Intuition and Sensing

[Cat King Cole]

Since this is, imo, one of the clearest dichotomies, I'd like to actually do a reality check on it.

From experience, it manifests in self-reports as such: Intuitive types will describe themselves as being "top-down" thinkers. In Rick's words, "more aware of the overall system and less of the details". Sensing types OTOH probably will not have a good formulation of the way they think, but be more aware of the results of it--true to being more aware of the details, and less aware of the overall system. I've yet to hear a Socionics-ignorant Sensor make any comment on the way they think, at any rate.

Beyond that, I'd say that Sensors (based purely on the way I think) are "ground up". Working with details first causes the overall system to slowly come into focus. Logically, Intuitives would work by being aware of the details they lack and working toward them (though I've only heard this attitude explicity from LIIs, so it may not be a "general Intuitive thing").

My reality check is thus: do the Sensors here relate with this description? The Intuitors? Completely, or in a slightly modified sense? How?

[tcaudilllg]

Logically, Intuitives would work by being aware of the details they lack and working toward them (though I've only heard this attitude explicity from LIIs, so it may not be a "general Intuitive thing").

Depending on if the LII is conservative or liberal, that truism could mean either of two very different things.

[Cat King Cole]

No it's not. It ties directly into thinking and speaking styles.

[Galen]

From what I've read in my college psychology studies, most people are pretty bad at remembering details, and an understanding of overall systems first and foremost is a better means of learning and comprehension in general.

[Erk]

what galen says is probably true. It is my experience at work that 90%+ people do not pay attention to details whether sensing or intuitive.

[krieger]

my ISTj brother has repeatedly said verbatim that he is obsessive about details without having knowledge of socionics.

[Cat King Cole]

It means what it says on the tin. Start with details and work up. Say one of my LII friends has a question about whether rocket propulsion could happen very, very slowly with a cold source, I'll go and forage for the nitty-gritty on how rocket propulsion works, different types of fuel, different types of rocket, the physics behind how it works, etc, etc, and come back to him with all the information I've gathered; or for instance the way I keep referring back to actual things, specific events that have happened, etc, etc.

"Details" in terms of being someone who crosses their T's and dots their I's is not what I mean.

[Cat King Cole]

Also, let's keep the criticisms objective. You have good thoughts, but I don't care for the poo-pooing and associating what I'm writing with MBTI, or dismissing it as "rubbish". That's your opinion, and it has no place here. If you don't want to separate the two, that's cool, but don't post in my threads, and we're golden.

[Galen]

Beyond that, I'd say that Sensors (based purely on the way I think) are "ground up". Working with details first causes the overall system to slowly come into focus. Logically, Intuitives would work by being aware of the details they lack and working toward them (though I've only heard this attitude explicity from LIIs, so it may not be a "general Intuitive thing").

For being "details first" you sure do speak in generalizations a lot.

[krieger]

i don't see quadra dichotomies being any less problematic to interpret than club ones, let alone functions as a whole. there is always something to complain about.....

[Leader]

Im ESTp on socionics but on Myers-Briggs im either ENTP, ENTJ, or ESTP. I see and understand the big picture and all the details instantly (although I couldn't care less 'bout details because if I already have the answer why would I need to waste my time on details), and when trying to explain it, sometimes its little hard to put into words but I manage.

[FDG]

Generally most people don't understand neither the big picture nor the details, so I'd say it has nothing to do with type.

[krieger]

what galen says is probably true. It is my experience at work that 90%+ people do not pay attention to details whether sensing or intuitive.

if intuitives paid attention to details 5% of the time and sensors did 10% of the time, sensors would do it twice as much as intuitives and you'd have a solid basis for typing. the type independent norm is largely irrelevant to the process.

[Nico1e]

what galen says is probably true. It is my experience at work that 90%+ people do not pay attention to details whether sensing or intuitive.

I sort of agree with this. I'm probably going to regret saying this at all, but, I've noticed some sensors are more 'verbose' and detailed, while others are 'terse.' From some people you can get a lot of thorough detail that goes deeper and deeper. From other people, you get sort of a 'Duhhh....' response if you ask them to go into more detail. They just have no desire to even try to remember the details - and these people are sensors. They freak out if you ask them any questions about how they're thinking or what they experienced (I should add: I don't just mean 'what they experienced,' as in , but also 'a detailed description of an object,' .). It's sort of a taboo - you're not allowed to ask somebody to go into any more detail about anything or ask them to do a thinking process that requires effort.

Sorry, ranting about nothing, bad mood.

[Jarno]

Stop using detail vs big picture.

It is correct, but not very useful.

Better use Jung's original definition

Sensor: direct reality (simply what is there to see)
Intuitive: indirect reality (what's behind the scenes)

[Cat King Cole]

I'd alter "indirect reality" to "imagery" or "vision", but otherwise, that's a great way of avoiding the ambiguous terms "details" and "big picture".

