When did I use the word oppressed?
I can see you are trying hard to maneuver this convo, but its not going to work.
Societal Divide Between Intuitives and Sensors, A Theory
- Thread starter Keirouen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mbti theory
When did I use the word oppressed?
I can see you are trying hard to maneuver this convo, but its not going to work.
I'm not really invested into the whole Sensor discrimination and i don't know how much this contributes to the whole discussion. But the other day i saw Bob Dylan typed as an ISFP, and there seems to be consensus about that, and actually, i can see it, i don't know too much about him though. He is seen as a visonary/genius by the majority of people, and he is mostly known by his lyrics... One of the things that i usually hear about him, it's how out of the mainstream he was, and how he was able to change it from within, by being original and make the public to "think" by listening to his songs, some of them are really complex fwiw...
Also Steve Jobs, a sensor... And a lot of new age therapists, and even well respected mystics and intellectuals also sensors.
Just bringing my two cents here, anyway.
Also Steve Jobs, a sensor... And a lot of new age therapists, and even well respected mystics and intellectuals also sensors.
Just bringing my two cents here, anyway.
Last edited:
I'm just making the point that the OP is an introverted intuitive that has said she has grown up in a family of sensors and she is trying to express a view she has of the world
Many sensors always seem to want to invalidate the views of introverted intutives instead of listening to them
We live in a society made up mostly of sensors who often seem to have a really hard time with how some of us process information and who are very quick to brand anyone who does not think like them all sorts of nasty names
Amazingly it even happens on forums set up for introverted intuitives
The same people here always jump down the throats of introverted intuitives preventing them from expressing an introverted intuitive view of things
If they want to be told to shut the fuck up and keep their weird introverted intuitive view to themselves they can go off the forum for that and get it in general society...they'll find plenty of sensors who will happily shun them and insult them to boot because those sensors have been conditioned to believe in narrow societal 'norms' and to attack anyone who does not conform to those norms
Last edited:
Bob Dylan (real name Zimmerman) was not the real visionary and genius. He stole his style and his look from protest singer Woodie Guthrie
Sure Zimmerman did piece together some good songs but he sold out to the system
He started out doing 'protest songs' but he then sold out to the commercial corporate dominated music industry; some might argue that he was controlled opposition from the start sent out to capture the hearts of the protest movement before leading them like moses back into the establishment fold of pop music
Now maybe thats a bit harsh....maybe he did start out with his heart in the right place but was corrupted
There was a time where he dissapeared from public view after what he said was a motorcycle accident; but perhaps what really happened is the military industrial complex who he insulted in his song 'masters of war' might have got to him, tortured him, threatened him and pursuaded him to be a good little boy and do as he's told
When he switched from acoustic protest songs to electric guitar, pop music he was accused by many fans of selling out and here is zimmerman himself telling those that will listen that he sold his soul to the devil:
[video=youtube;IqvvOD4bdRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvvOD4bdRs[/video]
On this bob dylan album cover you can see the illuminated freemasonry eye of horus beneath the crown:
View attachment 21467
masters of war:
[video=youtube;h2mabTnMHe8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2mabTnMHe8[/video]
Last edited:
No there is a consensus on what these terms mean.....that consensus forms the basis of the theory underlying this forum
Shes totally free to express her view of the world. Doing so in a public forum designed for discussion means that others are free to critique or just flat out disagree. I dont know how you are judging whether we've listened to her, but its the written word not just speaking. If shes unclear she had plenty of time to rewrite it.
Last edited:
Relatively speaking, yes. However, the line between these two definitions is blurry, and wide. Most people fall somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition because personality traits are on a continuum as opposed to a dichotomy. The MBTI system loves black and white. It makes a personality easily classifiable as it seeks to turn something theoretical into something practical, such as finding the right job to suit your personality, or not hiring someone because of their personality. So to make everything crisp and clear cut they convert traits, which would otherwise be graded on a sliding scale, into a dichotomous system: Sensing vs Intuition, Thinking vs Feeling, Judging vs Perceiving, Introversion vs Extroversion. Since most people are somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition, it can be actually quite difficult to differentiate the two.
The system is relating to peoples preferences
If they are honest with themself they will be able to discearn what their preferences are
What clouds it is that some people want to wear an MBTI type cos they like how it looks not how it fits
Its like someone wearing a pair of shoes that doesn't fit because they like the look of them...utimately it will cause discomfort
I don't see a problem with the OP. To me it is just flat and generalized. I think that's fine if a person is trying to learn how their functions operate in the world vs. the functions of others. I think it's an OK way to distinguish thinking and behavioural patters when you take the individual variables out of it.
