• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Does N accomodate S more than S accomodates N?

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Ummm...so in your OP you say

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.


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 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.

Yeah, exactly. It's like we're just supposed to assume that there's such a thing as "N speak" or "S speak."

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.

+1000000

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.

Fufufufu.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.


[edit:]


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.)

No, she's saying that functions are just thought processes. An S theorizes based on facts. We understand theory and "N stuff", but not theory based on theory. And S develops theory through existing facts. An N develops facts through theory. Either way, you can't deny one for the other.

I don't think there's much to accommodate here. There's nothing more profound or misunderstood about one process or another.

(Edit: Well, obviously human minds are much more complicated than the above, but these differences alone still shouldn't cause a huge communication barrier.)
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
i feel like there are so many things that make it hard to communicate with someone that have more of an impact than N/S preference that it's practically a moot point, if it's not a moot point already. for example: language, dialect, cultural background, ethnic background, socioeconomic background, family background, general worldview, time period, location, intention, tone of voice, projection, misinterpretation, body language, even vocalization itself... people always have to mutually accommodate one another to communicate.

beyond that... i don't really see why it would. language itself is technically an abstract - substituting amalgamations of sounds to stand for senses, objects, conceptualizations. and i think we both have plenty of practice in one anothers' worlds.
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
Don't we all have to accommodate? It's not primarily because of S/N though. We take this stuff too seriously. MBTI/enneagram is just pseudo psychology that is fun to to toy with.:)
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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.)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. EW took being "concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real" to mean that "S speak" would not consist of impressions, patterns, or meaning (which, if you think about it, would mean that S style communication would consist of no more than things like "look, a tree.") I said that this was an unwarranted conclusion to be drawn from the paragraph that she quoted about "what it is to be a Sensor."

Why is it unwarranted? Because one may just as easily speak of impressions, patterns, and meaning if they are "concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real" (ugh...redundant) as one would if they were concerned with "new things and what might be possible." And that's because:

1. Someone who concerns themselves with what is actual or real has impressions, sees patterns, and detects meaning. They're just impressions, patterns, and meanings that they see as having immediate relevance, or as being concretely demonstrable. Being an S or N does not cut one off from certain modalities of thought; it's just the content and focus of those thoughts that are different.

2. Moreover, being S or N does not cut one off from certain modalities of speech.

As for Southern Cross's "point" about my comment being ironic, I thought that the irony she was pointing out came from the fact that I, an S, was criticizing EW, an N, for extrapolating meaning beyond the details of the text while at the same time protesting the stated differences between N and S (which I wasn't. I was protesting something much more specific. But I could see how one might not think too hard about it if they just wanted an opportunity to be pithy. Or at least attempt to be pithy, as the case may be.) I'm not seeing the irony in the sentence that you bolded, though.

No, she's saying that functions are just thought processes. An S theorizes based on facts. We understand theory and "N stuff", but not theory based on theory. And S develops theory through existing facts. An N develops facts through theory. Either way, you can't deny one for the other.

I don't think there's much to accommodate here. There's nothing more profound or misunderstood about one process or another.

(Edit: Well, obviously human minds are much more complicated than the above, but these differences alone still shouldn't cause a huge communication barrier.)

Yeah, exactly.

i feel like there are so many things that make it hard to communicate with someone that have more of an impact than N/S preference that it's practically a moot point, if it's not a moot point already. for example: language, dialect, cultural background, ethnic background, socioeconomic background, family background, general worldview, time period, location, intention, tone of voice, projection, misinterpretation, body language, even vocalization itself... people always have to mutually accommodate one another to communicate.

beyond that... i don't really see why it would. language itself is technically an abstract - substituting amalgamations of sounds to stand for senses, objects, conceptualizations. and i think we both have plenty of practice in one anothers' worlds.

+10000

Don't we all have to accommodate? It's not primarily because of S/N though. We take this stuff too seriously literally.

Fixed.
 

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ
How about 2 S types that talk to each other and leave the experience like :huh:

I'd hate to see someone who is totally S or totally N. I don't think they'd make it back from a morning jog alive.

I think life calls for a measure of each sensing and intution. What makes people different are preferences and comfort in using the functions. So I think your theory would work on the non-well rounded S types (as you asserted). And it would equally work on an elitist N type who looks down on others if they perceive that people can't keep up with them. But the majority of the people who are middle of the road with S and N, regardless of preference, understand the give and takes of communication.

