peripheral-direct

[professor goodstain]

Somthin's buggin the crap out of me. Do sensors prefer to use directed or peripheral vision, and whatever way they prefer are they better at peripheral than intuitives? And of course do intuitives prefer to use peripheral and are they better at it than sensors?
I'm leanin on sensors being better at direct vision and intuitives being better at peripheral vision.

 

[professor goodstain]

Somthin's buggin the crap out of me. Do sensors prefer to use directed or peripheral vision, and whatever way they prefer are they better at peripheral than intuitives? And of course do intuitives prefer to use peripheral and are they better at it than sensors?
I'm leanin on sensors being better at direct vision and intuitives being better at peripheral vision.

If what i'm leaning on is true, then sensors can easily spot an intuitive. Unless the intuitives are aware of it, in which case, intuitives will then fake out sensors.

 

[Lady_X]

i'm sorry but what are you talking about?

sounds somewhat interesting...that's why i ask but...are you being literal?

 

[Quinlan]

I'm sure there was a thread on this the other day.

 

[professor goodstain]

i'm sorry but what are you talking about?

sounds somewhat interesting...that's why i ask but...are you being literal?

erinavery? You are an (N). Do you think your peripheral is pretty good? When you use it (possably as a social tool, but not when talking directly with someone obviously) how does it benafit you?

 

[xx00oo00xx]

I've thought about this before I even had the vocabulary of "sensors" and "intuitives" and one thing that came up is that people who are more "up in their head much of the time" (pondering, reflecting, seriously analyzing) probably use their peripheral vision much more, because it works with less conscious involvement, like it seems to work more in the background (sub-/un-conscious). People who are usually primarily engaged in the physical present, probably use their direct vision more than the "deep-thinkers", because it's no big deal for them, because most of their consciousness is engaging the physical anyways. Their peripheral activity probably takes a more background position. This is just from observing my friends, family other people I've spent time with and of course myself (I think I'm a sensor, but I spend a lot of time in my dominant Ti). I'm not very well-versed in all this MBTI stuff, but I wouldn't mind seeing where thread goes too.

 

[professor goodstain]

I'm sure there was a thread on this the other day.

Quinlan? You are an (S). Any good at peripheral?

 

[Lady_X]

yes...i'm a n so...i couldn't understand if you meant that metaphorically or not...haha

but you mean literally how is my peripheral vision? well...honestly...probably not that great...certainly no better than average. i just really don't pay a whole lot of attention to what's going on around me unless i need to...so there are times where someone could run through the store in head to toe pink feathers and i might not notice...is that what you mean?

 

[professor goodstain]

I've thought about this before I even had the vocabulary of "sensors" and "intuitives" and one thing that came up is that people who are more "up in their head much of the time" (pondering, reflecting, seriously analyzing) probably use their peripheral vision much more, because it works with less conscious involvement, like it seems to work more in the background (sub-/un-conscious). People who are usually primarily engaged in the physical present, probably use their direct vision more than the "deep-thinkers", because it's no big deal for them, because most of their consciousness is engaging the physical anyways. Their peripheral activity probably takes a more background position. This is just from observing my friends, family other people I've spent time with and of course myself (I think I'm a sensor, but I spend a lot of time in my dominant Ti). I'm not very well-versed in all this MBTI stuff, but I wouldn't mind seeing where thread goes too.

When one is not thinking deeply or all the way into the physical world but just crossing on a ped-xing multytasking with a sqirrel fight, late bill, window left open, achy joint all at once? Does a sensor have a better shot, or an intuitive?

 

[Lady_X]

I've thought about this before I even had the vocabulary of "sensors" and "intuitives" and one thing that came up is that people who are more "up in their head much of the time" (pondering, reflecting, seriously analyzing) probably use their peripheral vision much more, because it works with less conscious involvement, like it seems to work more in the background (sub-/un-conscious). People who are usually primarily engaged in the physical present, probably use their direct vision more than the "deep-thinkers", because it's no big deal for them, because most of their consciousness is engaging the physical anyways. Their peripheral activity probably takes a more background position. This is just from observing my friends, family other people I've spent time with and of course myself (I think I'm a sensor, but I spend a lot of time in my dominant Ti). I'm not very well-versed in all this MBTI stuff, but I wouldn't mind seeing where thread goes too.

this kind of makes sense too...that could be true. i really don't know! now i'm going to be trying to figure that out and have people test me...or maybe it wouldn't work that way.

 

[Lady_X]

When one is not thinking deeply or all the way into the physical world but just crossing on a ped-xing multytasking with a sqirrel fight, late bill, window left open, achy joint all at once? Does a sensor have a better shot, or an intuitive?

a better shot at what?

 

[professor goodstain]

yes...i'm a n so...i couldn't understand if you meant that metaphorically or not...haha

but you mean literally how is my peripheral vision? well...honestly...probably not that great...certainly no better than average. i just really don't pay a whole lot of attention to what's going on around me unless i need to...so there are times where someone could run through the store in a head to toe pink feathers and i might not notice...is that what you mean?

Run through the store in a head to toe pink feathers. I probly wouldn't notice either but i would certainly remember that it happened 1 and 1/2 hours later. Even though i didn't directly see it.

 

[professor goodstain]

a better shot at what?

peripheraly seeing a car comin at em.

 

[wolfy]

I'd say I'm pretty good with peripheral. I often catch things that are not in my direct line of vision. And find it easy for example at work I can take in all of what everyone is doing in the gym at the same time.

 

[professor goodstain]

I'd say I'm pretty good with peripheral. I often catch things that are not in my direct line of vision. And find it easy for example at work I can take in all of what everyone is doing in the gym at the same time.

Then it's a tool to find out what is free to use?

 

[Lady_X]

oh you would? hmm...well that's interesting.
so you would have a delayed reaction to it? why's that?

i'm feeling like it would be equal...as long as i was intentionally paying attention....maybe ??

 

[Lady_X]

peripheraly seeing a car comin at em.

i think the sensor would.

 

[xx00oo00xx]

When one is not thinking deeply or all the way into the physical world but just crossing on a ped-xing multytasking with a sqirrel fight, late bill, window left open, achy joint all at once? Does a sensor have a better shot, or an intuitive?

I would say the sensor, because both peripheral and direct vision are to do with extraverted sensing.

 

[professor goodstain]

I would say the sensor, because both peripheral and direct vision are to do with extraverted sensing.

I wonder if mbti is used to pick jet pilots.

 

[Quinlan]

Quinlan? You are an (S). Any good at peripheral?

I'm not sure, I don't really think about it and I'm not sure what I'm comparing it to.