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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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.