Argument FOR being a Sensor

[Randomnity]

hmmm, in general some good points but I have to comment on a couple:

Yes, let’s start with the most generic definition of a Sensor (Se breed), in comparison to an Intuitive: they have utter focus on what is happening right now, absorbing the environments current natural progression “as it is” (by this, I mean the most objective view of the present a human can perceive, without subjective sensory bias). Unfortunately for many Ns (especially those without Se in their top four function stack), life is primarily action based. This is where Se thrives: action in the moment. To the perception of humans, time is a linear progression, in which “now” is the only existence- Se grasps this better than any other function, thus are great at taking action when needed.

Not really true for non-Se doms (ESTP, ESFP). I do like to enjoy the present but not in a super action-packed kind of way.

So they may not get a golden sticker for being a special little snowflake a la the Intuitives, but in the long run, this is a fantastically advantageous situation to be in. As social beings, humans rely on each other, and this cannot be denied; no matter how individualistic and self-sufficient you think you are. And as life-forms, we naturally have the instinct to thrive and continue the species progress. So difference is perceived as a weakness in the line, and unable to continue the consistency. With these two variables, logically, the easiest route through life is to simply be like the majority. This allows Sensors to be the most accepted and have an easy time navigating through other people via thinking in similar ways. Being misunderstood is one of the major issues for Intuitives, which is not so much of a problem for most Sensors.

I think far more things go into feeling "accepted" than whether you prefer to take in abstract or concrete information. For example, social skills, introversion, conformation to gender roles, ease at building relationships/relating to others, ethnic/cultural backgrounds (relative to the norm in your area), values you were raised with, etc etc etc. While it's true that all else being equal, sensors would be more likely to "fit in" due to their greater numbers, the number of factors involved means that sensing/intuition is not really a meaningful thing to focus on IMO.

Re: the last bit, I think this may be true, but not because we're easier to understand at all - I can't speak for others but for me it is an acceptance of the fact that nobody can really be completely understood, so it isn't something I really strive for. I do try to find people I relate to, but this is very rare and not related at all to S/N, for me. I don't even understand myself - I'm not sure why I would expect someone else to.

The world is “built” for them

Leading off the last point, because there are more Sensors, societies systems are primarily adapted for Sensors, in particular SJs. They have the easiest time conforming and navigating through these systems with the greatest success. This is a pitfall for some Intuitives, who may struggle to follow and even comply with these expectations, which may lead to a more difficult life overall. But navigating these systems allows many Sensors to get what they want, faster. Perhaps the Sensor satisfaction rate for life – although I can provide no studies whatsoever – is higher, with a possibility of Intuitives being more likely than average to get depression.

This is really only true for SJs, and only because that's what their natural inclination is - I'm not sure it makes them any happier overall, that seems like a big reach to me.

Abstract isn't better than concrete

Reading many times on forums about these two dispositions that distinguish Sensors and Intuitives, I get the impression that people believe thinking concretely rather than abstractly is a negative trait and naturally inferior. This is false. There is only a difference in thought processes, no system of measurement that would lend itself to one being superior over another. One has the ability to produce new thoughts that will eventually enhance what is current, the other; the ability to maintain consistency and make these new thoughts a reality that is usable for the entire race. Concrete thought enables the user to convert a thought to the tangible, almost instantaneously. Perhaps at the risk of not thinking anything as avant-garde as the Intuitive, but it is a sacrifice and not inferiority. This also works vice-versa for Intuitives.

Yes, this is great and really all that needs to be said about the subject. (well, the "new thoughts" bit is a bit sketchy, but I'll interpret that charitably, I suppose).

Intelligence is not an N trait

Finally, another well-known belief among typology fans is that for someone to be exceptionally intelligent, they have to be an Intuitive. Perhaps not to such a degree that it is regarded as absolute- still the distinction is often, at least partially, believed to be true. Now there will be correlations, and evidence for the case of Ns being more intelligent could stem from many of history’s greatest thinkers and visionaries being typed as such. They may be right, maybe wrong, but this is not my point. My point is that this type of intelligence associated with such people (and Ns) is perceived as more intelligent. For instance, science (the majority most likely to be Intuitors) is continuously thought of as a profession that only intelligent humans indulge in, and rightly so. One who participates in Art, sport and other typically "S" environments, and stands out, are not so often perceived as "intelligent". But, personally, I thoroughly believe in the theory of multiple intelligences, thus brilliance in these areas too, may qualify for the label of "intelligent".

ehh....this is a sticky subject because intelligence is often described as the ability to work with abstract information. On average Ns would be expected to test better at that, since it is their preferred source of information which you would expect to correlate with ability - but there are a not insignificant number of Ns who are not great at it, and Ss who are great at it.

