Intuition over sensing?

[qwerol]

This is my first post. I've recently retaken a personality test after not looking at it for months. I tested INTP before, but I recently tested as a fairly solid INTJ. I am not quite sure of my own personality and I honestly don't trust tests. However, I came up as having a particularly strong N trait.

I have been looking at descriptions of N versus S and from what I gather S's primarily believes information from the external world whereas N's primarily believe information from their own internal world. Could using information from one's own internal world be dangerous? What are the benefits of being N instead of S? Why not just use information from the external world?

[AgentofGaming]

Why not just use information from the external world?

Because then you close yourself to the theoretical world.
Like say if you want to learn about electromagnetism.
You can not detect a field, you have to simulate it or visualize it with math or test the reaction of an electron to it, you can never see it directly.
You can see two magnets go together and measure that (the speed), but you can never see the force that pulls them together.

I think in a way that to perceive the more intangible things of the physical world you have to enter the abstract them and enter a theoretical realm. For example when you go into theoretical science, often you can't perceive the concepts from your 5 senses; you have to construct them within your mind.

[qwerol]

Because then you close yourself to the theoretical world.
Like say if you want to learn about electromagnetism.


I definitely agree with that. I'm actually learning about electromagnetism right now. I think my intuition is helping me get a grasp on problems better than some of the other people learning it with me.

However, there are times when I feel maybe intuition can be a danger in some ways. For example I have many ideas about how I think the world should work and I am somewhat afraid that maybe I am not taking in enough external proof of the world being able to work in the ways I imagine.

[AgentofGaming]

However, there are times when I feel maybe intuition can be a danger in some ways. For example I have many ideas about how I think the world should work and I am somewhat afraid that maybe I am not taking in enough external proof of the world being able to work in the ways I imagine.

Well you have to remember that if you use introverted intuition it's your grasp of the concept. You can't share intuitions with others, you have to explain them. It's kind of a drink that only you can only drink from; if others ask you what it tastes like you can't hand them the drink, you have to describe the taste.

It's not nice to be unable to explain it but, think about Einstein. No one thought like him. In fact the mathematicians kept telling him he was doing using the math all wrong (He was the one using it correctly for physics though).

[ssfanatic]

This is my first post. I've recently retaken a personality test after not looking at it for months. I tested INTP before, but I recently tested as a fairly solid INTJ. I am not quite sure of my own personality and I honestly don't trust tests. However, I came up as having a particularly strong N trait.

I have been looking at descriptions of N versus S and from what I gather S's primarily believes information from the external world whereas N's primarily believe information from their own internal world. Could using information from one's own internal world be dangerous? What are the benefits of being N instead of S? Why not just use information from the external world?
I think that relying on our own understanding includes dissecting, correcting, and rejecting outside sources and information. We just analyze and choose the most logical and rational. I dont see any negatives really, other then the fact that we can be cruel to others beliefs because we believe ours are ultimately and obviously the right beliefs. :)

[Antares]

I have been looking at descriptions of N versus S and from what I gather S's primarily believes information from the external world whereas N's primarily believe information from their own internal world. Could using information from one's own internal world be dangerous? What are the benefits of being N instead of S? Why not just use information from the external world?

Well, in my experience, xSxx's often do things the way that they've always done before, but I'm aware that every situation differs, even if only slightly, and a different approach should be taken with each unique situation. Not that being S is bad, but it certainly has its disadvantages. My mother, for example, loves tradition and dislikes free-thinking, convinced that it leads to chaos and disorder because everyone's too 'free' and 'unbinded'.

I have to admit that only taking information from your internal world can be dangerous, but being N is ok, I guess. I think being any letter in the four-letter type can be ok, as long as you don't take it to the extreme.

