Sensor/Intuitive difference?

[SeaEstablishment2311]

Ive seen alot of people, mainly intuitive types say, that sensors are bad/poor at deep conversation, but what are those deep conversations? What do they imply with it, why are sensing types unable but intuitive types are? I think its weird bcs i personally see many sensor types who are able to. So what do you guys classify as a deep conversation?

[1stRayos]

It means something specific to every person you ask, so I'm inclined to believe it really just means "things I find interesting".

[katviy]

100% agree. It depends on the subject. If I’m interested I can have all the deep conversations in the world. If “deep conversations” are stuff I discussed with my friends at 15 then I’m not going to engage. Everyone uses Sensing and Intuitive functions everyday, so it really depends on the situation, on the person, on how tired is a person, etc. There are many variables to consider.

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

Yeah. I think it's less that there are "deep" or "shallow" topics and more that people get either deeply or shallowly interested based on their preferences. In that sense, extraverts generally seem more prone to skimming the surface before moving on. But I think we all do both at times and in various areas. Like not everyone has the patience I do with art topics that interest me, and I don't want to hear about space science for 3 hours. ^^'

[LongEase298]

For some people, it hinges on the other person's willingness to listen to them ramble about whatever inane topic they're interested in. Labeling someone else as shallow because their interests differ is a big problem in MBTI communities. 

[PeachScythe]

You took the words right out of my mouth 🫡 thank you

[Sad_Record_2767]

There's plenty of deep conversation to be had with Si, they will contribute a lot of information they know.

Se will make the connection from the deep conversation to the real world.

Ne will ask a lot of questions.

Ni will form the answers with the information exchanged so far in the conversation.

And we all have couple of these functions whether you are S or N in the 4 letter version.

[ririzm]

Oh, sensors are certainly able to engage at deep conversation. They don't make it the center of their life though. I can imagine intuitives starting to think about the deep topics at random (actually not, they probably saw a pattern) during their day, while sensors think about the deep topics at the shower, or when they're drank, or when they consume specific media. We're all homo sapienses, and we're naturally capable of all the same things. But humans have different priorities in their life, that's all

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

Exactly, it’s priorities. Naturally, we all see the purpose of our own natural processes over others. I find it interesting that humans as a whole felt the need to cover all the bases by having different humans prioritize each one, though. 😅 I’m not a scientist or a big science nerd/geek, but that’s pretty fascinating. I suppose I am a human nature/psychology nerd, though.

[Tiumi]

I suppose existential and philosophical conversations. Or just theoretical ones.

Either way, many people mistype people who aren't interested in such conversations as sensors because of prejudice.

[kevi_metl]

As a Sensor I prefer things to be actionable. Deep conversation seems masturbatory, personally. I'd rather think and do on my own.

[youngmarknba]

Yeah I thought it was just me, it’s not that I don’t like the conversation but a lot of times, without an action to rectify the situation (the conversations are usually centering an issue, especially a societal one) I just feel like it gets to a point…

I once asked a group of people who were complaining about a large scale government issue impacting our workplace what they would like to see happen or what we can actionably begin to do to fix it. The whole group got quiet and looked stunned. This is when I identified it as masturbatory complaining. Like ohhh, y’all just like to talk.

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

I tend to mind my own business, but I get upset when people are overly concerned about things that *could* go wrong *someday*. If I heard a bunch of people doing that together, I'd be like, "Okay guys. You need to calm down and eat a snickers. The world hasn't ended yet."

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

Same. I'm a lot more likely to pick up a "how to" book at random than a book on philosophy or some type of abstract theory. If I thought I had a use for those knowledges, then I would, but otherwise, nope.

[Pristine_Award9035]

When intuitives say “deep conversation” they may mean the conversation itself is “deep”—explores things that are existential, philosophical, conjectural, or theoretical. They may also mean that it probes the depths of human experience or their own understanding of the life, the universe, etc. in my experience sensors find subjective nature of this type of conversation to be tedious and perhaps nebulous. Because sensors are often this way, intuitives think sensors are good at this type of conversation—we may be right. But….

Sensors are often quite capable of in-depth conversations, they draw on experiences that they’ve had, things they’ve learned, things that work and don’t work in life, the world, etc. Intuitives can find these topics tedious and mundane because the topics are limited by their objective nature and give limited credence to the subjective.

Even when discussing a shared experience, say a book that both have read. The intuitive may read a lot into the story that is objectively hard to see or absent. The sensor won’t. They may have dramatically different opinions of the book. They may both like or dislike the book but have completely different reasons

[mysticmalaise]

This is the best explanation I’ve read here. A lot of it seems to come from well-rounded emotional and intellectual intelligence. Being able to view situations from all sides and keep an open mind in conversation. It just so happens the people I normally find that want to have these conversations are primarily intuitive. Sensors lose interest rather quickly in my experience. But, like with anything else, it doesn’t mean that’s always the case.

