User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 258

  1. #131
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'm not an S, but from my observations, they're more "interested" in the real world. N's are "more interested" in the parallel world. Over in the video thread, you can compare Whatever's vid to mine. She's almost always engaging the camera, while I'm very often looking away as I gather my thoughts, before I engage the camera and deliver them with focus.
    Would this be a fair comparison considering that other intuitive bloggers share her preference?

    Her take is that she looks at people when she talks to determine their reactions, whether they're bored, etc. In my case, when I talk, I'm taking something from within me and delivering it outward, and I'm more concerned that I'm being correct, than with whether the other person gives a damn about what I'm saying. :p
    I'd personally chalk this down more to being an auxillary Te user.


    As I've mentioned many times in previous threads: I fail to understand where the line is between concrete information and abstract information. People often use these words, but it's starting to become a little meaningless as Si can store 'experience' and 'analysis' that is generated purely from within the mind. Something that Ni users and intuitives seem to keep on going about is that it must be generated from physical concrete objects. It does not. In some ways I agree with the posters who mentioned that Si isn't truly understood.

    Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.

    To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
    Where else would you get the source of information?

    People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I've seen N vs S. When I used to teach physics classes, I'd have to lines of patter, one aimed at "the memorizers" and one at "the thinkers" (an unfortunate name, but it's all I had at the time). For the memorizers, I'd just describe the kind of problem it is, and list the steps on how to solve it, and they'd understand it. For the thinkers, I'd say, "here's how it all works underneath the hood," and they'd just get it, without my having to get really specific. By using both methods, I was able to get everyone up to speed pretty quickly. These days, I know that the memorizers are S, and the thinkers are N, at least insofar as MBTI typing is concerned. It really didn't seem to matter whether it was NT or NF, there was a common understanding of the intuitive picture.
    May I ask whether you personally tested/analysed these students?
    Otherwise I'll point out potential bias involved such as preferring to think of 'thinkers' as similar to your self when it's possible that the distinction was not S/N but more about whether students were interested in engaging in the class rather than putting in the minimal amount of work.

    It's statements like these that cause sensors on this forum to mistype themselves as intuitives.

  2. #132
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Would this be a fair comparison considering that other intuitive bloggers share her preference?
    Would this be a fair question considering that MBTI is about tendencies, and even "intuitive bloggers" might be mistyped?

    I'd personally chalk this down more to being an auxillary Te user.
    Would you perhaps consider offering an explanation to accompany your opinion?


    As I've mentioned many times in previous threads: I fail to understand where the line is between concrete information and abstract information. People often use these words, but it's starting to become a little meaningless as Si can store 'experience' and 'analysis' that is generated purely from within the mind. Something that Ni users and intuitives seem to keep on going about is that it must be generated from physical concrete objects. It does not. In some ways I agree with the posters who mentioned that Si isn't truly understood.

    Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.
    So "importance of details" is more important than how readily you perceive them? That's how I originally tested as ISTJ, but both other people and reading and some more reliable tests all determined that I am INTJ. I think abstractly, I have this "parallel world" internally constructed that tells me how I should expect the "real world" to behave, but I "prefer details." I like concrete details because it nails down my habitual abstractions. I can even seem "detail-oriented", but it's more about my intuition spotting weird details based on overall patterns, not my noticing most all details thus few escape notice.

    I believe some of my subsequent answers might help to clarify the difference between "concrete" and "abstract."


    To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
    Where else would you get the source of information?

    People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.
    I agree with this. Intuitive is more about whether your thinking is rooted in terms of patterns or in terms of specific items.

    Si or S in general does not mean you cannot process abstract ideas. Far from it. The question is whether you normally think abstractly. It's not an easy question to answer, because one cannot point at thinking abstractly.

    The main way I detect N vs S in others is how readily I can convey an abstract concept in an abstract manner. It's definitely a spectrum and not just an off/on thing, and there will certainly be false readings where a particularly unintelligent or uninterested N doesn't learn easily and a particularly intelligent S processes it so fast in the S way that makes the S seem intuitive. On the whole, however, the tendency is that if one generally thinks abstractly, one can more readily understand new abstract ideas.

    Remember in grade school how it was one set of people who were good at memorizing multiplication tables and the like, but once they hit high school and particular calculus and more college-level math, many of those who were bad at the multiplication tables were good at the abstract math, and vice versa? Of course, there were also those who were bad at both, and those who were good at both, but overall, the tendency describes the difference between N vs S.

