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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That essentiall means everything is a communication issue has to do with N/S as N/S = Smart/Stupid. Its simple math.
