Southern Kross
Away with the fairies
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,910
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sp
So I was daydreaming in the shower today and it lead me to thinking the nature of Sensing, and by extension, Intuition. I came to a few realisations that made me think about them differently and perhaps eliminate some of the sorts of problems that are created by the current, common language for understanding them.
This sort of relates to things I've been pondering lately about two Sensors and an Intuitive that I know (this is optional reading, so I'll put it in spoilers):
All this makes me think that Perceiving is not so much about whether your thinking is abstract or literal (or whatever), it's more to do with context.
I was also thinking about how we look at Judging functions. People often reduce the difference between T and F and being "logic vs. values", and that often irritates Feelers, as it implies that Thinking is superior and dismisses the Feeling world in a reductive manner. Additionally it fails to recognize that "values" are an indirect result of Feelers' mode of thought, not the means of achieving it. It is like defining professional cyclists as people who compete in the Tour De France, rather than as those who ride bicycles for a living.
This makes me wonder if way that people talk about N and S is dismissive, reductive and inaccurate in the same sorts of ways and if this is why a lot of descriptions bother Sensors. We say that the differences between N and S as being "conceptual vs. practical" or "abstract vs. literal" or "cerebral vs. sensory", but these never really fit in the right way. It seems there's a failing in the language that makes it hard for us to understand what these things really are; what the fundamental features of each are.
Looking back at those two examples I gave of Sensor behaviour it seems to me that Sensing is much better defined by its specificity, in contrast to my own Intuitive needs for breadth of understanding. Just as we need to remember that T and F are simply different means of evaluating information, N and S are different ways to perceive and establish context. Ns need more awareness of overall scope in order to comprehend things, and Sensors need more awareness of the specifics (be it through greater detail, personal experiences, more sensory-oriented information, established patterns/characteristics, more narrative driven information etc). In this sense, Sensors aren't less interested in discussing concepts, it's that they often find them too sketchy to easily address. They're not even sure where to begin and therefore lack the jumping off point to discuss them. It's not the concepts themselves that bothers them, it's the vagueness of it all and how prohibitive that is. And it's important to remember that Ns are equally on the back foot when it comes to the specificity of S communication; it can all seems random, arbitrary and bewildering to them until they gain a holistic frame of reference. It's also worth noting that when Sensors express themselves, the broader context is implied, and vice-versa for Intuitives. Both expect others will be able to infer that larger/narrower context from what is said, neither bothering to (or interested in) explicitly articulate it.
I think this sort of way of looking at it can also be applied to the individual functions too. There is a sort of way of defining Judging functions that I find useful:
Te - Objectively Objective
Ti - Subjectively Objective
Fe - Objectively Subjective
Fi - Subjectively Subjective
So this means that Te, for example, externally evaluates impersonal information, whereas, Fe externally evaluates 'personal' information. The same could perhaps be done with Perceiving functions:
Ne - Expansively Expansive
Ni - Specifically Expansive
Se - Expansively Specific
Si - Specifically Specific
So this means that Ne, for example, openly perceives a broad context, whereas, Se openly perceives a narrow context, and so on.
This makes me wonder about the implications this sort of definition suggests for the way we see Sensors. I confess I'm sort of surprised that it was Si that got the place of 'most specific'. Of course, it makes sense if you think about it, but I just assumed it would be Se based on the way I view the function. Also, in contrast to Ne, it gives Si an impression of being keen and discerning, rather than rigid as it is often portrayed. It also highlights the way that Se can extrapolate insights from a limited scope of experience and can learn tremendously well from this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, potential questions for discussion:
- What do you think of this way of describing differences in Perceiving?
- Do you agree or see flaws in it?
- Sensors: do you like this better than the usual descriptions? Why/Why not?
- Does it fit with some of the observations and experiences you have had with people of different types?
- If this is accurate, what other implications do you see for how we view N and S?
