Is it possible to confuse an intuitive with a sensor?

[sassafras]

I was thinking about this a while ago when I was on a random, test-taking spree and got ESFJ a couple of times in a row. Barring any fault with the test, or some gross lack of competence on my part when taking the test, I got to wondering if certain function combinations can sometimes mimic what appears to be a preference for either intuition or sensing?

When you're trying to type someone, what sort of things (traits, habits, behaviors, patterns of thinking/communicating, etc.) do you look for when deciding whether this person is a sensor or an intuitive?

 

[Odyne]

I have the same situation and been wondering the same thing.

I am also curious for input. =)

 

[Raccoon Love]

This has always been the hardest, in fact it was the functions I missed the most.

I think since it is a perceiving function, internal driving and how we perceive the world it can be very hard to grasp in terms of mannerism, expressions etc.

Unless I am unaware of something.

 

[AUM]

I've noticed that with sensors you need to elaborate tasks step by step in order for them to get the idea, and once they get it, they tend to do it the same way it was showed to them.(This may apply only to SJ's, not so sure)

With intuitives, you need to do a top-down procedure by explaining why were doing such task and then explaining the details as they go along. Also, intuitives don't read manual instructions lol(well, at least for me I hate reading manual instructions )

 

[Faye]

It is possible to confuse anyone with anything, especially on all the poorly constructed tests out there.

 

[Odyne]

It is possible to confuse anyone with anything, especially on all the poorly constructed tests out there.

I agree with this. However, without the tests, how do you differentiate between an N-type and an S-type? I mean, in terms of behavior, information processing, or learning, reacting and such.

 

[sassafras]

It is possible to confuse anyone with anything, especially on all the poorly constructed tests out there.

I agree that it is possible to confuse anything with inadequate tools or a personal bias; in fact, I wanted to account for that when I mentioned "barring any fault of the actual test or gross incompetence on my part" in the original post.

What I'm after is the specifics of how and why in appealing to the limitations (or possible confusions) of the theory itself. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Kavalan]

Yes I believed myself to be intuitive when I was a sensor and it was me not reaching the root of my actions and cutting off the thought process and thus looked as if I was being intuitive when I was going through a set of motions so second nature I couldn't tell unless I looked at it in my mind and asked why I did what I did(A convo with Indi made this very clear).

 

[Faye]

I agree with this. However, without the tests, how do you differentiate between an N-type and an S-type? I mean, in terms of behavior, information processing, or learning, reacting and such.

I agree that it is possible to confuse anything with inadequate tools or a personal bias; in fact, I wanted to account for that when I mentioned "barring any fault of the actual test or gross incompetence on my part" in the original post.

What I'm after is the specifics of how and why in appealing to the limitations (or possible confusions) of the theory itself.

The S/N dichotomy is the most sketchy of the MBTI dichotomies because there are supposedly so few intuitives relative to sensors. In terms of information processing, the key for intuitives is the ability to process information categorically as opposed to literally and linearly as with sensors.

For example, highly intuitive people are more likely to use, understand and appreciate metaphor. Metaphor is a non-linear approach to synthesizing information. If I had to choose a defining characteristic of intuition, I would choose metaphor. Some would call intuition the ability to perceive possibilities in the external world or even in internal systems, but sensors do that too. The difference is that intuitive can generate more possibilities faster, but they can't do it in ways that are readily justifiable. Hence metaphor.

Problems with the theory? Well, the theory depends on self-perception of individuals, so if a highly intuitive individual were to view their thought patterns as concrete and step by step as I often do because they are so used to such an irregular mode of synthesizing information, their answers might not match up to how they actually think. I assume the same is possible in reverse, but I'm not sure how.

The theory is a gross oversimplification; we know that. Obviously, there are some people who are very good at gathering information with both S and N functions. These people, who probably constitute a significant portion of the population, may use both kinds of functions to significant degrees, especially if they are highly intelligent. These people are probably the easiest to confuse (not necessarily the intelligent ones). I do believe that some people use S and N functions to an equal degree.

 

[AUM]

The S/N dichotomy is the most sketchy of the MBTI dichotomies because there are supposedly so few intuitives relative to sensors. In terms of information processing, the key for intuitives is the ability to process information categorically as opposed to literally and linearly as with sensors.

