Prejudice against Sensors?

[Qre:us]

Q, you squeezed in there too quickly. My response was intended for the poster above you.

Leavin' now, carry on....

PS - to try to stay on topic, I think a lot of the prejudice is in how we get a skewed understanding of intuition to infer 'intelligence' ('smarter', more 'visionary', etc).....again, how these terms are defined, the words used...

 

[swordpath]

Arguing with my INTJ co-worker is fun/annoying.

 

[juggernaut]

Leavin' now, carry on....

PS - to try to stay on topic, I think a lot of the prejudice is in how we get a skewed understanding of intuition to infer 'intelligence' ('smarter', more 'visionary', etc).....again, how these terms are defined, the words used...

Don't cry! I'm just slow.

As far as the rest of the post, I guess what I should have said is that I don't think N is really the greatest indicator of intelligence. It may be the case that the smart ones know to keep their eye on what can actually be seen. Is thinking abstractly intelligent or just a matter of being tuned out to reality? I, personally, would love to get through just one day with my mind wholly here in the present physical realm if for no other reason than to see what it's like. But that's just one goofy N's take on the whole thing...

 

[Sentura]

i anticipated you would at least try to question the reasoning i did in my post, but alas...

 

[juggernaut]

what i'm saying is that sensoring is just that: sensoring. it's not a function, it's a tool used by the other functions to determine what is and what isn't. sensing isn't opposite of intuition, because sensing isn't a function. things are just interpreted through non-intuitive functions instead.

you have no proof anywhere of the existence of a S function anywhere else than just the observational tools you get from your 5 senses. and without proof, you can only have belief or assumption.

i anticipated you would at least try to question the reasoning i did in my post, but alas...

Relax buddy, Q was in tears.

Now, as far as your commentary regarding the S function, you seem to be conflating having senses with the S function. Yes we all do have senses, but no not all of us rely on them to the same degree. Sensors seem to be tied more strongly to the concrete, while Intuitives live in the abstract. There is as much a difference between these two ways of being/thinking about the world as there is between J/P or F/T or I/E. You may not see it, but it's there. As far as proof goes, it's the same proof we have of any of the other functions, the subjective accounts provided by people who are living in and thinking about the world. There is nothing more that we can get. That's true of all of the so-called functions. If you think there's something that is unique or different about the S/N function that's your prerogative but it looks like you're just picking and choosing from this end. S is not an absence of N. If anything, it's a difference in priorities.

If you want hard empirical data that can be objectively qualified and quantified on any of the functions, I hate to break it to you but you're going to be shit out of luck.

 

[Sentura]

i don't conflate it, i just don't believe it exists.

you still don't seem to be getting my point. worse yet, you make no logical deductions as to why i am wrong.

i would compare intuitive people against non-intuitive people somewhat like this (an analysis of how (sensory, by the five senses) data is processed in the mind.):

non intuitive:

sensory data -> (functions: T, F, any undiscovered functions) -> memory -> intuition

intuitive:

sensory data -> intuition -> (functions) -> memory

for non intuitive persons, the data is immediately taken up by other functions, where a semantic* will be created with a reference to the data. data deemed unnecessary by either functions will be discarded. The data is then processed further to memory, where it is stored. if for some reason memory wants to erase the given data from memory, it is first delivered to the intuition, which will remember the data subconsciously.

for intuitive persons, data is first processed through intuition, which then selects how data is represented to other functions. by emphasizing key points for a function to associate with. in this way, functions much faster and easier understand how data operates, at the expense of leaving out some data (necessary or unnecessary). the data is then moved to memory for storage. the full data also persists subconsciously in intuition, in contrast to a non intuitive person whose intuition only stores how the data is interpreted by other functions.

intuition in this sense can be considered a catalyst for understanding, since it picks up firstly and entirely what is going on. this may explain why intuitive people do not start at the same level as non intuitive people for understand basic everyday lives; how there is a certain naivety among certain intuits. thus, non intuits start at a higher base of understanding, but intuits learn faster and may eventually exceed the understanding of non intuits; and in the process, create a new base of understanding.

but i digress. i have enough of this to write my own theory, which i aim to do as soon as i get enough merit to do so.

my point here is that, as you can see from the model, is no sensing function. there is sensory perception, which as a tool is used by either functions directly or the intuition buffer. in my head, this constitutes enough proof that a sensory function does not exist.


footnote:
* by semantic i mean the "meaning" of the object; how the given function remembers what the object is.

