i'm not a sensorist... or whatever you'd call it (does the group have enough constituents to merit word-smithing?)
I got it. Cute.
it's a myth that Thinking/Feeling is necessarily a stronger force in the iNtuitive types.
the truth is* a preference for iNtuition isn't what helps Judgement. it's not as if Intuitive information is easier to work with, or better information or any of that.
Intuitive information is easier to work with for intuitors. Sensors perceive and experience reality directly; intuitors tend to put the variables together to infer based on long term data what probably *should* be happening. They'd have you believe that it's because they choose not to use the S approach, that they're "above" it or something, but in reality they simply cannot directly experience their surroundings with the level of clarity that (proportionally intelligent) Ss can.
prior to this thread, this has been the assumption -- that intuition is just plain better.
well that's nonsense.
You mean that's been your assumption, right?
what puts the intuitors in the lead is the fact that there is so much more for Thinking and Feeling to work with.
iNtuition is a function which depends in part on the immediate sense impressions and with other sense impressions.
stop right there -- no i'm not describing Si. that's not the end of it.
I think you're overstating the importance of the whole physical environment vs. inner ideas thing. That's not really the crux of S vs. N...S/N is really fundamentally just a difference in scope:
In a long line of chalk boards, S is standing directly in front of one and reads it with total clarity, but is not so good at thinking about how far his chalk board might be from others.
N can tell you which chalk boards are closer or farther than others, but has a blurry, generalized view and, most importantly,
cannot actually read the chalk boards!
S prefers to get an in depth, detail-oriented understanding of the real things themselves, the essence of the thing (it doesn't have to be a physical object!)
N prefers to think of things in terms of their relationships to each other. It doesn't experience the essence of the thing like S does.
I know an ISFJ guitarist who has near perfect pitch. He immediately knows whenever anything is off key because he hears a combination of notes and just gets in touch with the immediate essence of what C# is.
I can't do this; when I make a mistake all my notes go off key by the same amount. They maintain the same relationships to each other because that's how I conceptualize them--S hears C and E and G; N hears a major chord. They could move around, and as long as they've all moved the same amount, N wouldn't know the difference.
ESFP pointed out some things about shading and coloring on a poster in my room the other day; I never noticed them because I had already generalized the whole group of colors and shapes as "a poster" and moved on to thinking about how it compares to other groups I've called posters.
along with that, intuition is capable of generating a bond of hypothesis between these two. this bond is what the intuitor makes himself aware of.
this is the truth: iNtuitives, you do notice concrete details.
you just don't make yourself consciously aware of them until they become relevant.
This is a good point, but we disagree with the Sensors on the definition of "relevant."
by contrast, sensation makes the user aware of those things which the intuitor used to generate an abstraction, rather than the abstraction itself.
therein lies the distinction between the Ss and the Ns. this is something to look for.
Yes, agreed.
this is the key: the faculty of perception in an ISTP will notice the wrench; the contours, the lettering, the color, the [...] where an INTP will remember about the bolt and form the hypothetical bond and it occurs to him that he can use it to tighten or loosen the bolt.
Yes, but I don't see that this gives Ns an overall advantage--unless you're biased toward thinking that the N perspective is inherently more valuable, which means, not surprisingly, that you're probably an N.
Typology is all about recognizing the ultimate subjectivity of your own value system and understanding the value in others.
both of these types are taking in information about the wrench.
Sensors, after having taken in everything they can about the wrench itself can't really learn anything more about it without access to something it can be used on.
True, but they're so much better at actually using it that it balances out. It takes many intuitors a while to accept that they aren't inherently better than sensors.
S_Ps learn to become very resourceful in devising ways [often through "impulses"] of forcing the object to offer more information about itself.
the iNtuitive on the other hand does not necessarily require environmental stimulation.
as a matter of fact, they can continue to form abstractions which can themselves be used to birth newer ideas/hunches.
in case you can't yet see, the Sensor is limited by his environment.
the iNtuitor is limited only by his mind.
if the iNtuitor isn't born stupid, their judgement faculty will surely have much more information to work with, and will likely be more finely tuned.
No, only more fine tuned toward working with abstractions. N is so comparatively weak at actual tactics for implementation of its grand vision that it really needs a strong S perspective to get much done.
I can see why you'd say that being limited by the environment puts S at a disadvantage, but that's based on N bias--you undervalue direct, experiential command of the real environment.
oh and all that stuff i said about IS/NTPs and mechanical things applies for IS/NFP and Feeler stuff.
i just didn't go into detail 'cause i don't really know what Feelers think about.
i sometimes think i do, but then i get shown up by an astute F, and it's happened enough times that i have to admit that i just don't know what you guys think about. i can't keep track.
Ahh, there you go. Recognizing your own probable weaknesses and mistakes...plugging leaks. Good boy.
---------------------------------------------
sensor bias is the only one i have for now.
i put a star in there somewhere and i was going to address it but i forgot what it was about and i'm not about to scroll up.
I'd like to discuss more about P/J as well; where have you written about this?
I recall Geoff saying it was the most fundamental axis, and I think now that that may be actually true, though I disagreed at the time.
It seems what drives most people's general attitude is whether the Judging function is directed inwardly or outwardly (which is what makes one a P or J, respectively.)
Most people seem to be either outwardly organized and more negotiable on the inside, or vice versa. This has a ton of implications, which I'm sure we'll get to later.