[MBTI General] Oh no I'm a Sensor Racist D:

[Showbread]

I think this may actually be more indicative of being a sexual instinct. I was going to say a feeling type, but I'm certain thinking types must crave this, too. I'm sure someone here would probably know better than I would. But this isn't the pervading school of thought, is it? That sensors detest meaningful relationships?

That might make sense. I think the one instinctual variant test I took told me I was a sx/sp or something...

 

[A_priori]

No I've never thought that but I think you might hear an intuitive say that and mean that they want their partner to understand them in ways others do not. Often being an intuitive can make you feel like you're not speaking the same language as everyone else so there's a deeper connection felt when someone actually gets it or you.

Know what I mean?

I have heard people say this and thought to myself your actually not all that deep. I personally think that a lot of people tend to think they're super deep as a means of putting they're differences or perceptions above others. I'm not saying this holds true in your case but all to often I come on this forum and it almost seems to me that quite a few people are on here to try and prove something.

In my opinion there are two different kinds of depth, one that comes from experience which builds charictor and wisdom and the other which unfortunately most often destroys it.

 

[Lady_X]

I have heard people say this and thought to myself your actually not all that deep. I personally think that a lot of people tend to think they're super deep as a means of putting they're differences or perceptions above others. I'm not saying this holds true in your case but all to often I come on this forum and it almost seems to me that quite a few people are on here to try and prove something.

In my opinion there are two different kinds of depth, one that comes from experience which builds charictor and wisdom and the other which unfortunately most often destroys it.

just to clarify...i didn't say anything about being deep.

i said there's a deeper connection felt when one gets you in ways the majority of others do not.

can you feel the difference in that?

 

[cascadeco]

just to clarify...i didn't say anything about being deep.

i said there's a deeper connection felt when one gets you in ways the majority of others do not.

can you feel the difference in that?

It's taken me a long journey to realize I am a sensor.

I think what you describe, a desire for a deeper connection that you rarely attain, when someone 'gets' you, is human. I think intuitives like to chalk it up to intuitiveness, the inability to connect deeply and often with others, but I think it impacts everyone. Sensors can feel this disconnect just as keenly. I can tell you I've felt disconnected from most for most of my life; but, I don't think it's due to my being s, or n, or j, or p, or whatnot, I think this is something that ties into other elements of my psychae, and I think holding onto this idea of not connecting often with others may in fact exacerbate the tendency not to connect. It's like self-fulfilling sometimes.

Now it may be we each have different ways to connect, and to feel understood, but this feeling of not feeling understood by others is not an n/s thing. (also, I know from little side comments throughout the years that my istj mother has struggled with the same)

I think there are people though who don't place as much importance on this deep 'connection' and 'understanding' -- but I'm not sure that trait either falls on the n/s divide.

 

[Lady_X]

yeah for sure.

wasn't trying to say it was an s/n thing. i was saying you might hear an intuitive say that for that reason...not that i personally think that.

i think there are a lot of ways people can connect....and i know that sensors can feel unseen or misunderstood too.

 

[A_priori]

yeah for sure.

wasn't trying to say it was an s/n thing. i was saying you might hear an intuitive say that for that reason...not that i personally think that.

i think there are a lot of ways people can connect....and i know that sensors can feel unseen or misunderstood too.

Hypothetically speaking, what If someone was to prove to you there is no such thing as being S or N? Would you be in disbelief?

 

[Evo]

All I know is when I'm around other Ni's I am way more at ease. Must be a security thing with my e6 ness...but I feel like I can be more myself because we speak the same language or something and not everything is going to be twisted or taken literally. Its relieving. When I talk about my everyday "up in the clouds" stuff...Se shuts down. "Shrugs" maybe I have not talked to enough sensors that have meditated though. Idk .

When I'm just laying down thinking about random shit for a while..it takes other people drugs and meditation to get where I'm at. So when I actually meditate.... I sound way out there I think.

All that being said...i still love me some sensors though ha ha.

 

[EJCC]

Firstly: I'm super impressed with the OP's self-awareness. Something for all of us to strive for, really.

Secondly: I agree with everybody who's said it has more to do with getting to know someone deeply. Everyone is complex and everyone has hidden depths.* The bias, I think, comes from the fact that a concrete focus can disguise those inner depths to the point that other people don't realize they exist. This is coming from someone who is very frequently judged that way -- especially when those inner depths are associated (in my case) with vulnerability, which isn't the most fun thing ever.

*Edit:

I've been told by a few people IRL that I'm "deep" and it's always baffled me...isn't everyone deep? Humans are such wonderfully complex creatures. It's just that not everyone bothers to go past the superficial layers. But there's always something under there, if you actually look for it. Many people don't, I've found.

Of course, maybe everyone else only seems deep to me because I'm just a simple sensor.

^ This.

 

[Qre:us]

[MENTION=17933]Susah[/MENTION]

I have found ISXPs to be very deep, actually, in a formidable way. It's the Ni tertiary that is still grounded in reality (Se), that makes for an epic combination. Their vision far surpasses mine, in a lot of ways (and I'm an "N"). My ISFP friend is hilarious, artistic and quixotic. She's very grounded, too. It makes her relatable, whereas INFPs, sometimes are so far "away", that tethering them back to a shared reality is a Sisyphean effort.


I have very deep friendships with S, SJs. There's merit to having conversations where your theory is met with a practical perspective. And my ESFJ best friend finds it amusing to let me go on my ridiculous flights of fancy, and engages her tertiary Ne with mine. It's a wonderful, playful thing.

MBTI is about preferences, and makes no commentary on abilities or skills. Don't sell yourself (and others) short by not giving that individual an opportunity to show you how their preference and abilities combined can make them an amazing potential.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I think the subject of "deepness"is one that is more intimately tied to the instincts (like having SX) than s or n. One of my best friends from this site is an ISTP so/sx guy. Having the shared SX-ness means that we both have a desire for a relationship that is built around bonding and sharing with the other. It doesn't matter that I may talk about more "abstract" flights of fancy things or that he shares with me something "concrete" like something he built for his house. What matters is that we care about each other and respect each other and enjoy learning about each other. On the flipside, I have encountered many N's on here who have the SO/SP combo and I always end up feeling like we aren't *quite* connecting even though it "seems" like we should. This is not necessarily a bad thing in any way, it just is a different way of operating. I have to remind myself to not take it personally.

I think the N-bias is an unfortunate aspect of these sites and I wish it would go away. It is a great disservice to dismiss so much of humanity based on a silly little letter.

 

[Randomnity]

I think the subject of "deepness"is one that is more intimately tied to the instincts (like having SX) than s or n.

This is a really good point. I'd agree that the instinctual variants are probably more relevant than MBTI for "deepness of relationship", since they're all about how you interact with other people. It makes sense for me anyway - I'm an sp/sx and I prefer relationships (and friendships) with a lot of independence but also a deep connection. Maybe that's what everyone wants though, I don't know.

 

[Lady_X]

Hypothetically speaking, what If someone was to prove to you there is no such thing as being S or N? Would you be in disbelief?

Do you like cool whip on your potatoes?

 

[gromit]

How are people defining deep here? Reflecting on things that happen and what you want/value in life?

 

[Stansmith]

I can often get a 'feel' for someone quite easily, especially if I sympathize or relate to you on some level, or if I get the sense that you're a genuinely good person.

 

[Susah]

Thanks again for a lot of interesting responses

MBTI isn't really intended for that kind of thing anyway - it's more of an understanding/communicating tool than a filtering tool.

This is a very good point (especially in combination with the point made that one needs to remember it's about preferences rather than ability or skill) and actually I would say that the MBTI could be used as a way of acknowledging the different 'forms' of depths of different people so to speak.

Or perhaps, to also engage with Gromit's point:

How are people defining deep here? Reflecting on things that happen and what you want/value in life?

The way I think of it it is actually defined in a rather N way :S which is probably what causes the 'problem' in the first place I think of it as having an abstract mindset and seeing beyond what is in front of you, so to speak.

And to get back to what I was saying earlier, I think part of what is good about Jungian psychology as it's functioning as a tool to help you appreciate people for what they are. Even though it certainly happens that I find my closest Sensor friend a bit dull, I really appreciate the 'straightforwardness' that I actually know what he is on about, so to speak. It is actually a great relief to spend time with him - with a lot of my N friends I feel like I never quite know where they stand - whether they actually like me as a person or just finds me amusing etc. - but with him it just feels completely obvious that he actually cares for me as a person.

