If anything S and N is one of the lesser things that gets in the way for me. I/E and P/J are the two really big ones for me. I don't really agree that S/N communication styles get in the way of each other, if anything I feel that I complement Ns more than anything and I get Ss. But if you throw a J preference in there things totally change. I need Ji and Pe to really bond with someone I find.
I also think that your background in general, and basically everything else about you has much more of a weight. IQ. If you don't really have anything to talk about then what's the point? I've found N types with less IQ than me and I basically dominate the conversation. Just because you're N doesn't mean you're mentally quick. These people who have an obsession with finding other "intuitive" types I think have a secret obsession with wanting to find someone with an IQ about as high as they have. It's just ridiculous to think that S/N has weight into what someone wants to talk about. For example I've known very spiritual S types, and N types who are totally close minded to that side of life, the mysterious side of life. You shouldn't be filtering out your conversation partners based on a preference.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are giving the quote I used & how I used it a new context. The original context was me replying to your claim that Sensing, Intuition, Feeling & Thinking are not functions. I quoted Jung simply to show this is a basic aspect of his theory, that they ARE functions, and that Ni, Se, Fi, Fe, etc are actually function-attitudes. Acknowledging it means acknowledging your prior claim that they are not functions is not accurate. This is an important acknowledgment to ever move forward in the conversation, whether you agree with my additional points or not. If you can't acknowledge this, then it is futile for me to discuss any of this further with you. You might as well stop reading now...
The significance of the quote & sensing being a function is that Se & Si do have a "common ground" - there is a focus on "what is" via an awareness of the tangible/factual nature of things. Ne & Ni focus instead on "what something can become" via awareness of the intangible essence of things.
Does this mean Se & Ne don't have any "similarity"? No, they are both extroverted perceiving, and in a similar vein, I can say there are patterns in Pe styles of communicating & other aspects stemming from personality & mindset. But this thread is not about that, it's about the overlap with the sensing types.
This commonality between people who perceive Se & Si is basically manifested as less focus on what I'll call "intuitive information".
It's not a matter of ability to dicuss/understand or even a total non-interest in intuitive information, but a focus on & a tendency to see sensory info as more REAL. Reality for the sensing type is what they perceive via the 5 senses, factual information, experiences, etc - "what is".
How, how, how, will this not affect communication? There are two sets of "information" being focused on.... and one type often finds the others' somewhat contemptible because it's not as real to them; at best, they find it amusing or supportive of the reality they focus on.
Because of this, the pattern amounts to
- Less focus on non-sensory info. This does not mean there is no ability to discuss it or understand it or never any interest in it. It's the over all focus of the mind, which becomes evident in the personality & then from there, their communication.
- Tendency to not see this info as real as the sensory info they focus on, hence an invalidation of it.
How do I attribute this pattern to sensing? Easy - it's the isolated variable that these people have in common. These individuals are very different, sometimes night & day, in every other aspect. This is the one area they all overlap in, and then I see the same trend in this aspect of communication. I don't draw a conclusion per basis (ie. "we don't communicate well; they must be an S" - nope, don't do that) - over time, the trend emerges as a whole idea to me. The pattern dawns on me, and then I might go "back" & consider the details (who they are outside of MBTI labels, who they are in terms of personality type, the conversations shared - both good & bad) , until I narrow down the one thing these people share - a sensing preference. It's not a "chart the course" preference, because it doesn't occur with Ns who have that preference.
Does this divide always mean bad communication? No.
Does it mean I prefer talking with Ns? No.
Does it mean there are never, ever any exceptions at all? No.
Does it mean there are some differences that can cause problems? Yes. Just like any difference, whether it's defined by Jungian theory or not, there can be problems stemming from this difference.
Some Ns online are contemptuous of Ss because of an erroneous idea that Ss perceive via the 5 senses, but so do Ns, only we have some extra 6th sense. This is false. Just as Ns perceive info via the 5 senses, Ss perceive via this "6th sense" as well. The difference is their primary focus, which is the most valid reality for them. This is why it's a matter of over all mindset and not ability. However, this preference for one side of reality (because both are reality), does and will affect personality and as an extension of that, communication. When we communicate, we exchange thoughts, ideas, etc, and so how can one's mindset & perception of what info is most relevant to reality not effect communication?
"Charlotte sometimes dreams a wall around herself. But it's always with love - So much love it looks like everything else. Charlotte Sometimes - So far away, glass sealed and pretty." - The Cure
I use to have great conversations with an ISFJ friend. I like when we talk about what we think or feel about stuff, not worrying about telling an "impacting and thrilling story" like an INFJ mutual friend does. I actually had better conversations with this ISFJ than with the INFJ. The talks I had with 2 ISFPs, an ENFP, an ISTJ and that INFJ weren't that satisfying, but I still enjoy their company. The best talks I had were with 2 INFPs, an INTP, an ENTJ, 2 ESFPs and that ISFJ. I don't think there is a correlation of anything... There are some people I enjoy talking to, and other people I don't, independent of their type.
I've had massive arguments with my ISTP boss, it turns we are saying the same thing, most of time. He is an extrodinary clever man, yet we misunderstand each other all the time. There's only so many times you can have essentially the same argument without noticing a pattern. It could be Ti vs Fi or it could be Se vs Ne. Take your pick. Considering his nickname for me is space cadet and teases me about some of my more left field ideas. He almost never teases me about how emo I am, it wouldn't be reaching to say this is an S vs N thing. Yet it means nothing when everyday we are faced
With almost insurmountable communication barriers between allied health and nursing staff. It's a running joke.
What I'm saying is the divide exsists but it's more like dialect problem of neighboring tribes, than say speaking in Japanese to Germans. All is forgotten between the two tribes when their shared territories are threatened by a man eating bear.
*disclaimer, I'm not insulting nurses in general. This seems to be a workplace culture thing.*
I have never had an NFP mom under me, i have no desire to be a boss/manager, but i have never had a massive argument with an NFP. Not even with my mom when i was growing up who is ENFP. My massive arguments were with ENFJ ex., and IxTJ dad, grandpa. And those werent even massive, just me pissed off at how things transpired. Dont kick my dog and dont punish and scold me for something i had permission to do, fear based on "what could have happened", and lacck of respect for my judgement that caused nothing to happen.
Take what I say with a grain of salt, because that's all it is compared to the ocean of complexity when it comes to actions and real life.
If anything S and N is one of the lesser things that gets in the way for me. I/E and P/J are the two really big ones for me. I don't really agree that S/N communication styles get in the way of each other, if anything I feel that I complement Ns more than anything and I get Ss.
I could have written exactly this myself. I call the combination of the I/E & J/P dimensions as one's mode of life. I don't have to have an exact match provided our respective positions on the axes are not too far apart. For me:
1. Any E would run me out of energy quickly. So might some of the less well defined Is.
2. I'm quite happy with a less well defined J but a strong J might have me bristling. In my current relationship I have to provide all the J and I can cope with that.
Like you, I find opposites from the other two dimensions complement each other.
Another point is that it is difficult for an N to avoid Se or Si because the world around them is in their face. An S can avoid Ne & Ni much much more easily. If I want a conversation with that type of extreme S, I can talk about sport or something like that. An N should always be able and prepared to fit in with an S and, IMO, is virtually duty bound to do so in social situations.
Fi (95%); Ti (90%); Ne (75%); Fe (60%); Ni (50%); Si (50%); Te (15%); Se (5%)
"INFP values but INTP skills" describes me best of all