intuitive hate?

[WALKYRIA]

Lately I've been self-consious, as a kid I used to be used to be ignored or dissed by other kids(I just thought they were dumb.. NEXT !) who didn't understand me. I didnt' care at all since I was perfectly conscious that I was different.
As an adult, it gets odd when people( especially people who are you superiors since most adults work for someone) think that you are cute but kind of odd and weird... it's mostly sensors in position of power that likes to do that.
Most of my friends are also intuitives, and are regarded as weak/odd/ weird/crazy/...etc
Lately, I've heard that- what I thought was an immense quality- idealism was despised by most poeple because idealists were "extremists" that could not accept the world as it is... that nazism and communism were ideals that were responsible of millions of people.

The notion that idealism could possibly be considered bad surprized me? I wonder if rationalism( or traits associated with it) is also hated by people, in the same way that some intuitives hate sensors( or traited associated with it) or introverts hate extroverts?
Being a borderline idealist/rationist... I've lately realized that the more my personnality growed and expressed , the more people tend to hate/dislike me( this is a very new realization to me !) . Crazy. Perhaps expressing certain ideals is seen as immature. I've had people lash at me, be angry at me for no clear reason lately... than presenting myself in a perfect/idealized way.
It seems that I( the cool guy who believed that he was so openminded and accepting, was only openminded to the few things lol...) became unconsiously judgemental and unable to accept the world and the poeple the way that they are.... thus an extremist/ elitist in a way.
It's funny, and also dangerous to- accept- to be depicted by people in ways that are divergent from the way that you see yourself. It's a painful experiment I think, that can lead to guilt or self-consciousness... I'm beginning to believe odd things, like "people sense hat I'm weird because of unconsious clues I give off, and therefore hate me already"...

LOl, I'm beginning to seriously accept that being perfect- or tending to a certain perfection of ideas/thought/...Etc - in this society is impossible... unless you live by yourself.



What do you think? Anyone thinks that some sensors hate intuitives?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

What do you think? Anyone thinks that some sensors hate intuitives?

Absolutely.

Sensors are generally incapable of understanding why and of course by default they can't express why either. Ironically intuitives can explain why sensors hate them. And intuitives can articulate a mountain of rational explantions why they find sensors repulsive in the extreme.

I hate sensors generally. And especially SJs. Let me tell you why...lolz how much time do you have?

For one thing sensors are so ignorant to things of the intellect...why should I have to carry the burden of knowing why they hate me and yet sensors walk around like zombie morons having no idea what drives them?

The definition of homo sapien is the thinking species. Sensors are not even truly human IMO. They are oblivious insects.

Guess which type of ant any runs the world?

Top percentages of estimates of the relative frequency of each of the sixteen types in the US population:
ISTJ 13%
ISFJ 12%
ESFJ 11%
ESTJ 10%
total 4 of the most frequent 16 personality types are SJs and account for ~46-50% of the total population.

Add in all the other Ss:
ISTP 5%
ISFP 8%
ESTP 5%
ESFP 8%

...therefore Ss account for around 80% of the population.

-source http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm

Ss are running off the lizard brain (pons & medulla oblangata). Nothing more.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUYKSWQmkrg

 

[Inquisitor]

Achieving a "perfect" personality is impossible. The only thing anyone can aspire to is completeness. Extreme one-sidedness in any of the four functions (thinking, feeling, intuition, sensation) results in nothing but neuroticism. Cultivating detachment through meditation moves everyone closer to the middle.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Achieving a "perfect" personality is impossible. The only thing anyone can aspire to is completeness. Extreme one-sidedness in any of the four functions (thinking, feeling, intuition, sensation) results in nothing but neuroticism. Cultivating detachment through meditation moves everyone closer to the middle.

Sensors are zombies and insects pretending to be fully human. They are not in possession of what it means to be truly human: a highly ordered and functioning prefrontal cortex'.

I have no desire to shift closer to the zombie side of the equation.

At least they can do the heavy lifting to provide me and all the other Ns with food, clothing, shelter, and medical procedures. They have their merits. Barely

 

[Yellow]

I was despised and bullied as a child because I was a materially poor know-it-all with no social sense. Children are savage beasts who work off instinct to garner resources in any way possible. Bullying is an unfortunate byproduct of some children's methods.

Though I've not improved much, I've had the opposite experience as an adult out in the world (with the noteable exception of my ESFJ exhusband). In my field, I'm a novelty. So, one would think I'd run into that problem constantly. But I've found that once most Sensors have me "basically figured out" in their heads, I tend to be treated as some beacon of insight, stability, and innovation. Even those who just can't get over my insufferable oddities, seem to see me as some force of nature [change] that they must suffer through in silence (until my back is turned or I'm almost out of earshot). Luckily, the latter group tends to only exist in the lower hierarchical rungs, and aren't in any position to be an obstacle.

Sensors are zombies and insects pretending to be fully human with highly ordered and functioning prefrontal cortex'

I have no desire to shift closer to the zombie side of the equation.

At least they can do the heavy lifting to provide me and all the other Ns with food, clothing, shelter, and medical procedures. They have their merits. Barely

I understand that you are bitter at the moment, and I fully sympathize, but Sensors aren't the inferior beings you're making them out to be. They are just more practical and concrete than we are. That's a good thing. If most people were as impractical as we, we wouldn't even have the luxury to complain about it.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I was despised and bullied as a child because I was a materially poor know-it-all with no social sense. Children are savage beasts who work off instinct to garner resources in any way possible. Bullying is an unfortunate byproduct of some children's methods.

Though I've not improved much, I've had the opposite experience as an adult out in the world (with the noteable exception of my ESFJ exhusband). In my field, I'm a novelty. So, one would think I'd run into that problem constantly. But I've found that once most Sensors have me "basically figured out" in their heads, I tend to be treated as some beacon of insight, stability, and innovation. Even those who just can't get over my insufferable oddities, seem to see me as some force of nature [change] that they must suffer through in silence (until my back is turned or I'm almost out of earshot). Luckily, the latter group tends to only exist in the lower hierarchical rungs, and aren't in any position to be an obstacle.
I understand that you are bitter at the moment, and I fully sympathize, but Sensors aren't the inferior beings you're making them out to be. They are just more practical and concrete than we are. That's a good thing. If most people were as impractical as we, we wouldn't even have the luxury to complain about it.

