# Are Sensing and Intuitive Differences way overblown?



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I continuously hear that Sensing and Intuitive people have difficulties understanding one another, but I haven't really gotten a sense of that from anyone I know. People seem to get my ideas and thoughts, no matter what type they are. Granted I can see where people might have disagreements where little information is seen, and the intuitive types making brash decisions where there is no evidence for their actions or intuitives for seeing the sensors as not trusting their instincts. I just don't think that there is a massive difference between people who gather information primarily through gut feelings and people who use their eyes and ears to gather information and base decisions based on that.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Not at all, every human conflict ever is based these differences.
Jung was quite clear about how these forces oppose each other.
Using the extremely simplified Sensing vs intuitive you are doing yourself a disservice.
There are two axis’s Ne-Si (Extroverted intuition - Introverted sensing) and Se-Ni (Extroverted sensing and Introverted intuition). 
In addition to being at odds with each other on the far side of each axis the two different axis’s are at war with each other.
There can be no compromise, each perspectives chief value is the sure death of the other.

Edit:
Actually it is a stretch to say every human conflict ever, but you get my point.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Typology differences in general are pretty overblown. Many get the impression that the world is divided by personality types, but it's just a brief overview of who we are. What really differs us is something far more complex and deeply ingrained than personality types can explain.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

If we're talking about this in the cognitive function sense, then there are fewer differences between sensors and intuitives than you might expect. I actually think it would be more fair to compare subjective perceiving functions with each other and objective perceiving functions with each other. Deep down, there are not a lot of differences in the way that Si and Ni perceive or for that matter Se and Ne; the only difference is how. So that sometimes Pi and Pe functions can be tough to differentiate.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Before knowing about personality theory - 
Me: "The best way I can explain is blah, blah, abstract, blah, metaphorical example, blah, blah. Do you get what I'm saying?"
ISTP: "Errm, No, not really. "

A couple of tries later.... 

ISTP: "I don't know what the hell you're fkn talking about! "
Me: "I don't see why, I've explained it every way I can think of and I know that you're not stupid!" 
ISTP: "You lost me about 10 min ago, what's that got to do with this?" 
Me: "I've just told you! WTF? You're just being fkn awkward, forget it! "

:laughing: 
Oh and -

ISFJ: "Are you going to put that stuff away? "
Me: "Oops, sorry, I forgot. "
ISFJ: "You've walked past it 5 times!"
Me: "Yeah, but I didn't see it. "
ISFJ : "How do you miss what's right in front of you? More like you was just leaving it until I put it away." 

ESTJ: " What are you playing about at? Why don't you just do it like you did it last time? 
Me: "What way was that?" *zones out, trying to remember *
ESTJ: *shakes head* "blah, blah, ............ OK? Do you know what to do now?"
Me: *zones back in* "Yes. I've got it."  figures it out as I go along. 

I've been around a lot of Sensors so I've noticed lots of misunderstandings. I used to think it was something wrong with me, until I came across type and S/N differences.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

I think people make too big a deal about it. My INFP sister and I understand each other really well, and actually, I think we get each other more than anyone else gets us. We have a lot in common, and I certainly get her more than I do my ESTJ sister. That one's a complete mystery to me.


----------



## Hrothgarsdad (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm highly N and my connection to observable reality is pretty tenuous. The gulf between S and N feels huge to me. Perhaps if I were more personally balanced with the two my view would be different.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

It is in certain respects--others not. In terms of everyday living and interaction from a sociological standpoint, I'd wager there is much smaller a difference than is stated here. I doubt people could just tell an N/S readily.

When it comes from a more psychological makeup of the individual, the effects can be glaring.


----------



## Pyrocide (Dec 13, 2012)

I assume that it is as significant as the rational (T vs F) dichotomy. For irrationals it is more significant than for rationals, so say ISTJ and INFJ will see more N/S difference, ENTJ and ESFJ will see more T/F difference. This is just obvious stuffs.

I think the reason it gets highlighted is because of the rarity of Ns compared with Ss. Thus the divide is between a minority and a majority, which gets highlighted in society which is sensor-mainstream, whereas with thinking vs feeling it is between two roughly equal groups, they both get exposure (ideally, anyway).

I think J vs P is significant too, all three of which are more significant than the introverted/extroverted and rational/irrational dichotomies, which show both sides in the top two functions.

With function dichotomies, people are even -more- different, since the relative processes go even further i.e. into the unconscious. However they may interact very well. This is less focused on since it hinders interaction less where there is a difference, but in terms of understanding the Type system, it is the best place to start.

I would say the most different from, say ISTJ, is NFJ, which is opposite in functions, as well the middle letters.

