How Intuitives (especially IN's) and Sensors look to each other.

[Athenian200]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while now. Intuitives really look all the same to them: we appear to overanalyze everything, and seem to care about nuances that they consider ridiculous. If you look at it from their perspective, they're right, because we always try to understand a thing's underlying nature, and/or what it means. From a sensing perspective, everything usually simply means what it means on the surface, and there is no more to see. They think we are mad because we discuss things that don't exist in their world, intangibles. They are even more afraid when we seem to peer beyond what they believe to be absolute reality, forcing them to confront a (to them) nightmare world of complexities and hidden assumptions that make them very uncomfortable.

But if you think this makes them dull, then consider that Sensing is exactly the same nightmare for you. It's the likely reason why you're here, on the Internet, instead of out there, in their world. For the most part, it really is their world we live in, and that's what scares us.

However, we do need each other. Sensors become complacent about doing things according to a consistent tangible process, place, or thing. When what they're used to stops working, they have trouble finding a new paradigm to accord themselves with. That's where we come in. We analyze what's changed, what something meant, what they found in it, and can tell them what the idea they cared about was, even though the thing or process itself is gone or ineffective now. With this new understanding, they can find new processes and things to wrap themselves up in.

Intuitives usually become complacent in the reality of things. We become so absorbed in what something symbolizes, or what could happen as a result of it, that we fail to acknowledge or react to the existence of the thing itself. When we try to react to it, we react poorly. We know how to invent ideas and procedures, but we aren't as good at adapting these to the "real" world, which has a Sensing nature. This can be illustrated in the difficulty of the question, "What do you want to eat?" This question, if answered honestly, takes a lot of thought for us. It involves no principles, no emotions, no greater meaning. It is based on what's available, what "tastes good", and things that are hard for us to consider. Usually we just mask this by finding one or two things that don't disgust us, and ordering these when asked, relieving us from thinking on such matters. We can become so focused on making things adhere to a particular scheme or idea that we become oblivious to the reality that we are molding, unable to realize that it has become unneccessary, that what's there already works well, or that our idea would be better implemented in a different place or context.

In our daily lives, we can't get along, and usually ignore each other as though we inhabited different planes of reality, because in a sense we do. They live in the world around them, in terms of things, places, processes. We live in the world inside of, yet beyond that world, the one that lurks in it's shadows. We contemplate what a place should be like, what it's purpose is. We evaluate the way things are, and compare them with how we'd like them to be, or how they accord with their own purpose or meaning. They evaluate things as they are, and think about what they'd like to do with things in that context. We are so different, it would almost seem that we couldn't both be human, but we prove that we are when we cross unwittingly into the other's reality, where they either help us through, or take advantage of our weakness. And both of us must face this trial, whether it's from ideas to reality, or vice-versa.

 

[Cindyrella]

I don't know about not getting along in our daily lives. You really think so? Hm. I think I have a pretty funny dynamic with certain S types, but usually only if they're male. I tend to find (E)ST(J) women very arrogant, unfriendly, bossy, and competitive. And they're know-it-alls. Of course, I'm speaking entirely from the perspective of an INFP female.

On the other hand, I know an ESTJ male with whom I seem to get along fairly well. I mean, it's nothing more than a shallow work relationship, and I don't know him well enough (nor do I associate with him nearly enough) to really judge this with any depth. Plus, he's probably a 6-9 years my senior, if not older. So I don't know if that has anything to do with it. I actually had him take the MBTI at work, and he referred to it as touchy feely BS and related it to the likes of astrology. Personally I find him funny, and we enjoy poking fun at each other VERY sarcastically. As an aside, he did admit the ESTJ portrait was accurate of him.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, what you described is mostly what I meant. I meant that they can relate superficially, but not very meaningfully, because our respective realities mean little or nothing to each other, at least until a certain point appears that allows our realities to intersect for a while, like a common problem or a crisis.

 

[Cindyrella]

Do you think gender (like what I described) has any play in it? I literally only tolerate the ESTJ female I know, but I actually genuinely like the male ESTJ. As an N female I project different feelings onto male and female S's.

I know your post was speaking in much broader terms, but I just find this specific possibility interesting.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, it certainly could, but that would only make sense if you were subconsciously attracted to the male ESTJ. If you aren't, then it shouldn't make any difference.

Also, do the two of them have the same mannerisms and personality outwardly? They might have intrinsics other than type that make one less likable, and one more likable. If you try picturing each of them as the opposite gender, do you find your feelings for them reversed?

