# Intuitives are complex, sensors are simple



## Callie

Oooo as I said, already, most ENTPs have attention issues to even attention deficit. So you don't automatically have bad memory but you can have bad attention that makes you have issues memorizing (we can't memorie what we don't pay attention off)


----------



## Trigun64

I think it has to do a lot with appearance and jumping to conclusions. Outwardly, intuitives can seem very complex, where as sensors can seem simple, however what lies under the surface might be an entirely different story.



Apollo Celestio said:


> If I may suggest (not assume) that perhaps sensors are simpler in thought, but more complex in their actions.. whereas intuitive are complex in thought, but simple in action. Nothing I've stated has anything to do with intelligence by the way.


I could almost agree with this, yet at the same time I could see the reverse being equally true.



alfreda said:


> I think that sensors are complex to intuitives and vice versa. We find our own types easier to understand. If we don't understand them they seem complex.


I can see this being true in some regards as well, however some sensors come to understand intuitives and some intuitives come to understand sensors.

...

I do think it(being: are intuitives complex and simple?) has a to do with a lack understanding. I also think it might have to do more specifically with function. Ni and Si are very little understood functions by most. Where as Ni users can seem very complex by many, Si users are generally seen as simple, because their inner world is rarely even glimpsed at.

TeFi users can seem very much complex because they follow a shifting paradigm that is internally sourced, however they can also be prone to group think. TiFe users can seem prudish and simple in there actions, but have a very nuanced system of thought and logic bubbling below the surface.

Also, being simple vs complex has a lot of connotative repercussions to it. Complex is seen in popular culture as being good as well as a sign of intelligence, where as being simple is associated with a lack of intelligence or culture. In the bible, it states we are suppose to live simple lives, so to those who follow this, they can see complexity as unnecessary and bad. Its really is all about perspective. Some people find beauty in simplicity, others find beauty in complexity. All humans are complex in some ways, whether for good or bad. To quantify whether or not intuitives are complex and sensors are simple, you would need to define what is "complex" and what is "simple". Each are up for interpretation though, and only what the majority says will be perpetuated. It is where we get the idea from in the first place that sensors are simple, a majority of intuitive intellectually elites engaged in MBTI said it was so, and so it spread as if it were truth. Honestly, all people, of any type are complex and simple in their own ways, and we should embrace that we are similar in this, and judge for ourselves, so as not to have the wool pulled over our eyes, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" [John 8:32 NIV].


----------



## pinkrasputin

Sensors, whether they use Se or Si are not "simple" to me as I've never found a single human being "simple". We all have layers, I don't care what preferences for functions you have.

My last two relationships have been with Si and Se dominants. And I was raised in a family of Si an Se, I am the only Ne. If anything, I have felt very "predictable" around them. My family lets me know this all the time. 

I find my current Se partner very complex. But he wouldn't say so. He would say that he has simple needs. And "what you see is what you get". Wow. Isn't that complex? Isn't that intriguing? How does one sift through all of that in order to get to one's center? 

While I tend to spill out thoughts that flow through my head, I would consider myself much more "simple" and easier to figure out.


----------



## teddy564339

Apollo Celestio said:


> If I may suggest (not assume) that perhaps sensors are simpler in thought, but more complex in their actions.. whereas intuitive are complex in thought, but simple in action. Nothing I've stated has anything to do with intelligence by the way.





alfreda said:


> I think that sensors are complex to intuitives and vice versa. We find our own types easier to understand. If we don't understand them they seem complex.





pinkrasputin said:


> Sensors, whether they use Se or Si are not "simple" to me as I've never found a single human being "simple". We all have layers, I don't care what preferences for functions you have.
> 
> My last two relationships have been with Si and Se dominants. And I was raised in a family of Si an Se, I am the only Ne. If anything, I have felt very "predictable" around them. My family lets me know this all the time.
> 
> I find my current Se partner very complex. But he wouldn't say so. He would say that he has simple needs. And "what you see is what you get". Wow. Isn't that complex? Isn't that intriguing? How does one sift through all of that in order to get to one's center?



I think all of these are great points and sum up my thoughts on the whole issue quite well. I think both preferences are complex in their own ways, and a lot of times each one finds the other to be very complex, just because they're so different from one another. 

The problem I see so often is that there can be such a lack of understanding because people have a hard time getting past that first initial weirdness or confusion. Part of it may be bad past relationships, and part of it may be failing to see a purpose in the other way of thinking. But I think if people truly make an effort to try to get inside someone else's head, they can see really amazing things that they would never be able to do themselves. I think this helps so much for not writing people off for being different.


----------



## OmarFW

here's the way I see it

Sensors CHOOSE to think simplistically but they are not simple people.

Intuitives CHOOSE to think complexly but they are not complex people.

anybody can be as complex or simple. it's just a matter of which side a person is more comfortable with centering their thoughts around.

Many different languages appear to be very complex and hard to learn to english speakers like americans, but have you seen how complex and difficult to learn english is?


----------



## Linnifae

My ISTP husband is so simplistic I find it impossible to understand.


----------



## Trigun64

teddy564339 said:


> The problem I see so often is that there can be such a lack of understanding because people have a hard time getting past that first initial weirdness or confusion. Part of it may be bad past relationships, and part of it may be failing to see a purpose in the other way of thinking. But I think if people truly make an effort to try to get inside someone else's head, they can see really amazing things that they would never be able to do themselves. I think this helps so much for not writing people off for being different.


I basically said the same thing as this, it was just jumbled among my examples and theorizing. I am glad you were able to articulate it concisely though. 

I should learn not to taint what I am saying by trying to over explain things to people, it never ends up well.


----------



## Linnifae

OmarFW said:


> here's the way I see it
> 
> Sensors CHOOSE to think simplistically but they are not simple people.
> 
> Intuitives CHOOSE to think complexly but they are not complex people.
> 
> anybody can be as complex or simple. it's just a matter of which side a person is more comfortable with centering their thoughts around.
> 
> Many different languages appear to be very complex and hard to learn to english speakers like americans, but have you seen how complex and difficult to learn english is?


I think language is more "nuture" though (so to speak...it's the environment you were raised in that gives you the language you end up speaking) where as functions are "nature" (how your mind naturally processes information) 

That being said, I was thinking about language the other day and was wondering if we were to be taught every language (theoretically speaking) if different personality types would favor different languages naturally. I excelled in grammar in school but if I had been brought up with Swedish or Italian, would I have done better or worse? Or is my brain wired "correctly" for that sort of thing, so it would adapt to whatever language was thrown at me? :tongue:


----------



## teddy564339

Trigun64 said:


> I basically said the same thing as this, it was just jumbled among my examples and theorizing. I am glad you were able to articulate it concisely though.
> 
> I should learn not to taint what I am saying by trying to over explain things to people, it never ends up well.


Yeah, I only half-understood your post when I first read it, but after re-reading I see that we were pretty much saying the same thing. But usually your posts are extremely right on for me anyway.


----------



## madhatter

Linnifae said:


> That being said, I was thinking about language the other day and was wondering if we were to be taught every language (theoretically speaking) if different personality types would favor different languages naturally. I excelled in grammar in school but if I had been brought up with Swedish or Italian, would I have done better or worse? Or is my brain wired "correctly" for that sort of thing, so it would adapt to whatever language was thrown at me? :tongue:


You probably would have done the same. If your brain is grammatically and linguistically inclined, whether your first language was Italian or English wouldn't have made a difference. The underlying structure of languages is more universal than we give it credit for.


----------



## OrangeAppled

Sensors can definitely be complex. I have yet to meet a person who is really _simple_ - maybe I just surround myself with interesting, complex people.


----------



## snail

I've met simple people, but it didn't seem to have anything to do with type. One was an ISTJ, another was an ENTP, and another was an ESFJ. Of course, "simple" is subjective and relative, so another person might not have considered any of them simple. The ones I consider complex might be simple to someone else. I just found these people easy to understand, without a lot of complicating features that would require digging around in their heads. They were predictable, open, down-to-earth people whose thoughts fit easily in the palm of my hand. They were all people I cared about, so please don't confuse "simple" with "inferior" or "stupid." I wouldn't use either of those words to describe any of them. In some ways, what they were doing naturally was very close to something I am trying to achieve through great effort.


