Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
In my search for more info comparing INFPs to ISFPs, I came across this post and found it so interesting!

http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/...o-you-tell-the-difference-between-an-infp-and

So what do you all think? Is it really this simple?:

"The easiest way to tell is.. it all boils down to MANY TRUTHS or ONE.
Ne sees multiple sides of things simultaneously and is reluctant to choose just one absolute truth. Any Ne user is going to be like this; NP or SJ, it doesn't change. Multiple perspectives. Multiple truths. Two things can contradict the first thing and still be possible, in a different reality, so to speak."

"And off Ne goes, seeking as many potential interpretations as possible."

"Ne is able to process things in front of it, in real time... this idea is immediately grabbed, and explored, and pushed as far as it can go, and made bigger and better, until you wind up with THIS... and THAT... and MORE. Ne will grab a concept halfway out of someone else's mouth and run away with it."

"Se/Ni does not work like that. Se will absorb information freely. Let the person finish their thought. Gather the facts into itself. Sort through them, absorb more, and then start stripping away everything to a core truth, to the essence of the information, to the point of the dissertation, the one truth, the one statement that is absolute and must be made. So what you are REALLY telling me is... THIS. Okay, I get it. The quest for... one answer. One truth. One interpretation that means something to the person using it. Ni. It lets you finish. It listens. It absorbs. It expands and then contracts, pushing excess aside to find ...just...that."

"Ne and Ni work like this, in any type. Many interpretations vs. one. Many possibilities vs. the single path. So the INFP broadens, the ISFP narrows. The INFP picks up what you're saying and runs away with it. The ISFP listens and then translates it into truth, once it has all the information. The INFP goes in six different directions. The ISFP gives the sense of a specific trajectory. Ne vs. Ni."

(All quotes from http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/...o-you-tell-the-difference-between-an-infp-and )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
And more from the same quoted website:
http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/...o-you-tell-the-difference-between-an-infp-and


"I define it as the difference between KNOWING and SUSPECTING.
Ni and Ne may reach the same conclusion but Ne will be less certain in articulating that conclusion as an indisputable fact because since Ne is focused on external possibilities and doesn't like to narrow things down like Ni does, Ne anticipates that with additional information their assumption may change."

"Ne is not always comfortable with one answer. (Ni always comes to a conclusion it feels certain about, including in ESXPs.)
Ne is expansive, pulling not only from the immediate environment but a fast storehouse of similar knowledge (Si), so it is good at reading connections between other people, but it is not good at magically coming up with an answer after sleeping on something, which is something Ni is known for. ("Oh, the answer just came to me... I know what to do...") Ne looks outward, eager for information and inspiration, with a desire to discuss, and Ni looks inward, looking at something from every angle before deciding if it fits in its inner framework."

".. "Gut feelings" are Ni-inclined. SPs and NJs all have them, and they tend to trust them. NPs and SJs experience similar "impressions" but are less inclined to trust one answer as being absolute. This is where the two clash and conflict begins - Ni ultimately wants and forms an absolute, Ne wants MORE."

"Ni is my INFJ friend saying, "So and so's problem is THIS and she's pissed."
Ne is me saying, "I'm getting indistinct impressions and I think she's mad at me, so I'm going to dig around more to see if I can get her to say what?s wrong."
Ni is an INTJ I know articulating something as an absolute; and an ENFP I know arguing with him that he doesn't know that for sure.
Ni is Elizabeth Bennett saying, "Don't let Lydia go to Brighton. She will make us all ridiculous. Something bad will happen."
Ne is her father saying, "Oh, let her have her fun." IE, you don't know that."

.... thoughts??
 

·
Registered
INFJ less than 1%
Joined
·
7,200 Posts
I remember reading similar descriptions about the intuitive functions enforcing the same logic that basically Ne is expansive and Ni is narrowing "ideas" into one. I've seen this being simplified into a misconception that Ni = Goals, and Ne is...spontaneous. Seeking the core truth doesn't seem to be related to Ni, based on my vague understanding of it, and if anything, that would be rationality (Judgement based on Thinking/Feeling). Intuition is Perception, so I fail to see how intuition is about truth and answers. But I would also like to see what others make of this idea.
 

·
Registered
INFJ 4w5
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
I think this is fair - Ne branches outward into the wider world, whereas Ni condenses away from the world. Although both seem to be about "expanding" possibilities beyond what is seemingly apparent, which is interesting.
I think Ne is expansive, and Ni is subversive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
This is another stellar example of the drool-on-the-desk stupidity of the Harold Grant function stack and its associated "function axes" — according to which INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se, and ISFP=Fi-Se-Ni-Te, and INTJs and ISFPs are "Ni/Se types," and ENTPs and ISTJs are "Ne/Si types."

