Check out this new and interesting view on the N/S dichotonomy

[Kensei]

I finally found a site that actually makes sense of N/S instead of taking the exact terminology too literally. You've probably heard that Sensing is concrete thinking and iNtuition is abstract thinking, but it's never been explained more realistically than the admin on celebrity types. He thinks the problem is that Sensing is assiciated with blatant and shallow processing while iNtuition is connected with imagination, and that's because of the way Jung termed his theories. He says that 90% of sensing types at first identify themselves as intuitive until they go to a professional because most people consider themselves imaginative, and that alot of true intuitives don't refer to themselves as the term "intuitive". He thinks that sensing should actually be called inutuition because sensors observe the concrete environment and develop inferences and patterns based on that concrete information, and that inutuition is actually introspection because intuitives use their senses, but observe the mental abstract world of their mind, trusting that more than concrete info. I thought that was an intetesting way of looking at it, especially since this guy is a professional mbti typist and not just some uncertified teen running around on the internet. Tell me what you think of this, and also check out hus site, CelebrityTypes.com, you might be enlightened on the real theory and not just the stereotypes you got off of tumblr and other half witted sites.

 

[Noon]

On mbagg170's wall I mention imagination being independent of the cognitive functions.

A lot of S/N fuss comes about because even though everyone acknowledges the biased-in-favor-of-N type descriptions, many people make some agenda anyway out of typing someone 'deep' an N or someone conservative or just different from themselves (believing themselves to typify it) an S. The offenses given and taken are in the value judgment behind it.

But Jung characterized Ne as seeking out potential and possibilities in the concrete world. Extroversion is naturally more concrete in that its standard is functionally more empirical.

 

[Kensei]

Exactly! You seem to know your jung, unlike 99% of other suckers on the internet that think that N is associated with creativity, intellect, deep thinking, or even the desire to use all of the above. The way I see sensing and inutition is that sensors trust concrete outside information more, but will eventually form an idea or inference depending on how smart they are. An intuitive seems to start with the inference from within their head, thus indicating why they should have been called introspectors, and then they eventually find out the cincrete information through exploration of that inference.

On mbagg170's wall I mention imagination being independent of the cognitive functions.

A lot of S/N fuss comes about because even though everyone acknowledges the biased-in-favor-of-N type descriptions, many people make some agenda anyway out of typing someone 'deep' an N or someone conservative or just different from themselves (believing themselves to typify it) an S. The offenses given and taken are in the value judgment behind it.

But Jung characterized Ne as seeking out potential and possibilities in the concrete world. Extroversion is naturally more concrete in that its standard is functionally more empirical.

 

[reckful]

I finally found a site that actually makes sense of N/S instead of taking the exact terminology too literally.

Is there some reason you haven't linked us to the S/N page you're talking about?

 

[INTP]

I havent heard anyone say that sensing = concrete thinking. Instead Jung says that concrete thinking is thinking function that follows sensations and about sensation he says:

Sensation, or sensing, is that psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception.

Neither have i heard that abstract thinking = intuition. Jung says that abstract thinking is thinking that works by taking away the irrelevant parts according to logical reasoning. Abut intuition he says:

It is that psychological function which transmits perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their associations, Can be the object of this perception. Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms. Through intuition anyone content is presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what way this content has been arrived at Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, irrespective of the nature of its contents. Like sensation (q.v.) it is an irrational (q.v.) perceptive function. Its contents, like those of sensation, have the character of being given, in contrast to the 'derived' or 'deduced' character of feeling and thinking contents. Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the 'scientia intuitiva' as the highest form of cognition.

 

[Kensei]

No idea where exactly it was, but the whole site has completely scientific descriptions of mbti instead of the assuming and contradicting descriptions that are given on other sites. It also gives celebrities and their real types and not just what they are stereotyped to be by people online. Also I think their test is most accurate, as it dpes not associate intuition with coming up with ideas and sensing with using techniques that they've learned and not bothering to use their heads.

Is there some reason you haven't linked us to the S/N page you're talking about?

 

[reckful]

No idea where exactly it was, but the whole site has completely scientific descriptions of mbti instead of the assuming and contradicting descriptions that are given on other sites. It also gives celebrities and their real types and not just what they are stereotyped to be by people online. Also I think their test is most accurate, as it dpes not associate intuition with coming up with ideas and sensing with using techniques that they've learned and not bothering to use their heads.

Well, I looked and couldn't find it. Since you started this thread, I'd think you should consider the burden to be on you to find whatever page you're talking about again and then provide the rest of us with a link.

Meanwhile, your contention that Celebrity Types has "completely scientific descriptions of mbti" is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty silly.

Just for starters, those folks are big on the Harold Grant function stack and accompanying "tandems," and as further discussed in this post, that bogus sub-branch of the MBTI — which is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — has virtually no "scientific" support at all.

 

[Kensei]

If you can give me a description of N/S that doesn't sound contradictory in my personality, seems possible for individuals and not just what everyone does, and doesn't make N's seem smarter and less shallow, then I will reconsider my beliefs.