----------



## Humaning

I dont believe this to be true; I doubt that Ill ever get to the bottom of myself. My creed: no individual is truly more complex than the other; Some have just given up on the self exploration.
Why don't we just drop this silly stereotypes and lables; "sensors," "intuitives." We all have sensing and intuitive functions. We keep maturing them all our lives if we allow ourselves to. In this respect the most simple person might be an ENFP that never grow out of the whole Ne Fi mode. Just as a ISTJ can be the most complex person if he develops the power of all his functions, while still remaining true to his ISTJ identy.
It is just as silly as proposing that NF's are more complex than NT's...


----------



## OmarFW

Linnifae said:


> I think language is more "nuture" though (so to speak...it's the environment you were raised in that gives you the language you end up speaking) where as functions are "nature" (how your mind naturally processes information)
> 
> That being said, I was thinking about language the other day and was wondering if we were to be taught every language (theoretically speaking) if different personality types would favor different languages naturally. I excelled in grammar in school but if I had been brought up with Swedish or Italian, would I have done better or worse? Or is my brain wired "correctly" for that sort of thing, so it would adapt to whatever language was thrown at me? :tongue:


The way your brain functions imo has very little with how you are born and how you naturally develop.

All humans have the same potential to use any cognitive functions and thought processes, the strengths and weaknesses we measure through typology are developed through years of preference and choice. There is also a lot of influence from family and the experiences someone has growing up.

As is proved by many people who have fought in the military and come back with essentially entirely different personalities and altered cognitive function usage. people can also experience personality change through other life changing events like bearing a child.

The only reason we can't just change the way we think through sheer will is because of the different layers of our mind. We have control over the concious mind, a little control over the unconcious mind, and basically no control over the subconcious mind. but all 3 layers of the mind contribute to someones personality. through time you can develop and balance yourself, but complete change requires something more drastic.


----------



## Black Rabbit

The complexity or simplicity of an individual is a matter of perception. And perception is subjective. This pretty much sums up everyone's post.


----------



## susurration

OrangeAppled said:


> Sensors can definitely be complex. I have yet to meet a person who is really _simple_ - maybe I just surround myself with interesting, complex people.


This. 

There is no clarification as to what constitutes "complex" on this thread, and as many have mentioned it's a subjective concept as it is. 

- Superiority complex? martyr complex? 

- "Being complex is difficult-you have to develop depth of character, emotional balance, patience, and an assortment of mature social skills. And that is just the beginning?"

-Deep thinking? 

^ we could look at the word complex in many different ways. 

More to the point- I would never suggest any one person is more "complex" than another. I'm afraid I wouldn't know enough about people I meet to make any assessment like that. Also, whether or not "complexity" is a valuable trait is another story. If "simple" is the opposite of complex, i'm afraid to call _anyone_ anything other than complex.

Also, I find it a ridiculous notion to call sensors "simple thinkers". Firstly, because many "sensors" are dominant thinkers. And secondly, can I as an outsider see into their heads? no.


----------



## sarek

Perhaps its best to interpret complex in this context the way chaos theory interprets it. I think the brains of N types on the level of individual neurons work in a more random way than those of S types. Maybe that is related to dopamine activity.
Inside the brain of an N there is less predictability. The 'choice space' is larger but picking out one choice out of all the possibilities is more difficult. And in extreme cases, no choice is being made at all.

It seems that natural processes always tend to find the maximum amount of chaos that leaves the system still functional. That gives the maximum possible flexibility to deal with changes in the environment. 
This applies to ecosystems or economies as much as to the microcosm of the human brain.


----------



## Seeker99

Okay, let me first say that I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful here, I just need to rant. Sorry if it's too subjective or just worthless rambling.

I'm sick of all the N supremacy that goes on here. For example, why do we always say NT or NF when talking about things that could just as easily apply to ALL thinkers or feelers?

I find it ironic that some intuitives don't think outside the box when it comes to this. They focus on their way of thinking and fail to realise that *everyone is complex*. Every person on this planet is a unique individual who has their own way of thinking. No-one has the right to pretend they know what someone else is thinking, let alone judge them for it.

Sensors in general don't think about things any less or to any less depth, we just have a different way of taking in information.


----------



## Apollo Celestio

It's hard to avoid political correctness when you get into these distinctions.


----------



## zynthaxx

Seeker99 said:


> I find it ironic that some intuitives don't think outside the box when it comes to this.


One thing I think many type descriptions fail to mention, is that thinking outside the box - or, more correct, _useful_ thinking outside the box - is more of a maturity thing than a general N/S thing. The question is: Do you take in information, analyze it, use it, or do you throw away anything that doesn't superficially seem to fit in your world view?

Fact is, half of the Sensor types have iNtuition in either direction as their tertiary function, and therefore make pretty strong use of it even at points in life where they haven't yet learned to actually make _conscious_ use of it.

To make a specific point: The two most narrow-minded people I regularly meet are both NTs: one INTJ and one INTP. Neither of them is very young, the INTP is in his thirties and the INTJ is in his sixties. Their common denominator is a tendency to create arbitrary boxes for themselves and making themselves blind for possibilities that fall outside these boxes. In these cases, it doesn't matter how brilliant they are when it comes to problems that happen to fall into areas contained by their respective boxes, since they never seem to even try to think outside the box when it comes to troubleshooting in areas where they're not confident - which in turn leads to a catch-22 where they can't become confident in areas where they're not already confident..


----------



## itrick

Humaning said:


> I dont believe this to be true; I doubt that Ill ever get to the bottom of myself. My creed: no individual is truly more complex than the other; Some have just given up on the self exploration.
> Why don't we just drop this silly stereotypes and lables; "sensors," "intuitives." We all have sensing and intuitive functions. We keep maturing them all our lives if we allow ourselves to. In this respect the most simple person might be an ENFP that never grow out of the whole Ne Fi mode. Just as a ISTJ can be the most complex person if he develops the power of all his functions, while still remaining true to his ISTJ identy.
> It is just as silly as proposing that NF's are more complex than NT's...


I agree with most of this, though I'd like to refine what you're suggesting a little further.

1) Some people are likely more complex than others. But as we cannot measure complexity, as no one can fully rationalize another human being to the point of being able to make a wholistic comparison, this is a weak statement and ultimately moot point.
2) Whether intuitive or sensor everyone has the potential to be more or less complex at any given time. We are not static entities, we evolve and change. 
3) Humans are not capable of internalizing (either through sensory observation or intuitive intake) the entirety of anyone; (thus the life-long journey of getting to understand oneself... if one cannot even understand oneself, how can one begin to understand someone else)
4) We all use both sensory skills and intuititive skills, no one can function without both. We too often on these forums fall into the trap of polarizing people into each personality type's camp. This is human tendency, and our desire to find commonality, but leads to a poor understanding of the true reality of personalities.
5) Because no one can fully realize anyone in their mind (see point 3), everyone is by definition more complex than we are able to process.
6) Everyone is complex.


----------



## Humaning

itrick said:


> I agree with most of this, though I'd like to refine what you're suggesting a little further.
> 
> 1) Some people are likely more complex than others. But as we cannot measure complexity, as no one can fully rationalize another human being to the point of being able to make a wholistic comparison, this is a weak statement and ultimately moot point.
> 2) Whether intuitive or sensor everyone has the potential to be more or less complex at any given time. We are not static entities, we evolve and change.
> 3) Humans are not capable of internalizing (either through sensory observation or intuitive intake) the entirety of anyone; (thus the life-long journey of getting to understand oneself... if one cannot even understand oneself, how can one begin to understand someone else)
> 4) We all use both sensory skills and intuititive skills, no one can function without both. We too often on these forums fall into the trap of polarizing people into each personality type's camp. This is human tendency, and our desire to find commonality, but leads to a poor understanding of the true reality of personalities.
> 5) Because no one can fully realize anyone in their mind (see point 3), everyone is by definition more complex than we are able to process.
> 6) Everyone is complex.


I thought this was implied in what I said, but apparently you thought otherwise. Perhaps my ideas were too disorganized for a more analytical mind (I am specially disinclined make points in numbered lists, but to each his own.) Interesting. I enjoyed this novel point: "This is human tendency, and our desire to find commonality, but leads to a poor understanding of the true reality of personalities." True. I found people that do it with race, others with ideology and now I find it in personality. I will store this expanded pattern in the Ni collective.


