[MBTI General] How do NF's talk to S's in general?

[FC3S]

You wanted to know what the producers were thinking and...

...

Whaaaaat?!

That is so.... sooo, boring.

/s moment

Movies are meant to be enjoyed. Why kill the buzz? That's what you were doing to your S friend. Here you are, putting her beneath you because she doesn't think the same way.

That's shallow.

On another note, I had an ENFJ that did this samet hing, but the roles were reversed. I was ranting and raving about getting this most wicked and bodaciously awesome car. She asked if it had a turbo.

Wait, whaaaat?! BUZZKILLER!

 

[MrME]

I find it pretty easy to speak to S-types, but I may have an advantage since I'm the only N among my immediate family.

Just remember to keep your comments straight-forward and try not to make too many observations about "things unseen." Keep your comments focused on concrete reality and you should be OK.

Find N-type friends to discuss Wall-E's underlying themes and messages, character motivations, etc. Under the surface, the unseen ideas that the filmmakers intended. Personally, me and my N-type movie-buff friends eat that kind of conversation up.

For S-types, talk about what specific scenes in Wall-E made you laugh or cry, and then give a quick and straight-forward reason if you're so inclined. Talk about what happened in the story itself rather than underlying themes and ideas.

Whoever it was in this thread who blew off the idea of a children's movie having subtext and deeper themes, however, is talking out of his butthole.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Just remember to keep your comments straight-forward and try not to make too many observations about "things unseen." Keep your comments focused on concrete reality and you should be OK.

It struck me in reading your post how intuitives, such as the OP, can get to this point where they feel annoyed in communicating with sensors (not to make it into "us vs. them"...but, well...). This seems like some kind of survival tip or something, haha.

It seems intuitives are often the ones who have to adjust our communication style, being in the minority. That can get old & tiring. It's nice when sensors can see our perspective and adjust a bit for us.

 

[Galusha]

NFs I know talk to S-types like they talk to children. simple concepts. they generally make better friends if they're party buddies or something; one of the best concert-going teams that I know is a xNFJ/ESTP combo. the interaction works better, I think, if it's action-oriented instead of discussion-based.

 

[Unique]

+1

Seems funny that we tend to get lumped together with something (convention/tradition) that goes counter to what the temperament is all about.

Damn straight next person to call us SJs is going to get thrown into an SP party till they hug a toilet

It's something I don't get. NTs are often considered very different from NFs, even if both of them are quite similar in terms of information processing. SPs on the other hand are seen as only a few organized folders and a clean desk away from being SJs.

Exactly? who the f*ck started this? It's so laughable

SPs and SJs act so differently and for the record, most SJs I don't even get along with! No offense meant here... there are defiantly exceptions, especially the ISFJs

But seriously we're ARTISANS we aren't the "upholders" or the "traditionalists" I'm so sick of this cr*p coming out of peoples mouths or hands smashing sh*t into their keyboards

and yes I've had too much coffee today!

 

[Wiley45]

LOL ... wow.

I think maybe one reason I've accidentally lumped S's all together at times is because they don't like to talk about abstract concepts, which is one of my favorite things to do. I am always reminding myself, "Oh yeah. S. Steer clear of that."

But yeah, you're right ... there is NO way my SP friends are the traditionalists!

 

[Snow Turtle]

Just remember to keep your comments straight-forward and try not to make too many observations about "things unseen." Keep your comments focused on concrete reality and you should be OK.

This makes Kai a sad panda.

Just remember that it's best to go on individual basis, rather than to quickly type someone as sensor and then decide that it's best to apply that method based on theory. Otherwise it'll only act as a limiting barrier and confirmation bias. A sensor might only be discussing these sort of thing, because that's all that is ever being discussed and so fourth.

 

[King sns]

This makes Kai a sad panda.

Just remember that it's best to go on individual basis, rather than to quickly type someone as sensor and then decide that it's best to apply that method based on theory. Otherwise it'll only act as a limiting barrier and confirmation bias. A sensor might only be discussing these sort of thing, because that's all that is ever being discussed and so fourth.