ESTP is semi-different/semi-similar and ENFP is semi-similar/semi-different, but in different ways. Namely function pairs/function order.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

I believe what pair you have (Si/Ne vs Ni/Se) is more noticeable than dom/aux Ne/Ni vs dom/aux Se/Si. I can spot the difference between Si/Ne and Ni/Se axis a mile away, and often have to resort to petty stereotypes to guess which is leading perceptive function. 

I feel like they are a bit overblown here, and there are a lot of mistyped intuitives that are actually sensors who struggle to fit in with the world so they think they are intuitives.


----------



## The Antique Beast (Nov 11, 2012)

I personally can attest to being acutely aware of N/S in the people I socialize with.

After reading a bit about the divide, I decided to test the theory among my personal circle of connections. I deliberately chose people who I can hold lengthy, easy conversations with as well as people who I speak to regularly, but our conversations are almost always very brief (not for lack of trying on their part), and acquired their type information via test. Sure enough, the former were all iNtuitives, the latter Sensors. Similarly, one of my INTJ friends has extreme difficulty typing people, and told me about a friend of hers who she was having difficulty interacting with, and she couldn't pin down why none of the N types she thought she was actually fit her. As it turns out, her friend is an ISTJ.

I like Sensors well enough, and they are unique/creative in their own right, but I often feel as though there is an insurmountable wall.


----------



## ajackson17 (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm an INTP and I can type (I/E)(X)(T/F)(J/P) very well but typing the N/S without much information and hearing in how they speak and what they focus on for some time, than I can't really type them very well.


----------



## shefa (Aug 23, 2012)

I think the conflict is much more apparent to intuitives because we feel so different from the majority population. We LITERALLY feel like aliens on earth a lot of the time. I can see how it would be easier for a sensor to say there's very little conflict. Furthermore, this conflict isn't just about making decisions differently or understanding concepts differently. It's a different way of experiencing reality. Maybe that sounds a bit dramatic, but I'm not saying the conflict can't be reconciled. We can certainly learn to appreciate each other's differences and work on developing our own inferior and shadow functions.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The differences are entirely overblown. Neither function has any perceptible role in the personality, contrary to MBTI stereotypes, which are fully unreliable concerning these functions. They differ insomuch as you cannot focus consciously on impressions of the empirical and hunches related to the metaphysical (perhaps even the metaphysical in the physical) with equal priority in terms of conscious orientation to circumstances, since both realms just completely oppose each other (you can't have hunches of unconscious assumptions and ever expect to directly reconcile them with the tangible nature of something - intuition is very much the mind's own eye - intuition is the process of looking into something so far and filling it with assumptions that possibly work beyond the tangible limits (or tangibly relevant assumptions - sort of what Jung called "the reality values") of the situation based on these mentally navigable limits and points of adjustment). It can only be inferred through how much value a person takes at face value from basically anything, or if they tend to challenge any assumption with ideals/paradoxes concerning how deceptive it may really be. Dominant intuitives are basically just people who maintain their I/E orientation through intuition - those who always trust hunches they have to define their relationship to reality. Dominant sensation types trust their impressions of reality at face value to have all of the answers they need. Both types may come to the exact same conclusions about stuff (after all, S doms are merely N doms who downplay intuition and N doms are merely S doms who downplay sensation - this is also a valid way to look at them), but with N doms, their intuition takes precedence in how they rationalize their conclusions (their sensation involved in these conclusions is heavily downplayed toward justifying their intuitions instead of toward comfortably accepting conclusions in relation to the actual experiences involved with the person coming to these conclusions - S doms' distrust their hunches in favor of rationalizing in terms of the reality values that brought them to their conclusions/their unconscious assumptions rooted in some kind of metaphysically produced connection tend to get downplayed, and their intuitions tend to be "hit or miss" or just in general, poorly rationalized to the point that their accuracy of their intuitions might not be represented accurately (pun intended) - they tend to shoot themselves in the foot with intuition or otherwise just get overly preachy/dark/almost deceptively twisted and disgusting with it, even though this probably isn't their conscious intent with it at all (this just represents how close to the person's unconscious intuition lies) - inferior sensation involves kind of a repression of the person's awareness of their own experiences in relation to how they defend their ego - often results in the person's superficially derived conclusions coming across as potentially hard to take seriously, because the reality "value" of them tends to get highly repressed, because these people tend to be uncomfortable with "superficializing" (made up word, I know) anything into something that holds consistent merit in reality experiences. They tend to feel like reality is always, on some unconscious level, deceiving them or fooling with them. That's probably why they tend to have very raw sensation, because anything more sophisticated to them is probably going to feel disorienting and misleading. They're too used to living in the back of their minds to really function by "aestheticizing" (made up again, lol) reality values and experiences to serve their ends. They may be great on the observational level, but aligning this with "reality values" is often rough-looking with them to the point that S doms or just higher S types in general might just find them a bit hard to follow or take seriously - they just look kind of primitive and random with sensation, and might have trouble zeroing in on specifics in a way that is superficial, aesthetic, and not animalistic - looking). It's not reality intuition or sensation that bothers these types though (because you need both to survive), it's moreso the fact that they get associated with extraversion/introversion that tends to make these types insecure, because they are so used to doing their business emotionally one way or the other, so like in any emotional addiction, jumping from one to the other ends up conjuring the person's unconscious ideas/fears of the greater unknown, which get constellated around the function that gets the least attention in a person's life (since like all stuff that's repressed, it's considered less relevant to the conscious life of the person). Jung specifically said that it's not really the extraversion of introverts and vice-versa that's bad (after all, you may get Is who live as Es and vice-versa), but it's moreso the repressed orientation of S/N that's the same as the person's dominant orientation (e.g. Si in Ni doms) that makes their inferior rough. You can't stereotype this stuff - inferior functions just carry a lot of the weight of a person's shadow - in other words, where their complexes lie and the inner fears and even positive potential a person has that they aren't aware of (yet), but might gravitate unconsciously toward. The functions themselves are almost unrecognizable IRL, especially since perception is arbitrary, fleeting, and if introverted, closely latched to the inner life of the person psychologically.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@Neverontime: too good. I think perhaps how overblown they are or not depends on how extreme an example of preferring certain functions one exhibits.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Auxiliary intuitives (tert in MBTI) would probably have no real conflict between sensation and intuition - they're pretty much normal with both, which often exist together in an undifferentiated way. They might downplay one over the other, but there are no consequences from doing this. They may even downplay both at times, and frankly, it would mean nothing, because Jung said that the auxiliaries belong to the things that happen to one, so they would probably be downplaying them in relation to isolated negative experiences they have had with one or the other or both (which can change), and not in relation to inexplicable psychological projections and resistances they have around them. After all, I bet most people cannot explain why they prefer their dominant from experiences they've had in life with it at all - why they like the dominant is a total mystery to a person until they become conscious of their inferior, which is the reason they prefer the dominant - the inferior is just so susceptible to being contaminated by obnoxious ego dystonic associations and feelings of inferiority, due to being so close to a person's shadow (so, if a person is afraid of themselves, this would constellate in all kinds of discomfort around the inferior), that it's opposite has to get played up for the psychological comfort of the person (and since the shadow has to do with who we think we aren't or aren't sure of, then surely, the dominant relates to who we think we are). People wind up liking their dom because it is closest to being who the person thinks he/she comfortably is, due to the inferior being close to what the person is almost blind about in themselves.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Auxiliary intuitives (tert in MBTI) would probably have no real conflict between sensation and intuition - they're pretty much normal with both,




