So I've had a great time reading through these forums, and I've found a lot of interesting and positive discussion here. I've also found one or two comments that could be taken as... unfriendly towards sensors. I'd just like to know - why?

Obviously there are differences between N and S - the sensors are more detail-oriented while the intuitives prefer the big picture, the sensors prefer more concrete realities as opposed to the intuitive preference for abstraction. But is this really such a big deal? Am I the only one who finds both of these mindsets delightfully charming?

One of my closest friends - possibly the closest of my friends - is an ISFJ. I think. Could be an ISFP - to be honest I was never that good at typing other people - but she's definantly an IS-omething, and she's the most understanding, caring person I know. She's incredibly quiet and reserved - to be honest even I don't talk to her much, though I spend much more time with her than most of my other friends - and yet she's the first person I go to when I'm upset, confused or depressed.

There are lots of things I don't talk to her about, no abstract discussions or silly banter, but that's okay because I have other friends who I can talk to about those things. Instead I talk to her about all of those things that are real and important to me like troubles at school, or difficulties with friends/family. When I talk to her there's none of the light-hearted pretension in conversations that I have with other people, because I can fully commit myself to what I'm saying when I'm talking to her - I don't need that layer of protective flippancy.

A lot of the time it isn't even talking with her that helps, it's just the time to cool off and let my troubles out, and the knowledge that someone cares. Often her remedy for life's problems is to spend the afternoon baking. There aren't any other friends who I have who I routinely spend an afternoon making cookies with, which is a pity. There are few things as peaceful and relaxing.

She isn't great at holding intellectually "stimulating" conversation. We seldom talk about abstract and random topics, because quite frankly that doesn't interest her. She wouldn't say so, but I understand that. We still laugh and joke, but about everyday things. That's fine by me - in fact I relish the time I spend with her. Like I say, I have other friends who I can talk to about cool ideas or interesting new stuff. It would be snobbish to scorn her interests as "practical" or "simple"  - especially since I share many of them.

She's one of the most talented and dedicated musicians I know, far better than I. She has a love for craft and decorating, and I envy her for her skill. Despite my ability for continuous (to the point of meaningless?) exposition on a piece of writing, or my analysis of a painting, she has a love for art and literature that far outstrips my less ingenuous interest. And it goes without saying (though I'll say it anyway), her cookies are pretty darn good too.

So just because sensors aren't interested in all the sort of abstract things we are, and don't have time for the less practical (and perhaps less useful) spheres of discussion and learning, is it fair to say sensors aren't as deep thinkers, or as interesting people as intuitives are? It would be a shamless betrayal on my part towards every blissful afternoon I've spent with with her, if I were not to say sensors are nothing less than some of the most pleasant, charming and downright beautiful people on earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum. ('nuff said.)

Ni - the ability to connect internalized data and knowledge into a cohesive brain encyclopedia
Ne - the ability to connect seemingly unrelated external data into a universal whole

Si - the condensing of information into its most basic, symbolized form, like mental shorthand that can be drawn up at a moment's notice
Se - the detailed observation of the outer world with an emphasis on the here and now

N is about connections, which leads to speculation and hypothesis. (if A does this and B does that, then the introduction of C will have D effect)
S is about observable data (if A does this and B does that, the combination of the 2 will have C effect)

>.> Which doesn't have to be scientific for either side....

N - If a potato grows in the dirt of a pot and water makes it grow, then will putting the pot over fire boil the potato?
S - If I run up that wall and do a backflip I will impress that hot girl.

Not sure why there's hostility. >.> You have to remember, I suppose, that regardless of your bad experiences with a type, the ones that pee on the parade are not the majority.

Well let me agree with you Blue to an extent and explain somethings.

I agree that Ss are great and can be the best of friends. They have skills that I don't and can complement very well. I was married to an ISTJ and she was good at everything I wasn't. Ss can be fantastic friends and I think make better friends for an ENFP when you are feeling sad, as they will listen.

There are a few problems with Ss however. They don't seem to have control of their facilities the way a N can. I speaking about in business and leadership. It seems that a developed S can never compete with a developed N. I'm speaking to people with 20 years each of professional experience. And over time the gap widens and magnifies. Let me give you a hard example. When I was 24 years old with 2 years of experience I was asked to be put in charge of my fellow stock brokers. Even though each had 20 years of EXP they were esfps and estjs.

A friend of mine an ISTJ investment banker. He is older and far more senior to me. He worked for a top 20 investment bank in the US and the number 1 ibank for his their specialty. He also has an MBA. He is VERY smart but he just doesn't grasp things nearly as quickly as me nor can he make the connections. When we worked together I had to lead him. I had to give him direction. I had to make him the "president" of my group b/c of his seniority but I was the ones pulling the strings in the end. But, if there was one error on a financial report he would spot it and correct it ! If one "." was out of space, he'd be all over it.

Also there is a problem when you have a large group of Ss, it is virtually a mob.

