User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 12

  1. #1
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default N vs. S is relative to experience.

    This is going to be a philosophical topic. The simple standard explanation of S vs. N is details vs. ideas. The problem with this is that everything is conceptual. Everything is an idea. Everything is a social construct. Whatever gets into your head or whatever your brain or consciousness detects is filtered into this human programming of how reality is. When you are observing an apple, you are connecting dots of your own. Technically, an apple is no more than just a collection of atoms as everything else is. It exists because the environment and the laws of nature allows it to exist. We don't "see" those physical inter-relationships between the apple, the atmosphere, the ecosystem, and the 4 forces of nature. We're limited to an organ that depends on our detection of electromagnetic radiation---light, and then our internal "software" rearranges the input into a seemingly distinct 3 dimensional shape in front of us. Mathematics and science is our attempt at interpreting this reality more accurately, but they are also interpretations. (Granted enormously better than any other way.)

    So what really is S vs. N? It's relative. It's relative to experience. The more "experienced" a person is with an object the more "S" it is to that person. For example, someone who has never seen an apple will treat that apple as "N". Someone who has seen multiple apples, will treat that apple as "S." This is why, if you prefer N, cultures can seem interesting from the outside but boring from the inside. Because if you already belong to a culture, it is experienced already for you. This is why "abstract" concepts like "Justice" and "Freedom" are more "N." Because they are "less experienced." The idea of "Justice" can take any form, and it is impossible to really define the parameters of what 'justice' or 'freedom' is. There is more to experience about "Justice" in order to really be experienced with "Justice." There are also many interpretations and it becomes a blob of vagueness. Whereas more physical things like a bike are more "S" because they are more experienced. Abstract concepts can be "S" too if they are more experienced and less inclusive of interpretations. The concept of "Freedom" can mean something very exclusive and experienced for a person.

    thoughts?
    A search for truth is a search for a greedy perspective.

    Nah, that's not truth. That's just your bullshit ideas of truth. Truth is always inclusive. If it's not inclusive, then toughen it up and try harder.
    Likes Such Irony liked this post

  2. #2
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Yeah, probably. This appeals to me because it is like what I have already seen about S and N, and as an S this is what I compare it to. Ns deal with the new stimulus, Ss deal better with repeated exposure.

    More detail could be explored regarding what makes S/N better to deal with each of these, based on their fundamental mechanisms. And perhaps a comparison of introverted/extroverted forms.

  3. #3
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Oh nice, a reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Yeah, probably. This appeals to me because it is like what I have already seen about S and N, and as an S this is what I compare it to. Ns deal with the new stimulus, Ss deal better with repeated exposure.
    You're an S? Then I hope my description doesn't look too biased.

    It definitely is about new/old stimulus. But it gets a bit complicated. What exactly counts as a "new" stimulus? Isn't every stimulus a "new" stimulus? I mean if you saw a white sheet of paper 30 seconds ago, and then proceed to observe another sheet of paper right now, would that be "new" or "old"? Even if it's the same object, it still within a different context, at least a different time context. My intuition prefers "more/less experience" because it's about the degree of same-ness or new-ness, and not solely 'new' or 'same.' Also, the context and the perspective of the person viewing this "white sheet of paper" plays a tremendous role in determining whether this is a a new or old stimulus. A person who just experienced the tremendous shock of having lost a loved one would look at the possessions of this loved one in a drastically different way, (though not that drastic of a change of view as compared to a philosopher obtaining a new perspective about life.)

    More detail could be explored regarding what makes S/N better to deal with each of these, based on their fundamental mechanisms. And perhaps a comparison of introverted/extroverted forms.
    Maybe there's an order between perception functions where one deals with more or less experience or stimuli. I mean Se is about perceiving an object whereas Si is about recalling that object. There's a difference in how more or less experienced it is. One is limited to a set of information where the other is still receiving information.
    A search for truth is a search for a greedy perspective.

    Nah, that's not truth. That's just your bullshit ideas of truth. Truth is always inclusive. If it's not inclusive, then toughen it up and try harder.

  4. #4
    good, hot, fresh, fly ~ laterlazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    592 sp
    Posts
    510

    Default

    I see what you're saying but I'm not sure that's entirely it. An N can still be in a situation or experience they've been in multiple times but could suddenly become intrigued by what they know so well too. There's the aspect of you can never really completely know one thing. If they now see that apple multiple times from multiple angles do they know the apple so well now that it expresses 'S'? Not necessarily, maybe they want to cut into the apple and look at more, maybe they wonder about putting the apple back together when it's all cut to pieces, wonder about the apple's relation to things around it. The element of wonder doesn't just disappear because you've gotten experience of one thing, there's always still so much to be curious about. What does the S do? The S sees this apple, in all of it's glory, learns about the apple and it's angles, sees you can cut the apple, and you can eat it all same as the N, understands that the apple is good for eating and doesn't find it necessary to delve into more information about that apple, doesn't mean they might not be curious, but their curiosity is less of a priority than the use. Soz to the max if that was unreadable. Either way I think the difference between both isn't all too simple to explain although we'd like it to be.
    Likes Craft, Such Irony liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    409

    Default

    Observing myself communicating in conversations when I am trying to get a point across I cross reference multiple contexts and place the same point I am trying to get across in various "terms" hoping the other person will understand. I see this is a result of having Ne as my dominant process.