Yea, same here.
I'd feel like a total idiot if people only talked to me only using concrete words and concrete things. Luckily, I don't live in an MBTI based world where are judging whether i'm an S or an N. That would be annoying. I, (and I imagine most intelligent people- yes, that includes intelligent sensors- no, that is not an oxy moron.) Anyway, we prefer to be spoken to as you would speak to anyone else. Just because we're not initiating these "deep" and abstract conversations does not mean we're not kind, uninterested, or do not understand, or are not willing to listen. Its like, just like with anyone else- be articulate and make clear what you're talking about to communicate. Use your words and most people should understand unless they are a little dense. And don't hang around with people who are dumber than you if you don't want to. That applies to both S's and N's.

 

[Wiley45]

I'm confused. What was said that made sensors feel like we N's think they're dumb? I don't think you're dumb just because you don't always like discussing the same things N's do.

My brother's wife is an ISFP. If I talk to her about philosophy or something, she just stands there blinking and says, "Really? Do you really want me to care about this?" If I talked to her about symbolism in a cartoon, she'd probably laugh and call me weird, but get a kick out of my weirdness.

She's extremely intelligent. It's not that I think she's dumb and I need to dumb down my conversation when I'm around her. I just avoid talking to her about those things because I know it bores her.

 

[felt up]

I have tested 88% Intuitive and naturally I have a serious communication problem with S's in general.

They always seem to give me a look of almost disgust that I care so much about seemingly light issues.

A perfect example would be talking about movies, something I really enjoy talking about. The movie would be WALL-E.

I really saw what the makers of WALL-E were trying to get at. WALL-E and EVE broke out of their "programming" when it seemed to be obsolete. The AUTO bot was just the opposite, he followed "orders" to a fault and nearly killed all the people he was created to protect on the Axiom.

I was explaining this to an S and her reply was: "WALL-E makes funny noises." It was a bit tough and cheeck but that's how the conversation ended. She was basically saying that she couldn't care less about the moral values of the story, and I would assume she is confused why I would care about them.

So, how does a strong NF like myself comminucate with S's? So far it's been an epic fail at every turn.

I understand your point Sabastious, but honestly I think Wall-E is a poor example, because the entire film seemed very straightforward. I sawno inner tension or need to interpret multiple meanings. Now if you said a film, like say...Remains of the Day or Breaking the Waves, I could see your point.

Anyway, I usually test somewhere between 95 and 98% intuitive. I don't think many people understand for someone like myself, I practically live in the world of the invisible, intangible connections between the concrete real world. It's always on me to bridge the gap between S and N, because ultimately I'm seen as the one who is either "reading too much into a situation", thinking too much", "not getting to THE point", have a wacky point of view that others don't see, (but will eventually see with time). I say the world is round, but other folks are saying it's flat. The constant frustration I feel in communicating with others, is very real. Even with other Ns who feel like Ss to me. My strategy is to dumb everything down. Limit myself to one or two lines of of real world concepts and call it a day. Especially if I'm not investing in the person or I don't care. Why bother otherwise? Honestly, I think this very N/S thing is what makes me the loner I am. I'd much rather be alone than be among those who fail to understand me.

 

[felt up]

I don't think the point is to be fake, but maybe to approach a conversation with someone else in a way that both parties can enjoy it and relate. Talking about symbolism or hidden meanings in a cartoon isn't likely to appeal to an S, so it might not be the best angle to start off a conversation.

Or, for another example, I try to be a little better about summing up my feelings when talking to my INTJ friend. She's not really the one to go to if I want to rant and blab about my innermost emotional life. I'm still being genuine, but trying to express myself in a way that won't make her want to stop talking to me. Then, we can have a good conversation and I can hear her insights and learn from what she has to say.

I relate. I'm accused often of being too personal and embarrassing others.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'm confused. What was said that made sensors feel like we N's think they're dumb? I don't think you're dumb just because you don't always like discussing the same things N's do.

She's extremely intelligent. It's not that I think she's dumb and I need to dumb down my conversation when I'm around her. I just avoid talking to her about those things because I know it bores her.