----------



## MilkyLatte

Sensing is about the concrete, palpable reality. iNtuition is about overview and would-be's. If sensing is taking a photo of something, iNtuition is describing something with as few words as possible.

I'd say sensing is simple in the sense that it's concrete and factual. But I'd also say that iNtuition is simple in the sense that simples down a complex situation into a big picture.

Both are simple and both are complex, but in totally different ways...


----------



## username

Apollo Celestio said:


> If I may suggest (not assume) that perhaps sensors are simpler in thought, but more complex in their actions.. whereas intuitive are complex in thought, but simple in action. Nothing I've stated has anything to do with intelligence by the way.


I edited what I wrote because I think it was wrong.


----------



## Aßbiscuits

ISTJs and ISTPs...good luck understanding them!

Plus, at least half the intuitives on this forum are walking cliches which are predictable thus easy to understand. 

Let's take ISFJs as an example, you can't pin them down as easy as an ENTP. 

I prefer simplicity, life I don't think is meant to be understood and over-thought about, it's meant to be lived (which is why I surround myself with Se dom/aux users, so down to earth, living in the moment <3)


----------



## SomeRandomGuy18

Seeker99 said:


> Okay, let me first say that I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful here, I just need to rant. Sorry if it's too subjective or just worthless rambling.
> 
> I'm sick of all the N supremacy that goes on here. For example, why do we always say NT or NF when talking about things that could just as easily apply to ALL thinkers or feelers?
> 
> I find it ironic that some intuitives don't think outside the box when it comes to this. They focus on their way of thinking and fail to realise that *everyone is complex*. Every person on this planet is a unique individual who has their own way of thinking. No-one has the right to pretend they know what someone else is thinking, let alone judge them for it.
> 
> Sensors in general don't think about things any less or to any less depth, we just have a different way of taking in information.


Someone's a feeler :tongue:


----------



## ENTrePenuer

username said:


> The sensor's domain is the physical realm; the intuitive's domain is inside his own mind.


yeah uhm no.


----------



## amnorvend

Full disclosure: I haven't taken the time to read all 5 pages of this topic.

If there's one thing that being a programmer has taught me, it's that complexity is more fixed than you think. Removing complexity from one place usually causes it to appear somewhere else. With that in mind, I doubt that sensors are any more or less complex than intuitives. It's more likely they just move it around. :wink:


----------



## username

I don't like when people take a complex route to solve a simple problem. It's a waste of time and energy. 

A lot of the time there is much wisdom in simplicity.


----------



## Sgtshanky

I find this article relevant to the topic. It is lengthy, but a good read.

gladwell dot com - the physical genius


----------



## username

Sgtshanky said:


> I find this article relevant to the topic. It is lengthy, but a good read.
> 
> gladwell dot com - the physical genius


I am not sure this article is relevant to this topic. We don't know whether the people discussed (who possessed "physical genius") were intuitives or sensors.

I am intuitive and have really good coordination and balance.


----------



## Knives

To me, simply carries the connotation of stupid. Simple. Easily understood.

In turn, this means that someone is simple to understand, while you are complex, seeing as the OP is an N:

Complex...this to me carries the connotation of "I am too elaborate to understand. The intrinsic nature of my character is beyond your comprehension".

Not only is this patten of thinking one of the main downfalls of the society surrounding MB theory, it reeks of a superiority complex. I will go out an a limb and say, that since 75% of the population would theoretically be S types, that some of them would be more intelligent than you. In turn, their minds would be complex to you.


----------



## cardinalfire

I like Apollo's statement very much. 

I have been thought of as an S and as an N. I see myself as an N, and even people I've been around who strike me as very stereotypical sensor ish don't see me as a Sensor. 

For example these two teens I know, once said in a conversation to each other 'don't he always make things confusing?' lol, referring to me, which is right, and I feel it and i'm sure other people do. At times I can almost unconsciously slip into analysis, or in depth mode, without even realising it. It's like I make things 'confusing' or philsophical when all people want is the straightforward approach, it's taken me some time and now I know when to use which 'mode' as it were, though I am predominately complex and abstract in thought. 

Perhaps that's the real question here, whether someone thinks abstractly or concretely, because to me complex or in depth concrete studies confuse me, like some mathematics, scientific studies etc. So what i'm saying is maybe there is complex and simple abstract thought and simple and complex concrete thought, so perhaps we flourish in one of the four or not flourish in say the deeper stuff of the other side. If that makes any sense lol.... :happy:


----------



## talemin

@Knives

No.éè
It's more "I am too simple [for you] to understand. The intrinsic nature of my character is beyond your comprehension".

_simple_ is not _easy_ nor by any means _cheap_. Quite the contrary way too often XD. And complex can give way to 'confused' at any moment.

But when things go the right way they are equally beautiful, a fractal paint as well as a pearl **

I don't know, perhaps i am insisting on this because i know that i can recognize complex beauty so easier than simple beauty, but I yearn for the latter as well and I don't like you diminishing it ^^'


----------



## username

Knives said:


> To me, simply carries the connotation of stupid. Simple. Easily understood.
> 
> In turn, this means that someone is simple to understand, while you are complex, seeing as the OP is an N:
> 
> Complex...this to me carries the connotation of "I am too elaborate to understand. The intrinsic nature of my character is beyond your comprehension".
> 
> Not only is this patten of thinking one of the main downfalls of the society surrounding MB theory, it reeks of a superiority complex. I will go out an a limb and say, that since 75% of the population would theoretically be S types, that some of them would be more intelligent than you. In turn, their minds would be complex to you.


I agree with your post. But I think if someone is going to have a superiority complex, he will find ways to have it, whether it's through discovering his personality type, flaunting his social status, or through his education (even though I think the acquisition of knowledge should ultimately increase his humility). His superiority complex tries to cover up his secret feelings of inferiority. (I am not at all referring to the original poster.)


----------



## Knives

cardinalfire said:


> I like Apollo's statement very much.
> 
> I have been thought of as an S and as an N. I see myself as an N, and even people I've been around who strike me as very stereotypical sensor ish don't see me as a Sensor.


I don't think "you have to be one to know one" applies to MB. :happy:



cardinalfire said:


> For example these two teens I know,


I am tempted to discredit the entire anecdote at this point. But I will continue on. Just kidding. Sorta. :wink:



cardinalfire said:


> once said in a conversation to each other 'don't he always make things confusing?' lol, referring to me, which is right, and I feel it and i'm sure other people do.


Being confusing is not reserved for Ns or Ss.



cardinalfire said:


> At times I can almost unconsciously slip into analysis, or in depth mode, without even realising it.


I am sure that some Ss with Ti/Te preferences would cite the same thing.



cardinalfire said:


> It's like I make things 'confusing' or philsophical when all people want is the straightforward approach,


I know several Ss who are more 'philosophical' than many Ns I know. Moreover, straightforward may have more to do with an Fe/Fi or Te/Ti preference than any N or S preference. 



cardinalfire said:


> it's taken me some time and now I know when to use which 'mode' as it were, though I am predominately complex and abstract in thought.


Define abstract. Maybe you are the one who is actually misunderstanding 



cardinalfire said:


> Perhaps that's the real question here, whether someone thinks abstractly or concretely, because to me complex or in depth concrete studies confuse me, like some mathematics, scientific studies etc.


I know S types who discard math out of choice, and can comprehend humanities more easily than most.



cardinalfire said:


> So what i'm saying is maybe there is complex and simple abstract thought and simple and complex concrete thought, so perhaps we flourish in one of the four or not flourish in say the deeper stuff of the other side. If that makes any sense lol.... :happy:


No. I disagree. Simple and complex carry the wrong connotation for this discussion.

I hope I was clear, not harsh.


----------



## Surreal Snake

Nothing is simple with Humanity.


----------



## Filigeedreamer

I'm an INFJ and I dated an ESTP.

He was very intelligent and quick, especially with humour. So he wasn't simple in that way, but he was very straight forward and liked to approach life in a direct way. He had very clear cut views on most things, which gave him a lot of integrity. 

He did focus a lot on the past and present, and I found that frustrating, as it was almost always in a negative way. He sulks a lot, and gets depressed easily as he focuses on the problem, not possible solutions. This came to really annoy me. 

I think he is actually a very complex person but isn't aware of his complexity, he doesn't WANT to be complex. He likes being straight forward and fun, no sides to him. I can admire that, while also thinking he is an idiot who misses the obvious. He in turn thinks I can make things unnecessarily complicated, and that I can be so focused on the future I neglect that great things happening in the moment. 

Both of us are right.


----------



## Antithesis

Sensors are swings, intuitives are roundabouts.


----------



## Tad Cooper

Some are and some aren't, probably depends on background and how messed up they are. Usually the smarter and the more disorders, the more complex the person because they make no sense to normal folk.


----------



## WildWinds

I could agree with that ^ Especially the theory of everything part. A lot of NT's I know, including myself, may dabble in several different subjects rather than having one interest and sticking with it. Dabbling in several subjects helps to develop that general understanding, or "theory of everything". Its more about that than it is perfecting one skill or learning one topic inside and out.


----------



## Unicorntopia

Tucken said:


> I disagree. S/N are for data gathering


Exactly. What info are they gathering, from where, and how?

To know what info a person uses to make decisions aids in how to predict what decisions they will make.


----------



## madhatter

WildWinds said:


> I could agree with that ^ Especially the theory of everything part. A lot of NT's I know, including myself, may *dabble in several different subjects* rather than having one interest and sticking with it. Dabbling in several subjects helps to develop that general understanding, or "theory of everything". *Its more about that than it is perfecting one skill or learning one topic inside and out.*


I do this. I have many interests, but I jump back and forth from them so often, I rarely become the master of them.


----------



## nevermore

madhatter said:


> I do this. I have many interests, but I jump back and forth from them so often, I rarely become the master of them.


Yeah...I think that's a P thing, not an N thing.


----------



## KrystRay

Have you ever met a non-complicated woman? Just because we see things as how they are doesn't mean that we're simple.


----------



## madhatter

nevermore said:


> Yeah...I think that's a P thing, not an N thing.


Yes, I would agree.


----------



## bcruel2bkind

Well, S(i) is completely mysterious to me! I understand it in principle, but when I have to deal with someone that uses it...fahgettaboutit! It is way too complex to figure out....and my N powers seem to fail me entirely!


----------



## Tucken

bcruel2bkind said:


> Well, S(i) is completely mysterious to me! I understand it in principle, but when I have to deal with someone that uses it...fahgettaboutit! It is way too complex to figure out....and my N powers seem to fail me entirely!


I believe Si is a very misunderstood function, try this thread http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/32588-si-introverted-sensing.html



> Third, I did not say "figure out," I said "predict." Yes, it aids one in predicting a person's behavior if they know their motivations. Motivations, in my example, being supported by info gathered.


I think motivation decides what info you gather, not the other way around. 



> That brings me to the question of what is imagination. Is it simply reorganizing S info in a way different from how we sensed it? Do I use unconscious Si info to come up with Ni info? Do S users act on N info without realizing that is what they are doing?


Imo imagination starts with emotions, then you take these emotions and make something out of it, creating something that pleases you. I bet there's a ted talk about imagination. 
Really don't konw about the functions, it's said that we use them all. 



> Exactly. What info are they gathering, from where, and how?
> 
> To know what info a person uses to make decisions aids in how to predict what decisions they will make.


Yeah...but it isn't that easy. Imagine S and N being two different kinds of scoops. The first scoop is good for gathering berries and the second gathers candy efficiently. (In lack of a better analogy:tongue 
Because you know S gathers berries, you may go "I knew you'd gather berries, you're so predictable." But you can't know for sure what kind of berries you'll find inside the scoop. 

You won't know for sure what the S/N function gathers, but you can make good guesses if you know/understand the person. 


You know I do agree with you, in a way, it's _helpful_ to know what S/N function someone uses primarly, but if you want to know how someone makes their decisions then surely it's more useful to look elsewhere? T/F or type if we're talking MBTI. Getting to know the person, their values, recurring patterns etc. 

Bottomline: S and N are equally predictable in behaviour. Like treebob pointed out, one doesn't need to know how someone thinks - if it's via "imagination or facts" if the end result is the same.


----------



## Unicorntopia

^^ Good answer Tucken! :happy: It brings us back to the fact that we are all individual humans with a plethora of different experiences and genes that make us completely unique and unpredictable.


----------



## Neon Knight

nevermore said:


> Yeah...I think that's a P thing, not an N thing.


I imagine so because I am like that too, the only thing you'll see me trying to master is musical stuff. I like having many interests, it keeps life...interesting :happy:


----------



## penchant

madhatter said:


> I do this. I have many interests, but I jump back and forth from them so often, I rarely become the master of them.





nevermore said:


> Yeah...I think that's a P thing, not an N thing.


Only P's have commented on this so far, so I just want to add that from a J perspective, I'm not so sure about your conclusion...


----------



## madhatter

The conclusion that it's a P thing or...? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just fishing for specifics.


----------



## ENTPreneur

TreeBob said:


> Seriously? You think sensors are easier to figure out? I find it easy to figure out ENTPs (An example). Prediction is all about patterns. You don't need to be imaginative at all to pick up on a persons habits and traits. The randomness of intuition is going on behind the scenes for Ns but in the end you make a decision. Why should I care how your decision was made? All I need to do is judge the end result. Intuitivives fall into patterns of habit just like sensors.


Interesting. I am an ENTP.... And too bad we are not pals in real life then. I would find it nice to have someone with that insight into my predictability. But sure, I think you are right since we (at least I) build "models" with which I make decisions super quickly. I just ask myself first: "This new input, does that instigate a change in the model?" If NO, then just a processor cycle or two later, I have come to end result. Which is a really fast way of reaching conclusion compared to many others, and most Sensors in particular (from my IRL experience). But it has pitfalls of course. So if you were to "see" my "model" or its results over time - probably using your iNtuition - then I would be quite predictabe.

You also write that "you do not care as to HOW we ended up with the decision" (that is actually the "why"). THIS FACT I think, is a large difference between a strong S or a strong N. I believe Ns are very interested in figuring out the "Why:s" as they give insights into the unconscious functioning models (for decisions) in the other person. E g : How they function, deep inside, and what impact that can have on our total world view with correlations to other peoples behaviors etc. Whereas your approach (end results is what matters) will be very efficient and probably not lack anything in 90% of cases. But in 10% there might be other stuff going on behind the veils that MIGHT be of interest - at least to certain people.


And as to what IMAGINATION is: I believe that it is "errant" neuron misfirings, that put together new associations between memories (innovation/creativity). "Wrong" associations from memory neurons perhaps. That form into new ideas or contexts. THIS is N. Or at least creativity. My analysis that is.

I usually relate to my way of thinking and trying to keep on track as "riding a wild horse in a bee swarm". A vast number of more or less "random" associations (but more or less related to the subject in question) fire away all the time. Perhaps that is what some call Ne-overdrive? It is hard to stay focused. As "lost in the blue" is an N-trait perhaps I am right? 

I am regarded as a very creative person (but dont really do anything about 99,99% of the "innovative ideas", useless), so I dont really know if this is only me. And I do come off as really humble, dont I?..


EDIT: I also think that "Innovation" can be misinterpreted here: To take things to "the next logical step" is very, very possible for an S to do. That is, I would say an ISTP would be apt at it. But to do completely new stuff with that thing, or alter it in a profound way, or coming up with weird, new solutions. That is where I think N comes into play and has an advantage. Many of these ideas will be flawed in some way. Some will change the world. Also remember: We all have some S as well as N.

EDIT 2: I should perhaps have stated that my conceptions of "memories" or "thoughts" are that they are (simplified) a stored pathway between different neuron clusters. A road if you will, that goes between the neurons. A bit like a word if you consider the neurons as letters. But these letters can contain the world.... or just a face.


----------



## penchant

madhatter said:


> The conclusion that it's a P thing or...? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just fishing for specifics.


Yes, sorry for being so brief. I'm thinking of the attribution of it to P. I understand many J's also have their interests all over the place, and spend time doing a lot of different things. I guess it might vary a bit between types, but in general I think it is a cultural thing, i.e. if broad knowlegde or specialization is favoured socially.

The difference, in my opinion, is rather to be found in how different types related their fields of knowledge/interest to eachother...


----------



## ENTPreneur

penchant said:


> ....but in general I think it is a cultural thing, i.e. if broad knowlegde or specialization is favoured socially.
> 
> The difference, in my opinion, is rather to be found in how different types related their fields of knowledge/interest to eachother...


