"Much of the frustration a Sensor has with an Intuitive comes when the conversation bounces off in all sorts of directions that may be interesting for the Intuitive but has zero relevance for the Sensor.
Suppose, for example, that you're shopping for a new car. Your Sensor partner strikes up a conversation about fuel consumption, heated seats and tow packages. Because you focus on theory and metaphor, you attempt to extract a deeper meaning from the Sensor's literal words where none was intended. You are convinced, wrongly, that the Sensor is referencing the environmental impact of CO2 emissions and you can't understand why the Sensor keeps dragging you back into the mundane world of backup cameras.
What you have actually done is put words into the Sensor's mouth. They were having a benign conversation about cars, while you were setting the world to rights. The further you move from reality, the more annoyed a Sensor will get."
If it didn't have relevance, I wouldn't bring it up. I'm bringing it up because I think it's relevant, and something I think the sensor should see. If the sensor doesn't want to hear an intuitives abstract opinions, then why are they even telling them about it?
Further more, seeing many different possibilities at once doesnt mean I see any of them as correct or incorrect. Speculation and assumtion are not the same thing.
My first assumptions, if any, are that I have wrongly misunderstood the conversation. And I ask for clarification. This is usually what annoys most sensors in my experience. I don't put words into anyone's mouth, I go through a list of possibilities using induction and deduction to narrow them down to the most logical, and statistically plausible results based on as much responce I can get out of direct questioning as the sensor has tolerance for. Most sensors do not seem to have understanding that intuitives perceive things differently then they do. And they misinterpret our speculations as critisism, and jumping to conclusions about how we perceive things. Then they become defensive over something that they assume we assume, when this is not the case.
I think that more often times the intuitive is having a conversation about reality, when the sensor just gets annoyed.
Rusty (not verified)says...
I was following until you got to here:
"Much of the frustration a Sensor has with an Intuitive comes when the conversation bounces off in all sorts of directions that may be interesting for the Intuitive but has zero relevance for the Sensor.
Suppose, for example, that you're shopping for a new car. Your Sensor partner strikes up a conversation about fuel consumption, heated seats and tow packages. Because you focus on theory and metaphor, you attempt to extract a deeper meaning from the Sensor's literal words where none was intended. You are convinced, wrongly, that the Sensor is referencing the environmental impact of CO2 emissions and you can't understand why the Sensor keeps dragging you back into the mundane world of backup cameras.
What you have actually done is put words into the Sensor's mouth. They were having a benign conversation about cars, while you were setting the world to rights. The further you move from reality, the more annoyed a Sensor will get."
If it didn't have relevance, I wouldn't bring it up. I'm bringing it up because I think it's relevant, and something I think the sensor should see. If the sensor doesn't want to hear an intuitives abstract opinions, then why are they even telling them about it?
Further more, seeing many different possibilities at once doesnt mean I see any of them as correct or incorrect. Speculation and assumtion are not the same thing.
My first assumptions, if any, are that I have wrongly misunderstood the conversation. And I ask for clarification. This is usually what annoys most sensors in my experience. I don't put words into anyone's mouth, I go through a list of possibilities using induction and deduction to narrow them down to the most logical, and statistically plausible results based on as much responce I can get out of direct questioning as the sensor has tolerance for. Most sensors do not seem to have understanding that intuitives perceive things differently then they do. And they misinterpret our speculations as critisism, and jumping to conclusions about how we perceive things. Then they become defensive over something that they assume we assume, when this is not the case.
I think that more often times the intuitive is having a conversation about reality, when the sensor just gets annoyed.