And I still feel that there are a lot of N types who fail to understand the sensing functions. I think that a lot of Ns take their earlier experiences and extrapolate that into a worldview without taking a moment to realize that most children have some kind of communication and understanding gap with their family and other authority figures, especially when you factor in things like religion and tradition. There are also N types who aren't tolerant of differences as well.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When I first read about the differences between S and N, I was skeptical if they were valid. I figured that everyone was an S. Who doesn't accept facts and data first before trying to draw meaning and theory? I think a lot of self reported N's on this site confused "focus on facts" for "not understanding meaning." Secondly, are probably typing people in their lives who talk about the meaning behind the data to be N's. Someone presenting/accepting data before it's connections is an S. In my opinion, theory without established data is useless theory. Someone presenting meaning and filling it with facts (or creating facts) is an N (in my opinion.) N's can have brilliant "aha" moments by skipping the data and thinking about things that aren't seen. Or they can be completely useless, developing meanings for things that have no meanings. Backing up their meanings with inaccurate data, (or any other flaw that can result from being so focused on theories and patterns) N's that deny that "s language" and "s thinking" are "boring" to them do not understand what an S is.

(Edit: I'm also thinking of raw N vs. raw S.. as IZ said, there is a spectrum. There's functions, there's other factors. When you mix the two thought processes together, you have a bunch of people who are essentially the same.)
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How about 2 S types that talk to each other and leave the experience like :huh:

I'd hate to see someone who is totally S or totally N. I don't think they'd make it back from a morning jog alive.

I think life calls for a measure of each sensing and intution. What makes people different are preferences and comfort in using the functions. So I think your theory would work on the non-well rounded S types (as you asserted). And it would equally work on an elitist N type who looks down on others if they perceive that people can't keep up with them. But the majority of the people who are middle of the road with S and N, regardless of preference, understand the give and takes of communication.

And I still feel that there are a lot of N types who fail to understand the sensing functions. I think that a lot of Ns take their earlier experiences and extrapolate that into a worldview without taking a moment to realize that most children have some kind of communication and understanding gap with their family and other authority figures, especially when you factor in things like religion and tradition. There are also N types who aren't tolerant of differences as well.

Yea, good example of a poorly developed N developing meaning and then filling it with facts.
 

Esoteric Wench

Professional Trickster
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
945
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
a few points
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

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, Elfboy. There is a huge difference between K-12 education and a classical liberal arts college education. It is well-known that K-12 education tends to be of an S orientation... just like you said about reading and memorizing. (And I've read articles @ how the vast majority of K-12 teachers are Ss.) Whereas a university education at a liberal arts college is primarily N oriented. (And the vast majority of PhD holding liberal arts college professors are N.) Pick your subject... even physics or mathematics for example. When you study these on the university level, you are studying the theory buttressing the rotely memorized calculations you learned in high school. It was when I first entered university that I felt like I was finally around people (viz., professors) that spoke my language. And, this was long before I learned about Jung and typology. So I say unequivocally that a liberal arts university education is strongly N-oriented. And, this is a great place for Ss to strengthen their N functions.

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)

Egad, Elfboy! Karl Marx would be turning over in his grave to read this... class struggles and all this statement implies. I don't know exactly what you're referring to here, because I don't think being S or N is reflected in socio-economic class whatsoever. I'm guessing that what you're referring to is that most people born into the highest socio-economic classes have the benefit of a university education. (See point above.)

I imagine you envision erudite conversations in the East Hamptons where people are sipping on liqueurs after formal dinner parties and speaking in William F. Buckley kind of accents. Here again, I proffer that this N-kind of banter is not a function of class but more a function of mucho higher learning... which admittedly is stressed more in higher socio-economic classes. But only 20% of the rich are Ns... just like 20% of the poor.

(As an aside, I met a homeless, African-American INFJ a few months back. He could talk to me about philosophy and politics for days on end. It was fascinating to speak with him while standing outside his homeless shelter.)

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

I'm not gonna disagree with you here. Those darn Js. If they had their way, if a party was said to start at 7:00 pm, we would all be there at 6:59 pm sharp. Ha ha! :alttongue:

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.