Very interesting, Penchant. Care to elaborate a bit on the last part?


----------



## Apollo Celestio

WildWinds said:


> I could agree with that ^ Especially the theory of everything part. A lot of NT's I know, including myself, may dabble in several different subjects rather than having one interest and sticking with it. Dabbling in several subjects helps to develop that general understanding, or "theory of everything". Its more about that than it is perfecting one skill or learning one topic inside and out.


lol, when you analyze it as much as we do.. both become very complex. Especially when it comes to decision. 

If you know what orders your own thoughts.. you utilize Ni extremely well. Like WW says, knowing what orders everything brings it all together, and you can see how it forms your "theory of everything"

Let's also not forget about the judging functions.. I think they are very much a part of this discussion too. Especially that little weasel Fi.


----------



## penchant

ENTPreneur said:


> Very interesting, Penchant. Care to elaborate a bit on the last part?


Ouch, I should stick to thinking before I type... :crazy:

OK. I haven't got the details figured out really, I was more of expressing a feeling, but here's a try:

Types that rely on internal structure to make sense of the world and their own lifes, would be more interested in creating connections between different parts of their selfs. Types that are more extraverted would be more interested in seeking breadth of knowledge as a goal in itself. Again iNtuitives would be more interested in the connections and Sensors see more intrinsic value in having different kinds of experiences. Thinkers could be more interested in seeing actual overlaps between their interests and connecting them logically, whereas Feelers are possibly more interested in seeking balance in their lifes.

Does that make sense?


----------



## ENTPreneur

penchant said:


> Ouch, I should stick to thinking before I type... :crazy:
> 
> OK. I haven't got the details figured out really, I was more of expressing a feeling, but here's a try:
> 
> Types that rely on internal structure to make sense of the world and their own lifes, would be more interested in creating connections between different parts of their selfs. Types that are more extraverted would be more interested in seeking breadth of knowledge as a goal in itself. Again iNtuitives would be more interested in the connections and Sensors see more intrinsic value in having different kinds of experiences. Thinkers could be more interested in seeing actual overlaps between their interests and connecting them logically, whereas Feelers are possibly more interested in seeking balance in their lifes.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Yes, somewhat... Thanks. 

Breadth of knowledge gives maximum data on the external world that forms patterns. Depth data gives more isolated islands. Sensors and experiences I believe is spot on. Feelers and balance.... i couldnt say.

But I have also heard that we NTs reluctantly pick out certain topics to "master" in depth. Probably such needed to succeed in work or other important area. I have "prestationsångest" so that I wish to master and be in control in topics of importance. So therefore I have to choose these sparingly since "you casnt win/master them all". If that makes sense. Pardon the swedish word.... I couldnt remember english one. Tired.

I also have read somewhere that Structured persons in the outside world (people who need structure IRL) are UNSTRUCTURED in the head/thinking pattern. And vice versa. I wonder if (apart from whether it is correct) there is some sort of correlation between your text above... there might be something interesting to it.


----------



## penchant

ENTPreneur said:


> But I have also heard that we NTs reluctantly pick out certain topics to "master" in depth. Probably such needed to succeed in work or other important area. I have "prestationsångest" so that I wish to master and be in control in topics of importance. So therefore I have to choose these sparingly since "you casnt win/master them all". If that makes sense. Pardon the swedish word.... I couldnt remember english one. Tired.
> 
> I also have read somewhere that Structured persons in the outside world (people who need structure IRL) are UNSTRUCTURED in the head/thinking pattern. And vice versa. I wonder if (apart from whether it is correct) there is some sort of correlation between your text above... there might be something interesting to it.


I didn't state that explicitly before, but it would make sense to me if there are big differences between the internal and external variant of the same function. You as a dominant Ne process things very differently from me as a dominant Ni. And then add the auxiliary function, and you would probably be able to break it down by type as well, and see some interesting differences.

As for the "structure inside or outside your head", that resonates with my experience. People who are structured often don't see themselves as such, and vice versa. I think people measure themselves against different standards because they actually see structure as two different things. For me personally, I need external structure, in order to function efficiently in the external world. That, however, doesn't mean that I need much external structure in my life to feel at ease. For my INFP wife, external structure is much more important, as she feels that without it, she will lose her inner structure too. I wouldn't bother that much about our home being less orderly, as long as everything makes sense in my mind. I want everything to be in it's own place in the room so that there is some order to everything, but not necessarily neatness. She is more concerned about the visual impact of things, probably because her perception is more prone to spawn of a load of related thoughts off everything she sees. Well, I see this is hard to explain... I hope you got something out of it...


----------



## ENTPreneur

penchant said:


> I didn't state that explicitly before, but it would make sense to me if there are big differences between the internal and external variant of the same function. You as a dominant Ne process things very differently from me as a dominant Ni. And then add the auxiliary function, and you would probably be able to break it down by type as well, and see some interesting differences.
> 
> As for the "structure inside or outside your head", that resonates with my experience. People who are structured often don't see themselves as such, and vice versa. I think people measure themselves against different standards because they actually see structure as two different things. For me personally, I need external structure, in order to function efficiently in the external world. That, however, doesn't mean that I need much external structure in my life to feel at ease. For my INFP wife, external structure is much more important, as she feels that without it, she will lose her inner structure too. I wouldn't bother that much about our home being less orderly, as long as everything makes sense in my mind. I want everything to be in it's own place in the room so that there is some order to everything, but not necessarily neatness. She is more concerned about the visual impact of things, probably because her perception is more prone to spawn of a load of related thoughts off everything she sees. Well, I see this is hard to explain... I hope you got something out of it...


I did. Thanks....


----------



## AngelOnHerFlight

I have extreme difficulty talking about my ideas with Sensors. Most of them will say things like "What's the point in doint that?" or "Who thinks about that? Just move on with your life." Sometimes iNtuitives will say similar things. However, I think all iNtuitives need Sensors. We're sort of interdependent.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Just visiting this thread for laughs at the prevailing ignorance! XD


----------



## snapdragons

cutedeadgal said:


> I have extreme difficulty talking about my ideas with Sensors. Most of them will say things like "What's the point in doint that?" or "Who thinks about that? Just move on with your life." Sometimes iNtuitives will say similar things. However, I think all iNtuitives need Sensors. We're sort of interdependent.



You know, it's so funny you say that because this reminds me many people are extreme in their sensing or intuition. Just as with some people being extreme (and I mean far from the mean percentile) in their J-ness or P-ness, I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for sensors and intuitives.

Let's be honest here, unless you have high visual-spatial skills often following conversations or even participating in conversations involving intuitives can be difficult. IRL, sensors can have a hard time keeping up unless they dabble in an interest that helps them ponder (notice I didn't say think. Pondering is different.) about different possibilities. Yes, as a sensor I do tend to think in a linear and logical manner and my own manner of speaking follows the structure. However, I am able to keep up with intuitives and, as someone once told me, I "think fast." Now, none of this seems simple to me.

I think we have a tendency to forget the MBTI is about how we process information. Processing information doesn't make someone "simple" or "complex"; the various interactions of their type, temperament, and other personality traits makes them easier for most people to understand or difficult for most people to understand.


----------



## Neon Knight

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Just visiting this thread for laughs at the prevailing ignorance! XD


That's ok, at least enough of us can laugh. Projecting is one thing but when people grow to realize when they reject any function they are actually rejecting a vital part of themselves and are stunting their own growth into a fully functional and balanced person.

Carry on...


----------



## AbioticPrime

This has some merit to it, seeing as (generally speaking) sensors look at a tree, and all they see is a tree. Or, in the case of Si, a concrete memory concretely linked to a concrete tree, probably that exact tree. This is fairly simple.

I look at a tree I see the universe, I see twenty different lucrative applications or uses for that tree, I see life lessons meaningful to me -- just from a tree. Similarly, Ne works in its own unique way. This is more complex.


Though what has more merit, is this: introverted functions are complex, extraverted functions are simple. I think they're complicated just because they're so unique to each individual, and what we don't know well we often find complicated.


----------



## Black light thinker

I wouldn't agree at all with the statement that makes the title of this thread - that, i'm afraid, is a simplicistic way to look at things.

I have read an interesting post mentioning that probably sensors are more complex in action, and intuitives in thought - and the first part of this statement does fit with my personal experience - but aren't actions originated from thoughts? 