This sort of relates to things I've been pondering lately about two Sensors and an Intuitive that I know (this is optional reading, so I'll put it in spoilers):
A few years ago, my ISFP friend from university went back to the US with her Kiwi boyfriend. We talk now and then on skype or through email, but I'm constantly confused about what's going on in her life. Each conversation revolves around a series of things that have happened to her which leads to discussions about the issues surrounding them: such as stuff that happened to her on the subway or how she had an argument with her sister, or the strange behaviour of a colleague, or a run-in with a student (she's a teacher). What I never find out is, what her actual life situation is. I come into the discussion with a thousand questions about: the state of her relationship, whether she's still having problems with her mother, if she and her boyfriend still living with her sister, if she's working in a public school or back in a specialist arts school, if her boyfriend is working illegally or not etc etc - but I never seem to get the opportunity to ask them. It's not that I deeply care about these details (ie. for the sake of gossip or anything), it's just that they help me to understand the things she is going through, the tensions in her life, and the possible problems that may arise. I need these to help me put her experiences in context, in order to figure out her state of mind. What I'm usually left doing is trying to piece together random, off-hand things she mentions and try to guess what is going on in the big picture, which is next to impossible. Having a conversation with her like putting on a blindfold then strapping yourself into a roller-coaster and just going with it. This is usually a wonderful and enjoyable thing but can be very bewildering and confusing.
I've also recently begun to notice how random my ISFJ mum can be. We'll be having a conversation, and after a slight pause, she'll come up with some out of the blue statement that makes no sense at all, and is seemingly completely unrelated to the subject. Highly confused, I ask what the hell she's on about. She then offhandedly explains and I realise she's switched tacks and is talking about something the two of us were discussing half an hour ago, which has obviously been churning over in her mind. It's like there are 9 steps of thought she goes through on the subject and then she only verbalises the 10th. My ESTJ sister has taken to bursting out laughing when this happens, because even though it appears to make no sense, my sister completely understands what she's talking about, and goes about translating it for the rest of us. I used to think of this is a weirdo, Ne-inferior moment, where my mum is employing Ne randomness in an inept way, but now I'm starting to see it differently.
My ENTP cousin recently started university to study engineering and he was telling me the sorts of stuff he had been learning. He was showing me his simplified study notes and explaining what they were about; a lot of them defining very abstract physics concepts. We were both pretty good on the subject at school and are both fairly intelligent, yet the study notes appeared rather meaningless to me, and seemingly a little to him too. We had a discussion about how in general we both really like to understand the overall concept behind these things and how everything fits together, and that this was the way we learn best. He then said how it can be difficult with these classes because sometimes they tell you things and, "you just have to believe it". This really struck me. His statement really captured the way that Intuitives struggle to take on and accept the veracity of a piece of information without a sense of the broader context it exists in, and that this act of acceptance is akin to blind faith that it makes sense. Also interesting was that we were dealing with theoretical information, surely something NPs are good at, but yet it seemed so arbitrary and hard to grasp.
I've also recently begun to notice how random my ISFJ mum can be. We'll be having a conversation, and after a slight pause, she'll come up with some out of the blue statement that makes no sense at all, and is seemingly completely unrelated to the subject. Highly confused, I ask what the hell she's on about. She then offhandedly explains and I realise she's switched tacks and is talking about something the two of us were discussing half an hour ago, which has obviously been churning over in her mind. It's like there are 9 steps of thought she goes through on the subject and then she only verbalises the 10th. My ESTJ sister has taken to bursting out laughing when this happens, because even though it appears to make no sense, my sister completely understands what she's talking about, and goes about translating it for the rest of us. I used to think of this is a weirdo, Ne-inferior moment, where my mum is employing Ne randomness in an inept way, but now I'm starting to see it differently.