[Danisty]

Well, in my experience, xSxx's often do things the way that they've always done before, but I'm aware that every situation differs, even if only slightly, and a different approach should be taken with each unique situation. Not that being S is bad, but it certainly has its disadvantages. My mother, for example, loves tradition and dislikes free-thinking, convinced that it leads to chaos and disorder because everyone's too 'free' and 'unbinded'.They also tend to do things the way they were shown rather than figuring out their own way to do them. I find it annoying because someone will show them something and they will take it as the only correct way to do it and then try to impose that on everyone else.

[Antares]

They also tend to do things the way they were shown rather than figuring out their own way to do them. I find it annoying because someone will show them something and they will take it as the only correct way to do it and then try to impose that on everyone else.

Maybe that's why social norms, especially the wrong ones are so hard to change. They are pass down generations and not many bother to question them. I don't know this, but is there more xSxx's than xNxx's?

We had a moral discussion in History last class. The situation is: If you have a highly contagious disease that brings you tremendous amounts of pain (it is not deadly), and each pill cost $100, but it's not actually worth that much. You'll need to take 4 pills a day for a month, and after that you will be completely cured. Naturally, not many people can afford to do that, but if you don't 1. you will be in much pain 2. you will spread the disease to others should you choose to do necessary things say, like buying food. Now, considering the price, most people wouldn't be able to afford the pills and still lead a normal life. In fact, I'd wager many people would be put in financial difficulties. The question is: Would you steal it, considering the consequences?

I answered: I will. I have responsibility to other people, and if I were to create more people like me, unable to afford the pill yet in pain, I believe it would be immoral, even more so than stealing from a company that probably abused their pricing powers anyway. I was surprised that most of my classmates would not make this personal moral sacrifice in face of an epidemic. Like my teacher amusedly commented: "All of you seem to have the conviction that stealing is in everyway bad." In our society, it is taught that stealing is bad, therefore my classmates say they wouldn't steal for anything, no questions asked.

[Femme de Homme INTJ]

Like my teacher amusedly commented: "All of you seem to have the conviction that stealing is in everyway bad." In our society, it is taught that stealing is bad, therefore my classmates say they wouldn't steal for anything, no questions asked.

That's very interesting. I've come across many of these ethics-type questions, and in high school, we had a similar one in my psych class. The conditions were different (someone you love was dying), and that may have affected people's answers, but I also believe that we had a different class composition than yours. Almost every student answered they would steal. I chose not to steal, but I couldn't answer for sure because I hadn't been there. In my case, I thought me wanting to keep someone alive may have been for my own pleasure, so I thought that would be too selfish to warrant theft. Maybe the person with the infliction wants to die! We all will. Also, I am always skeptical about making choices based on "F." Yes, I am an INFP, raised by my ISFP mother, but she taught me that feelings are indications of feelings, not absolute truth. So, I have a healthy suspicion of the F. In your case, you, too, are thinking of others and are not being selfish.

I am from a very counter-culture culture. So, I think in high school, I probably just said I wouldn't so I could be counter-counter-culture or something. Once counter-culture because pop-culture, then its meaning is lost. In other words, when things are adopted by SJ's then they are no konger revolutionary. Also, wayyyyy too many F-types in my HS psych class. In fact, wayyyyyy too many damn extreme F-types in Psychology. It's truly appauling. It disgusts me.

Yes, Intuition over Sensing.

[Antares]

Yes, Intuition over Sensing.

I haven't seen this thread in a while :) I don't promote the extremes of any preference, and some people I know are just that. Especially S/N or T/F. Your mother must have been one insightful woman. At times, it would be more rational to do what's right, disregarding how much it pains you, in other circumstances, I believe it's ok to act upon feelings ;) A little more happiness is always worthwhile.

[Jgib5328]

People with well developed intuition sees things for what they can be, while the sensing types see things for what they are. Ns are a lot more insightful and have much greater vision. Well to make the metaphor more specific and accurate. S types are near sighted, while N types are far sighted. N types aren't as good as seeing the here and now, and often overlook details, while the S types are less likely skip over the details. I kinda think that N types are the delagators, while the S types are the workers. The N type sees the big picture and tells the S type what to do, and the S type does it. But yeah, I'd take N over S any day. N types are a lot deeper and more interesting.

[mind_wander]

I'm more an N person myself, then missed out on some of the S stuff.





mind_wander added to this post, 4 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Well, in my experience, xSxx's often do things the way that they've always done before, but I'm aware that every situation differs, even if only slightly, and a different approach should be taken with each unique situation. Not that being S is bad, but it certainly has its disadvantages. My mother, for example, loves tradition and dislikes free-thinking, convinced that it leads to chaos and disorder because everyone's too 'free' and 'unbinded'.

I have to admit that only taking information from your internal world can be dangerous, but being N is ok, I guess. I think being any letter in the four-letter type can be ok, as long as you don't take it to the extreme.

This goes both ways for my parents, it does suck.





mind_wander added to this post, 2 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Maybe that's why social norms, especially the wrong ones are so hard to change. They are pass down generations and not many bother to question them. I don't know this, but is there more xSxx's than xNxx's?

We had a moral discussion in History last class. The situation is: If you have a highly contagious disease that brings you tremendous amounts of pain (it is not deadly), and each pill cost $100, but it's not actually worth that much. You'll need to take 4 pills a day for a month, and after that you will be completely cured. Naturally, not many people can afford to do that, but if you don't 1. you will be in much pain 2. you will spread the disease to others should you choose to do necessary things say, like buying food. Now, considering the price, most people wouldn't be able to afford the pills and still lead a normal life. In fact, I'd wager many people would be put in financial difficulties. The question is: Would you steal it, considering the consequences?

I answered: I will. I have responsibility to other people, and if I were to create more people like me, unable to afford the pill yet in pain, I believe it would be immoral, even more so than stealing from a company that probably abused their pricing powers anyway. I was surprised that most of my classmates would not make this personal moral sacrifice in face of an epidemic. Like my teacher amusedly commented: "All of you seem to have the conviction that stealing is in everyway bad." In our society, it is taught that stealing is bad, therefore my classmates say they wouldn't steal for anything, no questions asked.

This question has been used many times. What I don't get? How come there is not an option to borrowed the money or another alternative to get the money, besides stealing? Opened your minds people, in life there are other alteratives. When your teacher commented about: In our society, it is taught that stealing is bad, therefore my classmates say they wouldn't steal for anything, no questions asked. There is a common term: I'd Borrowed it [means, once you lent it out, its expected you most likely not getting it back or you might get it back]. Its kinda like stealing, but not really; kinda what your teacher is referring to here.





mind_wander added to this post, 8 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Maybe that's why social norms, especially the wrong ones are so hard to change. They are pass down generations and not many bother to question them. I don't know this, but is there more xSxx's than xNxx's?

We had a moral discussion in History last class. The situation is: If you have a highly contagious disease that brings you tremendous amounts of pain (it is not deadly), and each pill cost $100, but it's not actually worth that much. You'll need to take 4 pills a day for a month, and after that you will be completely cured. Naturally, not many people can afford to do that, but if you don't 1. you will be in much pain 2. you will spread the disease to others should you choose to do necessary things say, like buying food. Now, considering the price, most people wouldn't be able to afford the pills and still lead a normal life. In fact, I'd wager many people would be put in financial difficulties. The question is: Would you steal it, considering the consequences?

I answered: I will. I have responsibility to other people, and if I were to create more people like me, unable to afford the pill yet in pain, I believe it would be immoral, even more so than stealing from a company that probably abused their pricing powers anyway. I was surprised that most of my classmates would not make this personal moral sacrifice in face of an epidemic. Like my teacher amusedly commented: "All of you seem to have the conviction that stealing is in everyway bad." In our society, it is taught that stealing is bad, therefore my classmates say they wouldn't steal for anything, no questions asked.