So I would say that it can get problematic if you take depth to be sort of normative and have more of an evaluative meaning (so to speak) than a factual one. I think it should be possible to say that someone does not have much depth without implying they are somehow worth less or there is something wrong with them. I would say that there are people who do lack 'depth', but that allows them to have other good qualities you would not find in people with more depth (as well as being a good thing in itself), and I think a lot of people value those qualities in themselves more highly and would not sacrifice them in exchange for 'more depth' even if they could.

Does that make sense? :S

 

[skylights]

My personal experience:

I started dating my boyfriend when I was really into the MBTI, and at first I thought he was an EN, like me. A while later I came to the realization that he is actually a very strong S. I'm anxious in general and I'm very, very serious about relationships, and this development scared me. I worried we wouldn't be able to connect deeply enough. It was about 6 months into our relationship, I think, and I was already feeling some trepidation about me wanting to get super "deep" and not feeling that with him.

So I wrote about it on here... predictably, some people told me how awful I was for voicing it. Others, both S and N, were patient and compassionate, and advised me. This was the comment most helpful to me:

I think you're right (on bolded text) that everyone has this side of them, though it's relatively easier for NFs to explore this. It might takes some time and effort to elicit SJs on the same mental plane as yours.

Though isn't that the fun aspect of this union? I thought love is supposed to be challenging (and sometimes struggles) and it's all part of learning process. You don't have to lower your expectation on spirituality from him, though you can lessen your expectation by guiding and taking him to the this level gradually. What's more important is that perhaps he'll teach you how to be more grounded and focus on the practial side and appreciate to cherish the present intimacy?

What I'm trying to say is, usually it takes endless patience to discover that subtle connection. I think most NFs come out strongly in the beginning when they're involved in a new relationship through idealization; whereas SJs tend to grow stronger as they have a more grounded approach in romance. Just try to expect less from him at this moment, so that there will be an opportunity for him to surprise you!

Maybe he didn't express his depth of soul because he is learning this from you and wasn't able to express it accordingly. Somehow I think it is important to consider that the principle of diverse love is to recognize you are not the only individual in the cosmos, that all around you are other individuals, other souls, other Human beings, have different perception of the spiritual world. They are different from you and not you, yet you must communicate with them and understand them. Once you conquered it, that's when love become much more meaningful and precious.

Two years later... I can report this much: S and N are two different ways of interpreting information. Ss see data points; Ns see data bridges. This causes Ss to be more drawn to discussion of the facts (better yet, just the facts themselves) and Ns to be more drawn to discussion of the relationships between facts, but what it does not impact is the content of the data, if that makes sense. S and N preferences tell you only how people like to take things in, when given the choice, but nothing beyond that. My ISFJ is better at philosophy than I am... he is more into politics... he has read much more classic literature... in my opinion he is smarter than me in many ways. So, as for superficiality, that is not at all true. You just have to understand that an S generally wants the facts for themselves, pure and raw, to chew on in their own mind, which is why they will not be so interested in three-times-removed abstract analysis. Which in some ways is really deeper than N processing - it's closer to the source.

As for the element of more "spiritual" depth... this one was harder for me to understand. Again keep in mind that S and N describe how we frame things. Being NF, you and I, we like to see things in magical cosmic mush. Connection and value fused holistically to create what we perceive as "deepest meaning". We like to revel in a mystical feeling of interconnection with the known and unknown. And that's where we feel most in touch with life and significance. But when you break it down... you are getting those feelings because you are looking at something in your mind... and those feelings are your personal response to that data. The thing is... another person of any type can easily value looking at the same things you do, but they might not enjoy that same response so much. They might respond differently.

What I mean in application is that I used to be so worried that my S might not connect with me like I wanted. But it's kind of funny/sad, he wasn't connecting with me like I wanted because I wasn't understanding that he was appreciating the same things as me, but taking it in, responding, and expressing that in a different way. At the heart, we care about the same things, and I have had to learn to open myself to see it through his eyes. To me, going through historical data makes me snooze. To him, it lets him revel in visions of the past and to feel the echo of thousands of beings having been here and lived here and loved here before. In that case he's much more deep than I am! What is most important to me for our relationship is that we share the same values, and we do. He just happens to be much more realistic and practical about them, lol.

