Examples of Sensor Brilliance

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

i wanted to create this thread because i think we have quite a deeply rooted problem in the online typology community -- and particularly in the forums specifically catered to Ns -- where we devalue the Sensor variant(s) of intelligence, and by extension people who are Sensors.

sure, most of us might agree that for the most part it is all a gag, that we know they are smart in their own way, and that we're just celebrating that which makes us us... but in my opinion this kind of jesting and teasing can and does snowball into much more severe phenomena. that is our nature as humans.

the problem has, in fact, become so severe that it is very common for newcomers to the subculture to feel strongly inclined to self-identify as one of the N types, even when they are very clearly Sensors. i do not think it such a leap to argue that in many cases people who openly identify as Sensors will have their opinions, observations, and preferences devalued purely for the merit of being a Sensor.

but alas, i digress somewhat... my intention is not to ethically reprimand you: i am not self-righteous; i understand that we all need Yeshua, so to speak.

but i do think it is myopic and sort of pathetic to only value one form of intelligence, and this is typically the NT kind over others, as far as this subculture goes.

so without further ado, go ahead and post examples of Sensors -- real-world or fictional, i guess -- whom you find brilliant in their own way. i will post my own example momentarily...

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Sherlock Holmes

ISTP

to be clear, i write about the Sherlock of the original written series by Arthur Conan Doyle. i have not read the entire series, but i have read a fair portion. in contrast, i know next to nothing about the numerous TV and film adaptations.

he gets typed as INTP fairly often, but make no mistake: this man, who can't even name all of the planets in our solar system, cares none whatsoever for any sort of big-picture understanding of reality; instead, he chooses to devote himself almost wholly to the study of crime, with a few trivial hobbies on the side, e.g. the minutiae of the many varieties of tobacco leaf. moreover, he strongly prefers facts over ideas, and while he does make terrific use of his tertiary Ni in solving crimes, he makes it pretty clear that he values imagination only insofar as it allows him to come up with a multitude of possible interpretations, which he carefully weighs one against the other, and which in turn allow him to make perfect sense of, the facts at hand.

beyond his love of criminal puzzles, he lives not for the exploration of boundless Ne possibility, but rather at the height of Se epicurean-ness: good food, plenty of money, a cozy and comfortable living space, drug binges, smoke, coffee.

as an INFP, i can't for the life of me pay any mind to sensory details in my environment; in fact, i can't even focus on a single subject for reasonable amounts of time. i am a total ADD space-case and this is why i will most likely never be as good at solving crimes as Sherlock is, even though i consider myself extremely skilled at exploring and picking apart ideas.

it is Sherlock's keen eye for sensory detail, his ability to remain fully intellectually and attentionally present in his physical environment at will, as well as his application of his internal logic and extensive knowledge on virtually all topics relevant to his work, that makes him so good at solving such practical problems as enigmatic crimes. he is a textbook Sensor, and he is absolutely brilliant at what he does.

so there you have it...

 

[J-man]

I have serious doubts whether sensing even exists.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Can you please site any sources pertaining to his love of good food, and coffee nonetheless? Otherwise his career and upbringing more or less account for his wages; he just pays the rent. Obviously, sometimes doesn't necessarily need a monetary reward.
Being a product of the times, most just wonder why he devoted much energy to that particular career path and interest. I've yet to see definitive proof of his type but his faculties are remarkable either way.
Now, since this thread includes fictional characters there should be plenty of examples. I thought it would mostly be irl examples.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Can you please site any sources pertaining to his love of good food, and coffee nonetheless?

well, you have to understand he's a Ti foremost, and that he gets caught in Ti-Ni loops when he's working, so all his Se epicurean preferences have to be understood in that light. so for the most part it's food for thought, but he is Se nonetheless.

good food: i notice he has his food prepared by a private chef and that he goes for really rich foods.

coffee: early in The Hound of the Baskervilles, when Watson gets back to Baker St. from wherever he was, Sherlock says he has "remained in this armchair and has, I regret to observe, consumed in my absence two large pots of coffee and an incredible amount of tobacco."

this charming article has more details as to that stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/6661702/The-Kitchen-Thinker-Sherlock-Holmess-diet.html
^if you pay close attention to the content, you'll see other evidence for his Sensor-ness too

Otherwise his career and upbringing more or less account for his wages; he just pays the rent. Obviously, sometimes doesn't necessarily need a monetary reward.

true, he was wealthy and accustomed to such things.

