# High intuitives prejudice against Sensors...



## Resolution

chaeriean said:


> ...this would make sense if i were talking about whether or not people preferred intuitives over sensors. i've never implied or stated anything to the contrary.


You made claims that do not seem, to me, to be logically consistent. You paint a broad, negative-judgement swath over all intuitives without any proof or logic to back it up. 

"Any time an Intuitive misunderstands a Sensor, it is because X". 

^ That is a typist over-generalization. Not one to be approached lightly, especially considering your explanations are all negative judgments of Intuitives. You are basically claiming that no Intuitive has the right to misunderstand a Sensor, which is absurd, considering that every type has inherent differences and approaches to life. 

Statement 1- _wtf how do you "not relate" with sensors? is there some secret sensor code to doing things that is completely different from an intuitive? do you both not speak the same language or do the same things? oh, or maybe you guys all just think these amazing, deep, philosophical thoughts that we clearly are unable to comprehend..._

This is a troubling paragraph. We are not allowed to misunderstand different types? Is a T is not allowed to misunderstand an F? An I, an E? 

And if we misunderstand, you're alleging it is due to our own elitism. 

Your allegation here is dangerous. If anyone who ever didn't relate w/ or understand someone who spoke the same language was somehow blameworthy, our entire society would be blameworthy.

Statement 2-_ i'm sorry but this post, like the same post of the same name in the nt forums which was promptly verbally crushed by everybody there, is ridiculous._

This statement relies upon the strawman fallacy as well as the argumentum ad populi fallacy.

-You are relating this thread to another thread without evidence tying the two threads together. (Fallacy)
-You are saying that because popular outburst silenced the thread, that that means that the thread was wrong in its conclusions (I dont know the thread you're referring to. Maybe it was well worth criticism. However, even if it was as blameworthy as you suggest, your logic is fallacious) (Fallacy) 

Statement 3- (Rant) _and they try to hide it *(1)* by saying "oh, well, i just can't get along with them, i just don't understand them, that doesn't make me prejudiced or anything.." the only reason you can't get along with sensors is because throughout your life, you have been "different" from everybody else and "misunderstood" which means basically "omg every sensor on the planet ~~hates me~~" *(2) *which has now morphed into the classic Intuitive Superiority Complex Defense Mechanism Against Outside Sensor Civilization. _

Assumption #1- You assume that people are hiding behind those phrases! What if people *actually mean what they post?* If none of them were hiding behind their posts, and were simply posting about a miscommunication problem, that would mean that you just falsely accused all of them of being typist and elitist. 

If you are going to accuse people under broad swaths, it would be good to either have consistent logic leading from well-established truths to your conclusions, or to post that your post is just "your opinion." or "how things look to you." 

If you have no evidence that people are hiding typism behind code-words... that is up to you to prove. For example, I can't complain that your name, seems to me like a coded racist comment about black people, without first providing evidence linking that name to coded racism. If I am going to assert a negative personality trait about you, I'd better be sure I'm not accusing an innocent. 

Assumption #2- You assume that if someone doesn't relate well with sensors as an intuitive, that the explanation is bitterness.



> i'm talking about people who make assertions to the fact that sensors are unintelligent and believe they are better.


First of all, I haven't seen anyone claim that sensors are less intelligent. I've seen one person state that she thought Sensors seemed less intelligent, but knew that wasn't true. (In other words, perception vs. reality.) 

The concept of "intelligence" is very hard to define. What exactly do you mean by "more" or "less" intelligent? If you mean to say that we're saying "Sensors are less intelligent". Perhaps you can describe, in detail, what your definition of "Intelligence" is? 



> the pattern for many intuitives who dislike and/or feel better than sensors are intuitives who feel oppressed by sensors and want to rebel against the idea of a common sensor society. i'm not talking about people who genuinely don't understand us, but yeah, going "i don't understand them. gtfo," is not exactly the most logical and interpersonal viewpoint.


So, in that case, you didn't mean to imply, at all, that all those who posted here see themselves as superior to Sensors? 

You agree that for all you know, all the intuitives here could see sensors as equals, unless you find direct evidence suggesting otherwise (None of which exists on this thread.)? 



> you really think everybody should shun everything they don't understand?


It's up to the individual to decide what to attempt to "learn" and what is better left unlearned. Do you agree... or do you believe that we ought to hold people who don't learn every concept which governs every single individual human alive as morally blameworthy? 



> i'm not talking about dating, i'm talking about interaction. refusing to interact with somebody based on one letter of their mbti status is judgmental and closed-minded.


First of all, no one here said anything about refusing to interact with *anyone*. The statements, as I read them, clearly show* a lack of understanding*. Not a refusal of interaction. 

What it appears you are claiming is the following. "Anyone who is unable to understand someone because of one letter of their MBTI status is judgmental and closed-minded."

Seems rather unfair doesn't it? You seem to be misunderstanding most of what has been posted here. Does that make you judgmental and closed-minded? Or was there simply some kind of problem in miscommunication? 



> as for being "weird", i mean weird in the generalized sense. most intuitives feel misunderstood because of how they perceive the world, their big-picture thinking, the fact that they're often more in their heads, how they make connections between random things, how they like to talk about "in-depth" things, whatever you naturally associate with being an intuitive. except. that isn't really the most difficult thing to understand. so if someone is misunderstanding you, they're an idiot - or you were just really weird


Okay... 

So for all instances where Sensors don't understand Intuitives... Either

A- The Sensor is an idiot

or 

B- The intuitive is "really weird" <--- (Which is somehow associated with being blameworthy)

There is no room for honest miscommunication? Without one or the other being blameworthy? I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with that. 



> if someone said, "i'd rather date an intuitive - because sensors are stupid." yeah, that is typist. so there you are.


They would be typist. 

Has anyone said that?


----------



## dejavu

chaeriean said:


> and by the way, if someone said, "i'd rather date an intuitive - because sensors are stupid." yeah, that is typist. so there you are.


What about if someone said, "I'd rather date an intuitive--I've found that we can go in depth in conversations about some really great topics, and it's very fulfilling. I get along with sensors, but both parties seem to leave unfulfilled after a conversation, so it's just not my choice for a romantic partner."

Is that typist? If it is, then I guess I'm typist.


----------



## chaeriean

you're breaking down the logical inconsistency of my sarcasm rant? uh, okay then. i hate all intuitives and every intuitive who misunderstands me hates me, yes! i believe people who don't make the effort to overcome their misunderstandings are blameworthy for passing judgments based on those misunderstandings, horrible! people who prefer intuitives over sensors are awful human beings, you should all die in a fire! so we totally agree. awesome. 

and i also definitely pointed the finger at specific people who obviously hate sensors, and i wasn't actually just rambling because i've seen tons of sensor hate here and was, in the paragraph you mostly refer to, speaking _directly_ relating to people who do that, and _not_ to people in this thread. the rest of it was directed at the person who believes sensors to be less intelligent than intuitives, mixed in with some general ranting regarding most intuitives _who believe sensors to be less intelligent than intuitives_. what the hell is wrong with me?

seriously? people can learn and not learn whatever they want. but people who choose to remain ignorant willfully and then who judge others based on their ignorance, ooooooh god, bother me!


----------



## Resolution

chaeriean said:


> you're breaking down the logical inconsistency of my sarcasm rant? uh, okay then. i hate all intuitives and every intuitive who misunderstands me hates me, yes! i believe people who don't make the effort to overcome their misunderstandings are blameworthy for passing judgments based on those misunderstandings, horrible! people who prefer intuitives over sensors are awful human beings, you should all die in a fire! so we totally agree. awesome.


Example of what I was talking about: I have no clue what you're talking about right now... Does this make me close minded and/or judgemental.

I just want to make sure.


----------



## chaeriean

no, it doesn't. it just means you don't understand what i've said. which is fine with me. i don't hate people who don't understand me. somehow you've gotten that out of what i've said, which i can't really understand and therefore refute, since i didn't say anything of the kind. the point of my whole thing was, what isn't fine with me, as i've stated in my _generalized rant portion of my rant itself_, are intuitives who think they are better than me. who think they are smarter than me because they are "intuitive 86%". and if you couldn't tell that the first paragraph was ranty sarcasm, i'm ... sorry, i guess. but yeah.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

No, i'm not prejudice against any type, and i consider myself highly intuitive.
I don't believe sensors are idiots or anything less than i am. We take in
information different, we process differently, we see the world differently.
that's all. This doesn't make one either better or worse, just different.


----------



## Efraim

Whoa!  Nice fight 

Personally, I feel like I really am prejudiced against you, guys. In general I can't get along with most sensors very well, although there are some great xSxxs in my life (my whole family for instance). It always comes down to not getting each other. No, sensors don't speak in code. You are just interested in different things than I am, you look for different things in relationships, the conversation is flowing, but it doesn't satisfy me. When I try to talk about something abstract or philosophical you just give me one of that looks (xSxP = yeah, that's great! (sincerely) and I love to listen although I'm not really interested!  xSTJ = Shut up! I hate these so-called philosophers like you!), and slowly become more and more quiet. These are just my observations. Feel free to argue.


----------



## Michail

hm idk. My girlfriend is a sensor because she told me she is but if she hadn't told me she was and I hadnt seen it I wouldnt have thought so because she acts more like an intuitive stereotypically acts. Which means to me that obviously the behavior associated with intuitives isn't really consistent. so what I am thinking is that while you guys seem to get on with more "intuitives" it may actually be that you are talking to sensors but you are just mistyping them because they seem more "smart" to you or whatever. Just my two cents. personally I envy a lot of sensors for doing what I can't do.


----------



## Le Beau Coeur

It doesn't really matter what your mbti is. What matters most is do you treat others with respect? Are you a kind person? If someone is pleasant and kind I enjoy being around them no matter what their mbti type is. Arguing about S vs N achieves very little. 

But people will still have their preferences no matter what and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Cerebro

Most of my friends are intuitives, but I also have some sensor friends. To list my close friends that I see regularly, INTP, ENFJ, one INFP, two ENFP's, two ESTP's, and one ESFJ. I think I have more intuitive friends because N's tend to be more interested in philosophical discussions, not just for the arguments, but for seeing other perspectives and gaining a deeper understanding of the universe and the human condition. When I speak in an abstract, poetic manner, they understand me. when I have to stop time and time again to gather my thoughts within a sentence, they don't get impatient. And when they hear my opinions and perspectives, they won't move on, but inquire more, and provide their own ideas.

