Hey you. Yeah, you. No no no. Not the person behind you. No no. Not the other person
in the audience. I'm talking to you: the person behind the screen. Let's talk about this thing
of "sensors being stupid": my favorite topic of conversation. Not. -I mean, it kind of is,
because I like to talk about things that are true, but, you know, it grinds my gears, ladies
and gentlemen: this idea that sensors are stupid, and can't be abstract. This rant was inspired by
a couple of... couple o' comments that I saw on a platform recently that were discussing me
and my channel, and someone said something to the effect of, "well she can't be a sensor, actually,
because she's actually quite abstract-minded" and I was like, "well you know... Hey! Whoa! Hey!"
Flattered, at first. Appreciate the compliments always, but I wanted to get to this, you know,
to the root of this issue, which is this thing in the Myers-Briggs community that sensors are really
stupid, or that they can't think, that they're not abstract... please excuse all the energy that I
have today; I uh, didn't write a script for this video. No, for real, let's talk about this thing,
right? This idea in the community that sensors have this stigma of just not being abstract-minded
in any way. I was joking before. I don't think all of you are like this. In fact, you're definitely
not like this. In fact, most people understand that Myers-Briggs is not binary and that you
have access to Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling tools, just in different preferences.
We understand that - most of us. Yet sometimes, this kind of subliminal message or understanding
of sensors comes out of like... "Hmm, if they're using a sensing preference in any capacity,
they just aren't capable of thinking abstractly or deeply about things",
and it cannot be further from the truth, my friends! Myers-Briggs cognitive functions are
preferences. It's about where your energy and your attention goes most of the time. So when you are
perceiving or judging a situation, it's about what you're paying attention to. Are you paying
attention to the shared value and consensus of the group? Or are you immediately going
inward and paying attention to your personal emotive response? That is an Fe/Fi difference.
It doesn't mean that I, after going into my immediate emotional, personalized response,
can't then immediately go outward and choose to acknowledge the tribe, or think about the tribe.
It's about where your attention goes first. Your natural preference, and that's how it works,
okay? So by that logic, we, as sensors prefer a sensing function. We prefer, most of the time,
to be engaging with the physical tangible world in some way. If we have a choice of sitting down and
having a philosophical conversation when there's an opportunity to engage in something really
novel and exciting (if you're an Se user) or to do something else... I don't know what the equivalent
would be for Si... if you want to, you know, be bossy and make routines. That's a joke. ...We
will probably choose the latter - the sensory preference - if it's something that appeals to our
number one preference; where we like to spend most of our time; where we like to throw most of our
attention; where we like to get our energy, for lack of a better term, right? That does not mean
that we are incapable of sitting down and having that philosophical conversation. In fact, if it's
something that we have deemed relevant or valuable with our introverted judging function, we will
choose to sit and talk about the abstract thing. In fact, if I had an option of doing something
novel and exciting or having a conversation about whether or not sensors are stupid,
I would probably choose the conversation. Oh, depends what the sensory thing is, though. Oo,
if it was a dance floor with a really bangin' song, I would struggle with that... What would
I choose? ... It's circumstantial. It just depends, doesn't it? Anyway. But I have
chosen the conversation over the sensory stimuli some of the time if I've decided with
my introverted judging function that that thing is important. Or if, you know, someone's presenting
a new piece of data or evidence to contradict a particular pattern that I've built with my Ni,
I will want to sit down and probably argue against that because of how, naturally, Ni is quite
subjective, and we kind of take the Se data to uh... to refine our Ni point, which means we can
sometimes be blind to other perspectives. Like, I think in a lot of my Ni patterns that I've built,
I am quite biased to them, so it would take a lot for me to sort of change that, but that's only
because the Se data has like, pointed so strongly to that pattern. I've used the Se to refine the Ni
pattern. We're tangenting. Point is, if someone was talking about something that was important
to an Ni pattern of mine, or contradicted an Ni pattern of mine, or was important to my Fi value,
I would choose that, probably, if the stakes were high enough. But ninety percent of the time,
I will be choosing the Se experience. It does not mean I am incapable of doing the deep dive,
thinking deeply... I think in this community, obviously because I'm presenting a persona
on this channel where I've thought a lot about Myers-Briggs - I have a lot of patterns that
I've built with Se data - it can come across as I'm like, an intuitive sometimes. But I think
it's because Myers-Briggs is something that I've literally been studying and gathering data for to
refine those Ni patterns for... several millennia, it feels like. A long time, right? So I have those
Ni patterns that I've refined. I'm attached to them. I want to, sort of, teach people about them.
