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

[hamsterwoman]

The future/realm of possibility stuff never made any sense to me in the N/S separation, either.

I can see why 3/5 and 6/8 would be related -- or, at least, they seem to be for me (which might be correlation, not causation, or just random coincidence, so, dunno). I'm a pretty strong S, and the reason I find hands-on learning more effective, I think, is that it gives me access to more sensory data to integrate and remember. It's also the reason I take notes obsessively even now that I'm out of school, because the act of writing stuff down is sufficiently hands-on that it helps me absorb the information.

I can also see how 2 can be related to 3/5, sorta -- exhaustive detail types vs big picture types, because I think immediately seeing patterns is go you do the 3/5 thing. That said, as an S, I'm good at seeing patters -- after close observation of data. So if it's ability to see patterns at all -- as opposed to immediately jumping to the pattern and not paying attention to the data that form that pattern -- then, yeah, not so sure it

[hamsterwoman]

(i.e. He CAN separate his interpretations from his initial observations.) Okay well, I suppose that makes sense. In that case, maybe this IS a cognitive difference/personality trait.

I kind of do think it's this, but I think there's also a bit more to it. I tend to work really well in partnership or under the direction of N-types because they complement my strong S, and what I've noticed is, they tend to make conclusions or see the big picture -- but it's not just integrated knowledge raised to the level of "intuition" -- it definitely seems to be a personality-driven tendency. Like, my best friend in college, VT, was very much a "hunch and hand-wave" person. He was not always right, but that's where his mind went, and then he'd kind of try to work backwards from the conclusion to his starting point, and if he ran into a contradiction, he'd make another conclusion, and start again. Similarly, my best manager at work would be like, "Hey, we could do X! Figure it out." -- and I'd come back awhile later, having done the detailed

[chacusha]

I can see why 3/5 and 6/8 would be related -- or, at least, they seem to be for me (which might be correlation, not causation, or just random coincidence, so, dunno). I'm a pretty strong S, and the reason I find hands-on learning more effective, I think, is that it gives me access to more sensory data to integrate and remember.I also take notes everywhere, but I'm not sure if that's related to hands-on learning for me. I always thought it was just a way for me to digest what I'm writing (because if you're just reading, you can skim a line and not understand any of it, whereas if you copy that line, you notice every part of it) or it triggered some kind of memory mechanism or something. Then again, I'm not even quite sure what counts as hands-on learning?? I think my time as a computer scientist has sort of mixed me up and made me forget how people normally define hands-on vs. theoretical or concrete vs. abstract theories. Because like... in CS, "theory" means rigorous math and proofs and defining concepts (is this N...?), and "

[sunflower_mynah]

I've figured the 'seeing patterns' thing in the S vs N dichotomy as a ... way of taking in information? That is, presented with a something to learn, do you learn better through seeking out the patterns in it and utilising those, or are you capable of / prefer absorbing them as individual facts first and foremost?

So, in that sense, you're right, it's very different from the Jungian typological definition of 'intuition'. For the Jungian definitions themselves, though, I suspect the differences you're witnessing are a result of different people trying to explain the same statement. What I'm distilling off the one you quoted on Carl Jung's writing on intuition: it's a focus on the theoretical rather than the empirical. By "adding meaning immediately" and "seeing patterns" I'm guessing that they mean a tendency to extrapolate and predict, instead of focusing on raw data and putting things together.

And a lot of this is predicated on past experiences: as you said, intuition as a better estimate of how good you are at something. I don'

[sunflower_mynah]

So the whole sexism issue, I think, is founded more on the T/F dichotomy than the S/N one: women can't think, they feel; they cannot prove what they say empirically, therefore they're irrational. That's very problematic, and that's the sentiment, I think, that goes into the whole 'Women can't do math and science' mentality.