Some interesting points here. I suppose I can backpedal and say I was being facetious? Maaayyybbbeee...

How can you possibly be married to an ESFJ? How long? He must be extremely self aware...

One point thats interesting is for an NT and NTP to be high enough in the food chain to be valued by Ss and Js. Lower intelligence, lower authority, and lower class Ss and Fs and Js surely correlates with a lower capacity for possessing the minimum cognition necessary to understand and value what NTs and NTPs in particular bring to an social equation.

I still maintain that generally Sensors are inferior and not fully as human as iNtuitives are.

 

[Sinny91]

@ Doc, Yea, the latter portion of your post. Nothing worse than talking to an idiot who doesn't know that they are an idiot.

 

[Yellow]

How can you possibly be married to an ESFJ? How long? He must be extremely self aware...

I said exhusband. We were married nearly four years. He pretended to be exactly the kind of person I wanted, just long enough to get me married and isolated. Then the mask came off and it was a violent, horrendous nightmare, which thankfully, I escaped mid-2010. ESFJs are a very diverse group, and so by no means do I think all ESFJs are monsters. But that one was.

One point thats interesting is for an NT and NTP to be high enough in the food chain to be valued by Ss and Js. Lower intelligence, lower authority, and lower class Ss and Fs and Js surely correlates with a lower capacity for possessing the minimum cognition necessary to understand and value what NTs and NTPs in particular bring to an social equation.

I don't think it's that they are the only ones "smart enough" to like me. It's just that NTs aren't all that common. Especially in woman-form, and especially in the "helping field" (like teaching, counseling, social work, nursing, etc.) So we bring something novel and not unwelcome to the dynamic.

Being averse to change is something more common among those in positions of lower authority because you need to be somewhat flexible and capable of change to be successful. Plenty of Sensors have creative, flexible minds. It's just that most like to filter the new ideas through convention and practical checks before they are integrated. This isn't an imprudent way of going about things. It's just different from how we do it.

I still maintain that generally Sensors are inferior and not fully as human as iNtuitives are.

I would argue that if anything, it's the opposite. They are the foundation of society. Our cultural integration and the ability to pass on our knowledge through the generations is one of the most basic defining characteristics of humanity.

I think our different personalities and their distribution set up a series of checks and balances that allow us to be stable as a whole while embracing progress whenever possible. From formal social structures to small family groups, we need to be comprised mostly of people who understand the importance of "the moment" and our past. Those who can keep us stable and on track with convention. Then there is a large minority that takes up other roles. We iNtuitives are less conventional, and introduce very necessary change.

Believe it or not, not all of our harebrained ideas are fried gold. We get all butthurt when our preferences/theories are rejected by the world at large, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong to deny us. Sometimes we do need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves, and it's usually the Sensors who provide this practical service.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

...They are the foundation of society...

Exactly the problem. But if the assumption is society is not broken well then obviously my odious perspective towards Ss and Fs ands Js is inapplicable to whatever degree society is looked at as healthy and whole.

(oops I missed the ex part! Usually I don't miss details like that. Reinforces my point though)

I said exhusband. We were married nearly four years. He pretended to be exactly the kind of person I wanted, just long enough to get me married and isolated. Then the mask came off and it was a violent, horrendous nightmare, which thankfully, I escaped mid-2010. ESFJs are a very diverse group, and so by no means do I think all ESFJs are monsters. But that one was.

I don't think it's that they are the only ones "smart enough" to like me. It's just that NTs aren't all that common. Especially in woman-form, and especially in the "helping field" (like teaching, counseling, social work, nursing, etc.) So we bring something novel and not unwelcome to the dynamic.

Being averse to change is something more common among those in positions of lower authority because you need to be somewhat flexible and capable of change to be successful. Plenty of Sensors have creative, flexible minds. It's just that most like to filter the new ideas through convention and practical checks before they are integrated. This isn't an imprudent way of going about things. It's just different from how we do it.

I think our different personalities and their distribution set up a series of checks and balances that allow us to be stable as a whole while embracing progress whenever possible. From formal social structures to small family groups, we need to be comprised mostly of people who understand the importance of "the moment" and our past. Those who can keep us stable and on track with convention. Then there is a large minority that takes up other roles. We iNtuitives are less conventional, and introduce very necessary change.

Believe it or not, not all of our harebrained ideas are fried gold. We get all butthurt when our preferences/theories are rejected by the world at large, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong to deny us. Sometimes we do need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves, and it's usually the Sensors who provide this practical service.

Zombie insects who do nothing but run linear algorithms are a necessary life support for Ns' brains.

 

[Black Rose]

Introverted Feelers 'Think' about their feeling more than Extraverted Feelers do.
Introverted Thinkers ponder things in quiet rooms such as they can invent calculus in their heads.

If I am correct I am ESTJ and this type has the Te-Ne loop. Usually my mind is empty and I can only 'Think' by doing (Te) or by inspiration (Ne), idea hoping. Introverted Thinkers do not need feed back because it is all internal. Using the internet allot does not make you Ti. Just recently I began accessing Si. It feels like I can hold onto my sensations. redness is red. the brush is smooth. cold sinks in without needing a jacket.

I think all four functions matter and that Sensors may even access their Intuition before Intuitives. I think there is more conflict between Introverts and Extraverts than Sensors and Intuitives. I still think my brother is xSTP. I need to be careful around him because he hates my Ne questioning everything. In the past he got mad at me for playing videogames the wrong way. He breaks down all the details of the game and does things fast, I do them slowly, low dexterity / unclear vision.

 

[Inquisitor]

Sensors do have a hard time understanding intuitives.

