[NT] Se-NT Conflict?

[Amargith]

Could you fail harder?

It was a simple question.

 

[King sns]

Could you fail harder?

I don't know about Amarginth, but I know that I could.

(Tries not to fail hard.)

 

[nocebo]

Question for T users...is it by any chance possible to, if you really cannot keep yourself from glancing over such an error (be it that 'all' thing or the grammar error), as you feel it might have value to the conversation, to in stead of correcting the person, formulate the correction as a question aka 'Is this what you meant?' without displaying that you know better? Coz I think that could save you a lot of frustration, defensiveness and derails on both ends.

Regardless of which function is responsible, I agree with most of this post, if only for the reason that people are more likely to listen when their feelings aren't hurt. (Otherwise, you've got a room full of people with their helmets on. You can't reach them that way, and it just gets frustrating.)

I've found that phrasing things as questions or jokes gets the point across in a friendlier manner. As long as the info isn't compromised, I don't really see a problem with it.

 

[Unique]

You know, if you were one of the guys sitting with me, T-Pain and another friend at the table when I found out I'd won a vacation on a boat, I'd totally not pick you.

btw, several different functions can be responsible for spelling and grammar nitpicking, not just Si. My mom seems to do it out of Si, just to make it match past experience consistently...but I do it out of Ti, because it violates my inner framework of logical relationships by which everything is judged, and my dad probably does it out of Te, because you can't expect to achieve the highest efficiency in your pursuit of goals if you don't have your shit together with proper English (Ni asks, "What would that symbolize about me if I went around using language improperly?...he's an INTJ.)

You'd be surprised.

Never said Ti couldn't do that just that its generally an Si thing

Oh and anyone who generalizes every single Thinking type and says they do *insert whatever here* deserves a comment like that, in fact it was tempting to be harsher

However I'm not sure why you are having a stab at me.... oh yeah... I remember, you're the guy that doesn't accept anyone elses opinion other than your own

And no "YOU T USERS" is not an opinion, its a stupid generalization of oh IDK maybe 40-50% of the population?

It was a simple question.

No it was a simple generalization of about 40-50% of the population, hell I don't do it so that proves you wrong instantly

You want me to answer a question about something that I don't do? Oh but I must, because I'm a thinker!

No, fail.

sounds like a Te thing...

this extraverted sensor happen to be an ESTJ?..

In which case we're not talking extraverted sensing at all.
we're talking Te and Si, which sounds more accurate. Se is not known for being a nitpicky function

This X about 1000

I don't know about Amarginth, but I know that I could.

(Tries not to fail hard.)

You were spot on...

 

[simulatedworld]

ESTPs are so cool when they wave everything away by simply declaring that everyone else is wrong.

It's a lot of fun to watch them embarrass themselves and swear up and down all along that they're totally right, all the while misinterpreting all unfamiliar contexts as threatening. Fight or flight, hm?

 

[Unique]

What is your problem? I said its possible for it to happen through Ti but I'm not going to answer a question generalizing all T types

Why don't you go ahead and answer her cause I refuse to

 

[simulatedworld]

Listen man, the problem is in your interpretation of generalizations.

Sensors tend to interpret a generalization as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of a group.

So if I say, Xs are bigger than Ys, and you find any single particular Y that's bigger than any other particular X, the generalization is false. When interpreted this way, it is--but so are all generalizations, which is why you need to interpret them inductively instead of deductively.

iNtuitives are more naturally attuned to viewing data in terms of the average of all cases over time...so when we say that Xs are bigger than Ys, we don't mean that as a precise description of every single X and every single Y; we really only mean that the average X is bigger than the average Y.

They're all just relative relationships, not concrete data, and that's why Ns like them better than Ss do.

See? That's another one. There are certainly cases of S people who like MBTI more than certain other N people, but on average, MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss. And that's the only kind of information it offers--generalized induction.

Seriously, read the wikipedia page on inductive reasoning. It will explain a lot.



Here's an example because my Ne is overactive (may or may not actually be helpful):

In music there's a concept called perfect pitch, meaning you can hear a tone and instinctively discern what note it is. Believe it or not, the vast majority of professional musicians cannot do this, because this ability can't be learned (past a certain age anyway), no matter how much training is put into it.

