Out of the four Myers-Briggs dichotomies, which one would you say sets us apart the most? Which one of the famous letter coins constitute most of an obstacle when trying to understand a fellow human being?
Is it the seemingly obvious Extraversion vs. Introversion polarity? Or is it the never-ending battle between thought and feeling? Perhaps it's just a question of showing up on time?
Reservations
But isn’t this “Intuitives from Venus and Sensors from Mars”-business just my dominant function speaking (Introverted Intuition)? I mean... I would find the world view of the Sensor particularly foreign, wouldn't I? As an INFJ, [Se] is my inferior function!
Perhaps a decider-dominant person would find the Thinking/Feeling dichotomy far more disconnecting? Perhaps, if I was a [T]-dominant, I would find the value based decision-making of an [F]-dominant more foreign than I would the grounded world view of the Sensor?
Perhaps, yes, but, all things considered, perception still precedes decision-making and I'd wager you'd have a better chance of understanding a decision - regardless of from whence it came ([T]/[F]) - provided you just shared the world view of the person making it.
What’s the difference?
But let's take a step back here... What’s the real difference between Intuition and Sensing anyway?
Well, as Frank explained in the clip above, one is concrete (Sensing) and one is abstract (Intuition). One deals in details (Sensing) and one in patterns (Intuition). One is future oriented (Intuition) and the other prefers the present or the past (Sensing).
To the Sensor, perceiving the environment is all about the five senses and physical reality. Sensors are grounded in the concrete, in details, in hearing, touch, taste, sight and smell. No one builds a machine without its constituent parts... as they say. Sensors put the factual twos and twos together and explain the actual workings of the present and, preferably also, the past.
When Intuitives make sense of the world we aim big. We don't want the trees, we want the forest. What is going on can never be as interesting as why it's going on. We want the abstract. The meaning. The patterns to predict the future. The value of individual details can never transcend their contribution to the whole and will, in and of themselves, never interest us unless actively serving to uncover whatever is going on "behind the scenes". Chances are, if the details don't help us see a pattern, we won't see them at all.
This, of course, means that provided the details of any given situation don’t spark an "aha-moment" with our intuitive machinery, the Sensors will always be (at the very least) one step ahead.
Intriguingly, these perception-patterns line up quite seamlessly with the inductive- and deductive styles of reasoning and mental images of two distinct and stereotypical scientist-types quickly spring to mind:
On the one hand we have the unintelligible, absent-minded genius almost failing to hold on to a simple job while simultaneously succeeding in explaining almost the entire universe (inductive) and on the other we have the laser-focused, methodical lab-coat scientist whose ever-growing mental library of facts sooner or later will start producing discoveries of its own accord (deductive).
The latter must be considered the more reliable of the two, but should not be expected to produce the kind of spectacular results sometimes produced by the former. No... while, where applicable, the deductive, Sensor-style of reasoning can be relied upon to be the more effective, there are places it cannot go. Sensing isn’t generally welcome in the magical land of metaphysics and has considerable trouble crossing the abstract bridges of generalisation that often span the murky waters between disparate fields of expertise, bridges that may sometimes lead to some truly insightful discoveries.
Public Opinion
Both styles have their merits of course, but is one better than the other? What's the verdict? What's the word on the street?
The Myers-Briggs community has always favoured Intuition over Sensing. Perhaps that’s why so many Sensors test as Intuitives. The tests were made by Intuitives and Intuitives often fail to grasp the perks of being a Sensor and this is definitely reflected in the questions. A Sensor cannot be simplified into a person lacking imagination... etc... etc...
Objective Personality on the other hand comes down quite hard on the notion that Intuitives should somehow be superior to Sensors. They're quick to point out all the problems related to the disrespecting of facts and the lack of reality-checks that sometimes seem to go hand in hand with the intuitive process. Without the sobering influence of Thinking and Sensing there’s just no way of predicting all of the freaky outcomes of Intuition! Let it out of your sight for just one second and you're knee deep in conspiracy theories, astrology and superstition! Even religion!
So... seems like the jury is out?
While I can’t deny that the innovative power and truth puzzling machinery of Intuition often strikes me as the more glamorous, society can’t run on ideas alone (especially if they're wrong). Someone needs to maintain it.
And even though we’re moving into an era where technological innovation plays an increasingly important role and many maintenance-style jobs get automated, I still find it perfectly reasonable that most people (75/25 percent-wise) are Sensors. It makes sense folks. Not least from an evolutionary perspective. We can't have an entire tribe of wisdom-seeking, cave-dwelling hermits.