    (Ne) - "Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change "what is" for "what could possibly be"; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking." - Linda V. Berens

  6. #6
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laterlazer View Post
    I see what you're saying but I'm not sure that's entirely it. An N can still be in a situation or experience they've been in multiple times but could suddenly become intrigued by what they know so well too. There's the aspect of you can never really completely know one thing. If they now see that apple multiple times from multiple angles do they know the apple so well now that it expresses 'S'? Not necessarily, maybe they want to cut into the apple and look at more, maybe they wonder about putting the apple back together when it's all cut to pieces, wonder about the apple's relation to things around it. The element of wonder doesn't just disappear because you've gotten experience of one thing, there's always still so much to be curious about. What does the S do? The S sees this apple, in all of it's glory, learns about the apple and it's angles, sees you can cut the apple, and you can eat it all same as the N, understands that the apple is good for eating and doesn't find it necessary to delve into more information about that apple, doesn't mean they might not be curious, but their curiosity is less of a priority than the use. Soz to the max if that was unreadable.
    I like the bolded part. I wish that could be applied somehow...to fix boredom problems. I mean imagine you're in a prison cell. How much imagining would you need in order to keep wondering about that concrete wall or those rusty prison bars for years? Is it possible to always see things in wonder, is it possible to force yourself?

    Anyways, because I'm confused myself, this is probably going to be confusing so sorry.

    yeah, the wonder of anything or everything is infinite, and the uncovered 'wonder' is the S. Everything to anyone can be 'N' or 'S.' An apple or a bike can be 'N' or 'S'. also, the "apple" is always different for every person. People associate it with different things. There is never really any exact reference for any word that we have. When we wonder about what the apple is or what it could be or what perspectives we may apply to the apple, we may associate it with an infinite number of things and that wouldn't be so inaccurate because the universe is one system(I think)----one impossible unknown to fully uncover.

    So, under an infinite context, not only are you unable to fully experience any one object, "more" or "less" experienced is also impossible to identify. That's if you're focusing on the "object" itself. If you're focusing on your own concept of the object however, it's a different matter. And the way we interact with reality is really through concepts of objects, not the objects themselves. So, it's like within my concept of this apple on my hand, there are experiences that make it. "I know it's texture, it's color, the fact that I can can cut it etc." And then considering a shared point of view, there are similarities in the experiential contents with my concepts and another person's contents of their concept of the apple. So, it's still relative to experience but not the experience of the object, but the personal concept of the object. And then we could maybe partially generalize and conclude that most of modern society's concept of the apple is leaning towards S, because average modern human can only wonder about a concrete wall for a limited and generally equal amount of time and imagination.

    tl;dr To wonder about an object is infinite, but the process of wondering have led you to creating a concept of an apple, which is really the object that is finite and can be judged generally as either S or N depending on the average human being's willingness to further wonder about the actual object after an average number of experience about the wonder.

    Either way I think the difference between both isn't all too simple to explain although we'd like it to be.
    yeah. I think I'll go back to the drawing board. Thanks for the input.


    Quote Originally Posted by violett View Post
    Observing myself communicating in conversations when I am trying to get a point across I cross reference multiple contexts and place the same point I am trying to get across in various "terms" hoping the other person will understand. I see this is a result of having Ne as my dominant process.

    (Ne) - "Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change "what is" for "what could possibly be"; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking." - Linda V. Berens
    yeah, that's like trying to see it via concepts the other person is familiar with maybe? cross-conceptual communication?
    A search for truth is a search for a greedy perspective.

    Nah, that's not truth. That's just your bullshit ideas of truth. Truth is always inclusive. If it's not inclusive, then toughen it up and try harder.
    Likes laterlazer liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    409

    Default

    yeah, that's like trying to see it via concepts the other person is familiar with maybe? cross-conceptual communication?
    Yes, exactly trying to fit my conceptual understanding into a framework which is familiar to them.

  8. #8
    good, hot, fresh, fly ~ laterlazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    592 sp
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    I like the bolded part. I wish that could be applied somehow...to fix boredom problems. I mean imagine you're in a prison cell. How much imagining would you need in order to keep wondering about that concrete wall or those rusty prison bars for years? Is it possible to always see things in wonder, is it possible to force yourself?

