[NT] Shallow Ns

[Rachelinpa]

Are there any shallow Ns?

I've heard arguments that depth is not related to personality type, but I don't think I've ever met a shallow N.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, N's can certainly be shallow!

(Normally it's referred to as "flighty" though.)

Daydreamers also actually sort of shallow, and N's get caught up in that alot.

 

[Simplexity]

I guess you've never experienced an NT loop, with a suppressed feeling function.

 

[Rachelinpa]

Yeah, N's can certainly be shallow!

(Normally it's referred to as "flighty" though.)

Hmm, yeah "flighty." I've experienced that. However, do you think it's because they have the capacity (for depth) and are simply not exercising it? I know this sounds biased (and maybe I am), but sometimes I meet Ss that I do not think are even capable of it, whereas the "flighty" Ns I know are able but choose not to go there (all the time).

 

[Rachelinpa]

I guess you've never experienced an NT loop, with a suppressed feeling function.

I only know two NTs IRL and they are both deep.

 

[Simplexity]

I only know two NTs IRL and they are both deep.

Yeah, Internally NT's I would assume always have a deep and complex life, but the thing is sometimes when your in a negative loop like that you only focus on certain things externally that are very close to your beliefs and opinions. I think that scenario would still classify under shallowness.

I think you are sort of merging intelligence, introspection, complexity, and depth together when you talk of being shallow when in essence just focusing on a narrow set of interest and only willing to engage and expound upon those interests to me is the definition of shallow.

 

[Totenkindly]

Hmm, yeah "flighty." I've experienced that. However, do you think it's because they have the capacity (for depth) and are simply not exercising it? I know this sounds biased (and maybe I am), but sometimes I meet Ss that I do not think are even capable of it, whereas the "flighty" Ns I know are able but choose not to go there (all the time).

Meh, I'd be careful of that.

S people are more concrete than abstract by definition.
It doesn't mean they can't have deep thoughts, or that they're shallow.

I think too as people become older, they become more nuanced, and S's look deeper than the surface, just as N's get more grounded and stop being so flighty. The best S's I know can go very deep; they also just usually retain a strong sense of practicality and paying attention to what's around them, they're very realistic and don't like "deep abstractions" as an end in themselves, they want it to be useful to accomplish some end or make their lives richer and/or more successful.

I think N's that get flighty also become sort of worthless; haven't you ever met someone who thinks they're profound but is totally useless in daily life? They're so profound that they're completely ignorant of the realities of life, which ruins any depth they think they've found.

Yeah, Internally NT's I would assume always have a deep and complex life, but the thing is sometimes when your in a negative loop like that you only focus on certain things externally that are very close to your beliefs and opinions. I think that scenario would still classify under shallowness.

I understand what you are getting at, and it sort of fits at my last paragraph above. Some people might have great insight but everyone around them just sees them as someone with their heads up their posteriors, in terms of usefulness and REALLY understanding how the abstractions connect to the real world. We all have met NT types who are very smart but utterly useless in life as well as incompetent in their relationships.

I think you are sort of merging intelligence, introspection, complexity, and depth together when you talk of being shallow when in essence just focusing on a narrow set of interest and only willing to engage and expound upon those interests to me is the definition of shallow.

Yes, sort of, that's it. Getting caught up in just one facet of reality rather than seeing it all connect together and integrating it. S's come at it from one side; N's come at it from another.

 

[Rachelinpa]

I think that scenario would still classify under shallowness.

Oh, I'm definitely merging, but I would consider that breadth rather than depth. Being narrowminded.

By depth I mean closer to (Google Define):

astuteness: the intellectual ability to penetrate deeply into ideas

I think it is the intense level and complexity, versus the range of topics.

 

[ptgatsby]

(Normally it's referred to as "flighty" though.)

I don't know about that... Ns that take great effort at thinking about pointless things are still considered "deep" by those that value deepness at the surface level.

