N vs. T (amateur question)

[mlittrell]

Intuition (unconscious) -- stuff like pattern recognition, making connections between things, inductive/inferential leaps, metaphor in general (I've actually defined it as metaphor before)

Thinking (conscious) -- deduction, ends with "true" or "false" -- takes information and checks for consistency (internal for Ti, external for Te)

where does it say that thinking is conscious and intuition is unconscious? just wondering. im pretty sure i use my intuition consciously (especially considering my first function is Ne).

 

[Cimarron]

where does it say that thinking is conscious and intuition is unconscious? just wondering. im pretty sure i use my intuition consciously (especially considering my first function is Ne).

Well, he mentions metaphors. You can build metaphors, sometimes quickly and sometimes only slowly, and I agree that I do it mostly with conscious mind, I think. But he seems to mean "less conscious" than T.

 

[burkeus]

My humble definition: A group of people working together towards a goal, with each person having his own assignment.

A group of individuals? And if not, how would you describe a team/group? Can you give an example of what kind of assignment would each person have? How are groups formed?

 

[Totenkindly]

J -> making your decisions in "pen" meaning you typically dont change your decisions
P -> making your decisions in "pencil" meaning you typically make a decision but can go back and change it if need be

thats a quick and very dirty explaination

Very quick and dirty.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of J is that people think they don't change their decisions.
That is not the case at all, really.

It simply comes down to this: Do you need a decision up front (so you know what to do next) and then keep processing, while not really letting on you're processing? Or do you refuse to commit to anything while you ponder the situation?

I used to think J's made decisions quickly and then stick to them.
They do make them quickly.
But you can keep pushing on them, giving them new information, observe them seemingly deny all the new information...
... and then one day, poof, they just change their stance "out of the blue."
And pretend that they're sure about that one too.

Underlying principles:
1. J's want to take action -- it's more important to do something rather than nothing. Hence, they get closure so they can act and maintain some control.

2. P's want to be right -- it's more important to hold off on a decision that is uncertain and do nothing, rather than do something and have it be wrong. They don't want closure so they can remain flexible for the "best solution" and/or not be mired down.

Put another way, J's like to be more proactive, even the introverts (who just do it on a low-key scale). They gun for closure and make decisions and take action and shut off the information flow when necessary. P's like to be reactive and tailor their actions to the information flow coming in; whatever leaves them the most flexibility to respond is preferred.

Sorry, that was dirty but not quick.

 

[Bella]

A group of individuals? And if not, how would you describe a team/group? Can you give an example of what kind of assignment would each person have? How are groups formed?

Yes, a group of individuals.
The rest depends on what kind of team it is. When I think of a team I think of work (how predictable)
A goal and each person's contribution in achieving the goal.

 

[Jack Flak]

Yeah, I don't get Intuition either, as in I don't get what it feels like to be one, and I don't get the snobbery.

We see things through different eyes, so to speak. I don't advocate snobbery as a rule, but if one sees something others are blind to, such snobbery can follow, and it works both ways.

 

[Bella]

We see things through different eyes, so to speak. I don't advocate snobbery as a rule, but if one sees something others are blind to, such snobbery can follow, and it works both ways.

'k

 

[mlittrell]

Very quick and dirty.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of J is that people think they don't change their decisions.
That is not the case at all, really.

It simply comes down to this: Do you need a decision up front (so you know what to do next) and then keep processing, while not really letting on you're processing? Or do you refuse to commit to anything while you ponder the situation?

I used to think J's made decisions quickly and then stick to them.
They do make them quickly.
But you can keep pushing on them, giving them new information, observe them seemingly deny all the new information...
... and then one day, poof, they just change their stance "out of the blue."
And pretend that they're sure about that one too.

Underlying principles:
1. J's want to take action -- it's more important to do something rather than nothing. Hence, they get closure so they can act and maintain some control.

2. P's want to be right -- it's more important to hold off on a decision that is uncertain and do nothing, rather than do something and have it be wrong. They don't want closure so they can remain flexible for the "best solution" and/or not be mired down.

Put another way, J's like to be more proactive, even the introverts (who just do it on a low-key scale). They gun for closure and make decisions and take action and shut off the information flow when necessary. P's like to be reactive and tailor their actions to the information flow coming in; whatever leaves them the most flexibility to respond is preferred.