    May I ask whether you personally tested/analysed these students?
    Sure, but I'm also sure you've already answered the question (intuitively!) and are only asking rhetorically, especially since I said this is from before I knew MBTI.

    My main point is not "these students were ALL N and those were all S and N behaved thus and so 80% of the time, while S behaved thus and so only 40% of the time." My point is simply, "I understood N vs S, as a concept, long before MBTI. MBTI gave me a name for it." Whether I correctly measured it in each individual case in the past is a different issue. I know that N vs S is really hard to determine, in spite of its significance.

    Otherwise I'll point out potential bias involved such as preferring to think of 'thinkers' as similar to your self when it's possible that the distinction was not S/N but more about whether students were interested in engaging in the class rather than putting in the minimal amount of work.
    That's certainly a possibility, but I have reason to believe that it was overall not the case. Teaching certain people the "S" way was much more effective than teaching the "N" way, and vice versa. The "N" folks are just as bored with the "S" presentation of the material as the "S" folks were bored with the "N" presentation. Some "S" folks got high grades, and some "N" folks got low grades.

    Personally, I'm very good at math, and the higher-level abstract math, but it made a huge difference whether the material was presented in an S way or an N way to me. I got Bs, in geometry and trigonometry, because the emphasis was memorizing steps and formulae. I got As in the same subjects later on, when the material was presented from a more abstract "here's how it all fits together" point of view. It's not that I don't need detail and practice exercises to fully develop my understanding, but that without that big picture, I find it difficult to fit the details into my memory. And when I pull out the knowledge later, it isn't in detail form, but in "of course it works like this" form.

    When I learn dancing and new dance steps, there's always a degree of rote memorization, just because. However, I habitually try to fit it all into a "this is how dancing works" framework. Heck, I even use the concept of quantum spin to describe and quickly map out certain handholds to myself.

    It's statements like these that cause sensors on this forum to mistype themselves as intuitives.
    I doubt that statements like these have much to do with the mistyping, and a lot more to do with tests asking whether you "prefer details," as if the regular-world interpretation of "prefer details" is even remotely similar to the MBTI meaning of "prefer details."

    I think the main thing that will cause sensors to falsely mistype themselves as intuitives is intelligence. If one is very smart, it can be very easy to type oneself as an INXX instead of ISXX. Smarter, more skilled, more mature people will exhibit traits of many types, thus obscuring the core preferences that MBTI types describe. This is why I usually suggest that people use the negative traits of a type to see whether the problems of that type seem to be your problems, and thus narrow down the scope.

  3. #133
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post


    Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.

    To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
    Where else would you get the source of information?

    People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.


    Thanks for this. This is pretty much how I perceive Si to work. Since it's such a mysterious function, would you care to elaborate more about what it's like? Or how you perceive it to work, especially in regards to T and F?

    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  4. #134
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Hey, AGA, I wanted to give you answers to your specific questions, even if I've already partially answered them in the context of other replies.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    So, if someone uses N with Fe, you think that N will have more Ni flavor (introverted flavor) than Ne, and when used with Fi, more extraverted to balance it out or something? Same with S?
    That's basically my idea. More specifically, for INFJ, Ti is your tertiary. I would suggest that if you want to understand Ne, use your Ti, and the Ne will be evoked. (It will also work with Se, but my point has been that it seems to me to be more important whether one is intuitive, than whether one is Ni/Se.)

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I'm confused, but curious here, could you elaborate?
    INTJ is NiTeFiSe.
    ENFP is NeFiTeSi.
    ESFP is SeFiTeNi.

    My observation is that if Ni/Se vs Ne/Si is a more important distinction than N vs S, then INTJs should ESFPs, which share all of the functions.

    Instead, the connection appears to be closer with ENFPs (and xNFPs in general), so it doesn't matter that they share Ni or share Ne (they don't), but that they share N. One can come up with all sorts of make-work theories that suggest a mutual fascination between Ne and Ni, but I believe Occam's Razor would suggest that it's because "N is it's own thing". From that, I conclude that Ne vs Ni is just how they look when combined with judging functions.

    Yet, if you really thought about it, would you not be able to tell which attitude of N you were using? I mean, when I use Ni, I'm pretty much zoned out. Ne, working it. So, I am reticent to lump them together.
    I've spent some time describing this in another post, but I will restate the point again, here. For me, both Ni and Ne leave me zoned out. My main self-observation, and reason for identifying with xNFPs, is that when I use Fi, it seems to get paired with Ne, not Se. That one observation is the core of all the rest of my observations: that I could tap into both Ne and Ni, depending on which judging function I focused on applying. Now, Ni is much easier for me than Ne, but I can just go Fi (or Ti), and get that Ne approach.