[Absurd]

I'd alter "indirect reality" to "imagery" or "vision", but otherwise, that's a great way of avoiding the ambiguous terms "details" and "big picture".

And in French ?

[mu4]

Better use Jung's original definition

Sensor: direct reality (simply what is there to see)
Intuitive: indirect reality (what's behind the scenes)

This is probably how it should be approached.

Sensing is just that, coming from the senses, immediate sensory experience.

Intuition is integrating a lot of complex data and forming a "picture", "vision" or "image" from that. It perceives what might happen, might have happened, possibilities and alternatives. It sees into the black box, around the corner, into the meaning of things.

[silke]

The greater the mind - the bigger the picture that it can see. It doesn't have anything to do with IEs.

It means what it says on the tin. Start with details and work up. Say one of my LII friends has a question about whether rocket propulsion could happen very, very slowly with a cold source, I'll go and forage for the nitty-gritty on how rocket propulsion works, different types of fuel, different types of rocket, the physics behind how it works, etc, etc, and come back to him with all the information I've gathered; or for instance the way I keep referring back to actual things, specific events that have happened, etc, etc.

This isn't a distinction between N and S but a difference in process vs result types. You are clearly one of the process ones. Thus you prefer to get immersed in the process itself and work it out sequentially. This is also evident from your posts. Have you noticed that you are always building up what you write step by step, adding more and more to it? This style is associated with deductive, process types and in alpha there are only two of them: ILE and SEI.

[anndelise]

I've nothing tomsay regarding the top-down/bottom-up thing, but I did want to mention that sensors are the most fun to hypnotize!

While in a session, I can lay out a vague seen with vague actions, and they seem to fill it in with all sorts of sensory details. When I ask them to do something in the scenario, they will actually move their body parts to match what's going on.

Example, one time I hypnotized an FeSi for therapeutic purposes. I had him build a scene along a clean beach, with a log that he could walk on, then sit near the end with his feet dangling in the water. His hands and body swayed, as if he was walking along a log, trying to keep balance. When his toes were in the water, I had him swirl them around, playing with the sand underneath the water. His feet swirled and his toes crunched, as one might do while crunching sand with bent toes. It was so awesome to watch him. And when I had him take on the role of his father, and what his father would say to him, his mannerisms changed. His sitting posture changed, his head movements, the way he talked, etc. As if mimicing exactly how he saw his father act.

I've come to the opinion that NiFe are perhaps the worst types to hypnotize. They are so busy analyzing what you ask of them, trying to figure out the intent of each request, etc. The best I've been able to do is distract them by giving them some requests to analyze, and then sneaking in a simple suggestion. But it usually backfires...aggressively. Trust gets lost. And they'll continue to analyze it all even up to weeks later.

Admittedly, my NiFe experiences are minimal, though.

[squark]

I've nothing tomsay regarding the top-down/bottom-up thing, but I did want to mention that sensors are the most fun to hypnotize!

While in a session, I can lay out a vague scene with vague actions, and they seem to fill it in with all sorts of sensory details. When I ask them to do something in the scenario, they will actually move their body parts to match what's going on.

Example, one time I hypnotized an FeSi for therapeutic purposes. I had him build a scene along a clean beach, with a log that he could walk on, then sit near the end with his feet dangling in the water. His hands and body swayed, as if he was walking along a log, trying to keep balance. When his toes were in the water, I had him swirl them around, playing with the sand underneath the water. His feet swirled and his toes crunched, as one might do while crunching sand with bent toes. It was so awesome to watch him. And when I had him take on the role of his father, and what his father would say to him, his mannerisms changed. His sitting posture changed, his head movements, the way he talked, etc. As if mimicing exactly how he saw his father act.

I've come to the opinion that NiFe are perhaps the worst types to hypnotize. They are so busy analyzing what you ask of them, trying to figure out the intent of each request, etc. The best I've been able to do is distract them by giving them some requests to analyze, and then sneaking in a simple suggestion. But it usually backfires...aggressively. Trust gets lost. And they'll continue to analyze it all even up to weeks later.

Admittedly, my NiFe experiences are minimal, though.

That is really interesting! How many/what types have you hypnotized?

[anndelise]

Squark, i don't usually fully type people unless there's a communication issue with them, or something about them stands out to me.

With that in mind, the one's I've sorta typed were
At least four FeSi,
two SiTe,
one ...maybe two SiFe,
at least four TeSi,
two SeFi,
three NiFe...none of them took,
Maybe five FeNi...not particularly enjoyable/productive for either of us,
Maybe two SeTi, possibly a couple more,
A few NeFi...those were fun for exploratory purposes, as long as no end goal in mind,
maybe two FiNe, I'm not sure how well it took nor how effective the therapy part was,
And possibly two FiSe, who I may have mistyped.

