cascadeco
New member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 9,083
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
What I think is odd that NFs seem to be limited to connecting with other Ns, but can't seem to cross that gulf into S-land. Which I asked in my previous post, why are NFs billed as the great typological humanitarians when most NFs on this forum admit they don't communicate well with sensors. It seems like people are repeatedly saying it's the sensor not getting IT or understanding IT. If you consistently have problems communicating with a group of people across the board then why is it a limitation of that other groups understanding? How well do they communicate with each other? If it seems to be minimal or easily clarified communications when they communicate, then where does the problem lie? Why is the problem automatically with the other group?
I do agree with what you're saying. Communication is a 2-way street. To blame an S for not getting 'IT' isn't right, as the fault could easily fall on the N not being able to explain his thoughts in a readily understood way. Actually the latter probably happens more often, it's just that this 'problem' isn't really a problem in a lot of N:N interactions because the N's can typically connect the dots readily and make sense of vagueness. So in a sense, N's sticking around only N's isn't a great way to improve communication skills - at least in terms of interacting with all sorts of personalities. This isn't a jab against S's, it's just a matter of two N's perceiving/focusing on things similarly in the first place, so there isn't as big of a bridge to gap.
But also there's a distinction...I mean, simple communication and basic interaction is one thing. Chit-chatting, deciding on where to eat out, day-to-day things. I don't think that's an issue. But the type of conversations (topics) and manner of communicating and telling stories (one of many examples - valuing details vs. not valuing details...and no, not all S's value details. Each of the 8 S types would be different in this regard) is another. As for N's saying "S's just don't get IT", it's probably more a difference in the latter - different conversation preferences and different focuses on the subject at hand. An N viewing the subject in one light and placing importance on characteristic A, vs. the S viewing the subject from a different angle and placing importance instead on characteristic B. The N then deems that the S 'doesn't get it' because the S isn't seeing things in the same light as the N, or doesn't place importance on what the N places importance on. Of course you could totally turn it around and the S could be equally justified in being annoyed that the N doesn't place importance on what the S places importance on. haha. But we could do the same thing with E/I, or F/T, or take all of the mbti letters out of this entire topic, as this is basic human psychology too. Everyone being different and focusing on/valuing different things, and unless both parties actively work to communicate and explain themselves in understandable ways, things will get lost in the shuffle.
As for the NF=awesome humanitarian stereotype, I freely admit that's one reason I didn't think I was an NF many years ago -- because I don't consider myself in that light at all.