Re Sherlock Holmes: I've never tried to figure out his MBTI, but I would gauge that his method of collecting data is very S but the Science of Deduction he's known for is actually very N, if that makes sense? It's the chain of logic that's so fast as to appear as if he knows it based on feeling alone:

From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps. (Study in Scarlet)

I'd compare this to that earlier definition you gave, actually:

Strongly intuitive people add meaning to their perceptions so rapidly that they often cannot separate their interpretations from the raw sensory data. Intuitives integrate new

[chacusha]

There's no such thing as tl;dr here! I wrote like 3000 words up there so... :)

The way I see it (and I should admit I consider myself more S, but am never really sure where I stand because of the issues I have with the S vs. N definition), if S vs. N is about taking in information, then how does that lead to the conclusion that S is empirical while N is theoretical? What's the relation there? (I find this conversation kind of funny because you're holding the whole picture in your mind already and I'm here trying to figure out how the individual dots connect.)

By "adding meaning immediately" and "seeing patterns" I'm guessing that they mean a tendency to extrapolate and predict, instead of focusing on raw data and putting things together. The thing about this, though, is that I think S people extrapolate/predict frequently as well. I mean, what use is data if you don't do anything with it, right? Or are you saying that S people tend to interpolate and describe rather than extrapolate and predict? (Also, does this tie into empirical/

[chacusha]

Re Sherlock Holmes:
Hm... yeah, I see the similarity in Sherlock's thought process and the N description. But like... it says "from long habit" i.e. earlier when he does deduction it would look like A -> B -> C -> D -> conclusion, and now because he's practiced at it, it looks like A -> [blur] -> conclusion. This gets me back to the question of "So... if you're a fast thinker you're an N? And if you're slow you're an S?" That doesn't make any sense to me. Or is it that N's tend to go from A -> [blur] -> conclusion in most situations, regardless of accuracy, meaning that Sherlock is most likely not an N?

I've never tried to figure out his MBTI, but I would gauge that his method of collecting data is very S but the Science of Deduction he's known for is actually very N, if that makes sense? It's the chain of logic that's so fast as to appear as if he knows it based on feeling alone: And here too, I would disagree that the science of deduction is an N thing. To me it seems highly S, although I'm still operating on my original

[the_404_error]

I've always interpreted it the same as Mysti. 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. Judging doesn't mean judgmental, for instance, it means more... planned, so it doesn't seem like the wisest choice of naming. I know the middle two letters are also put into larger categories, and mine - NT- is referred to as "the rationals," which would suggest the opposite of irrational conclusions in the case of the N trait. The N type is also the rarest of all the types statistically speaking why have I read so much about this, which is neither here nor there, but I imagine if it did deal with

[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

[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

[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

[ikel89]

First things first - I really enjoyed reading the post and the discussion below it! Thank you

[chacusha]

YES! I'm glad someone else has as much difficulty as me with figuring out what the S/N dichotomy even means.

My friend also doesn't test well along the S/N dichotomy (same with me). He does take things in via impression (while being horrible with recalling details), has difficulty explaining how he arrived at conclusions, and is creative and interested in the future/possibilities, but he's also a highly practical and hands-on person who gets impatient when people talk about ideas or generalities and is very traditional and respectful of authority. Last time he took a test he ended up smackdab in the center on the S/N, and it's not like he was in the middle/undecided on the options; it was that he was way on the far end of various aspects, but they were different ends.

On any project, at some early stages of going through information I have this enlightenment stage I jokingly refer to as satori, where there is this bright outline of the whole picture comes to mind, and then all the pieces fall more or less neatly around it. Once the

[ikel89]

It's my pleasure to comment on interesting posts like that *gentlemanly bow* :D True, though.

Yeah, it's both inconsistent and confusing. I guess my situation is quite like your friends, except I haven't done many tests to see if N pops up with the same frequency as S. GET TO SOME CONSESUS YOU TEST MAKERS *sob* Please make a new post or an update if you clear up the situation somehow in these discussions, it would be most welcome.

[breyzyyin]

This post was really interesting! I can't really add much to the discussions above me, but I've always thought of the "left brain" and "right brain" thing as strange...since, well, I know people who kind of fit for both despite being right or left handed (myself included!). I always take that with a grain of salt anymore. ♥

[chacusha]

It's weird how the idea was able to embed itself so deeply in people's minds, when like... it doesn't really match up to reality when you think about it!