I don't really think one type is superior or more specialized than the other. I think all types have an obligation to get on with each other. Deviation from the norm is fine so long as you aren't consciously harming other people. In the end, humanity sort of equalizes itself anyway.
I don't really think one type is superior or more specialized than the other. I think all types have an obligation to get on with each other. Deviation from the norm is fine so long as you aren't consciously harming other people. In the end, humanity sort of equalizes itself anyway.
But how do you know what your preferences are with any certainty? Preferences are by its very definition something that can be freely chosen or not chosen, which not only goes against the idea that a person has a fixed cognitive function, but also supports the notion that personalities can very much be like shoes that you can try on to see how they fit. I agree with you in that trying to fit within the wrong personality can be discomforting, much like the wrong size shoe, but that doesn't mean that a person has a fixed personality either, or a fixed preference.
I guess my point is that a "sensor" or an "intuitive" has a preference for either sensing or intuition, but because it's a preference, it can be freely chosen or not. This means that a "sensor" can be an "intuitive" depending on what they prefer at the moment; the reverse can be true as well. Now, if you consistently prefer intuition at the exclusion of sensing,then yes, you are mostly an intuitive. But, if that's the case, are you really preferring it? If you aren't preferring it, then what is causing you to behave as if you are? However, if you prefer sensing only 50% of the time and intuition the other 50% of the time, you are neither a sensor or an intuitive, but only one or the other depending on the situation.
We have a default setting
I'm not going to get into how that is formed or whether it is changeable
I'm just saying i can recognise different ways of thinking in people and i'm not going to have anyone tell me that i'm not seeing what i'm seeing
If other people can't recognise these they shouldn't deny it just because they can't see it yet, they should read about it, learn about it and then see if they can discearn the patterns
They could start with the piece i posted above about introverted intution
To have clarity of action, you need to have firmness of the character. (Aristotle)
And to have character, sometimes it means simply to take care of your own family or at least one single person, and to do it well. No need for big things.
Perhaps you won't believe this, but many people dig in big dreams and big projects, only because the project is big and important, not because of the project itself. In other words, many people can't live whithout being famous, whithout doing something "meaningful".
By this I'm not implying that many Introverted Intuitives do not act moraly.
I'm just countering the absurd idea that Intuitives are more likely to understand "the meaning behind actions" and act more moraly proper. Morality is simple, for simple people, no need for intuition to be "meaning-fied". It is already meaningful in itself.
Despite the lack of obvious statement; let's just say this sort of thinking is not limited to this topic only; or the OP only, or specific people alone.
I wonder why?
I can offer an answer I'm thinking; abstract thinking are often perceived as 'deeper'; it gave meaning and understanding and depth, while concrete thinking are often more exploitative; it's all about function, form, usage.
Certain people (and I'm sure I was one of those, if not now, still) tend to mistook the former as something better and thus they pursue it and only it, the way people may mistook 'all-natural' with something that's always constantly better than what is manufactured. Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know; but it certainly seems flawed.
I'm not saying all intuitive people are more moral either
There are different groups regarding clarity of vision
There are those with clarity of vision who use their understanding to exploit others
There are those with clarity of vision who use their understanding to help others
There are those with no clarity of vision who behave badly towards others
There are those with no clarity of vision who behave well towards others
In otherwords clarity of the issues doesn't necessarily lead to moral behaviour but the point i was making is that a person with good intent who has clarity of vision is less likely to be lazy
An INFJ, once they understand how things work and what is wrong will then begin strategising a solution. Once they arrive at it they are every bit as likely to act as anyone else....if not more so
So all i'm saying is that INFJ's are not innately 'lazy'...they are doers...but first they need to understand the wider implications, so that their actions can accord with their values
Interesting video of INFJ Carl Jung talking about intuition and sensing
@ about 3mins he tells a story about taking an intuitive and a sensor out onto a lake in a boat and them betting on which would be able to tell when the bird was going to reappear next
As Jung says you would expect the sensor as an observor of reality to have won the bet but he didn't the intuitive did because the intuitive knows what is GOING TO HAPPEN
[video=youtube;T_7DpbJ1xFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7DpbJ1xFg[/video]
@ about 3mins he tells a story about taking an intuitive and a sensor out onto a lake in a boat and them betting on which would be able to tell when the bird was going to reappear next
As Jung says you would expect the sensor as an observor of reality to have won the bet but he didn't the intuitive did because the intuitive knows what is GOING TO HAPPEN
[video=youtube;T_7DpbJ1xFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7DpbJ1xFg[/video]