Good point. In a fully functioning ISTP, probably true. Though it seems many times, people barely develop their ability to synergize even their dom and aux well.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

The differences don't have to matter all all when you are just hanging out with people. 
It's a bigger deal when people are dealing with projects that require interdependent coordinating or anything where decisions and actions, or understandings have long-term ramification. The primary problem being that the very same words could mean something entirely different based on what S or N bring to interpretation.

@*JungyesMBTIno* You sound like you experience your own N as if it was some kind of voodo? N is just a distilling down into concept and comparisons of concepts and interrelated ideas so that they are known on a level that is so inherent it hasn't gone through the verbal part of your brain for you to know it. 

I may not know how to define N alone without my helping T function so maybe that is where I am not getting you? But then again, because you are I and not E, you make the assumption that N is a protective function, rather than a drive to create and understand because creating and understanding at a conceptual level has it's own buz/ dopamine, opperating in flow etc. ?

One problem I've noticed with myself is the use of allegory. Almost anything that I say in a story form has more to do with some underlying principal and not the situation itself ( I'm sure some of this is Ti - regardless of N but. . .). This is not the same as an emotional hidden meaning either.

*How this might play out*: *Ne-Ti is mistaken as Sj when heard by an Sj.*
Ne-Ti could say - a wheel that develops a flat spot ceases to function as a wheel; something that has the functional shape of a wheel is what a wheel is, regardless of extraneous characteristics often associated with a wheel. Therefore this wheel shape will serve a wheel function in my new design. The idea first appears as one whole picture or missing link but logical words can be found because this is not illogical. In other words "hunches" going beyond what we can explain, does not mean they are unexplainable.

