Intuition and Sensing, Left and Right Brain (dichotomies I hate)

[chacusha]

So I am (slowly) working on a MBTI-related thing for my Disney post series and so am reminded once again how much I dislike the sensing vs. intuition dichotomy, so here's a rant about it. (This post is public because I'll probably be linking it when I actually post my Disney MBTI thing.)

Comments

[chacusha]

N vs S appears to be a way of applying information, in short... theoretical (exploring other options, thinking about the future possibilities, etc) vs. the concrete information (these types are more prone towards respecting rules-- I've noticed the questions on jung tests about that factor into this category, prefer to only know established data, etc). I've never considered intuition as meaning... actual intuition in that specific case, especially since many jung types have misleading names.

Oh.... welp, that makes a lot of sense. But like, I still find the whole thing confusing. If S/N is about applying information, then it's not really so much about information intake? Right? Information intake is like, how you acquire information, whereas information application is how you use information. Those seem to be two different things.

I imagine if it did deal with intuition... it would be a higher percentage, especially since F is common than it's alternative, and "I just know because it's a category feelings" seems to apply more to the F category.
Hm... I think I also have a different view of T/F. For me, F is more about decision-making/evaluating options using subjective measures, for example, "I didn't want to inconvenience X, so I decided to do ___," would be a feeling decision. Whereas N is about how they perceive things. For example an N might say "I feel like this is going worse than last time" and leave it at that (just because they use the word "feel" doesn't mean this is an F statement or that emotions play a role here at all; it's more that they're speaking based on an overall impression without necessarily being aware what exactly led them to believe that). That's how I see it anyway?

From a personal stance, I will come up with theories, but then go back and fill in the details in order to explain why it's possible. I've never really considered it a random idea out of nowhere, but if someone fails to explain the thought process to others, it can come across that way to them?
Ah, I see, that makes sense.

so some on one column really fit me while some on other fit me just as much. (Which I'm assuming is how it is for most people, it's not as if we only use one side of our brain)
Ha, yeah, I think that fits your NT well. But then does that mean I was wrong and S vs. N is actually a good way of clustering traits???

Yep to your response to that Tumblr guy.

Lol yeah, I think the Empress theme comes from the idea of Hera/Juno, goddess of childbirth. Because like... kings are there to rule and queens are there to... have babies...? Sigh. And yeah, what really annoys me about the Magician/High Priestess difference is that it's like women are ~mysterious~ and ~unknowable~. Yeah, we're just so mysterious! No one can understand us!

[the_404_error]

It's actually a combination? As in, you intake information, and then proceed with it a different way. It's... hm, I'm not too familiar with most of the type actual descriptions, so for comparison looked up a lot of information about my presumed S equivalent, ISTJ I'm really INT- but I usually get J, so, and found a very marked difference. INTJ descriptions will mention how we don't necessarily follow rules, will question things, and are generally less, uh, well behaved. In contrast, ISTJ are the stereotypical "good students" the teachers love. They're well disciplined, follow rules, and love tradition. When it comes to school, the ISTJ will memorize the book; INTJ will learn what they find interesting in the book and only bother with memorization if they wish to archive a high score for perfectionist reasons rather than to "be good." What I found particularly interesting is how ISTJs are described as outstanding, perfect knightly citizens while INTJS sound like near villains at times (i.e. "can lack altruism").

That said, it seems to apply the whole "details" and "focus on what's in front of you" bit to how they perceive the world as a whole. S types will take what society values as 'right' and pursue it while N types may have a sense of right and wrong, but it's more... personal and self-constructed (i.e. "finding answers within yourself"), sort of like "my personal experiences shape my world view; not the rules someone else set for me" I also find it interesting how there's a very stark profession shift-- IST are like... accountants, programmers, and organizers while INTs are considered more science-y (presumably because of the theoretical nature required for many sciences) and more likely to be bored by the activities IST's enjoy. I almost think part of it is this conventional vs. unconventional sense, although without using those terms as they thought intuition vs. sensing would sound more neutral? As frankly I don't considering S "sensing" either-- I like indulging my senses at times, but as said, I'm always very far on the N side.

just because they use the word "feel" doesn't mean this is an F statement or that emotions play a role here at all; it's more that they're speaking based on an overall impression without necessarily being aware what exactly led them to believe that). That's how I see it anyway?

I might have worded that part incorrectly. I meant that as part of the example why intuition doesn't mean... intuition in the case of jung (mainly in response to the "just... because!" statement, as it doesn't mean lack of explanation or rational to me), as intuition is pretty much a "feeling"-- like "my intuition tells me this is wrong because I'm nervous and eek," hence it's definition as irrational, which would contrast greatly with how many of the N types are described. Irrational intuition is like... truthiness. "I feel this way, so I'm making it true!" Which is routed in feelings? Although yeah, the actual F vs. T descriptions are based more on interactions and just avoiding hurt feelings.

I wouldn't say S vs. N alone is a good manner of clustering traits, but I think it works with the other categories. Like if you combine N + F or N + T you get something completely different than just relying on how people respond to information.

Lol, if it helps, I'm required to take a gender course, so I'm getting it out of the way this semester... and the first part dealt with how all groups who weren't in power were viewed that way. "Blacks, so mysterious!" "Those Irish, the most irrational people on earth!" ... I think it's very telling that, of these, the female stereotypes are the ones that are still around and less questioned, though. Like it always irks me when I see things like "how to court a cancer male!" and then right under it "how to court a cancer female!" ... and I can't help but wonder why the gender makes a difference. I know with the two zodiac signs I tend to get compared to... the male ones I always tend to fit me more, so uh. Wtf, sites.