Sorry, that was dirty but not quick.

i like most of this so props. i think with Js they can take just as long as Ps to make a decision but they are constantly searching for closure whereas Ps would rather not have closure at all. once you get farther into MBTI you don't even look at J and P in the traditional sense. you tend to look at it in relation to the functions and how it orients them and how the orientation effects decision making and information gathering. fun stuff

 

[Cimarron]

I think with Js they can take just as long as Ps to make a decision but they are constantly searching for closure whereas Ps would rather not have closure at all.

Yes, please keep this in mind. People hate the fact that I take forever to make decisions, especially about the small things in life, but I feel compelled to reach that decision, because I do feel that desire for closure. I don't think it's true that J's always decide things quickly. Closed-ended vs. open-ended seems like a better dichotomy.



Okay, so I've seen here and on several other threads people mention that "metaphor and analogy" are the embodiment of the N function. Does everyone really think it can be interpreted so simply like that?

 

[Athenian200]

What is the difference between Intuition and Thinking? How can you distinguish when something is intuition, and not just thinking? I just realized this is a main road block in my understanding of the "functions"; even though it's been sitting in the back of my mind for a while, it only put itself clearly together in my head as a question a moment ago.

Edit: Hold on, it just occurred to me that this topic might have already been discussed. I guess I'll search while you guys think about it.

I'll try a few ideas at expressing it...

1. Intuition simply perceives patterns raw, Thinking defines and evaluates the patterns nature, and can compare/apply a pattern to something in particular, such as a situation or goal.

2. Intuition makes connections, Thinking evaluates and understands the connection.

3. Intuition notices ways things could be linked, Thinking tries to evaluate to the best of its ability whether any those connections are logically likely, or if one contradicts another, etc.

Do any of those make sense?

 

[sarah]

Yes, please keep this in mind. People hate the fact that I take forever to make decisions, especially about the small things in life, but I feel compelled to reach that decision, because I do feel that desire for closure. I don't think it's true that J's always decide things quickly. Closed-ended vs. open-ended seems like a better dichotomy.

Ps can even make a whole lot of instant decisions (for SPs, it's called acting on impulse!) about a lot of things. Basically, we feel we're missing out on life if we stand there too long deliberating over stuff that isn't essential. But if we have to come to a decision but none of the options look all that appealing, then we can take forever trying to decide which one will restrict us the least.

SJs tend to make far fewer instant decisions. My ISTJ sister can take forever to make up her mind about purchases shes's considering, because she always wants to consider which will give her the best value for her money in the long run.

Sarah
ISFP

 

[Cimarron]

I'll try a few ideas at expressing it...

1. Intuition simply perceives patterns raw, Thinking defines and evaluates the patterns nature, and can compare/apply a pattern to something in particular, such as a situation or goal.

2. Intuition makes connections, Thinking evaluates and understands the connection.

3. Intuition notices ways things could be linked, Thinking tries to evaluate to the best of its ability whether any those connections are logically likely, or if one contradicts another, etc.

Do any of those make sense?

The bold parts stood out to me. It's just that...to me, it seems like all thinking (in the non-MBTI context) is manipulating connections between observations (newly acquired) or ideas (previously stored). And if N deals with those connections, then what is left for the realm of T? I think I see what you're saying, though. Could we say that N is to Brainstorming as T is to Revising? By the way, did you read my other thoughts on this through the thread?


Sarah: The same applies vice versa! Why didn't I think of that? But yes, I see that that makes sense.

 

[Totenkindly]

The bold parts stood out to me. It's just that...to me, it seems like all thinking (in the non-MBTI context) is manipulating connections between observations (newly acquired) or ideas (previously stored). And if N deals with those connections, then what is left for the realm of T?

Put simply, N envisions the connections -- it sees them, just like you'd glance at a map or at a river and see possibilities of where to travel or where to cross. it senses potential, on almost an inarticulate level. (it is the "Wow look at it all!" factor.)

Once you start putting words to it and prioritizing, you are moving away from Ne, however. Your T is what is organizing the options, if you're trying to accomplish a task (or your F, if you're simply trying to find the path that conforms to your natural inclination rather than bend your journey to an impersonal goal).

So you get an interesting flipflop between ENTP and INTP.

ENTPs = Do what I just said, they're looking at the map, then using Ti to evaluate pieces of it with the goal of exploration and navigation of things.

INTPs = Use Ti to continually crunch data, and use Ne to collect said data to see how that gets incorporated into their judgment. They're creating an "internal map" of things just for its own ends, rather than necessarily out to personally exploring the entire map themselves.

Which lead you to say:

I think I see what you're saying, though. Could we say that N is to Brainstorming as T is to Revising?

Basically, yes.

The N envisions; the T evaluates and prioritizes.

 

[Cimarron]

Well, that's interesting, but it looks like we have evidence to the contrary. Also, I found another relevant thread, though possibly biased (I haven't read much of it yet) : http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sp-arthouse/688-s-descriptions-ns-18.html
Look at the latest post.

I just thought of something. Since I'm an ISTJ, I supposedly have Te and Ne, both outward-oriented. Do you think this may be why I'm having trouble grasping how my mind uses T and N differently? If it's too hard to judge, don't bother straining.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, that's interesting, but it looks like we have evidence to the contrary.

What evidence?

(If it's the human footprints mixed in with the dinosaur ones, I am not buying it!)

 

[Cimarron]

The latest post in the thread I linked. An SP said (I hope she doesn't mind me displaying her opinion here) that she loves brainstorming. That's a piece of evidence against our assertion that N acts as brainstorming, even though that was only an example.

To relate these concepts, I try to use examples that are true for me, so knowing/understanding what I did about N, and that brainstorming seems to be a good analogy or example for it, and that I am horrible at brainstorming, I hoped there might be a connection.

 

[Totenkindly]

The latest post in the thread I linked. An SP said (I hope she doesn't mind me displaying her opinion here) that she loves brainstorming. That's a piece of evidence against our assertion that N acts as brainstorming, even though that was only an example.

Whoa... I think you are being far more "put everything in one single place" or too rigid here.

First of all:
1. Everyone uses all functions. SPs have N. NPs have S. It's just how it's used and in what combination that makes a difference.

2. SPs *do* have a well-documented N-emulator. That's what SP actually -- and the Se+Fi combo is often confused with N function use. Read Berens or whomever else, they've talked about this for years and the difficulty people have distinguishing N from SFP.

(The gist basically here is that N is still bringing out the patterns, where SP is basically about "exploring detail.")

Both are useful for brainstorming, but because N is focused on inherent recognizable patterns, it tends to have more focus to it -- more efficient -- than the SFP "wade through it all and meander and explore."

Another way to put it -- both of them do try to see the forest, but SFP is trying to see the forest still on the level of the trees, they are still noticing and playing with the tangible details and usually not as directed a search, where the N is seeing the forest and doing a quick scan and locking in broad patterns much more easily and still missing details on the trees.

 

[Cimarron]

I know everyone has each. I was just being very cautious about going forward with my argument--first sign of trouble, and I shrunk back to Square One. But overall, I get what you're saying. Re-reading the descriptions of the cognitive processes on bestfittypes.com helped out, too. Should have done that sooner.

 

[Totenkindly]

I know everyone has each. I was just being very cautious about going forward with my argument--first sign of trouble, and I shrunk back to Square One. But overall, I get what you're saying. Re-reading the descriptions of the cognitive processes on bestfittypes.com helped out, too. Should have done that sooner.

That's okay, and I hope I did not come off too blunt, I was just sharing information.

Practical examples (would that help too?):

1. My ISFP friend would sit at meals when we went out and take people's food and mess with it (trying out different things), mixing in condiments and whatever he found interesting at the time. Usually the result was a horrible mess by the end but he didn't care, to him that was "brainstorming" and being creative by just shuffling things around in different combinations. It IS an artistic ability, usually involving trying something and seeing how you "feel" about the results.

My approach to the same task would have been more directed -- less interested in the tactile feel of everything, less physically immersive, more interested in just doing the things that would "work" to create a particular feeling of completion or mood.

Both are trying out ideas, but one is more "pattern oriented" on the large level and the other is more detail oriented on the more specific level.

2. My ESFP son, when we talk through the woods, will be pointing out every little details. And I mean EVERY. He sees it all. (He's also very artistic, although he tends to just emulate certain styles he likes.) While he is seeing so many details and having an aesthetic reaction to it all, and needing to see it all, I am simultaneously also having an aesthetic reaction but it is based on a sense of the entire forest, its effusive global properties, and only those details that leap out to me in a pattern and/or ambiance -- unless I am specifically focusing on said details.

(He might focus on "The frog was green and hopped across the path, and the turtle walked under a log" and 3 zillion other details; I would simply think about how there were animals in the forest and what impact that had on the overall feel.)

I bring that up because each of us approach art in similar ways as to our "perception" style.

 

[Cimarron]

Yes, the examples helped, I guess. I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out.