# My iNtuitive/Sensing realization



## BearRight (Mar 6, 2010)

I've been thinking about intelligence and I've started to think that there's a big misconception about intelligence. The way we view intelligence is rigged in favor of intuitive types. That's why intuitive types are thought of as being more intelligent than sensing types, but of course intelligence tests give better results to intuitive types too. Intelligence tests give high points to very intuitive people, especially INTPs and INTJs, who might lack "intelligence" in other areas in life and there's a patch for that called emotional intelligence, and this shows us that intelligence testing and our conception of intelligence is kind of broken. Intelligence might not be so simple and Keirsey thinks every type has their own kind of intelligence, in other words every type is especially good at something. INTPs and INTJs are both especially good at research.

Unless intuitive types really are more intelligent than sensing types. But intelligence in form of abstractions and theories does not help, if a lion eats you or you step on a rusty nail. Intuitive types are better with abstract things and sensing types are better with concrete things. Intuitive types might not be realistic or attentive to the concrete reality around them, and that's a big drawback. Language is an abstraction and therefore intuitive types grasp language better. Theories are abstract and therefore sensing types have problems with those. Society has developed to a point where we have lots of science, technology, law, processes, systems, government etc. These things have been developed by NT types and therefore they are best at understanding, developing and improving everything complex that their like have invented.

We live in a NT world. Everything that has furthened humankind has been developed by NTs. Science such as mathematics, physics and chemistry. Technology such as clocks, cars, computers, elevators, electric motors, phones and electricity. The constitution and corporate forms. Modern management and industrial processes. The people who our society praises, such as scientists and inventors, have all been NTs. All the other types are just workers and consumers in our NT world that prizes specific kinds of intelligence that only NTs possess. Today NTs are heads of corporations, professors and technological experts. The other types don't know how the NT created world works and therefore they are like mechanical parts of some kinds of systems like corporations or states that make NT crafted systems or processes work.

The modern world favors NTs who represent only less than 10 percent of the population. They are the experts of science, technology, management, industry, finance and government. NTs are the leaders in every field and all the other temperaments and types are just workers in an "organized society" of a "developed country".


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Wrong. Many of the 'greats' of history have been NFs. People just throw the NT label on them because "they're smart, so they must be NTs!"

This is also why INTPs and INTJs seem to score the highest on intelligence tests. They don't spend time with people, so they must be introverts, and they're smart, so they must be thinkers!

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The methods we use to determine E/I and T/F are archaic and unreliable. E is about an outward focus, not being a "people person". T is about naturally placing little importance on emotions, not about being intelligent or suppressing your emotions.

On the other hand, it's true that sensors don't accomplish things which seem great in and of themselves, outside of the arts. The lack of the broad, future focus of intuition prevents them from having such an obviously profound impact. However, they are responsible for maintaining the world of the present. They are responsible for implementing the groundwork of the future. They are every bit as vital to the success of modern society as the intuitives.

The social dominance of the intuitives over the sensors is a great injustice of the world, perpetuated by deliberate manipulation. Each group relies on the other, yet many intuitives continue to abuse their directorial power. It is, perhaps, the natural outcome, but it is deplorable injustice nonetheless.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

While I agree with much of what you have said here, there are a few logical blunders.

First off we don't live in an NT world at all. It just so happens by coincindence that the products that are future-useful are produced by NTs. Look at how much money gets pumped into movies and sports, this is the world of sensory stimulation. Actually, just look at money in general. Completely sensory. We have been a world of sensory-centrism since the beginning of man, largely for the reason you indicated - sensors are generally far better at day to day survival. This is why the witch trials happened, and why the middle age catholic church stifled technology. The key poimt here being that NT traits were not always valued and in fact were shunned. It was only through keen application and even a bit of manipulation that NT ideas were ever implemented.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

It comes down to types of intelligence. Sensors tend to be higher in practical intelligence. When I'm with my STJ best friend we constantly have moments where I'm the one proverbially glad that it wasn't a snake or it would have bit me, but when we talk about things that require depth and abstract understanding he's usually left with a "is that what you learned in school"-type response due to not having anything to offer of significance. In a nutshell of course. 