Also, there is intelligence which is not "abstract" but also not the lame Everyone's A Winner! BS of "good at sports 'intelligence'" or "good at drawing 'intelligence'". Science is actually a really excellent example of something which does involve abstract ideas but is far more about logical consistency, designing experiments to test specific concepts, using math formulas to derive meaning from data, drawing the correct conclusions from data observed, etc - these easily fall under intelligence but are not very abstract abilities.

And as a grad student in science, my experience is that the bolded is absolutely not true. In physics I'd expect more Ns, but not in chemistry or engineering and definitely not in biology/medical research, which is a huge proportion of scientists. I'd actually expect the Ns to overwhelmingly prefer things like the arts - science is very concrete and practical. That's certainly what I've seen in my social circle.

 

[Azure Flame]

The idea that there are more sensors than intuitives is bollocks.

My life has way more intuitives than sensors. Way more. So if you think there are more of us than you, well, here's my counterposition to that. I think intuitives generally have a more contemplative lifestyle, so their facetime out and about the world is naturally going to be less than sensors.

 

[Standuble]

The idea that there are more sensors than intuitives is bollocks.

My life has way more intuitives than sensors. Way more. So if you think there are more of us than you, well, here's my counterposition to that.

Where are you exactly? Here there seems to be more sensors than intuitives (unless the intuitives keep their silence.) I for one would not be the office eccentric if my behaviour was that common.

 

[Azure Flame]

Where are you exactly? Here there seems to be more sensors than intuitives (unless the intuitives keep their silence.) I for one would not be the office eccentric if my behaviour was that common.

I'm in colorado. most of the culture and people I've met have been hippies. The sensors are all busy doing something. It just depends where you look. I live with 2 greenpeace workers, an ENFP and ENFJ. ENFJ brought over her family which was basically, INTP ENFP ENFJ. I moved to the city so I could meet sensors specifically. When I go to gymnastics, the guys I hang out with are ENFJ, INFJ, and INTJ. For whatever reason I cannot meet sensors. Probably because most of the sensory activities are expensive and I don't have the money to get there.

However at work, I do work with a female ESTP 8 and a male ESTP 7. So that's a start.

When I worked in an office, there were more sensors than intuitives in my particular room, but overall it was pretty even spread. I think it depends where you look.

 

[Aesthete]

Hm...there are obvious advantages to sensors (Se especially, by your post), but is there not more to life than simply fitting in? Is there not more than just being a part of the masses, fitting in, and leading a "normal" life? This seems to be the only way sensors are superiors to intuitives (by your argument): they have no ideals and take the world as it is. As my dad puts it "It's a happy life being stupid: your ignorance of your stupidity is bliss, and only others are bothered by it."

This post is just relevant to the OP, not to sensors.

 

[KDude]

Being a "Sensor" is hardly fitting in. If S/N is the only measure of social adjustment and normality, you all need to read Jung (you know, the guy who invented the theory). Introversion and Extroversion is given the strongest focus, in this respect. There isn't a paragraph where he doesn't mention this dichotomy.

 

[the state i am in]

there's far too much difference to be able to encapsulate especially when the piece in question is actually something that makes up everyone to some degree and, maybe better said, is happening within everyone to varying degrees of conscious focusing/awareness. but, in terms of why someone should take pride in their own individualization as a sensor (given that type is simply a kind of scripted set of places in your life timeline when you integrate that shadowy part of yourself with your identity), well, in a sense S types test and more fully dwell within the cultural spaces they grow up in. they live them out in a less self-conscious way. they embody them and practice them with more sincerity, in a way, because they are not blending the context as much internally and redescribing what is happening through cross-contextual means.

in other words, they know more about application in real, cultural spaces in the sense that they live it out more. their details are more real, given how we define what makes something real, that it has been actualized and fully expressed in a recognizably describable social context. their experiences should be valued as a result. they are an essential part of the ground for and of all things.

