[MBTI General] Si and Ni in dating? (INTJ me and ISFJ boyfriend?)

[Netochka]

I have a few questions about interactions with SJ's, particularly ISFJ's, but I would be interested in hearing from all of you.

Beyond the obvious things like family and daily life, what sorts of things do SJ's like to talk about? Being an N, I find that there are many things I am interested in discussing and thinking about which really confuse, bore, or completely perplex him.

Also, for those of you who have dated or interacted with N's in meaningful relationships, what kinds of things have you done to try and understand and engage the N ways of thinking?

And, also, what are the effects on you when you do? Does it leave you drained in any way?

It seems to me right now, we spend most of our time on the S level, and I'm wondering how we can even up the balance in that regard and spend a little more time in the abstract, theoretical and imaginative planes without causing him too much hardship.

Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

 

[skylights]

I'm an ENFP dating an ISFJ and I struggled with communication in the beginning, too, feeling like most of our conversation was spent at S. It really made me stress at first... and it was very draining... I wondered how I could ever maintain that. But what happened for us was that the further we got into topics, and the more we communicated with one another, the more our discussion began to level S-N and the more we got fluent in code-switching. I think our timeframe was about 6 months at which I was really beginning to feel the strain of our different communication styles, and around a year where it really levelled back out to essentially being a non-issue.

Now it's more like we can run S and N at the same time, seeing every object and subject in both perspectives. He still tends to talk in S and I still tend to talk in N, but it's like we've learned how to adjust our communication so that the other can see their perspective in it, and so that we can respond to one another in our own "language" and it's still totally understandable - though of course we still have to flesh certain things out for each other. It's just like speaking two languages in a bilingual community, and we each retain expertise of our personal native language. I see it more as a strength than anything now, though it'd be a lie to pretend like it's not occasionally still frustrating. That said, the times where it actually presents a problem have been becoming further and further fewer between.

Don't get mired in the impression that SJs only like to talk about surface stuff - my ISFJ is deep into video games, urban history, coffee, world culture, languages, Roman civilization, and scores of other mutually interesting topics. He just happens to prioritize daily life, and ironically he's also hesitant about going into all of those personal interests with people out of concern for boring them or putting them off. It seems like Ns have a native gift for not really caring who we bore with our personal interests.

My advice would be to engage discussions on the subjects you two find the most mutually interesting - the conversation will be led by that mutual interest and it will naturally overcome the native differences - in other words, the strength of your desire to learn/understand more will force each of you to open more to the other. If it's a struggle to find mutual interests, force yourselves into doing cooperative tasks - the most important element is the shared goal which will force and reward mutual communication.

Good luck

 

[EJCC]

^ Skylights made most of my points redundant, but here's what's left of them, to supplement her post:

- Most stereotypes about what SJs don't like to talk about, in my opinion, are untrue, with one exception: We really do feel the need for things to have a purpose and a point, that is, if not directly applicable in the real world, then can be easily rationalized into it. Even if that purpose is "because it's fun and I needed a break from work" -- that's still a purpose. But if it seems pointless, e.g. a debate for the sake of debate that isn't even fun, then we're not going to like it at all. I get along very well with Ns, but some of them -- NTs especially -- take a while to figure out how much I hate "pointless" conversations. But if it can be connected to a "relevant" thing in the "real world", then there'll be a point.

- Regarding Sensors using N thinking, I'm a good example, if not representative of the general SJ population; consider that I'm on a typology forum, which a lot of Sensors would probably find "boring", "stupid", or "useless", for the reasons described above. I have a pretty easy time understanding the practical application of theory (for the most part), so I enjoy it here, and am probably an atypical ESTJ.
HOWEVER... I think I'm a good example of what happens when a fairly intelligent SJ spends their entire life with Ns. Both of my parents are Ns, most of my extended family are Ns, and now most of my friends are Ns. I do speak sensor language, obviously, but now that I've adapted to N, I get easily bored by pure S. (My sensor friends are as S/N friendly as I am.)