IMO, instinct variant is the same. It's all about the framework and not about the content. I thought I was sx-first because I always wanted depth - I was wrong, though. I find more depth in long, constant-contact, strong bonds than in super-intimate, super-high-intensity sx connections. It's all about where you find the depth... everyone has it. I totally admit that I once thought otherwise and I am somewhat embarrassed but very happy to say I was self-centered and totally wrong.

So in your case... given your ISFP... there is still SO much to know! His values, his interests, his projects, his beliefs, and so on. The CONTENT is the same as for an N. But you might have to open your own mind and try to adjust to his way of communicating, because you might have a harder time understanding/seeing the depth if he's not communicating in N terms. What my experience taught me is it's not a deficiency on the S end... it's a deficiency on the N end. Or, better yet, it's just a difference, but if you're the one desiring connection, you're the one who has to be willing to reconsider that your way of looking at things isn't necessarily the only meaningful way. The easiest route, IMO, is the direct route: ask him what he finds interesting. He might enjoy existentialism, who knows. If you want him to open up and respond... ask him what he likes and engage with him about that. You'll find plenty of depth there.

 

[Stansmith]

I think the N-bias is an unfortunate aspect of these sites and I wish it would go away. It is a great disservice to dismiss so much of humanity based on a silly little letter.

At it's worst, it almost feels like being on Stormfront when they're talking about IQ differences and mixed-race 'abominations'.....Although of course, it's much more subtle. Nonetheless, it's still degrading to feel as if your life experiences are inherently worth less than others' based on something beyond your control.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

No I've never thought that but I think you might hear an intuitive say that and mean that they want their partner to understand them in ways others do not. Often being an intuitive can make you feel like you're not speaking the same language as everyone else so there's a deeper connection felt when someone actually gets it or you.

Know what I mean?

I actually feel this between myself and other Fi types quite often. As though we're on to something non-Fi types are missing. Though this isn't always the case. I've realized a majority of my friends are in fact Fi (ExFP's, IxFP's, IxTJ's), and I feel closest with those particular friends.

I think the subject of "deepness"is one that is more intimately tied to the instincts (like having SX) than s or n. One of my best friends from this site is an ISTP so/sx guy. Having the shared SX-ness means that we both have a desire for a relationship that is built around bonding and sharing with the other. It doesn't matter that I may talk about more "abstract" flights of fancy things or that he shares with me something "concrete" like something he built for his house. What matters is that we care about each other and respect each other and enjoy learning about each other. On the flipside, I have encountered many N's on here who have the SO/SP combo and I always end up feeling like we aren't *quite* connecting even though it "seems" like we should. This is not necessarily a bad thing in any way, it just is a different way of operating. I have to remind myself to not take it personally.

I think the N-bias is an unfortunate aspect of these sites and I wish it would go away. It is a great disservice to dismiss so much of humanity based on a silly little letter.

I was actually thinking about this a lot today during my interactions at work. I just started a new job, and I'm realizing I probably am sp/sx and not sp/so, as I had thought for a while. [MENTION=5418]Lady X[/MENTION], when I asked the importance and validity of instincts once stated that she felt it was the most important factor, above mbti or enneagram in understanding relationships and differences between herself and others. And I just finally made sense of that today as I observed my own interactions. I agree, I think "deepness" is rooted in fondness and desire of wanting to know more of the other. If that sx isn't between myself and another person, I lack the desire to see more in them. But for those I felt an sx attraction towards (not necessarily in a sexual relationship way, but human to human), I felt as though I felt it in them as well, and there was this effect of being magnetic towards one another. I tend to more often feel this way about other introverts, and when the sx is linked, I feel as though we are quietly observing one another with curiosity.

I've been told by a few people IRL that I'm "deep" and it's always baffled me...isn't everyone deep? Humans are such wonderfully complex creatures. It's just that not everyone bothers to go past the superficial layers. But there's always something under there, if you actually look for it. Many people don't, I've found.

Of course, maybe everyone else only seems deep to me because I'm just a simple sensor.

