Future Thinking: N vs. S

[Hiraeth]

How does future thinking differ between an intuitive and a sensor? Is it always true that sensors typically worry about the future through practical matters rather than having frequent idealistic visions?

I ask this because as a sensor, the 'living in the moment' aspect of sensing is something I've never resonated with. My mind is always either two steps ahead or one step backward rather than making use of my current standing. It's something I've noticed even as a young child and has not just started taking place as I grew older. Very often I think years ahead about something, the possibilities of where I could be and what scenarios could take place that I'd like to experience most, things of that nature. Or even weeks and days onward as well, but not as often as a general long-term vision. The past is something I've also revisited often, but I have not been ruminating on it much as of lately in order to not get too carried away and instead focus more on future possibilities. This kind of thinking is not anxiety or paranoia on my part either, but instead a sort of comfort zone where I can let my imagination run loose and engage in certain fantasies of mine. I've always attributed my future-oriented mind on being a 4 in the enneagram, but now I'm starting to think that perhaps it's something else because it's not adding up to my aux-Se description.

So this is where I also ask, is it possible for some sensors to be future-oriented instead of living in the present constantly? And to what degree does the enneagram affect this too? For instance, if someone is a phobic 6 intuitive, wouldn't they moreso resemble the paranoia that is often associated with sensors about what could go wrong if they ponder upon the future too often? Also, 4s tend to be idealistic and I believe can appear rather 'N'-like if one is a sensor, so that is why I've always assumed future-oriented thinking in an idealistic sense could perhaps be plausible for a sensor 4.

Can any sensors relate to not living in the moment either? I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this topic.

 

[Yama]

Sadly I'm pretty stereotypical here. I live more in the moment than in the future (or the past, for that matter). I try not to think too much about the future because it just stresses me out. This is probably more because of my 6 and inferior Ne than just 'being a sensor' though.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I would think that any person can focus on the future, but that Si will more strongly reference the past as an indicator of the future, while Ni might envision more future changes based on inherent patterns and possibilities.

 

[Hiraeth]

I know everyone is capable of thinking about the future to some extent. It's just that under every Se description for xSFPs it mentions how they tend to live in the moment rather than delving into future scenarios without getting anxious or worried. One of the main fundamentals of a Fi-Ni loop in an ISFP for instance is paranoia about the future and how they need to ground themselves with Se so that they aren't fixating on the future too often. For me, it's not anxiety or paranoia when I do bask in possible future scenarios, whether they are realistic or not. I'm starting to wonder if it would automatically mean someone is Fi-Ni looping if they supposedly have high Fi and Ni in their functions stack? I don't see it with me in any sense if it is indeed high up there, so I'm thinking maybe the theory doesn't hold weight for certain people?

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Hmm, I'm fairly certain I'm Si, and I am very future focused but in a practical way, and my focus is often motivated by past negative experiences or others' pasts and the desire to avoid repeats of those experiences.

Even though I'm a core 2, I do act a bit 6ish in regards to the future, for an example, I used to stress about what to major in, and now I stress about maintaining a perfect GPA so I can get into the program I want, and then so I can get an internship after graduating from college, and so then it will look good on a resume someday. However, my primary motivation for this stress isn't particularly 6ish (seeking security) but is more 2ish (wanting to be able to help people and causes I care about). If it were just me, I'd probably not bother with a career and just live the simple life

And I can rarely live in the moment. My mind is always wandering to stories, memories, imaginary conversations, stuff I'd like to do someday, funny random stuff, etc., etc. Which, frankly, is annoying because it makes me a bit inefficient as well as clumsy.

 

[Ashtart]

I hardly live in the moment and my head is always in the future. Almost like my body was trapped in the past while in my head is living in some other time ahead. I have few lapses when I go back to the past, but they are rare and appear more in stressful situations.