The Si types show the most physical responses, and most seem to forget what happened quite easily. The FeSi in particular each seemed as if using their imaginations was a sneaky treat...something not ususally done, but thoroughly enjoyed when given "permission".

The Se types seem to do better with a bit of misdirection...rather than a full "going under" session. For example, my SeFi daughter had to have emergency stitches right at the outside crease of one of her eyes. She was about 6? At the time. She was freaked out. I got her to talk about Pokemon, and we had a lively chat about them. And then before she even knew he had started, and 10 min later, all her stitches were in, dr was done.

Recently, she had to get a few viles of blood drawn. She was freaked out about it. So, again, I got her to look at me and talk about a show she was really into. When the nurse was done, my daughter was surprised. She said she had only felt a little bit of rubbing.

One of the SeTi's was involving a sports injury emergency. It was just enough to distract him from the pain, and then "carry over" while he was being poked and prodded.

[silke]

... I've come to the opinion that NiFe are perhaps the worst types to hypnotize. They are so busy analyzing what you ask of them, trying to figure out the intent of each request, etc. The best I've been able to do is distract them by giving them some requests to analyze, and then sneaking in a simple suggestion. But it usually backfires...aggressively. Trust gets lost. And they'll continue to analyze it all even up to weeks later.

Admittedly, my NiFe experiences are minimal, though.

strange I always thought I get entranced too easily so should be easy to hypnotize, it only takes a string of rapidly changing images

[anndelise]

strange I always thought I get entranced too easily so should be easy to hypnotize, it only takes a string of rapidly changing images

When you get entranced, who's in control of the images? Yourself, your mind, or another person?

If yourself or your mind, do you think you would entrance just as easily if someone else were guiding the images?

If another person, then, lol, I'm curious what methods they used, as well as if their type may have given them an advantage. The lol is because my curiosity raises its head so strongly.

My thoughts have been that N types are familiar with manipulating the images and ideas in their 'mind's eye' and do so so regularly that they tend to retain control even in fairly deep trances. They may request help in keeping themselves focused...to reduce wandering that occurs in S types in lighter trances.

A personal example, when the instructor hypnotized me, I had already learned that I was allowed to...and needed to...speak up when she wasn't taking me where I needed to go. My feedback to her, while in a trance state, was slow, and simple..things like "closer", "looking", "clearer", or two-three word phrases. It required effort, but with her help in keeping me focused, I was finally able to uncover and resolve one of my worst nightmares that kept popping into my dreams.

The Ni types seemed to be miles ahead of her (FeSi?) and me, and so were difficult to even influence the images of, and directions of. For example, trying to deepen a trance, say...using stairs or elevator or such. The Ni's tended to rush down the stairs and start exploring the area before the hypnotist even got to step three. The hypnotist, of course, wouldn't know that. But it does break the in-syncness and required trust between hypnotist and hypnotee.

I'm also not good with the misdirection thing in the form of Erickson's methods. Which might more easily work with NiFe.

[nanashi]

Since this is, imo, one of the clearest dichotomies, I'd like to actually do a reality check on it.

From experience, it manifests in self-reports as such: Intuitive types will describe themselves as being "top-down" thinkers.

I think this is more a versus view. Ni is not like this. Illustration:

EII mom asked me (an INTp) as a child if I was more detail and real-world oriented or more big picture oriented. She used the see the forest or the tree question. (I recently, 10-15 years later, read this about MBTI INTJs regarding that tree vs. forest view: http://morriscat.50megs.com/type/intjtype.html) I told her neither, paused, and proceeded to tell her how I see the world, which was, prior to my knowing Jung and Ni definitions, quite in line with them:

I see objects (these can be ideas [arguments, philosophies] or physical objects [watersheds, wooden blocks]) in the background of my field of internal vision, and at the fore of my interest, very emphasized to my vision, is the relation/effect they have on each other. It's like being able to sense gravitational/psychological relationships.
I think top-down is a bad description for Ni, which is more about in-between recognition.

[plotter]

When reading your post I thought of this:

From Figuring Out People by Michael Hall

1. Some people prefer to start with specific information in very small chunks and then to induce upward to general principles. They go for detalis and feel most comfortable with this level and size of data. They prefer to ”chunk” their processing of information in sequence that enable them to then induce up the scale of information to abstraction. As inductive thinkers, they say, ”Give me the details and let me see what it means to me.” This describe the technical and scientific attitude par excellence. A person who sorts in a highly specific way sees the trees, but not the forest.

