That was my point. I was merely following suit to show your fallacy.
I'm asking you, can we abandon the traditional terminology?
Intuition isn't limited to "big picture" and sensation isn't limited to details.
Both are more complicated than that.
the grouping of words associated with each approach are not entirely synonymous, but the concepts are the point here, not the terminology. S vs. N is a spectrum of favored approach, looking at a collection of new details <-> considering the implications of the summarized whole by comparing it to past pattern. my understanding of this spectrum survives a great extent of mechanical application, so naturally i am interested in hearing other ways of looking at it.
ironically, it is people who want to look at MBTI letters alone and say "Ns are more intelligent than Ss" who are being simplistic here... a type such as ISTP contains an Ni tertiary function that could easily be stronger than, say, an INTP's Ne secondary. nearly everyone uses both senses and intuition, and between any given XSXX vs XNXX, you are simply swapping the Nx and Sx functions... not removing them, and certainly not altering the quantitative effectiveness of the function.
in order to determine if either approach is intrinsically better, lets consider the consequences of the extremes: an entirely sensory approach would be completely close-minded and superficial, and an entirely intuitive approach would be fanatical and completely inapplicable. hell, if we had to put the extremes against each other, id favor senses over intuition as, at the very least, it is related to reality in some way (hopefully, reality is something we all can agree exists and is somewhat important
)
let's review: even "S" types have intuition and "N" types use senses. neither end of the spectrum is better. therefore, if youre going to discuss which type is more intelligent, the discussion isnt about definitive "N" vs "S", but which approach is more intelligent to favor in DEGREE.
Now that you're (hopefully) on the same page as me, i'll reiterate my argument... in any given situation you will initially have a set of concrete details and a time limit in which to reach some sort of conclusion. a completely intuitive approach will make no effort to delve into the details, but instead consider them against past experience as a whole. a completely sensory approach will only consider the details but never their greater implication. my argument is that the most intelligent approach is to define what you do and do not know, then make an educated guess. keeping in mind that it is a guess, be prepared to alter it if and when additional data upends it.
sometimes there are a lot of details available, sometimes there are not. the problem with intuitives is that they ignore what details are available and are far more confident in summary than they should be, with sensors is that they spend more time looking at the details available rather than figuring out what they imply and what should be done about them.