And lol @ considering society intuitive-oriented. Ever wonder why so many of the scientists and geniuses we praise have been fairly reclusive/misanthropic? I don't.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Tenebrae said:


> On the other hand, it's true that sensors don't accomplish things which seem great in and of themselves, outside of the arts. The lack of the broad, future focus of intuition prevents them from having such an obviously profound impact.


...wow. You're aware that everyone uses both sensing and intuition, right? You assumption that sensors aren't capable of anything great but art seems to be, frankly, really typist.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

@aconite: If you're going to misinterpret and/or misrepresent my posts, there's no room for discussion, so I won't bother responding again.

Sensors aren't famous world leaders, inventors, or philosophers, though. That's how it is.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Tenebrae said:


> Sensors aren't famous world leaders, inventors, or philosophers, though. That's how it is.


Do you actually know this or are you just assuming so? Because George Washington was supposedly an ISTJ, and Queen Elizabeth II an ISFJ.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Kito said:


> Do you actually know this or are you just assuming so? Because George Washington was supposedly an ESFJ, and Queen Elizabeth II an ISTJ.


George Washington was famous as a military commander. Queen Elizabeth II is a celebrity by birthright and nothing more. Furthermore, even if you provided two counterexamples, would they not be the exceptions to prove the rule?

This is great, though--this insistence that the realm of intuitives is more valuable, against all reason... This sort of thinking will see the oppression continue forevermore.


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

Ok where is it even mentioned that Ns are smarter than Ss?


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Tenebrae said:


> @_aconite_: If you're going to misinterpret and/or misrepresent my posts, there's no room for discussion, so I won't bother responding again.
> 
> Sensors aren't famous world leaders, inventors, or philosophers, though. That's how it is.


If you're going to stick to your ridiculous and biased opinion, then yes, don't bother. I take it you don't have evidence to prove your point, do you?


----------



## hydrogen (Apr 27, 2012)

I agreed with the whole part about intelligence - there are so many different kinds of intelligence and while a person might have a lot of mathematical intelligence, say, they might be severely lacking in emotional intelligence. IQ scores mean a lot less than the seem to mean.
However, I don't think we do live in an 'NT World' at all. Particularly in society itself I think a lot of NTs have difficulty integrating or feeling welcome. Many NTs might do very well in their careers or scientific persuits or whatever but when it comes to socialisation and fitting in, it could be more difficult, because there are so few NTs in comparison to other types, and it's difficult finding somebody who they feel they can communicate their ideas and thoughts to...

But anyway - like some other posters have said - it's really not necessary to type the people behind great ideas and successful inventions, and it's even less necessary to come to conclusions based from such typings.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Is there a reason we have to categorize intelligence by MBTI dichotomies, anyway? You don't have to define these great people, they just _are_. Everyone's going to have a different view on intelligence and/or greatness in the end. That's what makes this a biased opinion.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

aconite said:


> If you're going to stick to your ridiculous and biased opinion, then yes, don't bother. I take it you don't have evidence to prove your point, do you?


It's ridiculous and biased to assert that people with different cognitive functions do different things? That's a new one.

My evidence will be this forum. Check the number of members of each type. If you find those numbers closely reflect the general population, I'll concede.


----------



## Wizardry (Nov 13, 2011)

> Ok where is it even mentioned that Ns are smarter than Ss?


Things like this pop up. I'm too lazy to find the actual study this was taken from, I used to have it saved as a pdf somewhere.
http://www.truthcontrol.com/files/truthcontrol/images/4749.png


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Tenebrae said:


> The social dominance of the intuitives over the sensors is a great injustice of the world, perpetuated by deliberate manipulation. Each group relies on the other, yet many intuitives continue to abuse their directorial power. It is, perhaps, the natural outcome, but it is deplorable injustice nonetheless.





Tenebrae said:


> Sensors aren't famous world leaders, inventors, or philosophers, though. That's how it is.


... do you even _know_ what point you're trying to make?


