the teen types themselves as some "Intuitive", then it validates their feelings of being "misunderstood" by "everybody else" who they call "Sensors".) 

The odd thing is, the different types within these temperaments do not have many similarities in MBTI. For example, among the NF temperament are the types INFJ, INFP, ENFP, ENFJ. 

Types ENFP and INFJ are complete _shadows_ of each other. The function order of ENFP is Ne-Fi-Te-Si and INFJ is Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. Totally different. In fact, ENFPs share more with type ISTJ which at least shares the same sorts of functions. Not only that, but the difference between an ENFP and an INFP is quite huge. INFPs lead with Fi and their inferior is Te. ENFPs lead with Ne and their inferior is Si. MBTI tends to place a huge amount of importance on the auxiliary (secondary) function, but it is really the dominant function that determines everything. Every other function is simply a servant to the dominant. You will find that you have much more similarities with a type that shares your dominant function than any other. For example, INFPs will probably find they've got much more in common with ISFPs than ENFPs. 

A lot of people go around calling INTPs, INFPs, ENFJs, and ENTJs "Intuitive" types. However, INTPs lead with Ti, INFPs with Fi, ENFJs with Fe, and ENTJs with Te. Those types are all more accurately "Thinkers" and "Feelers" first and foremost, they lead with a Judging function, and their Intuition is secondary. Which means that the gap between Sensing and Intuition is actually not that large for them as it would be for those who have Sensing or Intuition as their dominant function. 

The main difference between a type is always in the dominant function. The dominant and the inferior function are the most important functions. The auxiliary is _much less_ of an influence on ones' type. And even for me, a dominant Intuitive, I do not find the gap between S and N to be unbearable at all. The other odd thing is that most people who complain about the difference between Sensing and Intuition are usually self-typed INFPs who seem to go around typing everybody they can't get along with as a Sensor and don't even fully understand how cognitive functions work, even though as a type like INFP their main problem should be with types who lead with Thinking or Fe. 

That is the bone I have to pick with how people view MBTI and how people use the Keirsey temperaments. In all reality, those who lead with Ni or Ne are not more creative, open minded, intellectual, theoretical, or anything of the sort. And those who lead with Se or Si are not sub-par, less intelligent, less willing to try new things, traditionalist, or even "concrete". 

Sensors aren't blind. Just like those of us with a strong preference for Intuition, it's not like we can't wrap our minds around how "Sensors" supposedly think. How arrogant of us to assume therefore that Sensors somehow can't wrap their minds around how the glorified "Intuitives" (even though really it's only the ENFPs, ENTPs, INTJs, and INFJs that are the true "Intuitives") think? 

The problem is that most people get into MBTI, and before they even trying know what Sensing, Intuition, Feeling, and Thinking even are or how they work exactly, they begin typing themselves and others based on such silly questions like, "Do you judge with your head or your heart?" "Are you more down-to-earth or head-in-the-clouds?" "Are you more empathetic or logical?" Which leads to a serious misunderstanding as to how the four functions really work. First of all, type has little to do with what you think. Type is all about _how _you think.

You can think of the four functions as the way in which we come to understand a situation. In any given situation, Sensation tells us that something exists, Thinking tells us what something means, Feeling tells us what something's value is, and Intuition tells us where something might have come from or where it might be going (possible realities). 

Sensing and Intuition focus on what happens and with actual or potential realities, which makes them Perceiving functions (or as Jung would call them, Irrational functions). 

This is why Sensing and Intuition oppose each other (although they must work together). 

And when you take attitude in consideration, Ne focuses on the potential of objects, Se focuses on what is, Si focuses on a subjective impression of what is, and Ni focuses on its subjective impression of the potential something has (or so you could say -- Ni is rather hard to explain). 

Si and Ni are the true abstract functions because they are Introverted. Descriptions always do miserably at explaining Si, always making it out to be the most boring rules-oriented function in existence. However, Si is amazing and the exact opposite of "concrete". I'd argue that Ne and Se are more "concrete" in a manner of speaking than Si. First of all, Sensing in general doesn't focus on rules or tradition. Sensing's job is to tell you something exists, nothing more. It's actually more the job of Judging functions (Feeling and Thinking) to pay attention to stuff relating to rules and tradition (not that rules or tradition really have anything to do with type). 

This is exactly why so many people mistype. 

Hopefully that helps. @Mioonebet and @shefa. ^^


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

And if you were a SP, you would be very capable of enjoying life and seeing everything as it is. ExSP are very fun to be and to be with.

If you were not, you would not understand as much as a SP about how a little cup of starbucks coffee can be the best thing in the world and how beautiful it is when you simply squeeze the ultramarine blue and the gold-like yellow orange paint from the paint tubes and put them side by side. Sometimes that BLUE and ORANGE are soooo adorable and even majestic OMG LOL.

