• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

"When it comes to leadership and influence iNtuitive people have an edge over Sensing people."

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
Great article i have just stumbled across, best written i read in a while as it makes so much sense now thinking in term of evolution from Sensation (more primitive / concrete) to Intuition (more developped / abstract):

FULL ARTICLE here:
http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti

Extracts:

I have been a fan of the MBTI for a long time. For a brief period I believed that all personality types were essentially equal and they all had pros and cons. While this is still true for the most part, I think N's have an edge when it comes to intelligence. There are numerous reasons as to why this is. You see, the S/N relationship isn't so much a preference as all the other letters are. With S/N it isn't like choosing which color crayon you prefer. It is about choosing which level of evolution you prefer.
Influential People

I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason.
Evolving

There is still much more to this than simply being influential. I think the vast majority of N's start off as S's as they are children and slowly start to wake up and outgrow being an S. S is a stage of taking in your environment and learning the basic dynamics behind life. S's love their senses because their senses are their teacher. But once you learn the basic dynamics behind the physical world you start to move onto the more abstract and deep things. You move out of the physical and into the mind. You move out of the shallow everyday things and into the more philosophical. It doesn't mean that you don't appreciate or understand the immediate, physical things -- it just means that you're past that.

So as children we don't have to worry about money or growing or taking care of ourselves or leading or anything like this for the most part. Most of our life is taken care of by our parents or the socialist government. Young people look good, their bodies work good and hardly any effort is needed to get by in life. They have everything given to them and don't need to develop themselves. But as reality kicks in we either wise up or become a slave. Most choose to become slaves and collapse under the fold of tradition and authority. But every once in a while you will get that solitary, free spirit that has the need to venture into the unknown and leave the crowd, despite the whole bunch of S's trying to pull them back down as hard as they can. This is the evolution away from group-rule into self-rule. This is the evolution from animal to human -- a truly sovereign, capable human being.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
(Quotes from article)"I'm not saying S's are bad. I'm saying they're not smart."

"I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people."

As soon as someone starts throwing around the word 'smart' so liberally - well it makes me think he is 'really' kind of a moron.

The whole import about type is that everyone has their genius (and shadow btw)...sensors have a genius (capacity) that intuitives don't have as much of...and vice versa. A sensor has the 'capacity' of intuition like everyone else...it's just not used preferentially.

What the world is full of, is a lot more sensors...so (being intuitive) puts you in 'select' company to begin with. But why start a debate about who is 'smarter'.

INTP extroverts intuition...get a boy/girl friend who extroverts sensing (and is well developed in the capacity)...and you'll notice that their capacity to notice detail (in the external world...the world measured by the 5 senses) trumps yours every time.

Action movies almost always depict 'mastery' of this function. The Tom Cruise character (Mission Impossible)...mastery over the body...reaction...would you call that dumb? Nope...the Jason Bourne...you gonna point at him a say (whining) "I'm smarter"...I'm not going to.

Extroverted Intution (I recently read) is able (in the world) to 'see' the soul of a thing - which I felt seemed a fairly apt description - would you agree?

What intuition is (instead of 'smarter')...is 'deeper'. But to appreciate that word (depth) it helps to appreciate the subject of type against the greater (deeper?) background of depth psychology.

What are we (as preferring intuition over sensing) deeper about? And then this word...this awesome (in it's implications) but commonly used (and therefore greatly under-appreciated) word comes into play..."UNCONSCIOUS" (NOT subconscious)...Unconscious...comes into play.

THIS (in my opinion) is a subject to be debated. Because - though a lot of people use the term liberally 'unconscious' - for most (for those you prefer sensing?) there is a question of whether they believe in it's existence in the first place. Do you believe in the unconscious?

Well being (likely) an INTP you probably do...because that's the 'space' where your intuition...that 'genius' does it's work...and it's old (Triune Brain) isn't it?...and infinitely faster than rational thought. But is it infallible? Can it be 'wrong'...is it 'right'? Is it 'smart' or 'dump'?