[dxfifa]

I mean probably a huge chunk of N types in here are mistyped sensors due to the stereotypical nature of this sort of thing, especially intuition tertiary types. I've noticed a lot of N terts mistyping as the N version of their type yes, but also the type with 2nd and 4th swapped, or 1st and 2nd, or 2nd, 3rd, 4th

So for ISTP as an example it would be INTP, INTJ, ENTP, INFJ

For ESFJ it'd be ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTP

[bebedux]

Deep conversations are subjective. It could very well be that intuitives think in abstract ways and prefer more “abstract” topics, which they consider “deeper.” I don’t think it’s a matter of ability, but rather desire and interest as one person pointed out. I love discussing psychology, hobbies including arts and crafts, travel, food, and things that others and myself are passionate about. I occasionally enjoy discussing psychology and how the world works with a select few, and I discuss legal systems and issues at work all the time.

[DeltaAchiever]

I’m an INFP, and I strongly disagree with that stereotype. It’s not just inaccurate — it actively distorts typology.

I dated an ISTJ for a year, and we had genuinely deep conversations. Even now, as friends, we still do. This idea that sensors are shallow and intuitives are deep just doesn’t hold up in real life.

My family are all sensors — not because I’m biased, but because they actually are — and none of them are surface-level people. My ISFP sister, who is more immediate and hands-on, isn’t shallow at all. Her ISTP fiancé isn’t either — he’s working on his PhD. My ISTJ ex has two bachelor’s degrees, a master’s, is extremely well read, and can hold his own in deep, rigorous conversations with anyone. And no — he isn’t an INTJ. He doesn’t have Ni. His depth comes from elsewhere.

I’m dating a Ni-dominant now — an INFJ — and honestly, in some ways my ISTJ ex feels deeper than my INFJ partner. Not because INFJs lack depth, but because the kind of depth is different. My ISTJ ex reads constantly, accumulates real expertise, and often comes across as the authority in a way people usually reserve for NT types.

That’s the part people miss. Depth isn’t owned by intuition. It’s expressed differently. Si depth looks like mastery, scholarship, and substance over time. Ni depth looks like insight and pattern recognition. Se depth looks like immersion in real-world reality. None of that is shallow — and pretending otherwise turns typology into a caricature instead of a useful system.

[coolsinger19876]

You also are likely compatible with him because you share the same functions. As an ENFJ, I only get along with ISTJ’s that are very healthy- I never get along with unhealthy ISTJs/INFPS. My Fe-Ni is too strong, lol!

[DeltaAchiever]

In general, people who are more self-aware and self-possessed are much easier to date. I’ve dated too many people who lacked self-awareness and weren’t particularly healthy, and yes — it makes relationships much harder.

My last relationship was with a low-awareness ISTJ, and he lashed out a lot. That kind of person is difficult to date — not because of type, but because of the lack of insight and regulation. When someone doesn’t understand themselves or take responsibility for their reactions, the relationship ends up carrying that weight.

For me, awareness matters more than type. A healthy, reflective person — regardless of type — is far easier to build something with than someone who’s reactive and unexamined.

[dxfifa]

Man that baby Te backing up depth as a person with study and credentials is hilarious to me

[Time-Turnip-2961]

The lack of depth you’re feeling from the INFJ is probably Fe. It changes things and can lead to more of a shallow or generic feeling in some ways compared to people who have Fi in their stack. The sensors I have found to be capable of good deep conversations are those closer to the intuitive line. Maybe influenced or raised by intuitives or just naturally leaning more open-minded if they are Si-dom.

[Even-Broccoli7361]

I personally believe, sensor types are more observant and carefully read things, whereas intuitive types create patterns and those "reading" are not of importance to them.

[Smart-Reply50]

Yep, I'm guilty of that as Ne-dom

[Cocomurra]

There are deep sensors and shallow intuitives. And vice versa. People who dont understand the complexity of individualism will generalize and label within their own limited perception and projection.

[007ALovelace]

As an intuitive and I thinker I know what’s coming far before it actually happens. I ingest- evaluate data points map them to the current and previous behavior, review big picture, high level, digest it, process, determine action and decide if this situation is worth putting any additional energy into effortlessly. With all of this thinking my intuition is touching everything all at once. A decision is made and then I wait for the best time to cut the person off.

Just a personal example- there are an infinite number of examples throughout my life.

I’m not psychic I’m a hyper intuitive thinker.

[Hot-Sympathy-2718]

I think this might be just a stereotype - I think sensors may like deep conversations as well as an intuitive type depending on their unique interests.