I love my ISTP and ESTP friends. They are loyal, harder working then me and virtuous. The smart xSTx aren't so bad.

My gf is an ISTJ I think. It is frustrating that she doesn't get things, and it seems like I have to walk her through simple logical thought trains. She is a terrible problem solver, but ironically, loves puzzles.

Well yes - sensors have different styles of thought and cogitation, and if an intuitive is in a group of sensors they probably won't be enjoying themselves hugely (I suspect this is the same when a sensor is in a group of intuitives). I just don't see why this is grounds for unfriendliness... :-(

I don't think they are "bad" but I do end up feeling an incompatibility in general. The most obvious problem I have with them is basic communication. The way I speak often tends to confuse them. I guess I have a certain affinity for subtlety and nuance. I'm often completely misunderstood by them. Actually that's one way I detect them. Once detected I'll change my communication: be more concrete, answer questions definitively yes or no, etc.

The other issue in general I have with some of them is that I feel a moral bankruptcy and I find that disturbing when I do. An example: when visiting an ESFP associate I asked her about a small, interesting vase she had. I was shocked by her response that she had stolen it from a bathroom while on vacation in the Caribbean. I have no evidence Ss are more morally bankrupt than Ns in general. But I seem to feel this way about Ss more frequently than I do about Ns. Perhaps Ns just tend to be better at hiding such defects of character, and that kinda seems even more evil actually.

If you find you mesh well with Sensors don't feel bad that I (and other people here) don't. You have a gift that will allow you to get to know and like that many more people that much more easily. Their perspective and style has significant value.

-Mr. Mup

Posted By thedeepestblue on 22 Oct 2009 02:47 AM

Posted By sbalbom on 21 Oct 2009 03:24 PM
It seems that a developed S can never compete with a developed N.

He is VERY smart but he just doesn't grasp things nearly as quickly as me nor can he make the connections.

 

Posted By Nathan on 21 Oct 2009 08:31 PM
My gf is an ISTJ I think. It is frustrating that she doesn't get things, and it seems like I have to walk her through simple logical thought trains.

Wait a minute - aren't we talking about 74.3 percent of the American population? At least, that's how many are estimated to be sensors as far as I knew... Does this mean that three-quarters of the people you know are like the examples you've given, or have you just chosen the most extreme examples? It just seems to me that for the vast majority of the people I know (and yes, there are some exceptions with very accentuated personalities), the difference between N and S is so subtle you can barely tell it apart. Certainly I'd describe none of them as limited by their function preference - in fact I see very little correlation between people's preference for a function, and their aptitude with that given function. I'm not quite sure why this bugs me, but it does...

 

>.> It's the way the functions are set up that create the basic type structures....no 2 people of a type are going to be exactly alike. We all have different experiences and environments. However, there are general reactions that tend to be universal.

For example...let's take an ESFP and an ISFJ.

ESFP: Se Fi Te Ni - Opening up with Se makes them very observant of physical cues. For other people, that includes expressions, body language, the manner of dress....they can absorb a huge amount of detail all at once. Follow that up with Fi and you have the deep hidden emotions. Internalized feeling is uncomfortable broadcasting itself. Like ENFPs, this type is aware of emotional undercurrent, but rather than using Ne to correlate the issue to a cause and empathize, Se is more protective of Fi and either corrects the situation or abandons it, depending on which would be more time consuming. Sensing is more immediate and in the moment than Intuition. ENFPs seem to have more of a luxury to indulge in emotions and dissect and label them than ESFPs do. Rather than indulge in emotion, Fi following Se is more indulgent in experience....but with an emphasis on shared experience. An ESFP prefers a cohort and/or an audience. The majority of reality tv shows would not exist if not for the camera-happy ESFP. MTV's Jackass certainly wouldn't... Te is decisiveness (or stubborness) for an ESFP. Generally they're an easy-going type that's open to anything at any given moment; however, on occasion, Te shows itself as a stubborn decision to act or refrain from action. Typically, if an experience has proven itself to be uncomfortable or unpleasant, the ESFP will opt against repeating it - even if the odds of the negative happening again are slim to none. For example, an ESFP is asked to babysit and while under her care, the baby manages to get his diaper off and leaves a trail of poo through the house that the ESFP has to clean up. Chances are, that won't happen every time she babysits, but having to deal with it once would make the ESFP reluctant to babysit any child again. Paradoxically, however, the ESFP will repeat an action regardless of negative consequences if there is enough positive to counterbalance or minimize the harm in their mind. Risky sports in particular appeal to ESFPs for the rush in spite of the potential for injury - and injury itself will not necessarily prevent an ESFP from competing (even while still injured). Finally, Ni is the inferior function for the ESFP. The type is excellent at making connections through concrete facts, but hypotheticals and metaphors - anything that has to be internalized to work through, tend to frustrate this type. A good example of the ESFP type is Sean Spencer from Psych. They're light-hearted and fun and have a strong desire for everyone around them to be happy and will go out of their way to make life fun for others. However, uncomfortable situations will chase them away faster than garlic to a vampire....unless there is a greater potential for excitement. Like Sean, an ESFP may not take an annoying girl out on a second date, but he will see nothing wrong with putting himself in danger continuously to solve a police investigation, especially with the added bonus of playing psychic. When upset, ESFPs withdraw, becoming negative INTJ shadow types - this makes them very self-critical and reluctant to act at all for fear of making a wrong choice.


ISFJ: Si Fe Ti Ne - Si is the internalized version of sensing, turning data into symbolic form - this also gives the type an amazing memory for details. Followed up with Fe, reality tends to be given a rose-colored hue to this type. Fe is ultimately empathy in its strongest form, a link to all humanity. ISFJs have very little difficulty empathizing with others and forming strong bonds. What they tend to have difficulty with is verbalizing their thought process. Ti is very self-involved - constantly processing and reformatting ideas into an internally organized whole. With the strongest function being a separation of reality from concrete ideas, the ISFJ mind is set up in a way that only the type can really understand. Think of it as an encrypted computer file - you can read it, but it only makes sense if you know the code. As the inferior, Ne makes connections, but they are typically out of the blue and very wrong...even if they are amusing. Put all of this together and you have a sweet, compassionate ISFJ that sometimes has difficulty being understood, but has a tendency not to show their discomfort. They are thoughtful of others and almost never judge anyone - like the INFJ, this type can be very self-sacrificing, and in fact would rather judge themselves than anyone else. They make lifelong friendships with ease and can be unexpectedly humorous and cute. An ISFJ under a great deal of stress can turn into a negative ENTP, becoming abrasively bossy and strongly competitive.

Posted By thedeepestblue on 22 Oct 2009 02:47 AM

Wait a minute - aren't we talking about 74.3 percent of the American population? ... Certainly I'd describe none of them as limited by their function preference - in fact I see very little correlation between people's preference for a function, and their aptitude with that given function. I'm not quite sure why this bugs me, but it does...

Given the way you asked the question (specifically that you didn't qualify "Sensor" by adding "including those Sensors who have a well-developed iNtuitive function") I don't think we're talking about all those who happen to score 'S' on a test (74.3%).  I think we're talking about a subset of that group who happens to have both a strong 'S' and a weak 'N.'  (Which is almost certainly a much smaller number.)

I feel you might not like the idea of someone generalizing about a group of people on the basis of test scores.  Your question now seems less about the specific reasons why someone might form such a generalization and more about the idea of generalization itself.  I think you're right to be wary and concerned about generalizations about groups of people.  Lots of bad things have happened on the basis of generalizations over time.  But generalization and abstraction are useful and powerful so they won't be going away anytime soon.  The key is to always have an open mind and give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  Interact fully and honestly and not pre-judge on the basis of a test score.  Use generalizations to increase understanding, be positive and expansive.  Rather than being provincial, negative and cutting people out.  Maybe you felt people using generalization in those negative ways and didn't like it.  If so I'm with you.

-Mr. Mup

Posted By mup on 22 Oct 2009 04:23 PM

Posted By thedeepestblue on 22 Oct 2009 02:47 AM

Wait a minute - aren't we talking about 74.3 percent of the American population? ... Certainly I'd describe none of them as limited by their function preference - in fact I see very little correlation between people's preference for a function, and their aptitude with that given function. I'm not quite sure why this bugs me, but it does...

Given the way you asked the question (specifically that you didn't qualify "Sensor" by adding "including those Sensors who have a well-developed iNtuitive function") I don't think we're talking about all those who happen to score 'S' on a test (74.3%).  I think we're talking about a subset of that group who happens to have both a strong 'S' and a weak 'N.'  (Which is almost certainly a much smaller number.)

Fair enough - I can see how what I've written gives that impression.

I feel you might not like the idea of someone generalizing about a group of people on the basis of test scores.  Your question now seems less about the specific reasons why someone might form such a generalization and more about the idea of generalization itself.  I think you're right to be wary and concerned about generalizations about groups of people.  Lots of bad things have happened on the basis of generalizations over time.  But generalization and abstraction are useful and powerful so they won't be going away anytime soon.  The key is to always have an open mind and give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  Interact fully and honestly and not pre-judge on the basis of a test score.  Use generalizations to increase understanding, be positive and expansive.  Rather than being provincial, negative and cutting people out.  Maybe you felt people using generalization in those negative ways and didn't like it.  If so I'm with you.

-Mr. Mup

Good and reasonable advice. Taken on board

 

Alysaria, you've written some very good information about types of sensors, many thanks methinks that would go well in the enfp wiki.

My new girlfriend is probably an ISFJ. She doesn't say much, but I love her enthusiasm for sensory gratification. She's always pointing out pretty clouds, flowers etc. and she's extremely affectionate.

I know! That's one thing I adore about my ISFJ - she's always noticing nice smells or pointing out pretty things, often that I'd completely over looked. They're always beautiful.