satisfying N-S conversation

[Owfin]

My ISTJ friend and I always have good conversations. Basically, we just debate things we disagree on, but in a lighthearted manner. He's really stubborn and narrow-minded in his beliefs, so I'm never able to convince him, but it's still fun to try. I suppose I'm equally stubborn, but I at least understand (or try to understand) why he thinks that, while he doesn't seem to do that at all.

But he can never tell when I'm joking, since I always joke with a serious tone and a straight face. And I can never tell whether he truly believes what he's saying or not since his reasons are always so stupid.

Edit: And by "stupid," I don't mean ridiculous or invalid, but just that they're not really well-thought out. Basically, he believes people shouldn't do certain things because they're bad things to do. He believes they're bad to do simply because they're bad. That's why he's impossible to convince - but it's still fun debating with him.

The same way that you most likely do not tell him why you think he is stubborn and narrow minded, he does not tell you about his personal reservations. I am not of course saying that he thinks negatively of you; how am I to know? But he most likely will not reveal to you it either way unless you asked.

Do you ask him to justify right on the spot though? It takes time for me to sort through my thoughts on something and revalidate it. In big discussions, I like keeping around a piece of paper to get my ideas down well. In a few seconds, he will be able only to tell you his overall big judgement. On a given issue, I have almost a mental outline of my thoughts. A bullet point list, if you will. With lots of subheadings and such.

I am still stumped by this "most of the population is an S" thing. It seems like a pretty even split to me.

I feel the same way a lot of the time, but as most people in my life are not confirmed any type, I can't be sure. And the people I know close enough to guess seem to be split fairly evenly between S/N, but as that is a selected group, it would not be fair to use it as a general estimate.

You only have to go to the Popular Culture and Type thread to see how often intuitors mistype people and characters as N, simply because they think they're smart, insightful, interesting and/or is someone they identify with. In other words, they will believe that person is an intuitor before they would imagine that they could admire or relate that much to a sensor - which is just plain idiotic.

I have a tendency to identify people as Si-Ne and Ne-Si types a lot because it is easier for me to grasp than Se-Ni and Ni-Se. But I think that it's just a little bias of mine, and I don't identify people with traits I like as a particular type. I may have very slight bias against SPs, but that is about it. And it seems to be due more to ignorance on my part than anything else.

 

[Poki]

This topic is so true(*sarcasm*), I was on the phone with my INFP friend last night and we had nothing to talk about. Its been a common off/on thing for the last couple weeks. Of course before that we could talk on the phone for hours easy just joking and poking at each other.

The phone part is true though. I dont read into it other then we just dont always have alot to talk about these days, doesnt have much to do with the N/S split. The lack of understanding isnt ever a bad thing either, we dont dwell on it, its just one of the things that give us something to talk about. We are both extremely patient people and work through those and we usually just see it as men/women differences. When we dont click on the phone its just kinda like small talk without as much joking, playing, and making fun of each other and ourselves and more silence then normal.


Yes the initial stages was awkward, very awkward, but we made it past those....I guess you could call it "unsatisfying"...I just call it awkward and it lasts until you get past it.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I just don't like this assumption that Ss don't adapt to Ns. It makes it seem like being an S is easy and oh, anybody can be an S, but being an intuitive is hard.

Of course they adapt sometimes, but there are more Ss (which both statistics & most people's experience will support), so that style (& I mean this in a loose sense) is more the "norm". Of course, this depends on the setting also.

Some of this is likely the effects of introversion also... I think you hear this more from INxx than Enxx types.

I'm not going to get all politically correct for people and apologetic and write this off entirely as some flaw of my own. I have tons of Ss in my life that I enjoy and have good conversations with, but there is a clear pattern that of being different when I speak with another N. It doesn't even have to mean we like each other; there's no automatic bond over it.

 

[entropie]

What are you waiting for, then? Chop away!

Heart over head my girl. I will never give up

good or no good ?

 

[Poki]

good or no good ?

Sounded satisfying, was it as good for you as it was for him?

edit: or her cant tell with the orange blob type thing

 

[entropie]

What are you waiting for, then? Chop away!

Sounded satisfying, was it as good for you as it was for him?

edit: or her cant tell with the orange blob type thing

I never fight for satisfaction. I like when split parts form to a greater huge. So are my intentions good or no good ?

 

[Orangey]

Of course they adapt sometimes, but there are more Ss (which both statistics & most people's experience will support), so that style (& I mean this in a loose sense) is more the "norm". Of course, this depends on the setting also.

What "style?" Somebody always claims that there's this monolithic S style of communication, but I have yet to hear it explained in any way that can't be better explained by some other factor.

Some of this is likely the effects of introversion also... I think you hear this more from INxx than Enxx types.

The only communication style differences that are legitimate are explained by the interaction styles (directing/informing, CtC, GtG, IC, BtS.)

I'm not going to get all politically correct for people and apologetic and write this off entirely as some flaw of my own. I have tons of Ss in my life that I enjoy and have good conversations with, but there is a clear pattern that of being different when I speak with another N. It doesn't even have to mean we like each other; there's no automatic bond over it.

It isn't about being politically correct. It's about a misapplication of MBTI. How do you *know* that whatever pattern of difference you're detecting is due to the difference between S and N? Doesn't it make more sense, if we're going to try and interpret this kind of shit through the lens of MBTI, to say that the difference is due to functions and function orders rather than S/N? What is this fundamental Sness and Nness that exists after all the differences between Si, Ni, Ne, Se, and the orders in which they appear in each type, are accounted for? Not to mention all of the judging functions...

I think it's telling that it's always the N/S dichotomy that gets this treatment, and never really any of the others (in fact, all of those sordid Fe/Fi "I hate you" threads would have us think that there are HUGE differences even within one dichotomy. I guess that doesn't apply to Se, Si, Ne, Ni?)

 

[OrangeAppled]

What "style?" Somebody always claims that there's this monolithic S style of communication, but I have yet to hear it explained in any way that can't be better explained by some other factor.

Um, reread what I said.... I said style in a "loose sense". I said that with the purpose of denoting there is not some "monolithic" style.

If sensing means a preference for focusing on tangible information and facts and intuition means a focus on intangible possibilities & relations between things, and that this affects thinking and personality, then why shouldn't it affect aspects of communication?

The only communication style differences that are legitimate are explained by the interaction styles (directing/informing, CtC, GtG, IC, BtS.)

I disagree. I think there are communication differences with the T/F dichotomy, the I/E dichotomy, and even with differing attitudes of the same function (ie. Fe/Fi). These are noted in MBTI literature when it comes to discussing romantic and business relationships.

People note these all the time on this board too... Few get offended at the notion that Feeling types might prefer more sensitive styles, etc.

The MBTI tests even use questions which refer to communication - such as preferring a diplomatic style (F) over a direct, blunt style (T). They often clumsily word this as being nice vs. honest, but that's what they're getting at.

I don't see why the S/N difference should be so offensive to people. I think it's because Ss are taking it as some slight against them, as if people are saying they're inferior or less interesting. That is not what is being said, not by me anyway.

It isn't about being politically correct. It's about a misapplication of MBTI. How do you *know* that whatever pattern of difference you're detecting is due to the difference between S and N?

Well this illustrates it perfectly. You want some fact or data, and I'm telling you I'm aware of invisible patterns that can't be measured in some concrete way.

If you're insinuating I type people based solely on how we communicate - I don't. I also don't chalk up a communication problem with an S as an S/N issue. But there has been a pattern that has emerged with this variable being the constant one. It's a matter of a certain way of talking about things as a whole. It's not about ability/intelligence or anything like that. It's about the focus of the mind & how it manifests in conversation.

I see other patterns too...such as patterns in how I communicate with, say, an extrovert or a Fe type.

Doesn't it make more sense, if we're going to try and interpret this kind of shit through the lens of MBTI, to say that the difference is due to functions and function orders rather than S/N? What is this fundamental Sness and Nness that exists after all the differences between Si, Ni, Ne, Se, and the orders in which they appear in each type, are accounted for? Not to mention all of the judging functions...

