Does N accomodate S more than S accomodates N?

[Esoteric Wench]

Are you unaware of the world?

Of course not, but Se is my 8th preference. It is truly the lowest of the low on my function order list. So I'd say that I'm not nearly as aware of the world as some people. Again, as a human being I have to be aware of my physical surroundings or I'd run into doors. (And, I occasionally do run into doors.) So even though I'm not naturally inclined to do so (because I have dominant Ne) I am forced to practice using my sensing preferences.

BTW, if you haven't seen the Sensotard Moments thread on the NT forum you should check it out. It made me laugh so hard that my abs hurt.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

The problem is that S with S still exists, while N needs to enter S to evolve into something tangable.

I think it is twice the work to get S on board with N than it is to get N on board with S. Then again, good N can be pretty fucking stubborn.

So true.

 

[entropie]

Btw mean people can be Ns too, see this genius connection of the dots for referance

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7jDRqaJU2E&feature=related"].[/YOUTUBE]

 

[KDude]

I conflict and/or have to "tweak" things more on Fi related matters (perhaps a Fi informed by a Ne scope). Otherwise, what I see as S differences are subtle. Sometimes aggravating, but subtle. More subtle than actively preventing myself from walking into walls or something. It's this kind of silliness that makes me want to retype ISFP just because I can ride a skateboard or something.

 

[INTP]

my view on this is that Ne is basically unconscious perception of "Se", taking these details that this "Se" provides and unconscious mind working to find patterns about where those details came from and where they might be going, now these patterns that unconscious mind made from the details are taken into the conscious and those patterns coming to conscious perception is Ne.

the reason i said "Se", is that its not actually Se thats being used, even tho it basically does the same thing(perceiving the details). Se is when those details come to conscious mind and viewed as they are without further processing(like finding patterns) of the unconscious. Se is objective perception, the objectivity of the perception vanishes when when its the patterns that are perceived by the conscious, not the details itself.

and Se user trying to figure out patterns isnt Ne, because Ne is unconscious perception of those patterns.

naturally even Ne types are capable of seeing details with their eyes, but just seeing them doesent mean you are using Se, it means that you are using your eyes.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I must take issue with the idea that Sensors don't have to "speak N" - as an university student, I am often exposed to abstract ideas even in more "concrete" courses (Journalism, for instance which tends to attract quite a few STJs, or so I hear). The world often seems like a complex place to me, an iNtuitive*, so I imagine Sensors feel a bit lost as well; we're both missing a part of the puzzle in that way, as well as in many others. It's not that rare for someone, N or S, feel like the world is a labirynthine place.

An excellent point Viridian. I agree that studying at university is a great way people are forced to exercise their N-speak. So you are correct that there are ways... many ways... that Ss learn to enhance their N preference.

But I would argue that if an S opts out of university, or reading about philosophy, or getting a subscription to Foreign Affairs, that it is possible for them to duck many of the activities that would require them to exercise their N preference.

Whereas, no N can opt out of exercising his S preference. All Ns must, I repeat MUST, exercise their S preferences as they go about the act of living. And, this is a very radical and profound statement on my part. I recognize this, but it's not a statement I make without much consideration.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Btw mean people can be Ns too, see this genius connection of the dots for reference

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7jDRqaJU2E&feature=related"].[/YOUTUBE]

LOL! Yeah, that's a pretty N-oriented *sshole move.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I've had occasions where I've butt heads with Si-doms. When I've come up with a new inventive strategy to get job A done, and suggest it to an Si-dom, and then they tell me that they've had more experience with doing job A and know of a strategy that works. It feels like a buzzkill to come up with a way to get something done, and not have your ideas accepted. Then I get stubborn to do it my way (Ni stubbornness), and then after a while end up trying the method the Si user suggested, and realize it really is more effective. lol

I do find that working with Si-doms, they get hell bent if details are missing, especially Si-Te doms... if you don't follow the steps verbatim, you're done! LOL Most times I'm kind of half in the now and half inside my head, and I end up withdrawing from the rest of the world even while getting mundane stuff done. Not very good while in the presence of a sensor who is more keen on details than I am! I'm never in the present moment. I'm just kind of floating in my own brain. Some tasks require one to be in the present moment, so it can grate on sensors when I am messing up on key details of procedures. I just look at the general picture of the procedures.

But I find that working with sensors in general help to hone in my weak spots.