See the Wayne Thiebaud's paintings I post on this thread.
http://personalitycafe.com/sps-temperament-forum-creators/138867-why-sps-superior-race.html
We just LOVE the cakes as they are even though they are not real cakes. Cakes as good as those in the real world are probably pretty pricey. I think Thiebaud is a SP.

Or SJ as well? Sorry I'm not one so I don't really know if that's the case with SJ as well.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

It's not like "sensors" can't percieve connections and think in a more abstract way. Of course they can, just as "intuitives" can percieve what is tangible and think in a more concrete manner. And it's prefectly possible for each of us to develop each of these functions. 

MBTI-tests only measure general preferences, whatever they might depend on.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*Julia Bell* Your point about parents, kids, and biases we all have, is something we can all see but then not see it in ourselves. I'm glad you shared that observation. You seem to have been doing a lot of posting, and picking up quite a bit since we last spoke. But you are not seeing your own bias about wanting to be a peacemaker or making sure everyone feels they are liked and treated fairly. Si doms DO like continuity and many of them find it hard to even grasp what imagination is. So what?


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

@uncertain it's exactly like you said, I really don't see those as disadvantages to intuitives.. For instance, I don't ever feel any less "down to earth" than my sensor friends, quite the contrary actually, because they usually won't understand or care what a situation _really_ means beyond its face value. Therefore I feel closer to reality because I can see the hidden aspects of it. I'm going to need a more convincing argument because I really want to be convinced 
What you say about SP's in your later post is true though, the sensors I relate to on the deepest level are SP's actually, I share that appreciation for the little things, and they accept/are open to my marginal weirdness... But I still feel the gaping hole.


@OMG WTF BRO I did look up sensing, actively. And still I cannot *see *the advantage, even if I know it has to be there, and since I usually learn a lot through discussing things with people and tossing ideas around I figured I'd make a thread about it where I could get other points of view. Of course there is no intention of demeaning anybody here.
For your "theorizing until we're 80" comment, refer to the 6th post in this thread.


@Old intern those definitely resonate, I'll have a closer look as soon as I have the time


@Julia Bell Thank you, that was all really useful to my understanding of MBTI, I never looked closely enough at the different functions.


However, after all these replies I still don't really have an answer to my unsolved equation.... Whenever I try to have a conversation using the deeper ends of consciousness with a sensor, I watch them stall completely. This never happens the other way around, I can always make my scope smaller in order to discuss details with them, but they can rarely widen theirs to my scale. I see advantages in disadvantages in all other differing functions of I/E, F/T, P/J, because each truly do see one half of a whole, there is equilibrium, but I can not concretely understand what balances out sensing as opposed to intuition. All of you have mentioned "awareness of detail and concrete-ness" but to me that doesn't really equate to the advantages of having a true big picture framework. There has to be something important intuitives are missing that sensors aren't, or I have to put back into question my entire notion of balance.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

@uncertain @OMG WTF BRO @Old Intern @Julia Bell

My mentions appear to work one post out of 2, sorry


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> @uncertain it's exactly like you said, I really don't see those as disadvantages to intuitives.. For instance, I don't ever feel any less "down to earth" than my sensor friends, quite the contrary actually, because they usually won't understand or care what a situation _really_ means beyond its face value. Therefore I feel closer to reality because I can see the hidden aspects of it. I'm going to need a more convincing argument because I really want to be convinced
> What you say about SP's in your later post is true though, the sensors I relate to on the deepest level are SP's actually, I share that appreciation for the little things, and they accept/are open to my marginal weirdness... But I still feel the gaping hole.


Haha, that's an interesting way to define "down to earth."

I think that "I'm going to need a more convincing argument because I really want to be convinced" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with type though.

Ya, I always feel like the SP is someone in between the SJ and the Nx, especially the ISFP and ISTP who often appear quite intuitive as sensors. I wonder why ESxJs with ter Ne are never said to be intuitive, but I don't know if I'm right because I have not yet heard of it.

Good to hear that you and the SPs get along with each other. We are some Ps... you know.


----------



## Love (May 20, 2012)

Some of the Sensors in my life have been some of the most intelligent and creative people I know. All types have different strengths and weaknesses, one is not better than the other.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> *Julia Bell* Your point about parents, kids, and biases we all have, is something we can all see but then not see it in ourselves. I'm glad you shared that observation. You seem to have been doing a lot of posting, and picking up quite a bit since we last spoke. But you are not seeing your own bias about wanting to be a peacemaker or making sure everyone feels they are liked and treated fairly. Si doms DO like continuity and many of them find it hard to even grasp what imagination is. So what?