N is more for facilitating processes to engage complex problems. it takes us to the limits of what can be known and said, oftentimes clarifying where we are at and what ranges of likelihood we might be able to aim for. but it does not solve our problems. it does not have a patent on probability. it does not tell us what will happen. it's simply a skill for interpreting that brings insight, unseen information, into situations that others would not see. but that is the difficulty of having one foot in the whole of the empty, spacious universe, and the other on a particular piece of patchwork built by blades of grass.

oh yeah, and it seems to me that our developmental unfolding (a sociobiological program) directly challenges us to incorporate what we can't recognize yet within ourselves into our conscious awareness. it's how we add layers to our learning that maximize how much change we can make given what we've already done/become. when it's time to start a new level rather than continuing accumulating more of the same. you will not suddenly become an intuitive, as a sensor, when an intuitive has specialized for many many years in cultivating a cognitively constructed world based on cross-contextualization. but when you do start recognizing how to employ this other pathway of processing, it does allow you to reprocess much of what you already know and create a kind of cross-contextualization within yourself and your own cognitive world. (all functional development does this. it is however difficult to do this in the off periods that correspond with the continuous experience within life's individual phases. moreover, the change of phases come with hormonal changes marked by the major triggers of the life course).

similarly, S does the same for N types, grounding them in the experience of specifics that helps them not attach to S data as if it were simply self-evident truth but to instead find ways of anchoring the perceptual process in a more tangible aspect (Se the body, Si the social body), recognizing the role in plays in helping us experience reality directly, when used in conjunction with the reflexive, mirroring, conceptual intelligence of intuition. it's a way of performing the statistics of the body that help us mark points rather than patterns to use without defining and delimiting exactly what they are as objects or what processes they're part of. it's just investment in specific registries rather than global ones. practicing a different kind of presence. this is helpful not because it just helps us "fit in," which everyone experiences in far more complex ways than N/S. it's more about helping us be present in a way that is less alienating because it helps us stop drowning in the murky underneath beyond the surface of things, to swim back to the surface and get our footing back on land.

I'm in colorado. most of the culture and people I've met have been hippies.

go to a ski resort. or buy a frisbee/bicycle. or become a broncos fan.

 

[Kalach]

This topic remains bizarre but then I suppose the upside of not being interested overmuch in my fellow man as individuals is I've never particularly detected this N vs S thing. So probably I don't know what you people are talking about. But I don't think it can be something as fundamental as what kind of cognition you prefer.

 

[WALMART]

Which are you actually suggesting? Different terminology for the same system? Or a different system?

Different system, of course. I've got ideas.

Also, an SJ is intuitive, because they go on a "hunch" based on past experience, which they can't ratioanlly explain.

And a Feeler is intuitive, because they go on a Feeling, which they can't rationally explain.

But both are different from an iNtuitive.

I would imagine SJ's being able to explain their hunches better than anyone else, at any rate. (mostly have STJ's in mind).


A large gripe I have with typological descriptions is of intuitors going for 'intangible' 'complex' 'theoretical' systems. What does this entail? The arts? Religion? Law? Economics? Psychology? Physics? Quantum mechanics? Engineering? Carpentry? It just seems like a load, the way it's laid out most places, that can really throw a person off of how they develop their sense of self.


Quickly, could you tell me what sets an intuitor apart from their sensing counterparts? How does an NFP differ from an SFP?

This topic remains bizarre but then I suppose the upside of not being interested overmuch in my fellow man as individuals is I've never particularly detected this N vs S thing. So probably I don't know what you people are talking about. But I don't think it can be something as fundamental as what kind of cognition you prefer.

It exists. I've seen some things, man.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

A large gripe I have with typological descriptions is of intuitors going for 'intangible' 'complex' 'theoretical' systems. What does this entail? The arts? Religion? Law? Economics? Psychology? Physics? Quantum mechanics? Engineering? Carpentry? It just seems like a load, the way it's laid out most places, that can really throw a person off of how they develop their sense of self.

I am inclined to agree with you.

I don't much like the definitions I have read of the N functions, in either attitude.

I understand the descriptions the abstract, but I don't see them "in themselves".

Quickly, could you tell me what sets an intuitor apart from their sensing counterparts? How does an NFP differ from an SFP?

It's not my style to talk in generalities about people I don't know.

I think I can usually however tell if Se is present as a dom or aux function, or if not.

But you will already be able to guess the description I would give, based on what you said here:

It exists. I've seen some things, man.

 

[KDude]

It's not that Sensors are unable to understand wholistic "theories" and systems. Just that they don't develop their approach that way. The first instinct is more from the ground up, situational, etc.. It doesn't mean they dismiss all theory or can't borrow from the work of others. Like there's some magical "mental block" that keeps them in the dark from those approaches. I benefit from intuitive approaches often or unable to appreciate them. If anything, I can understand some of them enough to improve them or provide more information. But I'm not going to say that's how I build ideas myself. One stereotype for ISTP is the "troubleshooter". I'm fine with that.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

End of the day though [MENTION=5731]Kalach[/MENTION] is right.

There is no "argument for" being a Sensor or iNtuitive.

You just are what you are, a mix of functions, with characteristic weaknesses and benefits according to preference.

The objective is to overcome the former and maximize the latter.