S & N ARE functions. There are 4 functions: sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking.

These four function types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation tells you that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going

The cognitive processes are the functions combined with the I/E attitude.
MBTI tests according to these dichotomies also. So in terms of MBTI, there is an S/N "divide". Sure, Se & Si are different, very different in many ways, but they still share a preference for perceiving "what exists".

I think it's telling that it's always the N/S dichotomy that gets this treatment, and never really any of the others (in fact, all of those sordid Fe/Fi "I hate you" threads would have us think that there are HUGE differences even within one dichotomy. I guess that doesn't apply to Se, Si, Ne, Ni?)

Nope, I see it discussed a lot with the T/F & I/E dichotomies. No one gets pissy about it because it's a simple observation. And yes it definitely has been noted with Fe/Fi - communication style differences have been acknowledged and discussed in great detail in those threads. I have been a part of these discussions. It has been an explicit subject in them.

 

[Anew Leaf]

What "style?" Somebody always claims that there's this monolithic S style of communication, but I have yet to hear it explained in any way that can't be better explained by some other factor.



The only communication style differences that are legitimate are explained by the interaction styles (directing/informing, CtC, GtG, IC, BtS.)



It isn't about being politically correct. It's about a misapplication of MBTI. How do you *know* that whatever pattern of difference you're detecting is due to the difference between S and N? Doesn't it make more sense, if we're going to try and interpret this kind of shit through the lens of MBTI, to say that the difference is due to functions and function orders rather than S/N? What is this fundamental Sness and Nness that exists after all the differences between Si, Ni, Ne, Se, and the orders in which they appear in each type, are accounted for? Not to mention all of the judging functions...

I think it's telling that it's always the N/S dichotomy that gets this treatment, and never really any of the others (in fact, all of those sordid Fe/Fi "I hate you" threads would have us think that there are HUGE differences even within one dichotomy. I guess that doesn't apply to Se, Si, Ne, Ni?)

It does apply. The issue is that there is a giant difference between communication between an Ne-dom/aux and an Ne-tert/inf. The tool of Ne (in this case) is used in a different way by each position. There is more similarly between Ne and Ni than there is between Ne and Se or Ne and Si.

 

[Orangey]

Well this illustrates it perfectly. You want some fact or data, and I'm telling you I'm aware of invisible patterns that can't be measured in some concrete way.

Um, reread what I said.... I said style in a "loose sense". I said that with the purpose of denoting there is not some "monolithic" style.

Isn't saying that there is an S style in direct contradiction to saying that there is no monolithic S style? If it's not monolithic, then there is no uniformity among S communicators. And if there's no uniformity, then there is no S style to speak of.

If sensing means a preference for focusing on tangible information and facts and intuition means a focus on intangible possibilities & relations between things, and that this affects thinking and personality, then why shouldn't it affect aspects of communication?

First of all, these are very crude definitions. Second, they do affect communication, but not taken in isolation. That's why you could expect to see different types of communication difficulties cropping up between different types, even within the same temperament, and I doubt that these difficulties could be sensibly organized along dichotomy lines. I think they could, however, possibly be organized along functional lines (that is, for instance, Ti-Fe/Te-Fi, or Se-Ti/Si-Te, etc.,)

People note these all the time on this board too... Few get offended at the notion that Feeling types might prefer more sensitive styles, etc.

You've got to be kidding. The Fs on this board always raise some hell about how they're not all sensitive dandies, how they can handle (and even prefer) up-front communication or "blunt" styles, how they can think just as logically as Ts.

I don't see why the S/N difference should be so offensive to people. I think it's because Ss are taking it as some slight against them, as if people are saying they're inferior or less interesting.

Imagine that! That would never happen here! Especially not when people are positing the existence of "invisible patterns" that make N/N communication easier than N/S communication without regard or consideration for any other possible (and, in fact, more probable) explanatory factor!

S & N ARE functions. There are 4 functions: sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking.