The problem was the belief that these topics are off-limit to sensors because they would not be interested in it. Theory claims that sensors aren't interested in the abstract therefore interpretations have been made it's best to avoid it, when it doesn't actually apply to all sensors. Therefore it's much better to go by individual basis to determine so.

For example: Going with the OPs first arguement where they believed the person was a sensor because they didn't bother with the morals/meaning behind the story. This doesn't actually represent sensor, it just represents an individual that's not interested in engaging in that particular conversation.

You'd actually find that there are lots of SFJs that are interested in the Ethics part of philosophy. Considering that the common stereotype is that we're all about following what is traditionally good. Granted I don't have any statistics so this part might be full of rubbish. It only really applies to me.

 

[King sns]

Right- basic knowledge.
S is a preference for gathering data in a literal and concrete fashion. Not a complete disinterest and not understanding abstractions and ideas. Its not some childish superficial way of understanding the world. Just like an N understands "table" and "pencil"- the sensor still understands "morals" and "faith" and such. Feel free to use these kinds of topics in conversation as necessary.

(and nobody is going to react well to an N who uses only abstract language and refuses to acknowledge that there is a real, physical concrete world right in front of you. Just like no one is going to react well to an S who speaks in only concrete words and doesn't seem to realize that things have meanings and connections and ideas behind them. That's just poor communication on BOTH sides of the spectrum.)

 

[garbage]

You think the conversational branches are needed because they are your process, not because they actually are

Nowhere in my post did I say that they were needed. At all.

They're useful when communicating in some contexts, such as brainstorming, and they're not useful in other contexts.

And, again, I stated that I tend to leave out information rather than include extraneous information, so any discussion about such conversational branches, directed toward me specifically, is moot.

If they were needed why would ESTP be considered the ultimate conversationalist? Edgar even goes so far to say that other types try to pretend to be ESTP just to get a social advantage

Thing is with you guys is you pretty much are better off including everything you want to say rather than finding key points

Even though those key points are what we are looking for, you are always going to find "getting to the point" harder and all the other information will always be included

So, do I include all of the conversational branches that pop in my head, or do I get to the point? You have essentially instructed me to do both, and they're mutually exclusive.

That said, it's often harder for me to get to the point. And that's exactly why I usually take my time so that I have a focused, direct line of reasoning to reach my conclusion.

For the record, a majority of my friends are NFs

I think this whole "communication barrier" with the N/S thing is overrated

I'd like to know why I never hear S's complaining about it

Though thats the whole N thing isn't it? "I'm so misunderstood"

If it helps I'm sorry you were born in a human body with hands and feet and being able to sense when really you wanted to be a brain in a jar dreaming

If you're addressing me specifically, you're generalizing more than you should be. If this is the case, then you're lumping me in with all other NFs, in that we must necessarily think alike. As you do so, consider that you don't want SPs to be lumped in with SJs.

I view communication as a two-way street. I try to accommodate those around me. The method I outlined works for some people and not others.

With some, I don't ask them personal questions before launching into a personal discussion; they'd view it as a waste of time. Others are looking for that connection; I can sense it, so I give it to them.

By and large, however, the method I outlined my "default" mode when talking to a group of people all at once.

Note also that I didn't state that my method was always how I talked to sensors, or that I only talk that way to sensors. I even explicitly stated that I talk to many people I'd label intuitives in the same way, and I gave my reasons why.

 

[sabastious]

Movies are meant to be enjoyed. Why kill the buzz? That's what you were doing to your S friend. Here you are, putting her beneath you because she doesn't think the same way.

This is the kind of misconception that truly kills all possibility of the relationship going further. If you think I am being condescending and think I put myself above you, I am now on your shit list and the chance of becoming friends has just plummeted.

Just because I am mentioning something that I enjoyed about the movie doesn't mean I think or am above you, that's YOUR interpretation and frankly it's completely inaccurate.

My OP talks about trying to get on the same page as the other people who look at life a bit differently than you.

Maybe you have answered my question tho. Maybe these people are feeling that I am trying to put myself above them by talking about seemingly "deep" things. I will see if I can figure out how to keep that from happening.