 

["?"]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while now. Intuitives really look all the same to them: we appear to overanalyze everything, and seem to care about nuances that they consider ridiculous. If you look at it from their perspective, they're right, because we always try to understand a thing's underlying nature, and/or what it means.

First off you are not describing intuition, instead the introverted thinking (Ti) function. Furthermore, as usual for whatever reasons most intuitive forms can get beyond the fact that Se and Si are completely different, as is Ne and Ni. So when you make generalized statements, you are not describing SP types, only SJ.

From a sensing perspective, everything usually simply means what it means on the surface, and there is no more to see. They think we are mad because we discuss things that don't exist in their world, intangibles. They are even more afraid when we seem to peer beyond what they believe to be absolute reality, forcing them to confront a (to them) nightmare world of complexities and hidden assumptions that make them very uncomfortable.

Again, that is a double edged sword, because the reality that is usually shared is less of reality, instead based on a flawed understanding of type. As someone who has been typing on the forums for years, I become quite intolerant of the intellectual untruths that are thrown around by intuitive types. I think at least for myself, and other ISP types that I have spoken with, we find it humorous that intuitives just don't get it and appear to lack knowledge of type basic principles. Again, each type uses all eight functions in some capacity, so what you describe above is not only untruthful, but just dead wrong.

But if you think this makes them dull, then consider that Sensing is exactly the same nightmare for you. It's the likely reason why you're here, on the Internet, instead of out there, in their world. For the most part, it really is their world we live in, and that's what scares us.

Now you are describing I/E. How many EN types do you see lurking on the forums?

When what they're used to stops working, they have trouble finding a new paradigm to accord themselves with. That's where we come in. We analyze what's changed, what something meant, what they found in it, and can tell them what the idea they cared about was, even though the thing or process itself is gone or ineffective now. With this new understanding, they can find new processes and things to wrap themselves up in.

And this is more a J/P thing. Do you truly think that SPs are incapable of adapting? I do agree that we like things to be consistent, however there is no evidence or indication that NJs adapt better than SPs. There was an article on the Socionics website years ago, that provides a good illustration of how J/P works. As you can see, it is the Judging types who are incapable of adapting. Once again, for whatever reasons this forum fails to be capable of making the finer distinction between intuitive and sensing.

 

[Athenian200]

First off you are not describing intuition, instead the introverted thinking (Ti) function. Furthermore, as usual for whatever reasons most intuitive forms can get beyond the fact that Se and Si are completely different, as is Ne and Ni. So when you make generalized statements, you are not describing SP types, only SJ.Again, that is a double edged sword, because the reality that is usually shared is less of reality, instead based on a flawed understanding of type. As someone who has been typing on the forums for years, I become quite intolerant of the intellectual untruths that are thrown around by intuitive types. I think at least for myself, and other ISP types that I have spoken with, we find it humorous that intuitives just don't get it and appear to lack knowledge of type basic principles. Again, each type uses all eight functions in some capacity, so what you describe above is not only untruthful, but just dead wrong. Now you are describing I/E. How many EN types do you see lurking on the forums? And this is more a J/P thing. Do you truly think that SPs are incapable of adapting? I do agree that we like things to be consistent, however there is no evidence or indication that NJs adapt better than SPs. There was an article on the Socionics website years ago, that provides a good illustration of how J/P works. As you can see, it is the Judging types who are incapable of adapting. Once again, for whatever reasons this forum fails to be capable of making the finer distinction between intuitive and sensing.

I'm a bit perplexed. First of all, Ti is my tertiary function, so I couldn't have been describing it. Also, I know the difference between SJ's and SP's. SJ's are judicious, prompt, and regimented, and value institutions, and specific procedures. SP's are chaotic, random, aggressive, and rather tasteless. What they both have in common is a tendancy to have more of an awareness of what happens, rather than it's meaning. They just learn how to do things, but they don't usually try to discover the meaning or the principle behind the things they do or the things that exist, they are just accepted as standards (for SJ's) or as realities (for SP's). They react to them differently, the SJ's trying to maintain things the way they've seen them before, and the SP's just dealing with it as existing, and doing with it whatever makes them feel good at the moment, without pausing to contemplate what it represents. I wasn't talking about adapting to your environment, that's what SP's excel at. I was talking about understanding the meaning or purpose behind what you do, rather than merely the procedure or object (for SJ's), or the event or process (for SP's) I apologize for my unclear word choices.

You are right that all types use all functions, but the point is that using anything other than your first two or three functions (dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary) is very uncomfortable or difficult. My point was to illustrate that both types need each other, not to imply that Sensors are worthless. Didn't you see that?

 

["?"]