And more generally, it's another good example of the bad type analysis that typically results whenever you subscribe to a "cognitive functions" framing that's inconsistent with what a dichotomy-centric framing would lead you to expect.

I think there's something to be said for the "narrowing" vs. "broadening" notion described at the website linked in the OP — as applied to NJs vs. NPs. Buuut not surprisingly — since, duh, it's one of the ways NJs typically differ from NPs — it's a J/P thing first and foremost.

And so... ascribing it to "Ni" vs. "Ne" and extending it to the types who supposedly have those as their tertiary (or inferior) function — under the unbearably bogus, non-Jungian, non-Myersian, non-official-MBTI, evidence-challenged Grant function stack — leads you off the rails and into a zone where, as between an ISTJ and an ISFP, the ISTJ will be the "broadener" and the ISFP will be the "narrower."

And that zone is a fantasy zone — and reckful is here to tell anybody who'd prefer to stick to reality-based typology that you will always always always end up in the fantasy zone to the extent that you sort the 16 types in a way that crosscuts the dichotomy preferences that contribute to the personality characteristic that the sorting purportedly involves.

"NP or SJ, it doesn't change," says funkymbtifiction. Yeah, sorry, but anytime you think you've come up with some characteristic that makes NPs and SJs alike (and different from NJs and SPs, who are also alike in terms of the opposite characteristic), it's time to think again.

And anybody who wants to read more about why the Harold Grant function stack is a bust, and why MBTI sources who claim otherwise are sources they should avoid, can find quite a bit of explanatory discussion in these four posts:

Harold Grant & the tandems
What it means to have validity
The case against type dynamics
The tandems vs. the real MBTI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Yeah I agree with the above poster, based on those concepts you would consider that NPs and SJs are alike, but they couldn't be more different...

Like the following quote posted by the OP: "NPs and SJs experience similar "impressions" but are less inclined to trust one answer as being absolute." What? SJs I know are totally inclined to trust one answer as being absolute, they hate having many possibilities to think about, while NPs love it.
 

·
Registered
5w6 sp/sx | 9w1 sp/sx | 3w4 sp/sx | INTJ | ILI
Joined
·
227 Posts
"NP or SJ, it doesn't change," says funkymbtifiction. Yeah, sorry, but anytime you think you've come up with some characteristic that makes NPs and SJs alike (and different from NJs and SPs, who are also alike in terms of the opposite characteristic), it's time to think again.
Can I ask, who is saying this? Because it seems very intuitive to me to understand that a function will obviously differ depending on its position in the stack. I'm wouldn't try to argue that SJs or NPs are altogether alike, but they will certainly share the same cognitive orientations - just differing relationships toward them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,860 Posts
But Ti is also said to seek an ultimate truth while Te is "expansive" and will change its "truth" depending on external context. Which would suggest an XXTP is more convergent on a single truth than an XXTJ in some ways. I would say it's more of an introversion/extroversion distinction, but as has been mentioned there is also the extroverted judging vs perceiving. So I think it is more nuanced than that: everyone seeks many-ness and oneness, but where those are perceived to lie varies from person to person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daffodil

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Can I ask, who is saying this? Because it seems very intuitive to me to understand that a function will obviously differ depending on its position in the stack. I'm wouldn't try to argue that SJs or NPs are altogether alike, but they will certainly share the same cognitive orientations - just differing relationships toward them.
As discussed at length in the linked posts, the HaroldGrantian correlational patterns that virtually never show up include the patterns that would be expected if somebody who purportedly has "Si" as their "tertiary" function (for example) was someone who exhibited Si-associated characteristics to a significantly lesser degree than someone with "Si" as their dominant function but who also exhibited those characteristics to a significantly greater degree than someone who purportedly has "Se" as their "tertiary" function.

The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and therefore will tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that INFJs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Can I ask, who is saying this? Because it seems very intuitive to me to understand that a function will obviously differ depending on its position in the stack. I'm wouldn't try to argue that SJs or NPs are altogether alike, but they will certainly share the same cognitive orientations - just differing relationships toward them.
I agree the conversation feels like it is going off into weird tangents. You can break down this discussion into two distinct parts:

1) Differences between Ni and Ne in general.

