Societal Divide Between Intuitives and Sensors, A Theory

muir said:
Well it's something to think about...

You're saying that youre being oppressed as a sensor and i'm just saying to you that sensors ARE the majority...but anyway..

Do you perceive there to be a clear divide between sensors and intuitives in our society?
Click to expand...

When did I use the word oppressed?

I can see you are trying hard to maneuver this convo, but its not going to work.
 
I'm not really invested into the whole Sensor discrimination and i don't know how much this contributes to the whole discussion. But the other day i saw Bob Dylan typed as an ISFP, and there seems to be consensus about that, and actually, i can see it, i don't know too much about him though. He is seen as a visonary/genius by the majority of people, and he is mostly known by his lyrics... One of the things that i usually hear about him, it's how out of the mainstream he was, and how he was able to change it from within, by being original and make the public to "think" by listening to his songs, some of them are really complex fwiw...
Also Steve Jobs, a sensor... And a lot of new age therapists, and even well respected mystics and intellectuals also sensors.

Just bringing my two cents here, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Keirouen said:
This is my theory of the societal divide between Intuitives and Sensors. I'm going to use MBTI classifications to simplify certain concepts. Let's go.

Sensors follow the energy flow of mainstream society. Sensors harmonize with whatever the values of the mainstream society are. Sensors naturally adjust into the collective energy flow of the mainstream society. Imagine a colony of ants working in perfect coordination. It's as if sensors are tuned into the same signal frequency with each other. No single sensor can overstep this frequency. This frequency is like a tunnel with solid walls.

Even the sensor frequency has sub frequencies. It's like 101.1,101.2,101.3,etc. There is divergence but it is minimal. It's sub tunnels running alongside the main tunnel. Every once in a while there are doors linking the main tunnel to the sub tunnels and the sub tunnels frequently merge into the main tunnel.

The question is. How do societal shifts occur when the frequency has to remain constant?

There are outside forces. As much solidarity as this frequency has, it is not the only frequency. It's the biggest human frequency. It has the property of having solidarity and compliance. It is a reliable frequency. But alongside this frequency there are infinite others. Small frequencies, microscopic frequencies, and frequencies in a totally different radio range. Another property of the Sensor frequency is to opaque its walls. The sensor frequency doesn't see all the other frequencies. Seeing all the other frequencies would disrupt the clarity of the Sensor frequency. The Sensor frequency is closed off from external frequencies to prevent interference and disharmony. The Sensor frequency fights against chaos.

This frequency prioritizes stability over all else. It's about the frequency. It's not about the content of the frequency. The content can be anything.

Intuitives follow the energy flow of nature. Intuitives are in tune with the chaotic truth of the universe. Intuitives harmonize with the broader truths. Intuitives don't value harmonizing with mainstream society.
The Intuitive frequency isn't a single frequency. It is chaos. It is truth. The Intuitive frequencies don't exist to harmonize within the metaphorical FM range. Intuitive frequencies don't prioritize frequency stability. Intuitives are about the content. The frequency is irrelevant.

Back to the tunnel analogy. Intuitive frequencies are an infinite flow of independent tunnels. Each tunnel is different. Most tunnels are wirelessly connected. The tunnels are infinitely far apart and yet signals are instantly transmitted between them. It's a strange kind of paradox. Out of chaos is born an underlying connectivity. Not quite solidarity, but a loose sort of unification.

The tunnels range from being transparent and as permeable as water to being entirely dark and walled in. But even the darkest tunnels are wirelessly connected to certain other tunnels.

The nature of this wireless connection is a most mysterious concept. The universe connects these separate tunnels, these frequencies. Though the universe is chaos it is also order. There's an inherent truth within the chaos of the universe. This inherent truth (perhaps only a shared concept) connects all frequencies carrying content touching it.

Sensors are unified by frequency. Intuitives are unified by the inherent truth of the universe.

The Struggle

Intuitives live in a world of Sensors. The Sensor frequency is no different than a background processes keeping the operating system running in a precise way. Sensors can optimize these processes. Sensors can put up more and more protections and restrictions into the way the operating system runs. Sensors cannot upgrade Windows XP to Windows 7... much less to Linux.

Intuitives and external forces (ie the inherent chaos of the universe) are what can change the mainstream Sensor frequency from 101.x to 107.x etc. They can upgrade Windows DOS to Windows 7. The key here is that the Sensor frequency remains just as stable after it jumps. Suddenly what is mainstream undergoes a paradigm shift. Now this new frequency is the norm. Now this new operating system is the norm.

