Easy way to tell S or N?

[Randomnity]

I never said Ns don't like sports, but when it monopolizes a large chunk of your time and attention, I seriously doubt your N-ness. Why does writing raps make someone an INFJ? WTF? Lots of rappers are STPs, most likely.

I think you guys are confused, not me. Sorry.

I explained it poorly - the rap part is just a side-effect of liking terrible music. Focus on the poetry part, which is really what it is. Anyway, that's only one aspect of a person that isn't really relevant. I was only pointing it out because poetry is pretty stereotypically an N(F) thing.

If we assume Ns are 25% of the population as you say, if you aren't a complete hermit you know at least several. Those of us in more academic streams like me probably know a higher proportion of Ns, since they're probably overrepresented in universities.

It's really obvious you don't play sports, but there's actually a lot of strategy involved in playing most sports that isn't at all connected to the physical. Positioning, choosing angles of attack, timing, reading your opponents, predicting what they'll do and guessing the best counterattack, teamwork and communication, motivating, etc. The chess analogy is very apt except there's the added element of speedy decisions required. It's not just "durrrrr, kick that, hit that, now run over there". I'm not saying you think that, but it is coming across as a very.....simplistic idea of sports.

Also, many of my N friends are VERY involved in following trends for pro teams, predicting who'll win with what team and all that sports statistics stuff. I hate that stuff so I don't know what the appeal is, but it does seem abstract in a way (all numbers and patterns), even if it's tied to the physical.

 

[Tallulah]

So, if you heard me speaking French in Paris you'd assume I was French?
The world is Paris, and I speak French every day.
It's called adapting to your surroundings.

No one would know if I was S or N in a conversation.
I was raised in a SP/SJ house.
I can speak any language I choose.

If I can do it, others can do it as well.
To be fair, you would have to know if a person was speaking in their native tongue, so to speak, or their adaptive tongue.
I spend the majority of my time adapting. Why would I intentionally choose to speak in a manner that would actually impede communication with others?

I choose not to impede. I adapt.

I think it may be a little difficult to tell in one conversation. Most of them time, unless I'm talking to specific people, I'll keep it to 'small talk' items. Kids, weather, what was on the news last night, and oh, my gosh! can you believe the price of butter in the grocery store right now. Like Jaguar said, it's adaptation. My ex would do this for me from time to time--get into conversations on theories, ideas, and speculate...it was usually fueled by something he heard on NPR. It's not his natural mode and he can only do it for so long but he can and does do it just like talking about the things he enjoys will wear me out very quickly.

Speaking French makes me tired.

This. I adapt according to the situation, and was raised and surrounded by Sensors, as well. There might be some mbti nerds who'd type me as a Sensor upon meeting me once, unless they displayed Intuitive characteristics first. I'm not going to go into some big esoteric discussion if I know there's a good chance the other person isn't going to be interested, and I won't see them again.

 

[Randomnity]

ps equating american football with "sports" does a huge disservice to other sports. I'm not a fan of football myself (though I can see how there's a strategy, I just don't care)

 

[Thalassa]

It's fine to hate things (I loathe Wheel of Fortune!) but you can't just embody something with attributes because you hate it. The statistical analysis of sports is a deep and widening field that's changing sports currently. There are some very smart and theoretical people involved in sports. The stereotypical "Hit 'em harder! Walk it off you pussy!" coach only survives now at the lower levels. They're too dumb to succeed in the pros.

MMmhmm. I hate football. I didn't say I hated all physical sports, and I never said that my hatred of football is why I think preoccupation with sports to the exclusion of more theoretical interests is a sensor thing. I also think preoccupation with hair, make-up, fashion, and dancing (all things I find moderately interesting) to the EXCLUSION of more abstract interests is also a sensor trait.

I think you're making a mistake here by equating intelligence with being an intuitive. I'm sure there are very smart people involved in sports, just as there are smart sensors in other fields. I'm not saying that intuitives don't get involved in sports at all, mind you, I have stated repeatedly what my point is and I refuse to make it again, especially within the same post.

 

[Thalassa]

Focus on the poetry part, which is really what it is. Anyway, that's only one aspect of a person that isn't really relevant. I was only pointing it out because poetry is pretty stereotypically an N(F) thing.

Yeah, that must be why William Wordsworth was an ISFJ.

Ns following trends for pro teams? Really?