 

[Dreamer]

One way I've personally differentiated between Intuitives and sensors is how literal they tend to take things, by default. This means that yes, an intuitive can read things literally, and a sensor, abstractly, but what is their normal mode of processing information? So as you mentioned, you don't personally identify with "living in the moment". If one solely looks at that statement as someone that doesn't plan out their future, doesn't reminisce or pine over good memories passed, then it wouldn't surprise me if most people if not all, thought they were Intuitives, because of this singular statement so commonly tossed around on MBTI tests.

Of course this one point isn't an end all, be all identifier, but since you took that statement to read, as it states, I would lean towards a sensing type for you, not because you live in the moment (which you've denied) but because you've read that to mean, and only mean, actually living in the present. (or so I interpret)

Now, to use myself as an example, I've gone through many college courses, absolutely entranced in a lecture a professor may be giving, not because of the actual content they're covering, but because of the more abstract concepts and perspectives they are teaching, beneath the words. Are the professors Intuitives themselves, speaking a certain way? I doubt that's always the case, but it's how I know I tend to pick up information. This was made particularly apparent to me, because in some of those very lectures, students would moan and complain that they felt they just wasted an hour of their lives listening to some guy talk about "the nature of the line" (yes that was a real class I signed up for) and how out of touch with reality that concept was, but I didn't understand his lecture as talking about a line, anywhere! It was discussing the organics of design and the integrity of making this design move or that, and throwing what you know of the tangible world, out the window. Was this ACTUALLY the course I took, what I described and interpreted? Nope! It truly was about examining the line. But I hope this helps to illustrate my point, in that to me, Sensors are really no more "in the moment" than Intuitives, but the information processing is where the difference truly lies. Though... Maybe it's just me?? There's always that possibility too

 

[Hiraeth]

One way I've personally differentiated between Intuitives and sensors is how literal they tend to take things, by default. This means that yes, an intuitive can read things literally, and a sensor, abstractly, but what is their normal mode of processing information? So as you mentioned, you don't personally identify with "living in the moment". If one solely looks at that statement as someone that doesn't plan out their future, doesn't reminisce or pine over good memories passed, then it wouldn't surprise me if most people if not all, thought they were Intuitives, because of this singular statement so commonly tossed around on MBTI tests.

Of course this one point isn't an end all, be all identifier, but since you took that statement to read, as it states, I would lean towards a sensing type for you, not because you live in the moment (which you've denied) but because you've read that to mean, and only mean, actually living in the present. (or so I interpret)

Now, to use myself as an example, I've gone through many college courses, absolutely entranced in a lecture a professor may be giving, not because of the actual content they're covering, but because of the more abstract concepts and perspectives they are teaching, beneath the words. Are the professors Intuitives themselves, speaking a certain way? I doubt that's always the case, but it's how I know I tend to pick up information. This was made particularly apparent to me, because in some of those very lectures, students would moan and complain that they felt they just wasted an hour of their lives listening to some guy talk about "the nature of the line" (yes that was a real class I signed up for) and how out of touch with reality that concept was, but I didn't understand his lecture as talking about a line, anywhere! It was discussing the organics of design and the integrity of making this design move or that, and throwing what you know of the tangible world, out the window. Was this ACTUALLY the course I took, what I described and interpreted? Nope! It truly was about examining the line. But I hope this helps to illustrate my point, in that to me, Sensors are really no more "in the moment" than Intuitives, but the information processing is where the difference truly lies. Though... Maybe it's just me?? There's always that possibility too

But then what exactly would it mean if one's mindset is always daydreaming about the future to a degree where they aren't always grounded in reality? It does seem to me that many take 'future-oriented' in the literal sense without thinking about it in a more abstract context. I've never read up on it as anything more than being solely future-based thinking with an idealistic vision, at least pertaining to NFs. Your abstract notion on future thinking seems more in relation to possibilties, but I see how it goes hand-in-hand altogether. I think this is one area I'm a little frustrated with because I don't relate to being grounded and down-to-earth as the SE descriptions depict, when in reality I have my head in the clouds moreso than a typical ISFP. The descriptions tend to be so matter-of-fact when I believe there are different shades within all types. I can't seem to find any information that throws in exceptions at all; to me it always comes off as 'this is how you are and you can't be any other way.' There's probably more to it as you've mentioned than the overall interpreted meaning, but most people don't seem to see it anyway than how it comes off on the surface, and I have to profess that it does get to me when I know it probably shouldn't.