What most musicians develop is called relative pitch--this means that I can observe the relationships between pitches and determine the way they interact with each other, but without actually knowing what notes they are.

Say you play a C and an E on the piano, and you don't tell me what notes they are. I can tell that they're a major 3rd apart--this is an inductive term because it describes a relationship between things without any concrete details of what the things are.

I may know that these notes I'm hearing have this relationship, but without perfect pitch, I don't actually know that they're C and E. For all I know, they could be G and B, or C# and F, or any two notes that are that same distance apart and display that same relationship to each other.

When I make a typology read, I'm not predicting your behavior in any particular case...I'm merely stating that you'd tend to behave this way more often than not, based on what I've seen you do before. That's really all there is to it.

A Sensor might ask, why bother if you can't actually tell what any of the notes are?

But there's a lot of meaning in the relationships that can be applied inductively without having that much concrete information on the particular notes.

When you ask us to prove MBTI, you're asking us to prove scientifically that the distance between C and E is a major third. We don't intend to prove that; the entire system is contingent upon acceptance of the idea that human behavior can be predicted inductively. If you think human behavior is fundamentally random and entirely unexplainable, typology is probably not for you.

See how I said, "probably"? Ns like to word things in term of probabilities. To be honest, we really don't know exactly what's going on right now--we just make up for it by interpreting what the long term data indicates theoretically should happen. We leave figuring out what's actually going on to the Sensors.

That metaphor may be way too Ne...in which case I apologize. It's all I really understand.

 

[Unique]

Listen man, the problem is in your interpretation of generalizations.

Sensors tend to interpret a generalization as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of a group.

So if I say, Xs are bigger than Ys, and you find any single particular Y that's bigger than any other particular X, the generalization is false. When interpreted this way, it is--but so are all generalizations, which is why you need to interpret them inductively instead of deductively.

iNtuitives are more naturally attuned to viewing data in terms of the average of all cases over time...so when we say that Xs are bigger than Ys, we don't mean that as a precise description of every single X and every single Y; we really only mean that the average X is bigger than the average Y.

They're all just relative relationships, not concrete data, and that's why Ns like them better than Ss do.

See? That's another one. There are certainly cases of S people who like MBTI more than certain other N people, but on average, MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss. And that's the only kind of information it offers--generalized induction.

Seriously, read the wikipedia page on inductive reasoning. It will explain a lot.

Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing

If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous

 

[Fluffywolf]

I agree that most of the NT aren't spelling nazi's at all. But I'm with Simulatedworld on the concept of generalisation.

I, too, tend to root out averages when possible. The more statistics the better ofcourse, so when no statistics are present and just a mere grasp based on assumptions. It can get tricky however. But not by default wrong.

 

[Athenian200]

Thoughts?

It's ridiculous that she corrected you according to regional inflection. If you're going to correct someone's pronunciation, use International English as your standard. Provincial attitudes are extremely annoying.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing

If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous

Maybe, but part of the advantage of MBTI is the ability to recognize situations where others whom you know are stronger than you in certain functions may exercise better judgment on those functions than you do.

For instance...I've got this ESFP bass player in one of my bands who basically watches out for everybody (me, INTJ drummer and ISFJ guitarist) when we go to clubs to play and such, because he's really aware of what's going on around him and I know that I'm not so I trust him when he warns me of something...often it'll be pointing out people's body language and other subtle physical cues that I didn't notice. He often helps double check my appearance before going on stage, so I don't look like a dumbass. He comes in handy all the time with setting up stage gear and any difficulties that come up with engineering the physical space of the stage and where each cable should run and so on. I really don't notice that shit, so I trust someone who does. I've learned to trust that he's right on this a lot more often than I am.

Your argument at this point reduces to, "Come on, that connection is too abstract to really be there!", which may seem true from your perspective, but to N-heavy types, especially Ne, these connections are actually visible and often legitimate.

I know that's lame and all, but it's the truth. I can see an intuitive line of reasoning to imply why thinkers might potentially nitpick spelling more than feelers, but here's that classic generalization interpretation mistake again...

She doesn't actually mean that a majority of Thinkers behave this way; only that Thinkers behave this way more often relative to Feelers. Again, we're not actually saying how many specific entities with the property Thinking are behaving this way; we're just comparing the relative frequencies of behaviors between arbitrarily designated groups.