That's what I'm doing on this channel. But if you were to come to me and be like,
"Hey, Kristin, can you talk to me about how, you know, children watching a very particular genre of
television or playing a particular genre of video game will have long-term impacts on their health
for the rest of their life?" I would just be like ... I would have no data to go off. I would have
not I would have nothing profound to say, because I have not gathered any data for that point. And
as an Se dom, you know, if you're thinking about Se dom/Ni inferior versus Ni dom/Se inferior - and
I've said this before - for an Se dom/Ni inferior, we need to do things in order to make sense of
them. So we need to do things, gather lots of sense data, explore sense data and gather it,
to make sense of the sense data; to make sense of the world; to make sense of the bigger picture.
We need to gather the data first. Without data, we can't create a pattern from nothing.
As opposed to Ni doms with Se inferior, they just need one little data point and they can already
come up with, materialize, see an entire vision, pattern, bigger picture, based on that. They don't
need as much data, so they need to make sense of things before they can do them. As opposed to us,
but then you do them in order to make sense of them. Difference in preference, okay? I am never
going to be able to talk about an Ni pattern if I don't have data to back it up. In fact,
if people ask me about things that I have no data on, I can't help but say, "look,
I don't know about that." Like, I have to wait for experience. It's very common for
Se doms to speak that way. But when we do have data for something, we know what we're talking
about a lot of the time and that's why it can come across like we are intuitives. It's because we are
accessing that Introverted Intuition (Ni) function; because we've built patterns.
It doesn't mean that we're an intuitive dom. Like, there are so many subjects that I just do not have
time for if I don't have a personal attachment to it or if it's not relevant for my Ni patterns that
I care about, or have built, I would get drained and I will just, like, most of my day, I'm just
engaged primarily in the sensory world. You guys just happen to see this side of me, uh, that's
quite in touch with that Ni. So, to draw it to some kind of conclusion, Se is a vibe. That's not
what I should be concluding. It is a vibe, though; I'm not wrong. To draw this to a conclusion,
do not look at an Extroverted Sensor and say they are incapable of going deeper; they are incapable
of seeing the abstract. When I was like 15 to my early 20s-ish, I definitely was less
able to see abstract patterns. But that was because my preference, Se data,
was so minimal in its, like, experience, that I couldn't actually build patterns as much.
So my ability to see those abstract patterns was lower. Now that I'm a 29-year-old woman,
I've had enough life experience to see that there is actually more to life than the tangible world,
and to realize that certain principles, truths, beautiful things, abstract ideas and concepts...
do hold value in life and that it's not just about the tangible world. This is the natural thing that
happens when you grow older and those, sort of, lower functions get a bit more integrated into
your personality. My preference is still Se, and my second preference is still Fi. Those things
always hit first. They're the things that I'm paying attention to first and foremost,
and it's had its own value in the community, because I've been able to bring observable Se
data into my skits to sort of... indicate to you guys how certain types might present externally
in body language, or whatever it is, you know? So every type has their value every type has gifts
they can give to the community. Please: if you're going to use MBTI, I would really advise - and I
say this in truth, but with love - if you're going to use MBTI, please use it with the
cognitive functions in an understanding... in an understanding of the functions:
that the functions are preferences of where our attention goes first. They are not behaviors.
Sometimes they may manifest in certain behaviors; you might be able to find trends, but behaviors
aren't guaranteed. It's not a deterministic predictor of behavior whatsoever (MBTI),
and chosen behaviors are not cognitive functions. There's so many things that I do in my day-to-day
life that show I prefer Se: to engage in the sensory world in an exploratory manner without
storing it away anywhere - just experiencing it. Anything that's a chosen behavior aside from that
is not my natural cognitive function. So I think I've rambled on long enough. I think you get the
point. Thank you for watching this video. Please give it a "like" if you agree. I'm not sure how
I came across in this video. I think there's... dare I say, a little bit of HEAT to my delivery,
but uh, please take that as me just having passion behind this topic, and nothing more
than me caring about the community and MBTI being utilized in good ways, as a tool for understanding
people, others, society on a functional level - which is such a Te thing to say, I just
realized as I was saying it. "Use it as a tool for functionality of the society!" Anyway, I'm done.
You guys are great. We'll chat soon. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. Okay, bye!
Sensors unite! Lol, I'm not going to create that "us and them" mentality. Let's all unite! Great.