However, I do not mean any prejudice to Sensors. Frankly, I spend a lot of time wishing I was a sensor. I can maintain very abstract concepts, but can NEVER live in the real world. I can't focus on practicalities and details, which often inhibit my academic success. and frankly, sensors live primarily externally, where as intuitives live internally. while I'm inside my own head all the time, sensors actually LIVE, get out there and enjoy life. I know I may not be doing this justice right now, and since I'm not a sensor, it's harder for me to understand what goes on in their heads. But the whole point of the MBTI is that we are all equal. After all, Isabel Meyer's most famous book is called "Gifts Differing." Sensors and intuitives are equal, yet different. And it's beautiful.

Frankly, and this will seem blunt, but I find that, at least for an intuitive, particularly an introverted intuitive, N's are better to have conversations with, while S's are better to DO THINGS with. If I want to gain a deep insight into the human condition, I'll have a nice conversation with a few N's. If I want to go out, stop obsessing over little things inside my own head, I'll purposely surround myself with S's, and actually have some fun for a change.


----------



## Resolution

Some of the most fun conversations I've ever had have been with ESFPs.

And for some reason... I've found ISTJs to be very intuitive and have very good observational skills and make for great conversationalists.


----------



## tapwater

I prefer intuitives just because I like to have abstract conversation's. senesor's throw in to many details and it's annoying. I don't think their less intelligent I just think their better at different things than us.


----------



## ardentauthor

I just accept that I won't be able to understand how they think. And we humor each other with various conversations. Some about weather, some about the condition of the government. It's give-and-take, and I enjoy their different perspectives.


----------



## Zerosum

sensors are great.. provided you are talking about something of interest


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS

If you really think about, this world is dominated and run (for the most part) by sensors. Sensors tend to find many intuitives to be weird and abnormal. Most of us experience this prejudice from sensors on a daily basis, and from an early age. Many sensors have the tendency to make it appear as if intuitives have no common sense, and therefore are less capable human beings. This is what I've experienced personally. So I think it would be a normal reaction for N's to see sensors as simpletons. Whether this reaction is right or productive or not, is up for debate.

This brings me back to an argument I had with my ESTJ brother, and ESTP dad last night. I told them that I didn't like Anne Hathaway's catwoman costume (so far in the one picture that has been leaked) for the up and coming Batman movie. And then I said that maybe she wasn't dressed as catwoman, but Selina Kyle. My brother asked me who Selina Kyle was, and I said that Selina Kyle is Catwoman. Then my brother asked me if Selina Kyle was a new actress in hollywood. To which I responded that Selina Kyle is to Catwoman, what Bruce Wayne is to Batman. My brother said "so who's Selina Kyle?". And I just stared incredulously at him for 10 seconds straight. I screamed Selena Kyle IS CATWOMAN, like BRUCE WAYNE IS BATMAN! My dad then chimed in and said that he thought that Halle Barry was Catwoman. I laughed maniacally. Finally my brother asked me if I was saying that Catwoman's alter ego is Selina Kyle. I told him no, Selina Kyle's alter ego is Catwoman. He asked me why didn't I just say that in the first place? Then as usual he ranted and blamed me (and my 'smart answers') for his lack of understanding, to which I told him that it's not my fault that he can't comprehend simple comparisons. I admit that during this argument I was thinking 'man these people are ignorant', and I admit that I was mentally blaming their ignorance on the fact that they're sensors (which is probably wrong of me).

I also find it interesting that some people on this forum only apply superiority complexes to N's, while completely ignoring the superiority complexes of sensors. @chaeriean what does it mean to be weird exactly? I do agree though that it's wrong to apply intellectual capabilities to people based on them being an S or an N.


----------



## Agelaius

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> [snip]
> 
> I also find it interesting that some people on this forum only apply superiority complexes to N's, while completely ignoring the superiority complexes of sensors. @chaeriean what does it mean to be weird exactly? I do agree though that it's wrong to apply intellectual capabilities to people based on them being an S or an N.


Since it's been beaten to a pulp already, I'll just echo that it's a two way street, and intelligence between one or the other is a rather pointless debate since it's extremely subjective to begin with. Depending on the situation I may prefer to speak with an intuitive than a sensor, and vice-versa, one of the big reasons being that I often don't really care for the details and out of the sensors I know details and specific example are absolutely important for communication. I can certainly provide them if need be, but mentally it actually tires me out since I am much more naturally inclined to look at the big picture. However, when I need facts and specific details to handle a lot of my daily activities and situations, I always appreciate the aid of a sensor to get things done. 

Teamwork; it's awesome!


----------



## Cerebro

I agree very much with all of what you said, KINGoftheAMAZONS. I don't think intuitives have an irrational prejudice for sensors, although it can occasionally come off that way. We've just spend too much of our time being misunderstood by sensors. Sensors consists approximately 80% of the population. Intuitives are much more rare, and, when really in touch with their intuition, have very different cognitive styles than Sensors. So it gets difficult there.

An ESTP friend constantly nags on me, trying to get me to forget about my strict moral code and need to plan everything, and just live in the moment. While it would not kill me to be occasionally a little spontaneous, it is not in my nature at all. Intuitives naturally look more towards the future, and as such, I see everything that could (and probably will) go wrong, but he does not. He sees what is present, what is in front of him. And I can not say whether this is attributed to his being a Sensor or not, but he feels that the way HE lives is right, is fine, is ideal. I feel that mature intuitives tend to be a little more accepting of others differences, since they don't need everyone to conform or to go on adventures with them.


----------



## Kelly617

I have a huge amount of trouble understanding sensors. ESPECIALLY SJ types. I don't think it's arrogance or anything, I think it's just a complete disconnect from their way of thinking. It's almost impossible for me to fathom how a sensor gets on in life, but I'm pretty sure they feel the same way when talking to me. My mom and brother are both EXTREME sensors, while my dad is probably a bit more balanced. Still, any of my thought processes just annoy my mom and brother, because I'm not direct and straight to the point, and I tend to go off on tangents, which is brainstorming for me, but impossible for them to follow. On the flipside, when my mom and brother come to a conclusion, they're so set on it, and have so much conviction in their decisions. They don't question their own minds, and I wish I had a little more of that in me. I would never say my mom and brother are less intelligent than I am, they just follow a much different thought process to get their answers. If anything, I'd say I come across as the ditzy, flaky, irrational one. XD


----------



## Athena

Cerebro said:


> Most of my friends are intuitives, but I also have some sensor friends. To list my close friends that I see regularly, INTP, ENFJ, one INFP, two ENFP's, two ESTP's, and one ESFJ. I think I have more intuitive friends because N's tend to be more interested in philosophical discussions, not just for the arguments, but for seeing other perspectives and gaining a deeper understanding of the universe and the human condition. When I speak in an abstract, poetic manner, they understand me. when I have to stop time and time again to gather my thoughts within a sentence, they don't get impatient. And when they hear my opinions and perspectives, they won't move on, but inquire more, and provide their own ideas.
> 
> However, I do not mean any prejudice to Sensors. Frankly, I spend a lot of time wishing I was a sensor. I can maintain very abstract concepts, but can NEVER live in the real world. I can't focus on practicalities and details, which often inhibit my academic success. and frankly, sensors live primarily externally, where as intuitives live internally. while I'm inside my own head all the time, sensors actually LIVE, get out there and enjoy life. I know I may not be doing this justice right now, and since I'm not a sensor, it's harder for me to understand what goes on in their heads. But the whole point of the MBTI is that we are all equal. After all, Isabel Meyer's most famous book is called "Gifts Differing." Sensors and intuitives are equal, yet different. And it's beautiful.
> 
> Frankly, and this will seem blunt, but I find that, at least for an intuitive, particularly an introverted intuitive, N's are better to have conversations with, while S's are better to DO THINGS with. If I want to gain a deep insight into the human condition, I'll have a nice conversation with a few N's. If I want to go out, stop obsessing over little things inside my own head, I'll purposely surround myself with S's, and actually have some fun for a change.


I totally agree. My interactions with sensors (especially ESxx) are totally different than the ones I have with my intuitive friends. While the Ns may be more comfortable for me long-term, at this point in my life, I have discovered that my need for action & excitement is better fulfilled by hanging with some Ss. My newest group of friends (Yep, typical ENTP moving from group to group....don't worry we circle back after a while, lol) is S-dominated and I love it! They think I am fun & crazy, but a little too serious - and they enjoy making me give up whatever serious thing I wanted to discuss. After all...we're on our way to a party, right? Woo-hoo!

P.S. why is it that every time someone creates a thread to gain some perspective in life, someone else feels the need to subject everyone to their overly-sensitive reaction? Sheesh, get over yourself...join the INFP thread, lol. J/K INFP peeps...


----------



## unico

I don't think I have a prejudice against sensors, though I lean far toward the intuitive side of things. I love a lot of sensors and like them how they are, even if we have our differences.


----------



## Uncouth Angel

I totally respect and admire the competency of sensors in dealing with practical matters. I wish I had some of that. However, there is sometimes disconnect, and spending too much time with them might depress me, if only because it feels like they can never fully understand me. At worst, I sometimes think sensors are shallow. Sometimes, they think I'm super-intelligent. The nonreligious sensors in particular must think my interest in religion, occultism, and spirituality is nutty. ESTJs in particular might think I'm an idiot until I actually speak my mind about something. I also find that sensors tend to be impressed by things that I find banal, and they get involved with movies that play like one-trick ponies to me, with obvious and manipulative plot twists. They likewise find my tastes and interests strange and baffling. 

I have a good friend who's an ISTJ. He's generous, insightful, open-minded, and a decent listener. He also loves movies, games, and books, and our ritual usually involves sharing these things with each other. However, our approach differs in one profound respect. For him, the daily pressures of life and work leave him drained at the end of the day, and what he seeks here is _entertainment_ and _escape_. His tastes are decidedly low-brow, not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but I get bored very quickly if I see something familiar. I am looking for movies and literature that actually have something to say about the human condition, and that don't care to follow formulas. 

