S or N?

[Mind Maverick]

I hate theoretical discussion or contemplation, it annoys me. I prefer that which is more practical, concrete, solid, definable, answerable; I understand that there are benefits involved in theory, but I'd rather leave that to others to bother with. Yet, I see multiple possibilities everywhere--above average, for sure--and I perceive ambiguity, thus seek clarity, in the details where most would assume they already have certainty. In this way, I find myself more skilled at getting to the bottom of things accurately; I listen more, ask more, consider more options. Possibilities seeking (Ne) is in service of Accuracy seeking in things I'm figuring out, analyzing, etc. (supposedly Ti). I would type as ISTP in dichotomies, yet INTP in functions, according to current perspectives, therefore.

What are your thoughts, insights, or perceptions? What do you make of this?

Alternatives welcomed, but be prepared to provide reasonable explanations that can make me nod and go "hmm" if you expect me to consider them seriously. It's not as if I can just go, "oh, an alternative, ok, sure, coz someone said so." Or worse, "that makes no logical sense to me, let's go with that." There's not much worse than someone who expects you to value and consider their ideas when they themselves can't even support them with sound reasoning.

PS - "because you are/do X" when I in fact am not/do not "X" is a logical fallacy: "If X is true, then Y must also be true." Just because you think X about me doesn't mean it's true, at times there are alternatives you haven't considered or perceived. If X is not true, how can I take Y seriously?

 

[Mind Maverick]

Inb4 "they're different systems" which is my current thought.

 

[Vendrah]

I hate theoretical discussion or contemplation, it annoys me. I prefer that which is more practical, concrete, solid, definable, answerable; I understand that there are benefits involved in theory, but I'd rather leave that to others to bother with. Yet, I see multiple possibilities everywhere--above average, for sure--and I perceive ambiguity, thus seek clarity, in the details where most would assume they already have certainty. In this way, I find myself more skilled at getting to the bottom of things accurately; I listen more, ask more, consider more options. Possibilities seeking (Ne) is in service of Accuracy seeking in things I'm figuring out, analyzing, etc. (supposedly Ti). I would type as ISTP in dichotomies, yet INTP in functions, according to current perspectives, therefore.

What are your thoughts, insights, or perceptions? What do you make of this?

Alternatives welcomed, but be prepared to provide reasonable explanations that can make me nod and go "hmm" if you expect me to consider them seriously. It's not as if I can just go, "oh, an alternative, ok, sure, coz someone said so." Or worse, "that makes no logical sense to me, let's go with that." There's not much worse than someone who expects you to value and consider their ideas when they themselves can't even support them with sound reasoning.

PS - "because you are/do X" when I in fact am not/do not "X" is a logical fallacy: "If X is true, then Y must also be true." Just because you think X about me doesn't mean it's true, at times there are alternatives you haven't considered or perceived. If X is not true, how can I take Y seriously?

Hmm... Actually, N/S as every other dichotomy does have some different aspects, and a good part of them were grouped by correlation where, for example, if you are highly sociable then you are more likely to be assertive, but being highly sociable doesn't imply being assertive and vice-versa. Because of that, there are facets division.

In Jung's frame, if you are in doubt between N and S you are probably undifferentiated on them or/and they are your auxiliary and tertiary functions (I work with 4 functions for 2021 at least, as Jung does, so functions for me are N, S, T and F, explanation on my signature, "Jung Typology Explained"). That means that you are either a T-dom or a S-dom or have an undifferentiated function type (undifferentiated type means no preferred function - there is room in Jung typology for that).

I could help you with that in 3 ways:
a) Pointing out to MBTI test with facets (well, there is still one of these in sakinorva) and pointing out a Big 5 test and points which facets strongly relates to intuition.
b) Pointing out to you long descriptions of the N/S facets and also copy and paste the Big 5 facets related to intuition.
c) You point to me to a type me thread with test and I try to distinguish from there, but, sometimes, specially for this year, my answer can be "none in specific and either".

 

[The Cat]

I hate theoretical discussion or contemplation, it annoys me. I prefer that which is more practical, concrete, solid, definable, answerable; I understand that there are benefits involved in theory, but I'd rather leave that to others to bother with. Yet, I see multiple possibilities everywhere--above average, for sure--and I perceive ambiguity, thus seek clarity, in the details where most would assume they already have certainty. In this way, I find myself more skilled at getting to the bottom of things accurately; I listen more, ask more, consider more options. Possibilities seeking (Ne) is in service of Accuracy seeking in things I'm figuring out, analyzing, etc. (supposedly Ti). I would type as ISTP in dichotomies, yet INTP in functions, according to current perspectives, therefore.

