1 – Jung definitions
2 – MBTI definitions & MBTI facets description
3 – Sensation/Sensing on Big Five
4 – Controversies about S/N
1 – Jung definitions
Sensation (also as known as sensing) pretty much relates to what the word means: A physical perception of something that did happen to the body, either in form of body perceptions that are internal and unrelated to sight, sound and external touch, or perceptions that are related to external things that comes in contact with the body, which is sight, external sound and external touch.
Notice that for Jung Abstract vs Concrete belongs to E/I (Concrete to E, Abstract to I), Objective vs Subjective also to E/I, while for MBTI Abstract vs Concrete belongs to N/S.
Jung description:
“SENSATION. I regard sensation as one of the basic psychological functions . Wundt likewise reckons it among the elementary psychic phenomena. Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus. It is, therefore, identical with perception. Sensation must be strictly distinguished from feeling, since the latter is an entirely different process, although it may associate itself with sensation as “feeling-tone.” Sensation is related not only to external stimuli but to inner ones, i.e., to changes in the internal organic processes.
Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense perception—perception mediated by the sense organs and “body-senses” (kinaesthetic, vasomotor sensation, etc.). It is, on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect. Because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of physiological impulses. It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function.
A distinction must be made between sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation and abstract (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the abovementioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. Concrete sensation never appears in “pure” form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed “aesthetic” in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation. The concrete sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. Abstract sensation is found chiefly among artists. Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation, and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.
Sensation is strongly developed in children and primitives, since in both cases it predominates over thinking and feeling, though not necessarily over intuition (q.v.). I regard sensation as conscious, and intuition as unconscious, perception. For me sensation and intuition represent a pair of opposites, or two mutually compensating functions, like thinking and feeling. Thinking and feeling as independent functions are developed, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically, from sensation (and equally, of course, from intuition as the necessary counterpart of sensation). A person whose-whole attitude (q.v.) is oriented by sensation belongs to the sensation type (q.v.).
Since sensation is an elementary phenomenon, it is given a priori, and, unlike thinking and feeling, is not subject to rational laws. I therefore call it an irrational (q.v.) function, although reason contrives to assimilate a great many sensations into a rational context. Normal sensations are proportionate, i.e., they correspond approximately to the intensity of the physical stimulus. Pathological sensations are disproportionate, i.e., either abnormally weak or abnormally strong. In the former case they are inhibited, in the latter exaggerated. The inhibition is due to the predominance of another function; the exaggeration is the result of an abnormal fusion with another function, for instance with undifferentiated thinking or feeling. It ceases as soon as the function with which sensation is fused is differentiated in its own right. The psychology of the neuroses affords instructive examples of this, since we often find a strong sexualization (Freud) of other functions, i.e., their fusion with sexual sensations.” (Carl Jung on Psychological Types, chapter XI, definitions chapter)
2 – MBTI definitions & MBTI facets description
The MBTI did expanded a lot the N/S definitions and also had sent some definitions from Jung Extraversion to Sensing: Concrete (from Jung E to MBTI S) and Experiential (from Jung E & Irrational, featured as ‘empirical’, to MBTI S). As described better later, Traditional vs Original is not an actual N/S measure but rather a differentiated type vs undifferentiated type measure. Also, on Jung its called Sensation while on MBTI this was switched to Sensing (I forgot the reason, nothing much important, though).
I do recommend to, in order to integrate MBTI and Jung, to avoid using Abstract vs Concrete and Traditional vs Original, but I do recommend using Experiential on the E side (on Jung side) rather than MBTI side (due to Openness to Experience facet ‘actions/adventure’).
Here is the basic definition of sensing on MBTI website:
“Sensing (S): Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.”
Here are the MBTI S/N facets description (from personality cafe https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/descriptions-of-the-mbti-step-ii%EF%BF%BD-facets.222794/):
The Sensing-Intuition Facets
The five facets of the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy are Concrete-Abstract, Realistic-Imaginative, Practical-Conceptual, Experiential-Theoretical, and Traditional-Original.
Concrete-Abstract
This core facet of the S-N dichotomy has a broad focus on how we generally perceive the world and the kinds of things to which we direct our attention.
Concrete
People at this pole are grounded in the tangible aspects of their world. They like factual information and favor things that are tangible and concrete over those that are intangible and abstract. They use their concrete orientation for communicating with others, in their style of learning, and in forming their views of how the world works. Their Concrete approach also shows in their choice of daily activities as well as in their preferences for entertainment and leisure pursuits.