Shortnsweet, I wrote my above answer to Elfboy before reading your response. I completely agree with you and this is something I hadn't thought of before you wrote this. Research in many fields taught in college with its emphasis on collecting data would very much be in the realm of S-ness. Thanks for pointing this out. I also agree with you that many subjects... and varying approaches within subjects are going to focus on a theory first orientation. This would be of much more interest to Ns.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, Elfboy. There is a huge difference between K-12 education and a classical liberal arts college education. It is well-known that K-12 education tends to be of an S orientation... just like you said about reading and memorizing. (And I've read articles @ how the vast majority of K-12 teachers are Ss.) Whereas a university education at a liberal arts college is primarily N oriented. (And the vast majority of PhD holding liberal arts college professors are N.) Pick your subject... even physics or mathematics for example. When you study these on the university level, you are studying the theory buttressing the rotely memorized calculations you learned in high school. It was when I first entered university that I felt like I was finally around people (viz., professors) that spoke my language. And, this was long before I learned about Jung and typology. So I say unequivocally that a liberal arts university education is strongly N-oriented. And, this is a great place for Ss to strengthen their N functions.



Egad, Elfboy! Karl Marx would be turning over in his grave to read this... class struggles and all this statement implies. I don't know exactly what you're referring to here, because I don't think being S or N is reflected in socio-economic class whatsoever. I'm guessing that what you're referring to is that most people born into the highest socio-economic classes have the benefit of a university education. (See point above.)

I imagine you envision erudite conversations in the East Hamptons where people are sipping on liqueurs after formal dinner parties and speaking in William F. Buckley kind of accents. Here again, I proffer that this N-kind of banter is not a function of class but more a function of mucho higher learning... which admittedly is stressed more in higher socio-economic classes. But only 20% of the rich are Ns... just like 20% of the poor.

(As an aside, I met a homeless, African-American INFJ a few months back. He could talk to me about philosophy and politics for days on end. It was fascinating to speak with him while standing outside his homeless shelter.)



I'm not gonna disagree with you here. Those darn Js. If they had their way, if a party was said to start at 7:00 pm, we would all be there at 6:59 pm sharp. Ha ha! :alttongue:



Shortnsweet, I wrote my above answer to Elfboy before reading your response. I completely agree with you and this is something I hadn't thought of before you wrote this. Research in many fields taught in college with its emphasis on collecting data would very much be in the realm of S-ness. Thanks for pointing this out. I also agree with you that many subjects... and varying approaches within subjects are going to focus on a theory first orientation. This would be of much more interest to Ns.


(Thank you. :) Also, your William F Buckley/high class statement made me laugh.)

Though, I think few would argue that the K through 12 education "speaks their language" academically. I found most of those years boring and useless. The even more boring and useless side of it was that I was spending time skipping grades in classes that were never going to be applicable to my life anyways. I don't think that going to University necessarily implied that everyone around you suddenly had to "speak N." For me, college level courses have always been more interesting because low and behold, they apply to my job and things that I need to know. (And I'm an S, so.. that makes sense.) There are still a ton of facts behind the conclusions that I draw at school and on the job. I still don't have to rely on guesswork. Facts are necessary before indulging in any kind of theory or hunch. Higher education is simply more interesting and applicable than the primary years (and early college.) That's why you liked it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
When I first read about the differences between S and N, I was skeptical if they were valid. I figured that everyone was an S.

I respect typology for teaching us that not everyone thinks the same way.

Who doesn't accept facts and data first before trying to draw meaning and theory? I think a lot of self reported N's on this site confused "focus on facts" for "not understanding meaning." Secondly, are probably typing people in their lives who talk about the meaning behind the data to be N's. Someone presenting/accepting data before it's connections is an S. In my opinion, theory without established data is useless theory.

Then that means most of typology is useless theory.

It's not useless, just unfounded, like the MBTI which is based on making assumptions about Jungian INTJ typology, but is not based in S (reality). Your comment indirectly supports what I've been saying on another thread. For example, the idea that my inferior function is Fe has no basis in my personal reality. It is true in theory, but not necessarily in practice. And it is true in theory only because someone made up a nice-sounding idea about cognitive functions that makes sense in a circular way, but only internally to the theory itself.

Question: if S = reality oriented, then N = ?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How about 2 S types that talk to each other and leave the experience like :huh:

I'd hate to see someone who is totally S or totally N. I don't think they'd make it back from a morning jog alive.

