See, the problem is only when people extend these definitions further than they are intended to go. Sensors are most privy to, and therefore most influenced by, "sensory" information and priorities. Think of it just like the rest of Socionics, not as a definitive statement about all of the minutia of the manifestation of personality, but rather as the driving force "behind the veil" of psychological operation. Obviously people are much more complex than types, but types count for something, IME; the key is moderation in interpretation, which for some reason most people are totally incapable of. I do think Gulenko is right, from my life experience, in saying that sensors are generally more driven by and naturally focused on material prospects and gains, more inclined to pursue the immediate, the direct, the visceral and tangible, rather than sit around dreaming up lofty ideals or . I think we've all seen movies regarding Sensor-Intuitive archetypes where the intuitive is some young whipper snapper who thinks he has it all figured out because he "understands the world," and proceeds to get his world rocked by the sensor with real-world exposure and vital, exclusively experiential knowledge; this is, in essence, a materialistic perspective on life, in the strictest sense of the word, but is obviously much more advanced, practical, and requiring of true intelligence and personal potency to gain proficiency in, than sitting around at a desk and daydreaming, or writing scientific treatises, or being "intellectually driven."
People's misconceptions about Socionics, IME, all stem from either personal biases/baggage, or refusal to consider the full range of implications inherent in the categorical statements that may sometimes seem one-sided or favoritist. Don't just read the words; think about what is actually being said, the real contrasts that are being drawn and how they manifest in the real world of people's personalities, rather than taking everything said at face value, for in doing so you fall prey to the trap of human perception that Socionics can shed light on and actually mediate. Fucking irony at its finest.
Also you just have to remember that, just like attractiveness, some people's personalities are ugly. Not everyone gets dealt a fair hand; God is not some neo-liberal middle aged mother who insists that everything be fair and good and well-balanced. So yeah, some sensors really are just immediate, sensation-oriented dipshits who live for the thrill and die young, or grow old, trapped in a job that they landed in because they never had ambition or thought about what they might actually do with themselves, content to glaze over in front of a big screen while shoveling doritos into their mouths and dying slowly. But a lot of them are smarter than intuitives, more intellectual, higher IQs, etc. I think the key thing to consider in the sense that Gulenko is operating is people's visceral priorities, the things that are somewhat unconscious and innate in us; Lacan's Symbolic Order, for example, would be something layered "above" the type in consciousness, more in line with direct control of the psyche, rather than innate and (relatively) internally consistent.