He has a huge collection of cult movies, action movies, and low-budget horror and exploitation films. Some of these movies are good. Some are atrocious. Many of them are fun, but not fun in the sense that you want to see them more than once. These are movies that are good to watch with your friends so you can laugh at them and have a great time together, but watching them by yourself would be a empty experience. My friend regards me as something of a challenge. He often says he's looking for the movie that will 'wow' me as much as it does him.


----------



## fratz

VenusianMizu said:


> When I talk to sensors (especially ESxx types), there are a whole bunch of meaningless details that overwhelm the point of what they're trying to get at. So when they finally get there, my Ni is busy juggling all the details and the actual point is underwhelming. I like sensors, but I just can't relate to them well, conversation-wise.


Thanks for expressing your frustration the way you did! That makes a whole lot of sense to me...the overwhelming with details that drowns the actual point...hmm. My past ENFP boss often would discount me most likely because I expressed myself in this way. Feeling discounted sucks, especially by your boss. You've switched on a lightbulb for me.


----------



## dulcinea

Hmmm.....My closest friends are my mom, ESFJ, an ISTJ, an ISFJ, an ENFJ, an ENTP, another ISXJ, an ENFP, a possible ISFP, an IXFJ, another ESFJ, an XSFJ. I guess I like to have a variety of friends. I think I do lean a little bit more toward FJ types, because I like Fe users. I like healthy mature Fi-users too (hence one of my closer friends being a possible ISFP, and another being an ENFP) I find they're great with emotional support; I think I grow closer to FJs easier though because they usually tend to be very open about their feelings.


----------



## becnine

DreamStepper said:


> It's hard to relate to the S people for me. My family is full of them and my romantic interest is too. Sometimes I don't understand and it makes me upset.
> 
> I enjoy NTs the best. I'm drawn to thinking types more.
> 
> Shouldn't I be drawn to feeling though? Or maybe it's my Fi...





AnalogDreamer said:


> I married an NT. I think two overly emotional people together is just bad news!!


I'm an INFP married to an XNTJ and have been very happily married for 9 years now. I think the T/F and P/J help to balance each other out. Not to say we haven't had our share of issues related to those differences but we have learned to understand each other better and be more patient with the opposite preferences over the years which has helped us both in many ways. I also think having the N in common has been extremely helpful for us. I have S friends, but will admit that like others, I feel like my N friends "get me" in ways that my S friends don't and the same goes with my husband.


----------



## IAmOrangeToday

For me it's like having a dog or a cat.

I might have a cat. This doesn't mean I think all dogs are cack and think they're so much more stupid than cats.
It simply means that currently, I would rather have a cat.

I apologise for using an Ne metaphor in response, it's a little ironic in hindsight :L


----------



## infinitewisdom

It's always funny hearing an SJ say "think outside the box" in the work place. Mother effer, I've already thought in, out, around above, beneath (insert your own preposition) the box, gave you plenty of ideas and you still didn't listen. Are they less intelligent? No, Yes, maybe?:frustrating:


----------



## Cerebro

infinitewisdom said:


> It's always funny hearing an SJ say "think outside the box" in the work place. Mother effer, I've already thought in, out, around above, beneath (insert your own preposition) the box, gave you plenty of ideas and you still didn't listen. Are they less intelligent? No, Yes, maybe?:frustrating:


I can understand that frustration. But they are not less intelligent. I know you probably did not mean it "like that", but to consider sensors less intelligent that intuitives it bigoted. You can think of it along the lines of Multiple Intelligences. Sensors and iNtuitives look at the same thing in very different ways. Sensors see one part, iNtuitives see another. Together, Sensors and iNtuitives make amazing teams. 
Look at Roy and Walt Disney for example. Without Walt, the Disney company would have no imaginative efforts. Without Roy, nothing would have gotten done, because Roy knew how to make the finances work.
Or even look at Sherlock Holmes and Watson. Without Sherlock, insight into the motives of the criminal, and plans of execution would lack creativity. Without Watson, Sherlock would kill himself, and the consequences of certain actions would never be taken into account. 

I may not be doing these relationships justice, but both Sensors and iNtuitives are absolutely invaluable. We need the dreamers to teach us how to fly. And we need the realists to bring us back to Earth when we lose sight of what's in front of us. Sensors teach us what is, while iNtuitives teach us what could be.


----------



## infinitewisdom

@Cerebro You're right I didnt mean to imply they're less intelligent. I was joking and portraying the frustration I have with certain sensors "prove it" with just about everything way of thinking.


----------



## teddy564339

I think there's something here that probably plays into this a fair bit, even though it's just a theory of mine.


I don't know if other Ss are the same as I am, but I really don't notice the S/N difference all that much in my life. I have Ss and Ns that I relate to on different things, and I value them pretty much equally. I don't know how my N friends feel about how they relate to me, though.


But I think the thing is...because Ss are in the majority, we may get so used to being around Ss that we don't mind connecting with Ns. It might be that we get so used to being around people like us that it's a welcome change to be around an N, even if we don't pick up on the little differences directly. (Note that I'm referring to mostly friendship relationships here....not parent or boss ones, because that changes the dynamic).


For an N, it may be that because they deal with so many Ss in their lives, they feel a need to kind of find refuge in those that are like them...other Ns. If there was a more even balance of Ss and Ns in the world, or if Ns were in the majority, I wonder if Ns would notice the S/N difference a lot less and wouldn't have as much trouble relating to them.


I don't know if there's any truth to this, it's based more on my own personal experience rather than Ss as a whole. 






Uncouth Angel said:


> I totally respect and admire the competency of sensors in dealing with practical matters. I wish I had some of that. However, there is sometimes disconnect, and spending too much time with them might depress me, if only because it feels like they can never fully understand me. At worst, I sometimes think sensors are shallow. Sometimes, they think I'm super-intelligent. The nonreligious sensors in particular must think my interest in religion, occultism, and spirituality is nutty. ESTJs in particular might think I'm an idiot until I actually speak my mind about something. I also find that sensors tend to be impressed by things that I find banal, and they get involved with movies that play like one-trick ponies to me, with obvious and manipulative plot twists. They likewise find my tastes and interests strange and baffling.
> 
> I have a good friend who's an ISTJ. He's generous, insightful, open-minded, and a decent listener. He also loves movies, games, and books, and our ritual usually involves sharing these things with each other. However, our approach differs in one profound respect. For him, the daily pressures of life and work leave him drained at the end of the day, and what he seeks here is _entertainment_ and _escape_. His tastes are decidedly low-brow, not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but I get bored very quickly if I see something familiar. I am looking for movies and literature that actually have something to say about the human condition, and that don't care to follow formulas.
> 
> He has a huge collection of cult movies, action movies, and low-budget horror and exploitation films. Some of these movies are good. Some are atrocious. Many of them are fun, but not fun in the sense that you want to see them more than once. These are movies that are good to watch with your friends so you can laugh at them and have a great time together, but watching them by yourself would be a empty experience. My friend regards me as something of a challenge. He often says he's looking for the movie that will 'wow' me as much as it does him.


In this case, I think it's not just S/N, but also Si vs. Ne. I can relate very much to the description of your ISTJ friend...I feel the same way after work, and Si always makes us want to collect a lot of similar things. I've noticed that my INFP friend and I have extremely different tastes in movies.

But it's not just you....a lot of types, even SPs, find Si to be boring. :tongue:


----------



## Cerebro

infinitewisdom said:


> @_Cerebro_ You're right I didnt mean to imply they're less intelligent. I was joking and portraying the frustration I have with certain sensors "prove it" with just about everything way of thinking.


Yeah, that frustration is nothing anyone can blame you for. We all fear what is different from us, especially when we are often on the victimized end. I think Sensors may have a similar reflexive prejudice/frustration towards us iNtuitives, because Sensors outnumber us nearly 3:1. To them, we are very "odd". We don't think like "everyone else", so they can't quite grasp it. When they don't understand, they get frustrated. When they're frustrated at us, we get frustrated. And it goes on and on. It's frustrating being the freaks of the world.

(I'm watching X-Men: First Class right now, so I'm glad we're on this topic)


----------



## Rauder

The ISTJ I know... I'm quite certain he dismisses my intuitive judgments and insights as completely hokey. I probably would fry his mind talking about mysticism...

I don't like conflict at all, but it was great seeing his reaction when I proved him wrong about an issue he claimed he was absolutely sure how it would work.


----------



## pretyhowtown

I just have problems with people who don't like to explore ideas, or who are absolutely dead-set that their way or opinion is right. I like to know why things are the way they are, and SJ's in general, I have found, are not very concerned with that. SP's tend to be a little more open to discussion. 

I have more personal problems with SJ's and I think it is due to communication troubles. I'm not always straightforward in my communication style, and I think this can be frustrating for SJ's. Likewise, I don't care much for blunt communication if it is not balanced with tactfulness.


----------



## Coil

I think my preference for intuitives has much to do with me liking myself better in their company. If that makes sense. I have a way of showing different aspects of myself to different people, based on what I think they'll appreciate, and usually it's intuituves that bring out what I like most about myself. For example; in a classroom discussion my SJ friends have as much to contribute as my N friends, but I notice the difference strongly when we're having a break. At that point my SJ-friends want to relax by telling anecdotes about people they know or events they've been too or tv-shows they've seen. Their conversations are very much "she said this and then he did that" etc. With my N friends I have more ridiculous "imagine if" conversations full of seemingly random connection to unrelated topics. One conversation isn't more intelligent than the other, but the second one allows me to use more of my imagination or contribute with unconventional observations and jokes. I like people that make me feel that nothing i say is too weird and I like it when conversations easily go into abstract idea territory. I often feel that I'm holding back more of myself when I talk to sensors.

That said, this is just a tendency and not an absolute division. I have *STJ friends that are very open-minded and intelligent, and I appriciate how they always have something interesting to bring to the conversation. I also find that SP's are often very unique individuals who appreciate my weirdness. They might shy away from serious conversations though.


----------



## Nackle1

It would be really interesting to hear what a sensing type has to say about all this....