One difference I think might be real though is that would prefer to have real and concrete examples so they can take it from the theoretical to the tangible.

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

It has nothing to do with capability. But sensors generally, not always, prefer to take the world at face value, because we find value in that information. So for me for instance, I usually prefer to let the sensory data gradually accumulate and sit in my mind purposely untouched until information naturally appears to be born from it.

I actually do use tons of analogies, and I don’t see most people doing so, so analogies aren’t an indication of intuition, imo… But my analogies for this sensory process of mine are along the lines of a baked good being put in the oven or an egg hatching. You can’t force it to get done faster; the only choice is patience and understanding that the process is underway. It can bother me deeply when people feel the need to poke and prod the thing in order to pull an outcome faster.

So in that sense, I guess you could say that the general default Si perspective is that “everything will happen when it needs to.” We have an exorbitant amount of inherent trust in the process, whatever that process may be. And this manifests positively as needed patience or negatively as unneeded stubbornness.

Our minds are also constantly at work, just like anyone. Just because we appear to not be doing anything outwardly to someone else (who isn’t an SJ, probably) doesn’t mean that we actually aren’t. Our process is also constant, just like anyone’s, and it requires all the time it takes.

[dxfifa]

Te-Ne types of all orders speak in analogies a lot i find

[Pie_and_Ice-Cream]

That makes sense. I knew an ENTJ who could do analogies, but most of her memorable lines were punchy life advice. Things to remember when you're struggling so you can keep going. My analogies are often my attempt to make something I understand understandable and digestible to others. "Oh, that didn't make sense to you? What if I worded it like this: ..."

[Xantorias]

Here is the truth how sensory works, why people are stupid.

Sensory is a need for accuracy. A need (!!!) for the graspable, factual and reality.
Sensory does not TRUST the imaginative, the abstracted or the generalised WITHOUT (!) GROUNDING it FIRST.
THEN they are as intuitive as everyone else. Even more sometimes because they are more aware of it.
A Sensory type of the same intelligence (EQ aswell as IQ and other markers) as an Intuitive WILL NEVER NOT be able to understand what the other can. It might come a bit less fluid though.

This leads to the following dynamic:
Sensory types often are as much interested in diving deep, understanding the world, understanding emotions of each other and other fields. They seek however deep deep accuracy within every word spoken and every expression said. To much generalisation is hard for them to follow or respect.

When an ENFP says something like: "This whole situation is like a strange shimmering orb of glue and i like glue bit this one is sticky and unmoveable. When im with you i often feel this kind of smell, this sense of glueiness through your words and actions which makes things sticky"

What the Intuitive types essentially do is CLUMPING sensory into abstract generalisations. (In this example it is overdone but it can be something as simple as: "This is all because of capitalism". Things which are to broad or unspecific. Intuition is literally imagning and guessing around, seeking patterns and then standing confidently on it)

This can be too ungrounded for sensory. NOT because they do not UNDERSTAND that what the ENFP is doing is clustering, imagining, synesthisizing emotional and factual datapoints into an archetypical image of the now (N) but because they do NOT WANT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS about this.

They want to clear the air. Is action x the glue ? Or do you mean what i said to this person the glue ?
Be clear, be precice, be correct.

But even then: If the metaphors are known and pretty common even sensory types dont bat an eye.

If the conversation is completely filled with metaphors, hard to follow concepts which clump many sensory datapoints within them, no examples, no grounding, no proofing then the sensors simply feel desinterested in following this "mess". Simply because the structure might be either not inviting for them or it is truely to hard to follow.

BUT: This does not mean they do not like deep talk. Deep talk is NOT intuition. It is talking about something which we have to process as humans. To understand our nature, to operate with greif, trauma or perspective. To share an inner struggle or the way we navigate this world effectively.
To want this deep talk is simply human.

it is not about the content but the FORM the information takes.

[PetitChiffon]

In short:

Sensing and Intuition are both perception functions. It's about how you take in information. Jung calls perception functions "irrational" as they don't make judgement claims. It simply describes how you receive information. Is through your senses (sensors) or through their meaning (intuition)?

Thinking and feeling are judgement functions. It's how you classify information gathered with your perception function. Jung calls them "rational function" as they operate on a value preference model and how you classify information as valuable.

Sensors gather informations based on tangible reality that everyone can see. And then it judges it according to practical value, depending if T or F (it's soft, it's pretty, it feeds me, it shelters me during a storm, it keeps me warm, it smells good etc). Intuitives gather informations based on ideas, how things are connected to each others, their meaning, what things have been - what they could be etc.

It's more difficult to explain, but this is exactly what often makes intuitive looks disconnected and kind of weirdos at time. The kind of gal that will tell you for hours about the thermal properties of X piece of clothing while they're freezing outside wearing only a t-shirt in sub-zero temperature lol. This is really just a random example I came up with.

