[MBTI General] S descriptions of Ns?

[raincrow007]

Here's what I think of each types in terms of creative/artistic expression:

The ST artist would express what the S function directly observes from either direct here-and-now experience or memory. As a Thinker, the ST artist will give more attention to form; making sure things are portrayed accurately or if things are in proper perspective and so forth. An ST artist is probably the most realistic artist.

The SF artist would also express what the S function directly observes or for the Sensate emotional rush of doing it, which is directly associated with SF. But as a Feeler, there is more likely to be a personal meaning. Sensing combined with Feeling is inclined to see beauty, which is both concrete and subjective. An SF artist may also be inclined to do abstract expressionism, because there really isn't a conceptualized notion beforehand, but it's a direct expression of the abstract world of feelings, which the SF artist will most certainly find meaning. Art would probably be more impressionistic or expressionistic.

An NT artist would express the N function's mental conceptions, but the T function would not really worry about how it will make people feel. Their attention isn't on the human condition, but more on systems. NT artists are probably least concerned with aesthetics and more concerned with just expressing a brief piece of their complex mental constructs. More attention is given to objective vision. Art will probably tend toward surrealistic and fantasy.

An NF artist would express the N function's mental conceptions, but the F function will consider what their conceptions will mean in human terms. An NF combination will express an imaginative conception but when coupled with the F function, will also wish to make a statement and express an underlying meaning. Art will probably tend toward symbolism or surrealism interlaced with symbolic meaning.

All of these are generalizations, of course, but I was just pointing out that focusing on meaning is probably more related to Judgment functions.

I know you said you were generalizing.... but JEEBUS -- talk to more artists.

 

[The Ü™]

I know you said you were generalizing.... but JEEBUS -- talk to more artists.

Really? I'd love to hear your take.

 

[raincrow007]

Really? I'd love to hear your take.

It's just that so many of the things that you've listed are SO general that I can see them applying across several types all at the same time, not just to the pigeonholes that you've put them in.

For example, being an NT artist, I'm still concerned with personal expression of meaning [which you relegate to SFs]; I'm concerned with accurate representation of something [insofar as it's important to what I wish to communicate] which you state is something that STs would give preference to, and I have a great interest in symbols and how the public interacts with them -- an NFs artist's area of expertise by your labeling.

IMO, I think that creativity and imagination are a little more complex than what you were attempting to describe with your post, that's all.

 

["?"]

Most people I know are pretty aware of either being annoyed with "useless speculation" or with "boring practicalities".

That seems to be quite a wide variance Faith. As a SP I have no use for any speculation that is not doable, however INTJ descriptions show that type to be the same way. I am unsure what you mean by "boring practicalities", yet if you are alluding to daily practicalities, I guess I am tolerant of them, know they need to be done, however may procrastinate in doing them. Compared to the average INTP, I may look downright anal, however could not compare to ISTJ. But then again, neither would the average INJ in my opinion.

I might ask them something like...
Do you prefer spend more time talking about what someone actually did, or theorizing about the significant meanings behind their actions?

The latter. I can't say that I hate reality tv, because I would need a desire to watch it. I know other STPs who have no interest in watching that type of television. I have a disdain for trivial matters, and petty gossip bores me silly. On the other hand, I am not sure what others would say from my post, however I think I may have a good handle on and enjoy discussing theory that interests me.

Do you experience life mostly through your hands and actions and physical senses, or do you experience life mostly in your own mind?

Stereotype for sensors, and runs counter to EN types don't you think? My connotation of hands on experience simply means I learn better when actively participating. As long as the instructor provides some real life examples, and allows for feedback and brainstorming, I think that most STPs would be okay. This does not mean needing to use my hands, especially sitting in a lecture. Per Lenore Thomson all IPs and EPs learn experientially.

Is it worse to have your head in the clouds, or to be in a rut?

Answer me honestly Faith, have you ever posed that question to someone and received a response of preferring to be in a rut than head in the clouds?

I generally already have an opinion about whether the person is an S or an N, and I'll sometimes word the questions so that the type I think they're not sounds better than the type I think they are. If they choose the "less attractive" type, then I take it as a stronger confirmation than if they'd chosen the "more attractive" type.

Not to sound critical, but what if you were wrong in your opinion Faith? Then you have manipulated the answer that you wanted to hear from your client. I am not sure that the types of questions you present would be of benefit in determining that dichotomy. Solely based on this thread, there are questions as to which dichotomy determines the "big picture". And these guys are knowledgeable of type.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's just that so many of the things that you've listed are SO general that I can see them applying across several types all at the same time, not just to the pigeonholes that you've put them in.