Being a product of the times, most just wonder why he devoted much energy to that particular career path and interest. I've yet to see definitive proof of his type but his faculties are remarkable either way.

yes, Watson himself observes that Sherlock could have been nearly anything, including an artist or actor... im not sure anyone can really answer that.

i think i've made a very strong case, but... typology is not really a system that readily lends itself to deduction. most every instance of typing is insurmountably inductive in nature.

i think if we got into the more neurological facets of the theory and really got down to typing by brain-scans and such, then we could come up with some solid results. but otherwise, it's just partial observation and ultimately flimsy reasoning...

Now, since this thread includes fictional characters there should be plenty of examples. I thought it would mostly be irl examples.

frankly, half the reason for this thread was so i could write about Sherlock through the lens of Myers-Briggs, LOL. but i also think it's important to understand Sensors can be intelligent too.

but evidently, no one else on this forum is inclined to argue that Sensors can be brilliant :P

you going to post about a brilliant Sensor now?

 

[Pizzabeak]

Well, true. If I were to review notes there might be more but I always remembered Holmes's palate via his work habits, that being bare minimum. Doyle always wrote about him not being particularly interested in food no doubt due to his occupation. Obviously, being realistic, he would need to take meals probably whenever convenient, and certainly wasn't picky. He doesn't have a personal chef, just Mrs. Hudson, whom Holmes pays the rent to and gives a hard time. His main thing were pipes, of which smoking purportedly helped with his job. Quite frankly, coffee and tea are beverages and being widely available, were there out of necessity most likely, although I'm sure he liked it. Being British, that and any descriptions of the meals in that manner would have to be a literary tradition and while tickling fancy I personally wouldn't go so far as to say it suggests he is a particular foody. Which he may very well be, but the evidence seems flimsy for it to mean that, generally. I would say it's worth more research, but also, having Watson remark that, just suggests something else even more. He could be a brilliant person of any type devoted to the work of criminal law, which may mostly be SJ material, for example. Yet, the fact he knows nothing of astronomy; etc must mean he devotes all or most of his study to the few areas he knows will help it. Later on when a murder is suggested to be the work of supernatural he merely remarks that if its, he can be of no help there. Whether this means he disregards such thing is one notion certainly but it also means he must willingly sacrifice it for the sake of his expertise in that one area, hypothetically. And given those reasons it could be seen what his motivations are. Ultimately, I may hesitate to say that he may have had to become a little bit of what he never rally would have during the first few years of his publication. Although, I am not wholly dismissing the notion of an ISTP type for him.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

^understandable, good sir, most understandable. i could write a great deal more on why he is ISTP, but i don't want to overburden you and this thread, so i will abstain.

but i do think i will go read some more Sherlock right now...

ideally, the real beauty of reading mysteries is in solving them yourself before the detective does, but i am not quite patient enough for it; i just want to keep reading! it is sad that, once having read through a mystery, it will never quite capture you the same way again, and there are a finite number of Sherlock mysteries available as Doyle is now dead...

anyway, nice seeing you around these parts again. it's been a while...

 

[Pizzabeak]

Really the only thing is his astute observation. Intps are just known for being the observer in groups. But automatically, given his training, his Pe seems dominant or S. Can't think of any popular sensors right now besides maybe some actors or athletes? Or maybe some academicians.

 

[Analyzer]

beyond his love of criminal puzzles, he lives not for the exploration of boundless Ne possibility, but rather at the height of Se Epicureanism: good food, plenty of money, a cozy and comfortable living space, drug binges, smoke, coffee.

You clearly have a very limited and superficial view of Epicureanism. Your basically regurgitating what the Church said of the philosophy, hence why it is viewed by the masses as you stated it as.

 

[Black Rose]

Ep·i·cu·re·an·ism
ˌepəkyəˈrēəˌnizəm,-ˈkyo͝orēə-/
noun
an ancient school of philosophy founded in Athens by Epicurus. The school rejected determinism and advocated hedonism (pleasure as the highest good), but of a restrained kind: mental pleasure was regarded more highly than physical, and the ultimate pleasure was held to be freedom from anxiety and mental pain, especially that arising from needless fear of death and of the gods.