I think life calls for a measure of each sensing and intution. What makes people different are preferences and comfort in using the functions. So I think your theory would work on the non-well rounded S types (as you asserted). And it would equally work on an elitist N type who looks down on others if they perceive that people can't keep up with them. But the majority of the people who are middle of the road with S and N, regardless of preference, understand the give and takes of communication.

And I still feel that there are a lot of N types who fail to understand the sensing functions. I think that a lot of Ns take their earlier experiences and extrapolate that into a worldview without taking a moment to realize that most children have some kind of communication and understanding gap with their family and other authority figures, especially when you factor in things like religion and tradition. There are also N types who aren't tolerant of differences as well.

Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, learning typology makes the differences stand out more clearly, giving an inroad to more intolerance. "You INTPs are all alike."

Your statement about children and the communication gap reminded me of something that I overheard one day. The 7-year-old son was explaining to his father why he should spend the night at his friend's house. But the explanation wasn't very clear, and so the father responded by saying (and this is an exact quote), "But son, that isn't logical."

WTH?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I respect typology for teaching us that not everyone thinks the same way.



Then that means most of typology is useless theory.

It's not useless, just unfounded, like the MBTI which is based on making assumptions about Jungian INTJ typology, but is not based in S (reality). Your comment indirectly supports what I've been saying on another thread. For example, the idea that my inferior function is Fe has no basis in my personal reality. It is true in theory, but not necessarily in practice. And it is true in theory only because someone made up a nice-sounding idea about cognitive functions that makes sense in a circular way, but only internally to the theory itself.

Question: if S = reality oriented, then N = ?

See other posts to answer your question.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
See other posts to answer your question.

Other posts where and by whom? I just wanted you to fill in the blank. Reality-oriented versus [what]-oriented.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'd hate to see someone who is totally S or totally N. I don't think they'd make it back from a morning jog alive.

Well yes, there is this. I wish I had the book in front of me, as I could then provide the actual quotes/info rather than the gist, but I'm reading a book on brain function, and in it it of course goes into all of these crazy exceptions in the world - the people who cannot sleep at all, the people who sleep nonstop, the people who retain amazing amounts of irrelevant detail for decades but have zero ability to synthesize and detect patterns (= 100% 'S'?), people with amazing stress-recovery ability, and on and on. So all of these exceptions to me represent those on the extreme end of any number of spectrums (hormonally/genetically) - and the reality is that many of them ARE for all intents and purposes nonfunctional in the world, or become catatonic. So, there is that.

But to the OP, I can't deny that growing up, I looked around me and saw all of my peers conversing and talking about things I didn't care about at all, and that I couldn't relate to at all. And it's also true that when I go out with a group of people as an adult, if they are predominantly sensor, I am bored out of my mind, or I find all of them so focused on things I don't focus on. And - there's nothing wrong about that. They would feel likewise with my group of friends. But it means a lack of connection/common ground, and there ARE differences between N's and S's.

So is there more accommodating? Well, sure, if an N is in an S-dominated environment or family, it will fall on the N to accommodate more. Just as an S in an N-dominated environment/family/peer group will probably have to accommodate more to the N's. There is comfort/ease with connection and similarity - so whomever is more in the majority -- of whatever personality trait -- will feel the need to accommodate less. I mean, as a non S/N example, I know that I tend to be pretty uncomfortable / feel out of place with a group of FP-types. My differences in comparison to them, as a group bonding together, become apparent. So... :shrug:
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Other posts where and by whom? I just wanted you to fill in the blank. Reality-oriented versus [what]-oriented.

My posts. I spent a lot of time just describing in a few long posts what I thought that S and N was, (and why there should not be a communication barrier), I don't need to fill in a blank.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My posts. I spent a lot of time just describing in a few long posts what I thought that S and N was, (and why there should not be a communication barrier), I don't need to fill in a blank.

Oh ok, I'll go back and search around for that one word to fill in the blank (I don't expect to find one).
 

Esoteric Wench

Professional Trickster
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
945
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
Yea, good example of a poorly developed N developing meaning and then filling it with facts.

I think you're dead on accurate in this description of the general weakness of the N position. And let me be the first to admit that I'm not sure how to get around this sometimes. I guess my Te (my tertiary function) tries to run regular fact checks on my theories. For example, if I conclude someone is an asshole, it's easy for me to look at the facts to support my theory. But when I'm at my best, I try to periodically step back, look at the big factual picture, and see if the behavior I observe backs of my theory. When I'm not at my best, it's easy for me to let my theorizing run a muck.

