S vs. N Conversation

[FallsPioneer]

Uh, I don't experience a profound difference, misunderstanding, or lack of fulfillment when talking to Sensing people. Talk is talk.

[arcticangel02]

I find I can usually communicate just fine in superficial conversation with just about anyone...

I am also pretty good at feigning interest in things that are pretty banal to me, so if the other person is willing to talk with minimal imput from me, things'll go fine. It's only when the topic is something uninteresting and they aren't big talkers, then it'll go flat, because I don't really have much to add.

The main difference is in the subtleties, I think. When talking with Sensors, I find I subconsciously tend to restrain my Ne a bit, because they won't know how to respond in the same vein (instead they'll just laugh or be disdainful) and will soon grow bored/change topic onto something more familiar. With Intuitive friends I can let Ne loose and they don't give me strange looks. And they'll usually know how to run with it. Not always, but even if they don't bounce off it they'll appreciate it.

The exception is my ISFP mother, who is truly open and accepting of how I operate. If I have something that fascinates/intrigues me, she'll be the first person in my family whom I'll bounce it off.

So in general, I can be 'myself' more around Intuitives than I can Sensors, but that is certainly not a hard and fast rule.

[Seanan]

I'm not sure but think hubby is an SF and I've learned to surpress my more natural conversation. Recently, we were cooped up in a lawyer's conference room waiting for hours and I, for some reason, got on a talking tear (very rare) talking about a few things I've been trying to work out/resolve and suddenly noticed his mouth hanging open. I've seen him drift somewhere in conversation before but hanging in there produced a new look that cracked me up... had to go outside to laugh.

[anii]

What stresses me out when talking to Sensors is the level of detail. Especially SJs... it quickly gets beyond the point where I've gotten enough information and 'get it' and becomes a stream of "blah blah blah" (or "mwah mwah mwah" of Charlie Brown's world). I can literally feel my own eyes glazing over.

I have two SJ buddies who appear to have no trouble communicating with each other. They go into so much detail (excruciating minutiae!) but I can't begrudge them this because that's what they are comfortable with. And I rely on them to correct me when I've got my facts wrong. Which is often.

I also find that it's much easier to mentally riff with iNtuitive Feelers. I'm too often awed by NTs so I clam up. The most satisfying intuitive exchanges tend to be with other INFPs (it's eerie how we speak in code), ENFPs and ENTPs.

I spent the first 18 years of my life surrounded by Sensors (in which I felt stifled and devalued much of the time. I was "impractical!" And I "just didn't think!" And I "didn't make myself useful enough!"). To be fair, there were other issues (addiction and abuse) at play besides just personality differences. But being completely honest - leaving that environment was so liberating, it felt like I'd escaped from a prison camp.

[alicia91]

I think it's not a question of S versus N - black and white like that. Most of us are probably not 100% one or the other - it's obviously a spectrum between the two. I don't have any problem dealing with either type but I prefer to deal with those closer to the middle of the spectrum on an ongoing basis (like myself! ).

Actually I LIKE communicating with NTs - love their style. Maybe that's why I married one? I find talking to people unlike myself to be quite fascinating.

Those of you who are having communication difficulties with the opposite type, can't you read the other person well-enough to figure out how to communicate with them? I mean, we all have all the processes within us, how we use them is just a preference, so when talking to a highly intuitive person - I turn on my Intuition. Works fine in real life, harder on the internet. I figure learning to do so is part of being balanced.

[bluebell]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Some S's demand a lot of tangibility. And it's exhausting sometimes for me to deal with.

ESxJ in particular. Actually, it's only at work that that's exhausting, and usually because they've jumped to conclusions and it's hard to steer them back to the subtle shades of grey and grokking the bigger picture. I hate having to spell things out to that extreme, but it's usually necessary, ugh. It kind of feels like I'm being patronising by having to explain everything multiple times...

ISxJs are much less draining to work with - there's more internal processing and analysis happening, so there's less demand for tangibility. There's more of a mutual respect of skills.

Originally Posted by proteanmix

My boss in an intuitive and she's the crappiest communicator I've ever worked with. She expects everyone to intuit her and extrapolate meaning and the gets upset when she's misinterpreted. Only after pressure from other people does she explicitly say what she wants and then I get to hear her rant about how thick people are. The only reason why I've gotten by working with her is because I catch on to what she's saying (sometimes she just wildly waves her hands as a substitute for a word and then I start saying what I think she means and she says yes, yes!), but you shouldn't have to play guessing games in order to understand what someone is saying. I just try to adjust my methods of communicating to who I'm with and it's not that big of a deal to me.

Heh. My conversations with my boss tend to involve a lot of waved hands and half-finished incoherent sentences. We can both speak clearly if we need to, but brainstorming or problem solving works best for both of us if we don't get bogged down in words. I'm going to be screwed if/when I get a new boss. I've kinda become used to having someone agree with me on the basis of some mutually understood waved hands and a few key words.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by bluebell

ESxJ in particular. Actually, it's only at work that that's exhausting, and usually because they've jumped to conclusions and it's hard to steer them back to the subtle shades of grey and grokking the bigger picture. I hate having to spell things out to that extreme, but it's usually necessary, ugh. It kind of feels like I'm being patronising by having to explain everything multiple times...

ISxJs are much less draining to work with - there's more internal processing and analysis happening, so there's less demand for tangibility. There's more of a mutual respect of skills.

I'm not trying to pick on you or anything. You've just said some things that I find interesting. While at work, I've found it to be more beneficial and efficient to zoom in and out to the forest and the trees. Some people lose sight of the overall goal when there are too many details and others don't know how to reach the goal when there aren't enough steps in the process. Sometimes it helps to remember that we're working towards the same things and details are just as important to achieving the goal as is looking at how the minutiae are being integrated into a larger picture. Things are composed of parts and they need to be fitted together. It's like some puzzles that only have 20 pieces and others that have 1000.

Originally Posted by bluebell

Heh. My conversations with my boss tend to involve a lot of waved hands and half-finished incoherent sentences. We can both speak clearly if we need to, but brainstorming or problem solving works best for both of us if we don't get bogged down in words. I'm going to be screwed if/when I get a new boss. I've kinda become used to having someone agree with me on the basis of some mutually understood waved hands and a few key words.

Since I'm really into Communication, Sociology, and Education reading that just makes me sad. Effective communicators always adjust their message to the people they are speaking to. They just don't plow ahead with their preferred communication style and expect people to understand. That's the way many responses in this thread sound. "I communicate the way that I do and if people don't get it then they want too much inane detail." I'm not really surprised by the reactions people are getting if this is the case. Also, people leave large gaps of possible misinterpretation. Do you all really expect most intuitives to intuit the same meaning that you intend? If that's the case, all intuitive (or sensors) would move as one and reach the same conclusions about things. Obviously that's not the case.

I view sensate vs. intuitive communication like this: intuitives can make big leaps in conversation and if they land in the right place then that was a lot of time saved. Sensors may go from point to point, it's slower but accuracy is usually better because there were fewer missteps during communication. Neither form of communication is better than another, they're just different modes.

I also want to point out something Gabe said in another thread that I found to be very interesting:

Originally Posted by Gabe

Pedantic is only how intuition types experience thier own sensation (and maybe how inferior thinking is experienced too)...

And as alicia pointed out, most people are not crowded at the North and South poles of sensing and intuiting. I really don't understand how people can say they have difficulty communicate with 65% - 75% of the population. What are your expectations when you talk with people? Are people expecting a perfect mind meld with very little effort? Perhaps communicating with sensors seems overly tedious not because it really is, but because it puts the same kind of strain on an intuitives brain as intuiting does to sensors. I'm getting the feeling that intuitives think their communications are more evolved and sensor communications are primitive. Intuitives are laying the blame in the communication process at sensors feet because they're not making the leaps they "should" be making instead of thinking are they filling in the gaps they "should" be filling in.

Most of this comes from my work experience. When I'm with friends, I'm not the best communicator and I expect them (maybe unfairly) to just get a lot of what I'm saying without having to explain myself.

[bluebell]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

I'm not trying to pick on you or anything. You've just said some things that I find interesting. While at work, I've found it to be more beneficial and efficient to zoom in and out to the forest and the trees. Some people lose sight of the overall goal when there are too many details and others don't know how to reach the goal when there aren't enough steps in the process. Sometimes it helps to remember that we're working towards the same things and details are just as important to achieving the goal as is looking at how the minutiae are being integrated into a larger picture. Things are composed of parts and they need to be fitted together. It's like some puzzles that only have 20 pieces and others that have 1000.

Yeah, I understand that different people work in different ways. I'm usually reasonably adaptable. I just find it draining to have to spell out every single step and explain the reason why for everything. (I'm not saying this is true of all ESxJs - just the ones currently in my team) I'm also fairly quiet, so having to fight off the dominance behaviours to get my points across isn't much fun. I guess I usually find I have to bend myself a lot to fit to them. It's just... draining to do it for too long. I hate having to argue my case as to why each step needs to happen the way it does. For me, it's obvious what needs to be done and why. I don't need it spelled out.

From what I observe in my team though, the introverts (of all types) observe how others behave and react to things and there's a mutual adapting to each other. The ESxJs in my team (note I'm not saying all ESxJs! just the ones I have to work with) seem to be completely oblivious that other people have different minds and different ways of doing things.

