How Intuitives (especially IN's) and Sensors look to each other.

[Athenian200]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while now. Intuitives really look all the same to them: we appear to overanalyze everything, and seem to care about nuances that they consider ridiculous. If you look at it from their perspective, they're right, because we always try to understand a thing's underlying nature, and/or what it means. From a sensing perspective, everything usually simply means what it means on the surface, and there is no more to see. They think we are mad because we discuss things that don't exist in their world, intangibles. They are even more afraid when we seem to peer beyond what they believe to be absolute reality, forcing them to confront a (to them) nightmare world of complexities and hidden assumptions that make them very uncomfortable.

But if you think this makes them dull, then consider that Sensing is exactly the same nightmare for you. It's the likely reason why you're here, on the Internet, instead of out there, in their world. For the most part, it really is their world we live in, and that's what scares us.

However, we do need each other. Sensors become complacent about doing things according to a consistent tangible process, place, or thing. When what they're used to stops working, they have trouble finding a new paradigm to accord themselves with. That's where we come in. We analyze what's changed, what something meant, what they found in it, and can tell them what the idea they cared about was, even though the thing or process itself is gone or ineffective now. With this new understanding, they can find new processes and things to wrap themselves up in.

Intuitives usually become complacent in the reality of things. We become so absorbed in what something symbolizes, or what could happen as a result of it, that we fail to acknowledge or react to the existence of the thing itself. When we try to react to it, we react poorly. We know how to invent ideas and procedures, but we aren't as good at adapting these to the "real" world, which has a Sensing nature. This can be illustrated in the difficulty of the question, "What do you want to eat?" This question, if answered honestly, takes a lot of thought for us. It involves no principles, no emotions, no greater meaning. It is based on what's available, what "tastes good", and things that are hard for us to consider. Usually we just mask this by finding one or two things that don't disgust us, and ordering these when asked, relieving us from thinking on such matters. We can become so focused on making things adhere to a particular scheme or idea that we become oblivious to the reality that we are molding, unable to realize that it has become unneccessary, that what's there already works well, or that our idea would be better implemented in a different place or context.

In our daily lives, we can't get along, and usually ignore each other as though we inhabited different planes of reality, because in a sense we do. They live in the world around them, in terms of things, places, processes. We live in the world inside of, yet beyond that world, the one that lurks in it's shadows. We contemplate what a place should be like, what it's purpose is. We evaluate the way things are, and compare them with how we'd like them to be, or how they accord with their own purpose or meaning. They evaluate things as they are, and think about what they'd like to do with things in that context. We are so different, it would almost seem that we couldn't both be human, but we prove that we are when we cross unwittingly into the other's reality, where they either help us through, or take advantage of our weakness. And both of us must face this trial, whether it's from ideas to reality, or vice-versa.

[Cindyrella]

I don't know about not getting along in our daily lives. You really think so? Hm. I think I have a pretty funny dynamic with certain S types, but usually only if they're male. I tend to find (E)ST(J) women very arrogant, unfriendly, bossy, and competitive. And they're know-it-alls. Of course, I'm speaking entirely from the perspective of an INFP female.

On the other hand, I know an ESTJ male with whom I seem to get along fairly well. I mean, it's nothing more than a shallow work relationship, and I don't know him well enough (nor do I associate with him nearly enough) to really judge this with any depth. Plus, he's probably a 6-9 years my senior, if not older. So I don't know if that has anything to do with it. I actually had him take the MBTI at work, and he referred to it as touchy feely BS and related it to the likes of astrology. Personally I find him funny, and we enjoy poking fun at each other VERY sarcastically. As an aside, he did admit the ESTJ portrait was accurate of him.

[Athenian200]

Well, what you described is mostly what I meant. I meant that they can relate superficially, but not very meaningfully, because our respective realities mean little or nothing to each other, at least until a certain point appears that allows our realities to intersect for a while, like a common problem or a crisis.

[Cindyrella]

Do you think gender (like what I described) has any play in it? I literally only tolerate the ESTJ female I know, but I actually genuinely like the male ESTJ. As an N female I project different feelings onto male and female S's.

I know your post was speaking in much broader terms, but I just find this specific possibility interesting.

[Athenian200]

Well, it certainly could, but that would only make sense if you were subconsciously attracted to the male ESTJ. If you aren't, then it shouldn't make any difference.

Also, do the two of them have the same mannerisms and personality outwardly? They might have intrinsics other than type that make one less likable, and one more likable. If you try picturing each of them as the opposite gender, do you find your feelings for them reversed?

["?"]

Originally Posted by athenian200

I've been thinking about this issue for a while now. Intuitives really look all the same to them: we appear to overanalyze everything, and seem to care about nuances that they consider ridiculous. If you look at it from their perspective, they're right, because we always try to understand a thing's underlying nature, and/or what it means.

First off you are not describing intuition, instead the introverted thinking (Ti) function. Furthermore, as usual for whatever reasons most intuitive forms can get beyond the fact that Se and Si are completely different, as is Ne and Ni. So when you make generalized statements, you are not describing SP types, only SJ.

Originally Posted by athenian200

From a sensing perspective, everything usually simply means what it means on the surface, and there is no more to see. They think we are mad because we discuss things that don't exist in their world, intangibles. They are even more afraid when we seem to peer beyond what they believe to be absolute reality, forcing them to confront a (to them) nightmare world of complexities and hidden assumptions that make them very uncomfortable.

