S-Practical/N-Theoretical Divide is Nonsense

[Nigel Tufnel]

Never believed this because I'm strong N and don't walk around talking about theories all day. Meanwhile, a good friend of mine is strong S, and uses a lot of big words to express what could be said far more simply. While exhibiting many S traits, the last thing you would call him is "practical".

While I think it's harder to tell S/N apart than the other 3, whether someone is "practical" tells you nothing. No idea is practical if it can't be used. The iPhone, bifocals, and light bulb were all invented by strong N's, and are very practical. Difference is they required looking ahead, and this to me is the biggest distinction between S and N - S lives in the moment, N lives in the future, but you can't say one is more practical than the other.

One of the common traits of ADHD, mostly an N diagnosis, is impending doom. As an N, I can understand this, because I naturally think about how what I'm doing now will impact the future. Many NPs I know are best motivated by work that alters how people will do things in the future, even if it relates to something small - like changing how an industry orders parts from suppliers. Everything can be improved upon. Also noticed many NPs sometimes care a lot less about money if they feel their work will impact the future. Ss on the other hand will be happy making an impact immediately.

I think this time distinction tells you a lot more about S/N then whether someone discusses theories. Some of that is the result of individual experience, not innate type.

 

[Oaky]

Living in the moment = living in the present reality = practical
Living in the future = living in your mind of what could theoretically happen = theoretical

You contradict yourself.

You have many flaws in your arguments. I suggest you research more about the functions.

 

[nolla]

Difference is they required looking ahead, and this to me is the biggest distinction between S and N - S lives in the moment, N lives in the future, but you can't say one is more practical than the other.

It would be hard to type me N or S if you focused on seeing if I live in the present or not. This is because you can't observe me when I'm not around people. When I am around people I tend to live in the moment.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Living in the future = living in your mind of what could theoretically happen = theoretical

so I guess the light bulb is only a theory then

 

[Oaky]

so I guess the light bulb is only a theory then

Applying the theory to reality can be done with the use of the Thinking preference.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

When I am around people I tend to live in the moment.

so do most people regardless of S-N preference, I'd rather drink a beer with a friend than envision having a beer with a friend

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Applying the theory to reality is the use of the Thinking preference.

having the idea in the first place is an N preference

 

[Oaky]

having the idea in the first place is an N preference

What's the problem? Sensors are down to earth, more practical and traditional. Intuitives dwell into ideas, theories and fantasy and may apply them to reality. But this is a really simplistic distinction between the two.

 

[Totenkindly]

having the idea in the first place is an N preference

No... it's really not.
Especially in adults.

Adults all have some level of abstracted thinking ability. (Are you telling us ISTJ nuclear engineers don't have ideas and theories about things?)

It's more a matter of whether someone prefers it, has developed it, and is more comfortable with it than with dealing with sensory information.

Some people prefer dealing with abstractions and concepts without having to specific the nature of them first, whereas others need to make things concrete more often in order to understand and apply knowledge.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Intuitives dwell into ideas, theories and fantasy

which would suggest that Ss don't like science fiction, and that even then, they like it much more than I do

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

(Are you telling us ISTJ nuclear engineers don't have ideas and theories about things?)

they understand and discuss theories just as I've been saying, Ss are as theoretical as Ns

 

[Totenkindly]

they understand and discuss theories just as I've been saying, Ss are as theoretical as Ns

But you just said "having the idea in the first place is an N preference." Which is not true. And your "just as theoretical" comment is a little fuzzy.

S's have the capability to discuss and understand theory, yes. Just as N's can discuss facts and details and use them to buttress theories.

But S's tend to do it a bit differently or have a different preference for it than people who are primarily. They tend to translate there into very concrete effects in order to discuss it and get absorbed more in the practical applications.

It's sort of the difference between thinking in arithmetic vs algebra. S's are more comfortable making it concrete, to manipulate it; N's aren't bothered by pushing the concepts around without having to break them down further... and they all still make sense.

Another general example: Let's say you're at a Christian church and hear "Love others as you love yourself." S's are more apt to not know exactly what that means unless they break it down into specific observable behaviors; N's tend to be better at just hearing it, knowing what attitude that means (attitude = ambiance = guiding principle) and letting it ride in a specific situation without having to make a rule out of it first.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I can't imagine a dominant-Si would be anywhere near as theoretical as a dominant-Ni in their thinking, but I understand what you're saying: of course people with an S in their type can be theoretical, and of course people with an N in their type can be practical. But there's still a preference.

It also helps to point out that every type has access to both a sense and intuition function; what matters is which ones they are, and what order they're in. Both ISTPs and INTJs use Ni, but the contexts in which they're used will differ because one type has it as a Dominant function and the other has it as a Tertiary function.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

They tend to translate there into very concrete effects.

N's inventions are very concrete. Nothing theoretical about the graphic interface on the computer I'm using to type this comment.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

It also helps to point out that every type has access to both a sense and intuition function; what matters is which ones they are, and what order they're in.

Right, but it won't impact whether they prefer theories or practice, but it will impact they're more likely to act based on future outcomes or present outcomes.

 

[sleepy]

Another general example: Let's say you're at a Christian church and hear "Love others as you love yourself." S's are more apt to not know exactly what that means unless they break it down into specific observable behaviors; N's tend to be better at just hearing it, knowing what attitude that means (attitude = ambiance = guiding principle) and letting it ride in a specific situation without having to make a rule out of it first.

Exactly. I tend to think about burning witches when they say this. Suppose that's past vs future.

 

[Oaky]

N's inventions are very concrete. Nothing theoretical about the graphic interface on the computer I'm using to type this comment.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Right, but it won't impact whether they prefer theories or practice, but it will impact they're more likely to act based on future outcomes or present outcomes.

It's less to do with future and present outcomes, and more to do with whether you relish context or "the little details". Intuitives naturally like playing with contextual implications, whereas Sensors find small sensations and fine details to be liberating.

Although I do think it does impact whether they prefer theory or practise, but that's really all we're talking about: preference, not ability.

 

[King sns]

It's less to do with future and present outcomes, and more to do with whether you relish context or "the little details". Intuitives naturally like playing with contextual implications, whereas Sensors find small sensations and fine details to be liberating.

This is very accurate IME.
I think that we tend to build theories based on a lot of little facts and details that we notice as well. We tend to draw conclusions based on a lot more information rather than just theorizing for the sake of theorizing based on things that we don't actually see or have evidence of.

 

[tinkerbell]

I'm considered to be creative and super practical, I also get loads done... it's all go go go... I like to think of my ideas as insightful and practical...