...so it's kinda like a super power (haha) but (also like any 'super power') is often treated with a degree of suspicion (scorn?)...considered a form of auto-erotica (or masturbation) by our S'ing dominated world...because their experience of the unconscious is not as 'direct'...adjectives start to escape me. Anyway what we are (in our intuitive capacities) is - is under-appreciated...and that's never fun...kinda lonely.

And abstraction is definitely 'smart'...a form of smartness...great great smarts...but if we start describing one capacity as 'smart' then we imply that the other is 'dumb'...and well that just sounds simple...it's a more nuanced topic than 'smart' vs 'dumb'...isn't it? :confused:
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 3:30 PM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,049
-->
Location
Philippines
Lots of estimation presented as facts. Also, the lack of references is a concern especially since alternative MBTI interpretations of his historical personality samples. We can't even type Jung :p

He should also have stated the context of his terms especially "Evolution". Can types change?

Anyways, I learned more on the comments section rather than the article itself.

The article is "N" glorification and "S" bashing with weak (I'm being nice) arguments to support them. I would rather read something that would help me understand myself and others better or make me actually contribute something to the world.
 

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
I think you totally missed the point of the article... In fact, paradoxally, that's usually what sensors do !

Fundamentally, the author means intuition (the power to see what yet can't be seen or the power to imagine what no one else has thought about or the power to read between the line or the power to anticipate the conflictual) is an evolutionary trait. Sensation ultimately evolve to intuition !

I can relate A LOT in this article, as, sadly, i behaved as a (fake) sensor for the 2/3rd of my life... As a sensor i absolutely followed others and i was close minded, but as the true intuitive i was always meant to be, i became self-reliant, questionned everything, my mind started to expand and basically my whole life changed, my health improved, my finances went up, i swapped all my friends who were bad influence for BOOKS instead, got rid of my neurosis, started meditation, changed my whole diet... etc. And where do all my old sensor friends stand nowadays ??!! Well behind...
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 8:30 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
That intuition is an adaptation to the modern world?

Still I wouldn't be so sure, I can play poker with a sensor an though I may intuitively grasp my probability of having a better hand a lot more readily I know the sensor across the table has an edge on reading my tone of voice and facial expressions, which I try to account for by double thinking or being too drunk to even know what I'm thinking :D

I think the difference between intuition and sensing is information processing depth and scope, intuitive people do a lot of processing on a smaller amount of data, sensors do no less processing but they distribute it over a larger set of data so the processing isn't as in depth.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 3:30 PM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,049
-->
Location
Philippines
I think you totally missed the point of the article... In fact, paradoxally, that's usually what sensors do !

Fundamentally, the author means intuition (the power to see what yet can't be seen or the power to imagine what no one else has thought about or the power to read between the line or the power to anticipate the conflictual) is an evolutionary trait. Sensation ultimately evolve to intuition !

So missing something makes me a sensor now? Should I agree with the article so that I can get my INTPness back?

I REALLY need to know what context we're using Evolution here.

Are we using the biological context? If a generally S society would evolve to a generally N society then it would be better?

Here I agree that intuition is needed for a society to grow and respond to changes. But everyone has intuition. Just because we use it more often doesn't mean we're more superior as leaders or more influential. We use our Si to complement our Ti-Ne processes. Should we ignore it then?

Are we using the human development context? If so then a Ti-Ne-Si-Fe like me would 'evolve' to a Ti-Ne-Ti-Fe? I prefer to see that as we mature, we tend to figure out how to make the four functions get along with each other.
 

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
I think the difference between intuition and sensing is information processing depth and scope, intuitive people do a lot of processing on a smaller amount of data, sensors do no less processing but they distribute it over a larger set of data so the processing isn't as in depth.

Intuitive people (fore)see the whole (the elephant) out of a fragment (a part of the elephant)... Because intuition transcends time and space.

Sensors only see unconnected fragments and therefore totally miss the whole (elephant)... Because sensation can only see what is here and now.