    More specifically, if I'm "working" at something or "trying to resolve" something, Ni goes into overdrive and presents ready-made "solutions," some of which are really quite good for what feels like half-assed guesses to me.

    If I'm playing or fantasizing or exploring ideas, Ne is invoked, and I just follow my thoughts without focusing, while Fi and Ti passively judge them. If I try to talk while in this mode, it comes out as random babble, not my stereotypical coherent and clear speech.

  5. #135
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Would this be a fair question considering that MBTI is about tendencies, and even "intuitive bloggers" might be mistyped?

    Would you perhaps consider offering an explanation to accompany your opinion?
    MBTI is about tendancies, but I'm just suggesting that the difference in the example is less likely to be dealing with the N/S divide but more so to do with the fact that it appears to be a Te trait. For example: It could have been as easy to say the whole engaging of camera and interacting with people is more to do with F/T. It wouldn't be wrong. Obviously that doesn't apply in this scenario since whatever is ESTP but then it could be chalked down to EP in general. The member I was thinking about was also an ENXP which is why I have problems with the N/S theory. A desire to deliver information after processing in some ways can be seen as an IJ thing or even an I thing.

    So "importance of details" is more important than how readily you perceive them? That's how I originally tested as ISTJ, but both other people and reading and some more reliable tests all determined that I am INTJ. I think abstractly, I have this "parallel world" internally constructed that tells me how I should expect the "real world" to behave, but I "prefer details." I like concrete details because it nails down my habitual abstractions. I can even seem "detail-oriented", but it's more about my intuition spotting weird details based on overall patterns, not my noticing most all details thus few escape notice.
    It's most likely to be a combination of both 'valuing details' and what's done with that source of information. Most Si descriptions on the internet describe people as not seeing the object, but creating an impression of the object based on all the information they have (externally or internally generated). You'll notice this is similar to the Ni description of 'parallel worlds' and it's the reason that I agree with previous posters that Ni is similar to Si in some ways but there is appears to be a slight distinction in focus.

    You didn't ask for it. But the N approach has always seemed to be more 'fill in the fuzzy picture with details top-down' than the S 'create the whole picture bottom-up'. At least with the SJs, it's why we're (I'm) often seen to be waiting to following a sequential pattern with details. I've noticed that I'm not as comfortable making 'jumps' where missing details are, in comparison to my NJ peers. But really I don't have much to back me up on that last sentence as I don't know that many INXJs in real life (3 max), I'm partially going off the things I've observed on this forum.

    I believe some of my subsequent answers might help to clarify the difference between "concrete" and "abstract."
    The reason I find it difficult is that to me, to engage in thought, is to engage in abstraction. I recall previous threads about INFJ users explaining themselves about how they extrapolate 'non-concrete' data, use a framework/model in order to predict what the outcome will of a scenario will be. Except... I'm sure that happens with most Si users.

    I agree with this. Intuitive is more about whether your thinking is rooted in terms of patterns or in terms of specific items.

    Si or S in general does not mean you cannot process abstract ideas. Far from it. The question is whether you normally think abstractly. It's not an easy question to answer, because one cannot point at thinking abstractly.
    These examples explain how different people are more used to engaging in abstraction/concreteness... but the definition of abstract-concrete hasn't really been defined clearly imo. I believe that I'm often engaging in abstraction but perhaps I'm not, how would I be able to tell?

    The main way I detect N vs S in others is how readily I can convey an abstract concept in an abstract manner. It's definitely a spectrum and not just an off/on thing, and there will certainly be false readings where a particularly unintelligent or uninterested N doesn't learn easily and a particularly intelligent S processes it so fast in the S way that makes the S seem intuitive. On the whole, however, the tendency is that if one generally thinks abstractly, one can more readily understand new abstract ideas.
    This is on the assumption that S aren't involved in abstraction 'usually' based on the idea that N = abstraction. Personally I don't know how much I agree with this, but until a clear definition of abstraction is given then for all I know I may be engaging in such thing but labelling it as just 'thinking'. One example I could quickly give is BlackCat dealing with socionics. Is that not abstraction? He is usually thinking about this stuff often on the forums. One difference however is that he's engaged in MBTI/Jung/Socionics for personal practical reasons rather than just being interested in theory because it's just fun learning theories. That stereotype about S-N seems to hold true in some cases, but there might be Ns who are interested in their stuff because it holds some form of relevance in their lives.

