User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 156

  1. #131
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Proof is different from being visible, and it's also not an all-or-nothing event.

    Proof>evidence>reasoning>speculation>wanting something to be true so pretending it is

    There is proof that photosynthesis exists. There is evidence that certain enzymes are necessary. There is reasoning that two enzymes interact a certain way given their structure. There is speculation that maybe if we changed this enzyme, it might do something completely different. and so on.

    Since typology is not science, it's not going to be as strongly supported by evidence, but it's also not out of line to ask for some kind of hard facts to back up your statements, particularly when the statements are controversial or otherwise strange. If no hard facts are possible (even things like surveys are better than nothing), it's preferable to include the reasoning underlying the statement, if going further than simply sharing your experiences with one person. Unless you like having a "discussion" where each side just blatantly makes things up or blindly assumes that every esfj on the planet is just like their esfj ex, or heaven forbid, every S on the planet is just like their ESFJ ex...

    These sorts of conversations are often heavily dominated by INxxs who are likely to prefer a few close friendships and therefore have a low sample size to draw from, and I see far too many statements like "my 2 [rarely even confirmed] S friends are like this, therefore Ss are like this" with no clear reason why such wild generalization is likely to be accurate.
    I don't disagree with any of this. My point was more about discarding possibilities before being fully explored. What maybe true in one person's life shouldn't be disregarded and discarded because the other person hasn't experienced anything of the like. I'm not talking loopy theories, but possibilities that are pretty reasonable. It's right to be skeptical, and expect some sort of proof or evidence. If the Theory is flawed, do offer up some thing that seems more reasonable. Just don't dismiss entirely, because you personally have not experienced, or seen it. It's not all or nothing.
    You can't Prove concretely your father loves you, you have to infer from his actions.
    My example with photosynthesis was chosen because you can't see it with the human eye, but you have to break it down and examine it. In truth, you still have to take a fair amount on faith, inspite of enzymatic extraction etc. because an everyday person just doesn't have access to appropriate equipment.
    This all moot though as I happen to think the more savy the people involved the less N-S accounts for communication issues. When there is disparity of intellectual capacity on either side that's where the trouble lies.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #132
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrystalViolet View Post
    This all moot though as I happen to think the more savy the people involved the less N-S accounts for communication issues. When there is disparity of intellectual capacity on either side that's where the trouble lies.
    Sure, but then the issue is divorced entirely from S/N, which is what I've been trying to say this whole thread is the case.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Sure, but then the issue is divorced entirely from S/N, which is what I've been trying to say this whole thread is the case.
    No its not...com'on...Ns are smarter then Ss That essentiall means everything is a communication issue has to do with N/S as N/S = Smart/Stupid. Its simple math.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #134
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    No, it's saying there's a shared ASPECT, not that the entire style is the same. This shared aspect is roughly referred to as an "S style", but if you want to nitpick wording, then it's technically an aspect of their individual style. And of course this is in general; there are exceptions to such patterns, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
    What "patterns?" Please describe this irreducible S pattern of communication that apparently cuts across all social and intellectual boundaries with at least enough frequency to convince you that you're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    If you want to ignore Jungian theory, fine. I post a direct quote from the creator of this theory about what the functions are and you refuse to acknowledge it.
    Did you want a cookie for it? Or did you seriously think that reading that quote would necessarily lead me from the darkness of my ignorance to the shining light of your viewpoint?

    If that's not what you meant by "acknowledging," then, well...I don't know what to say to you. Should I pat you on the back for your information retrieval skills?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    We can't discuss this further then because we're not coming from the same foundation of what this theory actually is and what it means.
    You're right, it's the bolded that is the problem here. Specifically, you are insisting that Jung passage that you quoted means that Ss and Ns will have fundamental communication differences. When I called that into question, you resorted to telling me that I don't understand Jung or what he was saying, as if reverting to the words of that old bastard proves anything at all about the specific meaning that you're extrapolating from his writing. News flash! It doesn't. That's called circular reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    You're also not addressing any of my points with an actual counter argument. You're just kicking & screaming & crying, "That's not real".
    I'm not the one making positive claims, so the burden of proof is not on me. That you think it is, though, indicates that your assumptions about the subject provide you with quite an absurdly bloated sense of entitlement.

    Seriously, this is what's happening, people:

    1. Jung makes a (very) vague statement to the effect that S = senses telling you something exists, T = specifying what that something is, F = deciding whether I like it, and N = why it exists, and what that means.
    2. Some people in this thread assert that Jung's statement means both that there are fundamental cognitive differences between S and N people, and that it would naturally follow that there would be fundamental communication differences along S/N lines, and that these could easily result in communication difficulties between S and N people.
    3. I challenge this by saying that ALL of the above assumptions are nonsense - that they are neither entailed by theory nor empirically proven, that anecdotes are useless because the motivation to confirmation bias, which is more than likely rooted in some sense of superiority, is too strong, and that even in the absence of such motivation it is impossible to separate what's real from the perspective and interpretation of the observer.
    4. I get told that I just don't understand the theory, because otherwise I'd see the truth that the conclusions in #2 are entailed by #1.
    5. I also get told (erroneously) that I'm dismissing people's experiences, even though it should be clear to anyone with a brain that I'm dismissing their interpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Not at the expense of shutting down all communication of the matter so that it cannot be explored and understood why people are forming those impressions to begin with. Here, there is just a complete denial and insistence that others are delusional or bad at typing.
    Again, I'm denying interpretations, not realities. Person A may indeed have communication issues with person B - that much can be determined - but nobody else knows any better than I whether it's because person A is a sensor and person B is an iNtuitive.