My ENTP cousin recently started university to study engineering and he was telling me the sorts of stuff he had been learning. He was showing me his simplified study notes and explaining what they were about; a lot of them defining very abstract physics concepts. We were both pretty good on the subject at school and are both fairly intelligent, yet the study notes appeared rather meaningless to me, and seemingly a little to him too. We had a discussion about how in general we both really like to understand the overall concept behind these things and how everything fits together, and that this was the way we learn best. He then said how it can be difficult with these classes because sometimes they tell you things and, "you just have to believe it". This really struck me. His statement really captured the way that Intuitives struggle to take on and accept the veracity of a piece of information without a sense of the broader context it exists in, and that this act of acceptance is akin to blind faith that it makes sense. Also interesting was that we were dealing with theoretical information, surely something NPs are good at, but yet it seemed so arbitrary and hard to grasp.
All this makes me think that Perceiving is not so much about whether your thinking is abstract or literal (or whatever), it's more to do with context.
I was also thinking about how we look at Judging functions. People often reduce the difference between T and F and being "logic vs. values", and that often irritates Feelers, as it implies that Thinking is superior and dismisses the Feeling world in a reductive manner. Additionally it fails to recognize that "values" are an indirect result of Feelers' mode of thought, not the means of achieving it. It is like defining professional cyclists as people who compete in the Tour De France, rather than as those who ride bicycles for a living.
This makes me wonder if way that people talk about N and S is dismissive, reductive and inaccurate in the same sorts of ways and if this is why a lot of descriptions bother Sensors. We say that the differences between N and S as being "conceptual vs. practical" or "abstract vs. literal" or "cerebral vs. sensory", but these never really fit in the right way. It seems there's a failing in the language that makes it hard for us to understand what these things really are; what the fundamental features of each are.
Looking back at those two examples I gave of Sensor behaviour it seems to me that Sensing is much better defined by its specificity, in contrast to my own Intuitive needs for breadth of understanding. Just as we need to remember that T and F are simply different means of evaluating information, N and S are different ways to perceive and establish context. Ns need more awareness of overall scope in order to comprehend things, and Sensors need more awareness of the specifics (be it through greater detail, personal experiences, more sensory-oriented information, established patterns/characteristics, more narrative driven information etc). In this sense, Sensors aren't less interested in discussing concepts, it's that they often find them too sketchy to easily address. They're not even sure where to begin and therefore lack the jumping off point to discuss them. It's not the concepts themselves that bothers them, it's the vagueness of it all and how prohibitive that is. And it's important to remember that Ns are equally on the back foot when it comes to the specificity of S communication; it can all seems random, arbitrary and bewildering to them until they gain a holistic frame of reference. It's also worth noting that when Sensors express themselves, the broader context is implied, and vice-versa for Intuitives. Both expect others will be able to infer that larger/narrower context from what is said, neither bothering to (or interested in) explicitly articulate it.
I think this sort of way of looking at it can also be applied to the individual functions too. There is a sort of way of defining Judging functions that I find useful:
Te - Objectively Objective
Ti - Subjectively Objective
Fe - Objectively Subjective
Fi - Subjectively Subjective
So this means that Te, for example, externally evaluates impersonal information, whereas, Fe externally evaluates 'personal' information. The same could perhaps be done with Perceiving functions:
Ne - Expansively Expansive
Ni - Specifically Expansive
Se - Expansively Specific
Si - Specifically Specific
So this means that Ne, for example, openly perceives a broad context, whereas, Se openly perceives a narrow context, and so on.
This makes me wonder about the implications this sort of definition suggests for the way we see Sensors. I confess I'm sort of surprised that it was Si that got the place of 'most specific'. Of course, it makes sense if you think about it, but I just assumed it would be Se based on the way I view the function. Also, in contrast to Ne, it gives Si an impression of being keen and discerning, rather than rigid as it is often portrayed. It also highlights the way that Se can extrapolate insights from a limited scope of experience and can learn tremendously well from this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, potential questions for discussion:
- What do you think of this way of describing differences in Perceiving?
- Do you agree or see flaws in it?
- Sensors: do you like this better than the usual descriptions? Why/Why not?
- Does it fit with some of the observations and experiences you have had with people of different types?
- If this is accurate, what other implications do you see for how we view N and S?