    Remember in grade school how it was one set of people who were good at memorizing multiplication tables and the like, but once they hit high school and particular calculus and more college-level math, many of those who were bad at the multiplication tables were good at the abstract math, and vice versa? Of course, there were also those who were bad at both, and those who were good at both, but overall, the tendency describes the difference between N vs S.
    I've found here at university. There are some friends who complain that lecturers just offer them the basic formulas without explaining the theory behind it and how it all works. So I'm going to make a generalisation, but usually those who are interested in how things work prefer to look at the whole thing to have a thorough backbone structure to their understanding. There should be an explanation for why these sensors seem to display a desire to understand the abstract theory behind it all.

    One criticism of the example listed above:
    These students who were good at multiplication. Were they bad at higher level mathematics? East-Asia (China) for example is often cited as an extremely sensor-based culture, but they also have a reputation for excelling in mathematics in general. You'll find lots of chinese people joking about how they screwed up and got a B.

    Gone a little off topic there... but yeah: There's still the problem that students thinking abstractly is that they are engaging in N.

    Sure, but I'm also sure you've already answered the question (intuitively!) and are only asking rhetorically, especially since I said this is from before I knew MBTI.

    My main point is not "these students were ALL N and those were all S and N behaved thus and so 80% of the time, while S behaved thus and so only 40% of the time." My point is simply, "I understood N vs S, as a concept, long before MBTI. MBTI gave me a name for it." Whether I correctly measured it in each individual case in the past is a different issue. I know that N vs S is really hard to determine, in spite of its significance.
    One issue I have with this is that there's a huge population of sensors. There is also a large population of students that's likely to be not interested in education. The intuitive population is relatively small. The 'thinking' group is also small.

    You see where I'm going with this? I just don't think it's a fair comparison as the population size for both group is extremely skewed. There should be a control group for this, as well as testing in some country where the education system is valued more. Here, I'm arguing that N/S label is potentially the wrong label for what the situation you had back then. It's possible there was actually a high population of S in your 'thinking' group which you have now attributed to them being as Ns.

    That's certainly a possibility, but I have reason to believe that it was overall not the case. Teaching certain people the "S" way was much more effective than teaching the "N" way, and vice versa. The "N" folks are just as bored with the "S" presentation of the material as the "S" folks were bored with the "N" presentation. Some "S" folks got high grades, and some "N" folks got low grades.
    Well I can only go by your own words as I was never there.

    Personally, I'm very good at math, and the higher-level abstract math, but it made a huge difference whether the material was presented in an S way or an N way to me. I got Bs, in geometry and trigonometry, because the emphasis was memorizing steps and formulae. I got As in the same subjects later on, when the material was presented from a more abstract "here's how it all fits together" point of view. It's not that I don't need detail and practice exercises to fully develop my understanding, but that without that big picture, I find it difficult to fit the details into my memory. And when I pull out the knowledge later, it isn't in detail form, but in "of course it works like this" form.
    This applies to me and most of my friends at university who are also S.
    It's human to understand/learn things better in context than it is to do so rote-learning. It's just whether people want to learn in context as it is potentially more time consuming and requiring processing than just drilling through exercises. While I'm idealistic about education. It's kept on reinforced that the education system at least in the UK is so that students are up to scratch with the basics.

    I doubt that statements like these have much to do with the mistyping, and a lot more to do with tests asking whether you "prefer details," as if the regular-world interpretation of "prefer details" is even remotely similar to the MBTI meaning of "prefer details."

    I think the main thing that will cause sensors to falsely mistype themselves as intuitives is intelligence. If one is very smart, it can be very easy to type oneself as an INXX instead of ISXX. Smarter, more skilled, more mature people will exhibit traits of many types, thus obscuring the core preferences that MBTI types describe. This is why I usually suggest that people use the negative traits of a type to see whether the problems of that type seem to be your problems, and thus narrow down the scope.
    There's a problem if intelligence is associated with N. Why is it that this happens more with S to N than it does with N to S? If it's just a case of intelligence and maturity then there should be an equal amount of mistyping on both sides. But the fact that this is a problem suggests that it's due to the association that intelligence is linked with N.

    Which goes back to my first claim:
    It's statements and ideas like the above that make people believe they aren't sensors as often seen in the what is my type thread.

  6. #136
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Hey, AGA, I wanted to give you answers to your specific questions, even if I've already partially answered them in the context of other replies.
    Yes, I realized that, but thanks for your time.