 

[skylights]

^ Sorry! And

And personally as an N surrounded by Ss, I tire quickly of just N. I tend to prefer SJ conversation, since it's comfortable and constantly hooks me back into the present and concrete experience which I otherwise tend to miss out on. Not that I don't love diving into abstraction, but I feel tugged to return to S.

 

[EJCC]

^ Sorry!

Don't be! It's a(n indirect) compliment

And

And personally as an N surrounded by Ss, I tire quickly of just N. I tend to prefer SJ conversation, since it's comfortable and constantly hooks me back into the present and concrete experience which I otherwise tend to miss out on. Not that I don't love diving into abstraction, but I feel tugged to return to S.

Does your ISFJ feel the same way about NF conversation, now that the two of you have been together for a while? If the two of you have NF friends, do you notice him interacting with them differently/better, since you sorted out your N/S communication issues?

 

[tinker683]

- Most stereotypes about what SJs don't like to talk about, in my opinion, are untrue, with one exception: We really do feel the need for things to have a purpose and a point, that is, if not directly applicable in the real world, then can be easily rationalized into it. Even if that purpose is "because it's fun and I needed a break from work" -- that's still a purpose. But if it seems pointless, e.g. a debate for the sake of debate that isn't even fun, then we're not going to like it at all. I get along very well with Ns, but some of them -- NTs especially -- take a while to figure out how much I hate "pointless" conversations. But if it can be connected to a "relevant" thing in the "real world", then there'll be a point.

This!

Personally, I'm of the attitude that some people, regardless of type, just don't understand the difference between talking to someone and talking at someone. I really can't for the life of me understand what is so difficult about engaging someone and asking them questions about themselves. I dunno, maybe this is an Fe thing for me but it just doesn't seem that difficult.

My suggestion would be to jettison whatever stereotypes you have about SJs and bloody talk to them. ASK him what he likes and dislikes, ask him why he likes and dislikes those things. I promise you'll get a conversation about it pretty quickly unless he's incredibly shy or has a very low self esteem at which case you've got a bigger problem than lack of things to talk about.

Looking back on a lot of the conversations I had with my INxx ex-girlfriend, I realize she seldomly engaged me...she just pontificated to me. She just kept going on and on and on about what she thought about something and not what I thought about stuff. It irks me now, looking back on it, because it sent so many confusing signals to me back then. I remember at the time feeling like I wasn't sure just how interested in me she really was, given how little she asked me about me or asked me how I thought or felt about things.

Everything was always about her and that was a massive turnoff for me. But I know she didn't do this because she was a bad person or anything, I'm just not sure she understands how to engage people (that, or she just wasn't really interested in me and so didn't ask. Who knows).

My 2 cents as an ISFJ male/

 

[Netochka]

Skylights-- It is good to know that it is possible for that aspect to level out, and for both parties to understand each other better. I also really like that you presented some good strategies for achieving that balance.

I, too, find a certain amount of S conversation refreshing and grounding, and it is also interesting to see that my inferior function, Se, is improving a little the more time I spend around him. I am noticing little things in shows that I have watched many times that I have never noticed before, and am remembering some things without effort better (like where I set my keys down, for example).

That is a good question, btw, that you pose to Skylights. I will be interested to see the answer.

EJCC-- The thing that might surprise you about NT's, is that we greatly dislike pointless conversation as well. I think the issue is less that we enjoy pointless conversation, and more that S and N have widely disparate views of what constitutes "pointless." However, you do give a very good window into the SJ mind.


Tinker, though it could be that she was just self-absorbed, it could also be something else. It can be difficult to figure out what really constitutes meaningful conversation for you guys, and I know that it has been hard with my new boyfriend, because there comes a point where it begins to seem like if you keep asking questions, that he'll figure out that you're struggling and "fishing" for things to talk about that interest you both.

The other thing about N's, especially NT's, but I imagine there is a good bit of this going for NF's as well, is that we long to be truly understood. She might have thought that she was sharing herself with you through her thoughts, and increasing the bonding between both of you (though, to be fair, she should have also searched out your thoughts, unless she thought that you would naturally include yours in response to hers and it would be a dialogue? In fact, that would be something that I would tend to assume, is that a mistake? Do I need to constantly draw him out? Will he not understand that I am naturally curious regarding his thoughts on any given subject?)