What are your thoughts, insights, or perceptions? What do you make of this?

Alternatives welcomed, but be prepared to provide reasonable explanations that can make me nod and go "hmm" if you expect me to consider them seriously. It's not as if I can just go, "oh, an alternative, ok, sure, coz someone said so." Or worse, "that makes no logical sense to me, let's go with that." There's not much worse than someone who expects you to value and consider their ideas when they themselves can't even support them with sound reasoning.

PS - "because you are/do X" when I in fact am not/do not "X" is a logical fallacy: "If X is true, then Y must also be true." Just because you think X about me doesn't mean it's true, at times there are alternatives you haven't considered or perceived. If X is not true, how can I take Y seriously?

If all this is true, what does it matter?

 

[Mind Maverick]

If all this is true, what does it matter?

Curiosity is fun.

 

[The Cat]

Curiosity is fun.

Arent there more curious things to be curious about though?

 

[Mind Maverick]

Hmm... Actually, N/S as every other dichotomy does have some different aspects, and a good part of them were grouped by correlation where, for example, if you are highly sociable then you are more likely to be assertive, but being highly sociable doesn't imply being assertive and vice-versa. Because of that, there are facets division.

Big 5 covers this better than MBTI. There is an association, but it is not something that's necessarily true. There's a missing puzzle piece in the information I see before me: what is linking that to N/S? I suspect this has something to do with how you define N/S, perhaps? I'm not sure.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Arent there more curious things to be curious about though?

That all just depends on what you define as fun sometimes. I enjoy challenging peoples' thinking.

There's a reason I spend less time here these days though.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Do you think you prefer Si or Se as a valued, conscious function?

 

[Mind Maverick]

Do you think you prefer Si or Se as a valued, conscious function?

Based on what definition/assessment?

 

[Vendrah]

Big 5 covers this better than MBTI. There is an association, but it is not something that's necessarily true. There's a missing puzzle piece in the information I see before me: what is linking that to N/S? I suspect this has something to do with how you define N/S, perhaps? I'm not sure.

The assertive vs highly social was just an example, a E/I example that came to my mind first.
The same I said to E/I does value to other dichotomies, which includes N/S.

 

[Mind Maverick]

The assertive vs highly social was just an example, a E/I example that came to my mind first.
The same I said to E/I does value to other dichotomies, which includes N/S.

I see.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Do you think you prefer Si or Se as a valued, conscious function?

Based on what definition/assessment?

Just in case it wasn't clear...that was an authentic question. I wasn't being combative or anything and I hope it didn't come off as though I was. I am basically asking you, "what are you trying to ask me?"

 

[Mind Maverick]

This thread is to learn the opinions of others rather than to find a conclusion for myself. I'm curious about what others have to say more than I am interested in finding answers.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Just in case it wasn't clear...that was an authentic question. I wasn't being combative or anything and I hope it didn't come off as though I was. I am basically asking you, "what are you trying to ask me?"

By process of elimination you should be able to narrow your type. I find distinguishing the conscious sensory function can sometimes be easier than distinguishing the conscious intuitive function. If you are an IxxP then you will be more aware of your perception functions so I would start from there.

 

[Mind Maverick]

By process of elimination you should be able to narrow your type. I find distinguishing the conscious sensory function can sometimes be easier than distinguishing the conscious intuitive function. If you are an IxxP then you will be more aware of your perception functions so I would start from there.

Though this wasn't quite what I was looking for, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Ehh, nvm. My time is very valuable and @The Cat is right, there are better things to spend it on. I'm over here thanking others for their time while basically wasting my own...and having mine wasted by others as well, to be blunt.

 

[Mind Maverick]

By process of elimination you should be able to narrow your type. I find distinguishing the conscious sensory function can sometimes be easier than distinguishing the conscious intuitive function. If you are an IxxP then you will be more aware of your perception functions so I would start from there.

Si in Socionics, Ne in both "MBTI" and Socionics since they're basically the same, Se/Si in cognitive functions for "MBTI" are pretty scrambled, mixed, vague; probably depends on the source used. S in MBTI dichotomies. I made it clear in the first post that I'm not in question. My objective was to hear others' opinions. I'm well aware of my own, but that's boring.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Si in Socionics, Ne in both "MBTI" and Socionics since they're basically the same, Se/Si in cognitive functions for "MBTI" are pretty scrambled, mixed, vague; probably depends on the source used. S in MBTI dichotomies. I made it clear in the first post that I'm not in question. My objective was to hear others' opinions. I'm well aware of my own, but that's boring.

sorry, never mind