*In less physical context, same process:* Ne - Ti could use the same process to say "There is no career path for me with company A". An ENTJ and some ENTP's have a sense of what a business model is even if they wouldn't know the term to describe it. To the ENT this is the same process as the wheel ponderings above, a kind of systems thinking that is natural to them. Whereas an SP or SJ may take classes and learn what a business model is, ENT knows it intuitively even if in a limited way.

The conflict comes in when the Sj hears ENT predictions; they interpret this either as a value statement or an emotional defense.
To the ENT this is an intuitive leap but coming out of functional analysis as the background for it. Even if exact words are not in place, it is not a value judgement of the company nor is it emotional at all.

The SJ finds it impossible to imagine that analysis, especially if made quickly, could be anything but a value statement - acceptable or unacceptable, good/bad right/wrong.
Sometimes this is like an infinite loop communication barrier for NT and SJ


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Well, I get my ISTJ father a lot of the times and I was thinking that a girl was INFJ, but then realized that she was ISFJ.
We often make the differences seem larger so we can feel more unique. And create differences where there are none.

It's also funny, we were playing a cooperation game (like cats and dogs or something like that) the point of the game was to answer the same as the other person and I answered almost always the same thing as my ESFP mother. Later we did a game with my ESFP sister and mother against me and my sister's boyfriend (ESFJ) and I answered just about the exact same thing as the ESFJ and the ESFP team had some issues before my sister got so angry at the lack of focus that my mother had that my sister almost slapped my mother.

Anyways, point is. The different aren't so big that we can't understand each other due to functions. It's usually that one part is doing something completely wrong when communicating.

I was for example speaking to a few ESFPs and ENFPs and such for a group project and I made a comment that we should construct a collective source of information so that everyone would have access to the information gathered by the other people. My group had a large "?" over their head as soon as I said "collective source of information". Anyone who has watched Star-Trek would connect it to the Borg and everyone who has studied Jung would connect it to the collective unconscious, but they didn't make that connection. It's not a "they don't understand because they are a..." it was simply a fault on my end because I went too much after my internal reference system (Ni) and didn't make it easy for anyone else to make the connection.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Their is a big difference between Sensor and Intuition, but yeah overblown I would say so and also a lot of times not really understood much of the difference as well.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@*Acerbusvenator* You, being emotionally motivated and naturally expressive, might be trying to feel unique or express uniqueness; isn't that part of what NF is? Also N seems to be a popular trend today "Geek chic" (spelling? pronounced sheek). But an NT notices that they process or prioritize differently than other people, a difference in how they think, - even before ever hearing about MBTI .

I think it is commendable and maybe NF, that you see how you can adjust what might be perceived as your own jargon in order to be more universally understood.
But I don't get why either of the examples you mentioned would be necessary to have in mind, or how those ideas would be a distraction, in order to understand what you were trying to do.

*Construct a collective source of information* - sounds self evident to me. What was the problem?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Absolutely.

/10char.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Old Intern, if the differences between Sensing or Intuition are really as you say, and if SJs are really as you portray them to be, then I have never met a Sensor or SJ yet.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

I think that it's just miscommunication in general. :3 People will generally have different data they're dealing with and different contexts, regardless of whether or not they're Se/Si/Ne/Ni dom/aux. We often have trouble understanding each other simply because we are not the same person. Even if two people who were ISFP were interacting, there is still a chance for miscommunication. So really, there are differences between S and N, but I don't think those differences are as detrimental to communication as some would make it out to be.  (Although, I am speaking from my own experiences.) It's no different than differences between T and F, age, race, gender. Some contexts and discussions might exaggerate the differences, but only insomuch as we focus on them.

At most, it'll just be the difference in the basis of assumption in short, surface interactions. One example for me is when one of the receptionists in the admin office asked if I'd filled out a specific paper. I'd filled out a bunch of paperwork many months ago, but I couldn't recall all that was in it. I glanced over the contents to try to help jog my memory when she responded, "Oh, you'd remember if you did because of the colour of the paper." I almost laughed and I thought it was really interesting. To me, the colour of the paper might stand out, but I was thinking that it might be arbitrary, so I didn't know if it had a special meaning. Because of that, I don't remember any of the colours of the papers I filled out. (I recall they were mostly white... but I can't be sure.) We were just coming from different experiences and had different contexts we were dealing with.

But, it seems to me, just as with any other sort of miscommunication, patience and willingness and acceptance are a few of the essential keys to overcoming such occurances. :3


----------



## Pyrocide (Dec 13, 2012)

Having said that,

Either N/S or J/P is the most significant of dichotomies.

N/S since it precedes T/F so would be the biggest decider in interactions.

J/P since it involves a flip of all the functions.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

People get your ideas because you're a sensor and thus your ideas are very easy to "get" and understand. The problem isn't intuitives understanding sensors, it's sensors not being able to understand intuitives.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> Before knowing about personality theory -
> Me: "The best way I can explain is blah, blah, abstract, blah, metaphorical example, blah, blah. Do you get what I'm saying?"
> ISTP: "Errm, No, not really. "
> 
> ...