That's very interesting. I've come across many of these ethics-type questions, and in high school, we had a similar one in my psych class. The conditions were different (someone you love was dying), and that may have affected people's answers, but I also believe that we had a different class composition than yours. Almost every student answered they would steal. I chose not to steal, but I couldn't answer for sure because I hadn't been there. In my case, I thought me wanting to keep someone alive may have been for my own pleasure, so I thought that would be too selfish to warrant theft. Maybe the person with the infliction wants to die! We all will. Also, I am always skeptical about making choices based on "F." Yes, I am an INFP, raised by my ISFP mother, but she taught me that feelings are indications of feelings, not absolute truth. So, I have a healthy suspicion of the F. In your case, you, too, are thinking of others and are not being selfish.

I am from a very counter-culture culture. So, I think in high school, I probably just said I wouldn't so I could be counter-counter-culture or something. Once counter-culture because pop-culture, then its meaning is lost. In other words, when things are adopted by SJ's then they are no longer revolutionary. Also, wayyyyy too many F-types in my HS psych class. In fact, wayyyyyy too many damn extreme F-types in Psychology. It's truly appauling. It disgusts me.

Yes, Intuition over Sensing.
Interesting comment about the counter-culture culture/ counter-counter-culture theories in society, I don't have too many interactions with ISFPs [just one online] or INFPs.





mind_wander added to this post, 4 minutes and 37 seconds later...

People with well developed intuition sees things for what they can be, while the sensing types see things for what they are. Ns are a lot more insightful and have much greater vision. Well to make the metaphor more specific and accurate. S types are near sighted, while N types are far sighted. N types aren't as good as seeing the here and now, and often overlook details, while the S types are less likely skip over the details. I kinda think that N types are the delagators, while the S types are the workers. The N type sees the big picture and tells the S type what to do, and the S type does it. But yeah, I'd take N over S any day. N types are a lot deeper and more interesting.

With an N type personality, we get hit in the face of detailing explaining on the very long process. In reality, we can easily explained it within 2mins, while not everyone can accept it that quickly, if interacting with an S personality. So you must waste more time with explaining in greater detail; luckily, we do got some patience, but things can easily bore you, so end up losing your patience [what a contradiction?].

[INTJoe]

I have been looking at descriptions of N versus S and from what I gather S's primarily believes information from the external world whereas N's primarily believe information from their own internal world. Could using information from one's own internal world be dangerous? What are the benefits of being N instead of S? Why not just use information from the external world?

You don't have it quite right. There is a difference between Ne and Ni, also.

It's not that N's don't sense things...it's more that we're numb to them in real-time. What we sense gets funneled in subconsciously, and days, or weeks later, something might pop up in our head which is this complex concoction of what we've seen. N's operate on more of a subconscious level, compared to S's. N's naturally compartmentalize what we see. If something isn't noteworthy (and to us, most stuff is not), then it gets filed away in our minds. We will notice drastic sensory things (such as a car wreck, loud noise...anything abnormal) just as readily as a Sensor.

So saying N is dangerous isn't really hitting the target. It's simply two different ways of living. One could argue that Sensors are dangerous because they may subconsciously lack the foresight of danger ahead.

[Femme de Homme INTJ]

I haven't seen this thread in a while :) I don't promote the extremes of any preference, and some people I know are just that. Especially S/N or T/F. Your mother must have been one insightful woman. At times, it would be more rational to do what's right, disregarding how much it pains you, in other circumstances, I believe it's ok to act upon feelings ;) A little more happiness is always worthwhile.

Yeah, after generations of people making crappy choices, my mom thought it was time to do things differently. Yay, mom! But even when we use our T, it is to fulfill our F.... And that's a whole "nuther" thread and theory.

But basically, if you make good choices with your T, you can later enjoy its benefits (many of these "benefits" are merely avoiding consequences of poor choices) with your F. So, it's like using using your F for long-term planning instead of "What feels good now!"

(And that's why its a whole other thread, because I realise that there's more going on there than F/T, more S/N)