No, Se, Si, Ne, and Ni are functions. S and N are just placeholders that people made up in order to make the easier, cruder dichotomy-based tests.

Nope, I see it discussed a lot with the T/F & I/E dichotomies. No one gets pissy about it because it's a simple observation. And yes it definitely has been noted with Fe/Fi - communication style differences have been acknowledged and discussed in great detail in those threads. I have been a part of these discussions. It has been an explicit subject in them.

People do get pissy about them, especially the T/F ones (and rightly so, I think, since people say almost equally stupid things about the T/F dichotomy as they do about S/N.) I don't think people get pissy enough about the I/E one, though, since it IS often insinuated that Es are less intelligent than Is (and why wouldn't they, really? I mean, it is an old ass trope in our culture to assume the loud E is dumber than the introspective I.) But that's always mitigated by...guess what...the presence of N! If it's an ENxx, that's slightly better than being an ESxx, because the N makes up for the E.

 

[Orangey]

It does apply. The issue is that there is a giant difference between communication between an Ne-dom/aux and an Ne-tert/inf. The tool of Ne (in this case) is used in a different way by each position. There is more similarly between Ne and Ni than there is between Ne and Se or Ne and Si.

That's not true. Where do you even get that? Plus, wouldn't a dom Ne have more in common with a tert Ne than with a dom Ni? You know, since it's, like, the same function and shit?

 

[Poki]

MBTI tests according to these dichotomies also. So in terms of MBTI, there is an S/N "divide". Sure, Se & Si are different, very different in many ways, but they still share a preference for perceiving "what exists".

I have the hardest time talking to dom Si actually. Its easier for me to follow the spastic Ne patterns, then it is for me to engage in the SiFi style of communication. SiFi doesnt lead well to TiNi nor does it to Se. I am sitting in my mind thinking the whole time...I am bored, I would rather do then talk about this stuff. I want hands on. Fi style of communication I dont seem to get bored with. I can listen to communication that is lead with Fi style easily as well as Ni style as I dont get into the "lets do it"...ok...well..."lets do it" as in what the other person is talking to...get a little to Fi with me and you will have the attention of both "heads"

Ne dom in a semi spastic state I can follow. My son does this and we go off in so many different directions. Its easy as I dont have a Te style of thought which categorizes/organizes or has a linear thought pattern. My thought pattern is more spastic and pattern based which is the reason I can follow the "axiom" patterns in a spastic direction. To me its mental multitasking as I can hear whats actually said while I play with the "axiom" of things and hold 2 conversations at once...one being serious while the other being jokingly.

I dont focus on "what" to say when I talk to people, nor do I focus on "men" vs "women" when I converse with men and women. I really dont put much thought into the "communication" style of people when it comes to "what to do, what not to do", I care more about "who the person is, what bothers them, etc." I dont generally attempt to read into what people say and believe what I read. I do tend to build "philosophical" things based off of interactions and I tend to follow the axioms of conversations, not the details. Axioms are more high level understanding. Its not "I understand the details", but more "I understand the concept" which goes against me even being S in the first place. But when you look at my "functions" I introvert N, not S. So even being an S I tend to communicate better with "concepts" then "details".

 

[Anew Leaf]

That's not true. Where do you even get that? Plus, wouldn't a dom Ne have more in common with a tert Ne than with a dom Ni? You know, since it's, like, the same function and shit?

No they wouldn't. I am very Ne and there is a big difference in the interactions I have with people who are ne-Dom versus ne-tert/inf.

At work I have two infjs, esfj, esfp, and enfp. I notice a difference in my interactions along the s-n divide. The esfj has ne obviously but the way she uses it is vastly different from the way I use it or the enfp uses it. We frequently are not on the same page which is very frustrating for both of us at times. Whereas the infjs and I understand each other on many levels and can communicate in short hand to get points across.

I'm not saying n or s are better. I'm just saying they ARE different.

You have clearly noticed that lots of ns make this argument and you think it's bullshit. Well just because you can't relate doesn't mean it isn't valid. Your arguments remind me of male doctors saying female pms was all in their head.