----------



## teddy564339

Coil said:


> I think my preference for intuitives has much to do with me liking myself better in their company. If that makes sense. I have a way of showing different aspects of myself to different people, based on what I think they'll appreciate, and usually it's intuituves that bring out what I like most about myself. For example; in a classroom discussion my SJ friends have as much to contribute as my N friends, but I notice the difference strongly when we're having a break. At that point my SJ-friends want to relax by telling anecdotes about people they know or events they've been too or tv-shows they've seen. Their conversations are very much "she said this and then he did that" etc. With my N friends I have more ridiculous "imagine if" conversations full of seemingly random connection to unrelated topics. One conversation isn't more intelligent than the other, but the second one allows me to use more of my imagination or contribute with unconventional observations and jokes. I like people that make me feel that nothing i say is too weird and I like it when conversations easily go into abstract idea territory. I often feel that I'm holding back more of myself when I talk to sensors.



I think that's a really good way to describe the situation.


The more of these responses that I read, the more it starts reminding me of situations involving race...which I think is very connected to my last post about Ns being in the minority and Ss in the majority.


Many racial minorities tend to spend a lot of social time with people of their own race. This doesn't mean that they only spend time with those of their same race, or that they only have friends or close relationships with people of their own race. But in general, they probably feel more comfortable with people of their own race because they have more in common with them.


Now, obviously those in the majority do the same thing. But because they're in the majority, they naturally get more chances to be around those of their same race. So I don't think they notice as much the similarities that they have with those of the same race. They get to feel more comfortable much more often, so they used to it more.

Those in the racial minority, however, are basically forced to spend a lot of time with those of a different race. So they probably feel more of a desire to escape to spend more time with those of their own race. Basically, they don't get to feel completely comfortable all of the time.


So to me, I think the same thing happens with Ss and Ns. Ss probably get to feel more comfortable being around those that they have more in common with more often, so they probably don't notice it as much. Ns, though, have a stronger desire to spend more time around other Ns.


However, just like in race situations, I think it's important for both Ss and Ns to understand that those that are different from themselves do have a lot to offer. This may be more difficult for those in the majority to do, since they get so used to being around those like themselves, and they often don't take the extra effort to understand those in the minority when they should to expand their horizons. However, I think it is also good for those in the minority not to get so caught up in the comfort zone of being around their own group that they forget that there are things the majority can offer them as well, no matter how used to it they have started to feel about it.


----------



## jeffbobs

I think high intuitives have prejudice against high sensors, Not all obviously. But really if you get 2 people both showing extremely high amounts of sensor and intuitive, then there is almost some form of language barrier, the 2 are unable to talk or get their ideas across to each other. so both of them feel either confussed or that the onther one is stupid because they dont understand them.


----------



## avaray

Btmangan said:


> Some of the most fun conversations I've ever had have been with ESFPs.
> 
> And for some reason... I've found ISTJs to be very intuitive and have very good observational skills and make for great conversationalists.


Really? There are some ESFPs that I've met that I can't stand to even talk to..But then again, there are a few that I've met that I immediately went, "this is a fun person to be around!" But I generally prefer to just watch them have fun rather than join in. That's generally what I do in social situations. As for ISTJs...I honestly don't think I've met one. Or at least one that had become a large enough part in my life for me to type.


----------



## avaray

Btmangan said:


> Some of the most fun conversations I've ever had have been with ESFPs.
> 
> And for some reason... I've found ISTJs to be very intuitive and have very good observational skills and make for great conversationalists.


Really? There are some ESFPs that I've met that I can't stand to even talk to..But then again, there are a few that I've met that I immediately went, "this is a fun person to be around!" But I generally prefer to just watch them have fun rather than join in. That's generally what I do in social situations. As for ISTJs...I honestly don't think I've met one. Or at least one that had become a large enough part in my life for me to type.


----------



## saibot

Two of my best friends are ISTJs (although one of them makes me wonder sometimes, all test I give him come up clearly as ISTJ, but I would have never guessed that on my own). I know I cannot all-out-intuit around them or they will get lost, so I take care to present things in a as Sensor-friendly way as possible. Apart from that, though, they _do_ appreciate my insight and understanding even if they definately think I am "weird" (in a good way). 

To be fair, though, I feel they are both two very healthy/developed ISTJs, so I think that has something to do with it.

Apart from that, to me it always seemed more like *I* was the one that got the prejudice from Sensors, not the other way around. Because of this I keep most of my intuiting to myself when around new people and only "unleash" it upon others when I feel they would not judge me for having "my head in the clouds".


----------



## teddy564339

saibot said:


> Apart from that, to me it always seemed more like *I* was the one that got the prejudice from Sensors, not the other way around. Because of this I keep most of my intuiting to myself when around new people and only "unleash" it upon others when I feel they would not judge me for having "my head in the clouds".


I think IRL this is probably how it happens more often.

I think this actually happens a lot of times with majority/minority groups. The majority ends up being prejudiced more often, and this pushes some people in the minority to feel the same way. 


I just think on PerC you see it happen more often the other way because on PerC, Ns are in the majority.


----------



## Berns321

My mom is an ISFJ....I really appreciate and love her, I really do. But as I get older the harder it is to have a conversation with her. It's like were playing a tennis match and both of us keep missing and have to run after the ball xD. She never seems to understand where I am coming from and vice versa....and then we end up in a heated argument xD

I have a really good friend who is an ISFP though, and I really connect with him. We have a lot of the same problems, so it's always nice discussing things with him. When we are together, things can be be spontaneous and fun, as well as serious and deep. He is the perfect friend.
Although sometimes it feels like I give him a lot of advice on things...every now and then he says something that is so pure and endearing >.< There is no one like him...love that guy xD


----------



## Angra Mainyu1

Imagine what would happen if you got someone with the following primary and secondary functions: Ni, then Se

I know I'd rather not, so you can do it for me!


----------



## Masterboy

Coil said:


> I think my preference for intuitives has much to do with me liking myself better in their company. If that makes sense. I have a way of showing different aspects of myself to different people, based on what I think they'll appreciate, and usually it's intuituves that bring out what I like most about myself. For example; in a classroom discussion my SJ friends have as much to contribute as my N friends, but I notice the difference strongly when we're having a break. At that point my SJ-friends want to relax by telling anecdotes about people they know or events they've been too or tv-shows they've seen. Their conversations are very much "she said this and then he did that" etc. With my N friends I have more ridiculous "imagine if" conversations full of seemingly random connection to unrelated topics. One conversation isn't more intelligent than the other, but the second one allows me to use more of my imagination or contribute with unconventional observations and jokes. I like people that make me feel that nothing i say is too weird and I like it when conversations easily go into abstract idea territory. I often feel that I'm holding back more of myself when I talk to sensors.
> 
> That said, this is just a tendency and not an absolute division. I have *STJ friends that are very open-minded and intelligent, and I appriciate how they always have something interesting to bring to the conversation. I also find that SP's are often very unique individuals who appreciate my weirdness. They might shy away from serious conversations though.



That describes sensors pretty well. Their conversations are just too fluffy. It's like sitting down for dinner in a nice restaurant, and sensors only want to eat the same appetizers all night long, without trying the main dishes. It takes all but 30 seconds for xSxx types to weed themselves when there's any interaction.


----------



## Iustinus

Sensors are so literal. I get migraines from discussing such banal subjects.

Then again, I know Sensors probably want me to stop contemplating the human condition and actually start my laundry.


----------



## uncertain

StevieRay said:


> I've noticed that I myself have a preference for fellow intuitives and become rather frustrated and drained by most high sensor types. I understand they have a more practical intelligence for concrete things in nature but I do tend to notice that I think of them as rather simple and I feel rather arrogant that I don't view them as intelligent... Do any of you find yourselves doing the same?


Well, as a sensors, I think the world and nature is complicated. By perceiving a complicated world as it is, we can become complicated as well. Sensors are complicated in a clear way while intuitive are complicated in an unclear way. And I think that what determines one's complexity is not S/N but T/F. I can be wrong.


----------



## Zjin

I get along better with intuitives in general then with sensors. It is mostly the communication-gap that disturbes me alot when talking with a sensor.
Personally, I do not hate sensors and it would be nice if both sides should respect the differences in eachother. Actually, I know some very nice sensors, but also a few sensor-jerks. The same applies to intuitives (good and bad apples). 
I got an ISTJ-brother and we communicate very differently and often I “hate” my own ISFJ-mother, but in the end, I still love them. I even have to admit that I often learn things from my sensor-brother, since he sees things in a totally other perspective.


----------



## nakkinaama

That is sad... But true. I have a brother who is an introverted intuition user too, and a very high one, and he hates his other family members. For a reason that isnt very visible, but still there. I try very hard to understand him... Why? I dont know. Maybe I want to be like him? Im not really trying to do that anymore. Its more better to just be chill around him, and not aggravate him with our rather narrow-minded topics. My mom and dad are both extremely task oriented and boring. That drives him nuts, and hes always ready to stir the soup with his earthshattering news. Once my brother received a blowjob from a guy that had HIV. That really isnt big news, because he had no risk of getting it, but still. Haha! I adore him. ;3

Usually the things that are bery complicated to us sensors are very clear to intuitives. Like relationships. And the world? Who knows, everyone has their preferences. But when I dont get things done, and for some reason everything has their complicance to things, my brother just doesnt care, and just brushes them off. And gets them done. Its remarkable.


----------



## pmj85

Before I discovered the MBTI, I thought I was strange - people around me didn't care to discuss things I held dear and vice versa. I have always been far more interested in the bigger picture, the unseen, the future and what will come to pass, blah blah.

Then I met an ENTP.

Hooooooooly shit. The first time we spoke (in work), the conversation lasted nearly a full hour before we decided it'd be best to part ways before we got in trouble with our bosses. We arranged to meet outside of work for a beer and a burger, and we did. I think we met at about 7pm.

... at gone midnight, we decided we'd best make a move as the pub was trying to kick us out.

I get along with sensors just fine - some of my closest friends are ISTPs and XSFJs. Put me in a room with another intuitive, though, and it almost always proves to be an extremely invigorating experience.


----------



## Vermillion

I think Sensors are absolutely necessary for an Intuitive to function. Almost everyone I seem to attract as friends are Sensors. I suppose they are attracted to the 'unconventionality' of my Intuition. I feel like they are necessary to keep me grounded. 