 

[wrldisquiethere]

Right- basic knowledge.
S is a preference for gathering data in a literal and concrete fashion. Not a complete disinterest and not understanding abstractions and ideas. Its not some childish superficial way of understanding the world. Just like an N understands "table" and "pencil"- the sensor still understands "morals" and "faith" and such. Feel free to use these kinds of topics in conversation as necessary.

(and nobody is going to react well to an N who uses only abstract language and refuses to acknowledge that there is a real, physical concrete world right in front of you. Just like no one is going to react well to an S who speaks in only concrete words and doesn't seem to realize that things have meanings and connections and ideas behind them. That's just poor communication on BOTH sides of the spectrum.)

Excellent post.

The problem was the belief that these topics are off-limit to sensors because they would not be interested in it. Theory claims that sensors aren't interested in the abstract therefore interpretations have been made it's best to avoid it, when it doesn't actually apply to all sensors. Therefore it's much better to go by individual basis to determine so.

For example: Going with the OPs first arguement where they believed the person was a sensor because they didn't bother with the morals/meaning behind the story. This doesn't actually represent sensor, it just represents an individual that's not interested in engaging in that particular conversation.

You'd actually find that there are lots of SFJs that are interested in the Ethics part of philosophy. Considering that the common stereotype is that we're all about following what is traditionally good. Granted I don't have any statistics so this part might be full of rubbish. It only really applies to me.

I agree with all of this. I am an SFJ, so maybe it is the Feeler in me, but I can talk about deep issues if reflective of something that is morally in line with my ideas and values.

This is the kind of misconception that truly kills all possibility of the relationship going further. If you think I am being condescending and think I am above you, I am now on your shit list and the chance of becoming friends has just plummeted.

Just because I am mentioning something that I enjoyed about the movie doesn't mean I think or am above you, that's YOUR interpretation and frankly it's completely inaccurate.

My OP talks about trying to get on the same page as the other people who look at life a bit differently than you.

Maybe you have answered my question tho. Maybe these people are feeling that I am trying to put myself above them by talking about seemingly "deep" things. I will see if I can figure out how to keep that from happening.

It is possible that you may be coming across that way to your friend/s. My mother is an INFP, and I know sometimes I respond with sensory-related comments right after she has gone into some long explanation of some second meaning she's picked up on in something. Often while I am replying by making a comment about it from my sensory perspective, my mind is reeling at the same time with the thought, "Where in the world did she just get that?"

Honestly, though, I don't understand the need to make a person who is opposite UNDERSTAND where you're coming from. Why is that important? If a NF gives their observations and conclusions about a movie (the unseen meaning behind the story, for instance) and a sensor then responds by giving their own observations about their sensory experience, why is that considered a failed conversation? Both of these types see it differently...there's nothing wrong with that. There's no need for me as an S to expect an NF to notice and hold an appreciation for the sensory details in the movie, such as the funny noises the main character makes; so why is there a need for an S to identify with the deeper meanings of the movie as an NF experienced it? Both people should be able to enjoy the same movie from different perspectives and share their observations on it without judging the other person's perception of it. (By the way, I'm not trying to say that the OP is doing that or is being condescending of S friends.)

One of my NF friends enjoys being out in nature just like I do. She was talking to me recently about coming across a flower in the woods, and thinking to herself how amazing it was that such a beautiful flower was out there and might never even be seen by anyone other than her. "It's like it was put there just for me!" she said. This is something that I, as an S, cannot relate to, but it did make me smile to see her perspective. My perspective would have been to stop and look at the flower, notice its beauty, and then just think to myself simply, "Wow, the world is an amazing place!" The same flower serves the same purpose of enjoyment for each of us, even though we process that enjoyment differently. I see no need for us to make each other UNDERSTAND WHY we enjoy it for the reason we do...that's just the way it is.

I know this wasn't helpful at all, really, and I'm sure it didn't tell you anything you didn't already realize. My main thought is just that your S friends probably don't feel a need to try to understand where you are coming from. That doesn't mean they don't respect your ideas or perspective. Most likely they admire the way you look at things...but they probably won't want to be expected to try to understand where you are coming from.

