I think that most 'intuitives' are mistyped sensors, and the test needs redesigned.

[entropie]

I still dont understand why noone calls you crazy if you run on the street telling everyone you are entp, but everyone thinks you are crazy when you run on the street and tell everyone you are a spacepilot

 

[AOA]

Well the point of the OP was basically "It was so hard for me to admit I'm a sensor, so maybe it is hard for the current intuitives as well." And my proposition is maybe it was actually hard to become S because you actually are N. If the new type doesn't seem right, then it probably isn't.

I'm pretty sure I'm intuitive because that's what I show preference for. It isn't much more difficult than that =P

Ah, right, lol.

 

[funkadelik]

Perhaps it's easier for people with their perceiving function being extroverted sensing/intuition (ESxPs, ENxPs) and introverted sensing/intuition (ISxJs, INxJs) to see where they sit on the N/S divide and harder for others when it's their judging function (because following it is the inverse in the tertiary function).

Using the OP as an example as an ISFP: Fi, [Se, Ni], Te. Or and ENFJ: Fe, [Ni, Se], Ti. The line gets a little blurry.

 

[Athenian200]

I still dont understand why noone calls you crazy if you run on the street telling everyone you are entp, but everyone thinks you are crazy when you run on the street and tell everyone you are a spacepilot

That's because most people know what an astronaut is, but don't know what an ENTP is.

Besides, it's considered acceptable to say that you're an Aries, Libra, Taurus or something in many circles... they would probably chalk it up to something like that if they knew what was going on.

 

[Aquarelle]

I don't know about that, I'm a definite N and my spouse is a definite S... and I can see major differences in the way we perceive the world.

For example, the other day he called me while I was at work, after office hours. All of a sudden, he's like, "Wow, isn't it a little late for the phone to be ringing in your office?" I said, "What? The phone wasn't ringing." I totally hadn't noticed it, but when I thought about it, I realized that my coworker's phone had been ringing. My husband heard it and noticed it from the other end of a phone call with me, and I didn't notice it when I was sitting right next to it. He takes in information through his senses, WAY more than I do. Of course I use my senses too, but a lot of times I don't notice things like that until they are pointed out to me.

 

[skylights]

That's because most people know what an astronaut is, but don't know what an ENTP is.

seconded

I've actually met a number of ISFP's that believe they are an INFP, INFJ, or ENFP. It's typically because they have a strong Ni and a strong idealism, and so they believe themselves INFP or INFJ... when they're so obviously stereotypical ISFP with a definite showing Se. But this is typically something I've noticed of real life friends that don't really have a deep interest in mbti... merely took it for a class or because a psych major friend had them do it. So, I guess it shouldn't bother me... but for some reason it does.... because I think, "You're an absolutely ah-mazing ISFP and you need to embrace it!"

yeah, i could see how an ISFP could seem really NF, especially given a strong tertiary. some ENFPs seem really SP, too... personally i relate about as much to the artisan temperament as the idealist temperament.

but like aquarelle pointed out, most Ns are sensory fails. i definitely do not even notice huge changes in a room sometimes because i'm so up in my head about some abstract thing or another. minus ENFJs, who are lucky to have tert Se (though ime, it's unusual to find an NJ who is unsure of their type).

 

[Randomnity]

but like aquarelle pointed out, most Ns are sensory fails. i definitely do not even notice huge changes in a room sometimes because i'm so up in my head about some abstract thing or another. minus ENFJs, who are lucky to have tert Se (though ime, it's unusual to find an NJ who is unsure of their type).

Some Ss are sensory fails too, strange as that may seem. Being interested in sensory information isn't quite the same as noticing everything that goes on around you, unfortunately. I'm often looking around me but it's like "hey look at that" "look at that" "look at that" not seeing the whole environment. Last night for example, I was looking at the pretty snow falling on my walk home and didn't see anything else at all.