Well, I looked and couldn't find it. Since you started this thread, I'd think you should consider the burden to be on you to find whatever page you're talking about again and then provide the rest of us with a link.

Meanwhile, your contention that Celebrity Types has "completely scientific descriptions of mbti" is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty silly.

Just for starters, those folks are big on the Harold Grant function stack and accompanying "tandems," and as further discussed in this post, that bogus sub-branch of the MBTI — which is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — has virtually no "scientific" support at all.

 

[á´…eparted]

I find one of the easiest ways to sort out between N and S is to compare your own two S and N functions. See how the operate and differ. Unfortunately, this requires the individual to know their type and be able to tell what things fall under the perceiving access. Either way if it can be done, it's pretty reliable.

 

[INTP]

If you can give me a description of N/S that doesn't sound contradictory in my personality.

What contradictions do you see in these original descriptions:

"Sensation, or sensing, is that psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception."

[Intuition]"It is that psychological function which transmits perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their associations, Can be the object of this perception. Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms. Through intuition anyone content is presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what way this content has been arrived at Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, irrespective of the nature of its contents. Like sensation (q.v.) it is an irrational (q.v.) perceptive function. Its contents, like those of sensation, have the character of being given, in contrast to the 'derived' or 'deduced' character of feeling and thinking contents. Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the 'scientia intuitiva' as the highest form of cognition."

S types orients his psyche based on S function more than N and N orients his psyche based on N function more.

 

[Oaky]

The sensing and intuitive functions.

They're perceiving functions. A method of how we take in information. Abstract understandings are inherent in an individual. We cannot have sensing without intuition and we cannot have intuition without sensing. With that, they are two sides of the same coin.

Can you look at an object. A book without knowing it is a book? When we focus upon a book we see an object and we create lines to disconnect the object to the rest of the world. This is the start of intuition. To recognise descriptive aspects of such a book. The more we start to abstract it the more we incline towards intuition. This is to say that we must use both. You see, we lean and move along the spectrum. You can say a sensor may look at the book as a set of papers with squiggly lines on it. An intuitive may look at the book as simply a knowledge provider. (an abstraction) To make sense of the world perception we often live in we tend to intuit and sense information to fit our viewpoints.

 

[EcK]

Exactly! You seem to know your jung, unlike 99% of other suckers on the internet that think that N is associated with creativity, intellect, deep thinking, or even the desire to use all of the above. The way I see sensing and inutition is that sensors trust concrete outside information more, but will eventually form an idea or inference depending on how smart they are. An intuitive seems to start with the inference from within their head, thus indicating why they should have been called introspectors, and then they eventually find out the cincrete information through exploration of that inference.

1- According to this shouldnt sensors be less religious or in general less likely to form opinions with no directly observable basis in reality/empirical evidence than intuitives?

2- concerning quite a few findings (im not going to look for the sources now) people indentifying themselves as N are, on average, more intelligent (iq wise, but iq is positively correlated to a very
wide array of psychometric performance tests). Are yo saying it is ll a confirmstion bias or is introspection correlated, on average, with intelligence. Introverts are generally consisered more introspective than extroverts and there is some evidence introverts, on average, have higger average iq. However the link is not very strong, though statisically significant.

3- i think any internalized model of the world would be equal to "trusting your inner model over facts" ,.
Now when you open a door and turn the knob one way etc. These are not "facts" or "reality".
Its a model built in your head of a+b=c . How is that different from what you define as introspection ans trusting an internal model rather than facts? Are you then saying that sensors are aware of say thr quantum nature of the universe and that they might in fact ,though very unlikely, tunnel through the floor/;doors

 

[EcK]

Is there some reason you haven't linked us to the S/N page you're talking about?

We're not celebrities.

 

[chubber]

Here are some real world examples.

An Example of Using the Function-Attitudes

Here is an example of how you might use all of the mental functions in their attitudes at the grocery store for a dinner party you are planning :

As you drive to the store, you have formed an internal image of how the party will look (Introverted iNtuition).
You get to the store and you see that the tomatoes do not look ripe (Extraverted Sensing).
You determine you will forgo the tomato salad since you want your friends to feel good (Extraverted Feeling).
You immediately start to brainstorm other options as you move through the produce isle (Extraverted iNtuition) while examining the other vegetables (Extraverted Sensing).
You pass the blueberries and recall the documentary you just saw on child labor in blueberry fields (Introverted Sensing).
That treatment of children is inexcusable, so you decide not to purchase the blueberries to make the blueberry tart you had thought about (Introverted Feeling).
You pass the bakery and see a carrot cake (Extraverted Sensing) that takes you back to the birthday dinner your mom made for you last year (Introverted Sensing).
You look at your watch and determine that you had better move a bit faster as you have only a couple of hours left to prepare (Extraverted Thinking).
You turn your attention to your thoughts to internally structure the rest of your day (Introverted Thinking).

- See more at: Carl Jung & Psychological Types | MBTI® Type Today

Seems like everyone uses a little bit of everything. What do you seem to use most of the time? That will determine your two functions, and you need to know if you are using the 2nd function in the correct way to balance your dominant function, the other two are going to be your shadow.