For example, being an NT artist, I'm still concerned with personal expression of meaning [which you relegate to SFs]; I'm concerned with accurate representation of something [insofar as it's important to what I wish to communicate] which you state is something that STs would give preference to, and I have a great interest in symbols and how the public interacts with them -- an NFs artist's area of expertise by your labeling.

yes, I saw the same flaws there as well.

We can describe some general tendencies, maybe. I've seen SF artists really enjoy sitting and staring at something and drawing it in perfect detail -- basically translating what they see straight onto the page. (That's something I do *not* particularly enjoy, it's just too much literalness for me, and I'd rather think about what things mean and suggest and hint at.)

But many SFs also enjoy home decoration, in terms of creating a visibly beautiful home with a particular cheerful ambiance. There, they are going for an ambiance. So already we have two different "styles" that are being used. I think with the S just tends, though, to be much more concreteness and literalness about their art.

On the other hand, N's are much more into the notion of the symbol, whether they are evoking ideas or complex feelings.

Still, there is a lot of overlap. I don't know how easy it is to separate by type. For myself, I know my art tends to be a very strong mix of NT and NF, not a ton of S.

 

["?"]

ST types will see the meaning of systems in their environment, like how and why mechanical things work, but the S that would notice the details is also given meaning with the T function.

I think for me, my artistic ability comes in creating something tangible yet practical. I nice dinner or food for my family, gardening and being out in my yard, designing and developing, programs to provide self-sufficiency for the underprivileged, and most important offering creating means of resolving problems, in a practical manner. Now granted if I had the equipment I would spend days enjoying commercial art for it's own sake. I would enjoy putting music to a video to impact the tone. During college, I worked in the Audio Visual department.

 

[The Ü™]

yes, I saw the same flaws there as well.

We can describe some general tendencies, maybe. I've seen SF artists really enjoy sitting and staring at something and drawing it in perfect detail -- basically translating what they see straight onto the page. (That's something I do *not* particularly enjoy, it's just too much literalness for me, and I'd rather think about what things mean and suggest and hint at.)

But many SFs also enjoy home decoration, in terms of creating a visibly beautiful home with a particular cheerful ambiance. There, they are going for an ambiance. So already we have two different "styles" that are being used. I think with the S just tends, though, to be much more concreteness and literalness about their art.

On the other hand, N's are much more into the notion of the symbol, whether they are evoking ideas or complex feelings.

Still, there is a lot of overlap. I don't know how easy it is to separate by type. For myself, I know my art tends to be a very strong mix of NT and NF, not a ton of S.

I'm sorry for pigeonholing, it just makes things easier to understand.

It's just that in the past, people have asked me what I'm trying to "say" when they looked at my art. And I'm just both confused and annoyed with the question. I don't try to put definite "underlying messages" in my work, it's just a piece of an idea I had in my head and wanted to express.

I'm not trying to associate any of my work with something reality based and I'm not trying to make some sort of "social commentary" about life, but it seems that art and literary critics are always trying to decipher "meaning" and "subliminal messages" in things.

When I create my art, I'm not aware that I'm supposed to say anything "meaningful" because art means different things to different people. Sure my artwork means something to me, but it's nothing that words could describe.

When I look at other people's art, I don't ask what their creations "mean" in the definite sense, I look at what it means to me.

That's just the thing that confuses me. Normally when I look at artwork that catches my eye, I indulge in my imagination, but I'm not trying to find a definite meaning.

So would this whole "meaning" thing normally associated with iNtuitive preference be more related imaginative thinking than a definite meaning? Because asking what people mean by something seems to be more concrete thinking.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Both types can be creative. I work with many creative Ss and Ns. I have wondered if MBTI does not really address the true nature of creativity and artistic expression. It seems to assume a rather narrow view. I teach creativity to all personality types and could go on for pages about it. It's not off limits to anyone, but the approaches vary in more than two directions. Right now I'm working on a transcription project with two highly skilled Ss and the balance between the two approaches is really ideal. They trouble shoot my work, find every detailed impracticality, and help the result fit the concrete world ideally.

Creativity by definition means coming up with original entities. Intuitors tend to discover novelties pertaining to the mind more than of the earthly things and sensors--vice versa.

There are two conventional definitions of creativity, adaptive and innovative.