For example, highly intuitive people are more likely to use, understand and appreciate metaphor. Metaphor is a non-linear approach to synthesizing information. If I had to choose a defining characteristic of intuition, I would choose metaphor. Some would call intuition the ability to perceive possibilities in the external world or even in internal systems, but sensors do that too. The difference is that intuitive can generate more possibilities faster, but they can't do it in ways that are readily justifiable. Hence metaphor.

Problems with the theory? Well, the theory depends on self-perception of individuals, so if a highly intuitive individual were to view their thought patterns as concrete and step by step as I often do because they are so used to such an irregular mode of synthesizing information, their answers might not match up to how they actually think. I assume the same is possible in reverse, but I'm not sure how.

The theory is a gross oversimplification; we know that. Obviously, there are some people who are very good at gathering information with both S and N functions. These people, who probably constitute a significant portion of the population, may use both kinds of functions to significant degrees, especially if they are highly intelligent. These people are probably the easiest to confuse (not necessarily the intelligent ones). I do believe that some people use S and N functions to an equal degree.

Yep, that's true. But there will always be function that will be used more than the other. You can't sense and intuit something at the same time, but I wouldn't be surprised that people are capable of processing information through both of their information-gathering functions, in fact, that would be more effective and efficient, than just using one.

 

[Adymus]

Well the tests suck, so they are bound to get much more than N/S wrong.

But yes, it is very possible to get the N/S dichotomy wrong, in fact, it is probably the most common to have an error.

This is not a product of function combinations, but the fact that all people have conscious use over both a Sensing and Intuitive functions. Our environment is not always validating or nurturing of our natural function preferences, in fact it is often quite the opposite. Because of this, many intuitive downplay their intuitive functions, and over use their sensing functions, because they have been conditioned by the world because using their sensing functions gave them better results. This does not make them a sensor, and you can certainly tell that something is off, because they won't actually have high energy levels like a true sensor who uses their abilities as they are naturally supposed to be used. Over use of lower cognitive functions creates this stress lock, or chronic grip state as Naomi Quenk put it, and this is the cause of many a mistyping.

 

[Quinlan]

All I know is that not "being in the moment" sounds terribly foreign tome.

 

[88chaz88]

All I know is that not "being in the moment" sounds terribly foreign tome.

+1

 

[Gaze]

I doubt i'm a sensor but i've always questioned the intuitive label and what that truly means. Tricky distinction.

 

[88chaz88]

I doubt i'm a sensor but i've always questioned the intuitive label and what that truly means. Tricky distinction.

You've always seemed very Ni to me.

 

[Orion]

I think a way to differentiate the two is to look at how they perceive things on a global level- not necessarily looking at their behavioural characteristics in the immediate environment. So look at how the person regards where there life is heading and the things they desire and want to achieve because how they use their opposite perception, may be serving their overall sensory or intuitive life goals.

I know I use sensing for the majority of my time whilst training but i'm using sensing to get things done for the purposes of my strong NF values.

 

[Gaze]

Se - Extroverted Sensing

Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.

Ni - Introverted Intuiting

Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions.

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/

 

[88chaz88]

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/

Se - Extroverted Sensing

Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.

And it's damn awesome!

 

[arbygil]

Well the tests suck, so they are bound to get much more than N/S wrong.

But yes, it is very possible to get the N/S dichotomy wrong, in fact, it is probably the most common to have an error.

This is not a product of function combinations, but the fact that all people have conscious use over both a Sensing and Intuitive functions. Our environment is not always validating or nurturing of our natural function preferences, in fact it is often quite the opposite. Because of this, many intuitive downplay their intuitive functions, and over use their sensing functions, because they have been conditioned by the world because using their sensing functions gave them better results. This does not make them a sensor, and you can certainly tell that something is off, because they won't actually have high energy levels like a true sensor who uses their abilities as they are naturally supposed to be used. Over use of lower cognitive functions creates this stress lock, or chronic grip state as Naomi Quenk put it, and this is the cause of many a mistyping.

Actually, that's some good advice right there...and that's almost a revelation for me (see bolded parts). And it also explains the "loopiness" of an intuitive a bit, too. We're not in the moment. We're somewhere else. And I can't tell you how many times I've got a, "where are you" when I said something my Sensor friends thought was really random.

Good thoughts, Adymus.

 

[testing]

Yes, I also agree that I haave learned to try very hard to use my sensing function, with some success. I was thinking about this very thing just this morning, standing there waiting to cross the street and not noticing the traffic light had changed.

True.

But it is actually very cool when it does work, there are such a lot of beautiful and interesting things to notice in the world.