This is just definition hopping. "Shallow" has a negative connotation, but can be associated against concrete thinkers. MBTI asks if you are concrete. Tada!

The operative word is ability, notably different than preference.

 

[Rachelinpa]

S people are more concrete than abstract by definition. It doesn't mean they can't have deep thoughts, or that they're shallow.

Oh, I know. For the record, I appreciate Ss. I have more than a few deep S friends--I know they exist. I was simply wondering if there was a trend, based on the experiences of others.

I think N's that get flighty also become sort of worthless; haven't you ever met someone who thinks they're profound but is totally useless in daily life? They're so profound that they're completely ignorant of the realities of life, which ruins any depth they think they've found.

Totally annoying, but I wouldn't say it negates their level of depth. Useless perhaps, but depth still present.

S's come at it from one side; N's come at it from another.

Yeah, maybe they even need their own definitions.

 

[Simplexity]

But life is inherently complex in terms of depth AND breadth, so just having skills in one and noticeable deficits in another would still to me be not very valuable. I think if we go strictly by that definition then you are sort of implicitly disadvantaging S's when in reality there are very few situations in life where daily functioning doesn't require skills in both.

Just look at some of the frequent threads that discuss intelligence, Iq, and its correlations with type. Its absolutely fascinating that some people are willing to go into great depths to prove their point but in reality going to that level and excluding others and making "arbitrary" judgments based solely on menial things like that to me is the epitome of shallow.

I guess I'm kind of caught up in the denotations and connotations of that word 'shallow'.

 

[Rachelinpa]

But life is inherently complex in terms of depth AND breadth, so just having skills in one and noticeable deficits in another would still to me be not very valuable. I think if we go strictly by that definition then you are sort of implicitly disadvantaging S's when in reality there are very few situations in life where daily functioning doesn't require skills in both.

I wasn't meaning to talk about depth in terms of value. Although, I guess it's not really neutral since the assumption is most people want depth in their relationships. I can see where you are coming from. I did not mean to imply Ss are inferior. And, I appreciate your balanced perspective.

I guess I'm kind of caught up in the denotations and connotations of that word 'shallow'.

Probably.

 

[Eldanen]

Define shallow. Problem solved.

 

[Firelie]

I consider myself shallow sometimes.

 

[Tallulah]

I consider myself shallow sometimes.

Haha, me, too. Sometimes I just don't have any patience for discussing Deep Ponderous Things.

And sometimes I just like to watch Best Week Ever or some other nonsense on tv and laugh my head off.

And sometimes I like to keep conversations shallow because I don't feel like letting people in.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Think that all N can be intellectual snobs.

 

[zago]

I've found that Ns can definitely be quite shallow. ENFPs and ENTPs get high-and-mighty a lot of the time. INTPs often discount people because they aren't as smart.

 

[Venom]

if we define being a sensor as shallow then:

it would have to be ENXJs with tertiary Se. They can be extremely "shallow" when fooling around and controlling people for what they want.

if we define shallow by meaning one has no "moral/deep" direction in life, and wants nothing but ______ fleeting satisfaction, then anyone can be shallow or not shallow. just as anyone can be smart or not smart.

some of the smartest people i know are ISTPs and ISTJs. Some of the shallowest people i know are ENXJs if you define it as a material desire.

I think the MBTI defines the HOW. However, if you're looking for the WHY, then the enneagram will do you much better.

for instance, a 7w6 ENTJ Jim Carrey is going differ greatly on the "shallowness scale" than the 8 ENTJ CEO. (There is nothing wrong with being that executive, by the way. I feel that as long as what you desire isn't hurting anyone it doesnt matter how shallow it is... we are here to experience life in whatever way we want).

 

[SillySapienne]

My sister has tested as an INFP and she is kind of materialistic, though she is the most down-to-earth materialistic girl I have ever met. Also, my father was an INTP and he was pretty vain when it came to what he was attracted to in the opposite sex.

 

[ajblaise]

I know some semi-shallow N's, but they tested as weak N's.