Personality Cafe banner

I think I'm an N but I'm not: How would I know?

3K views 56 replies 20 participants last post by  meleeMermaid 
#1 · (Edited)
So pretend I'm a new member here. As a new member, I've read up on typology and MBTI and Socionics and I think I'm an N type, but I, the new member, am actually not. Maybe this is because I have poor self knowledge, or because I have been somehow unconsciously biased toward wanting to be N so I unconsciously rig the test to get "N". Doesn't matter. Here's what I want to know:

For those of us (any of us) who believe we are "N" dominant types but are actually "S" dominant types, how would we go about detecting our true "S" nature? What would be clues that we are really "S" dominant instead? What would be clues that we really have no idea what "N" is?

Based on my (brightflashes) current understanding of Jung, the average person is only conscious of one perceiving process and one judging process. So, if one were an "S" type, they'd largely bury their "N" in the unconscious mind.

So help me (brightflashes) convince myself (the new member) that I'm completely mistaken and I am, in fact, an "S" type.

If Ns are over represented in the population, it's likely this new member is one anyway. heh.

**I propose this as a fun activity to become more conscious, not as a way to question a person's type.**
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Proposed fun activity. Definitely S type. :thinking:
 
#5 · (Edited)
I don't believe psychological types is about actions or observable behavior. It's about what motivates such on a psychical level.

That said, here is a comment from a free ebook by a jungian analyst I was reading just this afternoon about Jung's conception of type:

(begin quote)
It can be as difficult to establish one's own type as that of
another person, especially when people have already become
bored with their primary function and dominant attitude. Von
Franz comments:
They very often assure you with absolute sincerity that they
belong to the type opposite from what they really are. The extravert swears that he is deeply introverted, and vice versa.
This comes from the fact that the inferior function subjectively feels itself to be the real one, it feels itself the more important, more genuine attitude. . . . It does no good, therefore,
to think of what matters most when trying to discover one's
type; rather ask: "What do I habitually do most?"31
(end quote)

That last phrase seems like a cop out on Von Franz's part, but it highlights the fact that even trained, well-known jungian analysts get confused while meandering about their own (and others') minds.

I'm tempted to go along with the "do" method and say that you follow one of the many free tests available online that average up all your "do's" and type you that way. In such a case, I'd simply ask you if you hate paperwork or brainstorming MORE. xD That would give me a pretty good idea in that way.

But if I ask myself the same question, it would be a mental scenario similar to this:

I compare how often I reference sense detail (namely concrete memories and my immediate sensations) with how often I allow my decisions to be impacted by reference to images or impressions from the unconscious (namely the contents of the mind that come forth with no apparent connection to the immediate sense experience); and what's more than how OFTEN I reference them - how naturally, and how much weight I give their importance.

I've been prone to characterize S as "concrete" and N as "abstract", but that can be a confusing simplification because anyone can imagine abstract concepts (maybe sensors can even do it better), but where did the concept come from? Einstein or your own mind five seconds ago? (Incidentally, I do think that F is relative evaluation - think "less than" or "greater than symbols", and T is absolute evaluation - think equations with equals signs).

Basically, with good definitions of the terms and self awareness (both are indispensable), the process can be done.

"what kind of information do I prefer to feed to my dominant judging process" is the TL;DR, I guess.
 
#6 ·
Challenge yourself to a game of Tekken... N's will pick flowery, exotic dance like fight styles and end up swatting at butterflies in their attempt to master that particular dance of martial arts... S's will stand there stoically and say hey that's pretty and all but I'm over here before smacking you into the next area of the arena.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I like to look at it in a multitude of ways.

1. What you said, the unconscious processes can also help us tell which one we are.
2. That the cognitive functions line up and we only use the functions in the line up, but they can look like different things at different times.
3. It doesnt matter what type you are, only the cognitive functions you are currently using matter.
4. Only the letters matter.
5. Only type description is relevant.
6. None of it matters.
7. All of it matters.
8. [and this is what I would use, I suppose, to show them it hardly matters whether they are N or S.]
That what is seen as abstract is subjective. What seems abstract to a person now, might seem concrete to a person later. same with concrete being subjective.
Concreteness vs Abstractness are what I use to measure N vs. S [used to, rather, but the paradigm is still with me.]
So its kind of your own perception of yourself. If you think youre an S, you are likely an S. but it also escalates with other peoples perceptions of you, which can in turn color your view of yourself.
If you cant find a role immediately, people will be your sorting hat for you.
9. Abstract = The Unseen, theoretical world and Concrete = the solid, known world.
Inbetween those two worlds is the world of discovery and curiosity. It is the bridge that binds them together.
If you would like to be an N so badly, just spend some time on the bridge and eventually youll get there. You might end up there anyway, whether you want to or not.