2) How those get used in different parts of the function stack.

See links below.


Thanks for sharing this. I've always been a little confused about the difference between Ni and Ne.
Five second answer:
Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately without a conscious explanation. Ne is like an explosion of different intuitions, and how you process those depends on place in function stack. Ni is more focused and (some would say analytical).

Longer answer that is better than the Tumblr link in the original post:
Extraverted Intuition (Ne) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)

But if you really want to twist your mind, then Chad Crandall is your man, and his video on Ne vs Ni is here:

Chad's description of how INTP uses Ne is hilarious and pretty spot on.

I actually talked to Chad on the phone once and I got the feeling he doesn't actually think MBTI means anything. I'm thinking to myself "Dude, you have an entire Youtube channel with these long and incredibly insightful videos on the dichotomies...." Okay, I am digressing. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
As discussed at length in the linked posts, the HaroldGrantian correlational patterns that virtually never show up include the patterns that would be expected if somebody who purportedly has "Si" as their "tertiary" function (for example) was someone who exhibited Si-associated characteristics to a significantly lesser degree than someone with "Si" as their dominant function but who also exhibited those characteristics to a significantly greater degree than someone who purportedly has "Se" as their "tertiary" function.

The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and therefore will tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that INFJs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.
Couldn't we just make this point succinctly by saying that once you get to tertiary functions, drawing conclusions about how those will manifest in behavior is somewhat suspect?

I think most of the value of MBTI and cognitive functions is in understanding the primary and secondary characteristics when then present in a specific order. That alone is hard to do and controversial enough. Going beyond those two levels I think we start to enter the Twilight Zone and start to sound like members of an astrology site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daffodil

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Couldn't we just make this point succinctly by saying that once you get to tertiary functions, drawing conclusions about how those will manifest in behavior is somewhat suspect?

I think most of the value of MBTI and cognitive functions is in understanding the primary and secondary characteristics when then present in a specific order. That alone is hard to do and controversial enough. Going beyond those two levels I think we start to enter the Twilight Zone and start to sound like members of an astrology site.
It sounds like you and I are in agreement that people should ignore the bottom half of the Grant function stack (e.g., an INTP's purported "Si" and "Fe"). The notion that an INTP's "tertiary Si" gives them aspects of personality that they share (albeit to a lesser degree) with ISTJs, and that ISTPs (as "Se types") don't share with ISTJs, is pure, unadulterated nonsense — as is the notion that an INTP's "inferior Fe" gives them aspects of personality that they share (albeit to a lesser degree) with ENFJs, and that ENFPs (as "Fi types") don't share with ENFJs.

But if, by "primary and secondary characteristics," you mean the supposed dominant and auxiliary functions, mainly limiting yourself to those is a big mistake, and is actually very much inconsistent with both Jung's and Myers' perspectives.

A-a-and there's more in the spoiler.

 
A lot of MBTI forumites who've been exposed to too many bad "cognitive functions" sources don't realize that Jung actually spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together; and in the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, he bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter 10 (his function descriptions) as the essence of the book, while noting that he'd stuck those at the back of the book for a reason.

Forty years later, Isabel Myers' many years of data gathering and psychometric analysis led her to conclude (rightly) that it was the four dichotomies, rather than the functions, that appear to be the principal underlying components of type. And Myers recognized that there were notable personality characteristics associated with various dichotomy combinations. Gifts Differing includes countless references to things that INs, ESs, NFs, STs, ITs, ESFs, ISTs and types with various other preference combinations tend to have in common, and the MBTI Manual includes descriptions (and some correlational data) corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

But Myers also understood — despite some unfortunate lip service to Jung — that there was nothing fundamental or special about the combinations that purportedly correspond to the "cognitive functions." In fact, as further discussed in this post, Myers thought NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that each of those groups is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

So not only is it a mistake to think of an INTP in Ti-Ne-Si-Fe terms — it's also a big mistake to think of an INTP in Ti-Ne terms and think you've covered most of their significant MBTI-related personality characteristics.

As discussed in those posts I've already linked to, here's what the Real MBTI Model for an INTP, an INTJ and an ESFJ looks like:

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

ESFJ = E + S + F + J + ES + EF + EJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ESF + ESJ + EFJ + SFJ + ESFJ.

And note that that INTP model really includes "Ti" and "Ne" because, to the extent that "Ti" and "Ne" descriptions have any validity (in psychometric terms) as applied to NTPs, it's because they consist of personality characteristics that TPs and NPs (respectively) tend to have in common.