Maybe I say this because I don't think I have ever had a close Intuitive friend in real life. There was one person who I think was an INxP. I can't count him anymore, though. Too bad.


----------



## Ellis Bell

I like Sensors, but man are they simple. One of my best friends is an ISFJ and it's sometimes a bit tough to communicate. I want to talk about things that make him give me a blank look and then I wonder why I bother. Sensors as a whole can appear dumb but I imagine that we appear kind of dumb to them, too--sometimes iNtuitives appear to lack common sense when, in fact, our minds are focused on more important things.

But Sensors have their practical uses.


----------



## Northwind

They´re always stating the obvious. Sometimes I want to laugh hysterically, at other times I grid my theeth in annoyance :frustrating:

Also, I´d like it if they would let me finish my sentences instead of jumping to conclusions :tongue: 

I don´t hate people, and I don´t hate sensors, but sometimes I get a little frustrated.


----------



## ChaosEqualsFun

Most of my inner circle is intuitive but my best friend is ESFP. I do not really have any problems communicating with sensors, I have problems talking to boring people. I get along with my father who acts like an ISTJ...but he is technically a sociopath so who knows...


----------



## hello HELLO

I simply cannot get along with ESxJs for the life of me. 

Take it for what it is... the following is just _*my opinion: *_

Some S's can definitely be competent, but in my mind, those who are very dominantly S will never be true intellectuals the way that iNtuitives can be. If they are detail oriented, how will they ever be interested in pursuing the big picture? What motivation would they have in forcing themselves to think in a theoretical, abstract way that is required for almost all intellectual pursuits?

Open any college textbook (except maybe technical books... but usually engineers/mechanics aren't considered necessarily intellectuals) and you will see that it is written in a style that is highly idea-focused, highly N-style.


----------



## bizarre

I am a bit jealous of Sensors, particularly SPs. They seem to really live in the world, and are intelligent in ways I would never understand. I feel I particularly enjoy being around ESFPs who can bring me out of my shell. SJs I find myself a bit distanced from. I adore my SJ friends who can keep me grounded, particularly SJs who are open minded and have similar values as me. I think both types are very necessary in the world. 
On the other hand, I do understand why us Ns can be a bit biased towards other Ns. Sensors can be draining towards us, especially if they aren't open minded and don't try and meet us halfway. I feel a bit stupid around some sensors, who have such different ways of thinking than I do and who try and make me act like them. I feel as if there can be miscommunication between us. I value differences, its only a problem when the other person doesn't.
I don't think one group is smarter than the other though. I admire aspects of Sensor intelligence that I feel very inadequate in.


----------



## InternalWonderous

As of lately my personal philosophy is, although we have our differences, no one is better than anyone else in anyway. Everyone was put here for a reason to do something, and it is up to us to find that out. 
To answer your question, when I was younger, I did have a defense mechanism where I told myself that, "No one understands me/ no one is deep like me." This was because I felt so misunderstood growing up, and it made me feel so inadequate being the outcast/loner all the time. I did have a few friends, but I totally envied the popular kids at the same time. It wasn't until a short while back that I've grown out of this and realized that the kind of person I am isn't very common. Long story short, I have found myself and that resonates through to other people. I don't feel like the outcast anymore. Can anyone else relate to this?


----------



## Sapphyreopal5

I have been surrounded by sensors my whole life. Sometimes they can be really cool to talk to if I want to talk about more "down-to-earth" things. Most of the time however, I get irritated with how a lot more more short-sighted, take things too literally, etc. I've had mainly sensors in my life for the most part with the exception of my sister, father, and a couple exes ha ha. I've ran into other people I suspect to be intuitives however. You would think I would have became more tolerant but many of the things I can't stand in people most are sensing qualities I noticed. 

I don't think it's arrogance, although the being more intelligent thing could be, but I think it's more about the context. If it's intelligent in every way, then yes. Otherwise no. There's a reason why the MBTI dichotomies are each called _preferences _:wink:


----------



## KateMarie999

I have no problem with sensors unless they force me to think the way they do. Then I get upset and they assume there's something wrong with me. My ISFJ mother and I have this issue EVERY DAY. I want to strangle her sometimes.

I have an ESFP and an ISTJ friend and they're great. So while I do generally prefer the company of inutitives, I have no problems with sensors. And I'm certainly not prejudiced against them.


----------



## Whisperdream28

I also have a hard time dealing with Sensors and it frustrates me because I can be idealistic and convince myself that I don't have any prejudices. I have had some frustrating experiences with some Sensor types (particularly a best friend who seemed to continually over simplify me and fail to understand me. What really bothered me though was that she didn't really seem to try, and she seemed to care more about making a lot of other friends than truly investing in our friendship). 

That being said, my little sister is a Sensor and though she doesn't understand me all the time (she refers to my introversion as my "INFP bubble"), I love her humor and spending time with her is wonderful because she allows me to snap out of my deep introspective moods and just relax and be carefree. As with any type, it depends on the person and your relationship with them. I think that it takes a lot of time for me to be comfortable with a Sensing type (and I don't think I could handle spending _all_ of my time with them because I need my introspection to recharge), but once I am, I truly appreciate their simplicity (and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all).


----------



## susurration

I admire sensing, always from afar. Don't want to push an attitude or have it pushed on me. That's when it starts to get tricky. Other than that, I have no problem.


----------



## Inguz

I can have some prejudice towards intuitive at times, to me it feels as a sort of lacking intelligence to not be able to condense a message, unnecessary and long-winded descriptions are pointless. I often feel that what takes an intuitive ten paragraphs to write I can manage to say exactly the same thing in a few sentences, adding words for the sake of adding words is just "word poop" and serves no purpose.

I have lost count on the number of times I've started reading an intuitive's post, and like three paragraphs in I wonder just how long it's going to be, because it never gets to the point, scrolls down and see like seven more thick paragraphs. Plus, those posts often have a lot of thanks, so to me it's often like "write your post as long as humanly possible to confuse your readers and look smart in the process".

Get to the point!


----------



## Holgrave

Wow. I never thought of it that way before! Because someone thinks differently than me that means they're dumber than me? Then that means... I am the smartest person in the world! :dry:


----------



## nakkinaama

Who is really intuitive or just likes to suprise... How can I tell. I conform in thinking people have traits of personality, not functions...


----------



## nakkinaama

Inguz said:


> I can have some prejudice towards intuitive at times, to me it feels as a sort of lacking intelligence to not be able to condense a message, unnecessary and long-winded descriptions are pointless. I often feel that what takes an intuitive ten paragraphs to write I can manage to say exactly the same thing in a few sentences, adding words for the sake of adding words is just "word poop" and serves no purpose.
> 
> I have lost count on the number of times I've started reading an intuitive's post, and like three paragraphs in I wonder just how long it's going to be, because it never gets to the point, scrolls down and see like seven more thick paragraphs. Plus, those posts often have a lot of thanks, so to me it's often like "write your post as long as humanly possible to confuse your readers and look smart in the process".
> 
> Get to the point!


Thats true. In tough times the only thing you want to hear is the answer, not something that is blocking you from getting what you value and want.


----------



## Pseudowho

Yes. YES. Thank you!!


----------



## Kaspa

I'll be honest. I don't mind other types, but if you are sensor and judging type.. I dont know single SJ that is OK. Prejudice, yes. But I won't take a risk and know one again. It's their way or highway. Impossible to negotiate with.


----------



## KateMarie999

My ISFJ mom told me that sensing is the only way to be successful. She said that children need to "let go of intuition" and "become more sensible." If she had her way, we'd ALL be SJs. Honestly, this would be fine if she weren't directly contradicting herself by MARRYING an INTP.

To be fair, I do think she misunderstood the definition of intuition. However, she understood the perceiving one enough to insult every one of them. So actually, at least in my life, I've found far more prejudice against intuitives by sensors.


----------



## posedeia

I definitely do this sometimes, although other times, I NEED and LOVE to be around Sensors to unwind and relax my N. I think that Sensors find us annoying too, though. We intuitives find all their details irrelevant, but I think they find our abstractness frustrating. I've noticed some Sensor types kind of pulling information out of me in conversation, information that I thought was obviously expressed between the lines. I'm definitely glad I'm an N though.


----------



## uncertain

Inguz said:


> I can have some prejudice towards intuitive at times, to me it feels as a sort of lacking intelligence to not be able to condense a message, unnecessary and long-winded descriptions are pointless. I often feel that what takes an intuitive ten paragraphs to write I can manage to say exactly the same thing in a few sentences, adding words for the sake of adding words is just "word poop" and serves no purpose.
> 
> I have lost count on the number of times I've started reading an intuitive's post, and like three paragraphs in I wonder just how long it's going to be, because it never gets to the point, scrolls down and see like seven more thick paragraphs. Plus, those posts often have a lot of thanks, so to me it's often like "write your post as long as humanly possible to confuse your readers and look smart in the process".
> 
> Get to the point!


That's when I hate reading


----------



## Vathir

I just flat out...can't deal with sensors. I've always tried, but they always seem to miss the point of something by filling it in with pointless talking. I remember reading papers in college that would be a dozen pages long, but didn't have a point.


----------



## Conclusion

What must it be like, to have a well developed intuition as a tertiary or inferior? Being an ISTP with well developed Ni tertiary sounds like it could give you an amazing clarity of purpose. And in retrospect I wonder if an important part of the dynamic with an ISFJ friend of mine was that we had one another's auxiliaries as our inferiors. There were definitely moments when something would set her off, and she'd become amazingly effusive and articulate. An astonishing principled viciousness. The sort of thing you don't forget. (And especially fun when she was yelling at someone who wasn't me.)

Now, at the risk of repeating myself...

I'll be honest, I'm a bit disappointed to see so many threads like this one around here. I get that we've all had problems getting along with folks of different types, and I get how much of a revelation it is to have some model that describes how that is, that it hasn't been all our fault all this time. But I think we make a big mistake when we start to take types too literally -- to reduce one another to a string of adjectives and statistics and four letter acronyms, and to divide people up into "Sensors" and "Intuitives" as though we were warring clans in 14th century Scotland or something.

