Amethyst14
New member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2017
- Messages
- 8
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...â€. 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 🙂
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...â€. 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 🙂