A lot of HaroldGrantian forumites will tell you that INTPs and INTJs may share three dichotomies but they're more like opposites than close cousins because, ZOMG, they have four different cognitive functions.

And a lot of Socionics fans will tell you that INTPs and ESFJs have a lot in common because, even though they have no dichotomies in common, they're in the same "quadra" because they "use" the same four "cognitive functions" (albeit in different stack positions).

And not to put too fine a point on it, that's all horseshit.

"Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common type-me dilemma at INTJforum — and by a wide margin! And that's because INTJs and INTPs have a lot of MBTI-related personality characteristics in common, and are arguably more like each other than either type is to any of the other 14 types.

And INTPs and ESFJs have — are you sitting down? — no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common. Not only is it the case that, if E/I makes a substantial contribution to some aspect of personality, the E's and the I's will be on opposite sides of the spectrum — it's also the case that if two MBTI dimensions both make a substantial contribution to some aspect of personality, such that the SJs (for example) are at one end of the spectrum, you can count on the NPs to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Sorry, Harold Grant; sorry, Linda Berens; sorry, Dario Nardi — but that's just the way it works. As James Reynierse has explained in "The Case Against Type Dynamics" — an article that was published in the official MBTI type journal in 2009 — fifty years of MBTI data pools have now made it pretty freaking clear that "type dynamics" is an emperor without any clothes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
It sounds like you and I are in agreement that people should ignore the bottom half of the Grant function stack (e.g., an INTP's purported "Si" and "Fe"). The notion that an INTP's "tertiary Si" gives them aspects of personality that they share (albeit to a lesser degree) with ISTJs, and that ISTPs (as "Se types") don't share with ISTJs is pure, unadulterated nonsense — as is the notion that an INTP's "inferior Fe" gives them aspects of personality that they share (albeit to a lesser degree) with ENFJs, and that ENFPs (as "Fi types") don't share with ENFJs.

But if, by "primary and secondary characteristics," you mean the supposed dominant and auxiliary functions, mainly limiting yourself to those is a big mistake, and is actually very much inconsistent with both Jung's and Myers' perspectives.
@reckful , you have really opened my eyes up to what Myers was trying to say. For the first time, I think a lightbulb has gone off for me about the dichotomies approach.

If I want to study this idea that we should look at the permutations of dichotomies (i.e., the 1, 2, 3, and 4 letter combinations) what is the best way to become familiar with that? What is the best reference for a nonacademic? Is "Gifts Differing" the best source? You make reference to Keirsey in your linked post, but his approach is less comprehensive than Myers?

What would be most useful to me is not abstract discussions of behavior, but maybe real world examples. Even better would be video interviews with people where you actually see the behaviors on display.

If you want to pursue typing using a Myers approach, what are the best available tests for that? Are any of those free tests?
 
  • Like
Reactions: daffodil

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
@reckful Thank you so very much for sharing this information and knowledge here. I have had a heck of a time sorting through the conflicting information that is out there, seeking some clarity while, all the while, wondering if we haven't been just getting farther away from quality research and information.

Like the previous poster, I would also be interested in learning more about the 1, 2, 3, and 4 letter combinations.

"If you want to pursue typing using a Myers approach, what are the best available tests for that? Are any of those free tests?"
^ looking forward to answers to this question as well.

Thank you so very much!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful , you have really opened my eyes up to what Myers was trying to say. For the first time, I think a lightbulb has gone off for me about the dichotomies approach.

If I want to study this idea that we should look at the permutations of dichotomies (i.e., the 1, 2, 3, and 4 letter combinations) what is the best way to become familiar with that? What is the best reference for a nonacademic? Is "Gifts Differing" the best source? You make reference to Keirsey in your linked post, but his approach is less comprehensive than Myers?

What would be most useful to me is not abstract discussions of behavior, but maybe real world examples. Even better would be video interviews with people where you actually see the behaviors on display.

If you want to pursue typing using a Myers approach, what are the best available tests for that? Are any of those free tests?
The official MBTI is really the only MBTI test with a lot of psychometric support behind it, and if you're interested, there's a link to the "Step I" version (the version most people take) here.

I wish there was something I could point to as an outstanding introductory MBTI source with descriptions of the dichotomies, the 16 types and all the two-letter (at least) combinations, but nothing quite fills that bill.