    Also, disagreement != shutting down discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    It seems that people want to toss aside all patterns of differences in types because they take erroneously it as an implication that some are superior. So you can hardly discuss differences in type, including these associated patterns in strengths and weaknesses, without someone getting needlessly offended. The whole "any type can be any way" attitude is completely at odds with personality theory in itself. What is the point of a personality system if there are no parameters to distinguish types from one another? If the type does not affect visible personality & its traits, then how can the system be categorizing personality by these types?
    The question isn't whether there are differences between types...we can see that there are all kinds of differences between people IRL, so it's not hard to believe that many of these can be organized into the more or less loose categories of types. The question is rather which of these differences is type related, and how?

    Where we run into a problem is when differences, whatever they may be (and, indeed, however small or particular to a given context), are uncritically accepted as being one of those type-relevant differences. This thread is a great example of this because it seems that, "yes, this is an S/N difference!" is the default assumption for any difference mentioned, and it's incumbent upon the critic to prove that it's not. Is that not backwards?

    Add to this the fact that the concrete instances of S/N communication differences/issues brought up in this (and other) threads are usually very easily and transparently (if not totally) intelligence differentials, and the topic becomes offensive on top of being senseless in a more abstract sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    What are these "more probable" factors?
    I guess you didn't read the entire thread, because numerous "more probable factors" have been proffered, by myself and others, as alternative explanations for the communication problems/differences being erroneously attributed to S/N.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I have not seen this mentioned in anyway other than childish "Not true!" whining and insistence that a person must be only typing others as S by noting a different communication style.
    1. The "not true" replies have almost all been accompanied by "it's intelligence/interest/knowledge/compatibility/interaction style/openness, instead." I guess you ignored those?
    2. If you admit that S/N differences can be distinguished clearly enough in communication to form patterns, then "typing others as S by noting a different communication style" is a perfectly valid corollary. That is, unless you want to outline specifically and explicitly what the "true" differences are and how to identify them.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    It's not only a matter of being able to follow someone or finding them interesting, but also of considering their view & way as valid or valuable.
    Sure, and what makes you think that's S/N related? You're assuming (1) that whether or not person A would consider person B's "view & way as valid or valuable" is completely unmitigated by anything other than the dom/aux perception function of person A and person B, and (2) that such differences between them would necessarily lead to person A considering person B's "view and way" as invalid and not valuable.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    You mention that you'd rather do than talk about something. Well, there I am at an impasse with many ISTPs. Not to say I cannot or do not have interesting discussions with them, but I'd often rather read or analyze or imagine than DO. I've found when they discover this, they are contemptuous towards me, and my view & way is invalidated or devalued, even if they can grasp what I say intellectually and sometimes find me "entertaining".
    Can't you see how many different ways this could be interpreted, even in terms of type? For instance, as a (supposed) INFP, your BtS interaction style would not incline you to initiate action, whereas an ISTP's CtC style would make action something that they valued. If viewed this way (which I'm not necessarily advocating as accurate, it's just one of many possible examples), it would paint an entirely false picture to characterize your issues with these individuals as having strictly to do with S/N, because the INxJs, who are also CtC, would have the same issues with you. And the other BtS folks who happen to be S, like ISFJ or ISFP, would likely not have this same issue with you despite being S.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #135
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Sure, but then the issue is divorced entirely from S/N, which is what I've been trying to say this whole thread is the case.
    nah, I just happen to think more savy people shift back and forth, or are able to tap that third function or fourth function in an much more effective way. No evidence, other than anecdotal.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #136
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    quite hilarious that the N bias plainly evident in your statement is so invisible to you and others here who have some sort of ego investment in the idea that Ss and Ns have fundamental communication issues.
    why do you think i have a special "ego investment"? if i wanted to assert that Ns were better, i would make a thread about Ns being better.

    i have been having a hard time recently communicating with an S who is very important to me, in ways that seem to reflect the N/S dichotomy. when i had a hard time communicating with my INTP dad, i came forums and posted some about that and received some very helpful answers from INTPs and others who interact with INTPs. i put those ideas into practice. communication with my dad improved greatly. hence, i tried to do the same thing here.

    i am asking for help. i am not proclaiming my superiority. you are welcome to read my entire history of posts here and you will find that i have always asserted equality of types and functions, because i think systems must be balanced to be effective. you will find that i hate the big 5, for example, because it clearly has "good" and "bad" answers. i think that invalidates the system and makes it more harmful than good IRL. the same holds true for the MBTI, except that i think that, when understood properly, it is fairly well balanced. as, i think, is the enneagram. both systems attempt to give equal weight to all divisions.