    That's basically my idea. More specifically, for INFJ, Ti is your tertiary. I would suggest that if you want to understand Ne, use your Ti, and the Ne will be evoked. (It will also work with Se, but my point has been that it seems to me to be more important whether one is intuitive, than whether one is Ni/Se.)
    Well, as per my late-night drivel I posted last night on here, and the 'news' that the MBTI researchers have identified that, like Jung thought, our tertiary is indeed aligned in an attitude opposite the dominant function, and some further, very un-T-like thoughts on my end, I am not so sure Ti is my tert function, after all.


    INTJ is NiTeFiSe.
    ENFP is NeFiTeSi.
    ESFP is SeFiTeNi.

    My observation is that if Ni/Se vs Ne/Si is a more important distinction than N vs S, then INTJs should ESFPs, which share all of the functions.

    Instead, the connection appears to be closer with ENFPs (and xNFPs in general), so it doesn't matter that they share Ni or share Ne (they don't), but that they share N. One can come up with all sorts of make-work theories that suggest a mutual fascination between Ne and Ni, but I believe Occam's Razor would suggest that it's because "N is it's own thing". From that, I conclude that Ne vs Ni is just how they look when combined with judging functions.
    I'm still sort of fuzzy on it, but it sounds like you are claiming that N and S do not have attitudes because of how attraction seems to work among MBTI types. Since I'm rethinking my whole tert attitude thing right now, I cannot elaborate further and still retain validity for myself. I personally have found that types seem to do well/best when they have opposing judging functions, and to a lesser degree, perceiving functions. I don't see how using attraction, which is so nebulous already, will help explain your N/S theory. but I appreciate your attempt.

    I've spent some time describing this in another post, but I will restate the point again, here. For me, both Ni and Ne leave me zoned out. My main self-observation, and reason for identifying with xNFPs, is that when I use Fi, it seems to get paired with Ne, not Se. That one observation is the core of all the rest of my observations: that I could tap into both Ne and Ni, depending on which judging function I focused on applying. Now, Ni is much easier for me than Ne, but I can just go Fi (or Ti), and get that Ne approach.
    I thought stereotypical Ne-ers are totally engaged with the world in some way, either through data or debate or people or whatever. How can 'zoned out' describe that? Wouldn't you be 'zoned in?'

    I am not sure how I feel about introverted judging functions, and how i use them, being an Ni dom. I'm leaving that train of thought open for now. I agree with you, that as a dominant perceiver, it makes sense that Ne would align well with Fi and Ti.

    More specifically, if I'm "working" at something or "trying to resolve" something, Ni goes into overdrive and presents ready-made "solutions," some of which are really quite good for what feels like half-assed guesses to me.

    If I'm playing or fantasizing or exploring ideas, Ne is invoked, and I just follow my thoughts without focusing, while Fi and Ti passively judge them. If I try to talk while in this mode, it comes out as random babble, not my stereotypical coherent and clear speech.
    Interesting. Except I'm wondering if it could work this way: Ni uses Te and Fe to solidify truths, which cement as Ti and Fi, which Ne can then follow. I am just stating the converse of you; an inside out version. What if it's the Fi and Ti that come first, because they have been cemented in your psyche, then when Ne attempts to perceive outward patterns, or links, it immediately recognizes already developed Ti and Fi thoughts, which have occurred due to perceptions already done by Ni/Te/Fe. ?

    Ne would/could revert to Ni's strength, as is usual for an Ni dom, but since it's already an outward function, it's inclination will be to turn inward for judgment of what it's seeing. Then, walah, it runs into previous Ti and Fi thoughts and thinks it was the originator of those thoughts, but in actuality, they saw where they fit in Ne, were already ingrained in the mind, and so instantaneously fell into their usual place. Ne hasn't really made this happen, Ni has originally, but it feels like Ne because the original act was an extraverted intuitive moment.

    Feel free to post the cuckoo icon ad lib.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #137
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    MBTI is about tendancies, but I'm just suggesting that the difference in the example is less likely to be dealing with the N/S divide but more so to do with the fact that it appears to be a Te trait. For example: It could have been as easy to say the whole engaging of camera and interacting with people is more to do with F/T. It wouldn't be wrong. Obviously that doesn't apply in this scenario since whatever is ESTP but then it could be chalked down to EP in general. The member I was thinking about was also an ENXP which is why I have problems with the N/S theory. A desire to deliver information after processing in some ways can be seen as an IJ thing or even an I thing.
    All true. My main impression, though, is that a "strong S", especially Se, is "present", and shows this in a number of ways, eye contact being just one comparison of many.

