Prejudice against Sensors?

[Moiety]

The only form of prejudice I have against Sensors is assuming they won't "get me" most of the time....and it's often true. But I have nothing against them.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yup, this is kinda what I'm getting at. You can be seeing a person using a MIX of functions. Or, a function that they feel is most beneficial to a situation.

As well, another point of why it is very assumptive to have stereotypes based on such categories as intuition/sensing- For example, we can't fully know whether those who self-identify themselves as a sensor doesn't really have the capacity for intuition. They can be more intuitive than a person who self-identifies themselves as an intuit. Not because each of these people have labeled themselves wrong, but, because it is only a commentary that is self-contained. Meaning, they have the capacity to intuit but they rely more on sensing, which makes no commentary on their level of intuition in comparison to another. Because the other, who relies primarily on intuition may have his/her ceiling level of intuition be less than the person who primarily relies on sensing (but still has the capacity for intuition).

Which brings us back nicely to the topic of this thread and why such prejudice against sensors is kinda non-sensical.

Hence,




Is all very good to do, and I agree, quite useful, but, we must contain whatever predictions we make about a person to themselves. Which makes any kind of comparisons between sensors and intuits redundant.

Only to the level of sensing and intuition within one individual can we go, beyond that we play a dangerous game of assumptions.

Interesting...now suppose I were to ask some of these people what it is that motivates them to behave in a particular way in a particular situation, and that I were to get a high degree of consistency in the responses.

For instance, let's say I'm wondering why most people are opposed to gay marriage. I take a big poll of people who are opposed to it, and the most common answer I get is something to the effect of, "Because the known traditions which I value most highly in my life are opposed to it."

This seems to line up pretty closely with Si, so is it not reasonable to posit a guess that Si has something to do with this particular belief?

 

[SillySapienne]

Interesting...now suppose I were to ask some of these people what it is that motivates them to behave in a particular way in a particular situation, and that I were to get a high degree of consistency in the responses.

For instance, let's say I'm wondering why most people are opposed to gay marriage. I take a big poll of people who are opposed to it, and the most common answer I get is something to the effect of, "Because the known traditions which I value most highly in my life are opposed to it."

This seems to line up pretty closely with Si, so is it not reasonable to posit a guess that Si has something to do with this particular belief?

Aren't most people's "reasoning" against gay marriage something along the lines of, because the bible says so, or, because it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or, simply because they are Christian?

 

[Qre:us]

Interesting...now suppose I were to ask some of these people what it is that motivates them to behave in a particular way in a particular situation, and that I were to get a high degree of consistency in the responses.

For instance, let's say I'm wondering why most people are opposed to gay marriage. I take a big poll of people who are opposed to it, and the most common answer I get is something to the effect of, "Because the known traditions which I value most highly in my life are opposed to it."

This seems to line up pretty closely with Si, so is it not reasonable to posit a guess that Si has something to do with this particular belief?

Fi-nd the Fi!!!

 

[ptgatsby]

I don't know if intelligence is so much at the core of N, as it is, once again, erronous labeling of what constitues intelligence.
Possibilities as thoughts = intelligence?
Depth in detail of the concrete = intelligence?

IQ as a proxy for intelligence. You hit on the problem, but the N:S divide, because of its (lack of) normalization has a ton of artifacts, like the IQ connection.

It does all stem from the descriptions that were originally used, which created the tests.

 

[Qre:us]

IQ as a proxy for intelligence. You hit on the problem, but the N:S divide, because of its (lack of) normalization has a ton of artifacts, like the IQ connection.

It does all stem from the descriptions that were originally used, which created the tests.

And, as we know, no one questions the root descriptions in the first place, and its merit, such that the thought propagates, without healthy skepticism at every moment of extrapolation.

 

[heart]

Nice (and obvious - I assumed this primary reasoning in my OP when pointing out there's more Ns than Ss, hence, easier to trash talk with one's ilk, about those that are different).

I think there's some inherent misconception about sensation (and its definition) that fuels this fire.

I think it's just frustration about life out in the big offline world where S is valued over N. Most complaints that I see about S are mostly about S not understanding and not valuing N. I guess we're not allowed to complain about the intolerance of S because it's wrong for us to be intolerant intolerance of us.

 

[Qre:us]

I think it's just frustration about life out in the big offline world where S is valued over N. Most complaints that I see about S are mostly about S not understanding and not valuing N. I guess we're not allowed to complain about the intolerance of S because it's wrong for us to be intolerant intolerance of us.

Cuz someone (supposedly wise) once said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - vegan baldy

But this is assuming that we meet intolerance with intolerance towards THEM. We can be intolerant of the actually intolerance against us - but the mode by which we show our intolerance becomes key, IMO.

 

[simulatedworld]

Fi-nd the Fi!!!

Ok, substitute Fi for Si in my last post.