"freedom from anxiety and mental pain"

I need this badly

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

You clearly have a very limited and superficial view of Epicureanism. Your basically regurgitating what the Church said of the philosophy, hence why it is viewed by the masses as you stated it as.

you realize a great many words have more than one meaning, correct? this is regardless of the specifics of the origin of the word. language naturally evolves over time.

here is the Oxford English Dictionary entry for the word: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/epicurean

the meaning of the word which i have utilized for this thread is very clearly included. although i guess you are correct in that i should have used a slightly different form (i.e. "epicurean" and not "Epicurean" or "Epicureanism"). my mistake.

 

[Pizzabeak]

He's not epicurean, although it may be hard to say.
He loves music but as an end rather than means. Similarly, he may enjoy an opera or some such but these are usually reserved for after hours. No, he loves and lives for his specific work, and is the only thing stimulating enough to really put him at ease.
So he may indulge in music and the other activities after exhausting a case, and smoke copiously to help stimulate his mind enough should he run into a wall. If there's free time there could be discussion on it, otherwise he may quickly move on to the next assignment or study a small muse and subsequently write about it. There's no indication that he's as boisterous as you make it sound, seems like you've got it all backwards honestly.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

@Pizzabeak

Lol OK, guess we will have to delve further into this. might as well make it a "Let's Type Sherlock Holmes" thread out of it at this point.

but i don't want to get into that just yet, so consider this a placeholder...

BTW, you haven't cited any sources whatsoever yourself, friend :P

 

[Pizzabeak]

Yeah I meant to but am kind of busy. I was going to throw in a few passages about his eating habits when I find them, as well as some of the more later stuff when he contemplates some facets of existence; etc briefly. Still kind of wondering about the epicurean thing though, it depends on the true most accurate definition of it, but now I wonder whether he unintentionally practiced it or what have you. He seemed to have a very routine lifestyle.

 

[Yellow]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but Sherlock Holmes isn't a person. Doyle was never exactly known for his brilliantly realistic characters. He focused more on the idea of the story. Professor Challenger was a similarly unrealistic character (though more type-able than Holmes, IMO).

How about real sensor brilliance? I can go a step further and expound on SJ brilliance!

They remember shit. I mean they REALLY remember. They remember numbers, dates, to-do lists, etc. They're like remembering demigods. We have this one administrative assistant (seems very ISFJ) whose mind is like a steel trap. The program she works in easily has 300 active clients at a time , and she doesn't just remember all of them. No, she remembers all of the old clients too, going back years. She remembers who their probation officer is, she remembers who their counselor is, and when they have their weekly group therapy. She remembers when a random client's medicaid is going to run out. She remembers that another random client (who hasn't even come in yet) has rescheduled 3 times. She doesn't look this shit up (though her records are immaculate) she just remembers.

They pay attention to stuff too. Like, if someone is talking in the other room, they notice and listen and glean information from it. I can't even imagine knowing how to always have my ears always turned on in real-time-active-mode. That would be crazy having to work on something and pay attention to my surroundings.

 

[Hadoblado]

Fictional:
Basically all action heroes and chosen ones. Sherlocke maybe? His character is just system mastery over human interactions and causality. The method of the writers is to start with a conclusion then justify it. He's not realistic so I don't think it's useful to type him, but he is the sort of character that sensors and thinker look up to.

TBH most female characters come off as not intuitives, but I think that's more to do with lazy writing, and it doesn't necessitate that they're sensors either.

Most lawyer type NPCs come off as smart but Si oriented unless they're the endboss or are otherwise given special treatment.

It's difficult in fiction because the only way to read intuitives is for them to demonstrate it somehow, and the intuitive trope lines up with the relatable trope. If a writer is making a character who is quirky or smart, they immediately tone up their intuition because trope.

I actually think Watson is a fairly decent depiction of someone with sensor qualities. He's smart, but the writers haven't gone and given him all the genius tropes. He's capable and sensible and relatable.

IRL:
David Mitchell comes off as a Si user to me and he's incredibly witty.
Chris Pratt?

I dunno, I don't really admire that many people I guess.

