Societal Divide Between Intuitives and Sensors, A Theory

[Keirouen]

This is my theory of the societal divide between Intuitives and Sensors. I'm going to use MBTI classifications to simplify certain concepts. Let's go.

Sensors follow the energy flow of mainstream society. Sensors harmonize with whatever the values of the mainstream society are. Sensors naturally adjust into the collective energy flow of the mainstream society. Imagine a colony of ants working in perfect coordination. It's as if sensors are tuned into the same signal frequency with each other. No single sensor can overstep this frequency. This frequency is like a tunnel with solid walls.

Even the sensor frequency has sub frequencies. It's like 101.1,101.2,101.3,etc. There is divergence but it is minimal. It's sub tunnels running alongside the main tunnel. Every once in a while there are doors linking the main tunnel to the sub tunnels and the sub tunnels frequently merge into the main tunnel.

The question is. How do societal shifts occur when the frequency has to remain constant?

There are outside forces. As much solidarity as this frequency has, it is not the only frequency. It's the biggest human frequency. It has the property of having solidarity and compliance. It is a reliable frequency. But alongside this frequency there are infinite others. Small frequencies, microscopic frequencies, and frequencies in a totally different radio range. Another property of the Sensor frequency is to opaque its walls. The sensor frequency doesn't see all the other frequencies. Seeing all the other frequencies would disrupt the clarity of the Sensor frequency. The Sensor frequency is closed off from external frequencies to prevent interference and disharmony. The Sensor frequency fights against chaos.

This frequency prioritizes stability over all else. It's about the frequency. It's not about the content of the frequency. The content can be anything.

Intuitives follow the energy flow of nature. Intuitives are in tune with the chaotic truth of the universe. Intuitives harmonize with the broader truths. Intuitives don't value harmonizing with mainstream society.
The Intuitive frequency isn't a single frequency. It is chaos. It is truth. The Intuitive frequencies don't exist to harmonize within the metaphorical FM range. Intuitive frequencies don't prioritize frequency stability. Intuitives are about the content. The frequency is irrelevant.

Back to the tunnel analogy. Intuitive frequencies are an infinite flow of independent tunnels. Each tunnel is different. Most tunnels are wirelessly connected. The tunnels are infinitely far apart and yet signals are instantly transmitted between them. It's a strange kind of paradox. Out of chaos is born an underlying connectivity. Not quite solidarity, but a loose sort of unification.

The tunnels range from being transparent and as permeable as water to being entirely dark and walled in. But even the darkest tunnels are wirelessly connected to certain other tunnels.

The nature of this wireless connection is a most mysterious concept. The universe connects these separate tunnels, these frequencies. Though the universe is chaos it is also order. There's an inherent truth within the chaos of the universe. This inherent truth (perhaps only a shared concept) connects all frequencies carrying content touching it.

Sensors are unified by frequency. Intuitives are unified by the inherent truth of the universe.

The Struggle

Intuitives live in a world of Sensors. The Sensor frequency is no different than a background processes keeping the operating system running in a precise way. Sensors can optimize these processes. Sensors can put up more and more protections and restrictions into the way the operating system runs. Sensors cannot upgrade Windows XP to Windows 7... much less to Linux.

Intuitives and external forces (ie the inherent chaos of the universe) are what can change the mainstream Sensor frequency from 101.x to 107.x etc. They can upgrade Windows DOS to Windows 7. The key here is that the Sensor frequency remains just as stable after it jumps. Suddenly what is mainstream undergoes a paradigm shift. Now this new frequency is the norm. Now this new operating system is the norm.

Clearly the Sensor frequency is resistant to frequent paradigm shifts. It takes a great deal of alignment to jump the Sensor frequency. After a paradigm shift for a time the Sensor frequency becomes resistant to further shifts. The Sensor frequency throughout history has been known to take steps back from progress. The Sensor frequency isn't without remnants. It always wants to jump back to its original frequency.

Another abstract way to look at this is this.

The Sensor frequency exists to preserve the universe in the state it is in at this moment. It fears entropy. Stubborn refusal to accept death as permanent.

The Intuitive Frequencies exist to chase down the final state of the universe. They are driven by entropy. Acceptance of life and death on the scale of the universe by embracing chaos.

