I'm very hesitant to make statements like this about people. Are we equating a "immature" N to a "regular" S? Just let 'em mature and they'll loop circles around an S!
Ouch, I'm sorry, "immature"
was a bad word to use -- I didn't mean it in that [negative/hubris-loaded] context.
Is "undeveloped" better? (Or something similar?)
But why do you think this is something that has to do with her S? If an N had said it would it have been more probable? I don't get when people make statements like this.
A developed N has a:
1. Larger repository of patterns (because they collect them / think in terms of them).
2. Is usually thinking in terms of conceptualizing things or coming up with an overall concept of things.
What's that mean? It means the N has (1) more experience and (2) more practice with the skill.
This is the whole basis of function theory, isn't it? That we develop the skills we prefer, and thus get better at their use?
Let's think of it in terms of something else, let's say baseball or playing the piano. If someone likes baseball or the piano, they'll practice it. In the practicing of it, they will come across many varied situations, thus gaining a lot of experience and exposure to the field of interest. They not only learn how to do it, but what the pitfalls and problem areas are and how to deal with them.
Now: Take a developed baseball player or pianist and drop them in a performance situation with someone who did not have much interest in the sport/art, even if they have the ability but it's just undeveloped.
Is it unreasonable to say that the one who developed their skill will perform much much better than the undeveloped one?
That's where I'm coming from here...
If you haven't noticed, I'm all about knowing how this MBTI stuff plays out in the real world. It's all fine and great to know that Si does this and Te does that, but when I interact with people, unless they are strongly S or N, they seem to grab from the whole bag. This is why I have such difficulties figuring out S or N. I see just as much correctness and error on either side.
Well, that's true -- it's never 100% one or the other, I guess. But we still generally operate from one of the premises, overall. still, as people get older, they get harder to "read" I think, because they grab from the whole bag more and more often if they are developing. (Look, I can be taught -- I avoided that nasty "I" word...!)
I've never seen any definition of intuition saying that when an N sees a pattern, their interpretation of what it is is usually correct.
My logic for this is posted above...
I can notice a pattern in something, but the conclusion I reach for why that pattern is can be incorrect. It has just as much of a chance of being right as it does of being wrong. Ns are just better at noticing it first, not being right first.
Well, as part of being a "developed N," the N should be evaluating the pattern just as you are doing, based on their experience and knowledge, and "grading" them all in their mind as to what seems more reasonable and less reasonable. Developed N's are both collecting data AND throwing out less likely patterns. S's with undeveloped N's seem to have far less patterns and are much more inclined to go with something they've experienced before, just because they've experienced it. (Especially Si.)
Maybe that is the point of confusion...? Because at this stage a judging function is operating along with the intuitive function? So maybe the Judging function (F or T) now has to be considered as well... ? Possibly it's not the S/N thing completely, but the development of the
judging function that determines the accurate view of the data?