Diving Deeper Into Sensor vs iNtuitive | Podcast 0440

Download Episode Here right click link and select “Save Link As…”

In this podcast Joel and Antonia chat about the deeper differences between sensing and intuition.

————————————————

In this podcast you’ll find:

 

To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:

Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Soundcloud
Stitcher
Google Play
Spotify
Radio Public
PlayerFM
Listen Notes

If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!

Want to learn more?

Discover Your Personal Genius

free-personality-test-myers-briggs-2

We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…

Recommended Posts
Showing 7 comments
  • Ryan INFP
    Reply

    Just going to write this as a introvert dominant is it our introverted dominant the part of us we try to avoid put it this way i try to make sure i do not have any new emotional experiences as an FI dominant but i love talking about it and enjoy working other people out. So are all our Introverted functions working exactly the same as the way we describe SI Introverted sensing. We do not like to experience the thing that we are good at its our extroverted function that makes it enjoyable. This kind of explains why my introverted intuitive friends do not show enthusiasm into lets say intuitive conversations because they have to listen and then rationalize what is being said. So as an FI dominant talking in groups is emotionally draining it can make me seem stupid when i lose control of it so i think.

  • Ryan INFP
    Reply

    I think sensors just move with the times i mean in generation blocks so basically the sensor world just changes in time. SI will always be the grumpy in my day. SE will always be the young hip one externally. Sensations will just be perceived in a different way. Intuition is just trying to understand the sensory world not just living in it is it not that simple. My wife who is an ISFJ says stuff like can you not smell that and i am like no and then i do and it blows me away. I could never smell before i got married now i taste stuff remember what something smelt like its madness.

  • Justine G
    Reply

    Good afternoon,

    We are indeed trapped in ‘boxes’ of sorts, but no, myers-briggs/jungian functions are not in themselves equipped to define what that box is, probably not even half the box, as we are all in an individual box, of which something like JCF is only one of the ingredients that might help define what that is. The enneagram, for example will have something very different to say about how to group people into boxes, and then we have all our life experiences thrown into the mix as well.

    Typology does not, for example, tell you what your ‘complexes’ are (another Jungian concept that he was probably much more interested in than ‘types’), and complexes are not really ‘typeable’, though there might be some trends.

    We also have to contend with the issue of inherent subjectivity in personality typology, in that the types are not ‘real’ anyway, they are an attempt to draw lines and definitions around what is probably real ‘stuff’, but which in its actuality has blurry edges everywhere. Thus the different theorists will draw the lines and construct the maps in somewhat different ways, offering a somewhat different story / interpretation of reality, and in doing so probably producing somewhat different results. That does not mean that only one theorist is ‘correct’, as they’re all just different ways of looking at the same (or same-ish) thing, none of which alone tell the full story.

    So I’d say the boxes are not merely abstractions, but are more so interpretations or ‘stories’, and we don’t actually operate within a story, except inside our own heads. The question is, is this a story that lends iself to getting ‘useful’ results. If yes, then maybe the boxes are useful stories because then they actually say something sufficiently reflective of reality. But even then that does not exclude that person from being inside other ‘story’ boxes as well, e.g. reflective of other systems, individual complexes etc.

  • Eric
    Reply

    Thought that just came to me, maybe a topic for a future podcast.

    What does it look like when, say, a Sensing type talks past an Intuitive, they try to relate on a particular point but they’re just talking past one another. Maybe explore that a bit. Si vs. Ne, Se vs. Ni and some scenarios where that occurs. I also wonder what it looks like when Si vs. Se language conflicts (is that even a thing?), and I’ve seen Ne vs. Ni with online chat dialogue. I bet putting nuance to this topic could help heal SO many communication breakdowns.

    (I haven’t done your Couples mapping course, not sure if this is already covered there…)

  • Eric
    Reply

    You guys nailed it as usual. Add even more weirdness when you consider pure-text communication, especially chatroom drama. Like with nothing but text and emojis and maybe animated GIFs, the amount of intuitive contribution to the experience with its own shadow of bias is mindboggling.

    Also loved the example of Introverted Intuition “filling in the shadows” of physical experience, I suspected that was one way it worked but never thought of it as such a real-time contributor.

