Now why would I make such a cliche, ironic and probably posted before topic?
Because I was wondering about the nature of intuitive functions and the way in which they build for themselves an idea or perception based upon one factor.
Of course this becomes more complex when it is split into Ne and Ni.
But at face value sensing functions seem to be the least likely to generalise because both Si and Se build a picture based upon many details at once.
Se tends to take it as it comes, whatever is in the external environment arrests the attention and becomes the immediate sensation.
Si tends to relate through a complex set of previously experienced sense impressions, although this can be extremely individual from Si user to Si user. So they might not remember a certain fact from a history lesson because it did not leave and impression, but another one might be remembered because it did.
Of course all 4 perpectionary functions are based around and subject to context, perhaps more so than the judging ones.
In any case im not trying to say something stupid like Intuitive types are generalisers and Sensing types are not.
More that generalisations in general could be more a product of Intuition than Sensing.
I will also mention that this might be a product of weaker Intuition than stronger, but since that implies Sensing types will generalise more I cant put that forth completely since it would clash with my own understanding of individuals and also make this a very ironic topic, besides I can't believe that unless I saw evidence for it.
More than anything else it might just be Intuition in combination with a negative usage of a judging function.