This is an good example of one of the reasons for cognitive functions/Psychological types


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

I think it depends on the person and their experiences/culture/family.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

They get overblown, because people interpret this stuff as literal gospel, when in fact, it's a heuristic for very specific phenomena that most people here are obviously not interested in researching (e.g. real intuition, Jung's descriptions of a sensation mentality, etc.). Honestly, unless you do the research, you'll never really get these functions, unless you happen to be super self-aware. I don't care that I said that - some of the posts are just ridiculously silly.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

hornet said:


> Not at all, every human conflict ever is based these differences.
> Jung was quite clear about how these forces oppose each other.
> Using the extremely simplified Sensing vs intuitive you are doing yourself a disservice.
> There are two axis’s Ne-Si (Extroverted intuition - Introverted sensing) and Se-Ni (Extroverted sensing and Introverted intuition).
> ...


^ wanted to say thanks for this twice.

*The value of MBTI *is how it can play a part in our changing times and current economic shifts.
Cognitive function provides a working definition or tool for understanding differences in motivation and priority preferences. In this way, an understanding of theory behind MBTI is directly relevant to the emerging peer to peer interdependent alliances being formed today as we attempt to facilitate the growing need for specialized knowledge and low overhead. We need to rely more on negotiation today, where hierarchy would have solved things in the past.

Contractors and consultants, local governments, corporations, cultural expectations in a global context, all of these have group dynamics based in differences of a collective leading cognitive function. These dynamics, on the macro as well as the micro level, effect each of us more than we know.

Harmony Vs Accuracy 
Profit Vs Sustainability 
Reliability Vs Cutting Edge Competition 
Corporate Culture Vs Task Oriented Efficiency 
all of the above, are hot button complex issues that fall along an Ne - Si and Se - Ni divide. Change versus stability and choice of focus on the forest or the individual trees are factors that don't offer the simple dichotomy they imply; never-the-less they are choices we cannot afford to ignore.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> They get overblown, because people interpret this stuff as literal gospel [...]


Actually they ain't interpreting at all, as otherwise they'd get it. :tongue:


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

@OldIntern

What is your problem with SJs?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

pizzapie said:


> @OldIntern
> 
> What is your problem with SJs?


Venting and bitching about things that are probably not even related to Introverted Sensation at all. Just idiotic systems that need to be discarded, which I am all for really. :/


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*The constructive, productive angle in this is* that S's are going to have to start adjusting to N's the way that N's have been already adjusting. This is observation, not an axe to grind. 

The information age has created an* endless diversity of specialized knowledge.* Si learning style and training style can still be perfectly fine and dandy. You may be the only one who knows what you do in your department. You can train people in whatever way you like and we still have no problem, but you can no longer be oblivious to N communication. 

*Diversity and complexity will put you in a position of being more like a consultant, even though being an employee.*
For your own good, you may have to negotiate for your department, because of a change initiated from another department for example. You need to know how details from the bottom up, might be the wrong way to talk to another department head or manager, who wants to hear about consequences and improvement suggestions; they need a conceptual starting point, to take you seriously and hear your input.

*@pizzapie *We did the si thing already and I thought that was talked out as far as we can go.
*PimpinMcBoltage *This has nothing to do with bitching. My above bullet points +this post may be best I can do here.This is about how we all are going to have to deal with Ne/Si and Se/Ni approaches that have consequences in a changing world.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> *Are Sensing and Intuitive Differences way overblown?*
> 
> I continuously hear that Sensing and Intuitive people have difficulties understanding one another, but I haven't really gotten a sense of that from anyone I know. People seem to get my ideas and thoughts, no matter what type they are. Granted I can see where people might have disagreements where little information is seen, and the intuitive types making brash decisions where there is no evidence for their actions or intuitives for seeing the sensors as not trusting their instincts. I just don't think that there is a massive difference between people who gather information primarily through gut feelings and people who use their eyes and ears to gather information and base decisions based on that.


Heretic!!


----------



## The Alternate (Jan 14, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> The conflict comes in when the Sj hears ENT predictions; they interpret this either as a value statement or an emotional defense.
> To the ENT this is an intuitive leap but coming out of functional analysis as the background for it. Even if exact words are not in place, it is not a value judgement of the company nor is it emotional at all.
> 
> The SJ finds it impossible to imagine that analysis, especially if made quickly, could be anything but a value statement - acceptable or unacceptable, good/bad right/wrong.
> Sometimes this is like an infinite loop communication barrier for NT and SJ


Oh my god - this is the exact problem I have with Grandpa sometimes! I will tell him things, just to tell him, like an update or my thoughts on something, and he ALWAYS sticks words into my mouth, trying to create some kind of "end result" of what I said. Lets say I am talking about a piece of food I ate. It was "ok", not great. I wouldn't want it again but it's not inedible. Unless I am flat out gushing about how amazing something is, he thinks I don't like something. He even says it! Then I get all pissed like "Were you even listening to what I was saying!?" I didn't say I didn't like it, I said it was in the grey area or I just don't prefer it now. It's like he wants to apply a black/white statement. I can totally see how this would result from analysis being interpreted as a value statement.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

I for sure think S vs N is overblown, but it's hard to separate type dynamics from maturity sometimes because it's not always clear how much credit someone deserves. For me, I have trouble with ESTJs sometimes, it's the way they tell a story then it reminds them of another story, etc. I need to know the reason a story is being told before I hear it, otherwise I'm listening and trying to keep track of everything but I can't. I try to focus but I get side tracked and miss parts, it's like my brain can't deal with the information without a framework. 

Ugh and Fi expression in someone who isn't really self aware can be painful.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

The Alternate said:


> Oh my god - this is the exact problem I have with my Grandpa sometimes! I will tell him things, just to tell him, like an update or my thoughts on something, and he ALWAYS sticks words into my mouth, trying to create some kind of "end result" of what I said. Lets say I am talking about a piece of food I ate. It was "ok", not great. I wouldn't want it again but it's not inedible. Unless I am flat out gushing about how amazing something is, he thinks I don't like something. He even says it! Then I get all pissed like "Were you even listening to what I was saying!?" I didn't say I didn't like it, I said it was in the grey area or I just don't prefer it now. It's like he wants to apply a black/white statement. I can totally see how this would result from analysis being interpreted as a value statement.


One thing people don't get about INTPs in general is that to them, and I mean the optimistic ones, if something is awesome you're going to hear about it, and they'll probably be obsessed with it. That doesn't mean other stuff isn't good, it's just that there are so many overrated things in general.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Despite being intuitive dominant, I tend to find a lot of sensors very easy to understand because they tend to talk in a very straightforward manner.

To be honest, I find a lot of the intuitives I know pretty easy to understand, but I find this is a very sensor dominated area, so it's probably important for intuitives to talk in that same straightforward manner, and not speculate too much on intuitive type things to get by. 

Usually, I pretty much find all types easy to understand, whether they're tapping into their sensing or intuitive side.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

depends on what you repress more, and you're own overall balance. but yes... some people can be ridiculous. 

(ex. "if i've never seen/heard of it, it can't possibly be done/exist", or "if this person couldn't have done it--and they're basically an expert, cause they've been perfecting it their whole life--then i really doubt someone your age could do it", and so on)


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @*Acerbusvenator* You, being emotionally motivated and naturally expressive, might be trying to feel unique or express uniqueness; isn't that part of what NF is? Also N seems to be a popular trend today "Geek chic" (spelling? pronounced sheek). But an NT notices that they process or prioritize differently than other people, a difference in how they think, - even before ever hearing about MBTI .
> 
> I think it is commendable and maybe NF, that you see how you can adjust what might be perceived as your own jargon in order to be more universally understood.
> But I don't get why either of the examples you mentioned would be necessary to have in mind, or how those ideas would be a distraction, in order to understand what you were trying to do.
> ...


I really am trying to understand the main point of what you have been saying on multiple threads on how you understand Sensing and Intuition. Especially your view of Si. I do not understand why you say things like, "Sensing cannot come up with anything new." Sometimes I think you tend to mix up Intuition with Thinking. Sometimes you say things like, "Se comes so ____ conclusion" or "Si+Te concludes _____" when Se and Te and Si and all the functions don't conclude anything. They absolutely do not make decisions. The person using those functions makes decisions, and not based on what the functions "say". Functions do not constrict. They do not limit a person. Sensors can come up with "new stuff". Intuition isn't the "imagination" function. The way you put it, no Sensor would ever be able to come up with a new theory. I am having an extremely hard time swallowing that fact. I've asked you multiple times where you get your information, as I do know where I get mine. But you do not seem to want to answer that particular question. 

What gets me is I honestly, despite definitely being a Ne-dom and totally relating to inferior Si, do not relate to the Intuition you portray. Nor do I have these experiences and trouble communicating with SPs or SJs. I mean, really, I think I might have less of a problem with SJs because we share Si.  What can you conclude from this? Perhaps that I'm mistyped and I'm a Sensor -- but in the same way, I do not relate at all to how you have described Sensing. Or even Thinking and Feeling. 