Again, that is a double edged sword, because the reality that is usually shared is less of reality, instead based on a flawed understanding of type. As someone who has been typing on the forums for years, I become quite intolerant of the intellectual untruths that are thrown around by intuitive types. I think at least for myself, and other ISP types that I have spoken with, we find it humorous that intuitives just don't get it and appear to lack knowledge of type basic principles. Again, each type uses all eight functions in some capacity, so what you describe above is not only untruthful, but just dead wrong.

Originally Posted by athenian200

But if you think this makes them dull, then consider that Sensing is exactly the same nightmare for you. It's the likely reason why you're here, on the Internet, instead of out there, in their world. For the most part, it really is their world we live in, and that's what scares us.

Now you are describing I/E. How many EN types do you see lurking on the forums?

Originally Posted by athenian200

When what they're used to stops working, they have trouble finding a new paradigm to accord themselves with. That's where we come in. We analyze what's changed, what something meant, what they found in it, and can tell them what the idea they cared about was, even though the thing or process itself is gone or ineffective now. With this new understanding, they can find new processes and things to wrap themselves up in.

And this is more a J/P thing. Do you truly think that SPs are incapable of adapting? I do agree that we like things to be consistent, however there is no evidence or indication that NJs adapt better than SPs. There was an article on the Socionics website years ago, that provides a good illustration of how J/P works. As you can see, it is the Judging types who are incapable of adapting. Once again, for whatever reasons this forum fails to be capable of making the finer distinction between intuitive and sensing.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by "?"

First off you are not describing intuition, instead the introverted thinking (Ti) function. Furthermore, as usual for whatever reasons most intuitive forms can get beyond the fact that Se and Si are completely different, as is Ne and Ni. So when you make generalized statements, you are not describing SP types, only SJ.Again, that is a double edged sword, because the reality that is usually shared is less of reality, instead based on a flawed understanding of type. As someone who has been typing on the forums for years, I become quite intolerant of the intellectual untruths that are thrown around by intuitive types. I think at least for myself, and other ISP types that I have spoken with, we find it humorous that intuitives just don't get it and appear to lack knowledge of type basic principles. Again, each type uses all eight functions in some capacity, so what you describe above is not only untruthful, but just dead wrong. Now you are describing I/E. How many EN types do you see lurking on the forums? And this is more a J/P thing. Do you truly think that SPs are incapable of adapting? I do agree that we like things to be consistent, however there is no evidence or indication that NJs adapt better than SPs. There was an article on the Socionics website years ago, that provides a good illustration of how J/P works. As you can see, it is the Judging types who are incapable of adapting. Once again, for whatever reasons this forum fails to be capable of making the finer distinction between intuitive and sensing.

I'm a bit perplexed. First of all, Ti is my tertiary function, so I couldn't have been describing it. Also, I know the difference between SJ's and SP's. SJ's are judicious, prompt, and regimented, and value institutions, and specific procedures. SP's are chaotic, random, aggressive, and rather tasteless. What they both have in common is a tendancy to have more of an awareness of what happens, rather than it's meaning. They just learn how to do things, but they don't usually try to discover the meaning or the principle behind the things they do or the things that exist, they are just accepted as standards (for SJ's) or as realities (for SP's). They react to them differently, the SJ's trying to maintain things the way they've seen them before, and the SP's just dealing with it as existing, and doing with it whatever makes them feel good at the moment, without pausing to contemplate what it represents. I wasn't talking about adapting to your environment, that's what SP's excel at. I was talking about understanding the meaning or purpose behind what you do, rather than merely the procedure or object (for SJ's), or the event or process (for SP's) I apologize for my unclear word choices.

You are right that all types use all functions, but the point is that using anything other than your first two or three functions (dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary) is very uncomfortable or difficult. My point was to illustrate that both types need each other, not to imply that Sensors are worthless. Didn't you see that?

["?"]

Okay, I attempted to respond, but as usual the system only post my first sentence. Will have to wait until the system allows me to repost.

[wildcat]

The "?" ISTP said you are not describing an intuitive process but a Ti process. I disagree. There is no Ti process. The functions unite and they work united. Ti is either Se or Ne, and yours is surely Ne. Besides, you are a Fi Ne and you can turn it around and be a Ni Fe.

Ti may be the tertiary function of your type but it certainly is not your tertiary function. You have the ability to use diverse function mechanisms in a high level.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by wildcat

The "?" ISTP said you are not describing an intuitive process but a Ti process. I disagree. There is no Ti process. The functions unite and they work united. Ti is either Se or Ne, and yours is surely Ne. Besides, you are a Fi Ne and you can turn it around and be a Ni Fe.

Ti may be the tertiary function of your type but it certainly is not your tertiary function. You have the ability to use diverse function mechanisms in a high level.

What do you mean? An Fi Ne would be an INFP, not an INFJ. And you're saying that Ti isn't my tertiary function? Read any website on type, and you'll see that an INFJ's (or ISFJ's) tertiary function is Ti. How can a person's tertiary function be different from their type's tertiary function? You're describing a paradox. Ti both is and isn't my tertiary function? That's impossible...