    It's most likely to be a combination of both 'valuing details' and what's done with that source of information. Most Si descriptions on the internet describe people as not seeing the object, but creating an impression of the object based on all the information they have (externally or internally generated). You'll notice this is similar to the Ni description of 'parallel worlds' and it's the reason that I agree with previous posters that Ni is similar to Si in some ways but there is appears to be a slight distinction in focus.
    Good distinction.

    You didn't ask for it. But the N approach has always seemed to be more 'fill in the fuzzy picture with details top-down' than the S 'create the whole picture bottom-up'. At least with the SJs, it's why we're (I'm) often seen to be waiting to following a sequential pattern with details. I've noticed that I'm not as comfortable making 'jumps' where missing details are, in comparison to my NJ peers. But really I don't have much to back me up on that last sentence as I don't know that many INXJs in real life (3 max), I'm partially going off the things I've observed on this forum.
    That's a good description of the N approach, with a particular Ni application (filling in a picture, as opposed to extrapolating beyond the picture).

    NJ definitely makes more jumps. In my case, I jump, then test, then jump, then test. The trick is that my Ni guesses are good, but when I also ground them with Te observations/manipulations, I get very high accuracy.

    The reason I find it difficult is that to me, to engage in thought, is to engage in abstraction. I recall previous threads about INFJ users explaining themselves about how they extrapolate 'non-concrete' data, use a framework/model in order to predict what the outcome will of a scenario will be. Except... I'm sure that happens with most Si users.

    These examples explain how different people are more used to engaging in abstraction/concreteness... but the definition of abstract-concrete hasn't really been defined clearly imo. I believe that I'm often engaging in abstraction but perhaps I'm not, how would I be able to tell?

    This is on the assumption that S aren't involved in abstraction 'usually' based on the idea that N = abstraction. Personally I don't know how much I agree with this, but until a clear definition of abstraction is given then for all I know I may be engaging in such thing but labelling it as just 'thinking'. One example I could quickly give is BlackCat dealing with socionics. Is that not abstraction? He is usually thinking about this stuff often on the forums. One difference however is that he's engaged in MBTI/Jung/Socionics for personal practical reasons rather than just being interested in theory because it's just fun learning theories. That stereotype about S-N seems to hold true in some cases, but there might be Ns who are interested in their stuff because it holds some form of relevance in their lives.
    That's why I use words like "patterns" instead of "abstractions", "items" instead of "details". The intuitive process is to establish a pattern and work with it and gradually make the pattern more representative of reality. Ni switches out "patterns" wholesale. If a pattern doesn't fit, it's ignored. If a pattern fits, we use it to fill in the details we don't directly see. If a pattern fits, except for one stupid detail, we suddenly appear to be "detail-oriented" as we zero in on a single item that no one else has spotted, and it turns out to be the key to solving a huge problem.

    I've found here at university. There are some friends who complain that lecturers just offer them the basic formulas without explaining the theory behind it and how it all works. So I'm going to make a generalisation, but usually those who are interested in how things work prefer to look at the whole thing to have a thorough backbone structure to their understanding. There should be an explanation for why these sensors seem to display a desire to understand the abstract theory behind it all.
    That's because no one is "all S" or "all N". One can "desire to understand the big picture", and still be an S, just the same as I can "regard details as more important than theory" and still be an N. It's all a matter of degree and habit. I "think in patterns": that is what makes me N. Patterns are better for quickly grasping "abstract theory", especially with regard for comparing completely different theories as applied to the same thing. Details are better for verifying the theories, and building up theories from the ground up, rather than the top down, as you put it earlier.


    One criticism of the example listed above:
    These students who were good at multiplication. Were they bad at higher level mathematics? East-Asia (China) for example is often cited as an extremely sensor-based culture, but they also have a reputation for excelling in mathematics in general. You'll find lots of chinese people joking about how they screwed up and got a B.

    Gone a little off topic there... but yeah: There's still the problem that students thinking abstractly is that they are engaging in N.
    Here's a sample difference between N and S in the approach to mathematics.

    I've taught people who tested in calculus very well. They could take the derivative of sin and cos and integrate them and everything.

    In front of these same people, I could draw a right triangle, and ask whether a component of a vector is sin or cos of the angle, and their response would be random. They know the rules for manipulating "sin" and "cos" as symbols, yet they didn't seem to learn what "sin" and "cos" are actually "for". I'm talking "A" students, who are "good at abstract math."