[chacusha]

Hm... yeah, I know what you mean about the descriptions. But TBH, I have an issue with those descriptions as well because they associate certain traits with things and I'm not seeing how they reach that conclusion. Like, dealing with facts as opposed to ideas/possibilities also means you're a traditionalist and goody-two-shoes? Being a good citizen is inversely related to how well you do in the sciences or theoretical thinking? Are these actually true opposites?

Also, just in general I don't really like the Keirsey temperaments? Like ISTJ and INTJ should be pretty similar types, but if you analyze them using the Keirsey temperaments, ISTJ reduces to SJ and INTJ reduces to NT, and then NT becomes "woo I'm a visionary genius logical broad-minded theoretical thinker" and SJ becomes "hi I'm a drone that does boring things and whatever Society tells me to do." Basically the two types get analyzed on two different scales, the "J" being all-but-dropped from the INTJ and the "T" being all-but-dropped from ISTJ, which is weird? I mean, I get that two traits can intersect in ways that are different from the sum of their parts, as you said, and well okay, let's just say that's what's happening here. It still makes me a little :/ because I don't view the world as being separated along these two axes. I.e. being a visionary and being very concerned with facts aren't exactly mutually exclusive, nor is being a knightly type and being a scientist, or liking rules and being open-minded. They're set up as opposites in MBTI (SJ vs. NT, where the only real opposite there is actually S/N) but I find that collecting a bunch of traits like that and holding them up as opposed to each other a bit, well, new age-y.

I meant that as part of the example why intuition doesn't mean... intuition in the case of jung (mainly in response to the "just... because!" statement, as it doesn't mean lack of explanation or rational to me), as intuition is pretty much a "feeling"-- like "my intuition tells me this is wrong because I'm nervous and eek," hence it's definition as irrational, which would contrast greatly with how many of the N types are described. Irrational intuition is like... truthiness. "I feel this way, so I'm making it true!" Which is routed in feelings?
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're saying that Jungian intuition is related to emotion, that's not the impression I get from reading it. Jungian intuition doesn't really depend on the emotional state of the person -- it's basically a sixth sense. You can be feeling calm and then intuit that something is going to go wrong before it happens. Or you can be feeling silly and then intuit the correct answer to a question. The emotional state of the person is irrelevant. The only sense in which it is "irrational" is that the person has difficulty explaining (rationalizing) how they got to that conclusion, because they either picked up all the details from the scene as a whole and can't pinpoint anything in particular that made them think that way, or they know from mechanisms that aren't explainable (e.g. ESP) (this is just Jungian intuition). I agree that Jungian intuition can be seen as truthiness, but disagree that truthiness is necessarily rooted in feelings (emotions). "I feel this way, so it must be true!" isn't really related to feelings (emotions) at all; it's just about how you're interpreting your experiences and how much/what kind of information you need before you feel confident in your worldview.

Like it always irks me when I see things like "how to court a cancer male!" and then right under it "how to court a cancer female!" ... and I can't help but wonder why the gender makes a difference.
Lol yeah, I guess this actually maybe has its roots in romantic advice in general. Like, you know, magazines with romantic advice are always playing up the differences between the way men think and the way women think, which are of course gross generalizations. Also, I guess men and women who have the same personality traits are sort of socially conditioned to express them in different ways. But yeah, it's still a little WTF that when you're grouping people into personality types, you use different words for women and men who belong to the same type.

[the_404_error]

Haha, I'm sorry I keep on replying with long comments that probably aren't helping, but I'm finding this interesting, so... xD

Yeah, those aren't direct opposites, but I think they're inferred opposites? Like if you take out all the little assumptions you get not theoretical -> [missing data] -> [missing data] -> [missing data] -> good citizen! I think the base idea is that if someone prefers to stick to established facts -> also stick to what society tends to view as fact (which, true, isn't a direct relation, but probably just an average) -> are less likely to be comfortable with things which aren't as "established" -> therefore appear "by-the-book" -> follow rules and are perfect citizens because of all of these assumptions based on their preference for facts.

I'm not arguing that the two can't co-exist, was just trying to explain how I'd see them as separate. A lot of people score around 50-60 on many of the factors on these tests, which means most are a combination that makes the rather extreme descriptions moot for them. (As yeah, they assume you're very far in every single letter) I'm assuming that, on average based on how these tests have statistical groups for them... people who scored heavily in their categories are the ones they're going by. I also think a part of it is if you're in the middle range, the categories look less important... For me, it's J vs. P that I've never understood, as I don't see how they make that big of a difference... but I take it that may be because I'm so in-between on that factor. It's "sure, I do things on time, but it's the last minute on time?" and "I plan sometimes, but not in every aspect of my daily life? Err... are organizational skills really that big of a personality trait?"

Ah, that's actually exactly what I meant about intuition though? That is, that Jungian intuition isn't emotional or irrational (based on the bottom half of that the described it as such?) nor is it described that way, but the kind of irrational intuition people associated with "women" presumably is? So it's using the same word, but has a completely different meaning based on the context? It's this assumption that women think with their emotions, and that's how they arrive to these irrational conclusions which they just called 'intuition', which I meant was very different from the jung N.

That's true, and it always bugged me in those magazines too. I mean, I just... don't see how they think they're helping anything at all by encouraging differences. Lol, semi-related to both the sixth-sense bit and this: I took a cosmo quiz out of boredom once and it told me I must have a sixth-sense when it comes to understanding men! ... and I just... loled since, no, really quiz, maybe it's just that they're not near-aliens who are so different from us we can't ever understand them.