 

[Ginkgo]

Of course not, but Se is my 8th preference. It is truly the lowest of the low on my function order list. So I'd say that I'm not nearly as aware of the world as some people. Again, as a human being I have to be aware of my physical surroundings or I'd run into doors. (And, I occasionally do run into doors.) So even though I'm not naturally inclined to do so (because I have dominant Ne) I am forced to practice using my sensing preferences.

BTW, if you haven't seen the Sensotard Moments thread on the NT forum you should check it out. It made me laugh so hard that my abs hurt.

Maybe you should watch where you're going.

 

[Ginkgo]

Even intuition requires some element of 'sensing' in order to operate. Forming abstract concepts requires both an object and a subject because intuition is a form of perception. Even introspection is a perspective loosely based on an object; as Jung put it, it is an "inner eye" of sorts.

I have an alternative theory - you 'speak sensing' (whatever that means) because you perceive differences between you and others, which have only become reinforced by MBTI. You deliberately talk about concrete things, not because you're a special intuitive snowflake, but because you salvaged the idea from types. This is something your colleagues (I'm guessing) don't have access to.

 

[Orangey]

Caveat: I don't know if I can really fully understand what it is to be S, so I'm just muddling my way through and explaining it as I see it. If I'm taking "sensing" a bit too literally, I apologize. Can you explain it any better to help me understand it more?

I'll just quote what I posted a while back in that "why I am no longer going to complain about anti-s bias" thread (which I'm sure got ignored.) This is how I view functions.

The way I view the relationship between types and certain career or occupational "niches" is thus:

[I got this from a site that Eric B posted a while back in another thread, and I thought it was immensely helpful.]

Functions are an orientation to the world; not discrete sets of concrete behaviors. An individual is, for instance, an Fi dominant person if they have an "emotional investment" in furthering the goal of making their lives congruent with themselves. That is, whatever they concretely do will be in the service of this goal, and other goals will be seen as comparatively less relevant or important. This orientation or perspective does not indicate what behaviors the individual will engage in, nor do individuals that engage in behaviors that can, on the surface, look like keyword descriptions of Fi necessarily do it because they are an Fi type. This leaves behaviors (the things we externalize to the world) completely incompatible with categorization in terms of functions. (Yes, that means we cannot look at a person's speech or writing and detect Fi or Ne or Ni...)

If we cannot categorize behaviors in terms of functions because ANY functional orientation can lead to the same behavior, then how can we say that any type would be better or worse at engaging in certain types of behavior required of specific professions? Or specific life situations? The only thing we could say is that, given the goal of the dominant functional orientation of different types, there is a chance that they may enjoy certain professions. This does not mean that they would be better at these professions than other types, nor that they would not enjoy nor be skilled at other professions; it simply means that the nature of the profession absent other information about the individual might dovetail nicely with the perspective of their dominant function.

Thus an ISTJ philosopher and an INTP philosopher may agree on the same theory, and even adduce the same arguments in favor of the theory for academic purposes, but have come to the same point from completely different functional perspectives. The ISTJ philosopher, for instance, may have originally favored the theory because it accorded with other things that he'd read before; ideas with which he was already familiar. The INTP philosopher, on the other hand, may have originally favored the theory first and foremost because it made sense. Similarly, if we throw an ESTP philosopher into this scenario, they might agree with the theory because it matches what they experience as observable reality (while, as you can see, the ISTJ and INTP did not focus on this aspect of it.)

Coming back around to the issue of it being difficult for Ns in an S world; the only way this claim could be made was if we assumed that functional preference leads to certain specific behaviors (e.g., not bathing one's self regularly or taking care of responsibilities, etc.,.) And the only way we could say it was an "S world" in the first place is if we tied behaviors to functions, which is not a correct use of the theory.

This is a quote about what it is to be a Sensor from www.myersbriggs.org:

Sensing (S): Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.​

So when I say speaking S, I mean that when Ss speak they tend to talk about their physical reality more than their impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information they see.

It seems like you've extrapolated some things from that quote that are not textually supported. For instance, how does being "concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real" lead to not speaking about impressions, meaning, or patterns? You can easily see patterns with your eyes. Impressions are sensory. Meaning is okay as long as it's REAL meaning. Something that is actual, instead of pure speculation or theory built on top of theory. You see? It's not a behavior as much as it is a view of the world.

