Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 156 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
They miss subtlety. Very literal minded. They don't pick up my sarcasm. Like if I see a guy I work with doing something wrong I'll be like "hey man great job that was really necessary" and he'll be like "thanks." No you idiot I am trying to make you feel bad about yourself. Also if you are in a conversation most of them, not all, but most of them will resist if the conversation goes anywhere conceptual or theoretical. They don't like getting philosophical about things. Like ask them "what is knowledge? how do you know what you know?" "Shut up I just do." Their goals are to like save up enough money to buy a G.P.S. or some pointless gadget where as N's will try to change the entire world/conquer the entire world (never taking one proactive step toward that goal, often not ever leaving their room in the case of INXX).

Obviously extreme examples but that is how I tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Many would have you believe S types are drooling cavemen who run around and just want to rub things with their fingers and drool some more. This is a moronic thought, do not listen to people who tell you this.

A major distinction needs to be made also between Si users and Se users. Neobicks description above isn't really a description of Se at all but a description of Si for instance. Si would have a strong memory and would be very detail oriented. They care more about the details and less about the big picture.

Se users are actually very very close to N users. They also are big picture thinkers, and almost all of the ones I've met have fancied themselves more imaginative than detail oriented. The distinction is usually seen when you talk to them about their thoughts on certain issues or theories. They will have a stance that is very grounded in reality and makes sense on a more practical level. (Do not believe people who say that S users cannot participate in theoretical conversations or understand them, they are just ignorant when it comes to MBTI) ( Its not that Se users cannot understand more abstract ideas... its that they find them useless and want something that isn't just pure conjecture and is more realistic) Also Se users, like Ne users, are able to pick up on patterns very easily. The difference being that an Ne user will take the pattern and extrapolate from it, an idea that isn't practical, and an idea that is abstract in the sense that another person wont really be able to tell how its related to the pattern they've witnessed. The Se user who see's the same pattern will also look at possibilities, only the possibilities will be more grounded ( This is because Se users actually want to eventually create something, so they try and chop the idea down to a do-able more realistic level) They will usually try and jump in and bring this idea to life right away.

You will usually find some Se users who actually refer to themselves as realists.

Another large distinction between Ne and Se users that I find is their approach to learning. Say an Ne user and an Se user were learning about cameras, the Ne user would probably feel very very uncomfortable/anxious if he just jumped in and was forced to use the camera without any prior knowledge. They almost have an instinct to automatically go home and read a shit loads on it before they even go near it. Where as an Se user will be more confident and willing to just delve in and start learning on the spot. They use it until they know it completely. (although I have met some Se users who don't really stick to one side in this example)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Some experiential examples:

When you start rambling about Mendelian genetics, Mandelbrot Fractal sets, or etymology, by carrying it further than normal, they calmly tell you to STFU, stop thinking so much. (STJs)

When you enthusiastically explain theoretical cosmology and neurobiology, including random metaphysical abstractions, they are unable to concisely replicate, retort, or comprehend exactly what you're saying*, but still welcome your perspective. (SFJs)

When they're simply unable to look out of the same window you're viewing the world from, and there's a connection missing - somewhere, there's a gap in fully grasping each other's mind.


*This does NOT contend that they're unable to understand the CONCEPT, but merely associate with your point of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,571 Posts
Some experiential examples:

When you start rambling about Mendelian genetics, Mandelbrot Fractal sets, or etymology, by carrying it further than normal, they calmly tell you to STFU, stop thinking so much. (STJs)

When you enthusiastically explain theoretical cosmology and neurobiology, including random metaphysical abstractions, they are unable to concisely replicate, retort, or comprehend exactly what you're saying*, but still welcome your perspective. (SFJs)

When they're simply unable to look out of the same window you're viewing the world from, and there's a connection missing - somewhere, there's a gap in fully grasping each other's mind.