 

[juggernaut]

i don't conflate it, i just don't believe it exists.

you still don't seem to be getting my point. worse yet, you make no logical deductions as to why i am wrong.

i would compare intuitive people against non-intuitive people somewhat like this (an analysis of how (sensory, by the five senses) data is processed in the mind.):

non intuitive:

sensory data -> (functions: T, F, any undiscovered functions) -> memory -> intuition

intuitive:

sensory data -> intuition -> (functions) -> memory

for non intuitive persons, the data is immediately taken up by other functions, where a semantic* will be created with a reference to the data. data deemed unnecessary by either functions will be discarded. The data is then processed further to memory, where it is stored. if for some reason memory wants to erase the given data from memory, it is first delivered to the intuition, which will remember the data subconsciously.

for intuitive persons, data is first processed through intuition, which then selects how data is represented to other functions. by emphasizing key points for a function to associate with. in this way, functions much faster and easier understand how data operates, at the expense of leaving out some data (necessary or unnecessary). the data is then moved to memory for storage. the full data also persists subconsciously in intuition, in contrast to a non intuitive person whose intuition only stores how the data is interpreted by other functions.

intuition in this sense can be considered a catalyst for understanding, since it picks up firstly and entirely what is going on. this may explain why intuitive people do not start at the same level as non intuitive people for understand basic everyday lives; how there is a certain naivety among certain intuits. thus, non intuits start at a higher base of understanding, but intuits learn faster and may eventually exceed the understanding of non intuits; and in the process, create a new base of understanding.

but i digress. i have enough of this to write my own theory, which i aim to do as soon as i get enough merit to do so.

my point here is that, as you can see from the model, is no sensing function. there is sensory perception, which as a tool is used by either functions directly or the intuition buffer. in my head, this constitutes enough proof that a sensory function does not exist.


footnote:
* by semantic i mean the "meaning" of the object; how the given function remembers what the object is.

Well, you've certainly got yourself a nifty little theory there. As for the logical deductions you seek, there are none to be made here as there are no necessary truths in anything you've presented. Deduction is, therefore, not an option. I've already given you the inductive evidence we have available but, alas, induction is induction. Lovely, useful, practical, and generally all we've got... but never certain and never deductive. I'm going to bow out and wish you the best in your endeavor on that note, as I do not wish to fuel the fire in the great T/F war by clobbering you with your own weapon (logic). Thank you for the interesting take (twist?) on the functions.

 

[Jaguar]

Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.

Distrust hunches?
Perish the thought.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

...Sensation is a cognitive process beyond the mere physical act of receiving the source of sensory information. This is scientifically proven. If it's proven that Senses exist in a cognitive manner, I hardly see room for debate here about whether or not Sense exists as a cognitive function.

Also... being perception does not mean something is not a function. Perception consitutes half of all functions. Intuition is perception too. They quaify as such because they are both subconscious receivers and generators of information.

 

[Cimarron]

I do think, as a Sensor, I'm more prone to the "I'll believe it when I see it" line of thought. By that, I mean it is my default mode, and only over the years of trying other approaches do I rely less on that, but I think it is still at the foundation.

 

[Sentura]

...Sensation is a cognitive process beyond the mere physical act of receiving the source of sensory information. This is scientifically proven. If it's proven that Senses exist in a cognitive manner, I hardly see room for debate here about whether or not Sense exists as a cognitive function.

Also... being perception does not mean something is not a function. Perception consitutes half of all functions. Intuition is perception too. They quaify as such because they are both subconscious receivers and generators of information.

if it has been scientifically proven then why is MBTI not scientifically accepted? plus, you list no sources as to whether a sensing function truly exist. without merit, i'm inclined to disbelieve you.

 

[Saslou]

Arguing with my INTJ co-worker is fun/annoying.

+1.

Note to oneself - Don't discuss/argue with a fellow co-worker INTJ at work about the death sentence. Lmao.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

if it has been scientifically proven then why is MBTI not scientifically accepted?

The answer to this is obvious. Because acknowledging that sensation partly operates at a cognitive level does not require one to then accept the entire MBTI. That concept is only one tiny piece of all the theories that comprise the MBTI, and it is not unique to nor created by the MBTI.

plus, you list no sources as to whether a sensing function truly exist. without merit, i'm inclined to disbelieve you.

There is no one place to point you. All you need to do is look up cognitive psychology (and I think it would be helpful to look at neuropsychology as well) and specifically look for their thoughts on sensation. I'm not pointing you to an exact source because this stuff is in my college text book. I assure you that you will find it with little investigation.

 

[CJ99]

Its cause typology has a huge number of relatively rare types (Ns basically) so as Ss have control everywhere else we feel the need to control our one domian. TYPOLOGY CENTRAL - THE FORTRESS OF Ns AND SLAYERS OF ESTJs!

 

[Sentura]

The answer to this is obvious. Because acknowledging that sensation partly operates at a cognitive level does not require one to then accept the entire MBTI. That concept is only one tiny piece of all the theories that comprise the MBTI, and it is not unique to nor created by the MBTI.