- Sensation is absolutistic.

- Intuition is both absolutistic and relativistic at the same time: a strong intuitive person will see the elephant as an absolute and his parts are relative to each other. Problem is he might have problems to express abstract ideas in a concrete kind of way.



 

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
So missing something makes me a sensor now? Should I agree with the article so that I can get my INTPness back?

I REALLY need to know what context we're using Evolution here.

Are we using the biological context?
If a generally S society would evolve to a generally N society then it would be better?

Here I agree that intuition is needed for a society to grow and respond to changes. But everyone has intuition. Just because we use it more often doesn't mean we're more superior as leaders or more influential. We use our Si to complement our Ti-Ne processes. Should we ignore it then?

Are we using the human development context? If so then a Ti-Ne-Si-Fe like me would 'evolve' to a Ti-Ne-Ti-Fe? I prefer to see that as we mature, we tend to figure out how to make the four functions get along with each other.

It is a debate on evolution (maturity of consciousness) and intuition versus sensation not typology as such.

Other than that i totally agree about what you say regarding type evolution / maturity being about differenciating and integrating all 4 functions.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
I get that we (as Intuitives) are (most) often not appreciated for our 'gifts' differing...I just don't think we do a good job convincing anyone about them when our argument (constructive argument) isn't very well crafted...I think (the article) is kinda of a lazy job...

On the premise of Type and 'evolution of type'...that Sensing 'evolves' into Intuition (is finally a superior manifestation of?) is just (again) effing lazy reasoning. And my point is that you can do more to obfuscate than clarify by being so ham fisted...

This topic of evolution is huge...multi-dimensional(?) and is not best addressed by considering one preference over and against another preference...or one model (type) without input from other (models).

Think of the Integral Model (AQAL) - All Quadrants, All Levels...multiple viewpoints. To imply evolution by preference (alone) is to say someone doesn't have access to a stage of development because they prefer sensing over intuiting...hmmmmm....?

And though (secretly) in considering our (shadow ridden) ESTJ dominant world I want to believe this...it's just too simple and falls apart under interrogation...

Do you have to (eventually) use your (inherent) intuitive capacity to ultimately grow? - absolutely. Maybe we should say we have to learn to use all our 'parts' to grow

We can't start calling our 'way'..preference best (most 'mature') and expect anyone else (especially those with varying preferences) to take us seriously...even IF that's EXACTLY what they (Sensors) are inclined to do to 'us'(Intuitives)...the 'expletives' that they are...bless their hearts...
 

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
To imply evolution by preference (alone) is to say someone doesn't have access to a stage of development because they prefer sensing over intuiting...hmmmmm....?
They don't prefer sensing over intuiting, they haven't yet evolved into using intuition. Maybe it is because they depend too much on society, while we depend on intuition alone (i.e something that comes from within) ?

My mum is a strong sensor (ISTJ in fact), i can pretty much do everything she does but in my case i DO PREFER intuiting over sensing because sensing is... boring (imitate, work, consume, reproduce), however she can't grasp abstract concepts and yet she tried, i have to break them into parts for her to understand them better, she does enjoy the ideas once she can grasp them, however she just don't take them on board in the end, therefore she just can't evolve, sadly !

So for sensors it is not a preference, it's more of a possibility that hasn't been "actualized" (yet) thru personal evolution.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Fellow brother (INTP)...fellow NT Tribesman...it's your thread...so if you want to submit as a final argument that your mother...you own 'Heart'...She who gave you - oh I don't know - only Life itself...should stand as proxy for all Sensors in the world...effectively Archetypal proxy for everyone that isn't an "N"...and that if she isn't ...consciously evolved enough to be inclined to use her intuition over her sensing...well then the world and all sensors aren't either...well I guess that settles that...

But I would like to submit - have you ever heard of the doctrine of Emptiness in Buddhism? Read the Heart Sutra? Again this is a subject of great great weight (much bigger than humble me - btw)...but Emptiness (the God factor) is said to be found by form (in fact being human, this 'precious human embodiment'...is said to be 'precious precisely because we have a material world...concrete world...and senses to relate to that world through).