 

[adchso]

Sensors are zombies and insects pretending to be fully human. They are not in possession of what it means to be truly human: a highly ordered and functioning prefrontal cortex'.

I have no desire to shift closer to the zombie side of the equation.

At least they can do the heavy lifting to provide me and all the other Ns with food, clothing, shelter, and medical procedures. They have their merits. Barely

For a living I often throw around 100+ lbs with ease. I don't fit your stereoypes, nor do I really appreciate them.

Still, I usually feel out of place. I am easily coerced to do other people's heavy lifting.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

I'd say that statistically, there's a roughly even spread of dickheads within each type. Sensors are the easy target because they make up a greater portion of the population. Likewise extroverts are an easy target because you're probably more likely to notice them when they're being dickheads.

Doesn't mean they're bigger dickheads (:

 

[Grayman]

Lately, I've heard that- what I thought was an immense quality- idealism was despised by most poeple because idealists were "extremists" that could not accept the world as it is... that nazism and communism were ideals that were responsible of millions of people.

Well, yes but.... It is the system or religion behind those ideals that hammers them into a force that dangerous. Ideals exist in every individual even if they are not aware of it. It is a part of your individuality, your ethics, morals, your opinions, and consequently your actions. It is a part of everyone. Hopefully we question our ideals and our beliefs and are willing to change them.

All ideas are potentially dangerous but a system of ideas enforced by a group of individuals like in natizism are potentially more dangerous.

The notion that idealism could possibly be considered bad surprised me? I wonder if rationalism( or traits associated with it) is also hated by people, in the same way that some intuitives hate sensors( or traited associated with it) or introverts hate extroverts?

It isn't having ideals that is bad. It is pushing your ideals on others and refusing to question your own beliefs that is bad.

Perhaps expressing certain ideals is seen as immature. I've had people lash at me, be angry at me for no clear reason lately... than presenting myself in a perfect/idealized way.

Expressing your ideals could create conflict with anyone. When I first grew into learning who I was and then began to formulate my discoveries of what I believed and I wanted to share those with others I was innocently expressing myself. Perhaps I was even zealous in doing so because I wanted to share my new found understanding with others.
However it is common that people who express their opinions are not just expressing themselves but are instead trying to change your opinion. This is where ideals conflict and shields are lifted and swords are drawn.

It is possible they falsely see the act of you expressing your opinion as trying to change to theirs.

It is also possible that you see openmindedness as allowing everyone to have their own opinion and they see it as you being willing to accept theirs.[maybe off base on your position here...]

"It seems that I( the cool guy who believed that he was so openminded and accepting, was only openminded to the few things lol...) became unconsiously judgemental and unable to accept the world and the poeple the way that they are.... thus an extremist/ elitist in a way.
It's funny, and also dangerous to- accept- to be depicted by people in ways that are divergent from the way that you see yourself. It's a painful experiment I think, that can lead to guilt or self-consciousness... I'm beginning to believe odd things, like "people sense hat I'm weird because of unconsious clues I give off, and therefore hate me already"..."

What do you think? Anyone thinks that some sensors hate intuitives?

Based on what you described, it doesn't seem that this question will give you the answers you are looking for.

To be honest I think your solution is to limit the expressing of yourself to those you are safe with.
Maybe, cherry pick the ideals you want to bring to the table and find people who are similar in view on those specific ideals. I have seen a lot of varying opinions and I cannot believe that yours are so unique.
I think that if you have no issues with conflict that expressing your opinions to those who have strongly opposing ideals can be good for you so long as the discussions could remain cordial and constructive and don't resort to attacking each others character.

 

[Alias]

I'm siding with Yellow. DrGregoryHouse, just because certain people don't have the capacity or will to go on Intuitive tangents it doesn't make them even worse. In many cases S types are smarter than Ns, and vice versa. Although it gets irritating with Ns being a minority, it's necessary. Some keep tradition, others innovate. Nothing is inherently better from one type to the other. I find it strange how you compare liberals, Muslims, and other groups to bad guys like Death Eaters and Orcs, but you see other humans as inferior. It can be alluded to Harry Potter. Some of us are wizards, and that's fine. We have our strengths. Others are Muggles, and that's ok too. It's not a good idea to see one side as inferior. Without wizards, the HP universe (metaphor for our world), would be entirely ground in tradition and only the observable, and without Muggles, the world would be in chaos, with ideas clashing and bouncing off of each other and no one to pay mind to the moment.

I will agree, I've found myself angry at Sensors for not getting me. It gets tough when you can't seem to find a kindred Intuitive to catch your drift. Sensors have the same issues when Intuitives ramble on and on, avoiding the practicality of the matter. Sensors, as down-to-earth and even unimaginative as they can be, are humans just like us. These differences are what makes us a team, on both a personal and biological level.

TL;DR Don't discriminate by type, even if you have a hard time relating to Es, Ss, Fs, Js, or whatever type you run into too much. Like MLK wanted us to do, judge by character, not archetype.

 

[Grayman]

Meh my answer to the final question isss.....

Don't have issues there. I respect sensors and they respect me back.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the people I like most in the world are specific intuitives, but I have a higher average respect for sensers.

The most common attribute I see in the intuitive is that they think they're some profound thinker, and that they're above the fray of mere reality. It gets old. All these lofty ideals, they're often so isolated from reality that they don't survive first contact. It's great that they can think in these terms, but it often feels like the intuitive conflates being able to think a complicated thought with that thought actually being worth anything at all to other people. I include myself in this review, though to a lesser extent these days as I make efforts to ground myself. I do worry it's the equivalent of post-weightloss health kicker judging those that have not chosen to make the same transition o_0

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

As for the overall sensing and intuitive perspectives of life, the sensing perspective is definitely more favored. Although if one is more favored in any scope, then the other is more necessary and needs reinsertion to restore balance for that instance.



SJs are starting to have a hold on society as a whole. Isn't it funny how NT like creations are thrown back through S filters to create limitations and drawbacks, and limit creativity and maneuverability?