You're right, of course, that for the sake of this argument, I'm putting what it is to be S into a neat little package of "S speak." I don't want to minimize the complexity of being an S. The best I can do is to explain how it seems to be from my N perspective. I'm open to corrections, clarifications if you think I've got it wrong.

So to reiterate, my theory is that Ns must operate in the S realm of thinking. Being a human being forces Ns to do this. But being a human being doesn't necessarily require anyone to think in the N realm. Ergo, Ns have more practice using their Sensing preference and this, in general, makes it easier for Ns to connect with and accommodate S thinking than vice versa.

Like I said in the post I quoted above, the only way you can call it an "S realm of thinking" is if you think of S as being a list of concrete behaviors which includes things like, "chops wood," or "drives a car." I don't think that's how the functions should be viewed.

 

[entropie]

But I dont think Esoteric wanted to say here that S's are like genetically coded S's and cant change. Another difference I dont see between behaviour and view on the world. You'ld always behave differently according to your view on the world. Someone who is actually able to view the world because he doesnt have to use glasses I think is much more darin in his behaviour because he knbows where he's going

 

[Southern Kross]

It seems like you've extrapolated some things from that quote that are not textually supported. For instance, how does being "concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real" lead to not speaking about impressions, meaning, or patterns? You can easily see patterns with your eyes. Impressions are sensory. Meaning is okay as long as it's REAL meaning. Something that is actual, instead of pure speculation or theory built on top of theory. You see? It's not a behavior as much as it is a view of the world.

Sorry to be annoying but I am compelled to point out the irony of the above statements in relation to the subject being discussed.

Apologies, continue.

 

[Elfboy]

a few points
1) I think historically Ns have had to accomodate Ss substantially, and they still do, but to far less an extent than in the past (thankyou democracy lol)
2) the idea that school is easier for N types is SUCH a myth (in response to a previous comment somewhere on this thread that I'm too lazy to find) most of school is:
- go to class
- read this
- memorize this
- do this
the only edge Ns have is on tests and the little abstract material covered in the course
3) it also depends on the environment. in upper class society for instance, it's often the Ss that need to accomodate the Ns
- you have to be able to hold an intelligent conversation
- most jobs or occupations that earn large amounts of money require a lot of strategy and abstract thought
- the upper class usually has more time reflect and take up more abstract interests (the working and middle class are usually busy all day and simply don't have time to do these things)

PS: more than Ns accomodating Ss, I think a far more prominent and less subtle trend is Ps having to accomodate Js

 

[rav3n]

Consider the nature of Si in a dom or aux position, working in concert with the nature of Te or Fe in a dom or aux position. This should explain the opening post.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I've thought about this somewhat. It's hard for me to get past this fact sometimes. We're all sensors. I don't think we can divide perception. I think we can only say what someone chooses to trust, which leads towards the division.

 

[King sns]

Caveat: I don't know if I can really fully understand what it is to be S, so I'm just muddling my way through and explaining it as I see it. If I'm taking "sensing" a bit too literally, I apologize. Can you explain it any better to help me understand it more?



This is a quote about what it is to be a Sensor from www.myersbriggs.org:

Sensing (S): Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.​

So when I say speaking S, I mean that when Ss speak they tend to talk about their physical reality more than their impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information they see.

You're right, of course, that for the sake of this argument, I'm putting what it is to be S into a neat little package of "S speak." I don't want to minimize the complexity of being an S. The best I can do is to explain how it seems to be from my N perspective. I'm open to corrections, clarifications if you think I've got it wrong.

So to reiterate, my theory is that Ns must operate in the S realm of thinking. Being a human being forces Ns to do this. But being a human being doesn't necessarily require anyone to think in the N realm. Ergo, Ns have more practice using their Sensing preference and this, in general, makes it easier for Ns to connect with and accommodate S thinking than vice versa.

I have thoughts on this, but don't think I can articulate them very well. I think we all speak all the languages on one degree or another. For me, I feel that it all starts with Se, all my thoughts begin with the physical reality of things. I am accepting a wide variety of details into my brain at any given time. From there is when I draw conclusions and make patterns. I don't understand why there would be a "secret language" amongst N's. I don't notice much of a communication barrier between myself and N's in my life. To me it just looks like they are thinking backwards. It's like, they start with the theory and the big picture and then move backwards to fill it in with the details. Underdeveloped people won't move past their original thought process. So, an underdeveloped S may have trouble communicating with an underdeveloped N, because they aren't meeting anywhere in between. Most well rounded adults end up appearing to speak both S and N languages, their processes moving in different directions. (Sorry if this came out awkward.)

However, because the world is a physical and literal place and underdeveloped N's are in their head, and we can't walk around reading each others thoughts,I imagine that N's would have to be forced out of their comfort zone more quickly than underdeveloped S's are forced out of theirs. (In essence, I'm agreeing, but don't think it should be too difficult for people to think from different perspectives unless you are young or don't develop, or are someone who is surrounded by people who don't develop.)

Edit: I would have a lot of difficulty communicating with an N who has all these conclusions, theories, and broad assumptions with no interest in backing it up and seeing facts that are before their very eyes. I imagine those N's struggle a lot more in the world.

Double Edit: Regarding the grad school, I think that a lot of this is native to S. Collecting facts first, and secondly pulling them together and drawing conclusions. That is the S process. As long as the theory has application to the world, and starts with facts first, it is not a problem to think in those terms. I think that N's would have a better time in classes such as philosophy, (since there is a lot of guesswork there. And to me, it is a subject where facts are irrelevant, and theory comes first.) There are plenty of programs that would be very applicable to the S thought process.

 

[onemoretime]

Often it's just as hard to communicate with other intuitives.

Two people have to be on the same wavelength as far as subject matter. Often it's not function as much as focus.

 

[Randomnity]

Ummm...so in your OP you say

Thus, my theory is that it usually falls upon the N to communicate in his non-native S language with Ss. By the same token, Ss very rarely try to communicate with Ns in the language of abstraction.

But you don't explain what these languages are, or why there would be such a divide. I have lots of N friends, and I don't overhear them talking to each other in some mystical language that is forbidden to my kind.

1. Ns learn to communicate in an S style even though it's not their native language more often than Ss learn to communicate in an N style.
2. The reason for this disparity is that even if one is born with an N preference, one cannot escape operating in the concrete world we are all born into. Thus, Ns have more practice with thinking in Sensing ways than vice versa.
3. Points 1 and 2 explain why Ns feel like they are always the ones having to accommodate Ss, whereas Ss do little to accommodate Ns. It's not that Ss are inconsiderate per se. It's just that Ns must learn to speak in S whereas, Ss do not have to learn to speak in N.

Any thoughts?

What does that even mean? Can you provide an example of S speak and N speak? Please tell me it's not "gee the sky is blue today" vs "blah blah blah metaphysics string theory existentialism blah blah"

So when I say speaking S, I mean that when Ss speak they tend to talk about their physical reality more than their impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information they see.

So you're talking about conversational topics now, not "style" or "language".(?) Your interchanging use of non-synonymous words is confusing.

If I'm interpreting your ideas correctly (???????) I think your premise is incorrect (that sensors talk about only things they can immediately see and touch) so any theory based on that would be flawed. I also think you're making another flawed assumption: that sensors and intuitives start from vastly different places (relative to all the other differences that might exist between people: gender, race, age, class, etc etc etc). A third premise that makes no sense to me is that one person must "accommodate" the other, rather than it being a mutual effort towards understanding.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Often it's just as hard to communicate with other intuitives.

Two people have to be on the same wavelength as far as subject matter. Often it's not function as much as focus.

Yeah^, I was just thinking the same thing reading through these posts. It's not like there's one "secret language" that all intuitives share, there's just select intuitives with whom I don't have to put much or any effort into being understood because their minds make the same leaps. It depends on how similar their associations with different words are to mine, or how similar their experiences/reactions are to things, among other things. When I meet someone who doesn’t even begin to make sense to me, more often than not it’s because they’re intuitive.

[edit:]

It seems like you've extrapolated some things from that quote that are not textually supported. For instance, how does being "concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real" lead to not speaking about impressions, meaning, or patterns? You can easily see patterns with your eyes. Impressions are sensory. Meaning is okay as long as it's REAL meaning. Something that is actual, instead of pure speculation or theory built on top of theory. You see? It's not a behavior as much as it is a view of the world.

Maybe I'm confused by what Orangey meant here, but it seems to me like s/he is actually demonstrating the very point s/he is trying to negate. (This may or may not be the same point Southern Cross was trying to make.)