When that ESFP starts making fun of me too much for missing "obvious" shit in my physical surroundings, I remind him that for every silly spacy mistake I make by missing a Sensory thing, there's an iNtuitive thing you're missing that I'm just not telling you about. :L)

 

[Amargith]

Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing

If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous

You're doing it right now

In stead of just asking me if I was in fact referring to all T's, since you weren't sure if i did, or, for that matter, seeing that it was a simple suggestion to make the conversation run smoother, a tool I am suggesting to get people to listen to you easier, and meant for those that would actually find it useful, you went defensive asap. Sad. I realize my wording isn't perfect. I try. I'm nonchalant with words and chaotic in my thoughts. That doesn't mean that what I said doesn't hold value. It's sad that you cannot see past formulation long enough to consider if what I said actually has value. For that matter, it would've been ok with me already if you were to look past formulation and see what I meant, even if you disagreed with it. You could've avoided your own (perceived) defensive behavior, this whole mess of going back and forward, trying to figure out what was actually said and my attempting to convince you that that was in fact what was said and not the thing you reacted to, and my (probably perceived) defensive response as well, as I'm more than willing to explain when people indicate that they aren't sure how I meant something. Oh well, don't worry, I'll chalk it up to your Ti or Se or whatever


Meanwhile it's a nice example of the topic

Oh and... he gets it:

She doesn't actually mean that a majority of Thinkers behave this way; only that Thinkers behave this way more often relative to Feelers. Again, we're not actually saying how many specific entities with the property Thinking are behaving this way; we're just comparing the relative frequencies of behaviors between arbitrarily designated groups.

Can I keep you on as a part-time T/S-translator?


Unique, if you would've actually asked neutral follow up questions, without assuming what I meant, since you clearly were confused about it, I would have, in my own clumsy way, explained you the same thing. So consider next time asking for clarification first to make sure you're on the same wavelength as the other party, then judge... and this was my original point all along

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Haha sure, just $99.95/hour. I'm worth it.

This is such a widespread problem, though. All these people asking us to "prove that this person should be designated as an ENFP" are so missing the point because our entire inductive personality system is based on subjective standards.

It can never be proven or disproven any more than we can prove that Miley Cyrus is or isn't a death metal artist. For another example:

1) Deduction - The Eagles have the top-selling record in chart history. This can be objectively researched, determined and verified--it is judged in terms of "true" or "false" because it's a deductive and quantifiable claim.

2) Induction - The Eagles were a great rock band. Really? What scientific evidence have we that the band Eagles were good musicians, or a rock band, or a band at all for that matter? If I ask for deductive proof of this, I'm simply missing the point and asking the wrong question--my query is meaningless because it's in the wrong context. I can only use induction by asking informed people to give their opinions. Inductive arguments aren't evaluated in terms of truth of falsehood because they inherently operate on a sliding scale basis--they are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

Amusingly, this is exactly the same mistake that dogmatic religious followers are making--

They are attempting to apply deductive reasoning to a question that cannot ever be answered definitively, which is a total waste of time.

Since God is an issue that we can't answer with total certainty, deductive reasoning can't be applied to it. Religious zealots love to use this as an excuse to completely ignore the process of induction, clinging to that last grain of salvation--OH YEAH WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE 100% THAT HE ISN'T REAL, SO MY BELIEF IS JUST AS GOOD!

Well, true--we can't really use deductive reasoning to say much about God. The proposition that "God exists" is not judged in terms of truth or falsehood because we can't really have quantifiable data on it.

We can, of course, use induction to determine that the arguments for God's existence are comparatively quite weak, but there is no objective data to be had here.

You can't prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Miley Cyrus is NOT a death metal artist, but if you run around calling her that, it's still generally understood by most people that you're (probably) a moron.

Just stop thinking in black and white terms--that's really all you have to do.

 

[jenocyde]

case in point
a specific example of what one is talking about.
Now, as a case in point, let's look at nineteenth-century England.
Fireworks can be dangerous. For a case in point, look at what happened to Bob Smith last Fourth of July.

Your Aunt made me do it.

Lol.