The 5 senses are valuable because they allow us to cultivate the 'wisdom' of emptiness in/by all form...and thus purify 'mind'...which is Conscious and Subconscious mind)...all mind...Self...Soul...big words (big topic)...anyway...by my thinking the 5 Senses then are a huge and necessary advantage and to have them (even use them primarily) doesn't disqualify you from being able to (also) use your intuition to ascertain (ulitmately 'realize') emptiness...the point being that both are necessary to 'evolve'...which means even Jason Bourne can become Buddha (a whole new order of Being)...even the Action Hero can (not saying he will)...but can achieve Enlightenment
 

Montresor

Banned
Local time
Today 12:30 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
971
-->
Location
circle
What it really sort of reminds me of is the same kind of reasoning that Hadoblado exposed in his Piaget thread, which one of the posters replied something like:

"N can apparently access S reasoning (technical error but carrying on) but not the other way around" ...
 

Spirit

ISTP Preference
Local time
Today 12:30 AM
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
508
-->
This article is exceptionally N biased.


Sensor hate is present quite often with us intuitives. This article talks about it in detail:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/06/on-the-bias-against-sensation/

It is likely that "sensor" hate is more of a backlash against a society that does not value "intuition". It is the quiet kid "putting vinegar in his drunk dads beer while he is passed out".

Passive Aggressiveness and the "N" not putting value on tradition and living in the moment?
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 3:30 PM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,049
-->
Location
Philippines
This article is exceptionally N biased.


Sensor hate is present quite often with us intuitives. This article talks about it in detail:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/06/on-the-bias-against-sensation/

I like this little gem from the article that you linked:

Others still are attracted to typology, not because they want a tool that helps them understand and appreciate others, but because they want a system that confirms to them that they are superior to others. To such people, we have no good advice.
 

Valentas

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
506
-->
Bag, the article bashes away sensors. I don't like that. We are not superior to them. When that guy will do a survey of 1m+ people who are Ns and Ss, then we can see the trend. Now his opinion is just a mix of stuff from the Internet which he absorbed somewhere on the Net. I think intuitive would not write such a BS article because if you have no proof, then you would understand that it's a waste of time. For him it is to satisfy the ego.
 

doncarlzone

Useless knowledge
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
426
-->
Location
Scandinavia
Fellow brother (INTP)...fellow NT Tribesman...it's your thread...so if you want to submit as a final argument that your mother...you own 'Heart'...She who gave you - oh I don't know - only Life itself...should stand as proxy for all Sensors in the world...effectively Archetypal proxy for everyone that isn't an "N"...and that if she isn't ...consciously evolved enough to be inclined to use her intuition over her sensing...well then the world and all sensors aren't either...well I guess that settles that...

This is one of the main issues I have with MBTI in general. People know one ISTJ and presume that all other ISTJs must be like that, or all sensors for that matter.

My father is an ISTJ and he falls pretty well into the stereotype and is very much a sensor. However, I also have a very close friend who is an ISTJ and he is very well capable of grasping abstract ideas together with me and an INTJ. Sometimes, he even comes up with interesting theories, often theorized down to a spreadsheet but pretty abstract none the less.

And to the main topic of the article, how do you define influential anyway? Do you have to be a famous person in history to be influential? I am not sure but I'd argue that you probably need a big ego to be an influential historic person.
 

DIALECTIC

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
281
-->
This is one of the main issues I have with MBTI in general. People know one ISTJ and presume that all other ISTJs must be like that, or all sensors for that matter.
My father is an ISTJ and he falls pretty well into the stereotype and is very much a sensor. However, I also have a very close friend who is an ISTJ and he is very well capable of grasping abstract ideas together with me and an INTJ. Sometimes, he even comes up with interesting theories, often theorized down to a spreadsheet but pretty abstract none the less.
Well maybe your friend is an ISTJ constantly on the grip ie a "negative" ENFP ? My dad is an INFP scoring / mostly acting as an ESTJ due to 40 years of direct influence from my ISTJ mum... I have plenty of time for my dad when he acts true to his type, but i stay away when he acts like a (fake) ESTJ. In fact, when he does my mum has more intuition than he does and all his spontaneity vanishes, instead he acts like a sensor from hell who is extremely close minded, keeps moaning about what the neighbours may do or think or plan etc.