 

[sabastious]

Honestly, though, I don't understand the need to make a person who is opposite UNDERSTAND where you're coming from. Why is that important? If a NF gives their observations and conclusions about a movie (the unseen meaning behind the story, for instance) and a sensor then responds by giving their own observations about their sensory experience, why is that considered a failed conversation? Both of these types see it differently...there's nothing wrong with that. There's no need for me as an S to expect an NT to notice and hold an appreciation for the sensory details in the movie, such as the funny noises the main character makes; so why is there a need for an S to identify with the deeper meanings of the movie as an NF experienced it? Both people should be able to enjoy the same movie from different perspectives and share their observations on it without judging the other person's perception of it. (By the way, I'm not trying to say that the OP is doing that or is being condescending of S friends.)

Fo me I like my friends to be able to relate to what I am talking about and how I feel. The converstaion you have constructed just sounds like each person giving a monologue about what they found interesting in the movie, there isnt much conversation in that.

It's not "needed" to understand one another but it is helpful and condusive to a lasting relationship. Which is what I am looking for in friends.

I love debate. Not arguing, but presenting opinion and discussing how each of us relate and don't relate to the topic. Debating stops and arguing insues when one party starts to feel personally attacked by the topic. Which is happening right now with some. Not my intention.

This thread has kind of turned into a flame thread. I'm not trying to belittle sensors, that was read into from my OP. What I want is to be able to become more versed in people and their view on life. I'm only 25 so I don't have a whole lot of people experience yet.

 

[wrldisquiethere]

Fo me I like my friends to be able to relate to what I am talking about and how I feel. The converstaion you have constructed just sounds like each person giving a monologue about what they found interesting in the movie, there isnt much conversation in that.

It's not "needed" to understand one another but it is helpful and condusive to a lasting relationship. Which is what I am looking for in friends.

I love debate. Not arguing, but presenting opinion and discussing how each of us relate and don't relate to the topic. Debating stops and arguing insues when one party starts to feel personally attacked by the topic. Which is happening right now with some. Not my intention.

This thread has kind of turned into a flame thread. I'm not trying to belittle sensors, that was read into from my OP. What I want is to be able to become more versed in people and their view on life. I'm only 25 so I don't have a whole lot of people experience yet.

I did not get the impression you were trying to belittle sensors, by the way. Like I said, I was not trying to imply that you were in any way being condescending towards your S friends or S's in general. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

I find N's, especially NF's, VERY hard to understand and relate to (and I do try), but nevertheless fascinating.

Edit: Do keep in mind when you are doing something like discussing a movie and pointing out the deeper meanings you found in it, that it may take a sensor awhile to process that information before responding in a stimulating way. I was starting to explain that when I was talking about my mom, and how I would reply to her in a sensor-like way, all the while trying to figure out in my mind how she had come to the conclusions she had. Doesn't mean I don't value what she is saying, just that I need some time to connect everything in my mind. My mind is putting together the factual pieces of the experience to come to a conclusion about what she has just admitted she perceived. Does that make sense? It takes a little while to connect everything, but it doesn't mean that I'm not trying.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Fo me I like my friends to be able to relate to what I am talking about and how I feel. The converstaion you have constructed just sounds like each person giving a monologue about what they found interested in the movie, there isnt much conversation in that.

That's true...
What was her response to you asking for her opinion on what you had just said? Did you ask her whether she actually got anything from the movie? Did she really mean that she was not interested, or was that the impression given?

I thought the whole point behind these movies such as Wall-E was to promote a message about protecting nature. Granted I haven't seen the movie. >.>'

 

[sabastious]

That's true...
What was her response to you asking for her opinion on what you had just said? Did you ask her whether she actually got anything from the movie? Did she really mean that she was not interested, or was that the impression given?

I thought the whole point behind these movies such as Wall-E was to promote a message about protecting nature. Granted I haven't seen the movie. >.>'

Her reply was supposed to be a convo stopper cause she wasn't interested in the least to discuss what I was talking about. So I kind of just dropped it.

The whole point of WALL-E was to tell a love story. The part of the movie I was talking about was just a philisophical sub-plot of the story that I found really interesting.