using a book as a paperweight,

wait wait wait

according to this, I am not a sensor, I am an intuitive

you're a thinker

dunno about intuitive

maybe?

@Exilarch Jung thought intuitives had esier faculty of thought movement from the unconscious tot he conscious

MBTI is occultism

to accept its premises

He isn't intuitive.

ultimately requires an occultic mindset

that's what I was trying to get across with the bit about jungian language.

It's not like the big 5 test.

ewild

I literally wrote 1000 pages about all of the patterns I noticed in life

how am I a "sensie"

because you wrote a 1000 pages

and not 1

and I'm sure to you, there is some big subjective importance and meaning behind the number of pages I wrote

sensors observe detail

intuitors simply, they miss detail

make basic mistakes

Exilarch, we're both introverted thinking dominant types. (Jung calls it subjective rationalism)

but also see the underlying things

I will never let anyone convince me it is a bad thing to notice detail

its not a bad thing

idea: a person can both notice detail AND underlying phenomena. Perhaps, they can even notice underlying phenomena BECAUSE of details

Now, we both interact with objective (extraverted) information in some way.

sorry above I was supposed to type

intuitors *simplify*

you guys do realize that none of this really exists, right?

no, that is the opposite of my realization

this is toddler level simplification of millennia worth of philosophy

seems like it pretty fuckin exists

to you, it seems to be the fundamental principle determining human behavior, these 4 dimensions of analysis

simplification = essence

unfortunately it has to be 4

and not 1

pong is tennis

You're a sensor because you prefer to be objective through perception of discrete phenomena, wheras someone like me or maarat does it through identification of abstract commonalities between phenomena.

you live in the real world Exilarch