I'm having a really hard time swallowing this garbage, I mean seriously.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree and walk away now. You guys can think whatever you want. C'est la vie.

 

[Randomnity]

You don't have to agree, I'm just sharing my experience.

Anyway, I think sports and poetry are about the same level of relevance to S/N respectively - not at all the deciding factor, but points that can support the overall type of someone. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no one certain thing that can answer the question for you; you just have to look at the person as a whole and see how they see the world. An intuitive and a sensor could (and probably would) look at the same picture and see two very different things.

 

[MacGuffin]

MMmhmm. I hate football. I didn't say I hated all physical sports, and I never said that my hatred of football is why I think preoccupation with sports to the exclusion of more theoretical interests is a sensor thing. I also think preoccupation with hair, make-up, fashion, and dancing (all things I find moderately interesting) to the EXCLUSION of more abstract interests is also a sensor trait.

I think you're making a mistake here by equating intelligence with being an intuitive. I'm sure there are very smart people involved in sports, just as there are smart sensors in other fields. I'm not saying that intuitives don't get involved in sports at all, mind you, I have stated repeatedly what my point is and I refuse to make it again, especially within the same post.

Yeah, that must be why William Wordsworth was an ISFJ.

Ns following trends for pro teams? Really?

I'm having a really hard time swallowing this garbage, I mean seriously.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree and walk away now. You guys can think whatever you want. C'est la vie.

I just don't think you can look at the form of someone's interest (whether it be sports, mathematics, politics, woodcarving, TV shows, writing, etc.) and draw N/S conclusions without looking at the function of that interest. How someone approaches a subject is what matters.

For myself, I never found hardly anything abstract about computer programming, but NTs are seemingly drawn to it like moths to a flame.

 

[animenagai]

Ummmmm Marm, this guy actually tested as an INTP (because I made him take the test). Not only that, he read the description and said it was accurate. He even fist bumped . There is no doubt that he is an INTP. The difference between S's and N's when it comes to sports is that an N is much more likely to start analysing everything, even if there are no practical consequences. This has nothing to do with intelligence, merely a tendency to analyse. He very much fits into this mold. Look Marm, I don't know what to say, people who know these INTP's tell you that they're really into sports and you, someone who don't know these people are running with a basic belief that we are all mistaken. Do you realise how cyclical you're being? Do you realise that maybe your belief that strong N's can't be crazy sports fans is a fundamental reach? I can link you to sports forums where these guys follow sports religiously and they are obviously N.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Perhaps there are a few different sets of assumptions about what "abstract" means. People see programming and chess as abstract because it requires information to be manipulated internally, but these are also relatively closed systems that are rule-bound and clearly defined in terms of cause-and-effect. I think in MBTI terms these fall under T more than N.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Why does anyone need to determine if someone is N or S? Either you're interested in them and what they say or you're not.
I know a guy who loves to talk about hotwings and beer. Seems pretty 'S' by the OP.

He is also an aerospace engineer and earns $200K/year. How do you explain this?

 

[Poki]

Why does anyone need to determine if someone is N or S? Either you're interested in them and what they say or you're not.
I know a guy who loves to talk about hotwings and beer. Seems pretty 'S' by the OP.

He is also an aerospace engineer and earns $200K/year. How do you explain this?

He went to college. Explains hotwings, beer, and edumacated.

 

[Thalassa]

Ummmmm Marm, this guy actually tested as an INTP (because I made him take the test). Not only that, he read the description and said it was accurate. He even fist bumped . There is no doubt that he is an INTP. The difference between S's and N's when it comes to sports is that an N is much more likely to start analysing everything, even if there are no practical consequences. This has nothing to do with intelligence, merely a tendency to analyse. He very much fits into this mold. Look Marm, I don't know what to say, people who know these INTP's tell you that they're really into sports and you, someone who don't know these people are running with a basic belief that we are all mistaken. Do you realise how cyclical you're being? Do you realise that maybe your belief that strong N's can't be crazy sports fans is a fundamental reach? I can link you to sports forums where these guys follow sports religiously and they are obviously N.

I dunno. Apparently a lot of ESFPs also test as ENFPs. I sometimes test as INFJ, even ENTP or INTJ one time, and I can tell you quite plainly I am not an NT.

Like I said, agree to disagree. If I spent most of my days enraptured with hairstyling, cosmetics, learning to be an esthetician, and learning fashion design out of preference rather than need (like having to make money) I think I would question my own N-ness, so I'm not just applying this to sports.