  • Danielle
    Reply

    I really appreciate your point about how the world as it is is currently undervaluing sensors and a sensory experience. I would take it a step further and say that current culture is catering to a very unhealthy manifestation of intuition.

    There is an element to it all that is constantly chasing after the new thing, and it’s really impossible for anyone to fully keep up with. I’ve spoken to elderly individuals who have expressed that the constantly changing technology is very difficult for them, and I think it’s starting to become difficult for everyone.

    We need more finely tuned access points to the new technologies and time to adjust. And sometimes things don’t need to be completely overhauled, which is a lesson of Si that is super undervalued.

    I’ve also learned that intuition, similarly to what I’ve noticed with Ti, is thrown around a lot but in a manner that is incredibly sloppy. And, even though it drives my Ne-dominant brain crazy, I don’t think it’s only sensors doing this. There’s such a rush to apply the same paradigms to everything, to understand deeper meaning: that people grab these tools and try to apply them without really thinking it through.

    One example I saw online recently was a discussion about how stealing historical and cultural artifacts from other cultures is unethical. This seems like a straightforward conversation to have. But then someone went and over generalized it to mean “Oh so that means displaying historical artifacts is inherently racist and colonialist.” The person was using abstract and complex terms, but then completely stretching the boundaries of what was meant. It was a conversation about ethical acquisition, not about whether it’s okay to put a piece of 3,000 year old pottery in a museum.

    So I’ve seen people using large paradigms and complex systems to try and generalize experiences and models of human nature that do not necessarily apply. A big one I’ve seen that, as an ENFP, my Ne pushes back hard against it “If you believe in x paradigm, you’re a bad person.”

    Most paradigms I see as inherently neutral, and any “good” or “bad” nature depends on application. I do believe there are some inherently harmful paradigms such as racism and sexism. However, I don’t think these should be used as maps to dictate your perception of or terrain of an entire person. There are too many nodes in the system to ever truly say [for example] “John Doe voted for x candidate, so he’s a terrible person and part of the problem.” It discounts the complex motivations behind any decision.

    I can disagree with decisions, sometimes vehemently, but that doesn’t mean I should define people by their worst choices. Humans have the ability to grow and change, and denying that is just making problems of polarization 100 times worse.

    [Of course, I also recognize that this rhetoric typically comes from people who are deeply hurt. However, I don’t think that invalidates criticism as my philosophy is that anything and everything is open to constructive critique.]

    It also doesn’t account for how we experience people in different ways. There have been plenty of people throughout history who were gigantic assholes, but are remembered fondly by those who did not experience them as an asshole.

    But that’s just me on my systems thinking horse, yelling at a cloud at about how, in an attempt to understand the complex and non-empirical, nuance is so very easily thrown out the door.

    I would say this is a cultural problem, as I’ve seen both sensors and intuitives fall into this trap.

    The maps, systems, and paradigms are not the end all be all. I’ve noticed this more and more. It isn’t easy as an intuitive to process it.

    I think of paper towns. Cartographers would, in an attempt to protect the originality of their work, map towns that did not exist. That way if someone stole their work, they could use that as evidence in court. This also led, however, to people trying to find these places and finding none. You think there is going to be a town, but you find nothing. I think this illustrates how we can’t fully rely on any one system or paradigm to explain everything. And that’s why the world needs Si and Se because the experiential can help us in ways the conceptual cannot.

  • Jim Bochanski
    Reply

    Hey guys, I’m an ESTP and having just listened in today I gotta say I get what you’re saying about how the digital world is challenging for sensors.

    Last night I was interviewed in a podcast with my dev team, and having been our third podcast I’ve started to form an impression of what the experience is like.

    What I said to my teammates afterwards was “I’m usually very comfortable in most conversations and social environments, but I find that when talking in video chat and voice chat formats, something about it offsets me.

    I think that it’s the lack of physical presence. Without being able to physically see the people I’m communicating with there are certain details that are just missing.

    It leaves me feeling like I’m suddenly perceiving at 25%. And with that loss it’s harder for me to chime in and speak off the top of my head like I often do. According to my teammates I seemed fine, but I still think if the interview was in person I would have participated at a higher level.

    There’s something about actual present reality that cameras and microphones just loose in translation.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt