Okay those are interesting points and it is good to emphasise the fact that it is just a preference. But my issue is that I think living in observation land takes less brain capacity than living in abstract land. You practically said it yourself using the N as a salesperson example.This is a pretty unintelligent statement and tells me you don't actually know what an S brings to the table vs an N (and no, it's not S = gossip, can't connect the dots, and talks about mundane things by default). And to believe someone with a strong N preference would be capable of 'doing pretty much what an S does' and the reverse does not hold true does not make sense. They are *preferences*. An S prefers NOT to sit in abstract-land ad nauseum, just as an N prefers not to sit in observation-land ad nauseum. Most S's CAN however venture into abstract land if they choose to, just as most N's CAN venture into observation-land if they choose to. I would say though that the more *extreme* the preference one has, the more difficult it would be, and some may in fact not be able to do well in that other 'land' at all. But honestly in my observations of people, I think most people aren't super strong in their preference on this dimension. Yes, some are absolutely, but there's tons of middle ground there. I mean -- your 'N's can do pretty much anything S's can do' is just patently false. The number of N's who are utterly incapable of doing *simple* tasks, or remembering them, is pretty funny -- when observing in the real world. From my pov they can come across as stupid. Take working behind the counter at a fast-paced high-need-to-be-adaptable-on-your-feet type of job. The role is not that difficult -- it doesn't take high brain capacity. It does however elude many an N who cannot easily manage it. I have seen N's externally appear incredibly stupid in this environment, and they aren't able to excel at it -- iow, they actually fail at 'being S'. Or transmit your highly-preferenced N 'absent-minded professor' into an S job. I guarantee he or she'd drop the ball repeatedly and would fail at performing the job. Now let's reverse it. There are most definitely S's who will of course fail abysmally at highly theoretical roles. And there are plenty of S's who could care less about these things, these concepts. There are definitely S's who do not think in such a way as to be able to excel at aptitude tests or IQ tests. However there are a large number of S's who in fact do find these things fascinating and CAN do well in these studies, and who can do quite well in aptitude tests - your traditional metrics of 'intelligence' and pattern matching/recognition. BUT there are also N's who do poorly at these tests. (Unless you're someone who by definition believes if one does poorly on them, and does poorly with this sort of 'intelligence', then one cannot be N - in which case anyone who does well would have to be N (even S's)). You are forgetting that it's in the end a preference. What you are describing is like a caricature of an extreme S. And if that's the only sort of S you know, that's too bad. (and fwiw, like others have already mentioned, by your criteria, the world would type as probably at least 50%N, 50%S --- iow lots of S's don't particularly care for the so-called S people you're describing, thus would easily self-identify as N)
You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell
Okay, first off, you have to be careful about using the word "abstract." The functions were largely devised by Jung, and Jung wrote whole chapters about what's mentally involved when we "abstract." Here is how it works, according to Jung:
Introverts abstract, and extraverts do not. In place of abstracting, extraverts compare and group together qualities.
In other words: Ni and Si (introverted N and introverted S) engage in abstraction. Ne and Se (extraverted N and extraverted S) do not.
That means that all introverts (Fi, Ti, Ni, and Si) do exactly the same thing as each other with their brains. They just do it with different things. For example, Ni abstracts things like ideas and principles and values, whereas Si abstracts about things like art and careers and hobbies, etc.
Same with all the extraverts (Fe, Te, Ne, and Se): They all do exactly the same thing as each other with their brains. They just do it with different things. (They don't abstract; they compare and group together qualities.)
Anyway, I'm writing a blog about Jung's book "Psychological Types." You can find it at this link: My own spin on "Psychological Types"
In about two days, I'm going to write a long post in my blog about the nature of abstraction (introverts) and non-abstraction (extraverts). So I'm not going to say anything more in this thread about it. I'm not trying to be mysterious, it's just that I'm going to be covering the subject in my blog in a couple days anyway.
Also, based on my reading of Jung as an amateur, personally I would consider S to be a higher-level function than N. That's partly because iNtuitives are kind of narrowly focused, and they tend to work a few ideas and concepts really hard. Meantime Sensors are doing exactly the same brainwork as Ns, but they are doing it with a much wider and more extensive range of data: They are processing all the raw, hard data of the world around them.
I'm hoping to discuss the differences in the functions at some later point in my blog, so maybe at some point I can talk about this difference between Ns and Ss as well someday. But for now, let's just call it a personal opinion on my part, i.e., that S is a higher-level function.
Anyway, I'll drop out of the discussion at this point. Again, not trying to be mysterious. It's just that I want to save this stuff for my blog.
There's no question that Jung thought that concrete/abstract was first and foremost an E/I thing. But he was wrong about that — and nobody who's knowledgeable really disagrees with that today, now that decades of data has shown that an extravert isn't significantly more likely than an introvert to prefer the concrete to the abstract.
Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.
And in any case, on the E/I-concrete/abstract issue, if you insist that Jung was right, facts be damned, you're not only being non-Jungian, but you're also being wrong.
For a longer discussion of that issue, see this post.
Hahaha!The remarks on that blog were made by someone whose head went through the windshield of a car.
These things happen.
I really want some one named jake to reply to this with none takenAlso, everyone dismisses the official CPP MBTI test as inaccurate when it comes to type... but at the same time, they'll use the stats from the test to draw these sorts of conclusions via studies that, say, correlate them with IQ. Whatever caveat you personally think needs to be applied to the MBTI test, you'd need to multiply like tenfold for the correlative stats that come from it. There's also the trap of "Jake's dense; Sensors are dense; therefore Jake must be a Sensor; Jake's dense; Jake's a Sensor; there's evidence that Sensors are dense." No offense to any Jakes But, hey. From at least one conceptual standpoint -- one that just so happens to work in my favor -- N = smart would mean that the N-doms are smarter than the N-aux'es. I mean, they're S-inferiors rather than S-terts, and so they're more divorced from their Sensing function and rely much more on their intuition. You know, theoretically. I'll take it.
This is not type-related. You answered your own question re: what it’s actually about: micromanaging, inability to hold oneself accountable.Well I am tired of S’es being actually abusive by constantly insulting and demeaning me; telling me I am incompetant and mentally deficiant to the point that I belong “ in an adult home†because I do not do things the way they do.
S: “Do you know exactly how you are going to accomplish this thing you have to do today?â€
Me: “Not exactly but I’ve got a basic idea. I’ll figure it out. I always do.â€
S: “ You’re SO irrisponsible!
Me: “No I’m not. This is just how I work.â€
S: No it isn’t! NO ONE “ works like that!†I think I’m going to have you evaluated by a psychologist and you’d better pack your bags because he’s going to have you committed and you know, you should appreciate it because it’s the closest thing to living on your own! This is why I have to hire a babysitter for you at 24!
You know, normal shit like that. And no, this attitude was not just from my abusive grandparents. I don’t know anyone quite so extreme but I know many S-types which are condescending at the least.
They share this attidude that if they make a mistake it isn’t thier fault. “ Shit happensâ€. If I make a mistake, well, thank God they were there to follow me around micro-managing everything I do. The times I do something right without them just don’t happen.
Ranting aside, I am quite curious to know just what the hell sort of personality flaw this is. I mean the perpetrators do seem very S like but I’m hard-pressed to generalize such a large and varying group.
Oh, good christ. People who buy into this shit are dumbasses.