Anyways, I suppose I sort of diverted from the topic at hand. It's an interesting thought though, as I admittedly didn't think of it in that context at first glance.

 

[cascadeco]

But then what exactly would it mean if one's mindset is always daydreaming about the future to a degree where they aren't always grounded in reality? It does seem to me that many take 'future-oriented' in the literal sense without thinking about it in a more abstract context. I've never read up on it as anything more than being solely future-based thinking with an idealistic vision, at least pertaining to NFs. Your abstract notion on future thinking seems more in relation to possibilties, but I see how it goes hand-in-hand altogether. I think this is one area I'm a little frustrated with because I don't relate to being grounded and down-to-earth as the SE descriptions depict, when in reality I have my head in the clouds moreso than a typical ISFP. The descriptions tend to be so matter-of-fact when I believe there are different shades within all types. I can't seem to find any information that throws in exceptions at all; to me it always comes off as 'this is how you are and you can't be any other way.' There's probably more to it as you've mentioned than the overall interpreted meaning, but most people don't seem to see it anyway than how it comes off on the surface, and I have to profess that it does get to me when I know it probably shouldn't.

Anyways, I suppose I sort of diverted from the topic at hand. It's an interesting thought though, as I admittedly didn't think of it in that context at first glance.

I think that there's a lot of variability within 'type' because type is a construct, it's not a reality. There are people who might fit each preference/type to a T, but many don't. The types/archetypes themselves are just 16 'baselines' imo - 16 types that fit a theoretical model smoothly, but people aren't theory.

So the descriptions are going to mirror the theory and definitions of each dichotomy/function, but individuals don't necessarily mirror the types (theory) in the same clearcut way.

I think it might be why S types in general tend to not get consumed as much by mbti - or might not dig into it - because it's pretty darn frustrating if you want the theory to actually fit everyone perfectly in actuality.

I've removed my type because I don't particularly care anymore, but I can relate to both living in the moment, and not living in the moment. I think I'm pretty grounded, but I also can get caught up in wishful thinking and I have always thought about the future/consequences/longer term things, however I am not necessarily prioritizing that all of the time, and it can cause me quite a bit of stress.

 

[Population: 1]

I definitely lean towards the thinking angle on the F/T spectrum so I agree with cascadeco that there's that whole range within functions. You could be real close to the N but still be in the S.

I'm not even sure I'm off in future land half the time or just in a realm of timeless imagination. When I zone I really zone. I'm not here at all. Not really helping dispel the flaky INFP stereotype with that admission. I can be very much in the moment too as certain things will absolutely capture my attention and ground me in the experience with my senses on fire.

Not sure if any of that was helpful but you're not just ISFP, you're a range within the I the S the F and the P. Even then your tendencies may fluctuate.

 

[Hiraeth]

I think that there's a lot of variability within 'type' because type is a construct, it's not a reality. There are people who might fit each preference/type to a T, but many don't. The types/archetypes themselves are just 16 'baselines' imo - 16 types that fit a theoretical model smoothly, but people aren't theory.

So the descriptions are going to mirror the theory and definitions of each dichotomy/function, but individuals don't necessarily mirror the types (theory) in the same clearcut way.

I think it might be why S types in general tend to not get consumed as much by mbti - or might not dig into it - because it's pretty darn frustrating if you want the theory to actually fit everyone perfectly in actuality.

I've removed my type because I don't particularly care anymore, but I can relate to both living in the moment, and not living in the moment. I think I'm pretty grounded, but I also can get caught up in wishful thinking and I have always thought about the future/consequences/longer term things, however I am not necessarily prioritizing that all of the time, and it can cause me quite a bit of stress.