and then I would add that being a sensor isnt a bad thing, doesnt make you stupid, and that you might not understand now, but someday you will, young padawan. If you insist on your identity being intuitive, there is room for you. If you insist that your identity is sensor, there is room for you. Just be at home and feel welcome.
 
#11 ·
Hi brightflashes. The best indicator in determining whether someone is "S" or "N" based off of superficial characteristics - or snap judgments - is actually their face. It's complex to articulate through text however, but the general idea is that the face shows "habits" formed by the muscle memory within the integrity of movement. A sensor is someone who would have a face that is more "present" and less "zoned out" - therefore a face that is receptive to the environment at any given moment. An intuitive is someone who would have a face that is more deeply configuring based on the demand of the present moment. They pay attention when it's necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brightflashes
#12 ·
@Dissymetry

You make it all sound so simple. And of course I, as brightflashes, prefer N.

However, if it is this simple, why is this such a common mistyping? Are the N types that are accused of being more "S" just being attacked for no reason? Or, is 'N' something that really is grossly misrepresented? It seems to me something this simple should be obvious. Further, it seems that this simple definition (one that I have come to as well) would make "S" types not only more attractive to the average person, but also clearly the superior one when it comes to intelligence.

How did the stereotype start if it's so absolutely wrong?


@WritingLove

I can understand facial typing in theory, but in actuality it seems "off" to me. Is there a way to differentiate between an Se type and an Si type? Or is it just limited to the functions S vs N?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The red spirit
#14 ·
@Dissymetry

You make it all sound so simple. And of course I, as brightflashes, prefer N.

However, if it is this simple, why is this such a common mistyping? Are the N types that are accused of being more "S" just being attacked for no reason? Or, is 'N' something that really is grossly misrepresented? It seems to me something this simple should be obvious. Further, it seems that this simple definition (one that I have come to as well) would make "S" types not only more attractive to the average person, but also clearly the superior one when it comes to intelligence.

How did the stereotype start if it's so absolutely wrong?
I assume it is a common mistyping because N sounds 'cooler' the way the MBTI portrays it than S, I have written about this in some other thread a few days ago. I do not believe MBTI definitions match Jungs. The MBTI twists intuition and sensation into something that is very different from what Jung and the rest of the world understands, so yes I believe N (and S) are grossly misrepresented by official and unofficial MBTI sources.

The simple definition or understanding (which is the ordinary understanding of intuition) does not make S types more attractive to the average person in my opinion, because of how the MBTI misrepresents S and N. I do not agree if makes S clearly superior when it comes to intelligence either, just because someone selects observing facts/data over their intuition when push comes to shove does not mean they do it well, it does not immediately mean they are more observant of relevant facts than anyone else, relying on Sensation does not speak to their skill with Sensation.

It could be argued that as a dominant function, the Sensation should be more differentiated, but this differentiation of course comes in comparison to the other three functions. A person can have Sensation as most differentiated function, and still have a less useful and less differentiated Sensation than a person with Sensation as the inferior function, in my opinion.

Just because it is that persons most dominant and differentiated function does mean it is any good.

Assuming the two are being for lack of a more apt term, "wielded" equally, I still do not believe that following Sensory facts over intuition is a more intelligent choice than following intuition and dismissing the sensory facts. It depends on the situation, the context, what the goal is, too many things.

I do believe and this might be my own intuitive preference speaking to some degree, that Sensation is far more difficult and stressful than intuition. It is difficult to rid oneself of the heuristics, analogous thinking and unconscious assumptions that your own personal experience has observed and developed over time and instead rely more on what your senses are perceiving. It is extremely difficult to pick things apart at a surface level as Sensation does. I wish I was a Sensation type and have periods in my life where I actively try to work on this. I have always known this was a flaw, from well before I discovered these types of personality theories.

