Confuzled about meh

[implied]

[Park]

A very intuitive person is always asking (even in own mind) "what if -- " and developing whole possible scenarios from that.

A very sensory person is less likely to do that and more likely to say "what's the point in speculating?" if presented with a "what if" scenario.

According to those statements, I am a moderately intuitive person.

[Park]

Even you're artwork is more Si.

That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw her artwork.

[Expat]

According to those statements, I am a moderately intuitive person.

Well I was thinking of my experiences with ISXjs to make the point.

[Rocky]

Yeah, most art is definetly subjective (unless yer a portrait or landscape artist) but I kinda fail to see how that has anything to do with being sensory. In all honestly I'd think a sensory person would be more the type to do portraits and landscapes.

Actually, that was written by Carl Jung about Introverted Sensing types.

Unless what's written there means that extraverted sensing is more objective and introverted sensing is more subjective. But where does intuition fall in? It would be subjective too I'd imagine and more based on feelings.

Yes, that's what it means. Si is the subjective one, molding the senses. Se is the objective one. Intuition is a little different. Ni would still be subjective, but Ne is objective. Ni has more to do with foresight and warning of the problems of the futer. A sensor might think about things in the future, but it would be harder to get them to open up about what they think about it. Si also seems to be more like the art that you do, whereas Ni would be more like "Shakespeare" stuff.

I dunno, this is all mega confusing to me, especially since I haven't even really figured out the basics of socionics yet. I wish there were a more layman terms place to go to or even a socionics for dummies tutorial to explain it in a language I can understand.

Hmm... there aren't really any good words to use to reduce the whole thing, sorry. You just have to get more familiar with it, that's all. Just try thinking of Ni as "problems of the future" and Si as "personal space" or somehting like that.

I wonder if you relate to this one as well. This is something else that Jung wrote about the Introverted Sensors. This happens to me as well, but I never really pinpointed where it came from until I read what Jung wrote. Here it is:

"Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion."