Although this is often true in terms of the behaviors exhibited by an individual with a Sensing preference, it is not true of ALL people who prefer Sensing. What is wrong with this statement is the generalization at that ALL people with this preference will exhibit this behavior or will have this skill to the same degree as others with this preference. A way to clean up this phrase would be to say “people who prefer sensing are often (usually, typically, generally, etc.) good with details. Again, we don’t want to use language that boxes our client into have EVERY characteristic listed for Sensing in the Introduction to Type® booklet. Most likely someone who prefers Sensing will exhibit many or even most of the characteristics, but not always or to the same degree. There are as many ways to express Sensing (and all of the preferences) as there as people. I like the way Isabel Myers used to describe this - someone who prefers INFP (what she preferred) can be like all INFP’s, some INFP’s or no INFP’s. In other words, although there are only 16 types, there are a million ways to express those 16 types, making each person unique within their own type.
Posts
I'd be interested to see what someone who prefers Sensing but is absolutely wretched with details looks like.
ReplyDelete