    Anyways, because I'm confused myself, this is probably going to be confusing so sorry.

    yeah, the wonder of anything or everything is infinite, and the uncovered 'wonder' is the S. Everything to anyone can be 'N' or 'S.' An apple or a bike can be 'N' or 'S'. also, the "apple" is always different for every person. People associate it with different things. There is never really any exact reference for any word that we have. When we wonder about what the apple is or what it could be or what perspectives we may apply to the apple, we may associate it with an infinite number of things and that wouldn't be so inaccurate because the universe is one system(I think)----one impossible unknown to fully uncover.

    So, under an infinite context, not only are you unable to fully experience any one object, "more" or "less" experienced is also impossible to identify. That's if you're focusing on the "object" itself. If you're focusing on your own concept of the object however, it's a different matter. And the way we interact with reality is really through concepts of objects, not the objects themselves. So, it's like within my concept of this apple on my hand, there are experiences that make it. "I know it's texture, it's color, the fact that I can can cut it etc." And then considering a shared point of view, there are similarities in the experiential contents with my concepts and another person's contents of their concept of the apple. So, it's still relative to experience but not the experience of the object, but the personal concept of the object. And then we could maybe partially generalize and conclude that most of modern society's concept of the apple is leaning towards S, because average modern human can only wonder about a concrete wall for a limited and generally equal amount of time and imagination.

    tl;dr To wonder about an object is infinite, but the process of wondering have led you to creating a concept of an apple, which is really the object that is finite and can be judged generally as either S or N depending on the average human being's willingness to further wonder about the actual object after an average number of experience about the wonder.



    yeah. I think I'll go back to the drawing board. Thanks for the input.




    yeah, that's like trying to see it via concepts the other person is familiar with maybe? cross-conceptual communication?
    That is interesting to think about, being able to make yourself continuously wonder about things. That would be so cool if it could be applied and could be switched off and on :o I say we research this shit and make a drug for it!

    And I definitely agree that it is infinite and you can never really fully experience something.

    Likes /DG/ liked this post

  9. #9
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Last night I had an experience of activating my intuition; I was watching the fireworks, and while I've seen fireworks before, it still has a novel aspect to it. The patterns unfolding before one's eyes in the sky, the mystified state as one looks on in awe. I noticed, as it had ended that I was holding my eyes in a different way than usual. I walked off slowly, in a daze, as passersby passed me by. A quite interesting state of mind to be in, though I quickly came out of it, my eyes returning to their usual look, quickening my pace and becoming more aware of my surroundings in their usual fashion.

    Suppose Sensing sees a phenomenon in terms of what it knows, and Intuition sees the same phenomenon through what it does not know. One way uses previously stored templates to reconcile the object with the self, the other delves into the unconscious to awaken previously unknown methods of perceiving. Reality would have it, that nothing is totally new nor old, but is both, and so both aspects must be utilised to understand the object in its entirety.
    Likes Craft liked this post

  10. #10
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Last night I had an experience of activating my intuition; I was watching the fireworks, and while I've seen fireworks before, it still has a novel aspect to it. The patterns unfolding before one's eyes in the sky, the mystified state as one looks on in awe. I noticed, as it had ended that I was holding my eyes in a different way than usual. I walked off slowly, in a daze, as passersby passed me by. A quite interesting state of mind to be in, though I quickly came out of it, my eyes returning to their usual look, quickening my pace and becoming more aware of my surroundings in their usual fashion.
    Oh man, great example.

    Suppose Sensing sees a phenomenon in terms of what it knows, and Intuition sees the same phenomenon through what it does not know.
    That's a really good one.

    One way uses previously stored templates to reconcile the object with the self, the other delves into the unconscious to awaken previously unknown methods of perceiving.
    Nice. Although, for me, since we don't really interact with objects directly but concepts of it, it would be "uses previously stored templates to reconcile the concept of the object with the self." So it's a bit like self-interaction via concepts + random input from the outside(random, because that input is still to be perceived and is necessarily manipulated by the physical, chemical and biological processes of our organs). What do you think of the complication I inserted?

    Reality would have it, that nothing is totally new nor old, but is both, and so both aspects must be utilised to understand the object in its entirety.
    Or maybe the old is totally wrong or misleading? or maybe the new is totally wrong or misleading?
    A search for truth is a search for a greedy perspective.

    Nah, that's not truth. That's just your bullshit ideas of truth. Truth is always inclusive. If it's not inclusive, then toughen it up and try harder.

Similar Threads

  1. how easy is it to change Type?
    By niki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 02:22 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Most likely type to experiment with drugs
    By Into It in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 09:47 AM
  3. What to do when life is known to be pointless
    By Ezra in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 05-24-2008, 09:52 AM

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