Does N accomodate S more than S accomodates N?

[Such Irony]

Your theory fits with my experience.
I notice the same unawareness from S-types that are not familiar with MBTI. I think it's because there are more Ss than Ns in the world, so Ss have less incentive to speak N than Ns to do speak S.
.

I've noticed that too.

 

[King sns]

I woke up this morning and for some reason I suddenly (think) I know what you guys are talking about (if only for a moment.) It’s stuff that you’ve been saying all along, but it’s rather hard to understand because it’s hard to put into words. The problem is not really “the sensors” so much as it is with the world. It’s almost as if you guys come from a different planet all together.

It’s an English speaking planet, (I’ll use English because that’s what we’re using now.) But it’s a world of abstractions and possibilities. (Sounds obvious.) Speaking from a strictly N point of view, there is nothing physical in it. No physical bodies, no grass, no trees, no nothing. And then you’ve come into this planet, (Earth) of physical things and a physical body. Where 75 percent of people are native to the planet and can physically and mentally navigate with ease. And then you say something like, “Well sensors don’t understand us, they don’t speak our language.” And then we say, “Well yes we do, we’re all speaking English here.” “Well you don’t understand our level of abstraction.” And we say, “Yes we do, we talk about the meaning and abstractions behind things all the time, we all talk about the same stuff. Of course we understand your world.” .

But, someone who starts their thought processes with concrete data would never be able to understand the world without physical things. We can understand abstractions and talk about meaning and possibilities, but would never be able to understand a world that has nothing physical in it, while N’s are forced to understand the world with physical things in it. It may be easier for some N’s if at least more people “understood” them. So, when many sensors walk around placing the importance on what you “do” in the physical world, a strong N may not be able to relate to it.

I may be way far off, I’m not sure. (Also, really black and white terms of course.)

 

[Esoteric Wench]

:hi:

As everyone probably knows, this website has been down for at least the past 12 or so hours. Now I have to go to work and can't post for the next several hours.

I wanted to let everyone know that I'm planning on catching up with all the posts this evening. Thanks for the great comments and interesting feedback. I've learned so much already!

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I woke up this morning and for some reason I suddenly (think) I know what you guys are talking about (if only for a moment.) It’s stuff that you’ve been saying all along, but it’s rather hard to understand because it’s hard to put into words. The problem is not really “the sensors” so much as it is with the world. It’s almost as if you guys come from a different planet all together.

It’s an English speaking planet, (I’ll use English because that’s what we’re using now.) But it’s a world of abstractions and possibilities. (Sounds obvious.) Speaking from a strictly N point of view, there is nothing physical in it. No physical bodies, no grass, no trees, no nothing. And then you’ve come into this planet, (Earth) of physical things and a physical body. Where 75 percent of people are native to the planet and can physically and mentally navigate with ease. And then you say something like, “Well sensors don’t understand us, they don’t speak our language.” And then we say, “Well yes we do, we’re all speaking English here.” “Well you don’t understand our level of abstraction.” And we say, “Yes we do, we talk about the meaning and abstractions behind things all the time, we all talk about the same stuff. Of course we understand your world.” .

But, someone who starts their thought processes with concrete data would never be able to understand the world without physical things. We can understand abstractions and talk about meaning and possibilities, but would never be able to understand a world that has nothing physical in it, while N’s are forced to understand the world with physical things in it. It may be easier for some N’s if at least more people “understood” them. So, when many sensors walk around placing the importance on what you “do” in the physical world, a strong N may not be able to relate to it.

I may be way far off, I’m not sure. (Also, really black and white terms of course.)

OK, I did have to post just this once before I go to work. I loved what you wrote here, Shortnsweet. I thought is was beautiful. And it made me feel so understood. I'll be smiling all day because of what you wrote here. My only comment would be that the line between Ns and Ss isn't quite so clear cut... just like the lines between the concrete world and the world of concepts and abstraction. However....

+1000

Thank you.

 

[cascadeco]

OK, I did have to post just this once before I go to work. I loved what you wrote here, Shortnsweet. I thought is was beautiful. And it made me feel so understood. I'll be smiling all day because of what you wrote here. My only comment would be that the line between Ns and Ss isn't quite so clear cut... just like the lines between the concrete world and the world of concepts and abstraction. However....

+1000

Thank you.

I read it and thought it was great too. But also agree that a lot of these traits can be on more of a sliding scale (or maybe more acurately, a bell curve? Who knows), so blanket statements often don't apply -- either blanket statements made about types, or about dichotomies.

For example, I find many of the S's on this site interesting, in that they do not reflect many of the S's I encounter irl. Both of my ISxJ parents scoff at mbti, and have no patience for any sort of winding theoretical discussions such as occur on this site. They're firmly in the 'real world', in the here and now, and reject (or smirk, lol) immediately any attempt to talk about personality theory.

With counter examples: I have several N friends who have never been the foruming types.. they are too busy with their lives and jobs and just don't spend (waste? lol) much time on the net; however, they are very receptive and interested in having these sorts of conversations.

So I think it's always important to remember that even this forum, and all its types, is rather a unique/specific demographic, that being a group of people who are specifically interested/'obsessed' with armchair personality theorizing, AND also forumers. And finally, in general it probably has a high % of people who are forumers *because* they have more problems interacting in the way they'd like in the real world. I'm certainly not excluded from that - it's why I started foruming years ago. I don't think it's necessarily representative of type trends - the full gamit, at least. (And I'm not directing this towards anyone in particular)

To add to shortnsweet's post/theme, for me at least I have always felt I have had to somehow insert myself and my views into a world that doesn't necessarily apply to them. People on the opposite extreme I would imagine would start out with the world as-is, and merrily & naturally insert themselves into that, and from there build views based on the reality. For myself, it has been very learned.... this concept of recognizing and accepting the world as-is, and as a given. And admittedly, my having been able to incorporate this learning has made me much happier / more balanced too. But it is always again something I have to remind myself of; it's not a natural cognitive step.

(And none of this is to say this isn't going to apply to some S's.)

 

[King sns]

I read it and thought it was great too. But also agree that a lot of these traits can be on more of a sliding scale (or maybe more acurately, a bell curve? Who knows), so blanket statements often don't apply -- either blanket statements made about types, or about dichotomies.

For example, I find many of the S's on this site interesting, in that they do not reflect many of the S's I encounter irl. Both of my ISxJ parents scoff at mbti, and have no patience for any sort of winding theoretical discussions such as occur on this site. They're firmly in the 'real world', in the here and now, and reject (or smirk, lol) immediately any attempt to talk about personality theory.

With counter examples: I have several N friends who have never been the foruming types.. they are too busy with their lives and jobs and just don't spend (waste? lol) much time on the net; however, they are very receptive and interested in having these sorts of conversations.

So I think it's always important to remember that even this forum, and all its types, is rather a unique/specific demographic, that being a group of people who are specifically interested/'obsessed' with armchair personality theorizing, AND also forumers. I don't think it's necessarily representative of type trends - the full gamit, at least. (And I'm not directing this towards only S's - I mean, there have been several very unhealthy/unbalanced N's on this site as well. Oh no! The 'unhealthy' word being thrown around! )

To add to shortnsweet's post/theme, for me at least I have always felt I have had to somehow insert myself and my views into a world that doesn't necessarily apply to them. People on the opposite extreme I would imagine would start out with the world as-is, and merrily & naturally insert themselves into that, and from there build views based on the reality. For myself, it has been very learned.... this concept of recognizing and accepting the world as-is, and as a given. And admittedly, my having been able to incorporate this learning has made me much happier / more balanced too. But it is always again something I have to remind myself of; it's not a natural cognitive step.

(And none of this is to say this isn't going to apply to some S's.)

Yes, of course my post is a generalization. There will always be plenty of exceptions. (That post may even be the exception, or only ring mildly true for N's who read it.) Thinking about it this way helps me a lot to understand the thought process of an N as compared to mine, though.
And though I find that I can be a very abstract person at times, the comment that you made about not being able to accept the world as is first before moving forward with your thoughts is very foreign to me. The world is what it is first, and secondly, it is what it isn't. I guess this must be an essential difference and may make people who think, "the world is what's not there" feel out of place.

 

[cascadeco]

Yes, of course my post is a generalization. There will always be plenty of exceptions. (That post may even be the exception, or only ring mildly true for N's who read it.) Thinking about it this way helps me a lot to understand the thought process of an N as compared to mine, though.
And though I find that I can be a very abstract person at times, the comment that you made about not being able to accept the world as is first before moving forward with your thoughts is very foreign to me. The world is what it is first, and secondly, it is what it isn't. I guess this must be an essential difference and may make people who think, "the world is what's not there" feel out of place.

Oh, to be clear I wasn't trying to say that your post was a generalization! I was adding all of that just because I don't want it to come across that S's won't be able to relate to certain things I say - as yeah, there will be a spectrum.

And to the bolded -

 

[Elfboy]

Yes, of course my post is a generalization. There will always be plenty of exceptions. (That post may even be the exception, or only ring mildly true for N's who read it.) Thinking about it this way helps me a lot to understand the thought process of an N as compared to mine, though.
And though I find that I can be a very abstract person at times, the comment that you made about not being able to accept the world as is first before moving forward with your thoughts is very foreign to me. The world is what it is first, and secondly, it is what it isn't. I guess this must be an essential difference and may make people who think, "the world is what's not there" feel out of place.

that also has to deal with belief systems. for instance, it's illogical to believe that one's mind is the only thing that's really real, when the mind survives only via what is tangible sources (food, water etc), grows throught tangible sources (mental stimulation such books, observation and conversation) and can be destroyed just as easily by an outside, tangible source. intuitives don't not pick up sensory data, which just don't consciously pick up sensory data or store sensory data. our natural process is to pick up the data, make the connections and discard the data while remembering the connections.

 

[King sns]

that also has to deal with belief systems. for instance, it's illogical to believe that one's mind is the only thing that's really real, when the mind survives only via what is tangible sources (food, water etc), grows throught tangible sources (mental stimulation such books, observation and conversation) and can be destroyed just as easily by an outside, tangible source. intuitives don't not pick up sensory data, which just don't consciously pick up sensory data or store sensory data. our natural process is to pick up the data, make the connections and discard the data while remembering the connections.

Aww, I was going to go off into my propoganda about how N's don't really exist at all, and if you are here, typing on a keyboard and responding to what I said, you aren't really N. So we're all S's. You just destroyed that idea.

 

[skylights]

^

i like your posts, shortnsweet. i think it makes sense. especially in terms of seeing the world in abstractions first and then in realities. i think of the world in big sweeping principles and patterns and connections and holistic atmospheres and meanings and intangibilities first, and then i think about its more concrete components. sometimes to understand, i have to redux to theory. it's not that i'm not here, i feel the ground pressing into my belly (yes i lay on the floor with my laptop lol) and see the things around me and remember facts and details, but i tend to see my N stuff as the "ultimate" reality. it seems like the theoretical structure is what the concrete components fit into, not vice versa.

also can i please point out the irony that the S has accommodated her own worldview to see from the N point of view while i have not yet seen that from an N

 

[rav3n]

I woke up this morning and for some reason I suddenly (think) I know what you guys are talking about (if only for a moment.) It’s stuff that you’ve been saying all along, but it’s rather hard to understand because it’s hard to put into words. The problem is not really “the sensors” so much as it is with the world. It’s almost as if you guys come from a different planet all together.