    incidentally I DON'T CARE that i'm an N but it describes my thought patterns well. it'd be like telling me i'm biased because i have hazel eyes and talk about what life is like having hazel eyes and you think that makes me be some kind of crazy hazel-eye bigot. i didn't choose to have those eyes, i didn't choose to have thought patterns like this. i didn't know the MBTI when i was 2 years old and my thought patterns were concretizing. am i really an N? i guess you could say that nobody really knows their type, but that's the equivalent of being an existentialist nihilist and calling moot on everything. in that case it's totally pointless to even talk about anything because there's no point in having any opinions, period. there's no point in talking about type if we can't use it.

    because this entire topic is fundamentally biased against Ss. You literally cannot talk about it in more than meaningless generalities without betraying that, in reality, when S/N differences are LOOKED FOR, it's really an intelligence/creativity/knowledge/interest differential that gets picked up and passed off as "see! S/N difference right there!"
    is it? i don't think so. the S i am referring to above is very intelligent, more creative than me, more knowledgeable than me in plenty of areas, and has plenty of varied interests. but he fits "Si" thought patterns better and i fit "Ne" thought patterns better.

    i am feeling communication trouble in that i tend to think in "cloudy" theoretics, whereas he tends to think in realities, facts, events - things i call "world pieces". things that tangibly exist. and he knows so much about the world. but sometimes it's hard for me to express to him the things that i am conceptualizing because there aren't very specific words that exist for these things. with the NJs i have spoken to it seems easier, because they dance around ideas like this too and don't always have good words for things either. with him it is harder for me to explain these nebulous ideas. the S will ask detailed questions that i have trouble answering. it seems to me that Ns are more used to using metaphorical language and vague umbrella terms... which is both bad and good, because it's easy for other people who speak like that to get an idea of what you're trying to explain, but you never actually really explain what you're trying to get at. and that's really a personal problem, because i don't always know, but i'd like to be able to better express to him what i'm thinking because i frequently think in that place and not in detail and action.

    i guess you're going to read that paragraph like "oh she thinks she's all heady and conceptual and she thinks he doesn't get it because he's supposedly an S" but he's vastly more effective than i am because he has the gift of getting ideas from ideaspace into reality and action, while i nest in the pre-idea place and don't move from it. and it's not like he's not in that headspace too, but i don't think he really stays there like i do, he almost immediately realizes what he conceptualizes, bringing it into existence. but it's hard for me to have extended cloudy-theoretical conversation with him and i feel like i'm not able to share some of my most important thoughts and feelings with him because of it.

    so yeah, there you have it, my horrible bias, which sounds a whole lot more like i'm sad because i can't figure out how to express really important exciting things to one of the most important exciting people in my life and i was hoping the forum could help. and that happens to very closely fit the theoretical differences in Perception between Ne and Si, so i thought N and S would be a good common vehicle to approach this issue by... seeing as that's the point of the MBTI... to use it to understand people better and to facilitate interpersonal relationships.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrystalViolet
    This all moot though as I happen to think the more savy the people involved the less N-S accounts for communication issues. When there is disparity of intellectual capacity on either side that's where the trouble lies.
    maybe i am just not as smart

    i think also the problem surfaces when there is unfamiliarity between people in regards to subjects. i know that i am a top-down learner and need to understand the big-picture concept first before i can learn details, because otherwise components of a subject feel like a million scattered puzzle pieces that i don't know how to begin to place. i am not good at piecing things together. whereas my ESFJ mom is exactly the opposite, she likes to learn the smaller components first and then she builds to the big picture. of course this may be more NeTe vs SiTi than N vs S, but it could be part of the issue.

  7. #137
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    While it's true that I'm interested in stuff that the average S-type is less interested in, I generally don't have any problems conversing with S types given we're both interested in the conversation. I mean... I have just as many problems with N types.

    I'm just interested in talking about stuff most people think is a waste of time. Besides people. Everyone likes talking about people.

  8. #138
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    @skylights
    Nah. I still have to wait for the fundamental click, when all the pieces fall into place. Kinda funny, when I figure out say friends have hooked up in secrete, or a concept I been struggling with up until that point. I find trying to find similar situations or comparisons a help, communicating that, sometimes help with the frustrations.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrystalViolet View Post
    @skylights
    Nah. I still have to wait for the fundamental click, when all the pieces fall into place. Kinda funny, when I figure out say friends have hooked up in secrete, or a concept I been struggling with up until that point. I find trying to find similar situations or comparisons a help, communicating that, sometimes help with the frustrations.
    That look from an ENFP...err...pause...is priceless
    Im out, its been fun

  10. #140
    Junior Member Manifold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    21

    Default

    I have only read snipets from this thread, so forgive me if this share is redundant. But I thought some contributors to this topic might enjoy this thread from PerC: personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/82742-please-help-me-take-bs-out-s-vs-n-dichotomy.html

Similar Threads

  1. INTPs in conversations & relationships.
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 08:32 AM
  2. bash.org. Amusing chatroom conversations.
    By darlets in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 12:22 AM
  3. Overheard Conversations
    By kuranes in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 07:03 PM

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