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.