The Weaknesses of iNtuitives seen through Sensing Eyes

[prplchknz]

I agree, I dont think too that "I cant pay my bills on time" is really the one major indicator for being a N. It says more about your education and what your parents taught you to do. My parents totally forgot to raise me paying my bills on time, so my gf needed to do and she's scored infp on mbti tests. She came from a much poorer family so she was much more occupied with paying her bills on time.

Being N and S is a difference in perception, but being blind to the real world, both are quite good at

Yeah, totally I'm very good about making sure my bills are paid on time. Also I manage to show up to places on time, or at least have the courtesy to call. Nothing to with S or N, I've known S's who are always late forget to pay their bills. So I hate when people are like "I'm a N that's why I'm always late" it's like than get a watch! but I suck at reading time. Than get a digital watch

 

[garbage]

You want a good stab at descriptions the downsides of intuitive types? Take a look at the Socionics type descriptions.

No you are right and I have no idea.

It's shadow Se. Or something. Who knows? I lost track of how people try to explain things like that using the theory.

 

[Eruca]

Do Ns need to be reminded of their weaknesses? The common view on the forum (but I suppose the forum would be biased!) is that we live in an S world. Uncommon weaknesses are generally more criticised than common weaknesses because they stand out to a greater degree. Thus, an N's sensotardery and over-abstraction is more likely to be picked up upon and criticised.

The article did promote a focus upon both strengths and weaknesses for both types, for which it should be praised. However, there were multiple hints to weaknesses that the author believes Ns to hold which seem in addition to known MBTI theory rather than being supported by it. The general picture painted of the intuitive in the article is someone good at abstraction, but ultimately impotent due to a lack of "action". From this I suppose the author is equating the common N trope of being greatly concerned with the theoretical and abstract (likely true?) with the idea that N's are not interested or able enough to bring this abstraction to bear on the real world through action. The author's idea is summarized in the final line of his piece when he states the N will "[wake] up to the uncomfortable realization that he has spent years doing… nothing!"

The obviously gross generalising assumption of this central idea really took away from what could have been an argument for fair treatment and respect for both sides. Instead, this is a piece of bias pro-S work just the same as any piece of pro-N work we can find.

 

[entropie]

You want a good stab at descriptions the downsides of intuitive types? Take a look at the Socionics type descriptions.

I dont think that either mbti or socionics descriptions will make you happy. Eventually you'll need to build your own system with the instruments at hand the one you can work with. I often experienced with people that they like the new. So when the mbti descriptions had grown boring they went over to socionics until they have grown boring and then they eventually criticized the whole system. I often experienced this career of people on the forum and it somehow tells me that the major thing one is supposed to do, namely dealing with oneself alone is the one missed the most.

It's shadow Se. Or something. Who knows? I lost track of how people try to explain things like that using the theory.

Which continues here: the claim is that the system makes sense so I can trust it to tell me the rules. But it will never, not socionics nor mbti, socionics on the contrary, it overcomplicates the system even more. Tho it brings some good new ideas which one can incorporate into ones own thoughts to get new ideas on how to look at the world or how to express certain things, it should be only used as an idea generator. The real system you have to invent for yourself, cause since we are all people with subjective viewports on the world, there will be never an objective answer.

 

[Lady_X]

is ni more connected to reality? is it intuition based on what could or will happen with what is rather than the "what" is happening and why and what it means?

 

[entropie]

An intuitive broker will be always connected more to reality than an intuitive theorethical physicist.

It is impossible to stereotype and generalize

 

[Lady_X]

well since i don't actually happen to know anyone with such occupations...i was just comparing the regular style infj people and enfp/infp people i know and they're definitely more aware of their surroundings however off they may be at times about their interpretation of the reality they see.

 

[Glycerine]

hahaha, I am fairly skilled at implementing things... I could give my ESFJ dad a run for his money. I unintentionally bulldoze people with my constant troubleshooting mode...oops.