We're not adjectives, we're not statistics, and we aren't just a dominant and an auxiliary. We're *people*, each incredible and awesome and endlessly complex, with an manifold and fascinating subjectivity that none of the rest of us will ever fully know. That we'll only get glimpses of now and again, and only if we work at it. That's precisely why all this is so useful! It's a first, coarse attempt at describing how we all differ from one another, and what we have to do differently to get along, to get to know one another in spite of that.

What it's not is another convenient way of putting one another in boxes, and trimming one another to fit. The act of doing that, of reducing one another to types and stopping there, of plopping Intuitives in this corner and Sensors in that one, is an act of profound violence. Does anyone here really believe that this is all there is to us? Some pair of functions, full stop? No? *Then let's stop talking as though it were*.

Let's not pretend that this is harmless. Do you think that teaching a quarter of us to call ourselves "Intuitives," to reflect on how we see things differently, speak differently, value different things, is an act without consequences? That learning to focus on dissimilar type and not on shared humanity is somehow compatible with an untroubled happy harmony? That this is not itself the cause of weird and novel prejudices? Yeah, no. And I think most of us here know that.

I understand this is hard, but c'mon, it's important. We're people first. All the rest comes after.


----------



## IAmOrangeToday

I have some awesome sensor friends. 
It still doesn't change the awkwardness of that moment I throw some Ne out and someone completely doesn't get it or find it amusing...


----------



## Laguna

Sensors are good for me and I'm good for them. I get on their nerves and they get on mine too. So --- bashing each other means what? If I was always with intuitives, I would be bored. Sensors always with sensors. It's cool to mix it with all the types (for me anyway.) Variety is the spice of life.


----------



## mirrorghost

i wouldn't say i am prejudiced, but i have noticed more difficulty communicating or being understood by sensors. for me though, it kind of depends a lot on the other letters besides just S. i feel a little disappointed in the conversations i can have with sensors at times. i tend to zone out and stop paying attention because i can get bored. i think they feel the same way about me too, but for different reasons. or they get lost with what i'm saying, whereas with an N i can go on crazy tangents and non-sequiturs and it's really fun and we can talk and talk without as much effort. 

i have an ISTP friend and we are kind of like oil and water, but we also balance each other out in a way. whenever she comes over she brings a nice bottle of wine and makes really good food. if she has a party it's always a beautiful presentation. she's also a great dresser/decorator. she is very intelligent and when we talk about people or relationships we often give each other good advice that neither would've thought of. however, she also chuckles at me like i'm a child when i express interest in a lot of esoteric stuff that, as a skeptic, she thinks is BS. i'd probably get this from NTs too, but i don't know a lot of them. it bugs me when she does that, and my inferior ESTJ comes out (i think) and i verbally put her in her place, ha. as for SJs...i don't know too many of them, but from what i can tell they frustrate me and vice versa.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5

mirrorghost said:


> i wouldn't say i am prejudiced, but i have noticed more difficulty communicating or being understood by sensors. for me though, it kind of depends a lot on the other letters besides just S. i feel a little disappointed in the conversations i can have with sensors at times. i tend to zone out and stop paying attention because i can get bored. i think they feel the same way about me too, but for different reasons. or they get lost with what i'm saying, whereas with an N i can go on crazy tangents and non-sequiturs and it's really fun and we can talk and talk without as much effort.
> 
> i have an ISTP friend and we are kind of like oil and water, but we also balance each other out in a way. whenever she comes over she brings a nice bottle of wine and makes really good food. if she has a party it's always a beautiful presentation. she's also a great dresser/decorator. she is very intelligent and when we talk about people or relationships we often give each other good advice that neither would've thought of. however, she also chuckles at me like i'm a child when i express interest in a lot of esoteric stuff that, as a skeptic, she thinks is BS. i'd probably get this from NTs too, but i don't know a lot of them. it bugs me when she does that, and my inferior ESTJ comes out (i think) and i verbally put her in her place, ha. as for SJs...i don't know too many of them, but from what i can tell they frustrate me and vice versa.


I'm an INTJ and I too have interest in a lot of esoteric stuff as well. I don't buy into that stuff _completely_, as there's not much hard evidence to support most of it, yet I love the symbolism, mysticism, etc. involved with it. Not to mention I think that a lot of the ideas with the occult and such opens doors to a lot of undiscovered possibilities that (could be) be worth investigating. as Jane Foster from the movie "Thor" said: "Magic is just science we don't understand yet."

Bottom line: I'm an NT and I didn't give you a bunch of crap for it :happy:


----------



## Lackjester

A healthy mixture of both is always best. 

I wish I was less introverted and intuitive but wish "pure" extroverts and sensors would be more so.


----------



## mirrorghost

Sapphyreopal5 said:


> I'm an INTJ and I too have interest in a lot of esoteric stuff as well. I don't buy into that stuff _completely_, as there's not much hard evidence to support most of it, yet I love the symbolism, mysticism, etc. involved with it. Not to mention I think that a lot of the ideas with the occult and such opens doors to a lot of undiscovered possibilities that (could be) be worth investigating. as Jane Foster from the movie "Thor" said: "Magic is just science we don't understand yet."
> 
> Bottom line: I'm an NT and I didn't give you a bunch of crap for it :happy:


well thank you! 

yeah i guess i understand what you mean. it depends on what it is, but a lot of things are symbolic/archetypal/psychological for me and i see how they all blend together and help me have a better understanding of me, my situation or other people in my circle. it doesn't really have to do with belief or evidence for me, but it's more about overtones and connections.


----------



## Owfin

I LOVE esoteric stuff. Just adore playing with the concepts! Astrology? Taurus poop. The idea of describing life in these "houses" and such? Awesome! Tarot? You'd be The Fool to trust it. The meanings of all the cards and how they fit together? Fascinating!

The important thing is that I treat them all as mental constructs. In this way, I am simultaneously a skeptic and a person who looks up "spirit crystals" and crap.


----------



## QueCueYew

I am the yin to sensor's yang. 

I have a really good sensor friend who often says that at points that I get a little too philosophical for her taste, but she kicks my ass concerning practicality.


----------



## Vanishing Point

I have a very varied circle of friends type wise. I love discussing the more metaphysical things with my NF friends, and ENFPs I love! Wild fun crazy good times! Know some NTs too who always have new interesting ideas, SFJs are funny and kind and great to be around, I like STJs and their dry wit, plus there's nothing like an ESTJ to have around to get things done. I love the few ESTJs I know. They are so refreshing too because they never have a secret agenda. They always tell you their agenda, or if they think you're being an ass instead of secretly harboring grudges. That's just like going on a holiday, being with one. No BS, just laying it straight. SPs are great. Only people of my "shadow" type have I had some bad experiences with, but that's just a few people and I know a lot of ESTPs.
...I don't know what it is... People always ask "How do you find INFJs?" ...Well find an ESTP. There's some weird gravitational pull there. :laughing: I have this long time ESTP friend who's so funny because of being just swamped by INFJs. I don't know where she gets them. She had a party and introduced me to at least 5! ESTPs are tons of fun to be around, though we are decidedly very different. I find we still have plenty of shared interests to talk about.


----------



## HoLy

My best friend and girlfriend are S, but I still have a prejudice against them for the most part. I tend to think of S as Simple, rather than as Sensors =P. I do love sensors though, I can talk to my S friends about the weirdest things xP. On the other hand, like @Vanishing Point stated NF's and NT's are there when you want to talk about the deeper subjects ^_^.


----------



## Vanishing Point

HoLy said:


> My best friend and girlfriend are S, but I still have a prejudice against them for the most part. I tend to think of S as Simple, rather than as Sensors =P. I do love sensors though, I can talk to my S friends about the weirdest things xP. On the other hand, like @_Vanishing Point_ stated NF's and NT's are there when you want to talk about the deeper subjects ^_^.


I would also like to add that by saying that I talk to my N friends about metaphysical things, it's not to imply that my S friends would be somehow unable to do that because of some inability, as there are Sensors in my close friends who certainly would have the capacity, being highly intelligent. Just not the interest necessarily, in this particular group of friends. I'm sure there are Ss into metaphysics, just not in my immediate circle. roud:
I enjoy talking about our projects and people we know and what's going on.


----------



## Meril

I'm quite new to mbti, so I'm not sure if I understand all the function (especially the ones I don't have...). Shouldn't we see functions more as preferences? So lets say I write a computer program. I (intuitive) need 15 minutes to design the whole program and spend 45 min bug fixing (finding little mistakes). A sensor might need 45 min for designing, but needs only 15 min for bug fixing. If we would write the program together, we could save lots of time. So aren't sensors who don't appreciate long term thinking/big pictures/ideas and won't accept/understand them just undeveloped personalities (same with intuitives who would spend their life dreaming of ideas far away from reality and forgetting that they have to implement them in real if they want to improve something)?


----------



## Owfin

Meril said:


> Shouldn't we see functions more as preferences?


Yes. More than that, as _focuses_. Like what you said about the programming, one might "focus on designing" whereas another would "focus on bug fixing".


----------



## nessarific

I find that I get frustrated with people that majorly lack intuition.. and I've just noticed this recently. I've been paying attention to what exactly is frustrating me and why lately.. and I've come to the conclusion that some people are slower at coming to a conclusion about things (I know I'm being really vague here) than I am.. simply because I intuitively know the answer already. For example... when I make plans with a friend of mine to come over after work.. the same time EVERY SINGLE TIME we hang out.. and every time I ring the buzzer to her door we have to go through the yelling who it is phase and once she realizes its me she always has to ask if I'm here. OF COURSE I'M HERE. SAME TIME EVERY OTHER DAY. YOUR PHONE HAS A SPECIAL RING WHEN ITS SOMEONE AT YOUR DOOR.. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS! When in reality.. she is just making sure that it is me and that I am here. This seems like impatience on my part.. because I know that if I were in her shoes..I would instinctively know that it was her ringing my door because of the pattern established by then.


----------



## HonestAndTrue

HoLy said:


> NT's are there when you want to talk about the deeper subjects ^_^.