Intuitive types skip important sensation related steps, and doing this gets them in trouble. An example of Sensation is Rick from Rick and Morty, of course he is commonly typed as an N by the MBTI community, but this is incorrect, Rick thinks very literally and he questions everything at a surface level and follows this line of questioning and reasoning to its logical conclusions. His literal thinking is what gets him in (and out of) trouble, and is what makes up a good portion of the shows comedic value. He is obviously a Thinking type first and foremost, but he is an example of Sensation over Intuition. Rick does not skip steps or gloss over sensory-details, he excels so much at them that they bore him and are second nature, as a preferred function should be!

I think the stereotype started with Myers and how how she portrayed Sensors and Intuitives. I think many things that are wrong with this kind of personality theory originated from her.
 
#13 ·
@brightflashes

Well, I don't use both Se and Si consciously on an individual level as one would be working in the shadows. I could imagine a shadow function operating as a "tic" in movement that happens when you feel someone looking at you or sending their psychic energy your way. The difference between the two might be harder to figure out because of where at in the totem pole the function falls. With enough observational skills, I know it's possible to read any face like a book.
 
#17 ·
I often wonder the same things. How can we tell N and S apart in a more literal sense? In theory it makes sense, but I cannot practically apply the descriptions and see in my mind how an N user would think when compared to an S user on the same topic. There is just too much overlap, too many facets over a time lapse when thinking about something. One moment you are Intuiting, the next you are Sensing, in a never ending sea of both. So, how do you know which one you prefer overall? For some of us, the black and white might actually be very grey. Reading Jung descriptions, online descriptions, official MBTI descriptions, etc. have done nothing for me personally. I only think I am ISTJ because this type seems to be most fitting when I compare myself to others of the same and different types. Without these personal accounts, I don't actually have any proof other than what I read, and as previously mentioned, is unclear when applying to myself or how I perceive others to be. This is personality theory after all, and therefore must be heavily related to actual people living on Earth. Theory is fun, but application aids in truly knowing you understand.

Haha, I think I sounded really S in the above. Do you relate at all @brightflashes? Or does your mind work totally different when thinking about this topic?
 
#18 · (Edited)
Do you relate at all @brightflashes? Or does your mind work totally different when thinking about this topic?
I can't say that I do relate, honestly. I just notice when I see people complaining about a problem (N types are really S types) and I cannot figure out why they would say that, but most people tend to say it, I get confused. Boyfriend told me recently that he thinks the same thing. This was what triggered this post. When I can't understand Boyfriend's mind, that's a big deal to me. So, I posted this hoping to understand a bit more why there is this general mistrust of N types in that the mistrust tends to slant toward "you're really an S type".

I'm not familiar with the idea of having a strong urge to define someone else. I'm not familiar with the idea that an N type would be more appealing than an S type. I'm also not familiar with the idea that anyone would want to lie to themselves or anyone else - especially strangers on the Internet - about who they are. This concept is entirely foreign to me.

I think that if there really is a problem, then one must figure out how to solve this OR one must admit that the so-called "problem" is a figment of the imagination. I don't know which is true. I'm just interested in the discussion.

Often times when I post a thread, people think that this is somehow personal and it usually isn't. My personal remarks are reserved for my closest friends and family members and Boyfriend. So, no, this question of "am I S or N?" isn't really my personal question. It's just a quest to understand human behaviour, especially collective human behaviour when it doesn't make sense to me.

Just to add: I think that I have a satisfactory understanding of what S is vs what N is. Of course there is always room for improvement, but my understanding of the functions is much different from my understanding of a collective group attempting to tell others that they're lying or misrepresenting themselves or whatever. It seems life is for these sorts of lessons to be learned and sorted out and I'm fond of the saying that a blind man cannot lead a blind man because both will fall into a pit.

Essentially, a person who *thinks* they know what another person's type is will be blind to that person. Similarly, if the person does not share in the same "vision" of the first person, then they, too, will be blind to whatever idea is being pushed onto themselves. They are both blind in the situation.

This might go back to early childhood. I had a parent who tried desperately to control my autonomy and to define me in multiple ways. I suppose I find it repulsive to have any sort of desire to define another or take away their autonomy. If a person is CLEARLY an S type but says they're N, who am I to mess with their reality? How do I know they're not joking or may be going through some sort of transformative experience. I cannot make that judgement and feel "good" about it. It seems wrong to me.

However, if the clues were more obvious, maybe I'd feel more comfortable making that judgement. In this post I'm looking for the clues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bunniculla
#21 ·
You use both, but prefer one. If you lead (or heavily rely on) a sensing or an intuitive function, you have much less doubt regarding S vs N, because you'd be "in it" a lot, sometimes so much you come off very weird/airy/cerebral/visionary/deep/prophetic to sensors, or come off as incredibly skilled/focused/multitasker/kinestetic/capable/crtafst(wo)man to intuitives. If you can't figure out which you prefer, chances are, both are somewhere middle/low in the conscious stack, and thus less relevant to figuring out your type.
 
#24 ·
My issue has always been the asinine N typings of just about every celebrity and fictional characters with absolutely nothing to back it up other than some implied ''Way too cool/unique to be an S type'' justification.

What people here decide to type themselves is none of my business. Sure, it's kinda like bragging about dick size, in that you highly suspect quite a few people may be lying about it to make themselves feel better or to make you feel inferior. But then....there really are people who sport a nine incher. And I don't really care for people whipping it out so I can see if it checks out or not.

(So sorry for that metaphor, I had nothing else come to mind).

I think we can all agree though that young emo twards who keep selling us the idea of how hard it is to fit in to society as intuitive because it's such a curse to possess a superior intellect and deeper insight that the rest of us sheeple simply can't understand and ostracize them as a result of it; are essentially the MBTI equivalent of spoiled white suburban kids who discovered rap music and think of themselves as muscular black thugs.
 
#25 ·
I like this thread. I too am trying to figure out if I'm really S or N. I can say a few things. I definitely don't feel "in the moment." I spend my free time in the past, in my memories and nostalgia. When I play games, I am creating character cameos instead of just creating random BS names (How do people even sink hundreds of hours into characters with random names?) I eat what I want to taste at a given moment, and not necessarily what's good for me, even though I added yogurt and bananas to my diet.

Ah, hell. Nostalgia rules my life, and perhaps even ruins it. I get too attached to people and things, and the quickest way to screw me over is get me attached to doing an activity with you, then losing interest in it. Like hell, I could enjoy the same activities I enjoyed 20 years ago, and that's playing Smash Bros. and Goldeneye. I don't need new experiences often to keep things fresh, I try to find ways to make the same old things new again.

I am not just a robot that absorbs information, I'm constantly analyzing things to see how I or others can relate to them, and what lessons things can teach us. This is why I like characters so much. They show me the things I wish I could see in more real people. And with such, I'm often lost in my head in the fictional world, and not the real one. Even at work, I'm zoned out and listening to music. Music helps give my brain something additional to process cause you can only clean the same exact machines in different ways so many times before it becomes mad boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leahomme
#28 ·
@brightflashes

Well, strictly technically talking about it, Jung written in his book, that most people have no simple distinction of one function, we are all mixed up. This is what Jung said about average people and preference shouldn't be "I'm N so I operate like this and never like S". It's more like same stuff, but with slightly different style. Only some people are more extreme examples of single function, but that mostly means, that they lack other functions and are disbalanced, which mostly hurts their well-being. I know you are asking opposite, but I think this thing is often forgotten. So much, that we have stereotypes, that thinkers don't do ethical (yep, I intentionally removed word feeling as it is inaccurate) reasoning often or that N types have spatial awareness problems.

Typology can only be of any use, if we have types, but reality is quite different. Our reasoning changes as situation requires, our beliefs over time change too. Many things change in us. Personality is a more robust construct, which is more permanent. It has its own operating style. Personality isn't just "I do x, so I resemble type y" or "I think like z, so my type is m". Personality in Jungian terms has its own operating style, which in most cases is mild. It's not talking about singular thoughts, ideas, but about yourself as a whole. In other words, your robust, "preferred" state of operation. Jung implied, that we have one main function or our cognitive style and the rest are mixed bag.

Now you would need to open his book and read descriptions of those functions, then look at how you are most of the time. You may find your type, maybe not. If you didn't find your type, congrats, you may be atypical person or person with complicated personality (colorful person).

If you don't lie Jung's descriptions, you can read socionics descriptions. They are same things, just written differently, to suit different cultural background (MBTI is more global/European, Socionics is mostly Eastern European).

Also remember one thing. There are many typologies, besides Jungian typology or MBTI typology. It is known for having accuracy problems. Maybe you want to discover more objectively accurate typologies.
 
#29 ·
Typologies will always suffer from issues of limited accuracy, hybrid specimens and so on. That's why scientists prefer traits (like Big5) instead of types.

With MBTI I guess people who could not truly identify with one type mostly don't bother with it. Other typologies can be work better for a person, but still one person can be very clear on let's say Enneagram, other MBTI and so on.
 
#30 ·
Typologies will always suffer from issues of limited accuracy, hybrid specimens and so on.
Maybe you want to discover more objectively accurate typologies.
I too am trying to figure out if I'm really S or N. I can say a few things.
I just want to be clear: I am not questioning my type by any means. I am, however, questioning why other people are so adamant about N being over represented. I'm wondering how they know that N types are really S types. I'm wondering why they throw these conclusions around.

I'm reasonably well read in Jung and reasonably well read in other personality systems. I use Jung on a daily basis at work and in my personal life. What I wonder is where other people are coming from. I understand where I, myself am coming from and I just see it as - why question another person's type? It's so terribly arrogant and silly to me.

If I want to question anything, it might be how people get the information wrong or apply the information wrong, but even that is tedious and is it really my place to do it?

I don't even prefer MBTI either. I prefer Jung's typology and almost use it exclusively at the moment because MBTI is way too messy and inexact and doesn't follow my understanding of Analytical Psychology.

I just wonder: what clues are people seeing in others that make them think that they are S over N. That's it.

So far, I mostly have gotten answers like: because N is "cool" and S is "uncool". This seems to me to be way too subjective to justify making a statement about the essence of any individual. But, to each their own. I so far haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why a person would sincerely believe someone else is mistyped except for something that would come from insecurity or a complete misunderstanding of the theory (Jung's).


@Engelsstaub Yes, there are many other theories of personality, psyche development, and so on. If I wanted to know why people attack other people's personalities from these perspectives, I would have asked about these perspectives. Yes yes, scientists use Big5. It isn't strictly a trait theory, though: it's a hybrid of trait and type theory. Trait theory would be something like 16PF instead. Either way, this doesn't help the topic in one bit. I appreciate your input, but it's not relevant to the discussion.
 
#31 ·
brightflashes said:
I just want to be clear: I am not questioning my type by any means. I am, however, questioning why other people are so adamant about N being over represented. I'm wondering how they know that N types are really S types. I'm wondering why they throw these conclusions around.
On forums it's hard to type a person based on posts until you follow him for long and read everything. I guess stalkers aren't that common. And probably it'd be comparing to stereotypes.

There are probably some mistypes on forum, but nothing verifiable. I remember two interesting cases from places which don't really concern themselves with typologies and where people certainly did not try to fake results because they had no bias, they didn't know typology. Just linked test for fun:

1. Several years ago on a (defunct now) forum about goth music. About half was INTP, some INFPs and the rest some others.
2. FB childfree group heavily dominated by INTJ. I got that as well then, but I consistently score close to the middle on T/F.

In Poland there is no "culture" around MBTI, so there is little to no pressure/bias/stereotypes. I may look around some forums for threads linking to 16P and similar threads. Sometimes people post it in off topic sections. It'd be even more fun to see how the topic of a forum affects the proportions of types.

But it seems that wherever you go, INs dominate online communities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brightflashes
#35 ·
Not that much in local internet have been found, but still can see some interesting results.

1. PCLab - online community about computers, mainly hardware. I just posted a link since they created an easy to read poll. INTJ prevails there.

2. Programming: here there are Polish names of types, so I'll translate most popular:
- INTP: 18 (25%)
- ISTJ: 12 (17%)
- ISTP: 9 (13%)
- INFP: 5 (7%)
- INTJ: 4 (6%)

3. A forum for women about women stuff, dominated by ENFJ and INFP, with a few INTJ and then single cases of all others.

4. Gaming forum with a total mixture of all 16. Just a little more INTJ, INTP and INFP than you'd expect. Just a little. A few years ago one would expect it to be all INTP, but the cultural standing of gaming has changed so much.

So there seems to be quite striking correlation between the kind of community and types. Go to a place about computers and it's IxTx haven. PerC is primarily about psychology, personality, philosophy and such stuff so overrepresentation of NF and NT types is expected.
 
#36 ·
It's quite funny, I am an Introverted Thinker with Extraverted Sensing, yet online people always guess 'INFJ.' Why? My guess is that this is based on simplistic stereotypes: after all, why would an 'ST' ever be interested in archetypes and psychology?... Even the more advanced interpreters of the theory have made this mistake. They pick up on (what they think is) Ti and Ni the most, and then reason their way to INFJ (read: follow their bias about type based on my interests).

Now, how do I know I am ISTP, not INFJ? Visual typing. The real thing.

http://cognitivetype.com/

Not even kidding. Check it out! Based on visual cues, it is unmistakable that I lead with a Ji function. Ti in my case. Se has been confirmed, as have Ni and Fe in lesser frequency.

The general descriptions of ISTP talk about the type as if it were a Senser dominant, rather than an Introverted Thinker. Too much emphasis on "practical realism" and "mechanics and engineers." Nope, not me. As I mentioned before, I am interested in archetypes and psychology. I look at overarching trends and analyze them to reach a point of seeing synchronicity in the world. I believe nothing happens 'by chance.' Ni could be considered the function by which I aim to understand the world, and I take a Ti approach to make this happen.

Overall, on the topic of S versus N, I see descriptions (and thus also the adopters of said descriptions) miss out on the inherent intuition in Sensation. People are more versatile than the static way types are described. People learn. One ESFJ isn't going to display their type the same way as another ESFJ. One can be very philosophically inclined, and then comes online and types/gets typed as an Intuition dom. There are meek ESTP's. There are rockstar INFJ's. This isn't about personality as much as it is about cognition. Does one influence the other? Yes. Does one dictate the other? No.
 
#37 · (Edited)
I was confirmed on the same website as an ESFP - and you can click on my website in my signature to see what I'm about: my creativity, obsessiveness about looking inward, etc.

When I came to Perc, people insisted I was either INFJ or ENFP, because my intuition was apparently 'so good' and I was deep, artistic, philosophical.... etc. I've been a musician for most of my life and I'm now working on an extensive fantasy series, just about to publish Book 1, which is roughly 800 pages of philosophical material. I was always good at school and at synthesizing abstract concepts, and I tend to make accurate predictions of things that will happen in the future - perhaps because of my heavy realism, which allows me to pick up patterns in the real world.

The reason I'm not ENFP is that I don't do open-ended possibilities and probabilities. I never related to it. Once I got a grip on the system, I self-typed at ISFP - which is understandable since I'm not very social and yet, I'm extremely obsessed with art and looking inward. But people on every website told me I didn't know myself, I was stupid, I was deluded, etc; and I had to be a Beta NF.

After 2-3 years of "internet bullying" on every website, with self-proclaimed Socionists and MBTI 'experts' insisting I was Beta NF and it was SO obvious; I finally wondered if indeed I was missing something, and explored the type. When I showed up at CT, I told them I matched their Fi description; it was practically quoted on my website - but I could be Beta NF. The writer of the site bet on Beta NF, based on my website, but then he saw my signals and the content of my videos - and realized I was a clear ESFP, psychologically and in vultology. One reason the main writer at cognitivetype likes his system, is that it corrects even his own stereotypes and errors.
 
#39 ·
@Catwalk

Finally! Exactly the response I was looking for and it is the operative standpoint that I believe many people become confused. I have noticed that those who attempt to understand S & N based on how they operate end up falling short of completely understanding the facets of both functions. I think that's too bad given that there is so much more to the perceptive functions. Even my closest friend who has a very advanced understanding of Jung is stuck on the operative aspect and neglects the intrinsic / "exhaustive" (good word!) aspect of the functions.

I'm currently reading Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious and the way Jung describes the Unconscious is exactly what I've been piecing together about N. I have found it's not sufficient enough to read Psychological Types (at least for myself) anymore and feel satisfied with my understanding of (Jungian) typology.

While it might not relate to this thread, I felt compelled to share this quote from Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (p 27):

... psychic life is for the greater part an unconscious life that surrounds consciousness on all sides—a notion that is sufficiently obvious when one considers how much unconscious preparation is needed, for instance, to register a sense-impression.
 
#40 ·
Understanding how 'functions' work at the operative level is necessary, but not useful to be hung up on. Like opening up a car engine, knowing how the parts make the car move are important to understanding what the (car) exhausts when rolling down a street. To me, "S" from the Typology books sounds like another 'intuitiveness' being used differently. There is a tendency to describe "S" as less abstract, although I do not see how "S" is any less abstract than "N" by typology terms. I am convinced Jung was, back in that time, describing nothing too interesting, but instead utilized complex language to describe something (observably common), which seems like "different degrees of general intuition".

Sensing utilizes "objective or 'actual' stimulus" only sometimes, but also produces "simulations" of things/events in the same way (intuition) does. For example, Si-doms reluctance to act based off 'imagined threats via patternized sensations' or let's call them "bodily fictions". Which seems pretty close to Ni-doms 'reluctance to act based off 'imaged state-of-affairs' to transpire. For N's, as opposed to the Sensor, they are not informed by "frictions" but outer body stimuli that can cause sensations to occur (e.g. Jung's example of snake in the belly), and I think it is Sensing that experiences this first as a "point" while N-types feel this is a reaction to something "unexplained or unobservable".

Both seem to be producing 'non-actual' simulations of things to help propel them forward. I think this is why we have "N"-doms that utilize past information (non-actual events), in the same way "S-types" use (non-actual past-sensations from 'events').
 
#44 · (Edited)
I think one of primary issues is that an S type can have well developed intuition. It's a matter of whether a person put an effort into it and works on growing his N skills. Same way an N can grow his S skills. You may have a dumb intuitive (A) and clever sensor (B) having his intuition better developed than (A).

It's more about the preference which is only clear in case of N or S being the primary driver. Otherwise it's harder because let's say an ISTP can still have decent intuition.

My hypothesis is that in case of N types intuition has an overriding power which in some situations directly fires reactions. Like the proclivity to read between the lines even if literal, meticulous reading is required. Such proclivity would need to be consciously controlled by an N while a sensor would rather need to consciously decide to listen to his intuition.

It's just my guessing, but maybe it helps. Sadly not in typing others it seems, because it's all inside person's head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brightflashes
#45 ·
I know this may seem very simplistic, but here are some thoughts. Assuming I don't already know someone and they ask me if they are N or S, I usually like to ask these few questions.

1) When you walk into a library, what do you notice or pay attention to the most?

2) Do you like to have pictures and videos documenting every event and activity in your life or do you feel like you have those stored in your mind and can access them at any time?

3) How is your work space or bedroom/home decorated? Aside from photos of yourself are there photos of people that you see regularly?

Some possible responses ~

1) Noticing the ambiance and the lights, the couches and the quietness [sensory] vs. Thinking of all the great knowledge tucked away in the books and the authors from the past who wrote them [intuition]

2) Photo diary on their social media [sensory] vs. Daydreaming about past enjoyable experiences with friends [intuition]

3) Photo of cat/dog on desk at work [sensory], photos of immediate family members all over the house (who live in the household and are not long-distance) [sensory] vs. Photos of yourself doing something you are proud of like climbing to the top of a mountain, meeting a celebrity or getting married [intuition] *Photos of getting married can also be in a Sensor's home but if it is the only photo you see in someone's home they are more likely to be Intuitive.

As for not knowing if someone is Se or Si, it is much harder to distinguish that in another person without them telling you their thoughts behind certain activities. For me, as Se I enjoy new things and experiences... even discovering a new sport is exciting and I love shopping. People with Si tend to feel better with routines and may decompress by doing something comforting like cooking, gardening, sewing, playing video games etc.
 
#47 ·
The example for intuition in the first one sounds a lot like this Si link. It is interesting to see how different people perceive these functions and functions-in-attitudes.

Your second example is more related to whether a person relies on memory or not. I do not know how this is related to intuition or sensation.

I think the example of photos as suggestive of intuition and sensation preferences is wrong on too many levels for me to mention.

Why do you think people "with Si" tend to feel better with routines? This is something I can not understand because it does not resemble anything I have read from Jung. It is like it is plucked out of the air because somebody had a difficult time understanding what a subjective impression of a sensory perception was.
 
#46 ·
@Leahomme

I really like your post. One thing about me, though... I get so lost in my head, especially daydreaming, that I actually sometimes come to the conclusion that I must have made up someone and they don't really exist. Understand I do have a mental disorder as well, so this might be impacting this aspect of who I am. In these situations, I need pictures or to easily be able to call them or access some sort of proof that they exist or else I worry that I'm disconnected from reality.

I know it's really strange and I think it's a brightflashes thing rather than a strictly "N" thing, but I do know it's connected to my N.

Do you have any similar experiences of not knowing if something really happened or if it was something you dreamed or imagined?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top