 

[Poki]

Some Ss are sensory fails too, strange as that may seem. Being interested in sensory information isn't quite the same as noticing everything that goes on around you, unfortunately. I'm often looking around me but it's like "hey look at that" "look at that" "look at that" not seeing the whole environment. Last night for example, I was looking at the pretty snow falling on my walk home and didn't see anything else at all.

I think a huge part of Se is "not" taking things inside. Leaving them out in the environment, so to say. Which means we may focus on "oooh shiny" and leave everything else in the environment. Or other times we may notice everything but still not take things inside.

 

[AOA]

ummmmmmm. no.....

Some Ss are sensory fails too, strange as that may seem. Being interested in sensory information isn't quite the same as noticing everything that goes on around you, unfortunately. I'm often looking around me but it's like "hey look at that" "look at that" "look at that" not seeing the whole environment. Last night for example, I was looking at the pretty snow falling on my walk home and didn't see anything else at all.

... I don't really want to take this further with you, but what is it specifically you're trying to say? *Out of interest.*

 

[IZthe411]

Some Ss are sensory fails too, strange as that may seem. Being interested in sensory information isn't quite the same as noticing everything that goes on around you, unfortunately. I'm often looking around me but it's like "hey look at that" "look at that" "look at that" not seeing the whole environment. Last night for example, I was looking at the pretty snow falling on my walk home and didn't see anything else at all.

True...

Sometimes I fail to see something right in front of me, and I'm the butt of the joke.

Additionally, it might be how the word is being used, but sensory information is not necessarily an interest of mine. My tendency is to pick up on what's around me, but it doesn't mean that's what my mind is focused on or what I want to discuss, or dwell on it. Interestingly, a lot of the stuff I remember I have no interest in retaining. It just sticks.

 

[Athenian200]

Some Ss are sensory fails too, strange as that may seem. Being interested in sensory information isn't quite the same as noticing everything that goes on around you, unfortunately. I'm often looking around me but it's like "hey look at that" "look at that" "look at that" not seeing the whole environment. Last night for example, I was looking at the pretty snow falling on my walk home and didn't see anything else at all.

The opposite is true as well. I'm hyperaware of my surroundings. I'm just not that interested in thinking about them, so I tend to seek environments that are stable and have little stimulation. But if something moves, or there's a sound... I notice it immediately, sometimes even when others don't. I even notice if something has been moved/changed since the last time I was in a room.

Being hyperaware of my surroundings is one reason that I can't stand insects or dogs. They both move around so much, in a disjointed, disconcerting fashion, and in ways you can't easily predict. I just want to... make them stop moving. I hate how I can't control them, and they're not guided by any kind of purpose of their own. I also tend to get freaked out when I hear unexpected noises.

So, for me, being N doesn't mean that I'm not aware of sensory information, it just means that I don't find it that interesting, and that I usually experience it in a negative way because it distracts me or makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Poki]

... I don't really want to take this further with you, but what is it specifically you're trying to say? *Out of interest.*

Basically that people take the N/S to extremes and can focus on what they "arent" ...thinking that an S would pick up everything that they dont. Propogating this N/S extreme based on there thinknig that they have a lack of S because of what they dont pick up.

Now what if it is just a place the person is in and just doesnt "feel" S or just doesnt "think" they are S.

 

[Elfboy]

a few points
1) you probably believe that most people who say they are Intuitive are Sensors because of the disproportionate number of Intuitives on Type C. logically, something like temperament theory and cognitive psychology would be more interesting to an Intuitive type. it's just like how you would find a disproportionate number of Sensors playing american football (although oddly enough I knew 5 ENPs in high school who played soccer/non american football, but I don't think this is the norm).
2) I think the test does a much worse job with Introversion/Extroversion than Sensing/Intuition. of course, this may possibly be because extroversion level is a spectrum. people are definitively N or S, F or T and P or J. for instance, an ENFP with balanced F-T still uses Fi and Te and not Ti and Fe like an ENTP, but an ENFP and an INFP use all the same functions.
3) whether the test is valid or not, verification through study is a must. the first time I took the test I came up INTJ, the second time ENFJ, and subsequent times INFP (what I usually get), INTP and ENTP.
4) similarly, understanding of what the functions actually are is necessary. NFs frequently mistype as NTs because we are usually pretty rational, logical people when we are healthy (the Rational archtype is an incredibly misleading Title)
5) I think MBTI should be taken along with Enneagram. to me, they're more confusing by themselves than together. for instance, an INTJ 8w7 might seem like an ENTJ, an ESFJ 7w6 might seem like an ESFP, an ENFP 4 might seem like an INFP or an ISFP 4 might seem like an INFP.

