SP vs. N

[Halfjillhalfjack]

Somewhere I read that some SPs (guess due to Se) often score as Ns on several online tests since in interviews they said they also refer to "big picuture thinking" rather than looking for details (rather Si, is that??). However, somewhere I read that the difference between the SPs and Ns is that N sees the pattern FIRST and Se has to LOOK for patterns after having seen details, looks for the patterns behind the details which could also be meant by "interested in the big picture". I'm not sure whether I get this right....... but.... somehow I find it really really hard to tell the difference between Ne (or N in general) and Se at this point....... I myself am sure of being an N, yet, when I observe myself I think I'm also rather LOOKING for the pattern....... I find the S and N difference really easy to tell when it comes to people using Si....I have all my friends and family members identified correctly as SJs......but I just can't tell who is SP and who is some kind of N...... do you have any ideas?

In addition, and this is not meant as an offence, since some of my closest friends are SJs, is it possible to say that SPs are often more "open-minded" and willing to consider all kinds of different opinions? intersted in looking at things from different perspectives? is this related to P? I find some of the SJs I know, eg my father, to be really rigid.....it's just hard for me to see how someone is not even willing to try to look at things from a different perspective and to take into consideration that there is more than ONE TRUTH. I do not mean to offend anyone, since there are of course a lot of very open-minded SJs, I'm sure......

 

[Andy]

In addition, and this is not meant as an offence, since some of my closest friends are SJs, is it possible to say that SPs are often more "open-minded" and willing to consider all kinds of different opinions? intersted in looking at things from different perspectives? is this related to P? I find some of the SJs I know, eg my father, to be really rigid.....it's just hard for me to see how someone is not even willing to try to look at things from a different perspective and to take into consideration that there is more than ONE TRUTH. I do not mean to offend anyone, since there are of course a lot of very open-minded SJs, I'm sure......

Look at different perspectives isn't related to P so much as Ni, which is paired with Se. This means that all SPs have Ni as a tertiary or inferior function, and so will usually display at least some apptitude for it.

It's worth noting that the four letters in the code are just a short hand for the attribute function order. They don't mean much on their own. Talking about a strong S (or whatever) is probably missleading. Think of a strong Si or Se instead, because the two functions are very different

 

[Little Linguist]

Yes, I would also appreciate a better explanation of Se v. Ne.

 

[Halfjillhalfjack]

Look at different perspectives isn't related to P so much as Ni, which is paired with Se. This means that all SPs have Ni as a tertiary or inferior function, and so will usually display at least some apptitude for it.

It's worth noting that the four letters in the code are just a short hand for the attribute function order. They don't mean much on their own. Talking about a strong S (or whatever) is probably missleading. Think of a strong Si or Se instead, because the two functions are very different

I can see that Ne and Ni are very different.....even though I'd think that also SJs having Ne as a tertiary or inferior function then might have the ability to considering possibilities....I know Ne and Ni are very different....but....if I relate looking at different perspectives to Ni, I'm wondering why I don't perceive all those N-types using Ne as a primary or secondary function as somehow not being able to look at different perspectives.....sorry if I can't make myself clear ....

 

[Andy]

I can see that Ne and Ni are very different.....even though I'd think that also SJs having Ne as a tertiary or inferior function then might have the ability to considering possibilities....I know Ne and Ni are very different....but....if I relate looking at different perspectives to Ni, I'm wondering why I don't perceive all those N-types using Ne as a primary or secondary function as somehow not being able to look at different perspectives.....sorry if I can't make myself clear ....

It's worth remembering that anyone with a strong concious Ne function also has a shadow Ni function as well, opperating in the backround. It will influence their thoughts and outlooks even if they are unaware of it.

Ne and Ni are both related to possibilities, it's true, but different sorts of possibilities. Ne processes the meaning of a given piece of information, so the phrase "A man eating lion" could mean a lion that eats men, or a man that is currently eating a lion burger. It doesn't accept the most obvious interpretation as necessarily being true. Taking a less silly example, an Ne user who hears that drug dealer has been shot does not automatically assume he was shot because of anything to do with drugs. It's just one possibility.

Ultimately, though, the possibilities that Ne comes up with are rooted in current reality, it does shift the users perspectives.. Ni asks why the current situation exists at all. What is it about society that allowed this situation to arise at all? Can the economic/social situation be changed to create an environment were people don't feel the need to murder each other? If a gun and drug soaked areas exists, will this increase the chances of such incidents happening again. In this vane the Ni users thoughts drift until the question "why was he shot" takes on an entirly different meaning, and no longer has anything to do with this specific case.

 

[Jeffster]

Look at different perspectives isn't related to P so much as Ni, which is paired with Se. This means that all SPs have Ni as a tertiary or inferior function, and so will usually display at least some apptitude for it.

It's worth noting that the four letters in the code are just a short hand for the attribute function order. They don't mean much on their own. Talking about a strong S (or whatever) is probably missleading. Think of a strong Si or Se instead, because the two functions are very different

This sentiment is oft-repeated, but very rarely supported. A small minority of people came about their "code" by use of "attribute function order" and to assign one to somebody is an unsupported assumption.

 

[compulsiverambler]

Somewhere I read that some SPs (guess due to Se) often score as Ns on several online tests since in interviews they said they also refer to "big picuture thinking" rather than looking for details (rather Si, is that??). However, somewhere I read that the difference between the SPs and Ns is that N sees the pattern FIRST and Se has to LOOK for patterns after having seen details, looks for the patterns behind the details which could also be meant by "interested in the big picture". I'm not sure whether I get this right....... but.... somehow I find it really really hard to tell the difference between Ne (or N in general) and Se at this point....... I myself am sure of being an N, yet, when I observe myself I think I'm also rather LOOKING for the pattern....... I find the S and N difference really easy to tell when it comes to people using Si....I have all my friends and family members identified correctly as SJs......but I just can't tell who is SP and who is some kind of N...... do you have any ideas?

All the Perceiving functions involve active searching and processing, and they all start with details. It seems to me Si users focus on gathering as many details as possible, with the view that they may all be relevant or come in handy and should be kept in mind for later, and Se users focus on immediately sorting the details perceived as most important from those not so important for taking action. They start prioritising information more quickly. This might result in them tending to come to a kind of big picture view (and I agree that could mean different things to different people) more quickly than Si users do. Se's form of big picture thinking is looking for cause and effect relationships within complex situations. N searches for connections between the details, and its form of big picture thinking is looking for cross-contextual relationships between complex situations (Ne), or, something else (Ni).

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think it might be good to distinguish being "open-minded" from being "flexible". Being N means a person will tend to be more open-minded while being P means a person will be more flexible.

So NJ's for example are quite open-minded. This is because they are very imaginative. If you describe something unfamiliar to them they will be open to listening and digesting the new idea, because their imagination will help them to understand something totally unfamiliar. On the other hand once an NJ has decided the way things ought to be, then they won't readily change course in the same way that a P will. This means they are not particularly flexible. Usually an NJ needs time to reflect on their own to change the course they're on while P's do not.

On the other hand SP's are usually not exceptionally open-minded. If you try to describe something totally unfamiliar to them, they will often get bored or give you a funny look like you're crazy/retarded. On the other hand if you demonstrate this new concept to them they will readily grasp it and will not be so opposed or disinterested. SP's are very flexible and will readily change themselves to adapt to the things in their environment. So in this way a person can say that SP's are open to new experiences, but they might not be so open to new ideas especially if they are some abstract theoretical thing that can't be readily seen in the world around them. So I'd simply describe this as very flexible but not exceptionally open-minded.

I hope that makes sense. It's all semantics really, but I'm trying to explain what the meaning behind all of the semantics is.

 

[Eric B]

It's worth remembering that anyone with a strong concious Ne function also has a shadow Ni function as well, opperating in the backround. It will influence their thoughts and outlooks even if they are unaware of it.

Ne and Ni are both related to possibilities, it's true, but different sorts of possibilities. Ne processes the meaning of a given piece of information, so the phrase "A man eating lion" could mean a lion that eats men, or a man that is currently eating a lion burger. It doesn't accept the most obvious interpretation as necessarily being true. Taking a less silly example, an Ne user who hears that drug dealer has been shot does not automatically assume he was shot because of anything to do with drugs. It's just one possibility.

So does that mean when someone jumps to a conclusion that it must have been because of the drugs, is that then Ni? I tend to do that all the time if it is an issue I'm frustrated by, such as how dangerous places can be because of the drugs. Then, if they get shot, it figures "they're lifestyle has finally caught up to them". Sometimes it will come with an "aha!", which is supposed to be Ni's hallmark.
In the back of my mind, I know that it is one possibility, but it seems I want to believe some sort of poetic justice is being measured out by the universe.
So I guess that would be shadow Ni, and particularly in muy case, the "critical parent" complex.

Ultimately, though, the possibilities that Ne comes up with are rooted in current reality, it does shift the users perspectives.. Ni asks why the current situation exists at all. What is it about society that allowed this situation to arise at all? Can the economic/social situation be changed to create an environment were people don't feel the need to murder each other? If a gun and drug soaked areas exists, will this increase the chances of such incidents happening again. In this vane the Ni users thoughts drift until the question "why was he shot" takes on an entirly different meaning, and no longer has anything to do with this specific case.

That happens to me also, usually in grumpy ruminating on a situation.

I think it might be good to distinguish being "open-minded" from being "flexible". Being N means a person will tend to be more open-minded while being P means a person will be more flexible.

So NJ's for example are quite open-minded. This is because they are very imaginative. If you describe something unfamiliar to them they will be open to listening and digesting the new idea, because their imagination will help them to understand something totally unfamiliar. On the other hand once an NJ has decided the way things ought to be, then they won't readily change course in the same way that a P will. This means they are not particularly flexible. Usually an NJ needs time to reflect on their own to change the course they're on while P's do not.

On the other hand SP's are usually not exceptionally open-minded. If you try to describe something totally unfamiliar to them, they will often get bored or give you a funny look like you're crazy/retarded. On the other hand if you demonstrate this new concept to them they will readily grasp it and will not be so opposed or disinterested. SP's are very flexible and will readily change themselves to adapt to the things in their environment. So in this way a person can say that SP's are open to new experiences, but they might not be so open to new ideas especially if they are some abstract theoretical thing that can't be readily seen in the world around them. So I'd simply describe this as very flexible but not exceptionally open-minded.

I hope that makes sense. It's all semantics really, but I'm trying to explain what the meaning behind all of the semantics is.

That's very interesting! So you've recognized a new matrix between "flexible" and "open minded". Sort of like comparing J/P with T/F. they both determine "responsiveness" in different ways, depending on whether they are indicating temperament or Interaction Style.

 

[BlueScreen]

I think this thread says it all : Sensotard Moments

 

[BlackCat]

I think it might be good to distinguish being "open-minded" from being "flexible". Being N means a person will tend to be more open-minded while being P means a person will be more flexible.

So NJ's for example are quite open-minded. This is because they are very imaginative. If you describe something unfamiliar to them they will be open to listening and digesting the new idea, because their imagination will help them to understand something totally unfamiliar. On the other hand once an NJ has decided the way things ought to be, then they won't readily change course in the same way that a P will. This means they are not particularly flexible. Usually an NJ needs time to reflect on their own to change the course they're on while P's do not.

On the other hand SP's are usually not exceptionally open-minded. If you try to describe something totally unfamiliar to them, they will often get bored or give you a funny look like you're crazy/retarded. On the other hand if you demonstrate this new concept to them they will readily grasp it and will not be so opposed or disinterested. SP's are very flexible and will readily change themselves to adapt to the things in their environment. So in this way a person can say that SP's are open to new experiences, but they might not be so open to new ideas especially if they are some abstract theoretical thing that can't be readily seen in the world around them. So I'd simply describe this as very flexible but not exceptionally open-minded.

I hope that makes sense. It's all semantics really, but I'm trying to explain what the meaning behind all of the semantics is.

This is very good. +1

 

[brainheart]

Vagrant Farce directed me to this:

Intuition

I'm not sure how helpful it is. Basically what I get from it via my Fi is (and I am likely totally wrong):

Ne: gullible
Ni: paranoid

Ne: Look at the teddy bear. It has eyes. It's soft. It's in the form of an animal. I find myself feeling affection for it due to its similarity to an animal. I wanna give it a hug.

Ni: This is a piece of soft fabric with some plastic circles glued to the part that is shaped like a head. They want me to think they're eyes. I'm supposed to feel some sort of affection for this thing and think it's cute due to its symbolic representation of an animal, but why would I feel affection for an inanimate object?

How each function would approach typology:

Ne: So this is my type, I guess... unless any information comes along which reveals otherwise...

Ni: This is my type, not that that actually means anything.

I do both of these, often... so I don't know what that means, although I'd say Ne tends to be connected to positivity for me, optimistic enthusiasm for various possibilities (although it can also make my head swim), while when I get in the Ni space I feel negative, elitist, and nihilistic (although it can also provide transcendent moments at times).

 

[VagrantFarce]

You're being too reductive, it isn't just the difference between gullibility and paranoia. If one were to be reductive about Intuition, there's a better one at the bottom of that page:

Ni: Seeking context by avoiding observation
Ne: Seeking context by following observation

Ni is about considering all the possible interpretations of something. It's about finding a way of looking at things that doesn't show itself through typical observation. You don't become aware of these perspectives through interaction, because you can't find them in the outer world. It's like changing the lens on a camera; they allow you to perceive and interpret the world in a slightly different way.

Ne is about actively seeking a greater context in the outer world, and feeds off actual observation and participation. It's about finding hidden possibilities for action and meaning through outer context. The only time you would reinterpret something is when new, related information comes to light through an act of discovery.

Perhaps you're confusing one (or both?) with their sensate counterparts, which don't concern themselves with context at all.

 

[brainheart]

You're being too reductive, it isn't just the difference between gullibility and paranoia. If one were to be reductive about Intuition, there's a better one at the bottom of that page:

Ni: Seeking context by avoiding observation
Ne: Seeking context by following observation

Well, I was kind of joking about that... I was being purposefully too reductive. But yes, your example is more apt.