Sensors have a grip over the individual circumstance and happening, while intuitive grasp the rules and the similarities between different circumstances. So heavy sensors can't match intuitives because they can't imagine a rule or the abstract, to try and word it, whereas heavy intuitive can match sensors because they can imagine what an individual circumstance might be.



I have something written about this:

People want understanding, however, when people understand information in methods others don't understand, it's not because there is no information there, it is just that they cannot derive the rules and understandings that others have. Naturally, when you have "higher" information, you can conceive of the lesser information, and that yours is higher in comparison, but when you don't have information you can't always conceive of what higher information would be.

Kind of like girls and boys. Females have the "higher" level of complexity, and because they all have that and boys have the "lower" or less complex level of thinking, they can bond because they know all girls have that higher level of thinking. Guys are stuck. They don't know what it looks like to have a "less complicated" brain because they done have a higher mental function to compare it to.



if you think about it, the INFJ is the trump card of MBTI types, because Ni is perhaps the most "king like", royal, far reaching, mature of the functions, and Fe is the most selfless of the functions. So the INFJ is to the rest of the types what the girl is to the boy: more "complex" and so more "important" or valued, in terms of mental function.



But basically it's because the information they work with is incredibly undefined by real stabdards. An INTJ could probably sit down and explain his understanding after some time, or maybe share a plan or process he developed. But the INFJ works with people, so basically their as "mysterious" as it gets.



THEREFORE



Sensors can't really understand the intuitive perspective while intuitives can u derstand the sensors perspective.



On a same note, in terms of T and F. If somebody lies or cheats, they get called out for it, and the pointer is moral, but if somebody is irrationally imposing judgement or authority, it doesn't matter?



T Dominants are definitely favored in academia, unfortunately, not very many other places.

 

[Death Wizard]

I'm with DrGregoryHouse.

I'm sick of all the intuitive self hate, Senors believe themselves superior and most are not even metacognitive. To balance out the equation intuitives most not yield.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah we should stop pretending we're not superior to them. They think they think superior to us because they're ignorant but that's just because they're not metacognitive. If they could think metacognitively then they'd stop placing themselves above us when they think about where they're thoughts stand relative to ours. Fucking idiots I tell you.

 

[Black Rose]

@Hadoblado

It's not that we Sensors are superior because we know not what metacognition is. It is because we are so superior that when we do know what metacognition is that we understand that such thought is unnecessary because then we know that going meta leaves us vulnerable to just such things as those people who think they are above us instead of coequal because of the meta. So that means by rejecting the meta we allow others to think we cannot go meta therefore our superiority is not based on pride but based on the humble expression of allowing others to go meta and therefore feel superior to us for our rejecting the meta, thus we sacrifice our meta for the sake of their meta. We allow Intuitives to feel superior because their meta makes them feel superior for our lack of meta. We must think we are superior for our lack of meta so that Intuitives may keep their meta and thus their superiority. It is our burden to bear knowing that we must do this for their sake.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

We should create a profile of a stupid intuitive and how differently they act from an intelligent sensor.
For some this would take an enormous amount of honesty.

I think intelligent sensors aren't much different from intelligent intuitives, intuition isn't some kind of magic, lack of which, would make it impossible for the majority of the population to achieve the most remarkable feats, it's simply a different way of aggregating data and putting it to use, which in some cases, may offer new perspectives at the cost of losing others.

If the intuitive methods were superior, there wouldn't be complaints about stupid sensor supervisors restraining the genius. N's who find themselves in such situations, are most likely angry and biased about their own abilities, they probably lack confidence, impetus and clarity of thought and require to be supervised to remain productive. S/N divide provides a wonderful anesthetic to real issues existing on the individual scale, that are more easily swept under the rug and explained with the word "sensor".

That is all assuming the N/S divide exists at all and can be accurately assigned, or has any meaningful effects and that an individual can be thought of as predominantly intuitive or sensory in the first place.

 

[Inquisitor]

Lot of misconceptions in this thread. Many of the greatest thinkers/inventors/doers in history have been sensors, and this continues today. Sensors do not hate intuitives, they just have a hard time understanding how someone could not be focused on the here and now. After all, objectively speaking, the here and now is the only thing that actually exists. Possibilities stemming from current reality are interesting but generally viewed with a certain fear and/or bewilderment by sensors. Especially true for ISTJs and ESTJs. This all relates back to the inferior.

 

[Jennywocky]

^^ agreed.

(Pretty much what I would have said has already been said, starting with Yellow, similar thoughts from others, and ending with Inquisitor. You guys said it well, I won't belabor it.)

 

[Brontosaurie]

Interesting discussions.

I would synthesize Yellow's and DGH's positions by saying Yellow has a very strong point in the ecological, population variance, complementary roles area. However, it's possible that the cultural evolution of our species is rendering SJ and SP traits less relevant to survival. We are thriving and scarcity is diminishing so the need for careful economic prudence or risk aversion (SJ) and resourceful, quick adaptation/exploitation (SP) is likely diminishing. Yet these traits continue to exist and shape our fate. Maybe there are feedback regulatory mechanisms at population level that can change the ratio of S/N, or maybe this is just one of the things where human nature and cultural advance clash. Or maybe i'm bullshitting

 

[Grayman]

Sensors do seem to have issues with change. I have learnt to complete a working model of my ideas that might be represented so that they can actually see the potential it has. Intuits ate my ideas up quick but sensors have a hard time picturing the possibilities particularly when they have very little past reference to help provide them vision.

 

[Death Wizard]

Let me put it another way, Senors don't seem to self hate, they are proud to be more practical. Many intuitive seem to envy senors for being more down to earth. The self-loathing intuitives don't believe sensors are inferior and neither do sensor. I conclude there is a sensing bias. Well, I have an allegory and metaphor comprehension bias.

 

[QuickTwist]

Absolutely.

Sensors are generally incapable of understanding why and of course by default they can't express why either. Ironically intuitives can explain why sensors hate them. And intuitives can articulate a mountain of rational explantions why they find sensors repulsive in the extreme.