    I would suggest that such students are intelligent S students. They can grasp a big-picture theory, but they have to work up to it. They don't want to start with the big theory and gradually fill in their understanding with details.

    One issue I have with this is that there's a huge population of sensors. There is also a large population of students that's likely to be not interested in education. The intuitive population is relatively small. The 'thinking' group is also small.

    You see where I'm going with this? I just don't think it's a fair comparison as the population size for both group is extremely skewed. There should be a control group for this, as well as testing in some country where the education system is valued more. Here, I'm arguing that N/S label is potentially the wrong label for what the situation you had back then. It's possible there was actually a high population of S in your 'thinking' group which you have now attributed to them being as Ns.
    I'm not a professional psychologist performing elaborate studies. I'm an amateur making observations. People who post in forums are amateurs making observations, including you. The professionals publish peer-reviewed research.

    You might as well say, "You don't have a Ph.D. in plasma astrophysics: what the heck would you know about solar wind and its interaction with the earth's atmosphere?"


    Well I can only go by your own words as I was never there.
    Exactly.

    There's a problem if intelligence is associated with N. Why is it that this happens more with S to N than it does with N to S? If it's just a case of intelligence and maturity then there should be an equal amount of mistyping on both sides. But the fact that this is a problem suggests that it's due to the association that intelligence is linked with N.

    Which goes back to my first claim:
    It's statements and ideas like the above that make people believe they aren't sensors as often seen in the what is my type thread.
    My original statement had nothing to do with whether specific individuals were of any type, but with observing patterns of how people preferred to process information, and that those patterns correspond with S vs N. Whether specific individuals are S or N is perennially a difficult call to make, for reasons already discussed.

  8. #138
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Yes, I realized that, but thanks for your time.



    Well, as per my late-night drivel I posted last night on here, and the 'news' that the MBTI researchers have identified that, like Jung thought, our tertiary is indeed aligned in an attitude opposite the dominant function, and some further, very un-T-like thoughts on my end, I am not so sure Ti is my tert function, after all.
    I shall be interested in your conclusions. I've some thoughts based on your posts and posting style, but I don't want to bias you without a direct request for my input.


    I'm still sort of fuzzy on it, but it sounds like you are claiming that N and S do not have attitudes because of how attraction seems to work among MBTI types. Since I'm rethinking my whole tert attitude thing right now, I cannot elaborate further and still retain validity for myself. I personally have found that types seem to do well/best when they have opposing judging functions, and to a lesser degree, perceiving functions. I don't see how using attraction, which is so nebulous already, will help explain your N/S theory. but I appreciate your attempt.
    I understand the skepticism. I only sort of buy the "compatibility" theory, since real compatibility has to do with a whole lot of other things.

    My main point is that "N" by and large tends to understand other xNxx more readily than xSxx, and that's it's a huge difference, not a small one. The Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti is an aspect of Jungian functions I've observed on my own, and that the interactions between the two groups is often problematic in predictable ways. In other words Te people seem to understand Fi people and vice versa, and similarly Fe understands Ti. I see no similar difficulty of understanding or communication between Ne and Ni, as I see in practice between Te and Ti.

    I thought stereotypical Ne-ers are totally engaged with the world in some way, either through data or debate or people or whatever. How can 'zoned out' describe that? Wouldn't you be 'zoned in?'
    Interesting point. They're definitely more engaged with the world than Ni, especially for ENxP, with dom Ne, and thus being extroverted. But INFP isn't as "engaged with the world". I don't "become ENFP" when I strongly invoke Fi, but it wouldn't be far off the mark to note that I become similar to INFP, who do zone out.

    Interesting. Except I'm wondering if it could work this way: Ni uses Te and Fe to solidify truths, which cement as Ti and Fi, which Ne can then follow. I am just stating the converse of you; an inside out version. What if it's the Fi and Ti that come first, because they have been cemented in your psyche, then when Ne attempts to perceive outward patterns, or links, it immediately recognizes already developed Ti and Fi thoughts, which have occurred due to perceptions already done by Ni/Te/Fe. ?

    Ne would/could revert to Ni's strength, as is usual for an Ni dom, but since it's already an outward function, it's inclination will be to turn inward for judgment of what it's seeing. Then, walah, it runs into previous Ti and Fi thoughts and thinks it was the originator of those thoughts, but in actuality, they saw where they fit in Ne, were already ingrained in the mind, and so instantaneously fell into their usual place. Ne hasn't really made this happen, Ni has originally, but it feels like Ne because the original act was an extraverted intuitive moment.

