[MBTI General] How do NF's talk to S's in general?

[Lauren Ashley]

*dies from too many assumptions*

Thank God. Now the one-upmanship can end. This conversation was entirely too futile. And the irony of it in relation to the thread topic...

 

[Jeffster]

....if I get a resonable explanation that gels with that feeling I will almost certainly accept it, but if you straight out deny that feeling I have, rather that give me time to piece it together, then I will dig my heels and defend it to the death. Sometimes it best to humour us, so long, as no action is taken on that feeling.

Yeah, I have learned to do that more often. I think I learned that approach with my mom first because, well, she's my mom. So I figured out over the years to kinda "humor her" when it didn't hurt me really to do so, and we even talked about it a little (not in the context of personality types, because I didn't know those yet.) But learning about the types sorta helped me with some other people, I think to be more patient and not dismiss their ideas so quickly, which is not easy for a bottom-line kinda guy like me.

"Give me an example" is one of the things I say the most frequently, and when the NF can't do it, it's easy for me to dismiss whatever it is. I'm a very adaptable person when you show me what you're talking about, I don't hold to rigid things just for the sake of it, like maybe a lot of SJs would, but you gotta show me something!

 

[mortabunt]

I have major similarities to the OP. Look at the recent heated arguement that I had with a group of ESTP's. They ignite over nothing, and get pissed for no reason.

 

[mortabunt]

Fifthly, Ns make better company

QTF. I never have issues talking with my N friends, although my S friends are tricky; you never know what will happen. It's kind of like how Arya explained how spirits are in brisingr. We are so diferent that any communication is fraught with danger.

 

[mortabunt]

The last two comments were to simply test if you had a sense of humor

The reason people don't make jokes about sensing is because we live in a real concrete world

"hahaha how realistic was that guy who knew how to do that thing on his ipod"

compared to

"hahaha how off the planet was that guy, talking about stuff that will never even happen"

Obviously the second guy would get the laugh response and gee I wonder why?

You acknowledge what I said, acknowledge you don't know why they tune out, then go and use that word "uncomfortable" again

Also again you accuse me of talking about myself, this was never about me.

I have nothing against intuition I just find it amusing that you are so f**king amazed that it isn't looked upon as "fairy landish" hell most Ns are a bit more modest and know that its pretty impractical most of the time but comes in handy in certain fields/expertise in the world

I'm not likely replying to you as you seem closed minded and quite frankly repetitive and boring (keep making false assumptions), feel free to have the last say though

This kind of prick is the reason why I withdrew from the SP forums.

 

[Jeffster]

This kind of prick is the reason why I withdrew from the SP forums.

Awww, and we miss you SO much!

 

[Thalassa]

The last two comments were to simply test if you had a sense of humor

The reason people don't make jokes about sensing is because we live in a real concrete world

"hahaha how realistic was that guy who knew how to do that thing on his ipod"

compared to

"hahaha how off the planet was that guy, talking about stuff that will never even happen"

Obviously the second guy would get the laugh response and gee I wonder why?

You acknowledge what I said, acknowledge you don't know why they tune out, then go and use that word "uncomfortable" again

Also again you accuse me of talking about myself, this was never about me.

I have nothing against intuition I just find it amusing that you are so f**king amazed that it isn't looked upon as "fairy landish" hell most Ns are a bit more modest and know that its pretty impractical most of the time but comes in handy in certain fields/expertise in the world

I'm not likely replying to you as you seem closed minded and quite frankly repetitive and boring (keep making false assumptions), feel free to have the last say though

But....the truth is...people laugh at Ss all of the time for being stupid or petty. It's not like people make more jokes about Ns - it's just that you personally may find them funnier.

I think her point is that we must tolerate teasing from Ss, but if we tease them we're perceived as being condecending assholes.

I disagree with your take on N modesty, too. Ns are pretty crucial to the world and they aren't always "impractical" any more than Ss are always "stupid."

 

[FC3S]

Morta, seriously. Fail more. Can you demonstrate any more communication styles between NT and STs?

"Look at me, look at me, I want attention... LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE!"

"No."

"BOO HISS BOO HISS"

 

[mortabunt]

That made no sense. And thanks, Jeffster.

 

[Unique]

Thank God. Now the one-upmanship can end. This conversation was entirely too futile. And the irony of it in relation to the thread topic...

I hardly think a bit of conversing with my opposite type is a good example for saying N/S communication is difficult

But....the truth is...people laugh at Ss all of the time for being stupid or petty. It's not like people make more jokes about Ns - it's just that you personally may find them funnier.

I think her point is that we must tolerate teasing from Ss, but if we tease them we're perceived as being condecending assholes.

I disagree with your take on N modesty, too. Ns are pretty crucial to the world and they aren't always "impractical" any more than Ss are always "stupid."

A) I saw her point
B) I explained objectively why I think S's making fun of N's is more accepted
C) I also said that Ns are just as much of a requirement as Ss in the world

If you are going to disagree with any of my points at least explain why

This kind of prick is the reason why I withdrew from the SP forums.

Care to elaborate on the me being a prick part? I'm fairly sure you came into the SP forum stereotyping SPs and you got sh*t from everyone for it... wow big surprise genius...

 

[Thalassa]

I hardly think a bit of conversing with my opposite type is a good example for saying N/S communication is difficult



A) I saw her point
B) I explained objectively why I think S's making fun of N's is more accepted
C) I also said that Ns are just as much of a requirement as Ss in the world

If you are going to disagree with any of my points at least explain why



Care to elaborate on the me being a prick part? I'm fairly sure you came into the SP forum stereotyping SPs and you got sh*t from everyone for it... wow big surprise genius...

B) subjective. I could argue "objectively" that it's just more acceptable to make fun of Ns because generally in our society it's more acceptable to pick on rich, dominant, powerful, or smart people, because it's mean to pick on poor people or stupid Ss.

Of course I don't actually think Ss are stupid, but I think my argument is just as plausible as yours.

 

[Unique]

Hardly, we live in a concrete world, not an abstract one, despite abstract minds having a purpose

S's being poor or stupid is stereotyping

Now if you are done with your pointlessness I have business to attend to...

 

[Silent Stars]

Hardly, we live in a concrete world, not an abstract one

If this world was not abstract in any way, then everything about it and in it would be able to be explained in a linear fashion, which is obviously untrue. There are countless abstract things about how this world--and the systems within it--works, including the very nature of its physical make-up, that can never be explained in a concrete manner. 'Concrete' is actually a misnomer, as these properties are not absolute, but only seemingly static due to the level of observation. The concrete properties of the world are the surface representation of its abstract properties, and neither of the two are any more or less relevant, as the only difference between them is the level of observation. They both have their place, and are equally as important.

It's like comparing the two main branches of physics: one is better suited to observations on a scale within the confines of this planet (i.e. ballistics, stress measurements factored into architectural design), while the other is better suited for microscopic and cosmic observations (i.e. atomic theory, space-time interactions). They both do the same basic thing, but differently. It's the same with sensing and intuition.

You also missed the point marmalade.sunrise was making. It was an analogy between your argument and a hypothetical one. You're taking what was said personally, when it was never said in a personal way to begin with.

 

[garbage]

You're taking what was said personally, when it was never said in a personal way to begin with.

In other words, reading meaning into what was said without it actually being there, when the intention was to be direct and to the point.

Huh.

 

[Unique]

If this world was not abstract in any way, then everything about it and in it would be able to be explained in a linear fashion, which is obviously untrue. There are countless abstract things about how this world--and the systems within it--works, including the very nature of its physical make-up, that can never be explained in a concrete manner. 'Concrete' is actually a misnomer, as these properties are not absolute, but only seemingly static due to the level of observation. The concrete properties of the world are the surface representation of its abstract properties, and neither of the two are any more or less relevant, as the only difference between them is the level of observation. They both have their place, and are equally as important.

It's like comparing the two main branches of physics: one is better suited to observations on a scale within the confines of this planet (i.e. ballistics, stress measurements factored into architectural design), while the other is better suited for microscopic and cosmic observations (i.e. atomic theory, space-time interactions). They both do the same basic thing, but differently. It's the same with sensing and intuition.

You also missed the point marmalade.sunrise was making. It was an analogy between your argument and a hypothetical one. You're taking what was said personally, when it was never said in a personal way to begin with.

A) I take nothing personally
B) You obviously failed to read the part where I stated that the abstract comes into play and is extremely useful, however the world is primarily concrete

 

[Unique]

In other words, reading meaning into what was said without it actually being there, when the intention was to be direct and to the point.

Huh.

My thoughts exactly

Thank you greed

Read what I say, all of it and then take it at face value and we will get to places, I promise you that

 

[garbage]

Read what I say, all of it and then take it at face value and we will get to places, I promise you that

Actually, I meant that you were doing it. At least, there was so much that was read into my posts that I didn't even know how to address it.

Oh, and the superior attitude thing, too.

Basically, you're doing everything that you're accusing everyone else of doing.

But then, I guess everyone has some of that going on, too. This thread sure as hell took a turn for the horrible

 

[King sns]

If this world was not abstract in any way, then everything about it and in it would be able to be explained in a linear fashion, which is obviously untrue. There are countless abstract things about how this world--and the systems within it--works, including the very nature of its physical make-up, that can never be explained in a concrete manner. 'Concrete' is actually a misnomer, as these properties are not absolute, but only seemingly static due to the level of observation. The concrete properties of the world are the surface representation of its abstract properties, and neither of the two are any more or less relevant, as the only difference between them is the level of observation. They both have their place, and are equally as important.

It's like comparing the two main branches of physics: one is better suited to observations on a scale within the confines of this planet (i.e. ballistics, stress measurements factored into architectural design), while the other is better suited for microscopic and cosmic observations (i.e. atomic theory, space-time interactions). They both do the same basic thing, but differently. It's the same with sensing and intuition.

You also missed the point marmalade.sunrise was making. It was an analogy between your argument and a hypothetical one. You're taking what was said personally, when it was never said in a personal way to begin with.

Nice post-
Great point.

(now that we're thoroughly off topic )
But I think that's a good way of trying to explain the importance of both S and N without making stereotypes for either.

 

[Thalassa]

Hardly, we live in a concrete world, not an abstract one, despite abstract minds having a purpose

S's being poor or stupid is stereotyping

Now if you are done with your pointlessness I have business to attend to...

Ns living in a fairy world, having unrealistic ideas, or having no abilities in the "concrete" world is also stereotyping.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Wasn't that kind of the point that lauren ashley made to begin with...

 

[Thalassa]

A) I take nothing personally
B) You obviously failed to read the part where I stated that the abstract comes into play and is extremely useful, however the world is primarily concrete

If we went on the assumption that everything in the world is primarily concrete, we'd still be living like "savages". Abstract thought is what helped to usher in the modern world.