 

[Manifold]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]: I wonder that no one has referenced this yet. I will leave a brief piece of info now - posting from my phone - and come back later to expound when I can get to an actual computer. In Please Understand Me II by David Keirsey, in the second chapter entitled "Temperament and Character," under a subsection called "The Basic Dimensions of Personality," Keirsey goes about defining the N vs. S differences as "Abstract versus Concrete Word Usage." Disagree with him all you want, but if you want a source beyond the individual, subjective opinions of posters here, I provide you with Keirsey. As I said, I will expound later today with quotes.

 

[Orangey]

No they wouldn't. I am very Ne and there is a big difference in the interactions I have with people who are ne-Dom versus ne-tert/inf.

At work I have two infjs, esfj, esfp, and enfp. I notice a difference in my interactions along the s-n divide. The esfj has ne obviously but the way she uses it is vastly different from the way I use it or the enfp uses it. We frequently are not on the same page which is very frustrating for both of us at times. Whereas the infjs and I understand each other on many levels and can communicate in short hand to get points across.

Great. First of all, we don't even know if these people are typed correctly. Second, even if they were, there could be a thousand and one OTHER reasons why you're always on the "same page" as one person and not the others. Third, the implication of this is that Ss should be on the same page by virtue of being S (because otherwise, you'd have to admit that "being on the same page" is not due to S/N), and guess what? That's definitely not true, not for me, not for any other S that I know (in fact, it seems that the ISFJ that I know is almost incapable of having conversation with the ESFP that I know...what does that mean? Does that mean I should abstract and generalize from this instance to say that Si and Se have more communication problems than Se/Ne/Ni?)

I'm not saying n or s are better. I'm just saying they ARE different.

Go ahead and say how they're different, exactly, and I betcha it will ultimately turn into a value problem - whether you intend it to be that way or not.

You have clearly noticed that lots of ns make this argument and you think it's bullshit. Well just because you can't relate doesn't mean it isn't valid. Your arguments remind me of male doctors saying female pms was all in their head.

Yeah, except you're ignoring the power differential and trivializing that kind of sexism by comparing it to this.

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]: I wonder that no one has referenced this yet. I will leave a brief piece of info now - posting from my phone - and come back later to expound when I can get to an actual computer. In Please Understand Me II by David Keirsey, in the second chapter entitled "Temperament and Character," under a subsection called "The Basic Dimensions of Personality," Keirsey goes about defining the N vs. S differences as "Abstract versus Concrete Word Usage." Disagree with him all you want, but if you want a source beyond the individual, subjective opinions of posters here, I provide you with Keirsey. As I said, I will expound later today with quotes.

Yeah, well, Keirsey also says that SPs are basically like animals, so...

Keirsey is the fucking worst.

You know, this thread (and others like it) are like the scourge of the Earth, and clearly they will never die or go away, so I don't know why the fuck I bother with this bullshit.

 

[Jaguar]

INFP #1:

War is Beautiful

And it's beautiful because in the wake of its destruction it leaves an intelligent imprint in time where humanity rebuilds things differently and better than before and tries to improve society.

INFP #2:

Since when are murder, destruction, death, and chaos considered to be beautiful (if your not a psychopath)?

INFP #1:

It's utterly amazing that people don't seem to know how to read the posts before they decide to make themselves look like complete idiots and it was my mistake for thinking people are capable of being more than one-dimensional about an idea I had, where the beauty was my enjoyment of the idea and what it could mean and not some psychopathic or sociopathic desire to destroy other beings.

For those completely sheltered that are incapable of at least understanding some philosophy of human aggression and force, I want to say "YOU ARE ALL RIGHT. I SEE THE LIGHT. WE SHOULD HOLD HANDS AND SING KOOMBAYA NOW. LET'S MAKE LOVE TOO. LOVE AND PEACE BABY."

And for you simpletons that feel the need to add insult to injury and seem completely unable to ever give a person the benefit of the doubt, I hate you and the vile confrontational and deriding atmosphere that you habitually foster in this forum.