 

[Pizzabeak]

He's obviously a fictional character and the typing of him is merely reserved as an exercise particularly for intps and the like not only to help understand him but also to try and gleam a thing or two about mbti. It isn't always realistic, nor practical and arguably worth it, yet it obviously persists as an engagement of sorts for the topic. Needless to say Doyle based Holmes off one of his professors who in many ways resembles Holmes. Joseph Bell could have been intp ISTP or even infj, but even that wouldn't matter that much and I'm sure Doyle would have said himself that Holmes has no type or his a metaphor for something and things like that.

I haven't read many of the second hand Holmes adventures authored by people other than Conan but I hear they're mostly good and probably do a good job of representing the character. I believe some of it canon, but for mainly artistic reasons feel it could be reasonable to focus on the Doyle written ones. Holmes values Watson for many psychological reasons. Watson was in part based on the author himself so there could be some realistic qualities there, plus they tried to make him look dutiful, a respectable quality, and even Lestrade earns some of Sherlock's respect later on for being good at his job, or at least passionate. Sherlock only comes off as N in so far as his interactions with people, and there he seems to exhibit classical Jungian dominant Ti qualities irrespective of anything else. I guess you could say arguably Si. I think he's good in some of the adaptations but obviously RDJ or BC could kind of exaggerate it a little bit. He still gets impatient when people are slow to catch on to his mentality or thought process, and is sometimes very realistic, and admits that he doesn't know everything; that's not how he works.

He speaks of his brother whose brain exhibits vast connections and worked as a Gov't database, his job being to collect and store information, and connect the dots for crime related reasons. He would sometimes need Sherlock to do a job for them. I'm not sure if that kind of thing would be ideal for an intp but I sometimes hear people type Mycroft actually as intp, almost rather than or as well as Sherlock. Sometimes actual royalty come to him for cases or are involved - sure some fair amount of character may be missing but I think he tried to keep it semi realistic even given what he does pull off. It could be because of Watson, but there's a heavy Si aroma regarding the tales, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but Sherlock Holmes isn't a person. Doyle was never exactly known for his brilliantly realistic characters.

funny, i agree with the statement i've heard that he's the most realistic superhero of them all. Batman might be a close second.

thanks for your RL contribution. i admire their ability to pay attention too. for instance, i couldn't for the life of me not think about what felt like a hundred different things within the hour when i should have been focusing on the details of job training this past week...

we had an ISTJ trainer, for example, who was extremely well put together and delivered his presentation in an amazingly clear and organized manner. so much detail. sadly, most of it went in one ear and out the other for me...

i can see why some of my Sensor friends sometimes wonder whether im mentally handicapped in some way. i think perhaps we Ns all have those days where words on a page/screen make no sense whatsoever; you'll read it over and over and over again and still nothing sticks... i've also heard of brilliant mathematicians having days when they're not able to add up a simple column of numbers -- things like that...

i don't get mad though. they just don't know the insanity and sheer beauty of iNtuition

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

i don't really want to spend too much time on this, but let me try to explain some of my thinking...

Yeah I meant to but am kind of busy. I was going to throw in a few passages about his eating habits when I find them, as well as some of the more later stuff when he contemplates some facets of existence; etc briefly. Still kind of wondering about the epicurean thing though, it depends on the true most accurate definition of it, but now I wonder whether he unintentionally practiced it or what have you. He seemed to have a very routine lifestyle.

this is the definition i am going by:

2 (epicurean) A person devoted to sensual enjoyment, especially that derived from fine food and drink.

he isn't "devoted" to it, like i said earlier, but you have to remember the context. we're discussing whether he is ISTP or INTP. ISTP is a lot more likely to have epicurean proclivities, since Jung says the goal for Se types will be to live life in as much sensory pleasure as possible. it isn't necessarily bestial. it can be very refined and controlled, as this is what a mature Se looks like.