    Feel free to post the cuckoo icon ad lib.
    Not completely cuckoo. I can easily see that as a tertiary Fi, it "isn't the same Ne", as it would be for an ENFP, for example. The main thing I'm sure of is that it is not Se, and that I am using Fi. It feels like intuition, and it definitely doesn't feel like Ni: it's too wild and random.

  9. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    That's why I use words like "patterns" instead of "abstractions", "items" instead of "details". The intuitive process is to establish a pattern and work with it and gradually make the pattern more representative of reality. Ni switches out "patterns" wholesale. If a pattern doesn't fit, it's ignored. If a pattern fits, we use it to fill in the details we don't directly see. If a pattern fits, except for one stupid detail, we suddenly appear to be "detail-oriented" as we zero in on a single item that no one else has spotted, and it turns out to be the key to solving a huge problem.
    This is almost exactly my dads dream and almost word for word minus the detail of the subject matter. He wants to be able to take all these findings and zero in on a single thing that no one else noticed to solve a huge problem. I am curious if its a drive or desire to use your inferior Se?

    My stupid Ni zeros in on crap like crazy on here. Its like an ADHD version of Ni. This does happen IRL on occasions. Kept falling into this ADHD Ni thing yesterday.

    edit: this Ni though yesterday was driven by Te categorization from here. Not my typical Se-Ti driven Ni, it was kinda strange going off of something that was not derived from personal perception and logic.
    Im out, its been fun

  10. #140
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Yes, you're right, and that's the weaker part of the analysis. I wanted some description of where Ni acquires its seed concepts, but it seems I made Ni users sound Ne-capable. I guess it is more likely to be that Ni users are attracted less to the environment as a source of abstractions, and more to places where abstractions already begin to exist--books, intellectual discussion, stories. And they add to this using the very occasional rip of information from immediate Se.
    maybe Ni needs high context in order to integrate the meaningful relationships presented in the moment more carefully. i have trouble reading text without intense contextualization. i need critical questions, a hypothesis, some biographical information, etc bc otherwise it's too big and too open. i can't find the right frames of reference to play with as i'm reading.

    Ne just creates context on its own. it merges with the situation to imagine the individual context present for each part(icipant) in the scene itself. it's wayyyyy more in the moment itself.

    whereas we are searching for our own frames of reference that we supply. to find the best vantage point, to blend and merge and metaphorize into a singular perspective.

    of course we use Se but it is mostly unconscious. the most rational part of our brain, our highest cortical awareness isn't really sure what it's picking up, it's not consciously registering, that Se space is not the space we are most comfortable and practiced monitoring (the information throughput). we're better at allowing our Ni to play with the unconscious information and take care of that on its own, we'll deal with what perspective it generates, that's when we'll start to think consciously/formulate that via Fe or Te.

    Ne is more of a formulation by way of a concrete visualization of possibility by imagining the possibilities and inner relationships of a part within the scene, being highly particular, and then using Fi or Ti to judge the truth or falsity of such simulations. it does it really goddamned fast. i don't understand Ne in an experiential level enough to understand our typology central hypothesis (intj: i forget his name) about Ne being more spatial and Ni being more temporal, altho it seems intriguing to consider.

    the third function is the finishing touch. a way of focusing, of issuing a final correction or a revision that refines the thought process.

    as far as sensing systems go, the cognitive functions are after the level of say visual cortex, motor cortex, auditory cortex, etc. those work independently/on their own. they develop their own instincts and habits. the cognitive functions make sense when seen as the way in which the cortex privileges certain systems, builds more connections with certain systems, invests in communicating more with certain systems. a way of processing at a higher level that creates better shared purpose and awareness between the part of the brain that feels like it makes decisions and the part of the brain responsible for receiving/monitoring/detecting different information in physical, instinctual, pre-programmed ways. the individual systems are made to work on their own, although the brain itself can drastically alter itself when traumatized or obstacles create the need for dramatic changes/new strategies.

Similar Threads

  1. Ni vs. Si comparative Ni TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 10:36 AM
  2. Ni vs. Si comparative Si TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
  3. Ni vs Si, and more
    By Cimarron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 11:58 AM
  4. Ni and Si Doms: What does the internal world look like?
    By BlueScreen in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 06:01 PM
  5. Ni and Si
    By run in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO