How do you tell if someone is N or S?

[SilkRoad]

Thanks for all the input so far, guys. I'm too tired to get into whether or not I agree with specific points. But please keep it coming if you're so inclined.

A thought; when friends pull out their phones and start enthusiastically showing me colour samples for their carpets or how the new paint on the wall contrasts with the old paint - I mean, really getting into detail about it, while I nod and smile and ask polite questions - I tend to lean towards thinking that they are Sensors. But I could be wrong.

 

[skylights]

^ Haha I am totally that person with the paint and the carpet and the colors. I LOVE COLORS. I collect paint sample cards.

 

[SilkRoad]

^ Haha I am totally that person with the paint and the carpet and the colors. I LOVE COLORS. I collect paint sample cards.

Hmm...well, that might put paid to that theory then. It was just a theory. I'm sure SOME of the people who do that are Sensors.

I'm not into the whole colour samples thing, at all...in fact, I wish I was a little less clueless about stuff like interior decorating. But I like watching people who are enthused about things, even if it's not what I'm enthused about, so it's all good

 

[Starry]

Ne also has characteristic telltale signs when it's being used.

This may be true...but what I notice most often on this site (and other personality sites) is merely if the individual is 'quirky' or 'idiosyncratic' or 'talks about crazy/silly things'...it's like 'Zomg! You're such an Ne dom!' <--- And that's just not how it works (or at least in my mind that is not the best way to ascertain Ne in the dom or aux position).

 

[skylights]

Hmm...well, that might put paid to that theory then. It was just a theory. I'm sure SOME of the people who do that are Sensors.

I'm not into the whole colour samples thing, at all...in fact, I wish I was a little less clueless about stuff like interior decorating. But I like watching people who are enthused about things, even if it's not what I'm enthused about, so it's all good

I'm sure some of them are Sensors too! Sorry to knock your theory off the bat... ... my friends and family have always made a good bit of fun of me about that, though...

 

[gromit]

I think it is hard to tell unless they are more extreme toward one or the other. A lot of people are pretty balanced. And if a person is pretty balanced, does it matter if they are slightly S or slightly N? Probably not.

 

[The Iron Giant]

So what do you look for when determining if someone is an Si user or Ni user (possibly stupid question but I don't care)? It's an introverted function and both are, as you put it 'abstract perceiving functions,' so it's not as apparent as their extroverted counter parts.

Not a stupid question at all, but not one with an easy answer. I find it easiest to tell under stress. Ni users at their worst can have this kind of chaotic catastrophizing about their thoughts, it's like this "everything could go wrong in all these absurd ways" and it can be hard for me to understand where they get those things from. I mean, I'm a six. I understand what it's like to worry about stuff and think it could go wrong (and to want to be prepared). But I like to think my views on what could go wrong are kind of realistic...ish. I guess it's like so many other typology related things: it's easiest to tell on the outside what we are when we're at our most vulnerable. I will say that I think it's easy to confuse Ni and Si doms, and I think it's easy for them to confuse themselves. They're outwardly very close, and the inward processes are poorly described in most texts that I've seen.

 

[The Iron Giant]

^ Haha I am totally that person with the paint and the carpet and the colors. I LOVE COLORS. I collect paint sample cards.

LOL! And by contrast, even though I studied advertising for years, have a good grasp of color theory, and even at one time considered myself an aspiring artist, I rarely think about anything color-related in my environment, shy of "oh no my daughter spilled chocolate almond milk on the carpet."

 

[The Iron Giant]

Here is where I begin to disagree. On the one hand, I agree that it can be difficult. As [MENTION=5418]Lady X[/MENTION] said, it can be especially hard with balanced types. However, I think there are a combination of techniques you can apply. Rather than say someone is an S or N, I tend to focus on either a temperament (NF, NT, SJ, SP) with some combination of looking at functions and how a person is communicating (orally or in writing) to make a guess. Sometimes you can just tell someone is an SJ or an SP. It's obvious. I have generally found that the most effective way to guess a person's type is by looking at functions. Once you get to know someone, it can appear that they consistently seem to use Si, for example. A lot of times, you can tell people who seem to prefer Fe over Fi. Te can also be extremely obvious as can the line of thinking a person who prefers Ti is using. Ne also has characteristic telltale signs when it's being used. So by pulling the clues together, you can come up with a guess. For me personally, Ni is the hardest one to tell.

I agree to an extent about the temperaments, but I think they're grouped wrong. I often think that NT and NF should be traded out for NP and NJ, to isolate Ni and Ne users the way Si and Se users are with SP and SJ. If we're going to boil it down the way Keirsey wanted to, I think we should stick with the perceiving function being consistent. But then, there's the whole issue of introversion and extraversion... man I can't stand Keirsey.

 

[Eric B]

Keirsey doesn't believe in the functions, so that's moot with him. (There's a person named Janet Germane who supports the NP and NJ groups. Those are actually part of the Interaction Styles when factored with E/I, as are ST/SF).
Keirsey's temperaments are simply those that match Plato's four kinds of men, and indirectly through those, the classic temperaments.

(BTW, I can tall an N when they can have a conversation with me about deeply conceptual stuff like this. I've always had problems striking up good discussions with S's).

 

[SilkRoad]

I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.

 

[The Iron Giant]

I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.

I think a lot of function theory bears this out, too, to some extent. Jung's description of the extraverted intuitive type leans heavily on a kind of addiction to novelty. In his eyes, Ne doms love to see and do new things, and lose interest quickly because those things stop being new too quickly for their tastes. He describes Se doms as loving to see and do pleasurable things, meaning there's less of an interest in whether those things are new, as long as they feel good (either they're comforting, or they're exciting, or they taste good if it's food, etc). Then he describes Si doms as living in a magical world, detached from reality and hardly able to connect with the object. Of course, Jung's descriptions all are of the abnormal, so they're extremes of these types, which we might call unhealthy. Also, this doesn't speak to the rational types, as their perceiving functions are auxiliary.

 

[The Iron Giant]

Keirsey doesn't believe in the functions, so that's moot with him. (There's a person named Janet Germane who supports the NP and NJ groups. Those are actually part of the Interaction Styles when factored with E/I, as are ST/SF).
Keirsey's temperaments are simply those that match Plato's four kinds of men, and indirectly through those, the classic temperaments.

I don't think it is moot. Keirsey built his ideas on Jung's, and shares the labeling system with MBTI. That invites comparison and criticism, particularly when his system groups types in ways that violates those systems. I can accept that his perspective on these differs from theirs, but he could have gone without calling his guardians "SJs" and his rationals "NTs." The latter annoys me doubly so because the term "rational" was taken in typology (by Jung) as well, and conflicts with his definition.

(BTW, I can tall an N when they can have a conversation with me about deeply conceptual stuff like this. I've always had problems striking up good discussions with S's).

As an S, I might give you mixed results. It depends what you're talking about. If it's something I've covered in the past and don't have an interest in, I won't really want to talk about it unless we're good friends and I see it as a kind of "let's compare notes" thing. If it's totally new, I probably will find it very interesting. If it's something I'm really interested in, like typology, psychology, philosophy and such, I'll enjoy it a lot. If it's something totally ridiculous that sounds like you're pulling my leg, I will instinctively want to leave the conversation.

 

[the state i am in]

I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.

it's less about the thingness. not so much concrete or abstract things, when all things can be treated as concrete or abstract. because to some extent, all things must be both, because they do take on relatively consistent experience that is based both on immediately tangible experience and those aspects of experience that are less discrete and more based on a larger pattern where the individual tangible features start to only be predictive of what the thing might be (and being comfortable feeling this predictiveness in statues of continual flux).

so what i'm saying is that it's not whether you talk about concrete or abstract things as much as it is the WAY you talk about things in general. it's a way of rendering your experience. how much you can live in a virtual space (either internally or externally) made by synthesizing patterns, through analogy, rather than treating things as if they simply were a list of features and effects that was itself unchangeable and discrete.

in an awake, alert mind, all parts of the mind work simultaneously in all individuals. but a well-placed floodlight or two makes a world of difference in your ability to be at home in a place and truly thrive. and signifies a massive investment strategy for how you will be responsive and adaptable to a world that requires you to constantly learn.

 

[Eric B]

I don't think it is moot. Keirsey built his ideas on Jung's, and shares the labeling system with MBTI. That invites comparison and criticism, particularly when his system groups types in ways that violates those systems. I can accept that his perspective on these differs from theirs, but he could have gone without calling his guardians "SJs" and his rationals "NTs." The latter annoys me doubly so because the term "rational" was taken in typology (by Jung) as well, and conflicts with his definition.

Well, he's certainly fixed that in his latest book. He's dropped all the letters (only mentioning them briefly in his "history of personality" in the beginning), and anything even corresponding to E/I altogether!

As an S, I might give you mixed results. It depends what you're talking about. If it's something I've covered in the past and don't have an interest in, I won't really want to talk about it unless we're good friends and I see it as a kind of "let's compare notes" thing. If it's totally new, I probably will find it very interesting. If it's something I'm really interested in, like typology, psychology, philosophy and such, I'll enjoy it a lot. If it's something totally ridiculous that sounds like you're pulling my leg, I will instinctively want to leave the conversation.

I guess that's it. I find that the SJ's I've known seem to be more "let's compare notes", and most of them aren't interested in the same things I am. Even if you did find something interesting, it would probably be overkill the way I break it down and go on and on about it.

 

[Kalach]

Probably if you're going to tell if someone else is something, the first thing you do is recognise what you look for. You'll hear and attend to those signs of cognition you prefer, and be stymied by their absence. I, for instance, can hear Ni in ESPs. Beyond that, you might do well to note how your own cognition messes with the applicability and meaning of whatever we have left of Jung's models. It's not like you can do any typing of your own if you haven't decided what is and isn't true, right? Then at some later point we might try identifying the patterns underlying another person's cognition. The usual party trick is to show someone some abstract art and ask what they see. Ns make up stories; Ss list detail.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

so what i'm saying is that it's not whether you talk about concrete or abstract things as much as it is the WAY you talk about things in general. it's a way of rendering your experience. how much you can live in a virtual space (either internally or externally) made by synthesizing patterns, through analogy, rather than treating things as if they simply were a list of features and effects that was itself unchangeable and discrete.

in an awake, alert mind, all parts of the mind work simultaneously in all individuals. but a well-placed floodlight or two makes a world of difference in your ability to be at home in a place and truly thrive. and signifies a massive investment strategy for how you will be responsive and adaptable to a world that requires you to constantly learn.

Yeah, it kind of just stands out when someone's attention is engaged by the same kind of details. It's almost like having a similar range of vision to certain degrees of light (if there were different 'types' of vision of the electromagnetic spectrum)- there will be a reaction in some people to certain degrees of light that other people will either barely notice or won't notice at all; and those with similar preferences have more understandable reactions. Though I think there's something comforting about being around those who seem to understand that which is less perceptible, because it helps make sense of that which seems vague- still *something* seems kinda clear when people see things in the same light.