This is just scratching the surface. There's much more to the big picture Sensor/Intuitive divide.

The main imperative with this theory is that it looks at the large scale and at energy flow/harmony in relation to the physical universe.

(btw, when I wrote this I was on new prescription meds... so if it sounds crazy. XD Well yeah. I wasn't sure what category to place it in either. It's not religious or spiritual. I just used a crapload of metaphors. Feel like I could expand on this stuff if it's not too delusional XD)

 

[muir]

This is great stuff

There are definately people compelled to drive a paradigm shift and there is definately resistance to that

 

[Lark]

I'm never sure about this kind of thing because there's a supposition that however it is framed that intuition is superior to sensing but this is the opposite of what Jung actually supposed.

Sherlock Holmes is an ISTJ for instance, not just an S but the dreaded SJ. Unthinking conservative conformist type!

 

[barbad0s]

Wow, OP. You know nothing about this personality theory, do you? It's threads like these that make me ashamed to be a part of this forum. Stop trying to rationalize your bigotry and egocentrism.

 

[Lark]

Wow, OP. You know nothing about this personality theory, do you? It's threads like these that make me ashamed to be a part of this forum. Stop trying to rationalize your bigotry and egocentrism.

Well that's a bit of an extreme reaction and unlikely to keep the discussion open and going but the OP does contain some ideas oft quoted in different forms across many forums I've visited which are typology themed.

 

[barbad0s]

Well that's a bit of an extreme reaction

Great observation.

the OP does contain some ideas oft quoted in different forms across many forums I've visited which are typology themed.

Yes, the most oft quoted are some of the worst "ideas" and personal little bigoted intuitive-centric "theories" on all of these forums.

What empirical evidence does anybody have to prove that sensors are more "mainstream"? What on earth would the working definition of that even be? I understand that the MBTI does sort people into groups and that there are behavioural trends amongst different types, but certain sweeping notions about all people of one letter preference (especially because original Jungian theory never divided preferences this way, instead using functions) are heavily biased and are not based upon real evidence. You can usually see the bias through the language used in explaining these sub-par ideas. Usually it's intuitives being asshurt about failing at being cool in a sensor world, or feelers hating on thinkers, or thinkers hating on feelers, or any combination imaginable.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

I think it's pretty much flawed, the portait of intuitives seems romantic, and unrealistic, there's enough evidence out there to say that intuitives are visionaries, but why are there so much out there with nothing accomplished?, see, whatever truth you may hold into yourself, you also have to remember that if you don't take some real action, it haves no value for other people whatsoever, wishy washy, head in the clouds and no action to back your ideas up.
The sensors portrait is biased, like if they are supposed to be sheeps, non capable of thinking outside the box which i disagree completely too, specially since you didn't bring any sort of backup to prove that sensors follow the mainstream, or that they fight against chaos, whatever you're pointing at with that affirmation and your analogies were way too complicated and exclusive to science for me to follow.
Also... Solidarity?? What is that, where are you pointing at with that affirmation equating it with sensors? stability? Seriously, this requires more development than this. Unless i misread you, there's no correlation there to be made, probably if you bring cognitive functions into play it will have more validity.
See, sensors are attuned to the tangible, intuitives don't, but there's interplay there, there's a cognitive order to be followed, and if you don't, it will fall into a simplistic view of mbti.
Take a look at the cognitive functions if you haven't, and leave your bias behind.

Edit: On second read, i did understood your metaphors now, but i honestly don't see it as true, also don't like nor agree with what the OP seems to imply, it takes away a lot of the dynamism of the mbti... hope it doesn't come off as too harsh or know-it-all, and if it does, my apologies, it wasn't my intention.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Intuitives often seem a little oblivious, or untouched by visual/sensory fashions/mores.

Sensors often seem a little oblivious, or untouched by conceptual/moral standards/norms/mores.



I think that sensors mostly either just accept certain "rules" which represent public conscience - and don't think about it, making them a little like fish-out-of-water when an unusual moral situation arises. (eg. being given an immoral order by a legitimate authority)... Or, sensors may be indifferent to public conscience and are just interested in not being the odd one out, but have a double-life (public/private).