As far as it specifically applies to my understanding of being an S and what this means, let me be the first to admit that I'm starting with the theory and then looking for behavior from my S friends that supports the theory as I understand it. That's why I'm upfront that I welcome S clarification. I know I'm still learning here.

================================

Until a couple of years ago, I didn't appreciate how profound the differences between being an S and N were. But I've come to conclude that this is the most profound difference two people can have. It's not that being S or N changes the way we think. The way we think is pretty much the same for all people. Instead, being an S or N changes what we think about.

If I were to place an apple on a table in front of us and asked everyone to describe it, an S is more likely to say "round and red." An N is more likely to say "a fruit." There are literally thousands pieces of information any human being is exposed to at any given moment... far more than can be processed by our senses / brain. So we all make choices about what information to process first.

Thus, an S and an N can be in the exact same situation and take in radically different information because they focus on different things. This affects how all of our other mental functions play out.

Think of it this way: There is a chronological component to the way we think. First we take in information (S/N). Then we make decisions on the information we take in (T/F). So back to the profound differences between how Ss and Ns think... if Ss and Ns take in different information from the very get go, then doesn't it stand to reason that all subsequent steps will play out differently because the input is so different?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think you're dead on accurate in this description of the general weakness of the N position. And let me be the first to admit that I'm not sure how to get around this sometimes. I guess my Te (my tertiary function) tries to run regular fact checks on my theories. For example, if I conclude someone is an asshole, it's easy for me to look at the facts to support my theory. But when I'm at my best, I try to periodically step back, look at the big factual picture, and see if the behavior I observe backs of my theory. When I'm not at my best, it's easy for me to let my theorizing run a muck.

As far as it specifically applies to my understanding of being an S and what this means, let me be the first to admit that I'm starting with the theory and then looking for behavior from my S friends that supports the theory as I understand it. That's why I'm upfront that I welcome S clarification. I know I'm still learning here.

================================

Until a couple of years ago, I didn't appreciate how profound the differences between being an S and N were. But I've come to conclude that this is the most profound difference two people can have. It's not that being S or N changes the way we think. The way we think is pretty much the same for all people. Instead, being an S or N changes what we think about.

If I were to place an apple on a table in front of us and asked everyone to describe it, an S is more likely to say "round and red." An N is more likely to say "a fruit." There are literally thousands pieces of information any human being is exposed to at any given moment... far more than can be processed by our senses / brain. So we all make choices about what information to process first.

Thus, an S and an N can be in the exact same situation and take in radically different information because they focus on different things. This affects how all of our other mental functions play out.

Think of it this way: There is a chronological component to the way we think. First we take in information (S/N). Then we make decisions on the information we take in (T/F). So back to the profound differences between how Ss and Ns think... if Ss and Ns take in different information from the very get go, then doesn't it stand to reason that all subsequent steps will play out differently because the input is so different?

I can agree on most of the above.. I can also agree that because the input is different, than the process will be significantly different as well. But I think in the end, many of us can understand the thinking of one way or the other, and I'm not sure it's going to result in a huge difference in communication style, as in the end we may draw the same conclusions working from different aspects. And of course as we keep saying, it's not all black and white. Like I'm not sitting here processing every tiny bit of information in S/F/T/N style like an assembly line, just as you're not putting everything through an exact N/F/T/S process, it's not going to make a huge difference behaviorally. I think that communication of information may come off slightly different, but shouldn't make that much of a difference in developed individuals. (I see where some topic matter may be different as well, especially for people who prefer strongly one way or another.) Another scattered post. :(

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the correlation between N communication and S communication are only weakly correlated, and the correlation becomes much weaker when two people are fully developed adults. And even weaker still when other factors come into play, (as skylights mentioned earlier.) (Yes, I realize the irony of the Nness, theory, and lack of facts backing me up. No need to point out the irony. :D)
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

It leads toward the N or T idea of a division which exists only in theory. All perception consists in a continuous give and take flow of information. Every Sensor, at least some of the time, puts something indefinable (N) within themselves back into the environment through perception, thus altering their perceptions into something unique to them yet not based on past (S) experiences. One example of N-perception expressed through an S-personality would be paranoia.
 
Top