Okay, I attempted to respond, but as usual the system only post my first sentence. Will have to wait until the system allows me to repost.

 

[wildcat]

The "?" ISTP said you are not describing an intuitive process but a Ti process. I disagree. There is no Ti process. The functions unite and they work united. Ti is either Se or Ne, and yours is surely Ne. Besides, you are a Fi Ne and you can turn it around and be a Ni Fe.

Ti may be the tertiary function of your type but it certainly is not your tertiary function. You have the ability to use diverse function mechanisms in a high level.

 

[Athenian200]

The "?" ISTP said you are not describing an intuitive process but a Ti process. I disagree. There is no Ti process. The functions unite and they work united. Ti is either Se or Ne, and yours is surely Ne. Besides, you are a Fi Ne and you can turn it around and be a Ni Fe.

Ti may be the tertiary function of your type but it certainly is not your tertiary function. You have the ability to use diverse function mechanisms in a high level.

What do you mean? An Fi Ne would be an INFP, not an INFJ. And you're saying that Ti isn't my tertiary function? Read any website on type, and you'll see that an INFJ's (or ISFJ's) tertiary function is Ti. How can a person's tertiary function be different from their type's tertiary function? You're describing a paradox. Ti both is and isn't my tertiary function? That's impossible...

 

[wildcat]

I have to see your function order again.
If I remember correctly you presented two sets of function order that showed a very interesting pattern.
There are diverse models of function order. People do not tend to ascribe perfectly to any of the models.
If you are happy with the INFJ description then you are an INFJ. It means you fit the INFJ model type pattern closest (of the 16 model type patterns).

If I remember correctly you showed in your cognitive processes test result an INFP pattern and as well an INTP pattern. It does not mean you are not an INFJ.
It only shows you are adept at using a handful of diverse cognitive processes mechanisms.
This is evident not only in the tests you took but also in your posts.
There is no paradox.
You have a highly developed Ti Ne. It is not in the tertiary department.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, actually, I wouldn't say that I fit the INFJ description exactly, that's just the result I get most commonly, and that's why I use that (I stopped relying on descriptions a long time ago, they just baffled me). I just highly doubt that I'm a P, because I need a lot of order in my environment, and can't deal well with chaos or change, I like consistancy. Also, I tend to notice details such as incorrect spelling, errors in meaning, and broken rules. I very much believe that people should adhere to rules and laws, because otherwise society will decend into chaos.

Actually, the three type patterns that emerged from the function test as strong were: ISFJ, INFP, INTP.

Now, I'm sure any of the many Ti-dominant INTP's would be happy to explain and illustrate how much weaker my Ti function is compared to thiers.

Oh, and they'll also tell you how poor my Ne is, because I have no sense of humor, and don't obsessively seek novelty, because in fact I avoid it. I once tried to stop the adoption of a new character encoding method because I didn't want ASCII to be swept aside.

And what are "Cognitive Process Mechanisms"? Groups of two functions that usually represent a particular type?

 

[wildcat]

With the mechanisms I mean the interplay of the introverted judging functions with the extraverted perceiving functions and vice versa. That this interplay is a fact one can well see in the cognitive processes test results of people. They show the pattern.
Yes I checked. You have an ISFJ pattern in your test result. Among other highly developed patterns. Also you show the ISFJ kind of thinking in the post 12. People should adhere to rules and laws.. very ISFJ.
There are also bad laws. In this benighted country the laws are rapidly changing very much for the worse. The labour union and the civil servants have a frightening power. They are ignorant or/and corrupt. The politicians toe their line. The laws passed in the parliament create unemployment and mental problems and poverty to many people. Also people who have done nothing wrong are forcibly taken from their homes and placed in badly maintained institutions. Why? Because they are individualistic and they happen to be slightly different from the other (read: ISTJ) people.

No, I do not think an enlightened individual should adhere to pernicious laws.
In Nazi Germany they passed laws that dictated that Jews and Gypsies have no rights and they can be killed without punishment.
No, I do not believe in any such laws. I do not believe in authority. I believe in civil disobedience.

The other of the tests did not tell you have a poor Ne.
Test again every month you see. I think it is there all right. You need it for your Fi and Ti.

I do not see seek a novelty of any kind. I dislike it in the extreme. I believe in a life pattern of order. When somebody removes an object from the usual place I am completely lost. And yet I have a very high Ne.

Which of the decripions fit you best? As you allude, maybe it is an inane question.

If you think the Keirsey description does not fit you at all, why do you then think you are an INFJ?

INFJ Links - Dolphin Cove

INFJ Profile

and from there you can link to ISFJ, INFP and INTP.

I am a Ti-dominant INTP and I do not think your Ti function is any way weaker than mine. Maybe it is a way stronger.

 

[Athenian200]

INFJ description:

I hold convictions about the important matters in life that I don't always express, true. I have a knack for verbal communication and self-expression, true.

However, I would never risk saving someone from an emergency. I would probably call the police to deal with the situation. I don't fantasize about getting revenge on those who victimize the defenceless, I prefer to believe that our courts will deal with them, and don't let it enter my mind. Also, I'm not terribly selective about my friends, I'll show kindness and friendship to anyone who returns mine, and may even show it to them first, if they seem nice enough. However, I do avoid people who are very crass, seem threatening, just give me chills, or have slighted me in the past.

ISFJ description:

Most of it is true, actually... except for my desire to serve. I'm not that interested in serving people in practial ways (although I will if they ask me to). But I do enjoy providing emotional support. In fact, I jump at the chance to provide it when it appears. I actually do want others to return it, although I would never ask them to. I just expect them to know. Also, I don't obsess infinitely over the quality of everything I do, I only do it to a set personal standard. Unless I really need to make a good impression, then I might fuss over trying to do it perfectly. I'm not usually overworked, I actually try to minimize my obligations, albeit I dutifully fulfill the ones that I accept. Finally, I usually allow my home to become cluttered and in disarray, but if someone comes over (which is rare), I'll clean everything up before they arrive. I never let anyone see my home in a mess, unless it's an emergency. I never do anything on a whim, it always has to be planned at least a day in advance.

INFP Description:

Almost entirely false. I'm not an optimist (in fact I'm a pessimist), and I don't find it difficult to express my feelings. The only thing that might be true is that I struggle with my own ethical perfection.

INTP Description:

This one is also eerily accurate. However, I detest math, and I usually do look for an application of the things I ponder, although I don't always find one at first. The application I usually find is that I intrigue other people with similar interests, which of course I enjoy doing. Also, I usually prefer actual conversations to word games.

 

["?"]

I'm a bit perplexed. First of all, Ti is my tertiary function, so I couldn't have been describing it.

I am not sure what you thought you were describing, but when you said

”…. we appear to overanalyze everything, and seem to care about nuances that they consider ridiculous. If you look at it from their perspective, they're right, because we always try to understand a thing's underlying nature, and/or what it means.”

What do you think you were describing, if it wasn’t this

Introverted Thinking: Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

Ni dominant types don’t analyze, they intuit which is

Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols.

and Ne types

Interpret situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

So, I don’t know what you thought you could not be doing, but what you described is not intuition. As an ISTP, I over analyze.

Also, I know the difference between SJ's and SP's. SJ's are judicious, prompt, and regimented, and value institutions, and specific procedures. SP's are chaotic, random, aggressive, and rather tasteless.

You did not describe either, instead referenced to something that you have read. Do you know anyone personally who has stated that they were SJ or SP? On the other hand, if what you describe above is what you believe, then what cognitive functions are being used?

What they both have in common is a tendancy to have more of an awareness of what happens, rather than it's meaning. They just learn how to do things, but they don't usually try to discover the meaning or the principle behind the things they do or the things that exist, they are just accepted as standards (for SJ's) or as realities (for SP's).

What you just described is usually the average conversation I see here and at INTPC, with people half learning this system then attempting to create theory, when not fully understanding the basic principles, ie not all sensors are the same, all types do use all eight functions and Si, and Se types theoretically will have a better development of Ni than NPs. The list goes on in regards to the half baked ideas posted here, which only shows lack of knowledge of the basic principles.

They react to them differently, the SJ's trying to maintain things the way they've seen them before, and the SP's just dealing with it as existing, and doing with it whatever makes them feel good at the moment, without pausing to contemplate what it represents. I wasn't talking about adapting to your environment, that's what SP's excel at. I was talking about understanding the meaning or purpose behind what you do, rather than merely the procedure or object (for SJ's), or the event or process (for SP's) I apologize for my unclear word choices.

You have read Keirsey, so what? PUM II is the biggest joke, and MBTI enthusiasts such as Naomi Quenck and Lenore Thomson totally make it known that Keirsey’s system is not MBTI.

You are right that all types use all functions, but the point is that using anything other than your first two or three functions (dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary) is very uncomfortable or difficult. My point was to illustrate that both types need each other, not to imply that Sensors are worthless. Didn't you see that?

