Sensor types

[Pfness]

Often times, I avoid them unless I need to work with them personally, or I need to interact with them through an institution or organization to get something done. But when we encounter each other and they see my way of doing things, there is inevitably conflict.

I know through experience that you cannot simply barge your way through like a bettering ram when you need things done with sensor types. Though I've found that if one can employ people-networking past the sensor type (thank god for the internet and the ability to see personnel org charts/directories online sometimes), you can strategically deduce who would be easier to work with some practice, or if it is even a possibility to bypass the sensor causing issues in the first place.

Anyway, I really hate all SJ types the most. I can see how they're needed in society for sensor-kind, but the moment they attempt to force their view on me, I've learned it is not worth the stress & trouble to stick around.

 

[Grayman]

Anyway, I really hate all SJ types the most. I can see how they're needed in society for sensor-kind, but the moment they attempt to force their view on me, I've learned it is not worth the stress & trouble to stick around.

Just convert them all to Buddhism and your problems will be solved.

 

[Pfness]

Just convert them all to Buddhism and your problems will be solved.

That is another predicament altogether. I currently live in a 'majority' buddhist country, and well, the political situation I'd imagine is probably fueled by buddhist SJ types (I can only speculate).

 

[Redfire]

I don't mind sensors. What I hate is that almost every single thing in society is geared towards them.

 

[nanook]

As always, i have to protest against the common fallacy of development (impulsive, conformist, rational, pluralist, integral) and typology, specifically the S/N dichotomy. Most categorical conflicts arise between stages of development, not between types. By categorical i mean the "i want you to disappear from the face of the earth" type of conflict.

I think most shit in society is geared towards extroverts and those who can fake it. But intuition at the right stage is much needed, just like any stage of development at the right place. Societies are also geared towards owning people, so moving around is more difficult than it should be, so people end up in the wrong place.

 

[Duxwing]

I don't mind sensors. What I hate is that almost every single thing in society is geared towards them.

Hardly. We iNtuitives simply take for granted what is geared for us; e.g., the humor, symbolism, and discourse pervading society. For example, consider a politician making a speech advocating a humanitarian invasion and the reactions of the four temperaments:

SJ: Hrmph. Politicians these days.
SP: Hah! His fly is undone!
NF: Phony. You can see his eyes shift around, his jaw quiver, and his fingers grab his pocket-tops. Did he just twitch when he said 'invasion' a third time? Now a fourth. Hey, wait a minute, he doesn't believe what he's saying!
NT: Invasion would kill more people than we would save from that nation's cruel laws. A better response would be to sanction the country until it relented. Hey, wait a minute, did he just suggest unilateral invasion? That violates the categorical imperative!

We 'live between the lines,' analyzing when others' minds fall silent and enjoying parts of the world lacking an immediate physical form.

-Duxwing

 

[rushgirl2112]

Most categorical conflicts arise between stages of development, not between types. By categorical i mean the "i want you to disappear from the face of the earth" type of conflict.

I agree with this.

Assuming at least roughly equivalent stages of development among both parties, I'd say that type is more of a determining factor in how well you wind up relating to each other. When two types aren't terribly compatible, it does increase the likelihood of conflict due to different ways of seeing things, but reasonable people will learn to cope with that. Of course, that only works if both parties are reasonable!

My first husband was an ISTJ I'd been good friends with for years before we became romantically involved. Yeah, not the best idea. We had lots of fun doing things together, but when it came to developing the close connection I wanted . . . not so much. We argued a LOT. I didn't find out that he was an ISTJ until he took the test a few years in. Too bad I didn't figure this out sooner.

But this is a fairly mature and reasonable man. Pair that with a mature and highly rational woman, and you get a divorce with agreement on all issues, not even needing to go to court, and that's with children. He's a very dedicated man, totally devoted to his family like a lot of ISTJs, and therefore an awesome father who meets his obligations and then some. It wasn't his idea to get divorced, and there are things that he could have been very vindictive about, but he didn't. We're not only civil, but verging on friendly.

So honestly, if I'm going to have an ex in my life, I'm totally on board with a well-developed ISTJ. That's a thousand times better than an under-developed INTP! I used to be one, of course, so I know how obnoxious we can be!

Then again, perhaps not as obnoxious as an under-developed SJ . . .

 

[Spirit]

Considering each N type has S types in their cognitive functions, it seems you fail to understand that you are the underdeveloped and therefore cannot relate.

Solution: Get developed and you will become less cynical

 

[Duxwing]

Considering each N type has S types in their cognitive functions, it seems you fail to understand that you are the underdeveloped and therefore cannot relate.