Now Please die

It's so cute when N's see eye to eye. It's an N thing, baby. It's an N thing.

 

[Poki]

We would all agree it is to an extent, but not to the extent that others make it seem.

I also question whether people project there tpe onto others and see Ns when the other person isnt an N. Also when an S interacts with an N so much they seem N. Or...

 

[skylights]

What "style?" Somebody always claims that there's this monolithic S style of communication, but I have yet to hear it explained in any way that can't be better explained by some other factor.

An ESFJ friend and I, prior to any talk whatsoever of MBTI type, had a discussion about how much more present-focused and concentrating on what is he is than I am - I have a tendency to let my thoughts drift in timeless space and to focus on things that never have been or probably never will be.

He tends to speak about what is going on in life using tangibles. He speaks of the variety of housing options he is currently looking at, his step-by-step plans to move into his career, the distinct places he wants to travel to in the near future and the far future. He talks about the things he needs to do and the things he wants to do and how he is going to do these things. He talks about his relationships with other people, and how his friends are doing. The articles he has read lately, politics, social change. He relates many experiences from his childhood. He enjoys reading fantasy especially for the aesthetic experience of fictional places. He is witty and engages in near-constant wordplay. He is warm and encouraging. He is adventurous and enthusiastic.

When I speak, I tend to talk about sweeping atmospheres, nuances, energies. I tend to speak about theoretical balance and parallelism in systems. About people's motivations and desires. About the significance of the things I want to do and why I want to do them. About relationships with other people, about how people influence one another and how their personalities affect their life paths. Patterns in social change. Relating to other paradigms of thought. I enjoy reading fantasy for the "atmospheres" of fictional places. I am witty, warm, encouraging, adventurous, enthusiastic.

We are very similar people. We have similar values, goals, and interests. Perhaps it is because of this overlap that it is clear to see the S-N divide between us. Now, of course, this is also going to be impacted by his J - he is more task-oriented, more active in the real world, more desiring of closure. And it's going to be influenced by our upbringing (his more traditional than mine), by the communication styles of our parents (I am unsure of his, but I was raised by an ESFJ and INTP), by the areas we were raised in (similar), and numerous other factors, but the theory holds.

I don't understand why you are so in denial that S and N have a tangible presence in people. If you think S is misrepresented, tell us how. All I hear is you going on and on about bias and refuting arguments without any decent information of your own to share.

I do agree that there is a lot of N bullshit on the internet. The point of this conversation is to differentiate between what is conjecture and what is reality, and address what is reality. And it's true what [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] pointed out, that you seem to be a case in point. Of course the theory is never going to match up perfectly with what we experience in real life. It is but a theory. We use theories because they make life easier to understand and address; in this case, S and N are theoretical descriptors to help us understand one another, much like the messy definitions of "male" and "female". Or "young" and "old". Or even "tall" and "short". None are reality. All are conceptual. And all are accepted as shortcuts to understanding, so that we are not lost at sea amongst a million different ways of viewing and expressing the world. Until you are willing to relinquish all use of conceptual language - in fact, all language, because language itself is mere symbology - your argument as it stands has little place here. You have clarified nothing. You have enlightened no one. You have only broadcast resentment and deified discord.

You know, this thread (and others like it) are like the scourge of the Earth, and clearly they will never die or go away, so I don't know why the fuck I bother with this bullshit.

Nor do I. Why don't you just leave?

As for scourge of the Earth, if your goal has been to defile my thread with spiteful argument and lack of productive or positive conversation, I think you are well on your way to fulfilling your own prophecy and destroying what I hoped to be a unifying and enlightening conversation.

The irony is that you are giving your own type a bad name, despite your supposed attempt to promote equality. Are you trying to imply via your behavior that Ss should be thought of as ornery, fit-throwing children?

My thought pattern is more spastic and pattern based which is the reason I can follow the "axiom" patterns in a spastic direction. [...] But when you look at my "functions" I introvert N, not S. So even being an S I tend to communicate better with "concepts" then "details".