I am not sure but I'd argue that you probably need a big ego to be an influential historic person
I agree with you. However usually such a big ego is induced by unresolved unsecurities dating from childhood like an absent father. The bigger those unsecurities, the bigger the ego...
 

Pizzabeak

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 11:30 PM
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,668
-->
Looks like sensor hate is necessary to making this idea work. Sounds pretty radical, but he keeps saying "I'd rather be known for making people mad by saying this stuff than being a sheep"; etc, so perhaps there is an ulterior motive, albeit subconscious so that the subject in question is unaware or unable to see it, involved here. Would such a thing take any credibility away from the theory/speculation?

I'd be interested in the dynamics between N & S, as in, ENTP/ESTP... Ne/Si & Se/Ni. They seem related. Using one causes some other function to be the opposite. Technically, what is the opposite of Ne? Is it Se, Ni, or Si, or all three? If we have an ENTP that sometimes displays characteristics of the ESTP stereotype, what is the basis for that? Sometimes "under stress" other functions should take over for some odd amount of time... If Se ends up replacing Ne, then the Si will turn into Ni traditionally. Apparently someone already said Ns can do the S thing but Ss can't do the N thing though. This could not even be a thing though, just amateur exercise.. How do we get to the bottom of it? Do we just propose and discuss ideas until they seem valid enough.

So if we have an ENTP who is in a special mood, an Se influenced mood, where he feels like basking in all the sensations... Say there's a ready food supply available and he's having fun there, as well as absorbing other things and substances into his body - is that an indicator that he's ESTP in the first place or did some process happen. There'd be some mechanism that changed the inferior Si to Ni. The actions being performed that fit the dominant Se, aux Ti tert Fe stereotype must come with a consequence attached! Similarly, I wonder if there's an INTP who had technically went through some stress or something... Say he's bored and decides to indulge in substance consumption... Say, he notices he's acting rather Se like instead of Ne like, as a consequence, the Si must be Ni if only temporary. Or is this not the case.

Regardless, I don't really like the way the author writes in the article. Hope I don't sound like him whenever I write.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 7:30 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,866
-->
I wish. I found that on average, Sensors make better bosses, because managing is mostly about dealing with the issues of the present.

I think you totally missed the point of the article... In fact, paradoxally, that's usually what sensors do !

Fundamentally, the author means intuition (the power to see what yet can't be seen or the power to imagine what no one else has thought about or the power to read between the line or the power to anticipate the conflictual) is an evolutionary trait. Sensation ultimately evolve to intuition !

I can relate A LOT in this article, as, sadly, i behaved as a (fake) sensor for the 2/3rd of my life... As a sensor i absolutely followed others and i was close minded, but as the true intuitive i was always meant to be, i became self-reliant, questionned everything, my mind started to expand and basically my whole life changed, my health improved, my finances went up, i swapped all my friends who were bad influence for BOOKS instead, got rid of my neurosis, started meditation, changed my whole diet... etc. And where do all my old sensor friends stand nowadays ??!! Well behind...
So this is about YOU.

YOU thought YOU were a Sensor. YOU evolved your psyche to accept intuition. YOU benefitted by adding intuition to your life.

Kudos for improving your life.

But please, remember that there are over 6,500,000,000 people in this world other than you. That's a LOT of people. You don't really need to defame most of them, just to point out that you developed and improved as a person, do you?

How about talking about the wonderful ways in which you improved your life, not generalising about everyone else, and letting everyone else decide how that works for them, eh?

What do you think?
 
Top Bottom