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Action Potential said:


> ... do you even _know_ what point you're trying to make?


Um... Exactly the point I'm making?

...?


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Tenebrae said:


> Um... Exactly the point I'm making?
> 
> ...?


Which is? I mean, you _do_ realize the burden of proof is on you for making the initial assertion, right?


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Tenebrae said:


> It's ridiculous and biased to assert that people with different cognitive functions do different things? That's a new one.


No, it's ridiculous and biased to assert that sensors aren't capable of greatness.



Tenebrae said:


> My evidence will be this forum. Check the number of members of each type. If you find those numbers closely reflect the general population, I'll concede.


It is your assumption, and gathering evidence is up to you. Do your research yourself.

by the way:


Carl Jung said:


> As a natural scientist, *thinking and sensation were uppermost in me* and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Action Potential said:


> Which is? I mean, you _do_ realize the burden of proof is on you for making the initial assertion, right?


I have already provided sufficient evidence, and I'm not entirely sure what is confusing you about my point.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Tenebrae said:


> I have already provided sufficient evidence, and I'm not entirely sure what is confusing you about my point.





> My evidence will be this forum.




You initially say that Sensors don't achieve greatness outside of the arts, tell people that the examples provided are exceptions to the rule (even though a quick Google search will reveal that a good number of world leaders, especially, have been typed as Sensors), then change your position to "different MBTI types do different things," and then back it up with the existence of this forum. But _then_ you acknowledge that this forum is not representative of broader society, thus invalidating your own point.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

@aconite:

- You lack reading comprehension.
- It was a joke. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in my favor it doesn't even need to be evaluated. It's funny, right? Hehehe.
- Jung usually said his top two functions were Ti and Ni.

I also find it funny how "Thinking" types are jumping on me because they're offended, though.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Tenebrae said:


> - You lack reading comprehension.


It's ad personam now?



Tenebrae said:


> - It was a joke. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in my favor it doesn't even need to be evaluated. It's funny, right? Hehehe.


Yes, it's funny, but not for the reasons you would probably like it to be.



Tenebrae said:


> - Jung usually said his top two functions were Ti and Ni.


Provide a quote, please. Using Ti and Ni points to him being an ISTP with well-developed tertiary function.



Tenebrae said:


> I also find it funny how "Thinking" types are jumping on me because they're offended, though.


Yes, stereotypical thinking offends my intelligence.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

Action Potential said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> You initially say that Sensors don't achieve greatness outside of the arts





Tenebrae said:


> ...'greats'...
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...things which seem great in and of themselves...


Bzzt.



> tell people that the examples provided are exceptions to the rule


The examples provided were invalid from the beginning. They only _would have been_ exceptions if they had been valid in the first place.



> (even though a quick Google search will reveal that a good number of world leaders, especially, have been typed as Sensors)





Tenebrae said:


> ...famous...


How many are or were famous? Now, compare those numbers to the famous Ns...



> then change your position to "different MBTI types do different things"


That's not a change in position. If ISTJs don't go into philosophy, ISTJs can't be great philosophers. Extrapolate from there.



> back it up with the existence of this forum


Yup. A handful of types are over-represented on this forum.



> But _then_ you acknowledge that this forum is not representative of broader society, thus invalidating your own point.


No, no. It validates my point. In fact, it _was_ my point--in the same way, the types of famous 'greats' aren't representative of the types of broader society, because certain types have an absurdly high chance of succeeding in certain ways than others.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Many of the greats in history have been neither NTs or NFs. It's likely according to Jung that Darwin was an ESTJ, Jung himself was an ISTP, etc. Briggs and Myers were just very shortsighted to even correlate intelligence with N for the most part in my estimation. It tells me they didn't quite get what Jung was getting at with "N" - most of what they seem to consider "N" is actually more "T" (e.g. intellectual conceptualization, etc.). Then again, T doesn't = intelligence at all either. Intelligence and abstract thinking is not N or T - it's its own concept. This can easily be verified by observing that two people of the same type can have different IQs - vastly different IQs for that matter. I've seen a lot of Ne dominants that clearly run the spectrum of intelligence, for instance - some very smart ENFPs, and some very dim bulb ENFPs (although MBTI would probably peg them as ESFPs for being dumb, even though they are clearly not Se types from what I can tell IRL).


