Differences Between Intuition and Sensing

[flow]

Lately, I've been thinking about how different Intuitive and Sensing people really are. We each see the world in entirely different manners, and communicate in entirely different ways. For example, Sensing people tend to only live in the here and now, whereas intuitive people also think about the past and speculate on the future. I've also noticed that between an SF and an NT, SF's tend to think about how you're saying something, and NT's think about what you're saying... Hmm so what are some other differences between Sensing and Intuition? Let us try to count the ways.. or in other words, I've run out of examples.

 

[fullerene]

The major one that I've noticed is the type of knowledge they bring. Sensing brings crystal clarity to thoughts, while intuition seems to branch out and see a lot of things at once. If you were to plot little dots on a graph, each representing "something known," I see intuition as a lot of gray, fuzzy dots all over the chart... while Sensing in a few dark, black dots with well-defined edges.

it was a link someone else posted here a little while ago that had a little animation of it... very cool and pretty accurate, imo.

 

[Ermine]

Also S types, especially SJs, value convention and the status quo while Ns do not.

 

[Decaf]

I think the difference between S and N is that S's see what is. This is a very handy trait when you're trying to navigate everyday life. N's see what could be. When you combine them with P's and J's you get SP's who see what is, but view it as fluid. SJ's see what is and view it as stable. NP's see what could be and view it as fluid. NJ's see what could be and view it as stable.

That's why NP's tend to be the most detached from traditional viewpoints. If you take an ISTJ, they are more likely to be a traditionalist, but nothing says they must be. They simply see life in the present, how things are and assume that that state is a fairly constant one. Rules are rules because they're rules. An ISTJ to break the rules, disavow tradition, but its scary to them because they spend so little time thinking about how things might be after that change has happened. Take an ENTP and they can't wait for the brimstone to fall because any change is better than the stagnation of the present. On the more moderate sides you have the ISFP who sees life as it is, but realizes that life is different from one moment to the next and is more likely to be adventure seeking or fatalistic. They might be rebellious when the world is forced into a stable state, but they don't have to be. An ENFJs are the ultimate activists because they see the future clearly and "know" the right course of action. They may not always be able to take a step back and recognize that the future will take its own course, but they also are more likely to accomplish something to move towards what they see.

Did that make any sense? Do you think its right? I'm struggling with trying to cut out the pigeonholes, but still make definitive statements. This seems right to me, but I'd appreciate your analysis.

 

[flow]

Wow Decaf I think you are certainly onto some truth there.. I'm wondering in what order these personalities branched out evolutionarily speaking.. Well here is my theory: I think if we flipped the Thinking and Feeling on the chart below (my personality chart), we'd see that E,S,F, and J are dominant, perhaps older (evolutionarily speaking) traits. And perhaps the abilities of introversion, intuition, thought, and perception evolved later in our species. Perhaps Neanderthals didn't have the abilities of intuition, introspection, etc. That could definitely explain how both species seem similar yet one ultimately dominated.. but I digress.. I really should start another thread on evolutionary psychology, as that's where my mind is going now..

 

[Melkor]

I find that fascinating for some reason...

It makes sense though doesn't it?

Although one question I would pose is this:


If the intellects and other possessing similar functions are supposedly 'evolved', then why don't they fit in or even dominate society?

I think the obvious answer is that the other functions while less effective are more dominant, and thus those which are older (the ESFJ ones) are more valued in society.

Of course I'm just pondering.....

 

[Waterstiller]

Yay; I belong to two groups who consider themselves X-men now.

 

[Fedayeen]

While it is somewhat irrelevant to the topic: roughly 75% of the population is S while the rest is N. All other type differences are within a few percentages of each other. It's intesteing to me, and possibly worth noting

 

[Decaf]

While it is somewhat irrelevant to the topic: roughly 75% of the population is S while the rest is N. All other type differences are within a few percentages of each other. It's intesteing to me, and possibly worth noting

I believe that number is closer to 70%, and is specific to the U.S. population. Considering that the culturally preferred personality is sensing, that's not too surprising. There needs to be more exhaustive studies to make conclusions about the world population.

Now that the qualifiers are out of the way, I also wonder what it is that seems to make sensing more common here. What perceived advantage might they possess for longevity and/or breeding? In a violent society I could certainly see the advantages of having a "present" awareness. Maybe the intuitive population is recovering from a period of not being the fittest? (of course all this assumes a genetic basis for personality which has yet to be proven)

 

[FusionKnight]

I thought I read somewhere that Meyers and Briggs found the distribution of types to be invariable across cultures, languages, and countries... am I mistaken?

 

[Decaf]

I thought I read somewhere that Meyers and Briggs found the distribution of types to be invariable across cultures, languages, and countries... am I mistaken?

They might have concluded that, but the MBTI is inherently an English test (specifically American). Other tests have been made, but the cultural influence on results is undeniable and I'm certain that even now only a handful of countries have data about population densities that I would trust.

Also whether you believe type comes from genetics or environment, there's plenty of reason to believe that those would not be consistent from culture to culture as genetics and environment are not consistent.

 

[fullerene]

I thought Introversion was much rarer than Extroversion too, as far as the percentage breakdown is...

 

[Jordan~]

I doubt that, cultural differences would seem to require differences in type. The British stereotype of the American and the American stereotype of the Brit are examples of the effect of that, I suppose.

 

[flow]

Yeah, and I've always thought of asian populations as more introverted.. (Japan, China, Vietnam, Korea, India?) It's seems like in their culture they treat each other as if it was more normal to be an introvert. I think that could explain why the Chinese have so much ingenuity as well.. Hmm I wonder what African populations have for typical personalities..I'll tell you this much they definitely seem like Feelers (good music) and not Thinkers (Africa is a mess).

 

[LucasM]

Yet excessive thinking and a lack of empathy creates its own mess. (US/Canada here). What a mess. Overcome by a self obsessing unsustainable greed. Yet us INTPs thrive in a mess, so who are we to complain. But this is not N/S but perhaps more F/T so back on topic.
<in response to flow>

 

[zxc]

The problems in Africa are certainly not solely due to the Africans themselves; years of European colonisation followed by brutal exploitation from multinational companies as well as massive amounts of arms sales in attempts to create the very mess we see Africa in now... but that's for a different thread.

I think the difference between N and S types are the most pronounced of all the letters. Simply put, all my friends are N types, and I don't get along with S types at all (exception being my family). My dad is an INTJ, and I've noticed that we often make fun of (in a good-humoured way) the lack of logical thought apparent with my mum (ISFP) and my grandmother (ESFx).

 

[Agent Intellect]

to me, it seems like for survival purposes (i'm talking our distant ancestors), the S type would be a much more logical way for the brain to work. one would have to be here and now, seeing the subtle details and not worrying about next week when survival depends on right now. that, and the way an S brain works seems like it would be easier to develop then an N brain.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Over time I've noted that S types tend to be more practical than N times. By which I mean that they tend to focus more on pragmatic, present concerns. Generally, the N types I know tend to be more imaginative.

There are distinct advantages in both. Sometimes being practical is really handy. Sometimes being imaginative is really handy.

But, within those two big, over-generalizable groups, there are subcategories that are important to note. The SP is pragmatic, but that pragmatism gets filtered through action, often spontaneous action. The SJ is pragmatic, but that pragmatism gets filtered through orderly affairs, often of day-to-day issues (be it housework, banking, military structure, whatever). The NT is imaginative, but that gets filtered through logic. The NF is imaginative, but that gets filtered through aesthetics and relationship.

At least, that's how it seems to me--sometimes. The further breakdown into the 16 types sets things even more apart. And then within those 16 there are all the individual differences. For example, I usually test just barely N over S and just barely P over J. So I tend to see a lot of things from an SJ or SP perspective, and not from the deeply NT perspective that many other INTPs have.

Dave