I think intuitives may also just go in for certain sensory rules ("blue and green should never be seen"), or have a double-life - presentable when out, a slob a home.

 

[LucyJr]

The theory is contradictory for the reason that intuition and sensing are complementary functions.
This is to say in a simplistic way that Intuitives are intuitive because they are Sensors, and Sensors are sensorial because they are Intuitive.
Because guess what, we are all Sensors, we are all Intuitives, we are all Feelers, and we are all Thinkers.

 

[LucyJr]

Intuitives often seem a little oblivious, or untouched by visual/sensory fashions/mores.

Sensors often seem a little oblivious, or untouched by conceptual/moral standards/norms/mores.



I think that sensors mostly either just accept certain "rules" which represent public conscience - and don't think about it, making them a little like fish-out-of-water when an unusual moral situation arises. (eg. being given an immoral order by a legitimate authority)... Or, sensors may be indifferent to public conscience and are just interested in not being the odd one out, but have a double-life (public/private).



I think intuitives may also just go in for certain sensory rules ("blue and green should never be seen"), or have a double-life - presentable when out, a slob a home.

That's certainly not true.
Sensors have a very rich understanding of morality. Just ask a Sensor about hypocrisy, and they will explain it better than any Intuitive philosopher.
There is a reason for Estp's, Esfj's and Istp's "Don't give a f--k" attitude. Its not a "sensor's thing" like many say. They are uterly sincere and almost never hypocrites...that's strenght that comes from character.

 

[casie]

There's a lot of tough love in this thread, but I think it is very important to escape the INFJ special snowflake circlejerk and spend more time understanding the real nature of other personalities. Perhaps this is something the INFJ forum should work on together.

 

[LucyJr]

I'm never sure about this kind of thing because there's a supposition that however it is framed that intuition is superior to sensing but this is the opposite of what Jung actually supposed.

Sherlock Holmes is an ISTJ for instance, not just an S but the dreaded SJ. Unthinking conservative conformist type!

Arthur Conan Doyle was a Estj, so probably his character would also be a Estj.

 

[Lark]

Arthur Conan Doyle was a Estj, so probably his character would also be a Estj.

Possible, although Conan Doyle was a believer in supernaturalism, seances and the like, even clashing with Houdini about it, and his character Sherlock was the opposite, although I dont remember it now there was an academic or detective that Sherlock was based upon rather than himself.

Although whether ISTJ or ESTJ I think being associated with Doyle or Sherlock should give the lie to much of the pop (that is crude, vulgar and often prejudiced) typifying of those types as being more akin to a stereotypical "unreflective conservative type".

I've even seen people online pigeon hole others, first in terms of their perception of their politics, then work backwards from there towards the STJ, or more frequently, the SJ label. Some of it, I've got to say I'm not speaking partisanly here either, is US liberal demonology to be honest, which is a real shame.

Besides the whole unconscious "scripting and games" (God Bless Eric Berne) its all fundamentally out of sync with what was Jungs own thinking upon it, Jung believed that S types were rare, that N types were commonplace and that S was superior to N, intuition being faulty, failing to see things as they are but seeing things as the seer is, not insightful or imaginative or visonary. That is actually precisely the opposite of what most people demonising S types and talking up people like, for instance, NTs instead.

I've been typed as SJ loads of times, particularly by people who take my views on religion, heternormativity, moral philosophy and the like to mark me out as the arch-conservative of their nightmares. However, as I understand typology, they are actually paying me an unintended praise, I'm not an SJ type, I'm no Sherlock or Conan Doyle, they are awesome, and by comparison I'm not.

 

[jimtaylor]

Great points but as pointed out multiple times in this thread already, flawed points. If only humanity could simply be put into two boxes or in the case of MBTI 16 boxes. I don’t still yet fully understand MBTI but my understanding of it is that it isn’t black and white. It is a spectrum of preferred styles but we use all of the cognitive functions. It is a matter of preference and strength.

For example: I have a very strong preferred preference for taking an already existing process and making it as efficient as possible. I can create new processes but it isn’t my strength nor am I most comfortable while doing that. I am far better at taking a revolutionary process and streamlining it. Making it more efficient, more realistic, more useable and simpler.