There is no one place to point you. All you need to do is look up cognitive psychology (and I think it would be helpful to look at neuropsychology as well) and specifically look for their thoughts on sensation. I'm not pointing you to an exact source because this stuff is in my college text book. I assure you that you will find it with little investigation.

if you can't be bothered to find the proof for your own claim, why should i? i would very much like to see proof for a sensory part of the brain that is functioning as more than just observing, but the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff.

 

[juggernaut]

if you can't be bothered to find the proof for your own claim, why should i? i would very much like to see proof for a sensory part of the brain that is functioning as more than just observing, but the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff.

First of all, you're the plaintiff. You've brought "the claim" that sensory perception is nothing but observation. Magic would be the defendant standing by what has been accepted by cognitive scientists. That puts the burden on you.

Second, here's a place to start (pay attention to the third and fourth lines):
About ‎(Perception and Cognition Lab)‎

As Magic pointed out this is very basic material found in just about every intro-level psychology textbook. If you want to remain committed to the notion that sensors are just failed intuitives that's your choice. Just know that it's an erroneous assumption. Sensing is not just passive, mindless uptake of sense data and sensors are as cognitively active as intuitives. It's a feet on the ground/head in the clouds distinction.

 

[Sentura]

First of all, you're the plaintiff. You've brought "the claim" that sensory perception is nothing but observation. Magic would be the defendant standing by what has been accepted by cognitive scientists. That puts the burden on you.

how can i be the plaintiff if it hasn't been proven in the first place? which, given that the only evidence is empiric, cannot ever be true? a general statement cannot be created from this.

although i will need to read up on that site to see what it is about.

 

[juggernaut]

how can i be the plaintiff if it hasn't been proven in the first place? which, given that the only evidence is empiric, cannot ever be true for a general statement?

although i will need to read up on that site to see what it is about.

Because it has been proven, empirically, and you choose to deny it. In essence, you're the plaintiff because it's you that's making the claim against what has already been known/accepted. Empirical proof is proof, it's inductive proof. Inductive proof is built from observations about things we come to know through our senses (this is why things like p-values are so important). Deductive proofs rely on logical necessity. Both are proof. Things that are known through the senses can only be proven empirically so, again, you've been offered proof.

MBTI has not empirically proven because of it's low reliability (and the fact that we can't falsify its hypotheses in any clear way). We're all well aware there are issues with the reliability of MBTI. The various studies that have been done regarding the specific dimensions are not all sitting on the same shaky ground, however. The problem here is that you haven't been claiming that MBTI is not empirically valid, you've been claiming that S is an absence of N. So while you may be correct about the validity of MBTI in general, there are many things have been empirically proven about sensory perception and cognition.

 

[Sentura]

Because it has been proven, empirically, and you choose to deny it. In essence, you're the plaintiff because it's you that's making the claim against what has already been known/accepted. Empirical proof is proof, it's inductive proof. Inductive proof is built from observations about things we come to know through our senses (this is why things like p-values are so important). Deductive proofs rely on logical necessity. Both are proof. Things that are known through the senses can only be proven empirically so, again, you've been offered proof.

MBTI has not empirically proven because of it's low reliability (and the fact that we can't falsify its hypotheses in any clear way). We're all well aware there are issues with the reliability of MBTI. The various studies that have been done regarding the specific dimensions are not all sitting on the same shaky ground, however. The problem here is that you haven't been claiming that MBTI is not empirically valid, you've been claiming that S is an absence of N. So while you may be correct about the validity of MBTI in general, there are many things have been empirically proven about sensory perception and cognition.

on other hand, what makes you so sure that it isn't a combination of memory and logic and emotional states that bring forth experiences in a different light? the human mind is hardly objective, which is another reason why i would associate such things with either thinking or feeling.

i'm not saying that experiences are nonexistent or that people aren't sensory, but i think those attributes belong to functions such as feeling and thinking. i don't believe in a sensory function because i fail to see the reason for its existence. it does nothing that emotion, logic, intuition or just memory won't do.

 

[Kalach]

on other hand, what makes you so sure that it isn't a combination of memory and logic and emotional states that bring forth experiences in a different light? the human mind is hardly objective, which is another reason why i would associate such things with either thinking or feeling.

i'm not saying that experiences are nonexistent or that people aren't sensory, but i think those attributes belong to functions such as feeling and thinking. i don't believe in a sensory function because i fail to see the reason for its existence. it does nothing that emotion, logic, intuition or just memory won't do.

I am currently not wearing pants. I no longer believe in them. Frankly, pants do nothing that good old fashioned sensual skin and waxy goat grease won't do.

And ENFPs don't, generally speaking, consciously attend to sensory functions, so it's only to be expected that they frown upon, you know, those people, sensory perceivers

If only they could be lifted up a little higher. I grant you, they're good in the fields, and we can keep their children as pets, but wouldn't have them in the house if I were you. They can't be trusted.



ENFPs, that is.