INTPs are far more likely to live minimalistically and instead be devoted to exploring intellectual possibility. the N will give them a big-picture orientation, even if they have a specific specialty they have developed for work. Ne lends itself to really scattered interests and a tendency to get lost in thought. Sherlock does sometimes speculate about big-picture things, but he obviously lacks that overall big-picture fixation which defines virtually all iNtuitives. Sherlock is also extremely skilled at living in the moment.

furthermore, in the same way that Ne is expansive and interested in a wide array of intellectual topics, so too is Se curious about a great many sensory pleasures.

i know for a fact that Sherlock goes on cocaine binges. i'm pretty sure he goes on opium binges. he smokes a ton of tobacco. he drinks plenty. notice that his hobbies outside of work involve sensory stimuli: he likes going to concerts; he likes going to the museum of art to look at paintings; he likes studying the details of the leaves of the many tobacco plants. he understands very well how to use his physicality (Se); he understands, and is even enthusiastic about, aggression and violence (also Se). INTP would be much more likely to, say, habitually read a book about a topic they know little to nothing about as a way to relax and entertain themselves.

the list goes on and on...

whereas someone like Dr. House (INTP) is also a drug addict, but prefers to focus on one drug: prescription opiates. this is because Si is intensive, digs down deep into one or a few sensory stimuli.

if we look at his cognition, this also backs up his being a Sensor. clearly he is a storehouse of information. but the way in which Sensors store and process information is very different from how iNtuitives do it. Sensors will tend to store information and have it there in their memories intact. there is little to none of the synthesis that iNtuitives apply to their information.

this is because Sensors tend to think it is "wrong" if they alter the information they memorized in any way.

the way Sherlock synthesizes his data for solving cases is much more like the way Sensors store information. for the most part, everything stays intact, he just pulls it up as it was and applies the info as is. his use of Ni is impressive, he definitely makes some remarkable inferences, but this activity doesn't leave any kind of lasting mark on his long-range knowledge base. his syntheses and inferences are ephemeral, lasting only as long as the length of the given case.

Mycroft, as you said, is the one who forms all these connections and "melts" his data down into unrecognizable forms in order to mix all of it together and produce something new altogether. this is what iNtuitives do with their information.

and indeed, the information as it was originally becomes very hazy, we don't remember facts and details nearly as easily as we remember the ideas we derive from them, which we're much more excited about. this incongruity is why the tendency tends to tick Sensors off.

He's obviously a fictional character and the typing of him is merely reserved as an exercise particularly for intps and the like not only to help understand him but also to try and gleam a thing or two about mbti.

right, the whole point to this thread is to show people, particularly Sensors, that Sensors can be smart too, and that it's OK to be any given type. it doesn't in itself make you dumb or less of a person.

if anything, i think NTs will sympathize completely with the fact that the bias that exists in our subculture leads to massive inaccuracies in typing. so there, you have a good reason to think differently about, and to laud to a certain extent, Sensor intelligence now.

Lestrade earns some of Sherlock's respect later on for being good at his job, or at least passionate.

LOL i just got done reading one where he's bagging on Lestrade's cluelessness right in his face.

I guess you could say arguably Si.

nah, IMO he extraverts Sensation and introverts iNtution. he is very often removed from his own body (poor Si). he does all the theorizing and sifting and weighing by himself (strong Ni + Ti). never does he bounce possibilities, or any kind of incomplete speculation, off Watson or others (poor Ne). he only shares his final conclusions with other people.

It could be because of Watson, but there's a heavy Si aroma regarding the tales, if I'm not mistaken.

not sure, haven't paid much mind to this. will be on the lookout for that...

 

[Turnevies]

I think this might be a fundamental difference between N's and S'es. One refers to 'brilliance' when a person thinks of or achieves extraordinary things where an 'ordinary' person is not capable of. The concept of 'brilliance' is always relative to most people. Because of this, N's are automatically more likely to be considered brilliant, because an 'ordinary' person is part of the majority, and hence an S.

Do I mean by this that N's are generally better than S's? Not in itself. Society is organized for S'es to flourish. If you want success as an N, you gotta learn to develop your S'ness sufficiently in order to get somewhere, while you still have your N background. An S doesn't need to develop much N in comparison to achieve the stuff he's interested in.

In the end, N's will fail a lot with tasks that should not be very demanding, and occasionaly come up with genius insights.
S's on the other hand are far more consistent in their capabilities. They will keep executing their task, without too much daydreaming long-term vision but also making a lot less mistakes with this fixed task than an N.

 

[Architect]

They laugh at us for our gaffes and general ineptitude, and we laugh at them for their inability to see anything more than 2 inches beyond their noses. What's the problem? They are stupid, the dumb clucks do everything as a group and never see the train wreck up ahead. Meanwhile we spend our lives arguing such stupidities as what type Sherlock Holmes was, take your pick.

