Detached From Reality: Intuitive?

When dealing with people who are struggling to type themselves, we often see people report living inside their own minds, or inside their own fantasy world. They’ll frame it in various ways, or express it in varying extremes, but that’s the general idea. More often than not, people are assuming (whether consciously or subconsciously) that this makes them an intuitive. However, that’s only one of the potential causes for this behavior.

Reality. Many types seems to be inherently more connected to the present and to reality than others. However, as with many things, this concept or general pattern is often taken too far. While sensors are believed to always be connected to reality, intuitives are believed to always be detached from reality. In addition, it seems commonplace to believe that only intuitives can be detached from reality. If you’re in your head, you’re an intuitive. If you have your feet planted firmly on solid ground, you’re a sensor. There isn’t any middle ground… or is there?

Actually, there’s more to this than one might think. There are multiple causes, from a cognitive personality standpoint, that result in a detachment from reality, and not all of them are the result of being an intuitive. In fact, many sensors do relate to this concept, and it becomes just another one of the many reasons that they mistype as intuitives. I’m going to cover the reasons why or how a “detachment from reality” can surface in varying personalities, based on the cognitive functions. Of course, I’ll start with the obvious, previously mentioned reason.

Intuition

To everyone this likely feels obvious, but the general premise is that the sensing functions (Se, Si) connect us to reality, while the intuition functions (Ne, Ni) connect us to the theoretical. However, I actually need to clarify this point further, because the extreme line drawn here isn’t actually quite so… extreme. Intuition functions are all assumed to be abstract, but in reality, it’s more accurate to say that the introverted functions are abstract. In other words, Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti deal in abstract, subjective impressions or judgements. Our extraverted functions ground us to reality, believe it or not, and this includes Extraverted Intuition (Ne). While Si does prefer to deal in concrete data or details, that internal fantasy world that Ne users describe is actually built via Si, not Ne. (Check out Ryan’s article on The True Nature of Si for more information.)

With all that being said, both Ne and Ni can present a degree of detachment from reality. Ni is a very abstract, and subjective function, which can miss the concrete, real world data in it’s effort to perceive hidden meaning, and predict future outcomes. On the other hand, Ne often sees possibilities which are not yet reality, although they are based on connections made in the external world. In a sense, Ni is living in a world of probabilities, while Ne is living in a world of possibilities.

Introversion

Next up on the list is introversion. Introverts tend to describe living in their head, but that should make sense if you think about it. The primary drive of an introverted function is internal. The introverted judging functions (Ti, Fi) introspect. The introverted perceiving functions (Ni, Si) draw in data. Either way, an introvert’s focus is on their internal world first, and the external world second. This is why introverted types as a rule are less impulsive than their extraverted counterparts.

As a result of their inward focus, introverts may often feel detached from reality to some degree, especially if they struggle to get out of their head, and interact with the external world. Of course, this doubly applies to those who are not only cognitive introverts, but social introverts. The two do not always go hand-in-hand, but an introvert who is both will probably be hyper aware of their internal world since they may be prone to retreating into it in social scenarios.

Feeling

Last but not least, we have the feeling functions. You might find this one a bit odd, but I’m going to explain. Do you remember the Keirsey Temperaments? NF. NT. SJ. SP. I don’t agree with the way they split things, but there is some logic to it. The NF temperament is described as being highly imaginative and idealistic, but the NT temperament isn’t described this way. What’s the difference? Oh yeah, the high feeling function.

See, not only does one’s sensing function help ground them in reality, but the thinking function does as well. This is why the ST types are, on average, the most grounded of the types, while in comparison, the NFs are the most dreamy. That feeling function, with it’s focus on people-related values, can make feelers prone to focusing on how things should be. It can make them prone to idealism, which can at a certain point, leave the bounds of reality. Many ISFPs actually relate to the NF temperament because Fi by itself can be very idealistic. (Check out Idealism: An NF Tendency?)

In addition, because feelers tend to be less concerned with the logical reality and more concerned with the emotional reality, they have a greater likelihood of allowing their minds to wander into very imaginative or fantastical thoughts and daydreams that will satisfy their internal emotional world.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that all feelers will be hopeless dreamers, nor am I saying that thinkers will never dream or be unrealistic. On the contrary, anyone fixated on a feeling function can become idealistic or portray any of those high feeler tendencies. Thinkers have done this. I’m not trying to draw absolute lines. I’m just explaining a tendency. Thinkers tend to be known for being more cynical because they focus much more heavily on the cold, hard reality. Whereas, feelers tend to not get this way until they accumulate the right type of life experience, causing them to lean into or develop that thinking function.

In Conclusion…

I hope that all made sense. It seems that lately I’ve been feeling the need to expound upon overly simplistic statements or descriptors that people attribute to certain types, because of the dangers attached to them. Being overly general or simplistic tends to leave a lot open for interpretation, which causes people misapply the information and draw inaccurate conclusions. As a stereotypical Ti user, let me say that accuracy is important, especially in the world of typology. Nuance needs to be defined, because everything in personality theory is extremely nuanced.