It does seem that plenty of 'S' types on here have at one time or another removed their type listings. The descriptions imo aren't as elaborate as the intuitive ones and so it makes sense why many wouldn't care as much. In addition, I feel the 'S' descriptions in general appear somewhat limiting to one's potential in comparison as well. I've also taken mine down in similar vein because I feel there is a lot more than what my type supposedly dictates. I still find typology interesting though and enjoy learning more about it itself, but I can understand how it could get old after a while to the point it starts becoming irrelevant in a way.

 

[cascadeco]

It does seem that plenty of 'S' types on here have at one time or another removed their type listings. The descriptions imo aren't as elaborate as the intuitive ones and so it makes sense why many wouldn't care as much. In addition, I feel the 'S' descriptions in general appear somewhat limiting to one's potential in comparison as well. I've also taken mine down in similar vein because I feel there is a lot more than what my type supposedly dictates. I still find typology interesting though and enjoy learning more about it itself, but I can understand how it could get old after a while to the point it starts becoming irrelevant in a way.

I actually don't have a big problem with the ISFP description, as in, most of it fits me in a decent generalized way. But for me it's more that there's a lot of stuff I'm decent at that per theory I 'shouldn't' be, and other things such as that, so that it can be summed up in what you stated at the end - it becomes pretty irrelevant in terms of application/usefulness, and it could also become kind of 'useless' if other people looked at the description and that was that.

But I mean beyond that, I still do think that there's a big spectrum and one type can blend into another type, which blends into another. So in that way too, the descriptions can become kind of irrelevant.

 

[Zeego]

I think that there's a lot of variability within 'type' because type is a construct, it's not a reality. There are people who might fit each preference/type to a T, but many don't. The types/archetypes themselves are just 16 'baselines' imo - 16 types that fit a theoretical model smoothly, but people aren't theory.

This is actually the view endorsed by most of the official MBTI people, hence the phrase "best-fit type" they like to throw around a lot. The idea that everyone fits perfectly into one of 16 strictly-defined boxes is pretty much confined to the fanbase community (well, Socionics too, but that's a whole other story).

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I think about both the future and the past, so whatever type that is.

 

[Bush]

To simplify, I think it comes down more to orientation of perceiving (Si/Ni v Se/Ne) more than the method (S v N) does. The Se's/Ne's tend more toward adapting, prospecting, working with what's right there, and viewing life moment to moment, rather than to plan in detail. Se doing this is obvious, almost by definition. Ne's will work with the broader context, what's in front of it at that moment. Think MacGyver making an assault rifle out of, like, a piece of string and a paper clip that both happen to be in the room with him.

Ni is forward looking pretty much also almost by definition. Si is the ant in the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, saving stuff for a rainy day or for the winter.. you know, in the future. (Ni could perhaps prepare for a reptilian invasion, which, to them, is certain to happen..?) Either will connect moments to other moments.

 

[adventureawaits]

I guess the best way I can describe how I experience the future is that it's not through concrete plans or anything tangible. It's through possibilities. I have a very hard time accepting what *is* without my mind immediately going through ALL of the possible ways it *could be*. I have zero idea what my life will look like in a year because that's not the sort of future I think to plan for... I more just keep generating ideas of the next thing I could do... and then the next... and then the next... and then it all changes & I go down a whole new path.

Imagine standing at a trailhead and looking out towards multiple trails in the woods. I don't pay much mind to the trailhead, just the possibilities of where each trail leads and maybe the various outcomes that would be the potential result of following the trail. All while being 100% open to whatever is thrown my way to shift my path.

I imagine I'm maddening to deal with sometimes.

 

[Red Ribbon]

I don't think Ni is synonymous with future planning. I think both Ni and Si work in similar ways.

For me, Ni is the function that sees things in a different context than it actually is. In that way, it is very different from Ne. If I can give an example, Ni is like looking at a cloud and seeing a particular shape in it while Ne is like looking at a cloud and seeing all the shapes the cloud resembles. Ne is objective because it sees everything - all the shapes. Ni is very subjective because I see something very specific in the clouds that no one else sees.