Also, a person who prefers Sensing in the aux position is very, very different from somebody who prefers Sensing in the dominant position. There should be way less conflict having to do with Intuition/Sensing between two people who lead with dominant Judging functions. 

And I also do not relate to your description of NFs. Nope, I'm not even as emotionally expressive as my ESTJ sister. Nor do I focus on my uniqueness and such. My sister does, though. Although that seems to have much more to do with the Enneagram than whether or not I perceive what is versus what could be. 

Also, I have noticed before even getting into MBTI the differences between how I think and how other people think. I know I've got different priorities. I don't really focus on what many of my friends do.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ne - Fi - Te - Si, *@Julia Bell* This would be your function order - correct?
I don't think I have had very many NF's around in my life, I mean close up consistently, with awareness that they were N's with F in first or second place function order. Maybe an uncle (INFJ?) - not sure about type, I do happen to know he has a genius IQ (literally) and is great to brainstorm with.
*
You understand that the difference between P and J* is that extroverted feeling or thinking is expressed as a first or second function. This means in a way, that J's have a more direct connection with themselves. My guess is that the more expressive NF's (one that may have been a customer of mine?) would be J's.

My other guess is that your Ne-Fi works in close combination the way that my Ne-Ti works almost like one operation sometimes.For you, the emotional connection may be what you were after, so no problem, no reason for you be concerned about it with friends, relatives and your circle of concern at this point in your life.

*As a result of these discussions* I had an epiphany. I have quite a bit of Ne but always perceived it more like a job skill? This explains why I have always loved working with sales manager customers; ESTP has Ti and Fe for secondary and tertiary. My guess is that a lot of these guys share a profile, all along I just respected their talent.

*@Julia Bell* back to what you were saying about priorities and thinking processes, I think I dated an ESTP a long time ago. I couldn't explain why I liked, even admired him on one level but felt like the whole thing was superficial in some other way that I couldn't put words to. He said he was in love with me. I felt like he couldn't possibly know me. It was the N thing. From his side everything seemed great, but to me it was like we had never had a real conversation.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

As somebody said a Sensor won't really see the differences much as an Intuitive. 

Secondly it would mostly come from N doms especially Ni users because the Te/Fi and Fe/Ti functions are used everywhere.

As an INFJ I can fit in with relative ease but there is always this thought in the back of my mind that they don't think like I do and that while they may like me they'll still always see me as weird and/or different. I try my best to fit in but this is why I really time to myself so I can just be myself.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

In my life have I never had a problem with communication. Unless one spams too many metaphors, similies etc. More so than not it will just give weird but interesting imaginary. (like those INFx stuff)

Somewhere at age 9-10 a friend was talking about a poem book to someone (not knowing what it was) interested I asked "What are poems?" I don't really remember what she said exactly she also mentioned how she wanted to do write books with poems. Confused and ignorant all I said was "Why would you do that? Sounds stupid and useless." First insulting me she than added "not everyone understands it but if you do it's amazing and fun! Disagreed I hopped onwards to do 'S' stuff 

I loved acting out fantasys in physical terms(drawing, toys, roleplaying, creating something etc). Which I enjoyed very much and could spend a whole day doing with others or completely alone. Heck, when bored in class I would make a fantasy world with all my school accesories. People often had to physically shake me to snap me out of it 'cause my awareness of the world would be completely gone. Like I was dreaming with my eyes open yet still playing with the things.

While I don't find poems useless and stupid anymore(I was an ignorant 9yo for fcks sake) it's still not my thing. And if I _had_ to write or read it myself, I would get... pretty bored :S


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> People get your ideas because you're a sensor and thus your ideas are very easy to "get" and understand. The problem isn't intuitives understanding sensors, it's sensors not being able to understand intuitives.


I think this is true, but also think it can be true between Ni/Se & Ne/Si. 

I can usually tell what Ni is getting at, but they often have trouble keeping up with my Ne. 

Also, I can become passive-aggressive and claim not to get what a sensor says, because while I "get it", I also see so far beyond it and all the fall-backs in their thought process that to explain each one would take far too long. It's easier for me to complain not to get it, and to make my point in a different way before simply bowing out of the convo.

