• 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.

How non-philosophical Ns think

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Most descriptions of Ns, from my reading of them, seem to imply that they are always engrossed in the process of reading deeper into things, forming connections, thinking on what some philosophers might describe as a "higher plane" than that of the practical world. Whereas Ss are portrayed as the opposite: perpetually focused on this plane, as it is the only plane in which practical things -- their specialty -- can be done.

But the thing is, not all Ns are into that sort of thought process. Just as some Ss are indeed drawn towards philosophical thought, some Ns think that philosophical musings are pointless, pretentious, and annoying (and I've met some of those Ns, so that's my anecdotal evidence).

So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.
 

spirilis

Senior Membrane
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
2,687
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I almost wanted to describe myself as one of these non-philosophical N's, but the description "reading deeper into things, forming connections" etc. underlies most of my thinking, although it doesn't feel or sound like it at the time (from my perspective, I'm just thinking about the object/topic at hand). Usually in retrospect I notice how unsimplified most of my thoughts are, and it becomes abundantly obvious when my S-type coworkers pick on me for it.

I think the way it looks to most people is that I get too pedantic and "detailed" about things, spending too much time describing not only the object/topic but the relational foundation of why and how it came to my attention.
Puts most S's to sleep (or irritates them) in my experience.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Interesting topic.

The problem could be, as you've alluded to, that we type people as N or S based on whether they are philosophical or not. This could mean many of the people we type as Sensors based on a lack of interest in philosophical matters could in fact be Intuitors. I rarely meet people who talk in philosophical terms at all, and I don't think a small N population will satisfactorily explain that.

I do know several people that fit the N description in terms of thought process but are rather focussed on the everyday world. I think especially with the ENXXs I know, their interest in people is more engaged (than my own) and it seems to ground them in reality more.

I know a INTJ and ENFP couple who don't entirely fit the stereotypes. Both, but particularly the ENFP, have such a sensual love of cooking and food. Whenever I'm around at their place she's organising some meal or snack for us. She has about 12 different types of tea, fancy cup and saucer sets, complete with a sandwich tier set thingee - all of which she seems to love fussing over (it's really cute). When the INTJ and I are talking about philosophical things she sometimes participates, but isn't as interested in it. Neither have a real interest in higher art, great music, film or literature (in fact he doesn't read books at all really) - they do enjoy movies but aren't very interested in anything overly artistic. The INTJ can also lecture me for long periods of time on which is the cheapest place to shop for something, or the best brand of a particular product to buy based on his rigorous assessment, or how the quality of this product is so much superior because of A, B and C (which is also pretty amusing).

I suppose what I'm saying is, you're right, the practical, unpretentious world can be just as engrossing to the Intuitor. I mean, I'm an INFP who loves sport. And I love a violent sport like rugby in particular. But then, I can get philosophical about rugby... :D
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
as a non-philosophical N, i'd like to answer this but i don't know how. I think the way i think, and i think its normal, but i've been told i'm creative that i think outside the box, but i honestly don't see it :shrug: maybe they're delusional.oh and i've been told having a lengthy rl conversation with me is like being on acid, if that helps.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Most descriptions of Ns, from my reading of them, seem to imply that they are always engrossed in the process of reading deeper into things, forming connections, thinking on what some philosophers might describe as a "higher plane" than that of the practical world. Whereas Ss are portrayed as the opposite: perpetually focused on this plane, as it is the only plane in which practical things -- their specialty -- can be done.

But the thing is, not all Ns are into that sort of thought process. Just as some Ss are indeed drawn towards philosophical thought, some Ns think that philosophical musings are pointless, pretentious, and annoying (and I've met some of those Ns, so that's my anecdotal evidence).

So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.

Successful intellectual inquiry demands that one think on their feet and in the moment to learn, and at the same time, teach.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.
I am not a philosopher by today's standards, but would have been considered a natural philosopher in an earlier era. I am a scientist, and thus focus not just on the here-and-now, but on its physical reality. The object, however, is to understand that reality, how it works, why it behaves as it does; and to be able to predict future behavior, and ultimately to control it. As a result, much of my time is spent considering what might be: developing hypotheses, investigating theories, trying to model the raw physical observations I make. These are "just ideas" until corroborated by those physical observations, but much of the creativity of science lies in the generation and manipulation of ideas - thought forms with as yet only a tenuous connection to physical reality.

For a more mundane example, consider the renovation of my current house. The place had been empty for > 2 years, and fallen into disrepair. The kitchen was ancient, with non-functional appliances. The living room had a tacky early-70's conversation pit leaving no place for my piano, much less anything else. The master bed/bath had awful built-in furniture and woefully inefficient use of space. There was one too many baths. The basic structure and systems were sound, though, and there were many unusual and attractive aesthetic elements in the house which made it worth buying. I could see its potential immediately, and envision how I would have everything changed to my tastes. Even some of my N friends doubted it could be brought up to date until it was done.