 

[entropie]

well since i don't actually happen to know anyone with such occupations...i was just comparing the regular style infj people and enfp/infp people i know and they're definitely more aware of their surroundings however off they may be at times about their interpretation of the reality they see.

I tell you it's wrong to look at i.e. infps as a collective. You have to treat every single human being as a sole case or you'll never completly understand them

 

[Totenkindly]

For years I have been wanting to find some good Sensate criticisms of iNtuitives. But I never really have. Here we have, for the first time, to my knowledge, a good critique from an obviously intelligent Sensate. Please take a look:

Lol -- wait, don't you own this web site? Who wrote this? You or Eco? (Referencing TypologyCentral in the middle is a clincher.)

I think the descriptions and criticisms were generally justified... although, being an N, I still don't waste a lot of time here typing celebrities, I think it's generally a pointless pursuit. (Which makes the criticism in this essay posted on CelebrityTypes about celebrity typing being a waste of time even more ironic.) And, of course, the article was more of a predictable dig on N's, especially the closing, rather than a "balanced" article, which kind of turned me off... but whatever.

 

[Lady_X]

well ffs entropie you think i don't know that?! we are discussing personality theory and how one function compares to the other...i don't believe that just because two people both test enfp that they'll both have poor si usage...but if there is ever to be a discussion on personality here...generalizations are going to be necessary....there are things that can be said of people of one type and it seems to me nj types are more connected to reality than np types and i wanna know why damnit...generally speaking...fully understand that there are exceptions.

 

[Noon]

I think NTJs are pretty focus on results, so he is off there. Also, his analysis seems biased towards Ne dom or auxiliary types. He seems to lack a through understanding.

Agreed.

I find that it is generally meaningless to talk about type in terms of dichotomies; the traits listed for each side are usually not even true for all of the types they encompass and are, as a result, terribly misleading. This is especially true for the S/N and T/F dichotomies because, for example, types as different as ISTJ and ESFP get bunched in the "S" group (making it useless because these two have extremely little in common, not even in terms of sensing because one is Se while the other is Si), and types as different as INFP and ESFJ get bunched together in the "F" group (...these types hardly have anything in common at all, either functionally or in terms of their general presentation.) There is literally no meaning in saying that one is an N or S, T or F. It's nonsense.

+1. It seems to be all about dominant Pe on both sides actually.

"Do you prefer action, and constant activity in your life?"
"Sensers relate directly to their surroundings and make decisions quickly and instinctively"

No real new intuitive weaknesses were brought up or discussed.
It was basically N = thoughtful sensotards and S = badass action stars

I hate that, especially because perceiving is necessarily always about thought.
It literally makes no sense to attribute lack of action to N.

 

[entropie]

well ffs entropie you think i don't know that?! we are discussing personality theory and how one function compares to the other...i don't believe that just because two people both test enfp that they'll both have poor si usage...but if there is ever to be a discussion on personality here...generalizations are going to be necessary....there are things that can be said of people of one type and it seems to me nj types are more connected to reality than np types and i wanna know why damnit...generally speaking...fully understand that there are exceptions.

Well it's your decision if you want to discuss what you know or make up a fantastical world for yourself that doesnt exist. I think the real world is far too complex to have time to make up that fantasy mbti world for myself which doesnt exist and besides that I'ld be afraid to at somepoint loose control over where the border between real and unreal lies

 

[Lady_X]

you think by discussing function theory you're making up a fantasy world? wth is going on with you?

 

[Noon]

there are things that can be said of people of one type and it seems to me nj types are more connected to reality than np types and i wanna know why damnit...generally speaking...fully understand that there are exceptions.

Se = present grounded, present focused
Ne = present grounded, future focused
Si = personal, past + future focused
Ni = personal, past + future focused

Se deals with untainted, objective facts and what can be proven; reality as it is. One of the things Ni does is deconstruct present realities and use familiar patterns to speculate about future realities. Together Se/Ni might be like, "what I know to be real + what can also form reality or develop into reality as a result of that".