Being an ISTJ, I rarely can venture under the surface with an NT. I have both an INTJ and a ENTP on the same team at work. They both are good at creating hypothetical examples and creating a fictional world, but their creations many times don't connect with reality. They make assumptions and later find out what they assumed is wrong. They then say "Ok, but what if" and continue on using the false assumption. Eventually they do find their way back to reality admitting they are wrong and adjust, but inevitably find themselves repeatedly in the same position.
I can always talk about deep subjects with another S, especially an ST. Of course the subjects don't start out deep, as we first lay a foundation and then build additional layers on top of previous ones. But once you get to the 100th floor of 100 floors you not only deeply understand but fully understand. I think NTs spend their time thinking about the 100th floor but will never know the 100th floor. An ST will build floors 1-100 and know the 100th floor, as well as floors 1-99. So while an NT will dream and believe, a ST will actually see. Seeing is believing, right?


----------



## DiamondDays

HonestAndTrue said:


> text


Being an ENTP i find that most STs i've met wouldn't know deep if it hit them in the face. 

I think that what you percieve as a lack of depth is really just another way of thinking entirely. To me the plainly obvious ( what you can see ) is boring and mundane and i'd just rather not talk about it because what's the use? To you that's being airheaded and unrealistic, to me it's the only way. 

So when you say you cannot talk "deep" with NT's i'd say what most ST's consider deep i don't, and vice versa.


----------



## teddy564339

HonestAndTrue said:


> Being an ISTJ, I rarely can venture under the surface with an NT. I have both an INTJ and a ENTP on the same team at work. They both are good at creating hypothetical examples and creating a fictional world, but their creations many times don't connect with reality. They make assumptions and later find out what they assumed is wrong. They then say "Ok, but what if" and continue on using the false assumption. Eventually they do find their way back to reality admitting they are wrong and adjust, but inevitably find themselves repeatedly in the same position.
> I can always talk about deep subjects with another S, especially an ST. Of course the subjects don't start out deep, as we first lay a foundation and then build additional layers on top of previous ones. But once you get to the 100th floor of 100 floors you not only deeply understand but fully understand. I think NTs spend their time thinking about the 100th floor but will never know the 100th floor. An ST will build floors 1-100 and know the 100th floor, as well as floors 1-99. So while an NT will dream and believe, a ST will actually see. Seeing is believing, right?





DiamondDays said:


> Being an ENTP i find that most STs i've met wouldn't know deep if it hit them in the face.
> 
> I think that what you percieve as a lack of depth is really just another way of thinking entirely. To me the plainly obvious ( what you can see ) is boring and mundane and i'd just rather not talk about it because what's the use? To you that's being airheaded and unrealistic, to me it's the only way.
> 
> *So when you say you cannot talk "deep" with NT's i'd say what most ST's consider deep i don't, and vice versa.*




I mentioned this overall idea a long time ago somewhere buried in the middle of this thread, but I really think these last two posts sum up the entire S/N conflict very well, and I think once everyone understands this, it helps people to get beyond the prejudice.


The statement I bolded in DiamondDays' post sums it all up perfectly: In general, what an S finds to be deep and what an N finds to be deep are very different. If either one only focuses on their own perceptions, then their natural reaction is to find the other one's interests as boring and pointless. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with one having a natural preference like this. However, the problem comes in when they start thinking that they themselves are "deep" because they care about their own interests deeply, and thinking that the other person is "shallow" or "simple" just because what they care about deeply isn't of much interest to the first person. IMO, that's a huge lack of understanding of other people.


So I think that's why an S would be insulted if someone said "Ns are deep, Ss are shallow", and an N would be insulted if someone said "Ss are deep, Ns are shallow". And I think it's basically because the person feels like the other is saying "The things that you're deeply interested in aren't important."




So I think that's a huge part of this whole entire topic. For me, I think if someone completely understands that it's ok for someone else to be deep in their own way, then I'm fine with them having their own interests. 

However, I also believe that it's good for anyone of any type to see the value in someone else's interests. I certainly have no problem discussing "N' topics, and I definitely enjoy doing with with my N (and S) friends...even if I'm only going to do it for a smaller amount of time than the average N would. I think it's good for an N to do the same with "S" topics. It's a way we can grow and learn from one another.


----------



## Ladyintricate

HonestAndTrue said:


> Being an ISTJ, I rarely can venture under the surface with an NT. I have both an INTJ and a ENTP on the same team at work. They both are good at creating hypothetical examples and creating a fictional world, but their creations many times don't connect with reality. They make assumptions and later find out what they assumed is wrong. They then say "Ok, but what if" and continue on using the false assumption. Eventually they do find their way back to reality admitting they are wrong and adjust, but inevitably find themselves repeatedly in the same position.
> I can always talk about deep subjects with another S, especially an ST. Of course the subjects don't start out deep, as we first lay a foundation and then build additional layers on top of previous ones. But once you get to the 100th floor of 100 floors you not only deeply understand but fully understand. I think NTs spend their time thinking about the 100th floor but will never know the 100th floor. An ST will build floors 1-100 and know the 100th floor, as well as floors 1-99. So while an NT will dream and believe, a ST will actually see. Seeing is believing, right?


I think that Sensors in general are more practical and down to earth than are iNtuitives and this is why we clash at times. I know that personally, the disconnection really drives me nuts! Sensors tend to want to get to the final result or the solution of things when I am enjoying analyzing the path to get there. It can be very disruptive for me when I have a conversation with a sensor and they keep trying to jump to the end.

On the other hand, sensors get things done and I think that when the two can apply some patience and mutual respect for each other, it can go well.


----------



## Ectoplasm

Ladyintricate said:


> I think that Sensors in general are more practical and down to earth than are iNtuitives and this is why we clash at times. I know that personally, the disconnection really drives me nuts! Sensors tend to want to get to the final result or the solution of things when I am enjoying analyzing the path to get there. It can be very disruptive for me when I have a conversation with a sensor and they keep trying to jump to the end.
> 
> On the other hand, sensors get things done and I think that when the two can apply some patience and mutual respect for each other, it can go well.


Hmm? I always thought it was the other way around. I always believed it were the intuitives who would jump to the end of the conversation largely in part because they already have a good idea where the conversation is going or will end up (in part due to the understanding of the connections between the various types of data.) I always thought it was the sensors who had to take the step by step linear movement to the end. 
Though I agree that sensors have a better ability to get things done though thats in part due to how intuitives step back and see the bigger picture - and looking for the more far-reaching consequences behind a certain path or decision.

Edit: I suppose your example could work if the intuitives were interested in looking at a greater context in the conversation whilst the sensors keep the context to the limits of the tangible available data. It follows that the sensor would reach the end sooner due to having less to consider.


----------



## StElmosDream

What about sensor prejudice on 'out of the box' thinking and how some discredit a person just because they seen 'too knowledgeable' or avoid making any effort to bridge the social gap (see this more in sensors who just shut a person down because they seek to explore an issue or research further collaboratively).


----------



## Ectoplasm

StElmosDream said:


> What about sensor prejudice on 'out of the box' thinking and how some discredit a person just because they seen 'too knowledgeable' or avoid making any effort to bridge the social gap (see this more in sensors who just shut a person down because they seek to explore an issue or research further collaboratively).


They hate it because it's something they don't understand. The problem of the inferior functions. If MBTI does find a rational basis and in turn the determinator for N preference is discovered I would be one of the most vocal supporters for genetic engineering so the odds of a N preferring baby being born. Out of the box thinking and further investigation should not be discouraged especially if due to mere irrational fear. They can be abused but then so can practically everything else.


----------



## Oprina

DiamondDays said:


> Being an ENTP i find that most STs i've met wouldn't know deep if it hit them in the face.
> 
> I think that what you percieve as a lack of depth is really just another way of thinking entirely. To me the plainly obvious ( what you can see ) is boring and mundane and i'd just rather not talk about it because what's the use? To you that's being airheaded and unrealistic, to me it's the only way.
> 
> So when you say you cannot talk "deep" with NT's i'd say what most ST's consider deep i don't, and vice versa.


Define "deep". 

You know what I think "deep" is? Philosophy. The meaning of life. The universe. Theories. The big topics of life. Feelings. I'm a Sensor, you're an Intuitive, and yet I'm sure we have the same definitions. 

And so, to reply to your comment: why wouldn't I know deep? Because I'm a Sensor, am I somehow blind to abstract topics? 

Uhhhh, no. 

I think you're speaking about and assuming things that you wouldn't know. If you're an Intuitive, why would know that Sensors can't perceive deep thoughts or conversations? Or, for that matter, WANT to talk about those things? I would advise you to actually look into these things before assuming. 

For example. Let's interview me. I'm a Sensor. I like talking about theology, philosophy, science, theories, personality, and fashion. I like ice cream and hate it when people say that makes me shallow. I enjoy the abstract but like to focus on what's in front of me. I like the little things in life, but I take time to think about the deep things, too, because I know that's important. I try to find niches in conversations to talk about bigger topics, because I hate constant small talk. 

Now. Would you like to revise your theory? Or can I still not detect "deep"? Perhaps you should try hitting me in the face with it.


----------



## DiamondDays

Oprina said:


> text


I think you misread my post somewhat. If you read @*teddy564339*'s post that came just after mine i think he summed up my stance on this topic very well.

What i said is that my perception of what is "deep" may be different from what sensor percieve as "deep". I actually did not want to claim "deepness" for N's exclusively at all. 

To me "deep" isn't necessarily "difficult" subjects like those you talk about, but rather topics that i care deeply about. Now i happen to care deeply about the topics you named, but that is only my subjective feeling of what is deep.

Edit : I just finished my midterms and i'm a tad drunk so if above is not coherent please excuse me i will correct it tomorrow.


----------



## Oprina

@DiamondDays-- No. What I was proving was that we have the same definition of deep. 

On a human level, we ALL have different definitions of deep. What is deep to me may not be to another Sensor. Or to an Intuitive. Or to anyone. Personality theory doesn't dictate what might be deep from one person to another.

(And don't worry, it was actually surprisingly coherent for being a tad drunk. I'm impressed.)