I hate sensors generally. And especially SJs. Let me tell you why...lolz how much time do you have?

For one thing sensors are so ignorant to things of the intellect...why should I have to carry the burden of knowing why they hate me and yet sensors walk around like zombie morons having no idea what drives them?

The definition of homo sapien is the thinking species. Sensors are not even truly human IMO. They are oblivious insects.

Guess which type of ant any runs the world?

Top percentages of estimates of the relative frequency of each of the sixteen types in the US population:
ISTJ 13%
ISFJ 12%
ESFJ 11%
ESTJ 10%
total 4 of the most frequent 16 personality types are SJs and account for ~46-50% of the total population.

Add in all the other Ss:
ISTP 5%
ISFP 8%
ESTP 5%
ESFP 8%

...therefore Ss account for around 80% of the population.

-source http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm

Ss are running off the lizard brain (pons & medulla oblangata). Nothing more.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUYKSWQmkrg

Errr... Hate to burst your idea little bubble, but most people do not think in terms of S/N so your whole argument is pretty much moot. S' and Ns are not THAT different if that is the only thing different in their MBTI type. And as much as you would like to believe that you are a special snowflake because you are an N (something that has no quantifiable proof in any way BTW), people are people and a lot of the times the things that separate one person from another has nothing to do with a subjective framework of MBTI/jungian. There are plenty of other difference we can talk about that make people different as well that have nothing to do with MBTI/jungian, like culture, interests, chance of events in their life and the psychological effect those events hold on individuals just to name 3 without even touching on genes.

 

[QuickTwist]

It assumes people are perfect at deciphering between S and N without having the dichotomies of what S and N are in the forefront of their brain which is why your point is moot.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

Errr... Hate to burst your idea little bubble, but most people do not think in terms of S/N so your whole argument is pretty much moot. S' and Ns are not THAT different if that is the only thing different in their MBTI type.

Spoiler

ISFJ- Si Fe Ti Ne - they have a strong sense of the way people are, and the way humanity acts. Have a hard time working with data they have never seen before

INFJ- Ni Fe Ti Ne - They predict the future, and have very little awareness of the actual physical nature of things.

ENTP - Ne Ti Fe Si - every argument has 10 different refutation and 10 different things related. But they can never settle with what exists.

ESTP - Work with physical things well. Have a great sense of how things are and what is possible. They have trouble dealing with anything other than the object and reality.

S/N flip makes a big difference in lead perceivers.

What do you mean by people do not think in terms of S/N?

Sensing brings to the table the concept of looking at what exists. It examines an item or subject, and clearly defines that nature or subject. The higher the sensing, the more a grip people have on the existing nature of things.

Se - takes in instances of objective data. Literal things, environments, what is happening.

Si - abstracts instances of the same item or subject to create a singular understanding of an entire category of data, or the same item in various different situations.

Intuition attempts to look at what is and derive from it what is possible to be done. The higher somebody's intuitive function in the stack, the more they focus on what everything could be, and the conceptual and archetypal possibilities than what is real.

Ne - Flexes one item into every instance the same item could be in at the same moment, and still be that same item, allowing the user to observe every aspect of the same same concept. Si takes a tethering point as the central idea, allowing Ne to see every instance that would satisfy the concept or parameters Si has given Ne.

Ni - Flexes the concept or archetype behind a given instance to find the concept of best fit. Se takes in a single variable, or various singular variables, and Ni melds them together to create a pattern or overarching archetype that could produce those instances.

[Ne and Si are analogous, and Se and Ni are metaphorical.]

No type is inherently inferior to any other. Types are only technically inferior when they leave functions undeveloped. Even then it's hard to quantify that. But not everything needs to be quantified to be true or false, better or worse, per se.

Sensors have a really good grip of what is that intuitives don't have. They work with what they've got and don't care about what is not. If they can use it, good, else, it's not important. This does mean, though, that they have an inability to imagine what could be, and how things could be morphed, shifted, changed, or what steps to take to accomplish something more practical than they've already got.

Intuitives have already great sense of the subject, and the patterns behind reality that shift and shape it. They don't care so much about whether it is practical or not, it is just as real, even if it is not physical, and it has just as much of a weight as physical, real things.

I recently got a job at a sandwich shop. I messed up multiple times just trying to make a sandwich. Would a sensor mess that up? No. They wouldnt. They'd learn it quickly and be done with it, whereas my brain is struggling to grab hold on why the sauces are put on in that specific order. In that case, I am the inferior. I could easily make my own way of doing the sandwhich, but i have to do it their way. But the entire time I was thinking, "but these people will never understand how the rules of economics factor into this shop, and the theoretics and principles that dance through my head on a daily basis."

So here lies the problem. There exists a better ruleset for solving the problem, but there also exists a set solution that must be used. One embodies the sensing ideal, one embodies the Intuitive ideal. The sensor wants to experience all instances of a situation so they don't have to learn a rule, the intuitive wants to learn the rule so they don't have to care about the the instances.

Which one matters more than the other? Neither.

Sensors are meant to play the roles intuitives devise. Intuitives are meant to create eloquent, functional systems that sensors are meant to fulfil. But that doesn't make sensors inferior. Both sides are a necessary but equal part of creating a functional environment. It may not match up that way, but that's a natural ideal.

So I think DGH saying that sensors are inferior is false. They are in some regards, which might be the regards that matter to you. I'd still be interested in hearing your argument for that one though.

 

[QuickTwist]

Spoiler

ISFJ- Si Fe Ti Ne - they have a strong sense of the way people are, and the way humanity acts. Have a hard time working with data they have never seen before

INFJ- Ni Fe Ti Ne - They predict the future, and have very little awareness of the actual physical nature of things.

ENTP - Ne Ti Fe Si - every argument has 10 different refutation and 10 different things related. But they can never settle with what exists.

ESTP - Work with physical things well. Have a great sense of how things are and what is possible. They have trouble dealing with anything other than the object and reality.

S/N flip makes a big difference in lead perceivers.

What do you mean by people do not think in terms of S/N?