What I mean is, given enough trials, can't we make reasonable inductive arguments that certain behaviors and thought patterns are based primarily on various functions? That's what I meant last time when you corrected my definition of generalization--you picked a small detail on which I had used a technical term incorrectly and harped on that instead of explaining any conceptual problems with my thoughts.

Like if I had decided to go on and on about your mistaken assertion that there are 54 cards in a deck. It was probably a typo, but it was obviously not very important to the discussion at hand so I didn't spend more than about four words on it.

 

[heart]

Cuz someone (supposedly wise) once said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - vegan baldy

I am not saint and I am not a psychologist and I am not superhuman. And your logic is off because it is not "eye for an eye" to merely complain about someone criticizing you. They get to insinuate that N is worthless most of us are just complaining about them dismissing us, not saying every aspect of S is worthless.

 

[Qre:us]

Ok, substitute Fi for Si in my last post.

What I mean is, given enough trials, can't we make reasonable inductive arguments that certain behaviors and thought patterns are based primarily on various functions?

I'm with the school of thought that we don't use one function in isolation when evaluating a situation, that parsing out which function is the culprit can get tricky.

 

[Qre:us]

I am not saint and I am not a psychologist and I am not superhuman. And your logic is off because it is not "eye for an eye" to merely complain about someone criticizing you. They get to insinuate that N is worthless most of us are just complaining about them dismissing us, not saying every aspect of S is worthless.

Please see:

But this is assuming that we meet intolerance with intolerance towards THEM. We can be intolerant of the actually intolerance against us - but the mode by which we show our intolerance becomes key, IMO.

Logic - off

?????

 

[ptgatsby]

I think it's just frustration about life out in the big offline world where S is valued over N. Most complaints that I see about S are mostly about S not understanding and not valuing N. I guess we're not allowed to complain about the intolerance of S because it's wrong for us to be intolerant intolerance of us.

Is S preferred over N? I've had this conversation here before. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence for S>N, and many suggestions that it is not.

And not surprisingly, I also heard the exact same words with E>I, until Is found out that they weren't a minority. It's a repeated pattern.

 

[Jeffster]

I like that one post where stimulatedwords talked about playing cards. The rest of the topic is way too general for my sensor brain to grasp.

 

[simulatedworld]

I like that one post where stimulatedwords talked about playing cards. The rest of the topic is way too general for my sensor brain to grasp.

Cute, but wouldn't the one with the metaphor be the one that Sensors supposedly "wouldn't get"?

 

[redacted]

The reason intuitives have a bias against Sensors is that they sometimes can't follow what they're saying. The same is true in reverse. People fear and even "hate" what they don't understand.

Also, lots of intuitives have developed resentment towards sensors because some of them ostracized the intutives during childhood.

And the biggest reason, at least in my case, is that I'm jealous of them. I tend to overcomplicate everything, and I hate it. I would love to just BE (not that sensors get to either, but they're closer on the spectrum.)

 

[Cimarron]

People are using a simple heuristic to think about the two functions.
intuition = cerebral
sensing = physical

And from there equating cerebral with mental skill and physical with physical skill.

It's not only on the net that there is a bias towards mental skill. Physical skill has been devalued in modern society.

I thought this was an interesting point that was passed by. (and directly relevant to the thread topic) Anyone think it has merit, that the two might be related?

 

[heart]

Is S preferred over N? I've had this conversation here before. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence for S>N, and many suggestions that it is not.

Not everyone lives in a university setting where statistics are kept, like scoring well on tests etc. Out in the real nitty gritty world I see far, far more appreciation for S and more approbation for being N. It's okay to be genius and N if you can sell an invention, but most jobs want S skills. Run of the mill N just means you're a hard to understand pain in the arse who loses their car keys a lot and occassionally says something noteworthy that makes people laugh. That's about it.

 

[simulatedworld]

The reason intuitives have a bias against Sensors is that they sometimes can't follow what they're saying. The same is true in reverse. People fear and even "hate" what they don't understand.

Also, lots of intuitives have developed resentment towards sensors because some of them ostracized the intutives during childhood.

And the biggest reason, at least in my case, is that I'm jealous of them. I tend to overcomplicate everything, and I hate it. I would love to just BE (not that sensors get to either, but they're closer on the spectrum.)

See that's kinda what I thought, too. Thanks to Nadir, though, I've found out there's actually no such thing as iNtuitives at all.

Good thing, too, cause I was pretty sure there for a minute.

 

[heart]

You have the capacity to, but you prefer not to and give up "when mistakes start popping up". If you really wanted to, and applied yourself from a young age your Se could easily be better than an Se dom that has not developed/refined it in the same way.

That's a huge assumption. I try very hard to pay attention to details. My major in college was all about details and I persued it because I was interested in the subject, the work I like to do needs attention to detail and I try very, very hard and yet---I continue to miss details, get facs a bit wrong. I just have to know this about myself, that it's my weakness and I have to double check and cross check myself. It's a source of great frustration to me, my mind always working to sift away the facts and keep the gist and I am like no, no don't lose the facts/details and poof! they are gone!