I would imagine Si is like that as well, except in the sensing realm.

Eventually, the future thinking comes to me when I see something like that in the path ahead. Like [MENTION=22264]Bush Did 9/11[/MENTION] said, that reptilian invasion could possibly happen. But for Ne, I imagine that could just be one of the several possibilities that could happen.

Alternatively, if we were to look at the function axes over individual functions, it can be explained more accurately.

Ne/Si axis: Ne sees all the things that could possibly happen. Si has an idea of what happened in the past and sees a trend there. The two work in combo, the individual is able to look at past data and select the event that is more likely to happen based on past data.

Se/Ni axis: Se sees concrete reality as it is, in the present moment. Ni is able to create a very subjective impression of reality and work off of that. The individual sees reality as it is, sees an underlying pattern and is able to work off of that and project into the future.

Ne/Si: I see that X is happening. The consequences of X can be A, B, C, D or E but, in the past when X happened, the outcome was A so it's probably going to be A again based off of that.

Se/Ni: I see that X is happening. When I look at X, I see the underlying pattern of Y here. If I project Y into the future, I see that the outcome is going to be most likely A.

This is all based off of my own observations so I can't guarantee the accuracy here.

 

[EJCC]

I don't understand Se very well, but I can say that as an Si-user, I am not in-the-moment at all. I live most of my life in the immediate future. What are my plans? What's next on the agenda? Being in-the-moment is hard for me, to the point that I've been consciously working on it for a long time. I think it was one of my New Year's Resolutions.

While I'm very abstract for a Sensor, in a lot of ways, I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on dreams for the future that are not possible or probable. A lot of my coworkers and friends are big dreamers, and my role with them, when we plan things together, is to ground them - either by breaking the bad news to them (your dream is not possible in our current situation), or by helping them make their dream a reality.

 

[Numbly Aware]

I don't think Ni is synonymous with future planning. I think both Ni and Si work in similar ways.

For me, Ni is the function that sees things in a different context than it actually is. In that way, it is very different from Ne. If I can give an example, Ni is like looking at a cloud and seeing a particular shape in it while Ne is like looking at a cloud and seeing all the shapes the cloud resembles. Ne is objective because it sees everything - all the shapes. Ni is very subjective because I see something very specific in the clouds that no one else sees.

I would imagine Si is like that as well, except in the sensing realm.

Eventually, the future thinking comes to me when I see something like that in the path ahead. Like [MENTION=22264]Bush Did 9/11[/MENTION] said, that reptilian invasion could possibly happen. But for Ne, I imagine that could just be one of the several possibilities that could happen.

Alternatively, if we were to look at the function axes over individual functions, it can be explained more accurately.

Ne/Si axis: Ne sees all the things that could possibly happen. Si has an idea of what happened in the past and sees a trend there. The two work in combo, the individual is able to look at past data and select the event that is more likely to happen based on past data.

Se/Ni axis: Se sees concrete reality as it is, in the present moment. Ni is able to create a very subjective impression of reality and work off of that. The individual sees reality as it is, sees an underlying pattern and is able to work off of that and project into the future.

Ne/Si: I see that X is happening. The consequences of X can be A, B, C, D or E but, in the past when X happened, the outcome was A so it's probably going to be A again based off of that.

Se/Ni: I see that X is happening. When I look at X, I see the underlying pattern of Y here. If I project Y into the future, I see that the outcome is going to be most likely A.

This is all based off of my own observations so I can't guarantee the accuracy here.

I agree.

I believe that Si is more preparing for the future that Ne sees, vs Ni that is trying to change the future using Se that likes to interact with the surrounding environment.

The other way around would be:
Ne sees the future and knows what to do (Si).
Se interacts with the environment and tries to change it (Ni).

(imo, Ni is controlling and Si is strict.)