• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How Do You Tell N from S?

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Oh yeah, me too. I don't know if it's an S thing but I found my ESTJ boyfriend was far more likely to buy a CD or book to see if it was good, whereas I didn't want to own or store it unless I knew I would be reading and re-reading (or listening to) it. He expressed concern that I needed new reading material when he saw me reading a book over again. He had a monster CD collection that encompassed a very wide variety of music and he was an expert on all of it once he owned it, even if he didn't often listen to it. The Ns I know are all book collectors, whereas with Ss it seems more hit and miss and they may collect for different reasons.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have a lot of difficulty with this dichotomy too. I always tend to originally air on the side of S, since most people are. Being very strongly S, I can notice a very strong N pretty well. "What ifs" can come from anyone but are often much more frequent in an N type. I personally think that N's tend to worry more, they are not as much in the moment and thinking about other things that could happen and may happen but haven't happened yet. (This could be an NJ thing or a J thing too, I've yet to really put my finger on that one.) N's tend to be the ones that get excited over events coming up more than they get excited about events that are happening right now. I don't even think about those things until I wake up the day of the thing, possibly the day before. There are a bunch more little cues.
 

sleepy

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
536
Do N's repeat... re-read/rewatch things they enjoy....
I never watch anything more then once. I've re watched just after, a few parts of a few favourite movies where if I felt like I missed something. Same with books, only once. Maybe the memory is stronger with Ss and Ns forget? Or I dont go as deep, so I have to re watch for the finer details?
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
I never watch anything more then once. I've rewatch just after a few parts if I felt like I missed something. Same with books, only once. Maybe the memory is stronger so Ns forget?

It's not memory, I have a phenominal memory according to a former co-worker... it's something about wanting to soak in every last detail..... I want it all.

I watched Closer the movie... the first time I saw the film...

The second time I explaored the relationship of Alice and Dan... and why Alice was called Alice and how she was saving Anna's character... and that it was fortold by Alice choosing her name from the heors wall...

The next time I picked out the goldfish bowl themes... the london aquarium, the dialogue, when in the theatre, the cicular elpise of where Anna and Dan were talking

The next time I picked up on some of Dan's physical intonations... in the secen in the theare where Dan is congratualting Anna on being a divorcee, he goes off to the loo and his shoulder is raised... which indicates she had see Clive Owns Characted... and on the bus after he just met Alice, his physical manefestations were just like an ex boyfriend of mine...

And so it goes... each layer adds something to my experiences... I watch I guess until I stop getting stuff out of it....

I've watched the TV version of the Crow Road loads of times...

Most books I read once, but some I will go back too... and The Owl Service I've read dozens of times... but it's an odd book and it needs more understanding...

So not memors at least on my part.... layering of the experience.. if that makes any sence to you

Maybe S types get all the details they want from one viewing... ie they are not going to explore tha abstract... but take out the concrete from something... if that doesn't sound even weirder than my last thought....:)
 

human101

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
510
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think S tends to read books that have a strong plot line, and they can tell you every step of the plot line, whereas N can't. So when you ask an S what the book was about, he will say something like, "This guy was kidnapped, and he was hidden in an underground tunnel, and the police were trying to find him, and ..." and an N will say "It was about the struggle between good and evil, the conflict between light and dark..."

Spot on:yes:
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Wrote this sometime before

Sensors would have their feet on the ground
Intuitives would have their head in the sky

Sensors wants the facts and what is written down
Intuitives wants to dwell in theories, prove theories wrong and make new theories

Sensors will see details of an object
Intuitives will be reminded of memories relating to an object

Sensors are realistic
Intuitives are more unrealistic

Sensors see what is
Intuitives see what could be

Sensors see a small part of a situation
Intuitives see the big picture
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Wrote this sometime before

Sensors would have their feet on the ground
Intuitives would have their head in the sky

Sensors wants the facts and what is written down
Intuitives wants to dwell in theories, prove theories wrong and make new theories

Sensors will see details of an object
Intuitives will be reminded of memories relating to an object

Sensors are realistic
Intuitives are more unrealistic

Sensors see what is
Intuitives see what could be

Sensors see a small part of a situation
Intuitives see the big picture

This is pretty N-biased (the last one especially) and fails to differentiate between Ne/Ni and Se/Si. These are really important distinctions.

Also being reminded of concrete memories relating to an object is pure Si.

