Jag,
I think she is newer to this stuff and thus takes it more seriously than it really is. You can always spot the newbies when they talk about sensors as if they are a different species. I mean c'mon we all use s and n. I'd even venture to say there are many "s" types who have developed their intuition beyond that of many supposed "n" types. To paraphrase all of the psychologists and psychotherapists I have drilled on the subject, MBTI is much more useful as lighthearted cocktail party conversation than it is as way to understand others.
Yes.
Seriously, I say things about "Sensors," half-jokingly (especially considering that in the case of ESTPs, I should be complaining about my own shadow) but I wouldn't make any judgments about an individual until I got to know them. If I liked them as individuals, I certainly wouldn't think less of them if I found out their type.
"Sensing" is just the best way to describe, within MBTI, the qualities that frustrate me most in people. But there may be no such thing as sensing. If you want my honest opinion, I don't think Sensing/Intuition is a real dichotomy. People usually use it to mean several things.
The whole point of MBTI is that everything you say about someone else, is only from your own perspective, a projection of how you relate to that part of yourself. People seem to forget that and take part of the system with them, trying to apply it as if it were externally valid like an aptitude test. And along with that, people take things said about types as if it were a statement about an actual group of people, like racism, instead of taking it correctly as a statement of one's feelings towards one's own set of projected internal archetypes.
So, with that, I'll leave you with two thoughts:
"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."
"It takes one to know one."
I hope you're being facetious.
Even if I weren't, it still would be very funny and ironic (though it would mean I was really stupid and lacking in self-awareness).