Actually, this is not surprising, given that you have dom (even if weak) Se. Se, like Ne, is a holistic, big picture function. It does not deal in concrete detail but concrete environment.

 

[Orangey]

I don't understand why you are so in denial that S and N have a tangible presence in people. If you think S is misrepresented, tell us how. All I hear is you going on and on about bias and refuting arguments without any decent information of your own to share.

Have you read your own thread? Look at this, for starters (and this isn't even all of them):

some things just need a little more explanation than for an intuitive

I can't deny how hard it is to bring myself into a sensory awareness... details, especially the obvious ones that humours the S, annoy me. I feel like if I take things too seriously, it sucks the fun out of life.

But yeah, S seems boring and I get a feeling they think I am crazy and useless/impractical.

I would be lying though if I said I wasn't more satisfied with a N-N conversation though (despite the occasional exception)

S's seem to have a less messy outlook on life (ie more straightforward) that i looooooove. i also have a few S friends and it's refreshing sometimes to just talk abt clothes...or food...tht kinda thing. but not for as long as they might wanna

Well you could see it like that too, but if you think it as S brains processing details instead of big picture, so there wont be no big picture perception most the time at all, so its not really a sacrifice thats being made, its just that S brains are wired to process detail, so is it an sacrifice anymore or just a different path on early development?

But if you think it in terms of personal development, like some S person in his 20's noticing that he needs to start paying more attention to big picture, then he has to sacrifice details for big picture. But if its about single thought being processed, then i dont see any sacrifice, but a preference.

I will say most of my deep connections come from illustrious conversations with N's, but there is no denying the absolute rich instinct of an S's ability to live in the moment, uninhibited by imaginary doubt. Even ISFP's, with their Introverted-Perceiving attributes, still react heavily on their senses and are often known to be very good athletes. Sensors live a "practical" life and are more comfortable manipulating constituents than the big idea itself. So they certainly live closer to their word than we Intuitives do.

Any time people start to apply this crap dichotomy to concrete examples, it turns into this kind of nonsense. Why, you ask? It's not because these people are trying to hate on Ss (in fact, it seems that a lot of supposedly S stuff is often being passed off as a good or desirable trait, if these types of proclamations are sincere)...it's 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!"

I do agree that there is a lot of N bullshit on the internet. The point of this conversation is to differentiate between what is conjecture and what is reality, and address what is reality.

My point is that talking about Ns and Ss in sweeping generalities is ALWAYS wrong, because it's never an accurate depiction of the differences between types.

And it's true what [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] pointed out, that you seem to be a case in point. Of course the theory is never going to match up perfectly with what we experience in real life. It is but a theory. We use theories because they make life easier to understand and address; in this case, S and N are theoretical descriptors to help us understand one another, much like the messy definitions of "male" and "female". Or "young" and "old". Or even "tall" and "short". None are reality. All are conceptual. And all are accepted as shortcuts to understanding, so that we are not lost at sea amongst a million different ways of viewing and expressing the world. Until you are willing to relinquish all use of conceptual language - in fact, all language, because language itself is mere symbology - your argument as it stands has little place here. You have clarified nothing. You have enlightened no one. You have only broadcast resentment and deified discord.

You're now turning this into a type issue because I have ISTP listed by my avatar. Who ever said that "conceptual language" is bad because it's conceptual language? I'm saying that a particular concept is wrong, and am complaining about how that wrongness gets perpetuated in threads like these.

Nor do I. Why don't you just leave?

Because I don't feel like it just yet.

As for scourge of the Earth, if your goal has been to defile my thread with spiteful argument and lack of productive or positive conversation, I think you are well on your way to fulfilling your own prophecy and destroying what I hoped to be a unifying and enlightening conversation.

Fulfilling my own prophecy? I'm not aware that I prophesied anything. Or are you trying to say that because you're disagreeing with me and don't like the way I've been confrontational in this thread, and you list yourself as N while I list myself as S, that this MUST confirm that Ss and Ns have communication problems? If that's what you're trying to say here, then MY point that the way people are approaching this subject is nothing more than confirmation bias is true.

