I’m posting my response to Orangey before catching up with the rest of the thread, so usual apologies for anything that’s already been said.
As for Southern Cross's "point" about my comment being ironic, I thought that the irony she was pointing out came from the fact that I, an S, was criticizing EW, an N, for extrapolating meaning beyond the details of the text while at the same time protesting the stated differences between N and S (which I wasn't. I was protesting something much more specific. But I could see how one might not think to hard about it if they just wanted an opportunity to be pithy. Or at least attempt to be pithy, as the case may be.) I'm not seeing the irony in the sentence that you bolded, though.
The part of your paragraph that seems contradictory (I really don’t know if this is what Southern Cross was also referring to or not) is that you’re trying to nullify the proposition that Ns and Ss speak a different language while
also pointing out how the language is different (the part I bolded). I mean, I get that you were focusing on esoteric wench’s specific claim (impressions, patterns, meaning)- but in pointing out how those impressions/patterns/meanings would be different, you did point out how the language is different.
It’s just that it really does make a difference, to talk to someone with the same starting point. I relate strongly to the first post Jennifer left- a lot of times point A for me isn’t close enough to point B (where its practical value is apparent) in what I’m saying for its value to be easily digestible. It helps to talk to people who can help me iron it out- others who make the same leaps of thought, so they can either show me where I’ve gone wrong or show me where I need to present the connections in a more linear way. I suppose I would call this a “secret languageâ€, it
does help me make it more readily digestible if I’ve got someone to iron it out with. If I can’t make it more digestible, it gets dismissed as imagination or just making things more complicated then they need to be- because the meaning
isn’t based on what “REAL meaning†is to the other person. This is frustrating when I’m pretty sure I’ve got a valid point (
with practical value, however many stages removed from “REAL†as it may seem). And the more someone can understand the leaps in thought I tend to make, the less they are likely to dismiss what I’m saying as crazy talk.
I thought this was a good point:
I don't notice much of a communication barrier between myself and N's in my life. To me it just looks like they are thinking backwards. It's like, they start with the theory and the big picture and then move backwards to fill it in with the details. Underdeveloped people won't move past their original thought process. So, an underdeveloped S may have trouble communicating with an underdeveloped N, because they aren't meeting anywhere in between. Most well rounded adults end up appearing to speak both S and N languages, their processes moving in different directions. (Sorry if this came out awkward.)
I agree that Ss who are willing to move past their own thought process are no more or less accommodating than Ns who are willing to move past their initial thought process- and that
both Ss and Ns can be equally unwilling to do so. [edit:] There’s a quote I love by R.D. Laing: “The way we construe a difference may serve to narrow or widen it. Both what you say and how I listen contribute to how close or far apart we are.†I’ll wholly concede there are intuitives who (consciously or not) widen the difference because of special snowflake syndrome, and who seem to believe they are accomplishing something sensational by simply being intuitive. As annoying as that is, arguing that a difference doesn’t exist isn’t the same as arguing that people aren’t accomplishing something magical and profound by being intuitive (as opposed to accomplishing something magical and profound by
actually accomplishing something magical and profound)- and not recognizing the
real differences (and the difficulties Ns claim to experience in feeling understood by others) is actually
also widening the gap because there
are real differences. It’s a mistake I see happening in these S/N threads, as a knee-jerk reaction to this other special snowflake syndrome-induced ‘imagined’ differences issue going on. It’s like it
all gets dismissed as being caused by special snowflake syndrome.
To the op, I think there is a point by virtue of N being a minority. A minority in any group will always have to be somewhat more accommodating than the majority, because that’s just how things work. This, and there was a point in how Ns have to develop S in order to function in the world and communicate with others (to both Ss
and other Ns alike)- whereas Ss don’t really need to develop N simply to be functional.
I’m not sure I agree that sensing much of communication barrier at all means a person is underdeveloped, but I guess that depends on how we’re qualifying a communication barrier. As I said above, I do perceive something like bumps in the road- but someone has to be a really unwilling, super-underdeveloped S for me to think it isn't worth the effort of trying to communicate with them.