Adaptive is about working with variables that already exist to create a more congenial concrete environment. This kind of creativity is usually utilized to the end of bringing stability to society. The innovative creativity is more in line with the conventional definition of creativity. The ability to generate abstract ideas. An entity does not need to be abstract in order to be considered an idea, as we see that creative sensors often come up with ideas pertaining to the concrete world. The reason why the latter is called innovative and the former does not because the latter is contingent upon the mind for creation of ideas, yet the former on the physical world. Neither of the two is any more 'original', and in the conventional sense of the word, neither is original, because they both depend on an extraneous variable for stimulation. Adaptive creativity is often not considered creativity at all because it is clear that it depends on something else for stimulation, whereas it is much less clear that the same is the case for the innovative creativity.

In short, neither the sensors nor the intuitors are 'creative', yet with Sensors this is easier to notice.

 

[bluebell]

Interesting thread.

I think the closest I come to an S experience is when I paint or draw. I'm a math/scientist geek at heart but I like to paint and draw.

I was wondering if any of the S's on here identify with my experience of painting (below)? Or how the N's see this experience? I haven't put this up as a description of how S-types do art, it's just the only example I have where I do something purely for the physical and visual sensations and where I'm actually paying attention to the world around me (well, a little bit anyway).

I paint because I enjoy the feeling of the brush on canvas and the smoothness of the paint as it goes on the canvas. I love the feel of soft bristles. I love the colours and mixing them on a palette. I love mixing and blending the colours on canvas to get smooth gradations in colour. I love the freehand quick sketch of pencil on canvas before I start painting, although I don't like the feel of the graphite scraping across the roughness of canvas. I love painting bright bright colours and I love looking at my paintings on my walls because the colours are so vibrant.

I don't paint to express ideas or emotions or symbolism or any other meaning (occasionally I see something from my subconcious has crept into some of my drawings but it's never deliberate). I feel like this is an 'S' outlet for me and I'm lucky enough to have just enough artistic talent to enjoy the end results.

 

[indigo2020]

Usually I had them a printed Keirsey temperament sorter and ask them to complete it.

Without a test or sorter, I just explain abstract and concrete and ask them which they think they prefer. Most people I know are pretty aware of either being annoyed with "useless speculation" or with "boring practicalities".

If not, I might ask them something like...
Do you prefer spend more time talking about what someone actually did, or theorizing about the significant meanings behind their actions?
Do you experience life mostly through your hands and actions and physical senses, or do you experience life mostly in your own mind?
Is it worse to have your head in the clouds, or to be in a rut?

I generally already have an opinion about whether the person is an S or an N, and I'll sometimes word the questions so that the type I think they're not sounds better than the type I think they are. If they choose the "less attractive" type, then I take it as a stronger confirmation than if they'd chosen the "more attractive" type.

I think this is a very good way to find out. I like the questions and how you said "prefer" as I view this as the key factor in sorting out whether someone is N or S.

This is the first time I have seem someone speak about whether someone prefers a certain way over another. When it is worded, "do you like x or y" it is too black and white. We all use all the functions to varying degrees.

Whether someone is S or N has to do with their "preference" or their "natural inclination" most of the time.

 

[The Ü™]

Creativity by definition means coming up with original entities. Intuitors tend to discover novelties pertaining to the mind more than of the earthly things and sensors--vice versa.

There are two conventional definitions of creativity, adaptive and innovative.

Adaptive is about working with variables that already exist to create a more congenial concrete environment. This kind of creativity is usually utilized to the end of bringing stability to society. The innovative creativity is more in line with the conventional definition of creativity. The ability to generate abstract ideas. An entity does not need to be abstract in order to be considered an idea, as we see that creative sensors often come up with ideas pertaining to the concrete world. The reason why the latter is called innovative and the former does not because the latter is contingent upon the mind for creation of ideas, yet the former on the physical world. Neither of the two is any more 'original', and in the conventional sense of the word, neither is original, because they both depend on an extraneous variable for stimulation. Adaptive creativity is often not considered creativity at all because it is clear that it depends on something else for stimulation, whereas it is much less clear that the same is the case for the innovative creativity.

In short, neither the sensors nor the intuitors are 'creative', yet with Sensors this is easier to notice.

Well I know S and N are information-gathering functions.

We all know that S prefers to gather information with the five senses (empirical), but the way it's worded with N, with gathering information from "possibilities and meanings." Would this be something like understanding through discussion or reading since neither of those involves direct experience?

Some sources, though, say that E prefers experiential knowledge, while I prefers conceptual knowledge, but to me, that seems to make more sense when in the S and N dichotomies, since experience is concrete, while concepts (which are attained through reading since it deals with symbols and interpreting of meaning) are abstract and not directly perceived by the senses. Conceptual knowledge is also big picture oriented.

