• 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.

Does N accomodate S more than S accomodates N?

Eluded_One

Building muscle memory in my brain
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
569
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In my opinion, this thread is evident that neither party can *completely* get the other, but rather to some extent. Why should a sensor not be able to understand an intuitive at some length? Who is to say that sensors can not be imaginative and intuitives can not be concrete? As if one must be the worldly; the other in isolation.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Why should a sensor not be able to understand an intuitive at some length? Who is to say that sensors can not be imaginative and intuitives can not be concrete?

While TypeC was down, I was reading another N/S thread on a different forum:

A major distinction needs to be made also between Si users and Se users.

Se users are actually very very close to N users. They also are big picture thinkers, and almost all of the ones I've met have fancied themselves more imaginative than detail oriented.

His post reminded me of what Linda V. Berens has been saying for years:

Problematic Definitions of N

In our work, we have found that a vast number of_ S_Ps select "N" responses rather than the "S" responses on the MBTI® , Their behavior and reports have been taken as typical of those with a preference for N.

Because of not using the added information in the temperament model or not paying close attention to Jung's definitions and Myers descriptions, the observations of people with _S_P preferences have filtered back into the mainstream definitions of N. When we go back to Jung's descriptions, we find these descriptions have veered off course from the original meaning.

In my opinion, Jung would never have approved of the MBTI instrument since it directly contradicts his own thinking regarding fantasy and creative inspiration.

In The Psychology of CG Jung, his student and colleague, Dr. Jalonde Jacobi writes:

Jung attaches great importance to the creative activity of fantasy, which he even put into a category of its own, because in his opinion it cannot be subordinated to any of the four basic functions, but partakes of them all.

He rejects the usual notion that artistic inspiration is limited to the intuitive type, that intuition is the dominant function in all artists. Fantasy is indeed the source of all creative inspiration, but it is a gift that can come to any of the four types.

I certainly wasn't surprised to find out that, statistically, SPs are the most likely to be mistyped as Ns. That's because the N definitions are misleading and have departed from Jungs's original thinking - especially where the imagination and creativity are concerned.

IMO, a lot of people are getting a "free ride" under false pretense - a lot of N's. Whenever you see a question on an MBTI test, or an MBTI clone, invariably, it defaults to N when the word "imagination" is used. As I already mentioned, I don't think Jung would have agreed with that decision, on the MBTI. Any type can be imaginative.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
While TypeC was down, I was reading another N/S thread on a different forum:



His post reminded me of what Linda V. Berens has been saying for years:



In my opinion, Jung would never have approved of the MBTI instrument since it directly contradicts his own thinking regarding fantasy and creative inspiration.

In The Psychology of CG Jung, his student and colleague, Dr. Jalonde Jacobi writes:

Jung attaches great importance to the creative activity of fantasy, which he even put into a category of its own, because in his opinion it cannot be subordinated to any of the four basic functions, but partakes of them all.

He rejects the usual notion that artistic inspiration is limited to the intuitive type, that intuition is the dominant function in all artists. Fantasy is indeed the source of all creative inspiration, but it is a gift that can come to any of the four types.

I certainly wasn't surprised to find out that, statistically, SPs are the most likely to be mistyped as Ns. That's because the N definitions are misleading and have departed from Jungs's original thinking - especially where the imagination and creativity are concerned.

IMO, a lot of people are getting a "free ride" under false pretense - a lot of N's. Whenever you see a question on an MBTI test, or an MBTI clone, invariably, it defaults to N when the word "imagination" is used. As I already mentioned, I don't think Jung would have agreed with that decision, on the MBTI. Any type can be imaginative.

Exactement!
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Oops, it would have helped if I knew there was 2nd page.
Would any one be upset if I made the observation, the more intellingent you are the less significant the Sensor/Intuitive barrier seems to be? The less able you are to switch between the two, the more disadvantaged you are.
Kinda wanted to name the elephant in the room.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Oops, it would have helped if I knew there was 2nd page.
Would any one be upset if I made the observation, the more intellingent you are the less significant the Sensor/Intuitive barrier seems to be? The less able you are to switch between the two, the more disadvantaged you are.
Kinda wanted to name the elephant in the room.

I would agree if you changed "intelligent" to another word. There are plenty of people who are highly intelligent in an academic sense who have absolutely no idea how to relate to "regular human beings", which can have some overlap with S/N. Working in science you definitely see a lot of that! Some strong Ns seem highly intelligent in general but are not able to see things from an S perspective (although in most cases they're convinced that they can....you see a lot of examples on this forum).

It's definitely a highly useful skill to be able to relate to both S/N (as well as T/F, I/E and J/P for that matter - but especially S/N if we're talking about problem-solving). Can't go wrong with more data points, more perspectives. Not to mention being able to relate to people who are not like you.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Intellingent was the closest word to what I meant. I agree it wasn't the best choice, perhaps savy would have been better.
 
Top