And, if we were to accept that sensors have simpler thoughts, and are able to convert them in more complex actions than intuitives, wouldn't this make them superior to intuitives, and deny the stereotypes about them being duller or inferior, which seems to be quite widespread in many posts made by intuitives on this thread ?


I also suspect that there are some combinations of functions that might make someone more straightforward or more complex, regardless as wheter he is a S or a N.


As far as my experience goes, i've known intuitives who are very linear in their thoughts, and sensors who are quite complex – and i think that if both persons are at the same level, the difference of perspective about “what do you see when looking at a tree” isn't that hard to bridge.


----------



## Aßbiscuits

Lol Dictator said:


> This has some merit to it, seeing as (generally speaking) sensors look at a tree, and all they see is a tree. Or, in the case of Si, a concrete memory concretely linked to a concrete tree, probably that exact tree. This is fairly simple.
> 
> I look at a tree I see the universe, I see twenty different lucrative applications or uses for that tree, I see life lessons meaningful to me -- just from a tree. Similarly, Ne works in its own unique way. This is more complex.


_All_ they see? Trees without seeing fanciful metaphors (not counting THE WHOLE DAMN UNIVERSE as one ಠ_ಠ), are quite complex by just being trees. Metophors are an easy way to explain their complexity, relating it to other things, somehow coming to understandings of it without studying it. 

If you reassess how we look at complexity (and remove ourselves from the special snow-flake perspective of regurgitated unoriginal concepts) sensing functions in this way are complex. The human mind simplifies things though and we're all prone to it (black and white thinking eg. ALL SENSORS ARE SIMPLE AND OPPRESSIVE AND NOT SPECIAL LIKE US) but with pure perception things are different which is what the P function is. The world is complex, no matter what filter you view it from. We're all viewing the same world. 

Ps. this sentence: "Or, in the case of Si, a concrete memory concretely linked to a concrete tree, probably that exact tree. This is fairly simple", loud of bull. If you think ANYONE views ANYTHING like this you aren't being very realistic.


----------



## newnameything

Lol.

If me, a sensor and an intuitive observed a tree and the sensor said "That's a tree", and the intuitive said "Observing this tree I can figure out all the secrets of life and the universe, and just by looking at it I immediately understand life's important lessons and how I can apply them to lead a virtous life and extend my own existence to the cosmos", I'd ditch that pretentious wanker and go climb the tree with the sensor.


----------



## SweetPickles

snail said:


> I find that sensors can be extremely complex, sometimes to the point of seeming magical and mysterious. I knew one once who always knew exactly how I was feeling without my having to say anything, and I felt like he could read my mind. He said that he did it by observing me visually. Is that even possible? I was sitting perfectly still, without making any intentional facial expressions.


Were you feeling sad that day? I'm an INFP too and can often wear my heart on my sleeve especially if I'm feeling something intensely. It's strange though, I've also been called aloof numerous times probably because over time I have had to build this wall to protect myself from all the "meanies".

Also, going to be blunt, yes I think N's are more complex.


----------



## Black light thinker

whore said:


> Lol.
> 
> If me, a sensor and an intuitive observed a tree and the sensor said "That's a tree", and the intuitive said "Observing this tree I can figure out all the secrets of life and the universe, and just by looking at it I immediately understand life's important lessons and how I can apply them to lead a virtous life and extend my own existence to the cosmos", I'd ditch that pretentious wanker and go climb the tree with the sensor.


Lol! Good post.


----------



## LotusBlossom

KuRoMi said:


> That's ok, at least enough of us can laugh. Projecting is one thing but when people grow to realize *when they reject any function they are actually rejecting a vital part of themselves and are stunting their own growth into a fully functional and balanced person.*
> 
> Carry on...


 This is something that's always perplexed me, that how some Ns can reject the S functions (one of which would inevitably be either their tertiary or inferior function) while at the same time proclaim themselves to be, I don't know, deep or profound or whatever...like hello IRONY!??!


----------



## Owfin

Kayness said:


> This is something that's always perplexed me, that how some Ns can reject the S functions (one of which would inevitably be either their tertiary or inferior function) while at the same time proclaim themselves to be, I don't know, deep or profound or whatever...like hello IRONY!??!


This isn't only a problem for intuitives, I've been guilty of it myself before, though as a dominant sensor "deep" gets replaced with "knowledgeable".


----------



## Jewl

Not the Sensory versus iNtuitives again. *face to teh book* We all use them both. iNtuitives, we're not more "profound". Sensors, you guys are awesome deep people who may bump heads with us from time to time. Other than that, we're more similar than different.

-goes and huddles in little corner sniffling- Why can people not understand this? D; iNtuitives: wrap thy minds around this simple concept of _we are not more deep/philosophical than Sensors!_


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I think the sensors who actually pay attention to the concrete in a tree (which is complex - being an S means that you might just focus more on making *connections* in the realm of the concrete - I don't know where the hell the sensors don't make connections line-of-thought comes from) are smarter than the iNtuitives who come up with really cliche metaphors just by looking at the tree - I'd rather observe the concrete if I couldn't come up with any substantial metaphor by looking at a tree (at least that's scientific - I'd be embarrassed to say something cheesy and cliche) - in fact, I'd probably just observe a tree to deconstruct cliche metaphors for my own entertainment (e.g. ones about "Oooo, the tree came from a seed, so it's the Big Bang or whatever"). Truly, I don't think S types think that way to begin with (e.g. "Oh look, a tree - duh.") - the functions are filters for the ego, so people are just going to pay attention to whatever appeals to their interests about it, so honestly, I'm not sure what boring person would just think "A tree." and move on just for the sake of noticing it - the motives behind what anyone pays attention to are dictated by their ego, interests (which are within ego boundaries, obviously, so functions play a role somewhat), etc. - stuff that goes so much deeper than outsiders can imagine - it's all heavily situational as well. I've seen N types just point out the obvious in their environment before - for instance, in my AP US History class, I remember a certain INFP I know who just pointed out that she was using scissors, and just seemed delighted by that fact alone, so obviously, there was more to her motives than what was meeting the ears here - I know her all too well, btw - humans aren't robots, because they have motives, due to the ego - I just find it funny these days (but believable, due to how the MBTI promotes this stuff - it took me a while to break away from this mentality as well, since the MBTI does such a wonderful *shudders* job at not only misinforming, but sabotaging critical thinking skills (brainwashing) - believe me, it's hard not to be a victim of this before getting into Jung) how people view the cognitive functions as these robotic functions that are divorced from the ego, which is where threads like this crop up to begin with, thanks to MBTI. Our egos are most likely what allow us to relate to people of any type, no matter how different the type may technically be, since the ego has more influence over type manifestation than type has over our ego.


----------



## MCRTS

Kayness said:


> This is something that's always perplexed me, that how some Ns can reject the S functions (one of which would inevitably be either their tertiary or inferior function) while at the same time proclaim themselves to be, I don't know, deep or profound or whatever...like hello IRONY!??!


I realised recently that all 16 types use T, F, S, N-it's just the order and frequency of usage that's different. So yes it is ironic when someone claims one function trumps another when, really, we use all four functions.


----------



## Leeoflittlefaith

whore said:


> Lol.
> 
> If me, a sensor and an intuitive observed a tree and the sensor said "That's a tree", and the intuitive said "Observing this tree I can figure out all the secrets of life and the universe, and just by looking at it I immediately understand life's important lessons and how I can apply them to lead a virtous life and extend my own existence to the cosmos", I'd ditch that pretentious wanker and go climb the tree with the sensor.


Summed up perfectly, thank you.


----------



## Tad Cooper

I don't think a type makes you complex, I think how you're raised and your experiences make you complex. 
People with emotional trauma will probably appear more complex than people who haven't had any, because they wont neatly fit into any category (just an example).
I was told I'm really difficult to understand, a 'mystery' etc because I don't open up to people and have seemingly 'odd' moods (Fi reacting I think). I know an ENFJ who people can read easily and appears simple (I'm sure he's not, but he seems it). 
My opinion: Life, not functions.


----------



## MilkyWay132

You know what's really ironic? Though Sensors are seen as inferior...I notice that they usually have well developed Ni and Ne from what I've seen of their cognitive function test results. I barely see the reverse, no offense...