 

[Elfboy]

I think its likely that some Intuitors are actually Sensors but I doubt it is 80% of them. I am inclined to think that if there is a degree of doubt, they're a Sensor. The anti-Sensor discourse and BS stereotypes are the cause of the confusion - either because the render S undesirable and/or they simply paint an inaccurate picture of themI know . Actually I have probably the most trouble with the F vs. T questions. I often feel like I'm being made to chose between being a reasonable, rational but cold and heartless robot and an nonsensical, bleeding heart, sentimental sap. The best example of this is the "justice vs. mercy" questions; I believe in both and don't think them mutually exclusive!

YES! +1
the test makes feelers look like mushy, irrational emo people.

 

[Randomnity]

... I don't really want to take this further with you, but what is it specifically you're trying to say? *Out of interest.*

Oh, well, if you insist. Your post was so ridiculous I didn't think it needed a breakdown, but why not.

I also believe there's a huge distinction between an Intuitive, and a Sensor that we're miles off explaining it coherently.

This makes no sense. You didn't say why the S-N axis is a "huge distinction" compared to the other axes, and it's hardly obvious that it would be so.

For instance, a sensor is said to *live in the moment* whereas the intuitive tends to be *future oriented*.

If by sensor you mean SP and by intuitive you mean NJ. Even then, this is not necessarily a defining characteristic, as for all people, attention is required both for the moment (so you can actually function in real life) and for the future (so your life/career goes somewhere).

But I really can't buy into this contrast because it takes effort to be able to think about the future, and focus on future oriented goals. The fact that an intuitive does this, just really means a sensor doesn't *not* - but *can't* do it.

I'm struggling to understand your grammar here but it sounds like you're saying sensors can't think about the future because it's just so darn hard. This is a load of bullshit.

Both obviously *live* in the present moment, but it seems to me, it needs a sensor to be more forcibly aware of it, whereas it is natural for the intuitive.

Ok, I can believe an intuitive might fall into the pattern of thinking about the future more often (and maybe in more detail) than a sensor.

It's like me playing a videogame, and understanding the mode of play just by 'knowing' what to do. If I were a sensor, or if it were a sensor (in any case), (s)he'd struggle on what to do as a whole, and instead rely on sensory methods to *do this, do that, go this way, go that way, shoot like this, oh perhaps I could try this move* (and then theorise).

Ok bad analogy. Video games are not exactly difficult and we don't have to struggle to understand what's going on. Come on. We're not intellectually incapable.

Theorising is a SENSOR's need - NOT an intuitive's! Sensors need a manual, where it's all pretty much clear for the intuitive.

I'm sorry, what? Why on earth is "everything clear" for the intuitive but poor sensors need a manual because it's too darn hard to figure these things out? (durrrrrr)

I also don't think philosophers (per se) were exactly intuitives. I actually think sensors looked at intuitives, which gave them a rush of any thing that'd crossed the *mind* that's to jargon.

umm, ok. No idea where this fits into your post and it also doesn't make any sense, but ok.

But again, there is a huge distinction between an S, and an N.

You're still saying things without actually backing it up. Saying it doesn't make it true.

This would only really indicate, at least on a biological level, that intuitives have well-developed cognitives where the sensors do not.

I'm sorry, what?! You can't possibly be serious, is this just a really lame trolling attempt?

btw, cognitive is not a noun.

–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to cognition.
2.
of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.

Sensors live like this because they react to, and rely on their stimuli to aid their path ahead. I think this is why they rely on memory, and the ability to recall - to help the senses get results. They need *clues*.

You're right, N's don't need observation or memory - they just make up everything as they go along! Screw facts, they're brilliant enough to not need any external information!

Another thing is looking at how the mbti types are based. They're on a continuum. You can't be totally N on the continuum, nor could you absolutely be S - but rather somewhere in between, or smack on in the middle.

Yes....

However, I've also thought that this may be a misrepresentation, and it's only the N that is on the continuum, and S was put there as "zero intuition", which overall shows "you can be so much of an intuitive, but if you're not an intuitive, it must mean you're a sensor - and that's it".

Oh so you mean, you either have the capacity for intelligent thought to some degree (N) or you don't (S)? How very insightful of you.

Yep, you've sure convinced me that Ns are brilliant. Good lord. Go read a book (or ten) and maybe you'll get a (very faint) clue.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, an ISTP could do all the things an INTP would be doing (by default) - and ISTP's do go to university, and get degrees. That could be done by hard work, and practise. Thus, an ISTP could mimic the descriptions of an INTP, so long as it's going like that.

Beyond absurd. Seriously.

 

[entropie]

I still dont understand why noone calls you crazy if you run on the street telling everyone you are entp, but everyone thinks you are crazy when you run on the street and tell everyone you are a spacepilot

That's because most people know what an astronaut is, but don't know what an ENTP is.

Besides, it's considered acceptable to say that you're an Aries, Libra, Taurus or something in many circles... they would probably chalk it up to something like that if they knew what was going on.

Well the point is, it's all actually related. A full bottle of beer, the spacepilot, mbti and even God play a role in it. If you think about: when God created the universe he definitly had a masterplan. He thought to himself that it is important that people never develop the technical expertise to ever find him. So he decided to code woman the way that they go totally nuts about things like the mbti and are all day occupied with finding out about themselves. And it's true, if you talk about mbti your chances to score with woman are higher than to score on them by explaining them how you discovered saturn in your spaceship.

And this is the key to understanding the universe: God made engineers unsexy by design so they would eventually find it boring to be one and start to concentrate on things like mbti again to score with woman. And while I am writting this, I ask myself why I am sitting on a thursday evening at home, learning for all these boring engineering exams I will never understand and a full bottle of beer is waiting in the bar with none to pick her up

 

[KDude]

If by sensor you mean SP and by intuitive you mean NJ.

Yeah, I was under the impression that Ni was more along the lines of future-orientation. I think both veer off in juxtaposition more than SJs and SPs, but about the only person who bundled all of the Ns together was Keirsey. Jung or MBTI (or even Socionics) would paint of picture of Ne having more of a "multiple possibilities" approach, rather than having vision per se. Not to mention that NPs do have a grip on the "moment" (it's extroverted perception, after all) to kind of springboard their ideas.

Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions.

Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone’s behavior really means. It also involves seeing things “as if,” with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don’t know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking. Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership.

 

[guesswho]

Test:

1. Do you daydream a lot?
Yes
2. Are you often unaware of your surroundings?
Yes
3. Are you abstract thinker or concrete thinker?
Abstract
4. Can you easily see correlations between events?
Yes.

Congratulations. You're intuitive!

 

[Poki]

Test:

1. Do you daydream a lot?
Yes Do you daydream in actual color or in the abstract form of "color"
2. Are you often unaware of your surroundings?
Yes Then how do you notice the events in question 4?
3. Are you abstract thinker or concrete thinker?
Abstract You recognize red is a color therefore you think abstractly...see question 1. Do you really think abstractly?
4. Can you easily see correlations between events?
Yes. Both have ferris wheels, they must be the same event, or run by the same company...I think its a conspiracy with ferris wheel companies to only allow ferris wheels at the same events.

Congratulations. You're intuitive!

Follow up questions/statements in red.

I say we get a N vs S bash thread going for fun