Keirsey made some significant mistakes, but if somebody's only going to read one MBTI source, I think Please Understand Me (or Please Understand Me II) may still be the best choice. As further discussed in this post, I think Keirsey was wrong to treat the NF/NT/SJ/SP foursome as fundamental in the way he did, and give it such disproportionate emphasis — but that said, he had a lot of insightful things to say about the people in those groups, he also had separate (and reasonably good) descriptions of each of the 16 types, and he definitely had a kind of novelistic gift (moreso than Myers, I'd say) for bringing the types to life on the page.

And if anybody tries to tell you that Keirsey isn't really an MBTI guy, you can read my contrary take on that (at least as far as both versions of Please Understand Me are concerned) in this post — although there's no denying that he had the good sense to emphatically declare that he'd never found much use for the "cognitive functions."

And speaking of two-letter combinations, the first of those two Keirsey-related links includes a leetle correlational study I performed using a large official MBTI career sample that pitted Myers' NF/NT/SF/ST carve-up against Keirsey's carve-up (and Myers won by a large margin) — and the spoiler at the end of the post includes a bonus discussion of why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps.

Gifts Differing is good, and might be my #2 choice, but it pays a little too much lip service to what Myers claimed was Jung's function model, and spends more time than you're probably interested in on childhood learning issues and relatively unenlightening (IMHO) "type development" stuff — and as I already mentioned, Myers wasn't as good at Keirsey at bringing the types to life on the page (maybe the single biggest reason Please Understand Me has been a much bigger seller).

@Abraxas has helpfully posted the "official" discussions of the five subfacets of each of the four MBTI dichotomies from the MBTI Step II Manual, and those add up to a lengthy description of both sides of each dichotomy, and here are the links to those:

Extraversion / Introversion
Sensing / Intuition
Thinking / Feeling
Judging / Perceiving

In the first spoiler are brief descriptions by Myers (from Gifts Differing) of the STs, SFs, NFs and NTs...

 
Sensing plus Thinking

The ST (sensing plus thinking) people rely primarily on sensing for purposes of perception and on thinking for purposes of judgment. Thus, their main interest focuses upon facts, because facts can be collected and verified directly by the senses—by seeing, hearing, touching, counting, weighing, measuring. ST people approach their decisions regarding these facts by impersonal analysis, because of their trust in thinking, with its step-by-step logical process of reasoning from cause to effect, from premise to conclusion.

In consequence, their personalities tend to be practical and matter-of-fact, and their best chances of success and satisfaction lie in fields that demand impersonal analysis of concrete facts, such as economics, law, surgery, business, accounting, production, and the handling of machines and materials.

Sensing plus Feeling

The SF (sensing plus feeling) people, too, rely primarily on sensing for purposes of perception, but they prefer feeling for purposes of judgment. They approach their decisions with personal warmth, because their feeling weighs how much things matter to themselves and others.

They are more interested in facts about people than in facts about things and, therefore, they tend to be sociable and friendly. They are most likely to succeed and be satisfied in work where their personal warmth can be applied effectively to the immediate situation, as in pediatrics, nursing, teaching (especially elementary), social work, selling of tangibles, and service-with-a-smile jobs.

Intuition plus Feeling

The NF (intuition plus feeling) people possess the same personal warmth as SF people because of their shared use of feeling for purposes of judgment, but because the NFs prefer intuition to sensing, they do not center their attention upon the concrete situation. Instead they focus on possibilities, such as new projects (things that haven't ever happened but might be made to happen) or new truths (things that are not yet known but might be found out). The new project or the new truth is imagined by the unconscious processes and then intuitively perceived as an idea that feels like an inspiration.

The personal warmth and commitment with which the NF people seek and follow up a possibility are impressive. They are both enthusiastic and insightful. Often they have a marked gift of language and can communicate both the possibility they see and the value they attach to it. They are most likely to find success and satisfaction in work that calls for creativity to meet a human need. They may excel in teaching (particularly college and high school), preaching, advertising, selling of intangibles, counseling, clinical psychology, psychiatry, writing, and most fields of research.

Intuition plus Thinking

The NT (intuition plus thinking) people also use intuition but team it with thinking. Although they focus on a possibility, they approach it with impersonal analysis. Often they choose a theoretical or executive possibility and subordinate the human element.

NTs tend to be logical and ingenious and are most successful in solving problems in a field of special interest, whether scientific research, electronic computing, mathematics, the more complex aspects of finance, or any sort of development or pioneering in technical areas.

...but it should also be noted that there are many more preference-combination descriptions throughout Gifts Differing. (As I noted in my earlier post, the book "includes countless references to things that INs, ESs, NFs, STs, ITs, ESFs, ISTs and types with various other preference combinations tend to have in common.")

If you're interested, the next spoiler has an "introduction to S & N" that I put together a while back (including quotes from Myers and Keirsey).

 
I think one of the distinctions at the heart of the S/N dichotomy is the one between the "real" world — where physical things (and "facts") exist and events happen in time (S-world) — and the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, patterns, etc. (N-world). Both N's and S's understand that both worlds exist, and have their place. The S/N dichotomy has more to do with which world you find most valuable and meaningful — and focus most of your attention on. A hardcore S will tend to view N-world as valueless except to the extent that it ultimately serves some kind of practical purpose in S-world. A hardcore N, on the other hand, will tend to feel most at home in N-world, and view the physical world as more of a canvas or playground on which the laws of nature, science, psychology, beauty, etc. play themselves out. Just as an S tends to only value ideas to the extent that they serve some practical end, an N will tend to find the facts/details/etc. of the "real world" uninteresting to the extent that they don't embody, illustrate or otherwise tie into some more abstract pattern, principle, law or other aspect of N-world.

A hardcore S may well view himself as practical, down-to-earth and common-sensical and roll his eyes at dreamy, impractical, pointy-headed intellectuals whose theories and "bright ideas" tend to blind them to the way things actually work — while a hardcore N may view the hardcore S as a deficiently non-intellectual (and perhaps somewhat dim) person who seems to often miss the forest for the trees and is regrettably uninterested in the ideas/laws/patterns that make the world an interesting place.

Isabel Myers said N's "face life expectantly, craving inspiration," while S's "face life observantly, craving enjoyment." N's "admit fully to consciousness only the sense impressions related to the current inspiration; they are imaginative at the expense of observation"; whereas S's "admit to consciousness every sense impression and are intensely aware of the external environment; they are observant at the expense of imagination." She also said that N's "are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it"; whereas S's tend to be "reluctant to sacrifice present enjoyment to future gain or good."

Keirsey says that an N "lives in anticipation. Whatever is can be better, or different, and is seen only as a way station. Consequently, N's often experience a vague sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness. They seem somewhat bothered by reality, constantly looking toward possibilities of changing or improving the actual"; whereas an S "wants facts, trusts facts and remembers facts. He believes in experience and knows through experience (history), both personal and global. ... They focus on what actually happened rather than worrying too much about what might have been or what will be in the future."

Kroeger and Thuesen say N's "find the future and its possibilities more intriguing than frightening" and "are usually more excited about where they're going than where they are"; whereas S's "focus on 'what is' and find 'what can be' unsettling."

Keirsey also notes that an N child "may be difficult to handle. He always seems to have a core of 'being his own person' which adults sometimes find objectionable and offensive. ... He may seem opinionated to others, the NT in particular, and he often is very certain that he knows; at the same time, he cannot justify his convictions to others' satisfaction when questioned."

It's common to read, in MBTI sources, that an N is substantially more likely than an S to be bored and unhappy with a job that could fairly be described as doing the same thing over and over. An NT will enjoy putting some kind of system together, then want to move on to devising a new system, leaving it to the S "administrators" to actually use/apply the system, while the S administrators are more content to be the hands-on people applying the system day in and day out to deal with each day's new demands, and are happy to leave it to the N's to have to endure the brain damage involved in figuring out new systems, or improving old systems.

As Isabel Myers put it, N's "enjoy learning a new skill more than using it," while S's "enjoy using skills already learned more than learning new ones."

The MBTI manual notes that people considered "highly creative" tend to be N's, with writers tending to be NFs, and mathematicians and scientists tending to be NTs. Kroeger and Thuesen note that elementary school teachers are mostly S's, high school teachers are fairly evenly split, and college professors tend to be N's.

My "intro to T/F" post is here.

And my "intro to J/P" post is here.

In the next spoiler are roundups of online profiles of the 16 types, and they include both the 2nd and 3rd editions of the MBTI Manual and Keirsey.

 
INTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ENFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ENFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ENTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ENTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ESFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ESFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ESTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ESTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

And if you're interested in more discussion by me of the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find quite a lot of that in this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

As a final note, though, I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should definitely not feel the slightest obligation to follow any of my links or otherwise pay attention to anything else in this post beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
@reckful I got the Amazon Kindle version of Please Understand Me II. Just for others in this thread: hard copies of this book and the original were selling used for 1 cent. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: daffodil

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top