----------



## teddy564339

Ectoplasm said:


> Hmm? I always thought it was the other way around. I always believed it were the intuitives who would jump to the end of the conversation largely in part because they already have a good idea where the conversation is going or will end up (in part due to the understanding of the connections between the various types of data.) I always thought it was the sensors who had to take the step by step linear movement to the end.
> Though I agree that sensors have a better ability to get things done though thats in part due to how intuitives step back and see the bigger picture - and looking for the more far-reaching consequences behind a certain path or decision.
> 
> Edit: I suppose your example could work if the intuitives were interested in looking at a greater context in the conversation whilst the sensors keep the context to the limits of the tangible available data. It follows that the sensor would reach the end sooner due to having less to consider.



I think that's the thing...it can happen in both directions. I think one big difference is the focus. Ss tend to focus on the details and getting them all exactly right before moving on. Ns prefer to focus on the main ideas and prefer to get that into place first and then go back and handle the details later. So it's really a matter of what order they prefer to look at it.

So it's like you said...both Ns and Ss can interrupt one another and jump ahead of the other, depending on what the focus is. If an S is building up to a main point in a conversation, and an N already sees what they point is, they'll have a desire to talk about that main point and jump ahead of the S. This frustrates the S because they want to discuss the details first.

Likewise, if an N is discussing their main point, an S is going to want to jump ahead to the details of a smaller part of this point. The N will feel frustrated because they want to discuss the over-arching big picture first and then go back and mention the details.

This is just generally speaking, since both Ss and Ns can talk about details and the big picture at any time. But generally I do believe that Ss first prefer to get the details lined up and build up to the main idea, and Ns prefer to establish the main idea and then go back and fill in the details later.


The main point is that there's nothing wrong with either person doing it their own way. What matters is that they need to understand when someone else does it the other way so they don't get frustrated with one another. They can both compromise in the situation.




StElmosDream said:


> What about sensor prejudice on 'out of the box' thinking and how some discredit a person just because they seen 'too knowledgeable' or avoid making any effort to bridge the social gap (see this more in sensors who just shut a person down because they seek to explore an issue or research further collaboratively).


I agree with you. However, I think this happens more IRL. I haven't seen as much of this sensor prejudice on PerC. I'm not saying it's not there, but I haven't seen as much of it as I have N prejudice. Granted, this is largely because there are more Ns on PerC...it's possible that the percentages are the same. However, this doesn't change the volume of it.



Ectoplasm said:


> They hate it because it's something they don't understand. The problem of the inferior functions. If MBTI does find a rational basis and in turn the determinator for N preference is discovered I would be one of the most vocal supporters for genetic engineering so the odds of a N preferring baby being born. Out of the box thinking and further investigation should not be discouraged especially if due to mere irrational fear. They can be abused but then so can practically everything else.


I think this is placing too much into the MBTI. The MBTI only establishes preferences, it doesn't dictate behaviors or abilities.

I always liken it to being right-handed or being left-handed. A right-handed person will prefer to use their right hand, but they can improve and develop their skills with their left hand. 

It's the same way with "N" vs. "S" thinking. The problem I would have with someone who wanted to dictate which of the two their child would be is the idea that one is superior to the other. If a parent values "out of the box thinking" then they simply have to teach their child how to do it. An S isn't going to be born incapable of thinking that way or having a fear of thinking that way. 

In fact, I think it's probably most beneficial for a child to have a parent of a different preference in the long run, because it will make it easier for them to learn how to use their less-preferred side (this is assuming, of course, that the parent doesn't try to shut down the child's main preference).


I think this happens all of the time on PerC. There are tons of Ns who bemoan having SJ parents. It's certainly true that the SJ parent very likely stifled a lot of the Ns' ways of thinking, due to the SJ parents' lack of understanding. However, in the long run, I think the N probably gained a lot of benefits of developing their "S" functions/side. While the process was probably painful, and while it would have been a lot better had the SJ parent been supportive of the N's abilities...it makes the N more adept at using "S abilities".

I think the same thing would happen with an S child with an N parent.


However, when S parents have S children or N parents have N children, while the childhood may be more likely to be happy, I think the person would grow up to be much more one-sided. There's always a trade-off with the MBTI...if you are naturally strong in one area, you're naturally weak in another.


I'm not saying a person can't be fine if they have the same preferences as their parents. But I think if everyone started to choosing to have children just like themselves, then the balance would be thrown off, there would be more "segregation", and people would understand each other less and have more trouble working together.


Honestly, I think it's best when Ns and Ss realize the talents that the other person has and learn from each other. When one person is weak in an area, they shouldn't block out someone else who is strong in it. They should let the other person use their strengths in that area and learn from that person.



Like I said, this is a more uncomfortable process and it can be difficult, but in the long run I think it's the most beneficial.




Oprina said:


> @_DiamondDays_-- No. What I was proving was that we have the same definition of deep.
> 
> On a human level, we ALL have different definitions of deep. What is deep to me may not be to another Sensor. Or to an Intuitive. Or to anyone. Personality theory doesn't dictate what might be deep from one person to another.
> 
> (And don't worry, it was actually surprisingly coherent for being a tad drunk. I'm impressed.)



I don't want to speak for @DiamondDays , so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.


But I think his most was more in the context of responding to HonestandTrue's post above his. If you read his post carefully, he did say "STs that he knew" and "most ST"s. He didn't say all STs were the same or that an ST won't think deeply in the same way that he did. I think what most likely happened is that HonestandTrue's description lined up very well with what his experiences with STs had been, so he was focusing on that particular view of what "deep" was.


You're right that everyone is an individual and will have their own definitions of what "deep" is. I think the MBTI is just about seeing general patterns, though...it's like probability, it's just trying to get the best estimate of a situation. 




I don't think the difference between "depth" of Ns and Ss is necessarily driven by what topics they choose to talk about...it's more HOW they think about those topics and how they reach their conclusions.


I made this thread talking about this issue, and that was the general conclusion that people came to:


http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...act-experiences-sensors-supposedly-enjoy.html


----------



## StElmosDream

teddy564339 said:


> I agree with you. However, I think this happens more IRL. I haven't seen as much of this sensor prejudice on PerC. I'm not saying it's not there, but I haven't seen as much of it as I have N prejudice. Granted, this is largely because there are more Ns on PerC...it's possible that the percentages are the same. However, this doesn't change the volume of it.


Most likely because S types tend to avoid N sub forums quite a bit and I just wanted to note how at least 2 S types have used ad hominems to perform personal attacks on myself or seen others attacked by S types, so it really doesn't help the S couse too much here.


----------



## teddy564339

StElmosDream said:


> Most likely because S types tend to avoid N sub forums quite a bit and I just wanted to note how at least 2 S types have used ad hominems to perform personal attacks on myself or seen others attacked by S types, so it really doesn't help the S couse too much here.


It doesn't, and as I'll mention at the end, any kind of attacks I don't view as justified.


Do you view this as active, conscious prejudice, though? If you believe in @Ectoplasm 's theory, then this comes from more of a natural lack of understanding rather than it does an a conscious choice to block out someone. That doesn't mean it's not prejudice, but I do think it means that it can be more easily fixed.


Here's what I mean: it sounds like what you're talking about is someone having a problem with a particular way of thinking. It sounds like this person would have this prejudice against any person using that sort of thinking, whether they be S or N. Yes, an N is more likely to use that sort of thinking...but the prejudice isn't solely against Ns. It's not like the S looks at the N in the person's profile and thinks "Ah, I'm going to attack that person!"


I think what the OP and some of the posts in this thread have been about Ns who aren't just prejudice against a particular type of thinking....they're extending it to all Ss. It's almost as if saying that an S will never be able to think like an N, so that separation will always exist no matter what.



In the first case, I think if the person can be taught to be more open to a particular type of thinking, then hopefully the problem will fix itself.


In the second case, not only does that have to happen, but the person has to then believe that the S/N divide doesn't have to dictate how each individual person will use that sort of thinking. I see it as two barriers to overcome instead of just one.





But honestly...I don't think this whole thing should be a competition of "That side persecutes my side more!" It honestly happens in both ways, and it's silly trying to argue over who does it more. I think for all of us, we should work to understand others who are different than us, value their strengths, and learn how to improve our own weaknesses.


I don't think any personal attack is justified, no matter if it's S on S, S on N, N on S, or N on N. (Or T on F or F on T or anything else).


----------



## StElmosDream

teddy564339 said:


> It doesn't, and as I'll mention at the end, any kind of attacks I don't view as justified.


I agree although 'change' often takes a greater desire to self improve and emotional maturity to see 'the other sides', alongside research into social conditioning of both genders and consideration of projected insecurities that can blind both parties... long story shortened, listening and learning skills need to be a greater focus than simply awareness raising.


----------



## DiamondDays

Oprina said:


> text


Well, MBTI is a pretty dull tool in the end and you are, of course, absolutely right.


----------



## HonestAndTrue

DiamondDays said:


> To me the plainly obvious ( what you can see )


Many things that I see aren't plainly obvious to the casual observer, or where I'd by default group a NT. That isn't to say they aren't intriguing. I think the lead developer for a software program I use is an NT. As new versions are rolled out I read the release notes and start working with the new version. It's not uncommon that I can on the day of the release find bugs or features that aren't working. So a month between releases, and then two releases in a matter of hours. 

What's the use? Not needing two releases.

And also agreeing with teddy.



teddy564339 said:


> it's good for anyone of any type to see the value in someone else's interests. [...] It's a way we can grow and learn from one another.


Agreed. Since I have 0% F I mostly interact with either ST or NT. ST if I want a 2nd eye to verify my code. NT to verify it's easy to use without instructions. And in return I verify the code of other STs. For other NTs I verify if it has everything I need today. Without access to both other STs and NTs I would be less productive.



Ectoplasm said:


> If MBTI does find a rational basis and in turn the determinator for N preference is discovered I would be one of the most vocal supporters for genetic engineering so the odds of a N preferring baby being born.


Wow! The most evil statement I've read on here to date. I read it the same as engineering black babies to be white. Guess prejudice against sensors is an understatement when there's a call for genocide based on favorited MBTI.



teddy564339 said:


> I think for all of us, we should work to understand others who are different than us, value their strengths, and learn how to improve our own weaknesses. I don't think any personal attack is justified, no matter if it's S on S, S on N, N on S, or N on N. (Or T on F or F on T or anything else).


Agreed.


----------