It’s an English speaking planet, (I’ll use English because that’s what we’re using now.) But it’s a world of abstractions and possibilities. (Sounds obvious.) Speaking from a strictly N point of view, there is nothing physical in it. No physical bodies, no grass, no trees, no nothing. And then you’ve come into this planet, (Earth) of physical things and a physical body. Where 75 percent of people are native to the planet and can physically and mentally navigate with ease. And then you say something like, “Well sensors don’t understand us, they don’t speak our language.” And then we say, “Well yes we do, we’re all speaking English here.” “Well you don’t understand our level of abstraction.” And we say, “Yes we do, we talk about the meaning and abstractions behind things all the time, we all talk about the same stuff. Of course we understand your world.” .

But, someone who starts their thought processes with concrete data would never be able to understand the world without physical things. We can understand abstractions and talk about meaning and possibilities, but would never be able to understand a world that has nothing physical in it, while N’s are forced to understand the world with physical things in it. It may be easier for some N’s if at least more people “understood” them. So, when many sensors walk around placing the importance on what you “do” in the physical world, a strong N may not be able to relate to it.

I may be way far off, I’m not sure. (Also, really black and white terms of course.)

I see you shortnsweet!

 

[Elfboy]

Aww, I was going to go off into my propoganda about how N's don't really exist at all, and if you are here, typing on a keyboard and responding to what I said, you aren't really N. So we're all S's. You just destroyed that idea.

i'm sorry

 

[garbage]

I had a long-ish reply typed out yesterday, then the site died. So, you all get a half-assed version. Oh well

I respect typology for teaching us that not everyone thinks the same way.

This is probably the best use of typology. However...

Then that means most of typology is useless theory.

It's not useless, just unfounded, like the MBTI which is based on making assumptions about Jungian INTJ typology, but is not based in S (reality). Your comment indirectly supports what I've been saying on another thread. For example, the idea that my inferior function is Fe has no basis in my personal reality. It is true in theory, but not necessarily in practice. And it is true in theory only because someone made up a nice-sounding idea about cognitive functions that makes sense in a circular way, but only internally to the theory itself.

I hope that I'm not taking this out of context; forgive me if I am.

To me, there seems to be a significant amount of overlap between "well-founded" and "useful." A mental construct or analogy can be useful if it helps to illustrate a concept (perhaps by way of drawing comparisons), but it's even more useful if it serves as a direct explanation of some concept. (disclaimer: on tests, I get 'dinged' on 'N' because I halfway prioritize practicality )

What sort of overlap between the two traits ("well-founded" and "useful") exists to you?

If a theory states that you have such-and-such an inferior function, and that doesn't seem to be true in practice to you, is the theory still very useful? Should we abandon the part of the theory that tries to assign an inferior function to a type, or at least include a caveat within the theory?

More broadly, is an elegant and logically well-structured internal pattern useful even if it's shown to not match up very well with reality?

This might be taken as a minor quibble. But to me, such patterns can be damaging or misleading if they are misapplied, such as what is potentially occurring all throughout this thread and many others.

I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

Yeah right, like I'm going to believe that the majority of university professors and lawyers are N (especially lawyers, good God! Talk about an SJ bastion.) This statement alone leads me to think that you're simply typing people as N IRL if they are smart or open-minded. Just what about doing work as a lawyer or being a university professor (especially in fields that are more practical) is more inherently N? I'm surprised that there aren't more Ss taking offense to this, as it's basically saying that any serious profession in which extensive knowledge is required is inherently not suited for you, unless you can somehow exercise your "N muscles." Goddamn.

This needs much, much more love. I love it.

 

[King sns]

^

i like your posts, shortnsweet. i think it makes sense. especially in terms of seeing the world in abstractions first and then in realities. i think of the world in big sweeping principles and patterns and connections and holistic atmospheres and meanings and intangibilities first, and then i think about its more concrete components. sometimes to understand, i have to redux to theory. it's not that i'm not here, i feel the ground pressing into my belly (yes i lay on the floor with my laptop lol) and see the things around me and remember facts and details, but i tend to see my N stuff as the "ultimate" reality. it seems like the theoretical structure is what the concrete components fit into, not vice versa.

also can i please point out the irony that the S has accommodated her own worldview to see from the N point of view while i have not yet seen that from an N

Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

(TV showing empty white space.)
"In a world with no things- anything is possible."