Concrete people are apt to use literal and specific words and to employ images that convey the fine details of sensory impressions. They understand best when others communicate with them in a similar style. Their most trusted referents are words and descriptions pointing to things that are tangible and real to the senses. For them, the world primarily consists of things that can be perceived by the senses and verified experientially. Such verification must be based on some physical, sensory process that is directly experienced by themselves or others. Verification is thus central to a Concrete view of the world. Concrete people tend to rank things according to how verifiable or real they are. They are likely to dismiss abstract concepts because they seem less believable, important, and relevant, not simply because they are intangible.
Concrete people tend to make little distinction between things that are abstract and those that are fanciful. Both have lower credibility, meaning, and value than sensate things. Abstractions are not physically verifiable and do not provide information about tangible things or their relationships. They therefore seem less valuable, useful, or true. Concrete people value specific instructions about how to fix a carburetor, wire a house, or bake a cake much more than the principles of combustion or the theories of electric currents or chemical bonding. Fanciful things are not appealing to Concrete people because they are unreal, or simply boring and a waste of time. A Concrete approach attaches a value hierarchy to intangible things. This does not involve a Thinking or Feeling judgment; rather, it is a function of how grounded something is in the tangible world. Once its “tangibility value” has been determined, Thinking or Feeling judgments can be brought to bear.
Abstract
For people at this pole, real and important meanings lie in ideas and abstractions. The tangible world merely provides the associations from which meaning is created. Physical reality does not have meaning in and of itself, and may be regarded at times as irrelevant, annoying, distracting, or misleading. Concrete reality is primarily a stimulus for directing attention to the more interesting realm of intangibles. Meanings arise from the relationships of “things” to one another, and from their power to generate additional ideas or associations. Abstract people find it appealing to consider the number and variety of possibilities that emerge when one abstracts the meaning of things.
For the Abstract person, ideas are brought to life and given reality by their meanings and associations. A “fact” may be just an isolated occurrence and therefore may have no inherent meaning; it is what the fact represents that is primary. Ideas that cannot be connected to other notions are not as real. They do not have the value, interest, or excitement of ideas with many interconnections. The reality of the person at this pole is made up of ideas, abstractions, symbols, and figurative images. Physical objects or events that appear to contradict an abstraction or idea are likely to be regarded as exceptions, flukes, or simply obstacles to be overcome and worked around. Tangible evidence mainly serves to redirect the pattern of associations the Abstract person tries to make among ideas. The Abstract person will not necessarily abandon his or her ideas because of contrary material facts. Such physical evidence will only later stimulate modifications of ideas, abstractions, and generalizations.
People at this pole tend to communicate using words, expressions, and descriptions that evoke associations. This is because the tangible world is less important than the world of symbols and ideas. Even when referring to specific objects or events, meaning is not limited to what is tangible. Instead, the gist of what is being communicated lies in the abstract associations that can be made to the word. Thus language is primarily a means of implying something rather than specifying it. Using language to describe the details of one’s environment is only a secondary consideration.
Realistic-Imaginative
This facet describes how we develop something new through dealing with the tasks and problems of daily living and working.
Realistic
People at this pole focus on things that are pragmatic, where one can make a useful difference. They therefore emphasize objects, activities, ways of doing things, and kinds of knowledge. Realistic tasks may involve everything from the routines of daily living to those required to build a boat or construct a space shuttle. A central goal is efficiency in use of time, energy, and money, especially in serving a useful and tangible purpose. Realistic people attach a value to practical tings that has nothing to do with Thinking or Feeling judgments. Valuing of things stems from the greater attention, credibility, and time that the Realistic person gives to them. Things having little or no tangible impact on the detailed steps involved in a task or activity are considered to be of little value.
Realistic people value “things” in and of themselves as well as the uses to which these things can be put. They therefore tend to get along better and enjoy being with others who also appreciate tangible objects and goals. Such relationships allow Realistic people to benefit from factual knowledge and experience in areas beyond their own expertise. A shared Realistic outlook also provides a means of verifying, sharing, and reaffirming who one is, what life is about, and what is important. The shared worldview of Realistic people leads to a shared sense of humor. The humor of Realistic people differs from that of Imaginative people.
Realistic people like to have a generalized sense of how things work in the tangible world. With repeated experience and practice, their hands-on knowledge of the material world becomes the “common sense” that is so highly valued by Realistic people. Such common sense adds a worthwhile stability and efficiency to daily life. It also helps them feel, quite literally, grounded in the world. It prevents having to deal with the inevitable complications that result when common sense is lacking. The Realistic person therefore attends more to sensible, matter-of-fact things, solutions to problems, and people than to those that might be considered fascinating or imaginative. For Realistic people, things that are merely fascinating or imaginative are apt to offer little utility because they refer to things that are removed from tangible reality.
Imaginative
For people at this pole, tangible things are not nearly as important as the possibilities they suggest. Matters of fact are valuable mainly for the associations and images they bring to mind. Images are real and important; the material things from which they derive are only secondary. In fact, once a chain of associations and images has been inspired by something tangible, the initial object or fact may be forgotten. The Imaginative person will then take great delight in stringing together a succession of creative images. This kind of creative process itself may be valued as much as any of the ideas that are generated by it. For example, Imaginative people may fill journals or sketchbooks with creative output that is never published or shown to another person. When the process has run its course, the Imaginative person may move on to something entirely different or focus on the reality of whatever ideas seems most “promising.” There is unlikely to be any practical, step-by-step procedure for getting something done.
Imaginative people value creativity for its own sake; the very newness of an idea is itself appealing. They can mentally play with an idea, exploring a new and previously unknown territory of possibilities. The originality of Imaginative people is frequently inspired by the need for a solution to a practical problem, to which they can respond by trying to transcend what they see as the limits imposed by specific details. The question “tried-and-true” procedures and implicit assumptions about things, operations, objectives, and people. Because they work on the problem at a level that is mentally removed from its tangible details, their solution may not be workable in its original form. However, with a refocus on concrete reality and a little refining, it may turn out to be an ingenious solution.
In business settings, people at this pole are attracted to strategic planning. They may envision new markets, services, and products and construct mental images of a company’s future and of how it should recreate itself in order to get there. In other settings, they may become aware of a problem or need and envision a new program to meet it. Their vision will consist primarily of mental images that develop into a tangible form.
Practical-Conceptual
This facet deals with the product or outcome of one’s perceptions, rather than with the process of perception itself.
Practical
People at this pole are attracted to others who display practicality and common sense. For Practical people, ideas are valued and useful only when they can be applied to practical, down-to-earth problems. Practical people prefer putting things together from known objects and materials, using familiar and practiced methods. Their creativity is derived from experience. It is grounded in a thorough understanding of the materials used and how these materials are formed and fit together. Any new developments they create will evolve from step-by-step changes, with each stage being fully tested before any modifications are made. People at the Practical pole tend to be builders rather than innovators. They prefer the solid over the nebulous, value certainty over vagueness, and would rather deal with substances than with the purely symbolic. They are more oriented to the details of daily living and their work than to trends and events that may occur in the future. New ideas are accepted if their immediate application can be seen or if they offer tangible improvement over current practices.
Conceptual
People at this pole look for meanings in what they see around them. Tangible things are primarily reflections of a reality greater than the world of the five senses. Their focus is therefore on inferences they can draw at a conceptual level rather than on what is immediately present. They are not content, however, just to make inferences. Inferences give birth to ideas, and ideas are what excite them. They may be interested in documenting or tracing the development of an idea of concept. They particularly enjoy making connections and finding relationships among a variety of ideas. They value abstract intellectual discourse and are attracted to the exception rather than the mundane. They enjoy the stimulation of people with quick and insightful minds with whom they can have a lively exchange of ideas. They value intellectual and scholarly pursuits over practical and active endeavors.
When people at this pole make or build something, it arises out of their mental images. These images include what they are trying to do as well as the meaning their creation has for them. The step-by-step process of putting something together is not nearly as satisfying as the symbolic meaning that they give something when it is finished. Conceptual people are oriented toward the future because insights and images lying beyond what is immediately tangible are foremost. Their interest is not in specific practical accomplishments, but in the ideas and meanings behind their efforts. They are more interested in the concept of a new thing than in the thing itself.
Experiential-Theoretical
This facet emphasizes the process by which one makes knowledge or meaning out of one’s perceptions.
Experiential
For people at this pole, something must be validated by experience to be worthy of more than their brief attention. Experiential people are wary of theory, preferring instead the certainty of their own active participation in the world. They want instructions to include specific action steps that are based on practical experience. Experience is the primary criterion for truth and relevance. An Experiential personfinds it difficult to talk about truth apart from the trial and error of experience. Truth and relevance are inseparable for these people. A primary pleasure comes from expertly applying their experience. This provides the opportunity to become immersed in an active, tangible expression of both truth and relevance. The resulting product yields a singular kind of personal fulfillment because it embodies both of these qualities. Experiential people have little incentive for changing methods that have been proven to work repeatedly. Trying to improve techniques that already work is a waste of time that could be spent more productively in accomplishing the task at hand. For the Experiential person, producing something is much more satisfying than attempting an unknown approach. However, if there are no established procedures for a new task, the Experiential person will adeptly use a trail-and-error approach to find out what does work. The trials will begin with what the person already knows from similar situations. Such knowledge tells him or her how well the old methods work and where they need to be adapted.