Can someone help me out here?

 

[reason]

S: Concrete, Common Sense, Matter-of-fact, Reliable, Always right
N: Flakey, Nonsensical, Rambling, Can write whole paragraphs without saying anything

Thank you! (Though I don't know about the "always right" part. )

See what I mean? Paragraphs and paragraphs of writing, and what for? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

 

[ptgatsby]

Can someone help me out here?

The three core views;

E/I:

MBTI - Determines dominance of rational/irrational functions (Ne-Ti vs Ti-Ne)

Jung - Is the primary characteristic of the other traits (Te is really Et, if that makes sense.)

FFM - Is essentially surgency, the desire for environmental feedback.

N/S:

MBTI - S pulls direct information, ie A to B to C... N pulls indirect information, ie: sum_, INT. Effectively Ns look for ways things relate to each other, how the information impacts on other information - such as how things lead to other information/impacts, often into the future without a direct correlation to the information presented. Big picture stuff... forest for the trees. Better explained in Jungs original work;

Jung - Essentially intuition is seeing the whole while sensing seeing the parts. The scope of "whole" is simply different. Intuition should be the crossover point where intuitives begin pulling more information than is presented in the immediate situation ie: pulling information from a nebulous location.

FFM - N Is essentially openness, the willingness to be change/adpot knowledge, feelings and values and the willingness to fantasize and explore new activities. Despite sounding very different, they are significantly correlated.

Strictly speaking, Ns are not more 'creative' than Ss. They are simply more intuitive, giving them the general aptitude in seeing more than what is presented. This is not an inherently positive thing, since it can result in the ghosts and shadows of bad information. For example, it is generally Ns that will assign stupid views onto MBTI types as they read more and more into types than actually exists. The Ss are typically more accurate in their ability to apply systems since they don't draw on outside biases.

The main advantage of being an N over and S isn't understanding or application - it is a side effect of being more open to refining their knowledge and changing when they are wrong (MBTI expresses this as a need to be consistent, which really means that we change what we know to fit our views, where Ss believe things are fixed as a side effect of measuring tangibles).

--

As for the OP, I explain it as either the N/S Jung view above, or the FFM view.

 

[The Ü™]

Well I was looking at this sample report and it seems that iNtuition is more related to "learning for the sake of learning" rather than learning for a practical outcome.

It's said that a Sensor is well-grounded in reality, so would a strong iNtuitive preference be more likely to become isolated from reality?

And since a Sensory preference is one that's more socially acceptable, are iNtuitives more likely to be labeled as "eccentric" or "crackpots" because of their preference to go against mainstream norms?

Personality Page says that the INTJ type may be unaware (or uncaring) of how people on the outside world perceive me (and this is true of me). Is this because of a dominant Introverted iNtuition?

I have a feeling I'm making these things more confusing than they ought to be.

And the modern Myers-Briggs functions seem be quite devious from Jung's original functions, since modern MBTI tests consider Introversion and Extraversion more or less as social inclinations (Extraverts are gregarious, Introverts are reserved).

 

[ptgatsby]

Well I was looking at this sample report and it seems that iNtuition is more related to "learning for the sake of learning" rather than learning for a practical outcome.

It's an assumed trait, yes.

It's said that a Sensor is well-grounded in reality, so would a strong iNtuitive preference be more likely to become isolated from reality?

The better way of putting it is that iNtuitive would see things that aren't there.

And since a Sensory preference is one that's more socially acceptable, are iNtuitives more likely to be labeled as "eccentric" or "crackpots" because of their preference to go against mainstream norms?

Subjective; but yes, in general. I don't find that it matter that much, unless you are unhealthy in some way (ie: seeing things that really aren't there!)

Personality Page says that the INTJ type may be unaware (or uncaring) of how people on the outside world perceive me (and this is true of me). Is this because of a dominant Introverted iNtuition?

It's because of where you stand on every trait. But yes, in a word, it is because of dominant Ni. Just as SJs (Si) don't really care what people 'think', they very much care about following the standards they have. It just so happens that the standards can be reduced to people's impressions of them. You can see Si easier in religion than with cultural standards. Ni care about their vision, if you will, and less about the people around them.

And the modern Myers-Briggs functions seem be quite devious from Jung's original functions, since modern MBTI tests consider Introversion and Extraversion more or less as social inclinations (Extraverts are gregarious, Introverts are reserved).

Yup, MBTI traits have become more and more like the factor analysis traits in FFM.

 

["?"]

Well I was looking at this sample report and it seems that iNtuition is more related to "learning for the sake of learning" rather than learning for a practical outcome.