So let me understand what you are saying. Assuming that you are old enough, or do, drive, what function do you think you are using when you hit a slick spot or attempting to evade an acident? Or, should I be concerned because you are admitting that you are an accident waiting to happen? I will tell you what you use, it’s

Extraverted Sensation is orientation to your environment by immediate, gut-level response. "Trust your gut." Orienting to your environment this way, you don't think, you don't reflect, you just react.

Any other function is not going to work. Also, you have already admitted to using Ti, so your entire theory here is in error. However, if you can show me a definition of Ni or Ne being over analytical, I would love to entertain it.

 

["?"]

The "?" ISTP said you are not describing an intuitive process but a Ti process. I disagree. There is no Ti process. The functions unite and they work united. Ti is either Se or Ne, and yours is surely Ne. Besides, you are a Fi Ne and you can turn it around and be a Ni Fe.

Now that's just stupid to say that Ti is not a process, and just shows a lack of the system to say that it cannot be used independent of any function. When in deep thought, and attempting to figure something out, you are using Ti. You do not have to be using an extraverted function to Ti. Any time you categorize, seek clarity or anything else, you are cognitively processing using Ti.

 

[The Ü™]

I agree that Ti is an analyzing function. But when the auxiliary is connected to it, there is quite a difference in expression.

For the ISTP, this may lead them to be math whizzes, since math is a form of analysis used to solve outer-world concrete problems. Hence, the ISTP may be a good mechanic, engineer, computer programmer, or scientist. Ti coupled with Se could also lead them to be good athletes, since they analyze what their next move should be in the here-and-now.

The INTP could be less into math, since they're less interested in the here-and-now and more interested in theory. Hence, they are the stereotypical absent-minded professors -- they analyze their own conceptions. So in essence, they are logical like the ISTP, but it's a more abstract logic that doesn't involve solving concrete problems. Therefore, the INTP is more interested in the theoretical sciences, such as architecture.

 

[Totenkindly]

You do not have to be using an extraverted function to Ti. Any time you categorize, seek clarity or anything else, you are cognitively processing using Ti.

Is it perhaps that you have nothing to categorize or clarify unless you gathered it from an external source, though?

That is the thing: Perhaps Ti is a process, just a cookbook describes processes... but unless you buy ingredients and inflict the process on them, the process is useless. It needs external items to act upon -- hence Ti must work in conjunction with SOME sort of externalized data-gathering function (and this is what I understood WC to be alluding to).

The only difference I can imagine at the moment is that once Ti DOES get some external data to process, it can then generate new thoughts on its own, and evaluate THEM in turn, because it is conceptual in nature (it "thinks about thinking")... so it's almost like a perpetual motion machine once it is primed.

 

[ptgatsby]

The only difference I can imagine at the moment is that once Ti DOES get some external data to process, it can then generate new thoughts on its own, and evaluate THEM in turn, because it is conceptual in nature (it "thinks about thinking")... so it's almost like a perpetual motion machine once it is primed.

I think we call that as losing one's grip on reality. I don't think that is what is being said though. "?" is correct in the sense that Ti is being used to process... but you are also correct that it is not Ti being used seperate from the data (from N/S, e/i)

The functions are just a theoretical framework that describe dimensions of preference - they do not operate "individually" in a healthy individual (I would go as far as to say in any non-comatose individual), but generally only one facet of F/T is in action at a time. Everything we process has some form of grounding in physical reality, and everything we see is processed to some degree. Dreaming might very well be what happens when certain areas of the brain shut down(^1).


^1
The brain centers that went ''off line'' during REM sleep were equally striking. Cortical regions responsible for the most sophisticated mental processes, like planning, abstraction, logical thinking and the contextual flow of memories, showed decreased activity, as did the primary visual cortex, in charge of receiving visual input from the outside world. Imaging studies by other researchers have yielded similar results.

 

["?"]

I agree that Ti is an analyzing function. But when the auxiliary is connected to it, there is quite a difference in expression.

For the ISTP, this may lead them to be math whizzes, since math is a form of analysis used to solve outer-world concrete problems. Hence, the ISTP may be a good mechanic, engineer, computer programmer, or scientist. Ti coupled with Se could also lead them to be good athletes, since they analyze what their next move should be in the here-and-now.

The INTP could be less into math, since they're less interested in the here-and-now and more interested in theory. Hence, they are the stereotypical absent-minded professors -- they analyze their own conceptions. So in essence, they are logical like the ISTP, but it's a more abstract logic that doesn't involve solving concrete problems. Therefore, the INTP is more interested in the theoretical sciences, such as architecture.

Interesting theory, and a very good comparative analysis Uber.... however, I always thought that INTPs preferred preferred pure math.