The word 'brilliance' however is generally used with the type of thinking that N dominants excel at so I think you have a poor choice of terms there.

 

[TheManBeyond]

tarantino is listed as ESFP in celebrity types
i like his movies, i think we can all agree they are fucking cool
vladimir putin listef as istp
i think he's a character
eminem? snoop dog? they are also cool even if u don't like their music we can agree they are hugely successful people in what they do
then depends what you mean by brilliant

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

i like his movies, i think we can all agree they are fucking cool

no

 

[redbaron]

The best sensor.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

They laugh at us for our gaffes and general ineptitude, and we laugh at them for their inability to see anything more than 2 inches beyond their noses. What's the problem? They are stupid, the dumb clucks do everything as a group and never see the train wreck up ahead. Meanwhile we spend our lives arguing such stupidities as what type Sherlock Holmes was, take your pick.

LOL so true

but do you at least care, as i predict NTs should, that a culture of N worship throws off results by introducing a bias that will make Sensors in our community feel strongly inclined to type themselves as some kind of N?

The word 'brilliance' however is generally used with the type of thinking that N dominants excel at so I think you have a poor choice of terms there.

*shrugs*

Yellow's example of that SJ she knows strikes me as brilliant.

basically, "brilliant" to me is a mind that stands out as exceptional among the greater body of minds where it's a uniform or similar kind of intelligence that defines them as a group. clearly, comparing Sensor intelligence to iNtuitive intelligence is apples to oranges.

so by looking at it this way, we can say that there are plenty of iNtuitives out there who are unremarkable, lackluster, nothing special---if we compare them to other iNtuitives, as i think we should. and then you have those Sensors who are going to shine amongst their peers because they represent the pinnacle of their brand of intelligence.

anyway, too late to change it now...

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

They laugh at us for our gaffes and general ineptitude, and we laugh at them for their inability to see anything more than 2 inches beyond their noses. What's the problem? They are stupid, the dumb clucks do everything as a group and never see the train wreck up ahead. Meanwhile we spend our lives arguing such stupidities as what type Sherlock Holmes was, take your pick.

you joined the forum in 2010 and yet your posts read like someone who came across a couple of typology memes for the first time and thinks they have people figured out

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

I think this might be a fundamental difference between N's and S'es. One refers to 'brilliance' when a person thinks of or achieves extraordinary things where an 'ordinary' person is not capable of. The concept of 'brilliance' is always relative to most people. Because of this, N's are automatically more likely to be considered brilliant, because an 'ordinary' person is part of the majority, and hence an S.

like i was saying to Architect, i think comparing Sensor intelligence to iNtuitive intelligence is apples to oranges. i think if we look at iNtuitive intelligence specifically, we will obviously find that the majority of iNtuitives are nothing special---hence, not brilliant.

so for instance, we don't compare professional skateboarders to computer programmers and argue about who is more talented. that would be ridiculous. we compare computer programmers to computer programmers to determine who among them is more skilled at what they do.

the same is obviously true for Sensors: most are nothing special. but you have those few, just like with iNtuitives, that represent the zenith of their brand of intelligence.

we could probably even go a step further and break it up into NT, NF, SP, and SJ intelligences. we could even go further than that...

basically, the essence of this thread is to say that intelligence is not some homogeneous, one-dimensional thing which you either have or don't have. there are different kinds, and different degrees thereof...

Do I mean by this that N's are generally better than S's? Not in itself. Society is organized for S'es to flourish. If you want success as an N, you gotta learn to develop your S'ness sufficiently in order to get somewhere, while you still have your N background. An S doesn't need to develop much N in comparison to achieve the stuff he's interested in.

you might be right about that

In the end, N's will fail a lot with tasks that should not be very demanding, and occasionaly come up with genius insights.
S's on the other hand are far more consistent in their capabilities. They will keep executing their task, without too much daydreaming long-term vision but also making a lot less mistakes with this fixed task than an N.

i think so

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

tarantino is listed as ESFP in celebrity types
i like his movies, i think we can all agree they are fucking cool

they are pretty awesome

eminem?
then depends what you mean by brilliant

oh i would totally argue that Eminem is brilliant. have you heard his first album? it was when he was still underground. it's called "Infinite" and it's sooooo badass. IMO it beats anything he has made since then...

