S descriptions of Ns?

[Uberfuhrer]

Yeah, you can say that. A Thinker would probably be more interested in getting the job done while the Feeler would first consider the well-being of the individuals.

Though I'm thinking that a "means to an end" outlook is attributed specifically to the NTs in that their mind would be focused on the big picture (as in the N's vision of the future, not the S's view of the environment) but they wouldn't care about stepping on another person's toes to reach that vision.

I've come to believe that the NT's view would be "If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs."

[Economica]

Originally Posted by "?"

This may be oversimplifying, but what can you expect from a sensing type? I would explain the basic workings this way. Si and Ni are like reservoirs which make their own water or information, and can build up, without effective Te/Fe valves to extract it. On the other hand, Ti/Fi have a constant depleted reservoir which needs a steady intake of water/information, using their Ne/Se valves. Faulty valves will allow the Ti/Fi reservoir to dry up.

Nice analogy. But how does it explain the difference between S and N?

[Uberfuhrer]

I wrote something similar to "?"'s analogy. I was stating that both S and N have ways of perception, but T and F give those perceptions meaning (likened to judgment).

If neither T nor F are developed, then perceptions will be taken without the expression of any kind of meaning.

You can notice details in the environment by way of Sensing or you can come up with concepts and ideas by way of iNtuition.

But without a developed Judgment function, we really can't understand what we see or conceive; it just is.

Hence, I don't think an iNtuitive will necessarily look for meaning unless balanced with a T or F function.

A Sensor will also understand meaning based on what they see with their eyes (how and why things work), but only if their Judgment functions are developed. A Sensor with a Thinking preference will likely understand how and why machines work (objective analysis), while a Sensor with Feeling will look at their environment and wonder what it means to them.

I said in a post elsewhere that this is what I think autism is about: an overdeveloped Perception function (either S or N) but underdeveloped Judgment, meaning they can either observe details or conceive notions, but transforming them into something useful or meaningful will require development of T or F.

[Economica]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

You can notice details in the environment by way of Sensing or you can come up with concepts and ideas by way of iNtuition.

Have you introduced the S/N dimension to any Sensers in this way and have you been successful in getting them to self-identify as Sensers?

["?"]

Originally Posted by Economica

Nice analogy. But how does it explain the difference between S and N?

Actually I think that even those versed in the subject, have a hard time overcoming the fact that Ni/Si and Ne/Se are not that big a difference, in particularly Ne/Se. Lenore Thomson says that ETPs resemble each other quite a bit. Best Fit Types actually thinks that ENTJs and ESTPs have quite a bit in common. I also maintain that ISTPs resemble INTJs more than INTPs, because the Ti-Se and Ni-Te both like complex problems that can be resolved using pragmatism. Both have a need to apply any learned theories, and can both dismiss irrelevant information with ease. Thus, although the differences may be apparent in theory, they're not that easy to discern IRL. Especially with STPs and NTs.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Though I'm thinking that a "means to an end" outlook is attributed specifically to the NTs in that their mind would be focused on the big picture (as in the N's vision of the future, not the S's view of the environment) but they wouldn't care about stepping on another person's toes to reach that vision. I've come to believe that the NT's view would be "If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs."

I understand what you are saying Uber, and thought that same way about thinkers for years. However, an example would be when an issue that called for empathy comes into play, such as human rights or environmental issues. A dominant thinker may be able to understand the concept based on principles, however may miss part of the big picture where the human factor should be considered. At that point, the feeler would be capable of seeing the big picture. Another example may be a need to show diplomacy to diffuse a situation, in lieu of stating the unadulterated truth which may only exascerbated things. Thinking types would have limited understanding of this necessity, especially if it violates their principles in understanding the situation. These may be bad examples, but I think that T/F is relative. Besides, maybe I need to get on the same page with you, however I would think that seeing the big picture requires taking in information, not on how you will decide on it.

[Uberfuhrer]

I've never really introduced any of the functions to anyone, but I think that way is the easiest.

I've been just noticing a certain flaw that I conceived with the iNtuitive dimension that doesn't make the S and N dimension distinct enough.

Every Sensor I've come into contact with understands the underlying "meaning" of things and they seem just as adept at comprehending events as anyone else.

ST types will see the meaning of systems in their environment, like how and why mechanical things work, but the S that would notice the details is also given meaning with the T function.

Likewise, SF types will see something that is of personal significance. They'll seek to understand something in human terms, like what someone's trying to communicate.

And then in the iNtuitive dimension:

NT types will analyze their own iNtuitive imaginary conceptions but with an emphasis on how something will work and look in the environment, which is aided by a T function.

NF types will have iNtuitive imaginary conceptions like the NT but will want to communicate their conceptions in terms of what they want to say to others. They conceive things in more human terms.

Here's what I think of each types in terms of creative/artistic expression:

The ST artist would express what the S function directly observes from either direct here-and-now experience or memory. As a Thinker, the ST artist will give more attention to form; making sure things are portrayed accurately or if things are in proper perspective and so forth. An ST artist is probably the most realistic artist.

The SF artist would also express what the S function directly observes or for the Sensate emotional rush of doing it, which is directly associated with SF. But as a Feeler, there is more likely to be a personal meaning. Sensing combined with Feeling is inclined to see beauty, which is both concrete and subjective. An SF artist may also be inclined to do abstract expressionism, because there really isn't a conceptualized notion beforehand, but it's a direct expression of the abstract world of feelings, which the SF artist will most certainly find meaning. Art would probably be more impressionistic or expressionistic.

An NT artist would express the N function's mental conceptions, but the T function would not really worry about how it will make people feel. Their attention isn't on the human condition, but more on systems. NT artists are probably least concerned with aesthetics and more concerned with just expressing a brief piece of their complex mental constructs. More attention is given to objective vision. Art will probably tend toward surrealistic and fantasy.

An NF artist would express the N function's mental conceptions, but the F function will consider what their conceptions will mean in human terms. An NF combination will express an imaginative conception but when coupled with the F function, will also wish to make a statement and express an underlying meaning. Art will probably tend toward symbolism or surrealism interlaced with symbolic meaning.

All of these are generalizations, of course, but I was just pointing out that focusing on meaning is probably more related to Judgment functions.

[faith]

Usually I had them a printed Keirsey temperament sorter and ask them to complete it.

Without a test or sorter, I just explain abstract and concrete and ask them which they think they prefer. Most people I know are pretty aware of either being annoyed with "useless speculation" or with "boring practicalities".

If not, I might ask them something like...
Do you prefer spend more time talking about what someone actually did, or theorizing about the significant meanings behind their actions?
Do you experience life mostly through your hands and actions and physical senses, or do you experience life mostly in your own mind?
Is it worse to have your head in the clouds, or to be in a rut?

I generally already have an opinion about whether the person is an S or an N, and I'll sometimes word the questions so that the type I think they're not sounds better than the type I think they are. If they choose the "less attractive" type, then I take it as a stronger confirmation than if they'd chosen the "more attractive" type.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Yeah, you can say that. A Thinker would probably be more interested in getting the job done while the Feeler would first consider the well-being of the individuals.

How is that not also part of "getting the job done"? A happy worker is an effective worker.

[Nighthawk]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

How is that not also part of "getting the job done"? A happy worker is an effective worker.

Very true ... although it took me quite a while to learn that ... mostly though experiencing unhappiness myself at work. How about this one?

Thinkers tend to see logical consequences of actions, whereas Feelers tend to see the affect of the actions on people.