The main problem here is that your idea of N is too close to Ni and your idea of S is too close to Se. You don't seem to grasp Ne or Si very well.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This is pretty N-biased (the last one especially) and fails to differentiate between Ne/Ni and Se/Si. These are really important distinctions.

Also being reminded of concrete memories relating to an object is pure Si.

The main problem here is that your idea of N is too close to Ni and your idea of S is too close to Se. You don't seem to grasp Ne or Si very well.
Hmmm? Perhaps you're right. I had no intention for it to be biased. But isn't this basically what the tests and books tell you on how to differentiate between sensor and intuitive. And there is always that question. "Do you see the big picture or the details of a situation?" and you answer accordingly indicating points towards a sensor or intuitive.
But is there no way of distinguishing a sensor and intuitive without looking at the functions? I do believe most people don't look at them when trying to type someone. I also believe that was the thought the OP had in mind when making this thread.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hmmm? Perhaps you're right. I had no intention for it to be biased. But isn't this basically what the tests and books tell you on how to differentiate between sensor and intuitive. And there is always that question. "Do you see the big picture or the details of a situation?" and you answer accordingly indicating points towards a sensor or intuitive.
But is there no way of distinguishing a sensor and intuitive without looking at the functions? I do believe most people don't look at them when trying to type someone. I also believe that was the thought the OP had in mind when making this thread.

That's kind of an oversimplification, though.

Se and Ne are more likely to see the "big picture" in terms of having an expansive but unfocused view of a lot of different information at once. Se does this best in real, tangible environments while Ne tries to observe abstract relationships between different systems inherent in the surrounding outer world. Both suffer from a lack of precision because they're constantly taking in so much information.

Si and Ni are more likely to hone in on one particular system or idea and learn all of its nuances. Si will use its internally imprinted map of past experience to isolate precisely the information it needs at the moment, while Ni will try to do this by "seeing through" the hidden dynamics of the system at hand and considering how perceptual bias might be blinding us to potentially useful interpretations.

I know the things you wrote are usually what MBTI literature says, but remember that MBTI is based originally on Jung and designed as an oversimplified "training wheels" version of Jung's theories. To truly understand N vs. S, you need to understand the different forms of each.

Ni is really more similar to Si than it is to Ne. Ne is closer to Se.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
That's kind of an oversimplification, though.

Se and Ne are more likely to see the "big picture" in terms of having an expansive but unfocused view of a lot of different information at once. Se does this best in real, tangible environments while Ne tries to observe abstract relationships between different systems inherent in the surrounding outer world. Both suffer from a lack of precision because they're constantly taking in so much information.

Si and Ni are more likely to hone in on one particular system or idea and learn all of its nuances. Si will use its internally imprinted map of past experience to isolate precisely the information it needs at the moment, while Ni will try to do this by "seeing through" the hidden dynamics of the system at hand and considering how perceptual bias might be blinding us to potentially useful interpretations.

I know the things you wrote are usually what MBTI literature says, but remember that MBTI is based originally on Jung and designed as an oversimplified "training wheels" version of Jung's theories. To truly understand N vs. S, you need to understand the different forms of each.

Ni is really more similar to Si than it is to Ne. Ne is closer to Se.
Makes sense. But it would therefore mean that a person who is categorised by the functions would be categorised into a certain personality type whether or not they fit it depending on the functions order. For example. An INTP who uses TiSi would still be dubbed as an INTP regardless of whether or not the INTP uses his sensing function more then his intuitive function. The personality types just turn into a name and the profile would probably not fit.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
N/S is the easiest to spot for me if i get to watch/participate in social interaction with the person. throw a few easy pitches, then start making them work for it. if you can kind of sort of factor in their cultural experiences, you can see how far they can leap without a kind of grounding sense. it's just like this huge blanket game of auto-association hide-and-seek, scurry scurry.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
A quick point: NJ and SJ types aren't truly "N" and "S" types, they're dominant thinking or feeling (yes, MBTI says ISJs are dominant Si, that was a big mistake and big mis-interpretation of Jung's writings), thus it's totally normal that sometimes their S-N preference is not easily discernible.

Premonitions are pretty common in Si users. The environmental stimuli resonate with a past experience, bringing up a recollection of the experience as a whole, but interpreted as a omen of the future (Si - what is past is the same as what the future will bring)

Right, that's straight on Jung's description of the type. S types have many premonitions, however from an N type perspective they tend to be rather baseless (just as much some S stuff that N types do is completely baseless from an S type perspective).
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
I'm a bit gutted no one elaborated on my original if antiquated method below :) :D


Alternatively you could submerge both types in water and see which on floats... but thats a really antiquated method of typing...:D
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Makes sense. But it would therefore mean that a person who is categorised by the functions would be categorised into a certain personality type whether or not they fit it depending on the functions order. For example. An INTP who uses TiSi would still be dubbed as an INTP regardless of whether or not the INTP uses his sensing function more then his intuitive function. The personality types just turn into a name and the profile would probably not fit.

"INTP" only means "Ti dominant type with Ne, Si and Fe as the other functions."

They don't always occur in that particular order; that just tends to be the most successful arrangement because it balances E/I and P/J priorities.

An INTP using Si over Ne comes off as Ti+Si, as you said, but what's the problem with dubbing this person INTP? The N in the type comes from the fact that Ne would be a more natural and beneficial auxiliary. Ti+Si runs into problems with super introversion and no ability to extrovert--note that Ti+Si people usually end up doing much better in life once they develop Ne. Ne foils and balances Ti much better than Si does.


(yes, MBTI says ISJs are dominant Si, that was a big mistake and big mis-interpretation of Jung's writings),

So nobody is dominant in Si? How do you figure?
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So nobody is dominant in Si? How do you figure?

Well he's mainly referencing socionics; which in that system IS_Ps lead with Si (defined differently). Which I've talked to you about. ;)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well he's mainly referencing socionics; which in that system IS_Ps lead with Si (defined differently). Which I've talked to you about. ;)

Then he's saying the same thing with a different labeling system. One system calls this type of person (Si doms) ISTJ and the other one calls it ISTp. Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just a question of which labels you stick where. This isn't even a question of right or wrong, just semantics.

More socionics advocates failing to realize their system is exactly the same as every other typology system, just with the labels moved around a little. Sigh.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
So nobody is dominant in Si? How do you figure?

ISXPs are Si dominants, they're the irrationals.

One system calls this type of person ISTJ and the other one calls it ISTp.

Nope, sorry this is a big mistake. A MBTI ISTJ is a Socionics ISTj, same for ISTP. That's the real crux of the problem, because you can't just neatly switch functions: the description of a MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj are really similar, it's just that each one attributes the same things either to Si-Te, or Ti-Se.
But you are right in a way, what MBTI and Socionics label as ISTj is exactly the same abstract entity; however, MBTI's way of attributing the functions creates big problems in descriptions, from my perspective, esp. because Jung clearly had ISxPs in mind when he wrote his Si description!
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Then he's saying the same thing with a different labeling system. One system calls this type of person ISTJ and the other one calls it ISTp. Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just a question of which labels you stick where. This isn't even a question of right or wrong, just semantics.

More socionics advocates failing to realize their system is exactly the same as every other typology system, just with the labels moved around a little. Sigh.

Nonono ISTP is ISTp. :p

And I advocate both systems... that's why I'm here. I'm not like that guy Tyrant who doesn't explain anything he says about socionics and confuses/annoys people with it. I type in MBTI here, socionics in real life.

I would really suggest you do some more research into it before criticizing... You seem to like to argue and argue even without sufficient information in these contexts. Because it's the internet. ;) And I also know that you would be awesome with it if you researched more into it. :yes: Same with enneagram. They're all very useful.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm not criticizing socionics. It's fine...it's just not really any better (or worse) than any of the other competing systems.

ISXPs are Si dominants, they're the irrationals.

Rationality = EJ/IP
Irrationality = EP/IJ

Same concept, different label.

Nope, sorry this is a big mistake. A MBTI ISTJ is a Socionics ISTj, same for ISTP. That's the real crux of the problem, because you can't just neatly switch functions: the description of a MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj are really similar, it's just that each one attributes the same things either to Si-Te, or Ti-Se.
But you are right in a way, what MBTI and Socionics label as ISTj is exactly the same abstract entity; however, MBTI's way of attributing the functions creates big problems in descriptions, from my perspective, esp. because Jung clearly had ISxPs in mind when he wrote his Si description!

MBTI's descriptions are kind of silly, yeah, as is any system that tries to oversimplify two different functions into one letter.

What part of Jung's Si descriptions do you think applies to SPs? And also, if Si is the SP function, who does Se apply to? Every Se description I've ever read fits extraordinarily well with SPs.
 
Top