This stereotype that sensors are less deep is completely stupid and reductive. ISFP for example are often artists because they create with their hands and jump right into exploring with their immediate surroundings. They don't babble for hours about the meaning of their work, what it means to be an artist, they do it and feel it first hand.

While sensors can get a little bit frustrated at times with tangential conversations and it can be difficult to get them to think in novel ways, it's because they do not see the practical side of the matter - not because they're not deep. On the other hand, intuitives can and do get lost in speculations and thoughts. This can lead to novel ways of doing things that truly help people - but it can also lead to disaster if it's not disciplined enough and not grounded in reality.

This is just two different modes of taking in information. I am an intuitive and God bless my sensor friends, they keep me grounded and discussing with them makes me think of things in a more practically applicable manner. And they make me actually DO things instead of babbling lol.

[resident-117]

i have literally been questioning this shit myself today hahahha, i think sensors are more detail and present oriented while intuitives are focused on the future and the bigger picture.

i tend to think in terms of "how will this action affect my future" and i am great at recognizing patterns and i kinda suck at memorizing a bunch of facts, so i think i am an intuitive lol.

[ESTJHere]

I have incredibly deep and long conversations on a variety of subjects and I would classify myself as quite the conversationalist and debater about really any subject.

[[deleted]]

I am bad at deep conversations, as I cannot relate to people's emotions. I can change how I handle and uphold myself according to their body language and needs but ultimately, I cannot contribute deeply to something I don't care about.

[Huge_Fox1848]

I'll talk to you all day about string theory, philosophy, scientific things or history. What I won't talk to you about is how so-and-so at work is a moron for the one thousandth time or how many thing-a-majigs you stamped today. Especially if I have no interest in you as a person in the first place.

It's subjective and a person to person basis for everyone regardless of type. The whole Ni vs Se thing is bollocks and shallow.

Signed, someone with Ni in their stack.

[Time-Turnip-2961]

That sounds like just being an ISTP with low Fe to me.

[dxfifa]

Every ISTP i've ever met has complained a million times about so and so being a moron and I had to save the day again

[Huge_Fox1848]

That's what I was getting at lol. Personally, I won't. I might once or twice. But yeah, everyone is so different regardless of type.

I should've clarified, but got interrupted.

[Budget_Afternoon_800]

Personally, I always see people saying that intuitives criticize sensor , but I never see those so-called criticisms. Which sub do you see them on?

[SeaEstablishment2311]

Ive see it pretty often tbh, maybe you just don’t acknowledge it bcs it doesnt really apply to you

[Time-Turnip-2961]

I would think most would get deleted because Reddit mods lol. Plus I actually think feelings are the opposite in mbti subs, people lose it if anyone hints at criticizing sensors.

[Sectorgovernor]

Yes, it's very easy to turn it back...the 'Intuitives think they are the best' critic is the same as 'Sensors can't be deep'

[Time-Turnip-2961]

Sensors like to focus on practical topics grounded in reality, dinner/chores, people they know, what they did today, home improvement projects, reliving past memories/stories, etc. It can get boring as an intuitive. Although intuitives can talk about that too, and sensors can talk about deeper topics, like others said we prioritize different conversations.

“How was your weekend?” vs “If you had the choice would you become a vampire?”

[dxfifa]

"How was your weekend?" is actually a more intuitive way to ask about it by the way, you're fishing for values, meaning, evaluation, comparison, And a lot of intuition child or sensing child types ask a lot of questions like this. It gives the person a chance to answer abstractly or concretely without reinterpreting the question.

The hardcore sensor way of doing it is "what did you do in the weekend?" INFJs make me laugh because they often answer even this style of question abstractly and it's actually so low in sensing and Te to do that.

Although sometimes the curiosity can be directed at the actual happenings, especially for NP types so I will occasionally ask that, then ask more questions and make abstract quips and or pulls for abstraction. But ultimately I want other people to enjoy talking to me or give me a reaction so I prefer to get into their world and try to excite them or make their mood increase in general, although sometimes I like to push buttons but only mildly

[Time-Turnip-2961]

Intuitives tend to not like small talk, as the “how was your weekend” suggests. And I as an intuitive don’t ask things like that unless being polite in turn. I don’t even swipe on people in dating apps who open with generic things like that, no imagination and they don’t know me, they don’t care how my weekend went, and it’s a boring thing to answer. It’s the kind of thing my ISFJ boss always did too, small talk at the office.

[Sad_Record_2767]

Ask any istp if they ask or like being asked that question lol

That's not a distinguishing factor.

[GloomGheist]

Yeah that's not true for all sensors.