The sensing function that NPs have isn't quite like that. Si deals with personal perception of reality and sensations that were. Ne uses present reality and familiar notions and facts to speculate about alternate/previously unknown possibilities. Si/Ne might be like, "what I've personally known to be out there + what I can imagine might also be out there based on that". (obviously though, this is from an Si primary's perspective).

I think that's why SPs and NJs are ultimately more focused on immediate or objective reality than SJs and NPs, but I'm by no means an expert.

 

[Jaguar]

Well it's your decision if you want to discuss what you know or make up a fantastical world for yourself that doesnt exist. I think the real world is far too complex to have time to make up that fantasy mbti world for myself which doesnt exist and besides that I'ld be afraid to at somepoint loose control over where the border between real and unreal lies

This is my world:

EXTX

S=18 N=18
J=10 P=10

People can bash me for being an intuitive AND a sensor.

 

[Lady_X]

makes perfect sense to me. thanks for that.

 

[garbage]

I dont think that either mbti or socionics descriptions will make you happy. Eventually you'll need to build your own system with the instruments at hand the one you can work with. I often experienced with people that they like the new. So when the mbti descriptions had grown boring they went over to socionics until they have grown boring and then they eventually criticized the whole system. I often experienced this career of people on the forum and it somehow tells me that the major thing one is supposed to do, namely dealing with oneself alone is the one missed the most.

My recommendation comes not from some disgusted, knee-jerk dissatisfaction with MBTI, but from having studied a few different systems and formulated my own worldview that hazily incorporate pieces of them. In this one particular case, an explanation from Socionics might have something to offer--"Se as role function" was especially poignant to me. But, believe you me, I know that Socionics has its own terrible problems.

it should be only used as an idea generator. The real system you have to invent for yourself, cause since we are all people with subjective viewports on the world, there will be never an objective answer.

This is exactly how I view things (which is part of what drove that "Bonus challenge" thread). However, we need to have some common terminology or understanding to even be able to have a meaningful discussion in the first place.

So, we've got our own personal "truths," part of which we have to compromise in order to be able to bring to the surface and share with others. Ah, well.

 

[lunalum]

I also wonder which one of our members wrote up this criticism

But really, some good points, but I don't think it is very necessary. I think Ns do a good job at poking fun at their 'sensotardation.' I'll be the first one to admit that I often don't have a clue of what is in front of my face or how to make my ideas practical.

 

[INTP]

right...was going to say that...but then istj people have si..and ni users don't have se or si as dom or aux so why is their se in tertiary or inferior better than our si...or am i all confused...

this is how i think of it:

its not lesser Se, its Ne Si instead of true Se.

what i mean by true Se, is like Se coming straight to conscious. when Ne users use external perception, the details and other "Se" stuff goes to unconscious and is processed by unconscious to seek for connections etc. and these connections come to conscious mind. Also Ne users use Si, Si is your subjective impressions(these impressions are created unconsciously) about the objective reality(objective reality being Se), so Si also is kind of unconscious processing of Se. since you perceive the Se via unconscious, form your impression about it unconsciously, and this impression comes to conscious mind. also Si is about comparing the current subjective impression(that comes from unconscious Se) to those subjective impressions created in the past, comparison is done again by the unconscious, but the results come to conscious mind.

for types that are "true" Se users, they perceive the objective reality consciously, now if you perceive Se consciously, you cant really do any Ne or Si to it, because those functions work fundamentally in the unconscious. but Ni on the other hand works with already internalized information that is formed consciously, its kind of unconscious re-perceiving and what is perceived again can be originally perceived purely by conscious mind.

also when a type that uses Ne is looking at some object the concentration automatically goes to the whole object and then you can look into details if you choose to, but when Se user is looking at some object he sees the details of the object first and then forms an understanding of the whole object.