I do understand what you mean by wanting a deeper relationship, though. Some people don't really share their inner selves with a partner, even after a long time dating. I suspect that'd be correlated with I and S, perhaps Fi as well. My last relationship was kinda like that, despite all my efforts - I don't think there's much you can do to get someone to share the deeper parts of themselves if it's very against their nature. However, I think there are intuitives like that, and sensors who are not like that. I wouldn't rule out this guy just yet. MBTI isn't really intended for that kind of thing anyway - it's more of an understanding/communicating tool than a filtering tool.

Once again, I think I may be more in the instinct's boat on this one.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

My personal experience:

I started dating my boyfriend when I was really into the MBTI, and at first I thought he was an EN, like me. A while later I came to the realization that he is actually a very strong S. I'm anxious in general and I'm very, very serious about relationships, and this development scared me. I worried we wouldn't be able to connect deeply enough. It was about 6 months into our relationship, I think, and I was already feeling some trepidation about me wanting to get super "deep" and not feeling that with him.

So I wrote about it on here... predictably, some people told me how awful I was for voicing it. Others, both S and N, were patient and compassionate, and advised me. This was the comment most helpful to me:



Two years later... I can report this much: S and N are two different ways of interpreting information. Ss see data points; Ns see data bridges. This causes Ss to be more drawn to discussion of the facts (better yet, just the facts themselves) and Ns to be more drawn to discussion of the relationships between facts, but what it does not impact is the content of the data, if that makes sense. S and N preferences tell you only how people like to take things in, when given the choice, but nothing beyond that. My ISFJ is better at philosophy than I am... he is more into politics... he has read much more classic literature... in my opinion he is smarter than me in many ways. So, as for superficiality, that is not at all true. You just have to understand that an S generally wants the facts for themselves, pure and raw, to chew on in their own mind, which is why they will not be so interested in three-times-removed abstract analysis. Which in some ways is really deeper than N processing - it's closer to the source.

As for the element of more "spiritual" depth... this one was harder for me to understand. Again keep in mind that S and N describe how we frame things. Being NF, you and I, we like to see things in magical cosmic mush. Connection and value fused holistically to create what we perceive as "deepest meaning". We like to revel in a mystical feeling of interconnection with the known and unknown. And that's where we feel most in touch with life and significance. But when you break it down... you are getting those feelings because you are looking at something in your mind... and those feelings are your personal response to that data. The thing is... another person of any type can easily value looking at the same things you do, but they might not enjoy that same response so much. They might respond differently.

What I mean in application is that I used to be so worried that my S might not connect with me like I wanted. But it's kind of funny/sad, he wasn't connecting with me like I wanted because I wasn't understanding that he was appreciating the same things as me, but taking it in, responding, and expressing that in a different way. At the heart, we care about the same things, and I have had to learn to open myself to see it through his eyes. To me, going through historical data makes me snooze. To him, it lets him revel in visions of the past and to feel the echo of thousands of beings having been here and lived here and loved here before. In that case he's much more deep than I am! What is most important to me for our relationship is that we share the same values, and we do. He just happens to be much more realistic and practical about them, lol.

IMO, instinct variant is the same. It's all about the framework and not about the content. I thought I was sx-first because I always wanted depth - I was wrong, though. I find more depth in long, constant-contact, strong bonds than in super-intimate, super-high-intensity sx connections. It's all about where you find the depth... everyone has it. I totally admit that I once thought otherwise and I am somewhat embarrassed but very happy to say I was self-centered and totally wrong.

So in your case... given your ISFP... there is still SO much to know! His values, his interests, his projects, his beliefs, and so on. The CONTENT is the same as for an N. But you might have to open your own mind and try to adjust to his way of communicating, because you might have a harder time understanding/seeing the depth if he's not communicating in N terms. What my experience taught me is it's not a deficiency on the S end... it's a deficiency on the N end. Or, better yet, it's just a difference, but if you're the one desiring connection, you're the one who has to be willing to reconsider that your way of looking at things isn't necessarily the only meaningful way. The easiest route, IMO, is the direct route: ask him what he finds interesting. He might enjoy existentialism, who knows. If you want him to open up and respond... ask him what he likes and engage with him about that. You'll find plenty of depth there.

Perfect!!

 

[A_priori]

Do you like cool whip on your potatoes?

Sure I'm open to new ideas! I'm not really sure how your response is indicative of my question but hey it's all good. On a serious note though, do you ever think that people might be far more complex to be classified as either sensing or intuitive?