 

[tinker683]

Tinker, though it could be that she was just self-absorbed, it could also be something else. It can be difficult to figure out what really constitutes meaningful conversation for you guys, and I know that it has been hard with my new boyfriend, because there comes a point where it begins to seem like if you keep asking questions, that he'll figure out that you're struggling and "fishing" for things to talk about that interest you both.

I don't see this as a bad thing personally. It's all part and parcel of the process of getting to know one another. In time, the need for questions and talking will subside as he'll begin to figure out your patterns and your ways. IMHO, however, I think S's and N's are very impatient about this sort of thing when dealing with people are who the opposite of their N/S type - they want to feel that bond of connection so quickly and they don't realize that with the opposite N/S type it doesn't work that way. We see the world in fundamentally different ways so a bridge is going to have to be constructed and that takes time

The other thing about N's, especially NT's, but I imagine there is a good bit of this going for NF's as well, is that we long to be truly understood. She might have thought that she was sharing herself with you through her thoughts, and increasing the bonding between both of you (though, to be fair, she should have also searched out your thoughts, unless she thought that you would naturally include yours in response to hers and it would be a dialogue? In fact, that would be something that I would tend to assume, is that a mistake? Do I need to constantly draw him out? Will he not understand that I am naturally curious regarding his thoughts on any given subject?)

This I think is a classic example of talking AT people and not TO them. While certainly I might feel compelled to weigh in on a topic if I'm knowledgeable or feel strongly about it but that isn't always the case and if you continue to barrage me with information without really making any sort of effort to seek out my thoughts or opinion on the subject, I'm going to start to feel like you're not interested in me but in whatever topic you're talking about and that will turn me off VERY QUICKLY.

She often told me that she was trying to get me to understand her and the truth is I DID understand her - what I often had difficulty with was the fact that her actions weren't matching her words and that's *REALLY HARD* on Fe-users because it screws up our perceptions and our ability to understand you.

I strongly suspect she was either lying to me or she was lying to herself and trying to convince herself of one thing when in reality she felt something else.

 

[EJCC]

EJCC-- The thing that might surprise you about NT's, is that we greatly dislike pointless conversation as well. I think the issue is less that we enjoy pointless conversation, and more that S and N have widely disparate views of what constitutes "pointless."

My point exactly -- which is why I defined "pointless" in my post, and put it in quotations. (Must not have been clear...)

However, you do give a very good window into the SJ mind.

Glad it helped!

This I think is a classic example of talking AT people and not TO them. While certainly I might feel compelled to weigh in on a topic if I'm knowledgeable or feel strongly about it but that isn't always the case and if you continue to barrage me with information without really making any sort of effort to seek out my thoughts or opinion on the subject, I'm going to start to feel like you're not interested in me but in whatever topic you're talking about and that will turn me off VERY QUICKLY.

^ IMO this may have less to do with type and more to do with maturity level/experience/practice*. I used to talk at people. A lot. But then, especially when you hang out with people who are more withdrawn, or when you want to get to know people who are more withdrawn, you learn to ask questions. That's all it takes! You really can't presume that your desire to hear another opinion is implied.

*Much like active listening: something you have to learn, over time.

 

[tinker683]

^ IMO this may have less to do with type and more to do with maturity level/experience/practice*. I used to talk at people. A lot. But then, especially when you hang out with people who are more withdrawn, or when you want to get to know people who are more withdrawn, you learn to ask questions. That's all it takes! You really can't presume that your desire to hear another opinion is implied.

*Much like active listening: something you have to learn, over time.

Quite true my lovely! I should have stated as much. I do see this happening though a lot when N's and S's talk to each other: One side presumes the other will express themselves in a way they understand and when they don't behave as expected, they make assumptions about why that may or may not be true.

It's the difference between " I think [X] is stupid" and then adding nothing further to that and "I think [x] is stupid. What do you think about it?"