Let me pose a question to the forum and thread. Who is more revolutionary, Einstein whose theories revolutionized the world but never actually tested them? Or those that took Einstein’s theories and found a way to make a contained nuclear reaction? Both revolutionized the world as we knew it but obviously there were two different preferred uses of cognitive functions demonstrated.

Einstein, as far as we know and from his own comments was not exploring what he was exploring with the intended purpose of creating something. Those that created the nuclear weapon had a very clear and structured purpose of creating something tangible, useful and real world. Most really didn’t care or even consider the fact that they were pushing the limits of what had been done. They were just creating another weapon.

This whole discussion implies that we are fully aware of the implications that our decisions will have on the future, which we don’t. In hindsight we can look back and say, “That person did something revolutionary and that was against the grain, therefore that person must be an intuitive” but that would be an asinine thought because that would require us to assume that all Sensors lives are dictated by the thoughts of Intuitives.

 

[LucyJr]

When it comes to morality, people seem to forget that "action speaks louder than words"...but that is the thing with Sensors...they are people of action.
While with Intuitives...they like to talk first.

 

[LucyJr]

Besides the whole unconscious "scripting and games" (God Bless Eric Berne) its all fundamentally out of sync with what was Jungs own thinking upon it, Jung believed that S types were rare, that N types were commonplace and that S was superior to N, intuition being faulty, failing to see things as they are but seeing things as the seer is, not insightful or imaginative or visonary. That is actually precisely the opposite of what most people demonising S types and talking up people like, for instance, NTs instead.

I didn't knew that Jung thought Sensing is superior to Intuition and that Sensors are rarer than Intuitives.
Can you tell me more about this or eventually where to find this information in Jung's work?

 

[Lark]

I didn't knew that Jung thought Sensing is superior to Intuition and that Sensors are rarer than Intuitives.
Can you tell me more about this or eventually where to find this information in Jung's work?

I think I read it in a wiki, I definitely read it online, Jung believed that intuitives were more commonplace and less observant or extrapolating more from their mind than from what is

 

[muir]

Arthur Conan Doyle was a Estj, so probably his character would also be a Estj.

No

Holmes was an introvert

Holmes was interested in the meaning behind things....he was an intuitive

An introverted intuitive

 

[muir]

I think I read it in a wiki, I definitely read it online, Jung believed that intuitives were more commonplace and less observant or extrapolating more from their mind than from what is

I think i read it somewhere that you talk a lot of bullshit

 

[muir]

Possible, although Conan Doyle was a believer in supernaturalism, seances and the like, even clashing with Houdini about it, and his character Sherlock was the opposite, although I dont remember it now there was an academic or detective that Sherlock was based upon rather than himself.

Although whether ISTJ or ESTJ I think being associated with Doyle or Sherlock should give the lie to much of the pop (that is crude, vulgar and often prejudiced) typifying of those types as being more akin to a stereotypical "unreflective conservative type".

I've even seen people online pigeon hole others, first in terms of their perception of their politics, then work backwards from there towards the STJ, or more frequently, the SJ label. Some of it, I've got to say I'm not speaking partisanly here either, is US liberal demonology to be honest, which is a real shame.

Besides the whole unconscious "scripting and games" (God Bless Eric Berne) its all fundamentally out of sync with what was Jungs own thinking upon it, Jung believed that S types were rare, that N types were commonplace and that S was superior to N, intuition being faulty, failing to see things as they are but seeing things as the seer is, not insightful or imaginative or visonary. That is actually precisely the opposite of what most people demonising S types and talking up people like, for instance, NTs instead.

I've been typed as SJ loads of times, particularly by people who take my views on religion, heternormativity, moral philosophy and the like to mark me out as the arch-conservative of their nightmares. However, as I understand typology, they are actually paying me an unintended praise, I'm not an SJ type, I'm no Sherlock or Conan Doyle, they are awesome, and by comparison I'm not.

Or your understanding is flawed and those other people were correct and in fact you have twisted things around and in fact Holmes is an introverted intuitive and you are an SJ type

I do find your thinking is very rigid and non original.....you just repeat what others say from their books...very conservative