----------



## Feral sheep

ah another masturbatory thread for intuitives


----------



## nevermore

MilkyWay132 said:


> You know what's really ironic? Though Sensors are seen as inferior...I notice that they usually have well developed Ni and Ne from what I've seen of their cognitive function test results. I barely see the reverse, no offense...


I've noticed this too, but I'm more inclined to suspect it's because of comfirmation bias. When taking the tests, if you don't like Sensors, think they are simple and inferior, etc., you're going to self select against testing strongly on the S component.

Even if the test results are accurate, it may be because this subject is more stereotypically intuitive - hence stronger intuitive development on the part of the sensors here (though there are non-intuitive ways one can understand typology as well).

I agree this question is stupid though. As @tine said, it's primarily the issues you need to deal with in your life that make you a complex person. (And note that complex isn't always good! There's a beauty in certain kinds of simplicity...)


----------



## Arclight

Sheppard said:


> There is a problem when the third highest cause for death in 15 to 24 years is suicide, many of these caused by normative pressures, in other words, kids that are told they aren't the way they are supposed to be, kids that don't do well in established structures, kids that end up bullied to death. The problem is the preconception that there is such a thing as normal to begin with, and that people have the right to tell others how they should be. What they should think. What they should believe. Who they should be attracted to. How they should express themselves.
> 
> Genuinely smart people don't talk about it because they're being boastful, because they want to be a sparkly shiny snowflake, but because it's isolating, it's associated with depression, with shame, because it sucks to have so few people to genuinely relate to, because it sucks to pretend to be someone you're not to fit in, the antidote to all of which is connecting to others that share the same experiences. To those that are of like mind. They should not just shut up about it. They should do exactly what it is they're doing here, on this forum. Celebrate each other.
> 
> But hey, I just have a chip on my shoulder, there's no real problem, so lets discuss further how the outliers on the bell curve make the rest feel uncomfortable - and how they should stop.


You know what's really crazy? This guy is blaming sensors for his problems in life. You don't think that's tad presumptuous and arrogant?

Seems to me we have a difference of opinion of who owns what here. See??... It's all in your attitude. 

All my life I have heard.. "You are one of a kind" "I have never met anyone like you" "are you for real" "He is different , that's for sure" 
But people still like me.. No one gets frustrated and badgers me.. That's because I am not carrying a chip on my shoulder. I am not a victim , I own my life, my perceptions and I am not a narcissist who feels everyone should take care of my needs and wants. I blame me when things go wrong.. not everyone else. Then I fix it. 

You also have to give other people some credit.. They are human beings.. They are insightful and intelligent animals.. If someone keeps hearing "you are not normal" over and over again.. Then what is the common denominator there? Could all those people be wrong.. or does our friend have an attitude problem? 

I am going to stick with the latter, thanks.


----------



## Fizz

Tridentus said:


> you are about to get ripped for this, but it's kind of true. sensors aren't simplistic or stupid but they think very straightforwardly, which leads to a lot of trade-offs.* i think sensors do miss out from not being able to see outside the box as well*, but an intuitive's world can get all confused from time to time, and often if.. say.. you're not in a career which requires intution it's really kinda useless and it's much easier being a sensor most of the time.


Where the fuck is this box, I must investigate it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Fizz said:


> So being a fucking weirdo is some people's credentials for being an N? Holy shit, I've been an N my entire life! No more lying to myself! I've been that odd duck and black sheep of the family and any good goddamn situation. I've been bullied for being strange or not looking/acting like everyone else.
> 
> I gotta say to a lot of people, you need to grow up. You aren't this special little snowflake that you think you are. You aren't superior to everyone else, no matter how much you tell yourself that. *Of anything, this whole "I'm better than you" attitude is why people don't like you and tell you you're weird. If you're accepting of people's differences and open, I doubt this would be happening so much.*


YES! I totally agree with all of this, especially the bolded part! I do actually know some very egotistical introverts IRL who act like adapting to others will kill them, but later, they complain that they are misunderstood, even though they don't open their mouths and expect everyone to be psychic about them. I knew better than this my whole life - if you want to be recognized, you have to bring it to you - no duh. I think some introverts take the "being yourself" mentality too far, frankly, to justify their problems. I think this is a societal problem in this "special snowflake" society in general.

Oh, and on the topic of being an S or N and weird, it does weird me out how shallow so many of the Ns are here, where, if you don't have supremely esoteric interests and whatnot (especially in things that don't matter to type, like music or art, etc.), then you're out of the N club. It just shows me how much people don't understand typology when they start bringing interests and whatnot into it and turn it into an elitist club.


----------



## Fizz

JungyesMBTIno said:


> YES! I totally agree with all of this, *especially the bolded part! I do actually know some very egotistical introverts IRL who act like adapting to others will kill them, but later, they complain that they are misunderstood, even though they don't open their mouths and expect everyone to be psychic about them. *I knew better than this my whole life - if you want to be recognized, you have to bring it to you - no duh. I think some introverts take the "being yourself" mentality too far, frankly, to justify their problems. I think this is a societal problem in this "special snowflake" society in general.
> 
> Oh, and on the topic of being an S or N and weird, it does weird me out how shallow so many of the Ns are here, where, if you don't have supremely esoteric interests and whatnot (especially in things that don't matter to type, like music or art, etc.), then you're out of the N club. It just shows me how much people don't understand typology when they start bringing interests and whatnot into it and turn it into an elitist club.


I know and have known too many people like this. I ended up sitting at the "weird kid" table in classes because I somehow fit into that group. I realize I even perpetuated my weirdness at times, as did a lot of introverts. They already feel strange by not socializing with others, I had a hard time connecting with people my age so I was put into that area.

I actually got along better with my teachers than I did with most of my fellow students. Though while interacting with these "snowflakes" I wanted to slap them for thinking they're so much better or superior to those around them. I could see them seething with insecurities. They tried to make up for it by being really strange and arrogant. Some of them believed that they were so intelligent that they could talk down to anyone and they wouldn't be any wiser. Au contraire, people will ignore them for being such jackasses. It's not as if everyone else is having an easy time. We all have our insecurities but we don't always have to take them out on others.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Fizz said:


> I know and have known too many people like this. I ended up sitting at the "weird kid" table in classes because I somehow fit into that group. I realize I even perpetuated my weirdness at times, as did a lot of introverts. They already feel strange by not socializing with others, I had a hard time connecting with people my age so I was put into that area.
> 
> I actually got along better with my teachers than I did with most of my fellow students. *Though while interacting with these "snowflakes" I wanted to slap them for thinking they're so much better or superior to those around them. I could see them seething with insecurities. They tried to make up for it by being really strange and arrogant. Some of them believed that they were so intelligent that they could talk down to anyone and they wouldn't be any wiser. Au contraire, people will ignore them for being such jackasses.* It's not as if everyone else is having an easy time. We all have our insecurities but we don't always have to take them out on others.


Oh yeah, as an introvert, I know what you mean in the bolded. I tend to turn into the extravert around these people because they're just really awkward to be around - either that, or I'd just pretend to have to go to the bathroom and hide away from them for a while - I think people attribute too much to labels like introvert and extrovert, where instead, most of the issues people think they're having with these actually stems from attitudes people give off. No type is excluded from having attitude issues. After all, most of the complaints from introverts about extroverts are just criticizing certain behaviors rather than the cognitive function orientation, because then, I often hear the same introverts defending themselves with "Oh, I can be extroverted too - I don't hate people" - so somehow, they expect extroverts to pander to them or something.


----------



## Fizz

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Oh yeah, as an introvert, I know what you mean in the bolded. I tend to turn into the extravert around these people because they're just really awkward to be around - either that, or I'd just pretend to have to go to the bathroom and hide away from them for a while - I think people attribute too much to labels like introvert and extrovert, where instead, most of the issues people think they're having with these actually stems from attitudes people give off. No type is excluded from having attitude issues. After all, most of the complaints from introverts about extroverts are just criticizing certain behaviors rather than the cognitive function orientation, because then, I often hear the same introverts defending themselves with "Oh, I can be extroverted too - I don't hate people" - so somehow, they expect extroverts to pander to them or something.


I'm an asocial extrovert so they have no idea what to do with me when I'm around. I do enjoy going out but I'm not crazy about interacting with others. It can be fun, but only on a surface level.