The first is a statement and may not make the listener think he's being asked to respond in someway. The second statement ends with a question and beseeches a response from the listener.

 

[Netochka]

My point exactly -- which is why I defined "pointless" in my post, and put it in quotations. (Must not have been clear...)

Glad it helped!

^ IMO this may have less to do with type and more to do with maturity level/experience/practice*. I used to talk at people. A lot. But then, especially when you hang out with people who are more withdrawn, or when you want to get to know people who are more withdrawn, you learn to ask questions. That's all it takes! You really can't presume that your desire to hear another opinion is implied.

*Much like active listening: something you have to learn, over time.

Apologies. I have most of my free time during the last two days trying to solve a technology issue (now solved) and having a major headache to boot. Obviously I did not read as closely as I should have.


Though, I do take great pains to always ask him what he is thinking and to draw him out on issues, when I am with other N's, it seems like there is this implicit understanding that we are both curious about each other's viewpoint and so if we raise an issue or discussion point, the other naturally contributes their own without having to be prompted and it becomes a natural exchange where both are discussing the other's viewpoints and nobody thinks or feels that they are being pontificated to.

One thing though, is that I do watch for body language signs of boredom or discomfort and navigate around those, and usually make some sort of joke about getting off the soap box or whatever, and move the conversation over to the other person.

But I tend to find a natural rapport with many N's that doesn't involve me or them constantly needing to reiterate for each other that we are interested in each other's thoughts regarding most subjects.

Now I am curious if the other N's on the board find this as well?

 

[Cellmold]

I make a big list of past comparisons with old dates and then line the new one up against a wall where a projector is showing a dating timeline.

If he/she doesn't shape up....SHE/HE IS OUTTA HERE! Then I throw a sponge at them and they get dunked....come to think of it this was probably at a fairground...that was going on in my head.

 

[WALMART]

EJCC-- The thing that might surprise you about NT's, is that we greatly dislike pointless conversation as well. I think the issue is less that we enjoy pointless conversation, and more that S and N have widely disparate views of what constitutes "pointless." However, you do give a very good window into the SJ mind.

Turn off your mind relax and float down stream
It is not dying, it is not dying

Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
It is shining, it is shining

Yet you may see the meaning of within
It is being, it is being


Sensors aren't so bad, civilizations have been trying to reach our status for generations.

I suggest exploring his mind with intent of reconciliation between your two existences. If you cannot intellectually relate...

 

[RaptorWizard]

Sensors aren't so bad, civilizations have been trying to reach our status for generations.

I suggest exploring his mind with intent of reconciliation between your two existences. If you cannot intellectually relate...

It's kind of like the 2 worlds theory, where the the real world presents us with the building blocks and the working models of physical processes by which higher metaphysical realities can be manifested and comprehended.

In simple terms, sensors give the intuitives the facts for the construction of their own theories.

 

[EJCC]

I make a big list of past comparisons with old dates and then line the new one up against a wall where a projector is showing a dating timeline.

If he/she doesn't shape up....SHE/HE IS OUTTA HERE! Then I throw a sponge at them and they get dunked....come to think of it this was probably at a fairground...that was going on in my head.

Reminds me of "The American President":

Lewis Rothschild: I tell any girl I'm going out with to assume that all plans are soft until she receives confirmation from me thirty minutes beforehand.
Robin McCall: And they find this romantic?
Lewis Rothschild: Well, I say it with a great deal of charm.

 

[WALMART]

It's kind of like the 2 worlds theory, where the the real world presents us with the building blocks and the working models of physical processes by which higher metaphysical realities can be manifested and comprehended.

In simple terms, sensors give the intuitives the facts for the construction of their own theories.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

-Isaac Asimov


The Sensor/Intuitor Duality

 

[tinker683]

Though, I do take great pains to always ask him what he is thinking and to draw him out on issues, when I am with other N's, it seems like there is this implicit understanding that we are both curious about each other's viewpoint and so if we raise an issue or discussion point, the other naturally contributes their own without having to be prompted and it becomes a natural exchange where both are discussing the other's viewpoints and nobody thinks or feels that they are being pontificated to.