Well, I realize I try to be something of a "peacemaker" at times. I've got a thing for type equality, partially because the more I pick up, the more I see how balanced every type is. And partially because I feel like sometimes we strip away one type's humanity -- we make it more a machine or a pawn because we take a universally human trait and say, "You don't have it." Or, "You don't have as much of it." Just like we often say emotions are for Feelers, we say creativity and imagination is for Intuitives. Essentially, I'm not seeing what limits Si-doms and auxs from competently using their imagination, a basic human trait. We've all got fantasies that come from within ourselves, and Si in particular is Introverted, all about being in touch with your _self. _​

I feel like all types have equal chance at having good imagination, intelligence, etc, and they _use_ those things in different ways (how being what matters). Imagination is simply the ability to be creative or resourceful. Creativity is just the ability to bring to existence something that only existed in your mind. Even if that is duplicating or modifying some other idea or thing. The very thought, "I want to re-create this", is using your imagination -- that idea didn't exist, and now it does, and perhaps you are one of the few people who actually thought to do that. At least, that is how I have always viewed creativity and imagination. I've mentioned this once before but hardly ever will any "creative" person tell you that they've come up with something entirely _new_. 

Si doms do like continuity, and they're extremely good at knowing what they like to experience and sometimes how to portray that to others. It's a talent. And when they create something, like some painting or some work of art, they can even share to others their subjective impression. It gives it a, "Look at reality through my lens" sort of feel. When I see Si-doms analyzing pictures (like in the Cognitive Functions Picture Game), I love how they go about it. They're clearing using their imagination. And Si-doms for this reason can be surprisingly anti-conformist and anti-traditionalist (without trying to press their view of reality on others, even -- that's got more to do with maturity than anything else). 

Imagination is a human trait -- there's not a person on earth who doesn't have it. 

But that, of course, is my definition of imagination and creativity.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> @Julia Bell Thank you, that was all really useful to my understanding of MBTI, I never looked closely enough at the different functions.


 

No problem.  





> However, after all these replies I still don't really have an answer to my unsolved equation.... *Whenever I try to have a conversation using the deeper ends of consciousness* *with a senso*r, I watch them stall completely. This never happens the other way around, I can always make my scope smaller in order to discuss details with them, but they can rarely widen theirs to my scale. I see advantages in disadvantages in all other differing functions of I/E, F/T, P/J, because each truly do see one half of a whole, there is equilibrium, but I can not concretely understand what balances out sensing as opposed to intuition. All of you have mentioned "awareness of detail and concrete-ness" but to me *that doesn't really equate to the advantages of having a true big picture framework.* There has to be something important intuitives are missing that sensors aren't, or I have to put back into question my entire notion of balance.


Okay. I can see your point. But how do you know they're actually a Sensor? Hmmm.. or what if it's a Thinking/Feeling gap? Or even something else? Perhaps what you think is "deep" isn't "deep" to them? You wanting to talk about something you find meaningful, but they've never thought of it as particularly important so they've never given it much thought/interest in the first place? 

Also, every type has a different idea of what the "big picture" is. We all want the big picture. We just don't all see the same "big picture". For someone with Se, all of _what is_ interweaves and ties together to form a big picture. They pick up Sensory clues that an Intuitive misses out on that gives them an accurate representation of one part of reality. 

For someone with Si, all of their subjective impression of what is interweaves and ties together to form a big picture. They get something closer to a "feeling-tone" about what information they receive via their five senses. In this way, they pick up details that yet again an Intuitive would totally overlook, and these details give them an accurate representation of that part of reality. 

For someone with Ne, all of the possibilities stemming from objects (we particularly are attuned to the potential an object holds) to us form a big picture, and we see those details that a Sensor would miss, and this gives us an accurate representation of that part of reality. But to the Sensor, we don't look like we're seeing any "big picture". We only look like we got caught up on some "part". We look like we're missing the point. Just like we think they miss the point. 

For someone with Ni, all of the possibilities stemming from the subjective impression of the object forms the big picture. I think you get the point. 

In other words, to the eyes of somebody who doesn't share our perspective, we look blind and like we're missing something. But that's only because we each are looking through a narrow lens. We're each particularly tuned into one aspect in which we try to understand a situation. 

This is why for you, @_Hurricane_, and I as well, the gap for us between Sensing and Intuition is largest, because we've got dominant Intuition. So we almost entirely try and repress our Sensation just so we can better and more clearly see all the possibilities. It is the opposite for somebody who leads with Sensing. In order to better and clearly see all of what is, they must repress Intuition as best they can, because a person can't focus what is and what could be at the same time. You always lean on one more than the other. And the more you lean on one, the more you repress the other. 

So are Sensors really the ones "missing something"? Or is it us? Or both? ^_^


----------