Yes, and was one reason that I discounted my Step II and Geier results as being INTP. I would say that INJs (and possibly ENJs) would need some practical value from learning something for it's own sake, but I know that SPs would never learn anything without some realistic benfit. A good example is learning about type was to give me guidelines on career matters. Since the system is really not beneficial for a lot of practical purposes (IRL), then it is understandable why most sensing types steer clear of it.

It's said that a Sensor is well-grounded in reality, so would a strong iNtuitive preference be more likely to become isolated from reality?

The one thing that I have a disdain for is, MBTI generally looks at types in healthy stages. You find very little information on how the type acts when using less than their two dominant functions. IRL, very few people can maintain a constant sense of healthiness. So, to answer your question, alot of sensing types use intuition, because they are in unhealthy state of mind.

And since a Sensory preference is one that's more socially acceptable, are iNtuitives more likely to be labeled as "eccentric" or "crackpots" because of their preference to go against mainstream norms?

I wouldn't say that is totally true, since SPs can have their integrity questioned by doing things outside of the norm.

Personality Page says that the INTJ type may be unaware (or uncaring) of how people on the outside world perceive me (and this is true of me). Is this because of a dominant Introverted iNtuition?

I agree with Pgat, but reference back to my original example, in that for both ITJs, the auxiliary is used to filter out information that does not coincide with the dominant functions beliefs. Ergo, it's less of their not caring and more of being unconscious to their appearance. I made a similar inquiry on the INTPC board some time ago, as to whether introverted types are truly conscious of appearance, thus how they use their auxilary or any other extraverted function.

I have a feeling I'm making these things more confusing than they ought to be.

Absolutely not Uber. These are the questions that should be asked because they help introverted types deal with real life issues better.

And the modern Myers-Briggs functions seem be quite devious from Jung's original functions, since modern MBTI tests consider Introversion and Extraversion more or less as social inclinations (Extraverts are gregarious, Introverts are reserved).

And let us say AMEN!! Just responding to your example of the E/I dichotomy, I would think that the average person is more amibiverted, therefore find it quite arduous to pigeonhole themselves into a forced choice. Similarly, each type function is used fluidly, therefore will be used as necessary (as referenced in a post earlier). That is why I think it becomes a bit non-sensical to make comparisons when we use all functions. Clearly, the Fe will get me in more trouble, because I suspect of having to put on a facade to exist in the daily world. I would prefer to allow my work to speak for itself, however inter-office politics precludes me from obtaining desired results (ie, promotions and raises).

 

[Blackwater]

You could also say that Intuitives are always charging in, guns blazing, too eager to connect the dots to a great whole even in cases where there is no justification for such a connection.

 

[proteanmix]

You could also say that Intuitives are always charging in, guns blazing, too eager to connect the dots to a great whole even in cases where there is no justification for such a connection.

Yes you're right, that's why I NEED my S friends to bring me to the facts of the matter. I had a very long conversation with one of my IxTJ friends about an incident I am absolutely sure meant something. It's taken me a few days to finally come around to the idea that it may have only been what it was, nothing more nothing less.

One thing I noticed, I'm more able to convince my S friends of the hidden meaning of something than they are able to convince me that something means nothing or not what I think it is. I also notice with my other N friends it's harder to convince them to change their interpretation of the hidden meaning or connections between an event. We seem to tenaciously hold on to what we believe to be the true significance of something (which could be completely wrong).

 

["?"]

You could also say that Intuitives are always charging in, guns blazing, too eager to connect the dots to a great whole even in cases where there is no justification for such a connection.

And you don't think that ESP types do this? Otto Kroeger's slogan for ESTPs, "When all else fails, read the instructions", epitomizes shooting from the hip. They're also noted for responding before having all of the information, because Se allows them to instantly size up a situation, with very little information. That is definitely a Se trait, however since Ne and Se can look superficially alike it's understandable that those using Ne would resonate with that type behavior, especially ENTPs.

 

[Totenkindly]

And you don't think that ESP types do this? Otto Kroeger's slogan for ESTPs, "When all else fails, read the instructions", epitomizes shooting from the hip.

I see ESxP's regularly do this. They are good at determining action based on the flow around them (i.e., reacting in real-time) but they seem to be weak at least early on in life with determining the SIGNIFICANCE of the things happening around them.

The conclusions they generally draw often seem to be erroneous because they are based on a limited understanding of the possibilities.

As long as they just take the events unfolding at their face value, they are very effective in finding the best response to deal with the situation right in that moment.