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Also, why are you constantly ignoring @aconite's posts? He's making very valid points, maybe you should consider what he's saying. Carl Jung was indeed typed as an ISTP by himself.


----------



## BearRight (Mar 6, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Many of the greats in history have been neither NTs or NFs. It's likely according to Jung that Darwin was an ESTJ, Jung himself was an ISTP, etc. Briggs and Myers were just very shortsighted to even correlate intelligence with N for the most part in my estimation. It tells me they didn't quite get what Jung was getting at with "N" - most of what they seem to consider "N" is actually more "T" (e.g. intellectual conceptualization, etc.). Then again, T doesn't = intelligence at all either. Intelligence and abstract thinking is not N or T - it's its own concept. This can easily be verified by observing that two people of the same type can have different IQs - vastly different IQs for that matter. I've seen a lot of Ne dominants that clearly run the spectrum of intelligence, for instance - some very smart ENFPs, and some very dim bulb ENFPs (although MBTI would probably peg them as ESFPs for being dumb, even though they are clearly not Se types from what I can tell IRL).


Actually Darwin must have been an INTP and Jung an INFJ.

I'm just trying to say that intuitives are the ones who change society and sensors prefer the status quo for the most part. That's why the movers and shakers of the world we praise have been intuitives. Someone commented that the future-oriented and conceptual thinking of intuitives lends itself to changing society, and I agree with that comment. Maybe I concentrated too much on NTs and technological advancements, like someone commented, and I should've written more about NFs and the societal change they have caused, for example Martin Luther King and Gandhi, anyone? Also most authors must have been NFs and journalists are often NFs. It seems to me that NFs are influental, because they are so good at communication and interested in people and society.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Actually Darwin must have been an INTP and Jung an INFJ.


Why? Most of Darwin's accomplishments were very Te-oriented to say the least (Jung noticed this also), and after reading about Jung, he was definitely an inferior feeling type - he was notorious for being pretty insensitive and reckless with others' feelings (allegedly, he caused some feeling friend of his emotional turmoil that they died from or something from what I read in this biography once that he was rather oblivious to) and not really understanding feeling as a function that much to begin with (his words paraphrased). You can't just make stuff up. Jung was obviously a lot closer to being an INTP than an INFJ, if anything, and that's the ongoing debate around here, whether Jung was an INTP or ISTP - both which have valid arguments from quotes he made in his lifetime to back them up. Most of what you're going by is temperament stereotypes that have no basis in cognitive functions (temperament isn't the same thing as cognitive functions, btw - you can have ISTJs with INTP temperaments, for instance).


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

It seems to me that the bulk of your beliefs are from Keirsey. I don't have a problem with that, but this isn't really a Keirsey forum. The name "Keirsey" around Personality Cafe tends to get people frothing at the mouth. But I'll argue here on cognitive functions terms anyways. If you get into that it might provide more food for thought.



BearRight said:


> Unless intuitive types really are more intelligent than sensing types. But intelligence in form of abstractions and theories does not help, if a lion eats you or you step on a rusty nail. Intuitive types are better with abstract things and sensing types are better with concrete things. Intuitive types might not be realistic or attentive to the concrete reality around them, and that's a big drawback. Language is an abstraction and therefore intuitive types grasp language better. Theories are abstract and therefore sensing types have problems with those. Society has developed to a point where we have lots of science, technology, law, processes, systems, government etc. These things have been developed by NT types and therefore they are best at understanding, developing and improving everything complex that their like have invented.


 
I don't think sensors are any less abstract than intuitives, especially Si users like me. Si types practically _live_ in a world based on abstractions of what things are. And grouping all science as abstract? What about the bulk of experimental sciences? Also, you classify science as primarily intuitive. Science is not really strongly correlated with either perception (Except maybe N is more theoretical physics than experimental because theoretical physics looks at how things might be working instead of how they are, but this doesn't have anything to do with abstraction) but seems to be highly T oriented.