Basically, I _get_ that's it's not only incorrect thinking, but entirely not worth my bother to continue on.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

I just read that gut feelings and popular ways of telling if someone is deceiving you are only 56% effective while analysing the plausibility of the verbal content is the most effective way followed by the way they say it. Most people look to clues like eye contact and signs of anxiety which are in fact very unreliable compared to looking at details and using the sensing functions more. Hoaxers will generally be aware of these and tell you some total nonsensical stuff while tricking your intuition into believing them. Also its a terrible shame if innocent people get seen a liars because they're anxious or tense especially when they've been falsely accused of something. Usually pathological liars will appear confident and sure of themselves. looking at the concrete evidence and comparing the story to concrete experience to assess its plausibility is far more effective than intuition in these circumstances.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Carmine Ermine said:


> I just read that gut feelings and popular ways of telling if someone is deceiving you are only 56% effective while analysing the plausibility of the verbal content is the most effective way followed by the way they say it. Most people look to clues like eye contact and signs of anxiety which are in fact very unreliable compared to looking at details and using the sensing functions more. Hoaxers will generally be aware of these and tell you some total nonsensical stuff while tricking your intuition into believing them. Also its a terrible shame if innocent people get seen a liars because they're anxious or tense especially when they've been falsely accused of something. Usually pathological liars will appear confident and sure of themselves. looking at the concrete evidence and comparing the story to concrete experience to assess its plausibility is far more effective than intuition in these circumstances.


I don't understand the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Ne - Fi - Te - Si, *@Julia Bell* This would be your function order - correct?
> I don't think I have had very many NF's around in my life, I mean close up consistently, with awareness that they were N's with F in first or second place function order. Maybe an uncle (INFJ?) - not sure about type, I do happen to know he has a genius IQ (literally) and is great to brainstorm with.
> *
> You understand that the difference between P and J* is that extroverted feeling or thinking is expressed as a first or second function. This means in a way, that J's have a more direct connection with themselves. My guess is that the more expressive NF's (one that may have been a customer of mine?) would be J's.
> ...


What you said earlier about Ne-Ti earlier on in this thread was awesome, loved it. Having Ne-Ti is like understanding the entire reality in terms of shapes and patterns. A triangle, square, circle don't exist but there are things that take that shape. So if there was a pattern of shapes you could recognize each thing that takes that shape as interchangeable. 

I've been thinking carefully about the last thing you said about dating the ESTP, I dated an ESFJ and it was pretty good. I liked a lot of things about her, but I couldn't get past the fact that she thought I was "so random all the time". Inferior Ne and Ni users trying to create too quickly are random, it's just that she couldn't see the connections. I felt like we didn't connect on the uber level, but there'll always be a place in my heart of her.


----------



## OverthoughtAndUnderstated (Aug 13, 2012)

Apart from the consideration of cognitive functions, one could have a weak S with certain N tendencies or have a weak N with S tendencies. Good MBTI tests give you a percentage range to determine that, but the differences between someone with a strong S and another with a strong N can be significant to the point that the S/N distinction becomes the most important area which will determine compatibility between those two individuals. For example: My N is so strong, that I am intolerant of some S types, whereas my P is weak, and I have some J tendencies, so I get along just fine with slight to moderate J types. I am only compatible with Ns. Someone with a weak N may get along with Ss famously as I can with Js.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> I've been thinking carefully about the last thing you said about dating the ESTP, I dated an ESFJ and it was pretty good. I liked a lot of things about her, but I couldn't get past the fact that she thought I was "so random all the time". Inferior Ne and Ni users trying to create too quickly are random, it's just that she couldn't see the connections. I felt like we didn't connect on the uber level, but there'll always be a place in my heart of her.


Why don't then just explain the connections? She might've stopped thinking about it as "random."


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I used to think I had difficulty with sensors. I've since realized it's primarily SJ types that I have difficulty connecting with. 

Which makes sense, considering that SJs operate on Si (something I'm really bad at and doesn't come naturally at all, if it comes at all). And the SFJs operate on Si + Fe, which is more stuff I have trouble relating to. It's that whole "opposites" thing, but not in the "we're opposites yet so alike sense" - more like "we're opposites... period. Goddamn it's hard to communicate."


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

13 others said:


> Why don't then just explain the connections? She might've stopped thinking about it as "random."


I did do that, but that doesn't get past the fact that everything is connected. When I look out at the world and think about my life I see things going in a direction and I can see an end state, I can see how people rise to greatness or fall into nothingness. I just see that there is an underlying significance in everything I do, so I'm primarily focused on building a life. That means I'm going to take bits and pieces of things from all different areas, everything I think is relevant at least, and build a machine that maximizes the goodness of my life and the lives of the people closest to me.

It's like explaining to someone what the matrix is when they don't believe in the matrix. Sure I can take a bunch of time and explain a concept or an idea and how it relates to the system at large, but it's another to suggest that you can extrapolate infinitely. Over everything, into the past and into the future.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> I don't understand the point you're trying to make.


Damn. :sad:


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Someone should have posted on this topic within the last 2 weeks so this does not count as a double post.



Cellar Door said:


> I don't understand the point you're trying to make.


The point is: @Cosmicsense Sensing is better than Intuition for this skill:-


----------