The only time cognitive functions are criticized it seems is when it's Fe, Si, and Se usually. It's assumed Fe is just plain manipulative, even though Fi can be just as manipulative. Si, no one really understands Si. Its closest relative is Ni and let's see most people pick that out easily. And Se, well, we already know that people have a preconceived notion of what that is. These people can't define these functions on their own, how could they ever expect to pick it up in social situations which they're already awkward in.

There's no personality behaviors that apply to every single person of one type. As I've said before, I know an ENFJ IRL that is one of the funnest people to be around. On the flip side, I know another ENFJ IRL who is a manipulative POS and most people don't like him. Overall, I like ENFJs. We can even take this further, I get along great with @Stephen who is an ISTJ. My father is an ISTJ and we butt heads, he's also my parent and I think by default we have to disagree on everything.


----------



## Stephen

Fizz said:


> that Stephen fellow...yuck





Fizz said:


> I get along great with Stephen


Sensors are complex, indeed.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> The only time cognitive functions are criticized it seems is when it's Fe, Si, and Se usually. It's assumed Fe is just plain manipulative, even though Fi can be just as manipulative.


This drives me crazy! I'm so sick of people making Fi types out to be like living saints or something (just read like half of the INFP type descriptions out there to see what I mean - they're depicted like these super authentic people that can do no wrong (and all so woefully mistreated for being saintly), while my life's experiences with a few bad apples definitely say the contrary), while Fe types are basically everything that's wrong with society *eyeroll*. You're definitely right that Fi can be just as manipulative - I think since it's introverted though, this might give them the upper hand in getting away with subtle manipulation, unfortunately. Yup, Si is extremely misunderstood - it's actually not very concrete, like it's made out to be (in other words, they aren't robots who just memorize bits of info to operate), while Se is taken way too literally. I'm so sick of the kowtowing to people based on type in general on this forum - I can't believe people are dumb enough to do this - that definitely is going to hurt IRL when people don't turn out to be the stereotypes that people expected they would be based on behavioral interpretations of type descriptions and whatnot.


----------



## Owfin

jungyesmbtino said:


> yup, si is extremely misunderstood - it's actually not very concrete, like it's made out to be (in other words, they aren't robots who just memorize bits of info to operate)


Does not compute.


----------



## jennandtonic

I missed the debate in the rest of the thread (looks like it might be best avoided?). However, I have to add that my sister is a sensor and she's anything but simple. This isn't a bad thing at all...it's just that it seems odd to boil a sensor/intuitive down to complex and simple just based on the way they take in information. Everyone's complex, even when people claim they aren't.


----------



## Tad Cooper

jennandtonic said:


> I missed the debate in the rest of the thread (looks like it might be best avoided?). However, I have to add that my sister is a sensor and she's anything but simple. This isn't a bad thing at all...it's just that it seems odd to boil a sensor/intuitive down to complex and simple just based on the way they take in information. Everyone's complex, even when people claim they aren't.


 Aw that's sweet 

Haha yeah it was best avoided, people got silly and angry over something as small as psychology and functions XD It's hopefully over now thanks to your sensible post!


----------



## SOMALI PIRATE

you can argue that 

Intuition sees reality through complex ways
Sensor sees reality simplistically .

but remember its the same reality .


----------



## Slagasauras

Honestly I'm shocked when a sensor can do so many things in such a tiny span of time.
Example, it is REALLY hard for me to do anything physical, but simple things, like unhooking latches and stuff (don't judge me all of you, you're all reading this and have something better to do, hmph!), and he'll just come over and do it for me. 
Of course, I think I have my own strengths to bring to the table, such as my...intuitive-ness.
Yeah I can't argue any point worth jack shit, if anyone wants to jump in that would be great.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Actually, both are complex. I mean, think about the _human brain, _in all its myriad complexities, and you wanna tell me that a way of understanding shallow psychological processes is going to change that? Psht.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

Sensors are anything but shallow or simple. What the hell?
I kinda feel like this thread is one that just bashes people for no real reason >_<


----------



## Chesire Tower

DaphneDelRey said:


> Sensors are anything but shallow or simple. What the hell?
> I kinda feel like this thread is one that just bashes people for no real reason >_<


A thread topic that is totes clueless about the reality of sensors. I think some intuitives fail to realize that if it weren't for the sensors of the world; we'd all probably be still living in huts. 

:tongue:


----------



## Slagasauras

Word Dispenser said:


> Actually, both are complex. I mean, think about the _human brain, _in all its myriad complexities, and you wanna tell me that a way of understanding shallow psychological processes is going to change that? Psht.


I couldn't have said it more perfectly. My nerd jimmies are rustling.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

Chesire Tower said:


> A thread topic that is totes clueless about the reality of sensors. I think some intuitives fail to realize that if it weren't for the sensors of the world; we'd all probably be still living in huts.
> 
> :tongue:


If it weren't for sensors bringing me back to reality to tell me my dumb ideas are dumb, I'd have probably killed myself now to be honest. Lol.

Not even joking.

:/

I actually like how they bring me back to reality, and ground me. My favourite sensor in the world is an ISFJ, he's soooo much wiser than me. And I still can't read him.
_Sigh_.


----------



## Acadia

considering everyone has either Se or Si and Ne or Ni, nobody's more complex than anybody else. 
people might _appear_ that way. I'm very straightforward and literal, but I've got more going on under the surface. and some high Ne and Ni-users I know are actually more grounded than me in some ways. It's all about balance.


----------



## Zenobia Kael

all lot of this makes me think of a theory i had. if an intuitive's conscious were suddenly transferred to a sensor brain and vice versa i theorized that they would essentially die. it would be to alien. an intuitive suddenly thinking from a-b-c would fall apart. (especially if its Ne and there used to kinda being everywhere. a-d-b-f-1-6-a4-g7.) same goes for a sensor being put into an intuitive brain. suddenly going from a relatively straight forward thought process to a jumbeled mess would drive them insane.

there my random though for the day. enjoy


----------



## The_Wanderer

Intuitives don't shower, Sensors don't have imagination, Feelers can't win at chess, Thinkers have no soul.

Congratulations, OP, on a highly popular yet entirely pointless thread.


----------



## INFJRoanna

Speaking from experience, using a mix of both functions at the same time is chaotic. :frustrating: Sensors always seem fairly no nonsense to me - they seem to see the world in a very straightforward way and I admire that. Speaking from the perspective of an intuitive, intuitive people seem to see their own world, and the worlds of other people at the same time. It's hard.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent

There's complexity in simplicity and vice versa. To pin such a confining term to any person is very restricting. 

Anyways, aren't ISFPs supposed to be incredibly hard to figure out? :tongue:


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

How does a person even claim that without being arrogant and blind. I don't care if its sensors or polar bears. If you say this you probably don't understand anything about another person. Yeah you all seem so complex on the outside, k.


----------



## AliceKettle

Intuitives aren't necessarily more complex than sensors. It all depends on how well each individual type has developed their tertiary/inferior functions. The Ni/Ne dominant who hasn't developed his or her tertiary Si/Se function will probably have nonsensical theories. However, if an Ni/Ne dominant user has developed their tertiary Si/Se functions they'll be able realize and pursue their dreams by keeping check with reality. Similarly, the Si/Se dominant user who hasn't developed their tertiary/inferior Ni/Ne function will be unable to accomplish their greatest dreams and goals because they are too afraid to imagine the bigger picture and take a risk for greater opportunities and seemingly unachievable goals.


----------



## To_august

No person is more complex or simple than the other one on the basis of whether they are sensor or intuitive.
The irony is - the thread title propagates an extremely _simplistic_ view of things.


----------



## SOMALI PIRATE

INFJRoanna said:


> Speaking from experience, using a mix of both functions at the same time is chaotic. :frustrating: Sensors always seem fairly no nonsense to me - they seem to see the world in a very straightforward way and I admire that. Speaking from the perspective of an intuitive, intuitive people seem to see their own world, and the worlds of other people at the same time. It's hard.


may be you are mistaking INFJs for Intuitives . an ENTJ does not simply care the world of other people .


----------



## KraChZiMan

I CALL BULLSHIT ON OP's PROVOCATION!!!*

*There, I said it. /thread


----------



## electricky

I am a simple intuitive, and darn proud of it. Literally nothing about my intuition makes me some highly complex individual. Is there supposed to be something negative about not being complex?


----------