 

[Sinny91]

Eminem <3

Scanner Darkly threads <3

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

The best sensor.

the best redbaron:

Spoiler

man i love brick oven!

 

[Brontosaurie]

you joined the forum in 2010 and yet your posts read like someone who came across a couple of typology memes for the first time and thinks they have people figured out

Ah ISFP dismissal talent, sensor brilliance

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

cute try but im an untype-able ethereal lifeform and my ways are mysterious

 

[Brontosaurie]

LOL

 

[Fukyo]

Stop flirting guise, you're making everyone uncomfortable.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Stop flirting guise, you're making everyone uncomfortable.

ISTJ brilliance

 

[Fukyo]

ISTJ brilliance

Thanks.

 

[QuickTwist]

I might be a sensor, not sure. I'm not any kind of brilliant, tho. My father is a hardcore sensor and his observational capabilities make me feel very lacking. His memory is pretty sharp as well - wish I had that honestly.

Its hard to place myself on the S/N spectrum because I do have a lot of different ways I think, but I don't at all think I am at all superior for it or that my ways are in any way superior. I am pretty open to possibilities and am willing to consider the alternate perspective, but sometimes I feel I would be much better off if I could just note accurate observances and make a simple conclusion from that rather than going through the hell of not knowing at all if I am even in the right stadium. I'm in a constant flux of not knowing if I am right or not and its annoying as hell. On the other side of the coin, I tend to relate things by association quite a bit based on random memories. Its far from perfect but it usually does the job.

 

[Architect]

but do you at least care, as i predict NTs should, that a culture of N worship throws off results by introducing a bias that will make Sensors in our community feel strongly inclined to type themselves as some kind of N?

No. One I don't think we have a culture of N worship, rather this is a small puddle of intuition camaraderie and discussion in an ocean of sensor dominance. The few Sensors that show up are generally clear enough to me but doesn't bother, everybody mistypes themselves when young, typically towards the inferior stack (but along T-F and E-I). The few that really stick out - the obvious sensors who make a big deal about being intuitive I'll usually gently (I hope) suggest they dig deeper. Whether in embarrassment or just getting a handle on themselves they unfortunately usually leave sometime after.

Anyhow, generally N's don't mistype themselves as S's and vice versa. The unfortunate mixups that show up in this little eddy are just nice variety and decoration to the community.

 

[Architect]

I might be a sensor, not sure.

Mixed up S dominant IMO. Your version of addled confusion differs from the home grown variety that intuitive dominants possess; you wear it like a cloak.

 

[Black Rose]

@Architect

You seem to be very stoic. What do you think of all the INTP's here that go head long into Fe game threads? Fe has even made me confuse myself as being ESFP. If you look at my signature where I link to a whole bunch of my threads, some people think I am Ni dominant. What happens when INTP's give into their Ne and Fe? Zerkalo said I was a "forum god" in the label the user above you thread. I have been trying to figure out Artificial Intelligence since I was 12 but no one taught me how computers work. I have completely been in Ne mode my whole life. Every time I try to do Ti stuff I get sad and just quite. Sometimes I know what I want to do but can't, other times I don't know what I should do at all. I really want to test my ideas but no one I know in real life (irl) is into the stuff I am into.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

so without further ado...

Eminem <3

OH FUCK IT'S A SET UP!!!

~time to get shady~

 

[QuickTwist]

Mixed up S dominant IMO. Your version of addled confusion differs from the home grown variety that intuitive dominants possess; you wear it like a cloak.

What do you mean, wear it like a cloak? I can assure you you have not come across many people like me. My confusion stems partly from the fact that I do think differently than most people. Don't know if you've been paying attention to what I have said about myself, but I suffer from a mental illness that occurs in <.5% of the population which in part stems part of the confusion I have about myself.

[Edit] I feel I might have to correct myself, since I was under the assumption that when you said I wear it like a cloak that I was faking it. Nothing could be further from the truth and it is my paranoia talking that lead me to believe that. I am intrigued that you consider me an S dom though. I might be inclined to ask why you think this, but I doubt I'm get an explanation that satisfies me and will prolly end up with more paranoia as to what you mean. Still, would like to ask you about it.