 

[animenagai]

The thing is, he's a good friend. I just know he's an N. The topics in which he's willing to dwell in are very N, the way that he talks is very N. He fits the INTP description to a T. From hating society, thinking about something academic when people are gossiping, to doing intellectual things with absolutely no practical consequences. The only 'difference' is that he's a huge sports head .

 

[KDude]

I think Ji/Je would play a stronger role in what one's interests and attitudes towards things are. Ne is abstract in the sense of pulling various ideas together, juxtaposing, and abstracting a point from that. I don't think many would be "obsessed" with sports like marm is pointing out, but something like that could still play a part in their worldview. In fact, they could never call themselves holistic if they were too inclined to wave off subjects - even ones like football. Both Ne doms kind of fancy themselves as having a sort of cosmic view. A strong Ne would probably extrapolate some possibility from sports, whatever that may be. Maybe even the nerdiest of the nerdiest INTP scientists (forgive the stereotype) might use some example or anecdote from baseball to illustrate a method to apply to some seemingly unrelated research they're engaged in. But he would have to know about baseball pretty well to do this. N types are like anyone else who eat, shit, and sleep and deal with subjects and materials on the same planet everyone else lives on. It's how they interpret that makes them a little different. Not what they're interested in per se.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

^agreed.

as an S, i'm highly offended when someone tries to degrade or dumb down or close-mind S types. it may very well be the case that some are, but certainly not a worldwide phenomena.

i'm an ISFP that will often test as an INFP. i'm most certainly more S than N, however. but a lot of my interests lean towards philosophy, religion, psychology, metaphysics, art, music, dreams and their meanings, anthropology, archaeology, history, culture, language, etc. i have absolutely no interest in sports, or cars, and i don't consider myself to be highly materialistic (in the sense that i don't go out and shop til i drop).

but i'm a sensor. most of the time, i just explore via my Se and sometimes i'll react upon them. i enjoy dancing and savoring the moment. occasionally, i'll associate meaning or signs to things i come across, or will interpret normal symbols as something more (like an Ne)... but this isn't my natural way of functioning... but it's not as though it's impossible for me to, either.

you guys forget that we're more than just S or N. a lot of my interests (philosophy, religion, anthropology) are most likely fueled by my primary Fi... or even tertiary Ni.

 

[the state i am in]

All that "always" and so certain! I think there's an element of truth here but it'll be misleading if you rely on it as anything more than a clue. It's true that S's will tend to prefer (and thus talk about) tangible things more often (people are included in this category) but they'll also talk about ideas sometimes and while Ns are more likely to enjoy more abstract ideas, they still may have a significant interest in tangible things. A lot of the time it'll depend on the relationship between the two people, how much each one likes "small talk", the environment, their mood, their interests...Ns definitely talk about everyday things or their hobbies sometimes.

But yes, as a general rule of thumb it's probably a useful clue (not the entire argument).

exactly. also, a perfect example of an istp taking a vague infj overgeneralization and calling bullshit! (i've had it happen to me oh so many times!)

i'll run my own N vs S tests sometimes to explore types of connections and to get a sense of how i want to proceed with the conversation. while maintaining my confidence level for my hypotheses.

my brother is an entp and we always begin our talks with sports. true, we branch and navigate the topics in strange ways, considering whether phil jackson's leadership skills would make him a strong candidate to be the leader of the free world, how that would affect our global popularity, and how his political merits compare to bill clinton's. with Ns you can often get a different kind of space, you can keep a lot of hypotheticals going in the background and talk about possibilities that don't quite align while still finding value in the process. N types often (also depends on enneagram) like theory, or mapping out constraints. it's a big part of how we gather perspective, less based on what is known to be true and more based on what could be true. so much about getting the FRAME right. at the same time, the differences between Se/Ne and Si/Ni are just as pronounced. the enjoyment really has to do with your ability to adapt to multiple types of information processing and the communicative needs of those types along with what you're generally looking for in conversation period.