Sensing brings to the table the concept of looking at what exists. It examines an item or subject, and clearly defines that nature or subject. The higher the sensing, the more a grip people have on the existing nature of things.

Se - takes in instances of objective data. Literal things, environments, what is happening.

Si - abstracts instances of the same item or subject to create a singular understanding of an entire category of data, or the same item in various different situations.

Intuition attempts to look at what is and derive from it what is possible to be done. The higher somebody's intuitive function in the stack, the more they focus on what everything could be, and the conceptual and archetypal possibilities than what is real.

Ne - Flexes one item into every instance the same item could be in at the same moment, and still be that same item, allowing the user to observe every aspect of the same same concept. Si takes a tethering point as the central idea, allowing Ne to see every instance that would satisfy the concept or parameters Si has given Ne.

Ni - Flexes the concept or archetype behind a given instance to find the concept of best fit. Se takes in a single variable, or various singular variables, and Ni melds them together to create a pattern or overarching archetype that could produce those instances.

[Ne and Si are analogous, and Se and Ni are metaphorical.]

No type is inherently inferior to any other. Types are only technically inferior when they leave functions undeveloped. Even then it's hard to quantify that. But not everything needs to be quantified to be true or false, better or worse, per se.

Sensors have a really good grip of what is that intuitives don't have. They work with what they've got and don't care about what is not. If they can use it, good, else, it's not important. This does mean, though, that they have an inability to imagine what could be, and how things could be morphed, shifted, changed, or what steps to take to accomplish something more practical than they've already got.

Intuitives have already great sense of the subject, and the patterns behind reality that shift and shape it. They don't care so much about whether it is practical or not, it is just as real, even if it is not physical, and it has just as much of a weight as physical, real things.

I recently got a job at a sandwich shop. I messed up multiple times just trying to make a sandwich. Would a sensor mess that up? No. They wouldnt. They'd learn it quickly and be done with it, whereas my brain is struggling to grab hold on why the sauces are put on in that specific order. In that case, I am the inferior. I could easily make my own way of doing the sandwhich, but i have to do it their way. But the entire time I was thinking, "but these people will never understand how the rules of economics factor into this shop, and the theoretics and principles that dance through my head on a daily basis."

So here lies the problem. There exists a better ruleset for solving the problem, but there also exists a set solution that must be used. One embodies the sensing ideal, one embodies the Intuitive ideal. The sensor wants to experience all instances of a situation so they don't have to learn a rule, the intuitive wants to learn the rule so they don't have to care about the the instances.

Which one matters more than the other? Neither.

Sensors are meant to play the roles intuitives devise. Intuitives are meant to create eloquent, functional systems that sensors are meant to fulfil. But that doesn't make sensors inferior. Both sides are a necessary but equal part of creating a functional environment. It may not match up that way, but that's a natural ideal.

So I think DGH saying that sensors are inferior is false. They are in some regards, which might be the regards that matter to you. I'd still be interested in hearing your argument for that one though.

I don't think you understood my point. How many sensors do you know on a personal level that are regularly thinking in terms of N/S? I'll tell you I don't think I've met a single person who has first brought it up to me without me saying anything about it first. I'm going to make an analogy here and you can tell me if you think I'm on the right track or not, since, ya'know I'm a sensor and I can have difficulty making analogies.

Jung was the guy who came up with I/E and CF and stuff. You are saying that sensors are going to be able to tell who the intuitives are when in all likelihood the sensor isn't going to know a dang thing about CF. Is it just me or does it kinda look like the sensors are going to have to be using some sort of intuition to figure that out? Unless ofc you want to argue that they know this because they've seen it so many times that they can relay that back to memory. Also, your theory presumes that the sensor would have a 100% detection rate for knowing who the intuitives are and vise versa. But that's not really your argument you would say and you would say sensors don't have to know the rules they just have to know what doesn't belong. I guess to that I would say that its a little backwards. Sensors typically are the rule followers and they have to know the rules in order to follow the rules. Intuitives are like the people that set the rules, but are always making new rules so the rules never stay the same.

As far as INFJ vs ISFJ goes, I would just like to say that each CF should probably have its own letter for the sake of not confusing the less precise thinkers.

I would probably classify myself as Si dom according to what you have to say about CF. The only problem is that I have an extremely difficult time being able to remember any kind of sequence of events and I have a very poor time relating things back to my experience.

I'm sure I missed an awful lot in there, but what can I say? I'm pretty lazy.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

I don't think you understood my point. How many sensors do you know on a personal level that are regularly thinking in terms of N/S? I'll tell you I don't think I've met a single person who has first brought it up to me without me saying anything about it first. I'm going to make an analogy here and you can tell me if you think I'm on the right track or not, since, ya'know I'm a sensor and I can have difficulty making analogies.

I think it is true that typical sensors don't deal with these trains of thought. I have similar experience. But not all sensors are against to that kind of talk. They can enjoy theory, even if it's not their strong point. I don't think I understood your point either, so hopefully I will after this.

Jung was the guy who came up with I/E and CF and stuff. You are saying that sensors are going to be able to tell who the intuitives are when in all likelihood the sensor isn't going to know a dang thing about CF. Is it just me or does it kinda look like the sensors are going to have to be using some sort of intuition to figure that out? Unless of course you want to argue that they know this because they've seen it so many times that they can relay that back to memory.

Not necessarily. I think sensors just work less with conceptual things and more with happenings, the way real things behave and whatnot. They work with the example illustrating the concept more than the concept itself. I think intuition helps them out for auxiliary sensors, but even lead sensors can grasp intuitive concepts, maybe just not as easily.

Also, your theory presumes that the sensor would have a 100% detection rate for knowing who the intuitives are and vise versa. But that's not really your argument you would say and you would say sensors don't have to know the rules they just have to know what doesn't belong. I guess to that I would say that its a little backwards. Sensors typically are the rule followers and they have to know the rules in order to follow the rules. Intuitives are like the people that set the rules, but are always making new rules so the rules never stay the same.