BearRight said:


> Actually Darwin must have been an INTP and Jung an INFJ.


You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind you are opposing *Jung himself. 
*


> I'm just trying to say that intuitives are the ones who change society and sensors prefer the status quo for the most part.


Because...? I'm not sure if you are going entirely from Keirsey or from others too, so I wanna make sure.

Now, switching gears...



Tenebrae said:


> That's not a change in position. If ISTJs don't go into philosophy, ISTJs can't be great philosophers. Extrapolate from there.


Philosophy interests me, although for me personally it doesn't hold as much interest as science. As a 12 year old I independently discovered the whole "I think, therefore I am" thing.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> (temperament isn't the same thing as cognitive functions, btw - you can have ISTJs with INTP temperaments, for instance)


Thinkin' of me? :wink:


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

And no new evidence except hissy fits that sound something like this:

" I SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE !! "


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yep, I agree with @Owfin's points (and yup, I was thinking of you, @Owfin, LOL) - I think Kiersey goes too far with trying to establish his temperament theories as some sort of gospel truth by tying anything type-related into well-known external conceptualizations to sort of "prove them" so they don't get challenged (e.g. ESFPs are vapid party-goers) - not that they can't be true in that they at least exist in the real world (duh), but they largely fit only small, very very stereotypical ideas and impressions, as well as extremely narrow ones, that people might associate with say, dominant Se and aux. Fi based on media stereotypes and whatnot (e.g. ESFPs according to Kiersey are all like Paris Hilton or Homer Simpson, etc., while in actuality, *most* are probably not that much like them, since these are mainly persona images to begin with, and most people you meet don't really live in personas that are that stereotypical, predictable, and restricting - usually, this is just a product of creating a fame-worthy image of yourself as a celebrity or being a narrow TV character meant to be the butt of jokes). From taking geology classes at my University back in the fall, a lot of the geology A students with an interest in this science were Se dominants who didn't come off as people you would automatically compare to these narrow stereotypes at all - they had intellectual interests *typismgasp*


----------



## Finagle (Jun 4, 2011)

The main argument I see in this thread look like this:
Somebody did something worthwhile, he must be an intuitive.
Look at the persons that did worthwhile things, they were all intuitives.

Circular logic is circular...


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I clicked on this thread thinking maybe it would hold some promise. Alas, no such luck. Although, OP, I do believe your intentions were simply to explore an idea. Intelligence and personality don't correlate. Also, intelligence is one hard thing to even measure. I will say that my IQ as a Ne-dom is around 80 (lowest score I've gotten) to 100, and 100 is on a good day. So less-than-average to around average. Although if you talk to people who know me, they'd say I'm rather intelligent, and I do like to think I am. So I don't think our view of intelligence is rigged towards Intuitives, particularly. I think our view of intelligence is rather narrow-minded.

Sensors aren't all "concrete". Language, abstraction, etc -- that's stuff that anybody can be good at. I have met quite a large group of people, and currently have a large group of people that surround me in my life. I can't tell you what their personality types are, but I can tell you that not all of them are Intuitives and quite a bit of them are most likely Sensors. The likelihood that they're _all _Intuitives is quite low. The friends I have are what some people may describe as intelligent, funny, deep, and articulate. And we do spend quite a bit of time talking about philosophy and I've even gotten some of them interested in personality theory. When they talk, they don't revert to "Sensor" topics. To tell you the truth, I think that this has very little to do with the S/N divide. I think that for one, they were all raised in good homes (this does help ^^). For another, they are fairly well rounded. 

But even if we were to leave my circle of friends (although I do have many friends) and move outwards, I would say that what the common view of Sensing is _doesn't fit _with what is true in life. I know people from my clogging (oh yeah, did I mention I clog? XD) group which is in a rather poor county who may be described as Sensors simply because of how and where they grew up, the things they were taught and the way life unfolds generally for the people who live there.


----------

