Sensing Vs Intuition In MBTI: Practical Examples

The Foundation describes S/N as a preference for taking in information, not an intelligence, creativity or job-performance scale. Both concrete evidence and possibilities can be useful in the same task.

The five rows are our editorial observation prompts based on that model. They are not five diagnostic signs: either approach can be used by anyone, and the task, training or available information may explain the choice.

Shared task: two colleagues must learn a new expense tool and submit the same sample claim. In this fictional example, Jordan asks to watch one completed submission; Casey first asks how the tool connects claims, approval and reimbursement. These are observations about this task, not assigned personality types.

A concrete-first approach could follow a worked example, try the fields in order and note the exact receipt requirements. A patterns-first approach could sketch the approval flow, compare it with a familiar system and explore what changes when a claim is rejected. Both colleagues still need to test the actual steps and understand the wider workflow.

Alternative explanation: Jordan may be new to the tool while Casey has implemented similar systems. Their roles or time limits could also shape their questions. Record the first information each person requested, what they tried, and which assumption changed after an error message. Do not turn the order of their questions into an S/N score.

Shared task: a group has the same budget, two days and a train journey to plan. In this fictional example, one person checks departure times, walking distances and a previous hotel experience. Another proposes a theme for the weekend and several possible routes. Neither action establishes a type.

A concrete-first approach could build a usable route from verified opening hours and transport details. A patterns-first approach could compare what different routes would make possible and connect activities into a broader experience. A good plan can combine both: imagined options need current facts, and a detailed schedule can change when a better option appears.

Alternative explanation: the person booking tickets may need details because they carry the practical responsibility. Budget, accessibility needs or local knowledge may explain either approach. Record the first question, the facts that ruled out an option, and what led the group to revise its plan. A preference is not a promise that someone always plans this way.

Shared task: a team’s weekly support-response time has increased. In this fictional example, Morgan asks to inspect several tickets and the time calculation. Riley suggests a connection with a recent product launch. These are two starting points for an investigation, not Sensing and Intuition labels for the people.

A concrete-first approach could inspect dates, ticket categories and worked examples to establish what changed. A patterns-first approach could propose several explanations, connect the timing to other changes and ask which explanation fits the evidence. Both need to check the measurement and consider alternatives before recommending a response.

Alternative explanation: Morgan may own data quality and Riley may know the launch history. Expertise, assigned responsibilities and missing data can influence their starting point. Record the initial information request, the proposed explanation, the check performed and what changed after the check. A plausible story alone is not evidence of a cause.

Choose a real task you have already done. Write what happened before attaching a preference label. The completed example below is fictional; the fields are prompts, not a validated assessment or a mandatory observation schedule.

Compare concrete-information and possibility-seeking approaches when the task allows both. Ask what helped, what was missing and what you would check next. You can borrow either approach without settling on a four-letter type.

The Foundation’s Results guidance treats interpretation as a process of exploring a best-fit type rather than accepting a score as the whole answer. Our fictional examples do not replace that process. A test result cannot prove why someone acted a particular way in a software task, a trip or an investigation.

The two sources describe the Foundation’s model and interpretation guidance. They do not independently validate these editorial scenarios or establish an accuracy rate for this site’s tool.