2. By contrast, other people prefer to start with the big picture that encapsulates a more global outlook. They make sense of the world in terms of their overall frame. They want ”the forest” first, not the trees. They want a gestalt configuration (the whole or overall pattern) in their information processing and then they can deduce downward to the small chunks. These deductive thinkers will say, ”Give me your general concept or idea and let mee see what that rationally implies.” This describes the philosophical and artisitc mind par excellence. A person who sorts globally will see the forest, but not the trees.

I'm not sure if this can be generally ascribed to the socionic concepts of intuition or sensing though.

[Leader]

Damn, here's an excerpt from a description I was reading about my type:

"Suggestive channel - the intuition of time, anxiety, foreboding, forecast. Very often the members of this psycho declare that they have great intuition, as they perfectly predict events. But this is because SLE than anyone else, knows how to calculate the situation on the basis of its realistic assessment."

, which is what I was beginning to suspect. It always felt as if I had super sensor/intuition because im so fast and can see whats going to happen, always several steps ahead of everyone and always right.

I guess my intuition really does suck, especially my 5th function, which is depressing.

[717495]

what galen says is probably true. It is my experience at work that 90%+ people do not pay attention to details whether sensing or intuitive.

if intuitives paid attention to details 5% of the time and sensors did 10% of the time, sensors would do it twice as much as intuitives and you'd have a solid basis for typing. the type independent norm is largely irrelevant to the process.

I thumb up because this applies to everything with dichotomies.

However I agree that it can depend on what subject. Sometimes I will go in depth in details on certain subjects.

To define sensor, usually I notice them talk a lot about every day life, and not much about theory or their imagination and mental wanderings, not things that deal with unique possibilities but rather within their immediate everyday context (even if such context is irrelevant to the flow of events.) In a way most N types I know are usually more creative and detached in their focuses, where some S types might more often talk about the weather, what they or someone else did today, or will do, upcoming events in their town, or whatever their immediate interests are, and even generalize on the topic, rather than focus on their detached intellectual or imaginative interests or visions. An N might watch a TV show for instance, and draw a more detached and impressionistic sensation from it, where as a sensor might take the information for what it is. Thus why many outlets which don't fill in realistic steps may seem pointless to sensors, and why you might hear one say "this is dumb and illogical; this would never happen in reality." This sense of the dichotomy may be hard to pick up on--you will need to make comparisons between the two types, as labcoat mentions.

Going back to the detail differentiation, sometimes "detached intellectual or imaginative interests" deal in abstract thought and language ill-suited for every day definition and identification with realistic tangible things, thus why they may not focus as much on details as they do general impressions.

If an abstract type draws out a detail, they will lead themselves to a general impression that becomes more abstracted and detached from physical reality, whether it be within a construct of a scientific formula or an imagery difficult to draw realistic meaning from, if only done so forcefully or with style.

If a concrete type draws out a generality, they often do something like try to relate it to a fact in their life, something concrete that happened, thereby ignoring the remainder of the generality, seeing little purpose in it, but will rather identify with more individual features of that specific instance. (This isn't always the case between sensors and intuitives, however. See note *)

This is because each experience has a different set of details that a generality cannot account for, they learn each experience individually, for what it in of itself is worth, to only later make general connections. Both styles of conceptions are valuable and have their weakness.

One might say detailed types are the ones who see more difference than similarity among what is perceived, thus why generality is not as important as detailed differentiation, and thus why a risk is taken as to if this pursuit in knowledge is meaningful. Where abstract types like to tie things together and move their mind toward more other-wordly thoughts that can be again tied to their generalizations, yet lack a less clear basis in reality, thus a risk is taken to get a point across.

*The subject of generality and detail in human cognition is not as much of a prevailing factor in the difference between N and S types, as what was mentioned formerly about material focus (P3. "to define sensor...") There have been correlations made and defended on the note that a focus on everyday reality does not imply that one's language is concrete. So in this sense, many abstract thinkers and worders are indeed sensing types, and many detailed thinkers and worders are intuitive types.

[Aiss]

The top-down vs bottom-up stuff used to be Ashton's favorite Ti/Te contrast, what happened to that?

Not to mention general/specific in classical socionics has been often attributed to static/dynamic.

And I can't say those who bring up process/result into it are wrong, either.

It's far too complex to be covered by a single N/S divide.

Sensor: direct reality (simply what is there to see)
Intuitive: indirect reality (what's behind the scenes)

^ this is better, although it begs to be misinterpreted by people who'll rage about how everyone can do both etc. Which they obviously can but that's not the point, since it's related to focus and not ability.

[717495]

Indirect reality is a multifaceted blur between sensory and intuitive perception, imo. If a sensor focuses on everyday reality, a intuitive focuses on impressions detached from reality, that can be related back to reality as much as a generalization a sensor makes from direct reality can be related back.