Since I'm really into Communication, Sociology, and Education reading that just makes me sad. Effective communicators always adjust their message to the people they are speaking to. They just don't plow ahead with their preferred communication style and expect people to understand. That's the way many responses in this thread sound. "I communicate the way that I do and if people don't get it then they want too much inane detail." I'm not really surprised by the reactions people are getting if this is the case. Also, people leave large gaps of possible misinterpretation. Do you all really expect most intuitives to intuit the same meaning that you intend? If that's the case, all intuitive (or sensors) would move as one and reach the same conclusions about things. Obviously that's not the case.

Well, I make the effort to spell out all the steps that are needed. I just dislike having to do so. One of my pet dislikes is being patronising (either to someone, or having someone do it to me). Spelling out every single step makes me feel like I'm being patronising - but one of my colleagues needs it, even for fairly mundane easy tasks that we're all expected to be able to do.

And where I work, it is expected (fairly or unfairly) that people can read between the lines and pick up the undercurrents and the multiple layers to things, despite the fact that S's significantly outnumber N's. I don't even think it's an S vs N thing. It's more of an expectation that people will stop and think, rather than just acting mindlessly.

I view sensate vs. intuitive communication like this: intuitives can make big leaps in conversation and if they land in the right place then that was a lot of time saved. Sensors may go from point to point, it's slower but accuracy is usually better because there were fewer missteps during communication. Neither form of communication is better than another, they're just different modes.

I actually disagree on the accuracy thing. Spelling out every step in detail means that a lot of the subtlety and shades of grey and adapting to unforseen events can be lost.

But I do agree with your last sentence. I just wish everyone was able to see things that way.

Edit: I came back and thought about this some more, because this is something I have to deal with daily at work. I can see now that the leaps in conversation can be misleading for those who can't fill in the gaps. The process of filling in the gaps gives a deeper understanding - but it's hidden to those who don't even see that communication is occurring, with a lot of richness and depth.

What are your expectations when you talk with people? Are people expecting a perfect mind meld with very little effort?

Well, see - that's what I have with my boss. We don't see eye to eye on everything (how we deal with conflict, for example, is very different and we both have to work hard at managing that). But, when we're discussing technical details or possible implications, there is that sense that we have the same mental map and just a few pointers are enough to get to the same place. We do sometimes disagree on the conclusion. The ease of communication is more that we're on the same page already. There's no effort to get there, which means we can discuss options at a deep level and not get bogged down in the details. Details sort themselves out later. For our particular projects, the big picture is vital.

With my boss, it's not even necessarily an N-thing - it's more that both of us think non-verbally and in graphs and connections. It's also that we are the only ones in our team with a strong technical background. That immediately removes many communication barriers because we're already speaking the same language.

My comment was actually acknowledging that this sort of mental connection is very rare in the workplace (particularly mine). It's highlighted how much effort I normally have to put into communicating. And how little effort some others put into trying to reach some sort of middle ground with communication because it hasn't even occurred to them that others are different to them, let alone that the differences are equally valid.

Perhaps communicating with sensors seems overly tedious not because it really is, but because it puts the same kind of strain on an intuitives brain as intuiting does to sensors.

Meh. A couple of my colleagues make little to no effort to try to think in a different way. If things aren't presented to them in exactly the way that they're comfortable with, they just dismiss the input completely as irrelevant. There's no 'I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain it a different way?' or 'I think you mean x, is that correct?'. It's just outright ignoring what I say, unless I package it in exactly the way their brain works.

I'm getting the feeling that intuitives think their communications are more evolved and sensor communications are primitive. Intuitives are laying the blame in the communication process at sensors feet because they're not making the leaps they "should" be making instead of thinking are they filling in the gaps they "should" be filling in.

I guess that's a fair observation. As I've said above, I guess it only becomes a problem when everyone is forced to conform to the most dominant personality in a team. And the most dominant personalities in my team are the least adaptable or observant.

Edit: Now that I've re-read this, I feel like I've spelled out this in way more detail than I'm comfortable with. This is not how I am naturally...

[Seanan]

Originally Posted by alicia91

Those of you who are having communication difficulties with the opposite type, can't you read the other person well-enough to figure out how to communicate with them? I mean, we all have all the processes within us, how we use them is just a preference, so when talking to a highly intuitive person - I turn on my Intuition. Works fine in real life, harder on the internet. I figure learning to do so is part of being balanced.

No, not in 20 years for me with this SF, I just seem to lack that ability. You have no idea how much and how often I've beaten myself up with "should" in that regard. Internally, what happens goes like this: "Okay, this time I've explained/approached so logically and warmly that what I said can't possibly be taken personally or illicit an emotionally defensive response." And IT ALWAY DOES (well, not universal LOL) If I say one thing that's disagreed with (not about him) then there's an immediate emotional reaction as if I've said something about him which I haven't. Its like walking on eggshells to me... I just don't seem to have a gauge. Face-to-face, in this case, is like the internet. I don't see any expression, etc. to tip me off.