I don't understand which theory of mine you're referring to. What I'm saying is that sensors are good with real happenings. They can relate, remember, and recall physical sequences, physical nature, what they've seen, heard, felt, how things typically are, and the like.



Intuitives grab hold of the patterns and concepts that are behind reality. They may not be good at the actual thing, or remembering real things, but when it comes to why it's there, or its relation to other things, the concept it is a part of, they have very good recall.



What I mean by rules is a conceptual system. Sensors bring the Conceptual system into reality, Intuitives deduce conceptual systems from reality.

As far as INFJ vs ISFJ goes, I would just like to say that each CF should probably have its own letter for the sake of not confusing the less precise thinkers.

A topic for different discussion but perhaps a good idea.

I would probably classify myself as Si dom according to what you have to say about CF. The only problem is that I have an extremely difficult time being able to remember any kind of sequence of events and I have a very poor time relating things back to my experience.

Si doms don't necessarily remember sequences. Se Ni typically does that. Si would take every single interaction it has had with a person, and then compile it into a single idea of what humanity is from that. It uses real events and data to form a conceptual understanding of those things. I don't know if this contradicts what you were trying to say but this is my understanding.

I'm sure I missed an awful lot in there, but what can I say? I'm pretty lazy.

That's ok. Threads are for getting ideas out. We can all do the mental work later.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

It assumes people are perfect at deciphering between S and N without having the dichotomies of what S and N are in the forefront of their brain which is why your point is moot.

You are misusing the word moot (backwards). Look it up. Doesn't exactly bolster your authority on the subject matter being discussed.

Quoting Eminem in your signature and revealing your S status also does not provide reinforcement of your position as stated. In fact, per my original argument (e.g. Ss are incapable of understanding why they are the way they are yet Ns perceive every bit of their motivations and ways) it reinforces my positions.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

... Threads are for getting ideas out. We can all do the mental work later.

This (regarding online forums and threads in general)

 

[Yellow]

You are misusing the word moot (backwards). Look it up. Doesn't exactly bolster your authority on the subject matter being discussed.

Quoting Eminem in your signature and revealing your S status also does not provide reinforcement of your position as stated. In fact, per my original argument (e.g. Ss are incapable of understanding why they are the way they are yet Ns perceive every bit of their motivations and ways) it reinforces my positions.

I think you are misunderstanding the argument.

Either that, or I am.

What you see as an N/S divide isn't immediately applicable to daily life.

The original thread topic was, in brief, "do you find that sensors hate you for not being a sensor?". The thing is, the difference between the intuitive functions and the sensing functions is rarely as prominent on the surface of our lives as other personality factors. Do you honestly think that the average ISTJ has more time and patience for an ESFP as an ENFP? I doubt it.

If anything, I'd argue that the J/P divide is more of an obstacle to human relations than anything. At least when working or living together. It's the one that many people don't seem to understand to be innate. J's think we can just "try harder" and become just as organized and clean and happy as they are.

Of course, [forum forgive me] Jung rambled on about the I/E divide being the most significant, hence the cognitive functions being split between extroverted and introverted ones. In every pair are opposing introverted/extroverted traits. Granted, they are then separated S/N and F/T, but the I/E takes categorical precedence.

We generally have more issues here between F and T in this forum than anything. At least, it's the most obvious difference for me to pick out.

And for the record, Eminem has a reasonable way with words, and seeing as he's threaded so many together in his career, there's bound to be something for everyone.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think it is true that typical sensors don't deal with these trains of thought. I have similar experience. But not all sensors are against to that kind of talk. They can enjoy theory, even if it's not their strong point. I don't think I understood your point either, so hopefully I will after this.

Not necessarily. I think sensors just work less with conceptual things and more with happenings, the way real things behave and whatnot. They work with the example illustrating the concept more than the concept itself. I think intuition helps them out for auxiliary sensors, but even lead sensors can grasp intuitive concepts, maybe just not as easily.

I don't understand which theory of mine you're referring to. What I'm saying is that sensors are good with real happenings. They can relate, remember, and recall physical sequences, physical nature, what they've seen, heard, felt, how things typically are, and the like.



Intuitives grab hold of the patterns and concepts that are behind reality. They may not be good at the actual thing, or remembering real things, but when it comes to why it's there, or its relation to other things, the concept it is a part of, they have very good recall.

What I mean by rules is a conceptual system. Sensors bring the Conceptual system into reality, Intuitives deduce conceptual systems from reality.

A topic for different discussion but perhaps a good idea.

Si doms don't necessarily remember sequences. Se Ni typically does that. Si would take every single interaction it has had with a person, and then compile it into a single idea of what humanity is from that. It uses real events and data to form a conceptual understanding of those things. I don't know if this contradicts what you were trying to say but this is my understanding.

That's ok. Threads are for getting ideas out. We can all do the mental work later.

You are misusing the word moot (backwards). Look it up. Doesn't exactly bolster your authority on the subject matter being discussed.

Quoting Eminem in your signature and revealing your S status also does not provide reinforcement of your position as stated. In fact, per my original argument (e.g. Ss are incapable of understanding why they are the way they are yet Ns perceive every bit of their motivations and ways) it reinforces my positions.

I'll try and say this without going into the details because that clearly isn't working.

I have a problem with people thinking they are superior because of some dichotomites some guy came up with years ago that has yet to be proven whether there are actually any kind of quantifiable evidence that it even exists in reality.

Before I get ahead of myself, I see a psychologist regularly. As being someone who once wanted to use MBTI as a framework for understanding myself I have asked my psychologist if there is validity to this framework of MBTI. The answer I got was that its more a framework to see what you do and do not identify with the dichotomies used more than any kind of reliable substance that actually tell you who you inherently are.

When people start throwing around words like "authority on the subject" I'm not going to lie it upsets me a little bit. How can you be an authority on a subject that has yet to be proven? Plus I just plain old don't care for how influential/authoritative I am so that's not exactly going to get me to see the appeal of what your saying. Throw my personal preference for music and other unrelated things into the mix and use that as evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about and you can see where I might not be too keen on what you have to say.

