Sensing vs Intuition - alternative explanation?

[Amethyst14]

I heard an interesting description of the Sensing vs Intuition dichotomy recently, was wondering if anyone had any opinions as to its accuracy?

The observation or ‘question’ is that you see two birds, almost identical, but one has a large beak and one has a small beak.

The sensor would carefully collect and observe all the relevant data - such as the birds appear to live in different places, they seem to eat different things etc. before using this data to form a conclusion. They would look at the physical facts first, basically, before forming a theory.

The intuitive would start by creating a theory or hypothesis “maybe the birds look different because...”. They might then start gathering facts and observations to prove or disprove their idea, but they would create the theory first and collect facts afterwards.

Another example would be in analysing a poem.

The sensor looks at the physical facts of the poem - it’s a short poem, it uses alliteration, it’s about animals etc.
Once they have a complete understanding of the ‘observable’, indisputable qualities of the poem, they may employ their secondary intuition and create a theory about what it means. The end result is a detailed analysis that is firmly grounded in the text.

The intuitive, on the other hand, recognises a pattern or connection the first time they read the text, and use this limited information or ‘overview’ to form a theory or insight. They might then go back to the poem and find extra factual information, but they already have their concept. The end result is an original and unique analysis that focuses mainly on theorises and ideas, not observable features.

Any opinions on this? I just thought it was an interesting way of looking at things and wondered if it feels accurate to those of you who already know your types 🙂

 

[Dashy CVII]

I think this is correct, but it needs to be applied to the functions not the dichotomies. You have just described Se vs Ne.

Si and Ni would do the same, but in mental reflection after-the-fact. Si is not actual sensing like Se is, Ni is not intuition of picking up on stimuli. While Se and Ne engage these things in the very moment, and require the external stimulus to function, Si and Ni instead focus inwardly on these subjects after-the-fact and do not involve external perception. That is the very definition of an extroverted function vs introverted function. Thus,

The Se/Ni type attunes to the [details] in the stimulus, and clarifies the [big picture] in thought.
The Ne/Si type attunes to the [big picture] in the stimulus, and clarifies the [details] in thought.

We all use all the functions, but typically Se/Ni types focus much more on Se/Ni, and Ne/Si types focus much more on Ne/Si.

 

[Zeego]

Si is not actual sensing like Se is

I'd think that both types of sensing are actual sensing but that's just my opinion

 

[Yama]

I'd think that both types of sensing are actual sensing but that's just my opinion

S isn't even about "actual sensing" because literally everyone does that; it's more about the processing of information. Si is more similar to Ni than to Se; Se is more similar to Ne than to Ni. Because of the direction they are oriented in (inward vs outward).

Anyway, as for the diagram above, I'd say I'm way more detail oriented than big picture; I think the first picture is both Ni/Se and Si/Ne, and the second picture is both Ne/Si and Se/Ni. Again with the direction of orientation thing.