Theoretical
People at this pole generally operate a level or two removed from the immediately tangible. They search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns. Their understanding and knowledge of the world are contained in an abstract series of principles, explanations, and theories. These are derived from understandings, sympathies, and values, depending on whether their judging function is Thinking or Feeling. Theoretical people like to explore things by looking for new connections among the concepts they use to understand the world. These new associations create fresh meanings that promote further explorations. The generation of ideas takes on a life of its own and becomes something sought for its own sake. Theoretical people are therefore ready to try new ideas or ways of doing things just to get this mental process started. A task or work that offers no new ideas or approaches to try becomes boring. Theoretical people like to weave concepts together to form a coherent set of principles or explanations that help us understand or predict something in the world.
Theoretical people learn better if they are given theories and concepts in addition to any relevant factual information. They primarily understand things at that level. Facts are apt to have little meaning by themselves and are likely to be forgotten unless they can be tied to a theory or put into some larger context. Immediate and tangible relationships between things are far less compelling to them. While Theoretical people can certainly recognize beauty in their physical environment, they find the beauty in concepts and theories to be even more awe-inspiring.
Traditional-Original
This facet emphasizes social context as the background that gives meaning to our perceptions.
Traditional
People at this pole prefer doing things in established ways that are shared by most other people. It is appealing to them to rely on the security that comes from fitting in with a community or group. They like the feeling of belonging to or being part of something larger than themselves. This preference involves one’s entire lifestyle, not merely specific tasks. It includes style of dress, choice of charities, type of housing, and recreational and leisure activities. Traditional people find the conventional appealing in many respects. Convention offers ways of doing things that are continually validated by the social environment. When they see others living in similar ways, Traditional people are assured that their manner of living is valued and correct. They receive immediate confirmation that their way of living is “on target” by checking it against their social surroundings. As a result they are uncomfortable going against the grain of custom, culture, and traditional norms. Tradition is associated with what is good.
For the Traditional person, fads are suspect because they don’t have the validating test of time and experience. Fads also lack the societal breadth and depth that occur when traditional styles and customs are followed. Following a fad is not a effective way of achieving the stable and comfortable relationship to one’s environment that comes from acting in accord with the traditional styles and customs of one’s group. Another avenue to such stability is to follow family traditions, which affirms one’s role and relationships among one’s kin. Such traditions provide self-definition and give meaning to one’s own and one’s family members’ lives. Traditional people greatly respect tradition and change their ways only reluctantly. For change to be acceptable, it must be grounded in what was done before and must proceed gradually. For Traditional people, deliberate changes made just for the sake of change are meaningless at best. At worst they may destroy cherished meanings that are the foundations of social, organizational, and family life. Traditions are ways of honoring or appreciating what is right and good. Traditional people admire those who can serve as solid role models for behavior and are interested in passing down their traditions to the next generation. They are often perplexed when the next generation is unappreciative of treasured traditions.
Original
For people at this pole, repetition and sameness in important areas of life are almost a trigger for innovation. Original people do not disrespect traditions; rather, they find that doing things exactly the same way time after time diminishes the meaning in an event. They may prefer to retain the basic theme of something but apply variations on the theme. For the Original person, it is the variations that convey meaning, rather than the theme itself. Exact repetition of a traditional way of doing something would make the activity as dull as a musical score that simply repeated the same theme over and over using the same notes.
Changes in established ways of doing things also give people at this pole opportunities for self-expression. Their originality may be displayed in their approach to tasks or activities, or in their choice of dress, leisure activities, or lifestyle. They can find inspiration to put their best effort into their work by inventing different ways of doing something. Having to do it the way someone else has done it may make their effort dead and meaningless. If the job simply does not allow for anything unique, the Original person will not be able to connect with the work and will become unmotivated. However, Original people do not need to be original in every part of their lives. In many instances, they tend to concentrate their originality in circumscribed areas that are especially meaningful to them. They admire people who stand out because of their willingness to be different. For Original people, eccentricity is a virtue.
3 – Sensation/Sensing on Big Five
Sensation is related to Low Openness to Experience on Big Five, it is not strongly positive related to any facet. There are facets that are have weak correlations (like order) yet they are more related to MBTI J/P rather than with Sensation.
4 – The problems with S/N – Link to article here.
Typology Triad 