The irony is that you are giving your own type a bad name, despite your supposed attempt to promote equality. Are you trying to imply via your behavior that Ss should be thought of as ornery, fit-throwing children?

Oh, I didn't know that I was supposed to modulate my behavior in order to better represent Ss to self-proclaimed Ns, to further my goal of "promot[ing] equality," which was never my aim. I am simply trying to promote accuracy, but even if I were "trying to promote equality" between Ss and Ns, whatever that means, I like how you claim that it's incumbent upon me as an S to prove to you as an N that we are indeed equal. And apparently because you think I'm a badly behaved S, that means, to you, that Ss are indeed not equal. It's 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.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Isn't saying that there is an S style in direct contradiction to saying that there is no monolithic S style? If it's not monolithic, then there is no uniformity among S communicators. And if there's no uniformity, then there is no S style to speak of.

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.

First of all, these are very crude definitions. Second, they do affect communication, but not taken in isolation. That's why you could expect to see different types of communication difficulties cropping up between different types, even within the same temperament, and I doubt that these difficulties could be sensibly organized along dichotomy lines. I think they could, however, possibly be organized along functional lines (that is, for instance, Ti-Fe/Te-Fi, or Se-Ti/Si-Te, etc.,)

No, Se, Si, Ne, and Ni are functions. S and N are just placeholders that people made up in order to make the easier, cruder dichotomy-based tests.

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.

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 also not addressing any of my points with an actual counter argument. You're just kicking & screaming & crying, "That's not real".

You've got to be kidding. The Fs on this board always raise some hell about how they're not all sensitive dandies, how they can handle (and even prefer) up-front communication or "blunt" styles, how they can think just as logically as Ts.

People do get pissy about them, especially the T/F ones (and rightly so, I think, since people say almost equally stupid things about the T/F dichotomy as they do about S/N.) I don't think people get pissy enough about the I/E one, though, since it IS often insinuated that Es are less intelligent than Is (and why wouldn't they, really? I mean, it is an old ass trope in our culture to assume the loud E is dumber than the introspective I.) But that's always mitigated by...guess what...the presence of N! If it's an ENxx, that's slightly better than being an ESxx, because the N makes up for the E

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.

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?

Imagine that! That would never happen here! Especially not when people are positing the existence of "invisible patterns" that make N/N communication easier than N/S communication without regard or consideration for any other possible (and, in fact, more probable) explanatory factor!

What are these "more probable" factors? 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.

I have the hardest time talking to dom Si actually. Its easier for me to follow the spastic Ne patterns, then it is for me to engage in the SiFi style of communication. SiFi doesnt lead well to TiNi nor does it to Se. I am sitting in my mind thinking the whole time...I am bored, I would rather do then talk about this stuff. I want hands on. Fi style of communication I dont seem to get bored with. I can listen to communication that is lead with Fi style easily as well as Ni style as I dont get into the "lets do it"...ok...well..."lets do it" as in what the other person is talking to...get a little to Fi with me and you will have the attention of both "heads"

Ne dom in a semi spastic state I can follow. My son does this and we go off in so many different directions. Its easy as I dont have a Te style of thought which categorizes/organizes or has a linear thought pattern. My thought pattern is more spastic and pattern based which is the reason I can follow the "axiom" patterns in a spastic direction. To me its mental multitasking as I can hear whats actually said while I play with the "axiom" of things and hold 2 conversations at once...one being serious while the other being jokingly.

I dont focus on "what" to say when I talk to people, nor do I focus on "men" vs "women" when I converse with men and women. I really dont put much thought into the "communication" style of people when it comes to "what to do, what not to do", I care more about "who the person is, what bothers them, etc." I dont generally attempt to read into what people say and believe what I read. I do tend to build "philosophical" things based off of interactions and I tend to follow the axioms of conversations, not the details. Axioms are more high level understanding. Its not "I understand the details", but more "I understand the concept" which goes against me even being S in the first place. But when you look at my "functions" I introvert N, not S. So even being an S I tend to communicate better with "concepts" then "details".

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.

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".