"But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
(5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)

 

[Mal12345]

I had a long-ish reply typed out yesterday, then the site died. So, you all get a half-assed version. Oh well



This is probably the best use of typology. However...



I hope that I'm not taking this out of context; forgive me if I am.

To me, there seems to be a significant amount of overlap between "well-founded" and "useful." A mental construct or analogy can be useful if it helps to illustrate a concept (perhaps by way of drawing comparisons), but it's even more useful if it serves as a direct explanation of some concept. (disclaimer: on tests, I get 'dinged' on 'N' because I halfway prioritize practicality )

What sort of overlap between the two traits ("well-founded" and "useful") exists to you?

If a theory states that you have such-and-such an inferior function, and that doesn't seem to be true in practice to you, is the theory still very useful? Should we abandon the part of the theory that tries to assign an inferior function to a type, or at least include a caveat within the theory?

More broadly, is an elegant and logically well-structured internal pattern useful even if it's shown to not match up very well with reality?

This might be taken as a minor quibble. But to me, such patterns can be damaging or misleading if they are misapplied, such as what is potentially occurring all throughout this thread and many others.

I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

For about one month a long time ago, I thought I was a type 4, and it was the most integrating experience of my life. Maybe it's not true that I am/was a type 4, but the belief was what counted.

Typological issues boil down to epistemology: which part of typology is a product of belief, and which part comes down to knowledge? How much heuristic value for self-reflection and personal growth does it all have? How much does it tend to distract and detract from these things? And on another level: "Am I even ready to take on this knowledge/belief system?"

One thing I do know (and many others here have known for a long time) is that handing out one type per person is too rigid. And another thing I learned from this forum: the MBTI 16 types system is based on the false assumption that the Dominant function for the types are defined by the I/E and P/J scales. This assumption is not even Jungian, it is just made up.

Possibly as a result of this, someone here recently reported a tendency to score either ISFP or ISFJ, and the result was only psychological confusion. So it doesn't seem very useful for this person. I have seen a similar confusion bring others to this forum. Why can't there be a type that includes traits of both the ISFP and ISFJ? Why were the system founders so rigidly certain about their formula for determining dominant function?

 

[onemoretime]

Two things:

1. We're not as good at typing others as we give ourselves credit for. Many different paths to the same destination, after all. It's not what a person does, it's how they think in the process of getting there. So saying that someone's taking an intuitive approach, or a sensory approach, if they've not been formally typed, is an exercise in folly.

2. Of course most lawyers are SJs. So are the best law students. The intuitives are the C students who all of the SJs end up working for 20 years down the line, though they've had to starve in the meantime to get there.

 

[Starry]

Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

(TV showing empty white space.)
"In a world with no things- anything is possible."

"But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
(5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)

LOL. So awesome!

 

[skylights]

Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

(TV showing empty white space.)
"In a world with no things- anything is possible."

"But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
(5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)

i would pay to watch a show of 5 random upper-middle-class N doms who have to live in the hood for a month.

predictions:
ENTP becomes particularly effective drug dealer
ENFP becomes police liaison
INTJ becomes mercenary / hitman
INFJ becomes go-to counselor

 

[Jaguar]

can i please point out the irony that the S has accommodated her own worldview to see from the N point of view while i have not yet seen that from an N

As long as I can point out the irony of anyone claiming to be an Ne dom who can see only two possibilities.

 

[Orangey]

2. Of course most lawyers are SJs. So are the best law students. The intuitives are the C students who all of the SJs end up working for 20 years down the line, though they've had to starve in the meantime to get there.

Wow, applying the same (lame) pep talk they give to the nerds in school to Ns?