i like theory, and more than anything in the world, i like possibilities that are difficult to find. when someone has gathered perspectives that are extremely novel, fresh, surprising (kind of like when you take a bite of something prepared in a way that is, for you, absolutely new and you are delighted), well, that's what makes me want to talk. it seems like a combination of that plus a question of whether the participants can find a nice flow and figure out rather quickly what the participants can contribute and how to manage interest to a shared sphere. i generally have a group of ntp friends who are most conducive to my natural interests, but i also have Fi friends who share similar values, who are so grounding and good, and who help me explore and become more at home in my own emotional world. they're able to reflect back aspects of this to me, while kind of surrounding me in their own faith, values, beliefs, etc. when those are in harmony with yours, it's a great feeling. so accepting. it is probably easier to find this with other N types, for me, because they allow me to maintain my ideas, the contradictions, the playfulness of the dark and the light interacting and forming weird chemistry experiments. as long as its honest. i do feel like a crazy person around S types much of the time, which is not exactly the most fun.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

i like theory, and more than anything in the world, i like possibilities that are difficult to find. .

i like to add on to this, that one of the major differences between S and N is that, S's like practicality.

for instance, it's not that sensors are anti theorizing... but rather, we must see the practical, applicable use for it.

i used to major in anthropology. one of the reasons i pulled away from it, though i found it very interesting (cultural, physical, archeology, linguistics), is that with many of the case studies or archeological studies... i found no actual use or purpose that served any real human need. (this factor is a combination of my being a sensor as well as Fi valueing.) what human good can digging up archaeological sites truly serve, other than to feed fascination? that's how i felt. i also felt as though there could be better ways of serving humanity than studying cultural anthropology. i found its benefits to be limiting, and ultimately decided that if i truly wanted to make a difference, to find some other mechanism. such as volunteer work, peace corps, or nursing.

also, sensors will often pull from their own experiences... it's tangible. i do it all the time. it's easier for me to demonstrate a point if i can easily pull from my own background, rather than coming up with an imaginary scenario.

 

[KDude]

I can see your point of view on the idea wanting to help in more practical ways, but at the same time, I'm surprised that even though you studied it, you wouldn't see any other application other than feeding our fascination. I'm not sure if that's cynical or practical.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

don't get me wrong, i thought it was a subject that was of dire importance to study. it really opens up scope. i've told many a friends that they should take an anthropology class or two before making closed minded statements. and in that respects, i found anthropology to be important.

but i felt as though there wasn't much else to be gained, i suppose. sort of, "who cares?" when it came to case studies about whether or not the first humans in the americas were the clovis people or not. don't get me wrong, it's interesting and all, but all the debates behind it i felt were fruitless. it doesn't make much of an impact one way or another. and i felt the same about many other topics that came up... i also feel as though a lot was just speculation, and we are trying to answer questions that will never truly be answered... or rather would never have a unanimous answer. such has, how did man evolve speech and language. there are too many theories and too many debates on the topic, and ultimately, though it's all very fascinating to consider... what difference does it really make? but i also don't think we'll ever truly have the answer to that.

sorry... went off topic.

 

[KDude]

don't get me wrong, i thought it was a subject that was of dire importance to study. it really opens up scope. i've told many a friends that they should take an anthropology class or two before making closed minded statements. and in that respects, i found anthropology to be important.

but i felt as though there wasn't much else to be gained, i suppose. sort of, "who cares?" when it came to case studies about whether or not the first humans in the americas were the clovis people or not. don't get me wrong, it's interesting and all, but all the debates behind it i felt were fruitless. it doesn't make much of an impact one way or another. and i felt the same about many other topics that came up... i also feel as though a lot was just speculation, and we are trying to answer questions that will never truly be answered... or rather would never have a unanimous answer. such has, how did man evolve speech and language. there are too many theories and too many debates on the topic, and ultimately, though it's all very fascinating to consider... what difference does it really make? but i also don't think we'll ever truly have the answer to that.

sorry... went off topic.

I'm not interested in extremely "unanswerable" questions either. History is important to me though because there is meaning to be found (rather than answers, in the sense you're talking about). And some people, although rare, actually have done their little part in using this kind of information to try to help others too. Take Joseph Campbell, for instance. Granted, he wasn't an archaeologist, but a student of history/mythology. Similar subject material. Yet, his own books were more like inspirational self-help titles rather than strictly historical books. His work influenced other writers too, who in turn have tried to help others learn from the past. And you never know where the trail leads. We wouldn't have even some simple pleasures, like some entertaining movies, without the work of archaeologists, historians, or interpreters like Campbell. George Lucas was influenced by him and carried some of those ideas when writing Star Wars. But it all started with someone caring about the past.