 

[Grayman]

How can you be an authority on a subject that has yet to be proven?

I'd ask a priest.

 

[Inquisitor]

Before I get ahead of myself, I see a psychologist regularly. As being someone who once wanted to use MBTI as a framework for understanding myself I have asked my psychologist if there is validity to this framework of MBTI. The answer I got was that its more a framework to see what you do and do not identify with the dichotomies used more than any kind of reliable substance that actually tell you who you inherently are.

Many psychologists don't believe in the MBTI despite the fact that it has been proven to be a valid psychometric instrument. Have you read this?:

MBTI "Debunking"

and this:

MBTI for skeptics

The MBTI is just a starting point. It's my opinion that for deeper exploration you have to go to the original works. And those will tell you a great deal about who you inherently are. Of course your unconscious will be largely determined by environment and upbringing, but academic psychology is mostly an intellectual exercise and doesn't like to delve into that. For example, feeling as a function is largely discounted by researchers. James Hillman sums this up very well:

Academic psychologists, with a few outstanding exceptions, have preferred to let feeling alone, justifying their neglect with arguments that feeling cannot be analyzed. Feeling, they say (and this is particularly true of the German schools, who in spite of their arguments keep on writing about feeling), is a flow that cannot be cut up and looked at. Even asking questions, the first step in arty inquiry, stops feeling. They point to common life where if one is asked, "How does it feel?" the answer in words is already different from the feeling phenomenon. The application of analytical intellect to feeling destroys the very thing under examination; it melts before one's eyes. So - this argument runs - feeling is better left in the dark as an underground force, to be felt and not formulated.

Basically, what I'm saying is that academic psychology today tends to be dominated by the intellect. Therefore, (and this is my impression too from having seen several psychologists in my life), if something cannot be analyzed intellectually (subjected to tests/studies) it's largely left alone. That's the training they receive. Type dynamics as originated by Jung has only had 6 studies done, and none of them have found any evidence to support the model. The dichotomies have a lot of support, and this is likely why your psychologist pointed this out.

Buut some things are very difficult to quantify, and that's why Jung went off on his own in the first place! He tried to explore the workings of the psyche by recognizing that thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition are all valid ways of orienting oneself to the world, and empiricism/science (while valuable) is not necessarily the best or only way.

Don't know if that makes sense, but my understanding of this is that if you pigeon-hole yourself by taking a scientific approach to understanding your own psyche, you miss out on quite a lot, and that's one of the most important themes in Jung's book.

 

[QuickTwist]

Many psychologists don't believe in the MBTI despite the fact that it has been proven to be a valid psychometric instrument. Have you read this?:

MBTI "Debunking"

and this:

MBTI for skeptics

The MBTI is just a starting point. It's my opinion that for deeper exploration you have to go to the original works. And those will tell you a great deal about who you inherently are. Of course your unconscious will be largely determined by environment and upbringing, but academic psychology is mostly an intellectual exercise and doesn't like to delve into that. For example, feeling as a function is largely discounted by researchers. James Hillman sums this up very well:



Basically, what I'm saying is that academic psychology today tends to be dominated by the intellect. Therefore, (and this is my impression too from having seen several psychologists in my life), if something cannot be analyzed intellectually (subjected to tests/studies) it's largely left alone. That's the training they receive. Type dynamics as originated by Jung has only had 6 studies done, and none of them have found any evidence to support the model. The dichotomies have a lot of support, and this is likely why your psychologist pointed this out.

Buut some things are very difficult to quantify, and that's why Jung went off on his own in the first place! He tried to explore the workings of the psyche by recognizing that thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition are all valid ways of orienting oneself to the world, and empiricism/science (while valuable) is not necessarily the best or only way.

Don't know if that makes sense, but my understanding of this is that if you pigeon-hole yourself by taking a scientific approach to understanding your own psyche, you miss out on quite a lot, and that's one of the most important themes in Jung's book.

OK, so you have a point that MBTI is not all hogwash. I will look over the links you provided. I am still at this time under the assumption that MBTI is not an all inclusive system.

 

[JimJambones]

Most people aren't either or, but somewhere in the middle. I suppose the real hate may come between those at the extreme ends of the spectrum. MBTI is flawed because it essentially ignores the sliding scale that is present in all human personality traits, something that the Big 5 recognizes.

As a kid, I remember people calling me weird because I was a creative, intelligent, imaginative kid who used to say weird random things, and draw and read about weird things. I was a creep, I was a weirdo, what the hell was I doing there? I started to feel really uncomfortable appearing too weird because I didn't want people picking on me too much, or at least more than they already did.

I still get strange looks from people because although I look relatively normal, I still talk and read about what most people consider weird stuff. Someone actually said I "read weird things" to me today in response to me randomly talking about ancient scepticism.

I just want to put the interesting topics out there to discuss. Someone has to take the initiative

 

[Intolerable]

Distance, Jim. It all comes down to distance.

That which creates gaps in time also creates difference. Some of which will make others uncomfortable. The question isn't why the hell are you there. The question is where the hell did you come from?

It isn't until we're older ( and even then perhaps not ) that we take a liking to something we've never seen before. It is a trait of adolescence to cling to the known world. Egocentric behavior for example.

 

[Urakro]

Lately, I've had my eye on a certain type of intuitive for interest. I don't think all intuitives come across as deep thinkers, even if they are. The intuitives that I've been noticing scoff at the idea, and make big fun of it. They're very spontaneous in a forced crazy way, and it could unhinge more serious type people. I think they are ENTx.

It's not that they pretend to be stupid, they just have a whole eccentric act going on. They gather together their abstract sense haphazardly, and sling it out immediately, which then feeds back to them for more refinement. Before long, they have a clever schematic of everything around them, and they've learned all the buttons they could push and what they do.

For some strict sensors, I could see how it can be an annoyance. It unnerved me at first, until I started learning there are really neat buttons I can press as well. I learned the whole intention was for play, so I just go along and fun with it as well.