*This does NOT contend that they're unable to understand the CONCEPT, but merely associate with your point of view.
It reminds me of the nurture vs nature debate I had with an ISFJ friend. I have a degree in applied psychology and he, accounting. So you'd think he would at least respect that I have some knowledge on the subject. But if it's from an angle he's never read about, it doesn't exist. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
You are either an S or have never talked to one before.
I have the startling feeling you don't really know anything about MBTI. You made this evident when you didn't address a single statement I made, and then proceeded to make an ad hominem attack. A trait typical for INTP's :crazy: (I hope you can pick up the sarcasm there)

Grow up bud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yesterday I was reading a book called, "The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius". The book is an examination of his philosophical work (The Meditations) which I was reading for "fun".

I noticed that when I read philosophy, I'm not overly concerned with getting distinctions of different schools of thoughts absolutely correct, although if I was writing a paper on the subject, I would focus on this more. Rather, since I was reading just for the fun of it, I was happy to take away the general idea. However, if someone asked me to explain it back to them, I would have a significant amount of trouble doing so. My tendency would be to try to then sort it out in my mind exactly as it was defined in the book, but since I couldn't do so, it would come across to the other person like I have no idea what I just read, even though, conceptually, I believe I do understand it.

My question: Is this the behavior of an "S" or "N", or neither?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
I'm not quite sure actually. I kind've do the same thing, for instance I sort of assimilate the ideas that I get from a piece of writing with my own thoughts and so when I go to explain it to someone I kind've have to really quickly sort through whats mine and not mine, and condense it down so that its coherent. Which can come across like I'm not quite sure about what I'm talking about.

If you already agree with Ne though and your thinking about this particular scenario to see if it disproves your use of Ne, I don't think it does at all.
 

·
The Doer King
Joined
·
13,680 Posts
Yesterday I was reading a book called, "The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius". The book is an examination of his philosophical work (The Meditations) which I was reading for "fun".

I noticed that when I read philosophy, I'm not overly concerned with getting distinctions of different schools of thoughts absolutely correct, although if I was writing a paper on the subject, I would focus on this more. Rather, since I was reading just for the fun of it, I was happy to take away the general idea. However, if someone asked me to explain it back to them, I would have a significant amount of trouble doing so. My tendency would be to try to then sort it out in my mind exactly as it was defined in the book, but since I couldn't do so, it would come across to the other person like I have no idea what I just read, even though, conceptually, I believe I do understand it.

My question: Is this the behavior of an "S" or "N", or neither?
It is your thinking for sure. Hard to say if it is Ti or Te since you didn't give much to go by. But assuming you really are an INTP then it would be Ti (your primary function).

They miss subtlety. Very literal minded. They don't pick up my sarcasm. Like if I see a guy I work with doing something wrong I'll be like "hey man great job that was really necessary" and he'll be like "thanks." No you idiot I am trying to make you feel bad about yourself. Also if you are in a conversation most of them, not all, but most of them will resist if the conversation goes anywhere conceptual or theoretical. They don't like getting philosophical about things. Like ask them "what is knowledge? how do you know what you know?" "Shut up I just do." Their goals are to like save up enough money to buy a G.P.S. or some pointless gadget where as N's will try to change the entire world/conquer the entire world (never taking one proactive step toward that goal, often not ever leaving their room in the case of INXX).

Obviously extreme examples but that is how I tell.
If I were you I would watch your phrasing a bit more. I am pretty close to warning you.


Also, I should mention that Pixel was pretty well bang on with his examples.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,849 Posts
S's have quicker reaction time to the events in present moment than Ns. Whereas N reaction time is longer because N has to do this process called thinking before taking action - which is really just referencing a bunch of stuff you know, the past, the future or both past and future, seeing many connections between things and thinking about how it will play out. While S in this time is already doing something. Their strategies tend to be shorter-term. They may opt to do things that work for now, but that may be inferior long-term. They do not have a good sense of this last part and it is difficult to explain because they get such strong sense of "it works now". But they do have quicker reaction time and in some sense they are more productive.