Clearly the Sensor frequency is resistant to frequent paradigm shifts. It takes a great deal of alignment to jump the Sensor frequency. After a paradigm shift for a time the Sensor frequency becomes resistant to further shifts. The Sensor frequency throughout history has been known to take steps back from progress. The Sensor frequency isn't without remnants. It always wants to jump back to its original frequency.

Another abstract way to look at this is this.

The Sensor frequency exists to preserve the universe in the state it is in at this moment. It fears entropy. Stubborn refusal to accept death as permanent.

The Intuitive Frequencies exist to chase down the final state of the universe. They are driven by entropy. Acceptance of life and death on the scale of the universe by embracing chaos.

This is just scratching the surface. There's much more to the big picture Sensor/Intuitive divide.

The main imperative with this theory is that it looks at the large scale and at energy flow/harmony in relation to the physical universe.

(btw, when I wrote this I was on new prescription meds... so if it sounds crazy. XD Well yeah. I wasn't sure what category to place it in either. It's not religious or spiritual. I just used a crapload of metaphors. Feel like I could expand on this stuff if it's not too delusional XD)
Click to expand...
I love you.
 
the said:
When did I use the word oppressed?

I can see you are trying hard to maneuver this convo, but its not going to work.
Click to expand...

I'm just making the point that the OP is an introverted intuitive that has said she has grown up in a family of sensors and she is trying to express a view she has of the world

Many sensors always seem to want to invalidate the views of introverted intutives instead of listening to them

We live in a society made up mostly of sensors who often seem to have a really hard time with how some of us process information and who are very quick to brand anyone who does not think like them all sorts of nasty names

Amazingly it even happens on forums set up for introverted intuitives

The same people here always jump down the throats of introverted intuitives preventing them from expressing an introverted intuitive view of things

If they want to be told to shut the fuck up and keep their weird introverted intuitive view to themselves they can go off the forum for that and get it in general society...they'll find plenty of sensors who will happily shun them and insult them to boot because those sensors have been conditioned to believe in narrow societal 'norms' and to attack anyone who does not conform to those norms
 
Last edited:
BrokenDaniel said:
I'm not really invested into the whole Sensor discrimination and i don't know how much this contributes to the whole discussion. But the other day i saw Bob Dylan typed as an ISFP, and there seems to be consensus about that, and actually, i can see it, i don't know too much about him though. He is seen as a visonary/genius by the majority of people, and he is mostly known by his lyrics... One of the things that i usually hear about him, it's how out of the mainstream he was, and how he was able to change it from within, by being original and make the public to "think" by listening to his songs, some of them are really complex fwiw...
Also Steve Jobs, a sensor... And a lot of new age therapists, and even well respected mystics and intellectuals also sensors.

Just bringing my two cents here, anyway.
Click to expand...

Bob Dylan (real name Zimmerman) was not the real visionary and genius. He stole his style and his look from protest singer Woodie Guthrie

Sure Zimmerman did piece together some good songs but he sold out to the system

He started out doing 'protest songs' but he then sold out to the commercial corporate dominated music industry; some might argue that he was controlled opposition from the start sent out to capture the hearts of the protest movement before leading them like moses back into the establishment fold of pop music

Now maybe thats a bit harsh....maybe he did start out with his heart in the right place but was corrupted

There was a time where he dissapeared from public view after what he said was a motorcycle accident; but perhaps what really happened is the military industrial complex who he insulted in his song 'masters of war' might have got to him, tortured him, threatened him and pursuaded him to be a good little boy and do as he's told

When he switched from acoustic protest songs to electric guitar, pop music he was accused by many fans of selling out and here is zimmerman himself telling those that will listen that he sold his soul to the devil:

[video=youtube;IqvvOD4bdRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvvOD4bdRs[/video]

On this bob dylan album cover you can see the illuminated freemasonry eye of horus beneath the crown:

View attachment 21467

masters of war:

[video=youtube;h2mabTnMHe8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2mabTnMHe8[/video]
 
Last edited:
Jimmers said:
One person's sensor is another person's intuitive.
Click to expand...

No there is a consensus on what these terms mean.....that consensus forms the basis of the theory underlying this forum
 
muir said:
I'm just making the point that the OP is an introverted intuitive that has said she has grown up in a family of sensors and she is trying to express a view she has of the world

Many sensors always seem to want to invalidate the views of introverted intutives instead of listening to them

We live in a society made up mostly of sensors who often seem to have a really hard time with how some of us process information and who are very quick to brand anyone who does not think like them all sorts of nasty names

Amazingly it even happens on forums set up for introverted intuitives

The same people here always jump down the throats of introverted intuitives preventing them from expressing an introverted intuitive view of things

If they want to be told to shut the fuck up and keep their weird introverted intuitive view to themselves they can go off the forum for that and get it in general society...they'll find plenty of sensors who will happily shun them and insult them to boot because those sensors have been conditioned to believe in narrow societal 'norms' and to attack anyone who does not conform to those norms
Click to expand...

Shes totally free to express her view of the world. Doing so in a public forum designed for discussion means that others are free to critique or just flat out disagree. I dont know how you are judging whether we've listened to her, but its the written word not just speaking. If shes unclear she had plenty of time to rewrite it.
 
Last edited:
Relatively speaking, yes. However, the line between these two definitions is blurry, and wide. Most people fall somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition because personality traits are on a continuum as opposed to a dichotomy. The MBTI system loves black and white. It makes a personality easily classifiable as it seeks to turn something theoretical into something practical, such as finding the right job to suit your personality, or not hiring someone because of their personality. So to make everything crisp and clear cut they convert traits, which would otherwise be graded on a sliding scale, into a dichotomous system: Sensing vs Intuition, Thinking vs Feeling, Judging vs Perceiving, Introversion vs Extroversion. Since most people are somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition, it can be actually quite difficult to differentiate the two.
 
the said:
Shes totally free to express her view of the world. Doing so in a public forum designed for discussion means that others are free to critique or just flat out disagree. I dont know how you are judging whether we've listened to her, but its the written word not just speaking. If shes unclear she had plenty of time to rewrite it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you i'm just saying in the spirit of the thread that i think there is currenly a divide and that there are consequences for that
 
Jimmers said:
Relatively speaking, yes. However, the line between these two definitions is blurry, and wide. Most people fall somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition because personality traits are on a continuum as opposed to a dichotomy. The MBTI system loves black and white. It makes a personality easily classifiable as it seeks to turn something theoretical into something practical, such as finding the right job to suit your personality, or not hiring someone because of their personality. So to make everything crisp and clear cut they convert traits, which would otherwise be graded on a sliding scale, into a dichotomous system: Sensing vs Intuition, Thinking vs Feeling, Judging vs Perceiving, Introversion vs Extroversion. Since most people are somewhere in the middle between sensing and intuition, it can be actually quite difficult to differentiate the two.
Click to expand...

The system is relating to peoples preferences

If they are honest with themself they will be able to discearn what their preferences are

What clouds it is that some people want to wear an MBTI type cos they like how it looks not how it fits

Its like someone wearing a pair of shoes that doesn't fit because they like the look of them...utimately it will cause discomfort
 
I don't see a problem with the OP. To me it is just flat and generalized. I think that's fine if a person is trying to learn how their functions operate in the world vs. the functions of others. I think it's an OK way to distinguish thinking and behavioural patters when you take the individual variables out of it.

I don't really think one type is superior or more specialized than the other. I think all types have an obligation to get on with each other. Deviation from the norm is fine so long as you aren't consciously harming other people. In the end, humanity sort of equalizes itself anyway.
 
muir said:
The system is relating to peoples preferences

If they are honest with themself they will be able to discearn what their preferences are

What clouds it is that some people want to wear an MBTI type cos they like how it looks not how it fits

Its like someone wearing a pair of shoes that doesn't fit because they like the look of them...utimately it will cause discomfort
Click to expand...


But how do you know what your preferences are with any certainty? Preferences are by its very definition something that can be freely chosen or not chosen, which not only goes against the idea that a person has a fixed cognitive function, but also supports the notion that personalities can very much be like shoes that you can try on to see how they fit. I agree with you in that trying to fit within the wrong personality can be discomforting, much like the wrong size shoe, but that doesn't mean that a person has a fixed personality either, or a fixed preference.

I guess my point is that a "sensor" or an "intuitive" has a preference for either sensing or intuition, but because it's a preference, it can be freely chosen or not. This means that a "sensor" can be an "intuitive" depending on what they prefer at the moment; the reverse can be true as well. Now, if you consistently prefer intuition at the exclusion of sensing,then yes, you are mostly an intuitive. But, if that's the case, are you really preferring it? If you aren't preferring it, then what is causing you to behave as if you are? However, if you prefer sensing only 50% of the time and intuition the other 50% of the time, you are neither a sensor or an intuitive, but only one or the other depending on the situation.
 
Jimmers said:
But how do you know what your preferences are with any certainty? Preferences are by its very definition something that can be freely chosen or not chosen, which not only goes against the idea that a person has a fixed cognitive function, but also supports the notion that personalities can very much be like shoes that you can try on to see how they fit. I agree with you in that trying to fit within the wrong personality can be discomforting, much like the wrong size shoe, but that doesn't mean that a person has a fixed personality either, or a fixed preference.

I guess my point is that a "sensor" or an "intuitive" has a preference for either sensing or intuition, but because it's a preference, it can be freely chosen or not. This means that a "sensor" can be an "intuitive" depending on what they prefer at the moment; the reverse can be true as well. Now, if you consistently prefer intuition at the exclusion of sensing,then yes, you are mostly an intuitive. But, if that's the case, are you really preferring it? If you aren't preferring it, then what is causing you to behave as if you are? However, if you prefer sensing only 50% of the time and intuition the other 50% of the time, you are neither a sensor or an intuitive, but only one or the other depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

We have a default setting

I'm not going to get into how that is formed or whether it is changeable

I'm just saying i can recognise different ways of thinking in people and i'm not going to have anyone tell me that i'm not seeing what i'm seeing

If other people can't recognise these they shouldn't deny it just because they can't see it yet, they should read about it, learn about it and then see if they can discearn the patterns

They could start with the piece i posted above about introverted intution
 
muir said:
That's just slanderous nonsense

Serously how do you come up with this stuff?

If you follow current events (and i follow them closely) you will find many intuitives are leading the various humanitarian movements

They have understood the meanings behind things and once they have done that they then have the clarity of vision that allows clarity of action
Click to expand...
To have clarity of action, you need to have firmness of the character. (Aristotle)
And to have character, sometimes it means simply to take care of your own family or at least one single person, and to do it well. No need for big things.
Perhaps you won't believe this, but many people dig in big dreams and big projects, only because the project is big and important, not because of the project itself. In other words, many people can't live whithout being famous, whithout doing something "meaningful".

By this I'm not implying that many Introverted Intuitives do not act moraly.

I'm just countering the absurd idea that Intuitives are more likely to understand "the meaning behind actions" and act more moraly proper. Morality is simple, for simple people, no need for intuition to be "meaning-fied". It is already meaningful in itself.
 
the said:
Also there seems to be an implied order in thinking styles. Why is it that abstract thinking is considered better or higher than concrete thinking? Not attacking here, just musing.
Click to expand...

Despite the lack of obvious statement; let's just say this sort of thinking is not limited to this topic only; or the OP only, or specific people alone.

I wonder why?
I can offer an answer I'm thinking; abstract thinking are often perceived as 'deeper'; it gave meaning and understanding and depth, while concrete thinking are often more exploitative; it's all about function, form, usage.

Certain people (and I'm sure I was one of those, if not now, still) tend to mistook the former as something better and thus they pursue it and only it, the way people may mistook 'all-natural' with something that's always constantly better than what is manufactured. Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know; but it certainly seems flawed.
 
LucyJr said:
To have clarity of action, you need to have firmness of the character. (Aristotle)
And to have character, sometimes it means simply to take care of your own family or at least one single person, and to do it well. No need for big things.
Perhaps you won't believe this, but many people dig in big dreams and big projects, only because the project is big and important, not because of the project itself. In other words, many people can't live whithout being famous, whithout doing something "meaningful".

By this I'm not implying that many Introverted Intuitives do not act moraly.

I'm just countering the absurd idea that Intuitives are more likely to understand "the meaning behind actions" and act more moraly proper. Morality is simple, for simple people, no need for intuition to be "meaning-fied". It is already meaningful in itself.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying all intuitive people are more moral either

There are different groups regarding clarity of vision

There are those with clarity of vision who use their understanding to exploit others

There are those with clarity of vision who use their understanding to help others

There are those with no clarity of vision who behave badly towards others

There are those with no clarity of vision who behave well towards others

In otherwords clarity of the issues doesn't necessarily lead to moral behaviour but the point i was making is that a person with good intent who has clarity of vision is less likely to be lazy

An INFJ, once they understand how things work and what is wrong will then begin strategising a solution. Once they arrive at it they are every bit as likely to act as anyone else....if not more so

So all i'm saying is that INFJ's are not innately 'lazy'...they are doers...but first they need to understand the wider implications, so that their actions can accord with their values
 
Interesting video of INFJ Carl Jung talking about intuition and sensing

@ about 3mins he tells a story about taking an intuitive and a sensor out onto a lake in a boat and them betting on which would be able to tell when the bird was going to reappear next

As Jung says you would expect the sensor as an observor of reality to have won the bet but he didn't the intuitive did because the intuitive knows what is GOING TO HAPPEN

[video=youtube;T_7DpbJ1xFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7DpbJ1xFg[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top