One thing though, is that I do watch for body language signs of boredom or discomfort and navigate around those, and usually make some sort of joke about getting off the soap box or whatever, and move the conversation over to the other person.

But I tend to find a natural rapport with many N's that doesn't involve me or them constantly needing to reiterate for each other that we are interested in each other's thoughts regarding most subjects.

Now I am curious if the other N's on the board find this as well?

Gawd, it's scary how much you sound like my ex

This I think is a flawed perception on your part and it's something my ex did that drove me nuts.

It's not that ISFJs (and probably SJs as a whole to a larger extent) aren't curious about things, it's just that we tend to direct our curiosity toward things of practical value (or maybe that's just me). The only time I start to get into really abstract stuff is when said stuff is directly impacting my life in someway. As EJCC pointed out, it has to be something useful to us to feel like talking about it. This means that we DO have strong opinions about certain topics but unless we can find some valid reason to bring it up, we may just not feel like we really need to talk about it.

For example, I have a very strong opinion religion. Does this mean I go about talking about it all the time? Not at all, and in fact I barely ever talk about it. Why is that you might ask? I don't talk about it much because I don't need too. There isn't anyone trying to impress their faith on to me, my rights haven't been suspended because of my beliefs, and by and large the people around can't seem to be bothered to bring the topic up with me so I simply don't really discuss it.

Sensors are a very practical, here-and-now bunch and our thoughts tend to gravitate toward all of that. I do think about other stuff at time but by and large other things consumates thoughts in my head.

For example, by and large today I thought about the following

1) Idiots I had to deal with at work, and why I felt they were wrong
2) How angry I am about my breakup with my ex many months ago, my concern that I'm still brooding over it even after all this time, and pondering the real reason I still feel so much anger and what I can do with it
3) How I'm going to maintain my protein and caloric intake for the purposes my working out/personal trainer given how goofed up m schedule got today
4) Why I really like Star Trek (I watched an episode of TNG on my lunch break and it brought up a lot of nostalgic feelings. I love being an Si-dom )
5) Things I want to do when I get home, goals I want to achieve in World of Warcraft over the weekend
6) As a result of this thread, about my ex-g/f and how her and I interacted with one another

See politics/science/religion/philosophy anywhere in there? No and you know why? Because I didn't need it.

I think you might need to realize that he's not going to be the naturally curious thinker that you are. That's not a bad thing, it's just a way that he's different. But I think you're going to need to evaluate how important this is to you in a partner.

 

[Netochka]

So are you saying that I shouldn't share my thoughts with him unless they have a definite and useful point to him?

I am fine with the premise that I will need to be sure that I consistently reiterate my interest in his positions on things and being sure that we are engaging in dialogue and not mutual monologues.

I guess now my question is geared towards other N's--I know, wrong board for it, right? --and if they have found this particular rapport with other N's where this understanding is implicit.

 

[tinker683]

So are you saying that I shouldn't share my thoughts with him unless they have a definite and useful point to him?

I am fine with the premise that I will need to be sure that I consistently reiterate my interest in his positions on things and being sure that we are engaging in dialogue and not mutual monologues.

I guess now my question is geared towards other N's--I know, wrong board for it, right? --and if they have found this particular rapport with other N's where this understanding is implicit.

I would suggest nothing of the sort! For all the flaws of my former relationship, I did enjoy my INxx's perspective. I found it incredibly refreshing and interesting and it actually bothered me a lot that I couldn't reciprocate her interest in some topics.

What I'm saying is...don't mistake your ISFJs silence or disinterest in a topic as a lack of curiosity, merely that his interest and focus are on more practical, immediate things.

I hope I'm not coming off as patronizing or condescending. I find you INTJ's to be incredibly fascinating individuals and I truly do hope you guys can iron things out. I told you what I told you as I felt it might be helpful to know where it. Is he might be coming from as he goes about his day.

That...and there is a very good chance I'm just bitter and angry and that might be coloring my responses, so take them with a grain of salt

 

[Giggly]

I don't even know what "S stuff" is or "N stuff" is????