As far as not being sure of myself in the way intuitives are, I have simply come to the conclusion that I am different from both intuitives and sensors in this manner. To put it clearly, its not that I lack understanding or reasoning its that I am not confident in it. I mean, yes there are plenty of things I consider myself ignorant of, but my being unsure of a conclusion primarily has to do with what cannot be known for fact - I get caught in limbo about what is the "real" truth that is happening. For example I will think tirelessly about what causes me to be the way I am, but ofc there is only so much a person can analyze about themselves truely to get any certainty as to who they are and why they do what they do, not on a superficial level such as "I prefer the internet because I don't like to converse with people irl" but deeper to go such as "Why do I not like to converse with people irl? Why does it cause me anxiety?"

 

[Sinny91]

OH FUCK IT'S A SET UP!!!

~time to get shady~

They call me Slim Shady
I'm back
I'm back​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2MYLvghgJw

My baby's mom, bitch made me an angry blonde
So I made me a song, killed her and put Hailie on
I may be wrong, I keep thinkin these crazy thoughts
in my cranium, but I'm stuck with a crazy mom
("Is she really on as much dope as you say she's on?")
Came home, and somebody musta broke in the back window
and stole two loaded machine guns and both of my trenchcoats
Sick sick dreams of picnic scenes, two kids, sixteen
with M-16's and ten clips each
And them shits reach through six kids each
And Slim gets blamed in Bill Clint's speech to fix these streets?
FUCK THAT! PBBT! Tou faggots can vanish to volcanic ash
and re-appear in hell with a can of gas, AND a match
Aftermath, Dre, grab the gat, show 'em where it's at​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXfeyuoyyqw

 

[TheManBeyond]

i would say john frusciante is an ISFP and he's pretty damn good at what he does, this Fi in music is always overwhelming, man paul macartney composed tonshit of ace songs c'mon
tigerwoods did an awesome job in golf
michael jordan anyone? ffs?
lionel fucking messi???
50 cents survived several shootouts and he's a sucessful enterpreneur, ok this one is more debatable cuz u don't know the details of his sucess in economics
my sister is an estj and she's getting paid tons shits of money while i'm eating my own shit
emma watson also is doing well
harry potter is listed as an enfp but i doubt it... i think he's a sensor and he knew how to leave behind the potter character and enter in different cool roles in different movies, horror, comedy, creepy weird stuff, romance, etc and i think he hasn't dissapointed me yet there, not even the movies

 

[QuickTwist]

On topic:

I think Dan Harrington qualifies as a successful person. He's ISTJ by my estimation and has earned millions playing Poker, Backgammon and Chess.

 

[cheese]

My confusion stems partly from the fact that I do think differently than most people. Don't know if you've been paying attention to what I have said about myself, but I suffer from a mental illness that occurs in <.5% of the population which in part stems part of the confusion I have about myself.

What's the mental illness you suffer from?

 

[QuickTwist]

What's the mental illness you suffer from?

I've said this a lot. Schizoaffective Disorder. Its basically a combination of Schizophrenia and Bipolar without being a dual diagnosis. Against my better judgement I share this with people hoping they will come to an understanding about me. The problem is that there is a stigma about mental illness and people either accept you for it, or just plain ignore you for it.

Glad you used the right way to phrase it btw.

 

[cheese]

Thanks for sharing. Now that you mention it, I do recall you saying so. I just didn't realise Schizoaffective was so rare (<.5%) so I assumed there must be something else I hadn't heard of.

I think most people on this forum have suffered mental illness at some point or another, tbh. You're certainly not alone. I agree it can be used as a weapon against you whenever it serves someone's goals.

 

[Architect]

I feel I might have to correct myself, since I was under the assumption that when you said I wear it like a cloak that I was faking it.

No, sorry that was a subtle point I should have clarified. I don't mean you are faking it, but that it seems to come from a different place than it does with an intuitive. Could be wrong, just going from internet posts here.

 

[Architect]

@Architect

You seem to be very stoic. What do you think of all the INTP's here that go head long into Fe game threads?

They're young, age (usually, or should at least) make you tired of inferior games.

What happens when INTP's give into their Ne and Fe?

They become musicians, at least that's what I did