All that to say I think part of N is to see not just how things are, but how they might be, often many simultaneous versions of that, in short - their potential. Everyone does this, because everyone has some N in their top 4 functions. Those of us with N in our type just do it more, or more readily, or more easily (or perhaps too much!)

I concur with Spirilis' answer as well.

I almost wanted to describe myself as one of these non-philosophical N's, but the description "reading deeper into things, forming connections" etc. underlies most of my thinking, although it doesn't feel or sound like it at the time (from my perspective, I'm just thinking about the object/topic at hand). Usually in retrospect I notice how unsimplified most of my thoughts are, and it becomes abundantly obvious when my S-type coworkers pick on me for it.

I think the way it looks to most people is that I get too pedantic and "detailed" about things, spending too much time describing not only the object/topic but the relational foundation of why and how it came to my attention.
Puts most S's to sleep (or irritates them) in my experience.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don’t really associate iNtuition with philosophizing that much. And I’m not sure I could effectively articulate what separates STs from NTs in my mind- there’s generally a peculiar ‘space’ around NTs when they’re thinking, like they’re more reluctant to commit to decisions or opinions. With NFs though, there’s like this idealistic bubble around them, ideas about the potential of what people can be and what relationships could be, and it seems like absolutely every piece of incoming information gets compared to the idealized possibilities as they’re processing it. SFs can seem more present- and they do compare, but it’s more practical and rooted in experience.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
All that to say I think part of N is to see not just how things are, but how they might be, often many simultaneous versions of that, in short - their potential. Everyone does this, because everyone has some N in their top 4 functions. Those of us with N in our type just do it more, or more readily, or more easily (or perhaps too much!)

Isn't this just a description of Ni? What about Ne?

I've also always tended to associate intuition with philosophy, but I know that this is not a good way to think about it. Perhaps the reason why I've always felt very strongly to be a sensor is because I'm not a philosopher. Then again, I find it hard to grasp people's descriptions of intuition. I just don't fully understand it.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My ex husband (istj) majored in philosophy.

That's my only contribution ha : laugh:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Isn't this just a description of Ni? What about Ne?
Both attitudes of N are about possibilities and potentials. I see Ne as more brainstorming - going off in all directions from a single point. "See this ugly living room. We could do this, or that, or get rid of those, or paint, or redo the floor . . . ". Ni pulls together multiple impressions into a coherent vision, or set of related visions (contingencies). "Yes, I see the ugly living room, but I also see how the whole thing will look when we're done, including an option B in case we can't remove that wall." Ne diverges, Ni converges. (My SO is INTP so I see the contrast all the time.)
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^^ I totally do both in that scenario tho don't you all?
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Yes, that house scenario is a bit of a bad example. Anyone can see the potential in a house if they know enough about them. My ISFP mother does this very well and she is a definite Se, not Ne.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I have to say that often my posts on here sometimes tend towards a philosophical slant, but it's usually unintentional, it's just I find it hard to explain what I see.

But ive heard and read some conversations amongst intuitives that would, (and have), bored the snot out of me. Im not sure you can entirely correlate an interest with a type or function, but there are some that seem relatable.

At the core of it though is the environment a person lives in. That can very easily change and define a person, including their interests. A heavily S slant in my life, for example, might possibly be the reason I keep switching types like an OCD drape's expert.
 
R

Riva

Guest
Philosophical = theoretical? If so forI'm theoretical yes. Infact upto a level most people find it entertaining and sometimes/most-times peculiar. At the same time I have these moments or recall these moments for real life applications or observations. So I guess i'm split between being theoretical and being on the here and now. Hmmm... Or maybe I deal with the immediate with theories? Yes it's that. And when I deal with the immediate with here and now solutions I come back with theories to back them up.
I don’t really associate iNtuition with philosophizing that much. And I’m not sure I could effectively articulate what separates STs from NTs in my mind- there’s generally a peculiar ‘space’ around NTs when they’re thinking, like they’re more reluctant to commit to decisions or opinions. With NFs though, there’s like this idealistic bubble around them, ideas about the potential of what people can be and what relationships could be, and it seems like absolutely every piece of incoming information gets compared to the idealized possibilities as they’re processing it. SFs can seem more present- and they do compare, but it’s more practical and rooted in experience.
+1 ThE reluctance to commit probably is due to knowing without knowing that there are other possibilities?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Most descriptions of Ns, from my reading of them, seem to imply that they are always engrossed in the process of reading deeper into things, forming connections, thinking on what some philosophers might describe as a "higher plane" than that of the practical world. Whereas Ss are portrayed as the opposite: perpetually focused on this plane, as it is the only plane in which practical things -- their specialty -- can be done.

But the thing is, not all Ns are into that sort of thought process. Just as some Ss are indeed drawn towards philosophical thought, some Ns think that philosophical musings are pointless, pretentious, and annoying (and I've met some of those Ns, so that's my anecdotal evidence).

So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.

Imo you generally can go by the "opposites attract" principle. While a NT dreams of a spaceship all his life, the greatest wish is to build the thing. For that philosophical matters are no help. Same could apply to a SJ grounded in the real world. His or her desire could be to leave the world to go into something asbtract like religion or philosophy.

I myself am a big fan of philosophy, I just cant talk to most people intrested in that, cause they are such textbooks philosophs that use their knowledge to create an intellectual battle. One I'ld loose since I havent studied that. The other problem is that I can hardly deal with unreasonable or unscientific philosophy, so I'ld be more in the department of theorethical physics with the speciality of abstracting the real world to simple models so much, so you can gain a deeper understanding about the fundamentals.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I pretty much hate philosophy. I’m naturally good at it, but I think it’s a huge waste of time.

The biggest difference between me and most Sensors when embarking on a project is that I want to see how the end product will look as the very first step (IOW, get a big-picture overview) and then narrow in on the details secondarily. Whereas Sensors seem to want to go through the steps one by one, methodically and in order, seemingly without worrying what the end result will be.

I’m having some work done on a house by an electrician, and he’s the most ferocious Sensor I’ve ever dealt with. Wonderful guy, an ESFJ, but it’s almost impossible to get a picture from him of how all the renovations are going to come together and work together in the end. Oh well, sooner or later we work it out. But it takes a lot of patience.
 

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
There's not really such a thing as being non-philosophical, and based on the practice and definition of philosophy I would actually argue that sensor types are on average more philosophical than intuitives. It's difficult to philosophize when you're going by faith in one's internal hunches and suppositions all the time. Most philosophy requires an aware and specifying thought process and a clear objective communication that you find everyday on the street. As an intuitive, I don't process and communicate things much in common terms; I have a more internal, built-in framework that is mentally separate from any realistic interest, so perhaps one could say I hold the philosophy of my own mind.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
^^^ I find this thought very interesting, as most philosophers I've heard of seem to be N's.
 

SpankyMcFly

Level 8 Propaganda Bot
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,349
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
461
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
American Philsopher William James said ¨Most of philosophy is meaningless because their questions don´t make a difference. If the question makes a difference makes the question meaningfull, if not, not¨

I identify with that statement and I consider myself practical and I appreciate facts and evidence.

¨How non-philosophical Ns think¨

I will give you an example of how I use N in a work setting. I coordinate and supervise worker bees in a backend support capacity. When I´m not focused on a task it´s my job to constantly contingency plan and re-assess & re-prioritize to the changing situation. I´m constantly asking myself ¨what if¨ questions in an effort to efficienize my prior decisions and avoid future problems. This is what I enjoy about my job. I often see problems before they become one. I attribute this to being able to see the ¨big picture¨. Factors A & B are present, there is a good chance for W, X to occur with a slight chance for Y and Z, I should do M or N and O, if I do N I may cause F to happen. I find myself extrapolating all the causalities of my decision making process and it´s during these moments that I have to slap myself mentally and remind myself that I need to keep my eye on the ball. Rinse/repeat. I also remind myself that the bridges I see on the horizon require that I cross closer ones first. Sometimes the situation requires that I punt until the situation unfolds and an efficient solution presents itself.

Yeah I´m paid to mentally masterbate about things I might never have to do at work.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Most descriptions of Ns, from my reading of them, seem to imply that they are always engrossed in the process of reading deeper into things, forming connections, thinking on what some philosophers might describe as a "higher plane" than that of the practical world. Whereas Ss are portrayed as the opposite: perpetually focused on this plane, as it is the only plane in which practical things -- their specialty -- can be done.

But the thing is, not all Ns are into that sort of thought process. Just as some Ss are indeed drawn towards philosophical thought, some Ns think that philosophical musings are pointless, pretentious, and annoying (and I've met some of those Ns, so that's my anecdotal evidence).

So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.

Good thinking. :happy2:

SJs are pragmatic and practical.
NPs are neither.

Pragma is the thing (organ).
Organ > organization. Pragma > pragmatism.
Read J.

Prakrit is the usage. The tool of the thing.
Read S.

P and J both combine with S and N.
 
Top