S's have stronger reaction to the events in present moment than Ns. ISFJs are more emotionally reactive than INFJs. ISFPs have much more intense emotional spill-outs than INFPs when they get moody. And ISTPs get angry and go into that competitive "screw you" mode more strongly and rapidly than do INTPs. I typically think of this as over-reaction and it is one of the main things that bugs me about Ss. Sometimes they complain about same things over and over again while I'm thinking "yes, well same thing happened to you a month ago" I do not see a point in complaining about it all over again. This is more of a Ni thing though.

More focused attention to physical appearance of objects and people. They will notice what clothing you are wearing, make a comment about your perfume, ask you if you're feeling alright because you "look kind of tired". Your ESFJ relative will bug you to no end for not wearing enough enough make-up and heels to work, no matter how hard you try to explain that you are working in a research laboratory and such things as heels will slow you down working. On the bright side SJs also have some of the coziest homes. They are likely to put in time and effort into such things as decorating, cleaning, cooking, arranging furniture to improve the feng shui of their house, etc. they have interest in doing things with physical environment that Ns may find boring to do. SFs may overly worry about the physical comfort of other people.

In most cases for me it is easy to tell Ns and Ss apart - after some observation I just get a vibe about it. There are however tricky Ns who have learned to mimicry and pretend that they are Ss to blend in better. Usually it is easily enough to tell us N-dominants apart as having inferior S function we on average feel more out of place and tend to stand out more. The types who have tertiary Si or Se should theoretically have easier time blending in with the predominantly S-population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
S's have quicker reaction time to the events in present moment than Ns. Whereas N reaction time is longer because N has to do this process called thinking before taking action - which is really just referencing a bunch of stuff you know, the past, the future or both past and future, seeing many connections between things and thinking about how it will play out. While S in this time is already doing something. Their strategies tend to be shorter-term. They may opt to do things that work for now, but that may be inferior long-term. They do not have a good sense of this last part and it is difficult to explain because they get such strong sense of "it works now". But they do have quicker reaction time and in some sense they are more productive.
You sure you're Fe dominant? Or by your definition of intuition, even intuitive? Because if you were "thinking" with your intuition or using your extraverted feeling to create harmony in the environment you wouldn't be saying things like that with Treebob already ready to warn people in this thread.

S's have stronger reaction to the events in present moment than Ns. ISFJs are more emotionally reactive than INFJs. ISFPs have much more intense emotional spill-outs than INFPs when they get moody. And ISTPs get angry and go into that competitive "screw you" mode more strongly and rapidly than do INTPs. I typically think of this as over-reaction and it is one of the main things that bugs me about Ss. Sometimes they complain about same things over and over again while I'm thinking "yes, well same thing happened to you a month ago" I do not see a point in complaining about it all over again. This is more of a Ni thing though.
One of the main things that bug me about typology systems is how quick people are to assign anything they don't like about others to the "opposite" group of people. Jung stated the reality well, however. "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a greater understanding of ourselves."

I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post. These blanket statements that you've made about sensors that are obviously disparaging are unacceptable. This is your one warning to discontinue making such remarks before administrative action is taken.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
For some reason sensors react negatively to intuitives saying "we think more" like it is some kind of superior thing all the time to sit there and think instead of doing something.
Of course, we're going to react negatively, if anything because you're spreading false generalizations so people who don't know any better can gobble them up. ISTPs are Ti dominant, same as INTPs, btw. What gets me are all these blanket statements based around one letter. Like, I could understand ESTJs more than I would any intuitive because hey, we share that S! So not the case. Now, I could understand if something like Se vs. Ne (you know, the actual functions) was being maturely discussed, but S vs. N isn't leading anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Oh poor we S's with you guys XD
Anyway, as I see it, we can live in harmony: you think about theories how to improve our world, we will remind you to eat during this time. You try to engage us in an intellectual debate, we will go and light the fire to worm up the house so you can talk deeply with another N and come up with ideas that you wouldn't get in a debate with us. We will figure out how the chain saw works so you can go and use it on other people later ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,849 Posts
Of course, we're going to react negatively, if anything because you're spreading false generalizations so people who don't know any better can gobble them up. ISTPs are Ti dominant, same as INTPs, btw. What gets me are all these blanket statements based around one letter. Like, I could understand ESTJs more than I would any intuitive because hey, we share that S! So not the case. Now, I could understand if something like Se vs. Ne (you know, the actual functions) was being maturely discussed, but S vs. N isn't leading anywhere.
I'm stating my observations not "spreading negative overgeneralizations". Yes, each personality subtype has certain strengths and weaknesses going for it. People will talk about both, the good and the bad. Expecting others to talk only about your strengths and positive side is counterproductive to increasing your self-awareness. Sometimes people come to INFJ forums and state: "INFJs have trust issues" or "INFJ are so insecure". These are negative overgeneralizations, this doesn't apply to all INFJs, but they make some INFJs realize and pay attention to the weaker points of their personality.