Correcting spelling and grammar seems to be a Ti thing, in my experience.

NTPs do it all the time, and the Se users that you're referring to are probably mostly ESTPs who are doing it more out of Ti than Se.

The theory would probably argue that you as a Te user don't see much point in such nitpicking precision if it's not really improving results in any meaningful way, but oh well. Ti is annoying like that.

I notice errors and inconsistencies quickly and often. They jump out at me like blinking lights. I had no idea that it offended people, though. I want to be corrected, so I don't make the same mistake again. Learning is all about trial and error, but how will you even learn if no one corrects your error? I come from a background where it is very disrespectful to not correct someone, because it shows them that you don't care about their growth. Same thing with kids - if I see my cousin's child doing something wrong and I don't discipline her, the whole family will be against me. But in the American society, it's not polite to discipline someone else's child, or to correct their grammar - so I learned not to do it.

 

[Unique]

meh

 

[ThatGirl]

I notice spelling and grammatical errors without actively looking for them, but I won't point them out if they are not essential to the subject being discussed. Unless the wording is vague and leads to conflicting interpretations of a statement, I don't really care. I can still understand the idea being communicated.

My sentiments exactly.

Interesting. I actually just got into this conversation not too long ago on vent and agree with you both. To me, its a waste of time if you already understood the meaning through the error.


That said, I probably encounter this more often than I would like though, due to fact I can't spell for crap.

 

[INTPatricia]

Recently, a pattern has become increasingly prevalent of extroverted sensors around me feeling compelled to point out what they perceive to be grammatical errors and to obsess over minute details. As an NT, I find this terribly offputting and unproductive most of the time. For example, the other day we had company over (family) and I was explaining to my aunt that if I pursue a law degree in the UK, in order to make it transferrable to Canada it will have to be reviewed by a committee and based on where I got the degree, my marks, and so forth, they will specify X, Y, Z (usually some exams and a number of hours at a Canadian accredited law school). Now, here I said "Z" like "zee" rather than "zed." Then, she proceeded to completely derail the conversation by going on about it being "zed" for Canadians, which is something I know but don't care to change since zee comes much more naturally to me and I find it more pleasing to the ears, the heck with tradition. Nevertheless, here is a classic case of an NT talking about big ideas and a sensor obsessing over an irrelevant detail to the exclusion of the essence of the matter.

In my experience, these matters are about choices. Let me use myself as a case and point. For those of you that have heard me speak on vent, you know that I can be exceedingly literal (i.e. if you use an "all" where it's only a "some," I'm going to call you on it. I am also going to be very attentive to the assumptions on which your arguments are based). Now, this comes quite naturally and therefore it is a challenge for me to hear an argument out to its fullest completion without interrupting to expose a minute flaw that was perceived with lightning speed. Even if I think it, I won't necessarily publish what I know if I think it's not going to degrade the quality of the discussion. True, it requires strong self-discipline but I believe it is better in the long run. Let someone else be the person who makes their big contribution by exposing a syntax error.

Thoughts?

If it is the Sensor it is because they may not have a clue about what the hell else you are saying so all they can do is robotically scan your data for some perceived error because they are threatened (but may want to be helpful in their own controlling way). You might want to check for understanding when speaking with sensors or use visuals or examples from the past or reality.
If it is an xntp then it is because they think you may not know and want to help...it won't ever be one-upmanship from an intp...just terrible social skills and the drive for perfect language skills...assuming all seek the same. however, an xntp will NOT allow their correction to derail your conversation or point, we can corrrect in stride and put you right back on your point even if you cannot. I have been known to make the point FOR the speaker in the rare cases when they lost it due to my interruption. That aunt of yours is not an XNTP. However, I avoid making corrections whenever possible, especially when the speaker is fervently trying to get an answer or advice. I usually do it with children, illiterates or those who appreciate it, and always when we are alone...never in front of others. In the future, don't toss your pearls to swine. Families have competition issues that you cannot know about and that woman has issues of her own just being her type. I don't do family things anymore...how freeing. I used to go late and leave early but not going at all is better. I show up just for the funeral part or actual wedding, but not reception, etc. If something else, I will come by a few days after with my gift, whatever. Sigh...

 

[INTJ123]

most SJ types are just anal. I know all too well what you mean.