Ni is about considering all the possible interpretations of something. It's about finding a way of looking at things that doesn't show itself through typical observation. You don't become aware of these perspectives through interaction, because you can't find them in the outer world. It's like changing the lens on a camera; they allow you to perceive and interpret the world in a slightly different way.

So yeah... your internal perspective is uniquely calibrated, irrespective of the external, I get that. So how is the encounter with the teddy bear not like that? You aren't seeing what most other's see when they see a teddy bear... Or are you saying that what I'm describing is more like Se? Or a thinking function?

Ne is about actively seeking a greater context in the outer world, and feeds off actual observation and participation. It's about finding hidden possibilities for action and meaning through outer context. The only time you would reinterpret something is when new, related information comes to light through an act of discovery.

All right, I guess I was seeing this from the perspective of Ne that has never encountered a teddy bear before. It would view it in the context of how it reminds it of the features of live animals and then reach the conclusion that it was similar to those animals it has seen before... or would that be more like Si? Or just plain flat-out Fi?

Okay, bad examples.

I'd try to think of better ones but I'm too tired right now.

 

[VagrantFarce]

So yeah... your internal perspective is uniquely calibrated, irrespective of the external, I get that. So how is the encounter with the teddy bear not like that? You aren't seeing what most other's see when they see a teddy bear... Or are you saying that what I'm describing is more like Se? Or a thinking function?

Actually, what you wrote seems accurate.

All right, I guess I was seeing this from the perspective of Ne that has never encountered a teddy bear before. It would view it in the context of how it reminds it of the features of live animals and then reach the conclusion that it was similar to those animals it has seen before... or would that be more like Si? Or just plain flat-out Fi?

Remember, perceiving functions don't "reach conclusions".

Expanding on the Teddy Bear example:

• Si would scan the bear for small, important details that remind you of past experiences, causing your body to feel as if it was reliving them.
• Se would just see a small teddy bear with brown fur and almond eyes that reflect the golden light off a nearby lamp. It's wearing a green sleeveless jacket with red intercutting stripes and is soft and fuzzy to the touch.
• Fi might ask "what universal, emotional needs does this bear help fulfill?"
• Fe might ask "Who does this bear belong to? why don't they have it with them?"
• Ti might ask "what tactile variables is this bear made up of? how did they conspire to cause this bear to emerge into existence?"
• Te might ask "what practical application could this bear be used to fulfill? what application is it already fulfilling, if any?"

 

[brainheart]

Remember, perceiving functions don't "reach conclusions".

I know. My Fi is such a boor, it's always stumbling in and making its presence known. It's hard for me to explain/view/interpret things without using it.

So how would Ne perceive a teddy bear?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Ne would see the teddy bear and start generating possibilities by linking it with other things contextually. It might think "that could make a great birthday present for my neice, she could play house with it, or give it a piggy-back ride, or put it in a pram and wheel it around like a baby, or throw it out of a window to make it fly, or even just stab it in the eye with a fork, or let the cat tear it to shreds, or dress it up using her old baby clothes, or run around the house holding on to it with one hand and letting it flap in the breeze behind her. what a wonderful toy full of wonderful possibilities!"

Ni might say "this bear is obviously meant to appeal to children, especially girls, because it's wrapped in bright pink packaging and has a big smiley face. Who says that even appeals to children? Why are children so drawn to bright pink packaging? Might someone from a different culture find pink packaging to be offensive? In what context would pick packaging be offensive? Why would they even be offended if it were pink? Why not blue? Why would pink be more offensive that green or black? Why can't a child enjoy black packaging? It's all so arbitrary!"

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

Ne would see the teddy bear and start generating possibilities by linking it with other things contextually. It might think "that could make a great birthday present for my neice, she could play house with it, or give it a piggy-back ride, or put it in a pram and wheel it around like a baby, or throw it out of a window to make it fly, or even just stab it in the eye with a fork, or let the cat tear it to shreds, or dress it up using her old baby clothes, or run around the house holding on to it with one hand and letting it flap in the breeze behind her. what a wonderful toy full of wonderful possibilities!"

Sounds about right.

I'd also consider merging the teddy bear with other toys to make some weird monster toy. Then I might imagine what monster piggy bank teddy bear would do. Rob banks to fill its adorable gaping maw, perhaps.

 

[Heinel]

In what context would pick packaging be offensive? Why would they even be offended if it were pink? Why not blue? Why would pink be more offensive that green or black? Why can't a child enjoy black packaging? It's all so arbitrary!"

Are you sure this isn't Ti?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Are you sure this isn't Ti?

Ti is just about identifying tactile variables holistically. You might be associating Ni with Ti because you're ISTP.

(or maybe I just suck at expressing Ni)