And yes, one can actually understand others better than they understand themselves. This is why there exists such a profession called "a psychologist". People go to counseling and visit psychologists because they do not understand themselves and their own personal situation well enough to resolve their problems. They go there in hope that another person will understand what is going on better to help them get through it. And generally, it works. So when people say "I can understand myself the best and refuse to listen to any negative things on this ground" to me that kind of approach seems illogical.

Change of one letter in MBTI actually can re-arrange the whole cognitive ladder. And yes I have observed quite a few differences between ISTPs and INTPs just like INFJs and ISFJs are also quite different in some ways. I'd tell you about these observations, but hey, it is only going to prompt negative emotional reaction, get called "blanket statements" and "false generalization" so why bother ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
I'm stating my observations not "spreading negative overgeneralizations". Yes, each personality subtype has certain strengths and weaknesses going for it. People will talk about both, the good and the bad. Expecting others to talk only about your strengths and positive side is counterproductive to increasing your self-awareness. Sometimes people come to INFJ forums and state: "INFJs have trust issues" or "INFJ are so insecure". These are negative overgeneralizations, but they make people realize and pay attention to the weaker points of their personality.

And yes, one can actually understand others better than they understand themselves. This is why there exists such a profession called "a psychologist". People go to counseling and visit psychologists because they do not understand themselves and their own personal situation well enough to resolve their problems. They go there in hope that another person will understand what is going on better to help them get through it. And generally, it works. So when people say "I can understand myself the best and refuse to listen to others on these grounds" to me that kind of approach seems illogical.

Change of one letter in MBTI actually can re-arrange the whole cognitive ladder. And yes I have observed quite a few differences between ISTPs and INTPs just like INFJs and ISFJs are also quite different in some ways. I'd tell you about these observations, but hey, it is only going to prompt negative emotional reaction, get called "blanket statements" and "false generalization" so why bother ;)
I didn't say half of what you're making it seem like I did. :mellow: I completely agree with you that each type has its negatives and I will be the first in line to list mine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But this thread and your first post was about S vs. N, not any specific types.

I know what "a psychologist" is, btw, lol. Again, I didn't see anyone saying they refused to see themselves from another's point of view.

I know you're just stating your observations, but you're not really phrasing them that way.

And I'm already aware of many of the differences between my type and other types. I also witness many differences between myself and other ISTPs. We're more than S or N. That's all I wanted to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,682 Posts
I found S types to be able to use their N very well, but not often are they able to "push forward" with it. Make conclusions. The guy who differed Se and Si may have been on to something, I've found that Si's are good at say studying the past philosophies and reviewing the data very well. I'm not so sure about their examining of the self. (Only they'd know) While Se's can push forward.. even if they fall flat. Though you'll find a lot of Se types who are anti-intellectual. (Usually dominant) I don't take anti-intellectualism in kids too seriously because a lot of them grow out of it (even though they make other children suffer for it)

As far as harmony goes, it's useful to have more S types as N types can be really bad at applying their own theories or even uninterested in the application.
 
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
Top