Solution: Get developed and you will become less cynical

Your conclusion is false because you're confusing three different statements:

1 Sensor understands Intuitive
2 Intuitive understands Sensor
3 Sensor and Intuitive understand each other (i.e., "relate")

If either 1 or 2 is false, then 3 is false because 3 is the union of 1 and 2. If 3 is false, then by definition no self-improvement can enable the parties' relation. Therefore, as has to be demonstrated, so your conclusion is false.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

Sometimes I have difficulty understanding you Dux.

 

[AngelOne]

Your conclusion is false because you're confusing three different statements:

1 Sensor understands Intuitive
2 Intuitive understands Sensor
3 Sensor and Intuitive understand each other (i.e., "relate")

If either 1 or 2 is false, then 3 is false because 3 is the union of 1 and 2. If 3 is false, then by definition no self-improvement can enable the parties' relation. Therefore, as has to be demonstrated, so your conclusion is false.

-Duxwing

If 3 is false then the only possible conclusion is that at least one of 1 or 2 is false. Your self-improvement conclusion has no basis in the listed statements and is invalid.

 

[nanook]

LOGIC. it's not the same as knowing what you talk about.

a developed type understands* and appreciates his tertiary or inferior functions in himself and therefore in others. (*viscerally, not analytically)

also: undeveloped types are used to not understanding shit about anyone at all and so they often have developed a sort of business mentality about life, that allows them to appreciate in others, what they can not understand, or rather the product of it. they don't judge interiors because they don't even consider them. my father (SJ) will happily deploy tasks to anyone who get's them done. sometimes that's me. it works, but seems insensitive to more developed people.

 

[Duxwing]

If 3 is false then the only possible conclusion is that at least one of 1 or 2 is false. Your self-improvement conclusion has no basis in the listed statements and is invalid.

Why does your second sentence follow from your first? Also, you misunderstood my logic, which is:

-If A understands B, and if B understands A, then A and B understand each other.
-By the law of contraposition, if A does not understand B, or if B does not understand A, then A and B do not understand each other.
-Therefore, where A and B are a Sensor and Intuitive, if the Sensor does not understand the Intuitive, then the Sensor and Intuitive do not understand each other.
-Therefore, whatever else the Intuitive does (in this case, improve himself) he and the Sensor cannot understand each other.

I suspect we have confused the Intuitive's understanding the Sensor with their mutual understanding.


-Duxwing

 

[Base groove]

Plot twist: Duxwing is a Sensor Type

 

[nanook]

that's true, understanding people does not make them understand you, but spirit didn't claim that sensors would understand Pfness way of working, if Pfness would only understand them or would value their way, he was only discussing a cynicism that appeared between the lines. personally, i don't see any evidence of Pfneess being UNDER developed. average sensor types do hate some intuitive types just the same (once differences become apparent) and "it is not worth the stress & trouble to stick around." (average experience of both parties)

>Therefore, whatever else the Intuitive does (in this case, improve himself) he and the Sensor cannot understand each other.

>you are the underdeveloped and therefore cannot relate.

(in my book relating is not the same as mutual understanding)

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I think sensors aren't as bad as you claim. Maybe deeper relationship isn't possible, but they can be interesting. And they are needed.
ESFP, ESTP and ISTP are very funny people who can improve our personal lifes (INTPs lifes). Some sensors can be very frustrating [the most ESJ] but if someone is intelligent, personality type is less important.
But I agree, that deeper conversations can be created only with iNtuitive types.

 

[rushgirl2112]

ESFP, ESTP and ISTP are very funny people who can improve our personal lifes (INTPs lifes).

Add ISTJ to that - my ex is hilarious and fun to be around (which is why we started out as really good friends), and apparently that's not uncommon for that type.

 

[AngelOne]

Why does your second sentence follow from your first? Also, you misunderstood my logic, which is:

-If A understands B, and if B understands A, then A and B understand each other.
-By the law of contraposition, if A does not understand B, or if B does not understand A, then A and B do not understand each other.
-Therefore, where A and B are a Sensor and Intuitive, if the Sensor does not understand the Intuitive, then the Sensor and Intuitive do not understand each other.
-Therefore, whatever else the Intuitive does (in this case, improve himself) he and the Sensor cannot understand each other.

I suspect we have confused the Intuitive's understanding the Sensor with their mutual understanding.


-Duxwing

Your logic is flawed: your last "therefore" statement does not follow from the previous statements. The two sides do not understand each other does not imply that nothing can be done to change their understanding. Neither people nor situations are unchanging.

 

[Duxwing]

Your logic is flawed: your last "therefore" statement does not follow from the previous statements. The two sides do not understand each other does not imply that nothing can be done to change their understanding. Neither people nor situations are unchanging.

My logic is not flawed because it describes not dynamic but static situations, and I apologize for not having declared that domain definition.

-Duxwing