That said, we do need Introverted- and Extraverted Intuition. We need great ideas, perspectives and innovative technologies to overcome the challenges of the future and society needs to open its eyes to what we as Intuitives bring to the table. Just as Introverts get held to an Extrovert standard, we're all in some way expected to behave like Sensors and [insert deity here] knows it's a game without a winner.
The Gaping Void
Anyway, let's get back to the task at hand... to my bold claim... what exactly is it that makes me pinpoint the disconnect between the most abstract Intuitive and the most concrete Sensor as the most pronounced of all dichotomies?
Well, as previously stated, perception precedes decision-making, and the two remaining dichotomies can’t really stand on their own, can they? The Introversion/Extraversion-polarity is just an orientation attached to the functions and the Judging/Perceiving-axis is really nothing but an indication of whether you extravert your saviour decider function (Judging) or your saviour observer function (Perceiving). You couldn't really explain or value them without getting into the underlying functions and dichotomies, and once we do that we're back to [S]/[N] vs. [T]/[F].
Some might argue that the [J]/[P] disconnect is the more obvious, but, on closer inspection, it appears comparatively shallow. I would argue that Judging- and Perceiving types can learn to complement each other quite easily, provided they share the underlying world view of either Sensing or Intuition. In short, [J] can help [P] pack and [P] can help [J] enjoy the trip.
But, even so - and perhaps I’m undermining the credibility of my own argument here - we’re still going to need the [I]/[E] polarity to really drive the point home here.
Worlds
Why? Because Intuitives and Sensors live in different worlds.
We go about our lives together, thinking we share the reality that seem so obvious to each of us, but truth is we don’t! Most of us are probably not even aware that the Intuitive perception (especially the introverted flavour) of reality is so radically different from that of the Sensor (especially the extraverted flavour).
In the discussion of personal worlds contra physical reality, one simply cannot omit the synergy between the function and its orientation. We're going to take the perspective of the Sensor and physical reality here, and physical reality - as is known - has four dimensions. And while Sensing is quite enough to keep us present in the three dimensions of space, to be truly present in time, we're going to need Extraversion.
Let's take a look at how orientation affects the Sensing functions:
While the [Si]-dominant certainly is present in space - more often than not consumed by the concrete facts and details of reality - she is not always present in time (as an organiser, you'll probably find her meticulously structuring her known information somewhere down ol' memory lane (which, in her case, can safely be assumed to be quite a detailed, accurate and chronologically ordered place)).
It takes an [Se]-dominant - a gatherer, depended on to respond quickly and effectively to whatever danger or unforeseen circumstance mother nature might throw at her - to be entirely present in time. It takes an Extraverted Sensor to not only deal in the concrete details of reality, but to do it in real-time. Extraverted functions prefer to think out loud, feel out loud, sense out loud and imagine out loud, all the while daftly manoeuvring the ever changing landscape of the moment as it unfolds in... yes, again... real-time.
It is often said that disagreements have their roots in a failure to agree upon definitions of the terms and concepts discussed. How, then, can we expect consensus between people who can't even agree upon a definition of reality?
I'm not saying Intuitives can’t tell what's physically real and what's not. We can. It's just, we have an equally real world inside of us, albeit with a different ruleset. And oftentimes that's where we feel most at home.
The Renunciation of Magic
OK, let's dig right down to the core of this great divide. How exactly does it manifest itself in real life?
Perhaps we're all allowed through the Narnia closet at some point during our childhood, but, to some, somewhere along the line the door is closed. To the Sensor, the potentially beneficial, and frankly quite wonderful, world of abstract magic is closed in the name of effectiveness. As an Intuitive, I find myself both envying and pitying the Sensors. Envying their flawless accuracy and detailed memories, but pitying the loss of a world without boundaries.
The magical realm of Intuition can hold space for so much that reality cannot. The Intuitive mind can hold space for so much that the Sensor's cannot. As soon as the conversation takes that speculative turn, it's like a door suddenly closes and the Sensor is left on the other side. As soon as the conversation touches upon abstract topics like philosophy, fantasy, (sometimes) science fiction... I don't know... alien life... the eyes of the Sensor glaze over and interest is snuffed.
*****
It seems to me that the muggles... sorry, the Sensors have given up their ability to see behind the curtain of reality in favour of a better grasp of what’s in front of it. They have renounced the endless, magical worlds born of possibility and abstract truth in favour of an unrivalled mastery of the one they can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. And I both envy and pity them for it.
Comments
Post a Comment