# I can�t get over the idea that N is superior to S (ISTJ)



## Fitzsimmons (Feb 27, 2018)

*I can’t get over the idea that N is superior to S (ISTJ)*

I am a 23-year-old, female ISTJ. I am very responsible and I will rarely question authority. I dislike cooperating with others and am a very individualistic worker; in a team, I often end up doing most of the work myself, unless the rest is as perfectionistic and capable as I am. I need a lot of structure and routine and I’m very risk-averse. I value honesty over anything, certainly including feelings, thus I can come across as blunt or tactless. I see the world as a big collection of things, or forms, which I am quick to attach labels to. One thing may fall into a variety of different categories, but one of those those labels is always ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – I can’t help having quite a black-and-white view of the world. However, I am able to see multiple sides of problems or arguments (which makes me a slow and doubtful decision maker). I spend a lot of time organizing things, both physically and mentally. Forms interact with each other in a way that can be modeled or approached with ‘mathematical’ formulas: if x, then y. I am very interested in finding the most exact gauge of those interactions. 

But I also have a more philosophical, imaginative side. As a child of 5-10 years old I spent a lot of time thinking about mortality and the meaning of life. I have always felt detached from other people because they seemed so superficial and happy while I was struggling with a problem literally bigger than life. The thing is, I did not get ahead with this problem because the idea that there is more than the world of forms would never spontaneously occur to me. The world was an utterly meaningless place, and this made me feel desperate. Rather than interacting with others, I preferred to read or play on my own, crafting or fantasizing about a wild black horse that I had or other things that were in my head. I’ve always excelled at school, and this is not different when I have to write a philosophical essay. It takes me more time than an assignment usually does, but I collect all necessary information and then I sit and try to reorder it in a meaningful way or to find a missing link, and I do manage to end up with something original. My dreams are very vivid, weird and visual. I like books (and music alike) that have a certain ‘dreamy’ vibe, that give me an experience of visual and emotional richness that I miss in the ordinary world. I draw a lot and I do this in an ‘intuitive’ way: I grab some pencils, put on music and just draw stuff that adheres to an idea that’s somewhere in me but that I don’t really have access to. I have studied Medicine for four years (because it was the most useful thing I could think of), but it didn’t suit me at all. I had no connection with the other students, who were very straight-forward and practical, whereas I am much more of a thinker instead of a doer. I am not that interested in how to solve problems, but more in how and why the problems occur. Now I am studying neuroscience, and I’m much happier studying the neural correlates of consciousness and setting up my own experiments than when I was multitasking and examining patients in the hospital.

*Now here’s my problem: *I have been struggling with the N vs. S trait. As you might imagine, the MBTI idea of categorizing people really appeals to me and it has helped me a lot in understanding others, but I have to keep reminding myself to stop making value judgements about traits. As for F/T, P/J, and I/E, I can see the pros and cons of both. But when it comes to N vs. T, it just keeps appearing to me that N is _better_. My boyfriend of 6 years (an INFJ who is a mathematician and composer, he is both very intelligent and artistic) and all of my close friends are N types. I think I’m drawn to them because I like deep one-on-one conversations and learning about how stuff (including people’s minds) works. But when they talk about abstract subjects or the alien way they think, I feel left out, as if I am missing something. My boyfriend talks about how his thoughts are infinitely deep and not verbal or visual (something I cannot even imagine) but contain meaning about the whole world. His world seems so abundantly drenched in meaning, while mine is often devoid of it. I tend to be overly passive and this drags me down in a vicious circle until all my thoughts are about practical things and I feel very empty.

The whole concept of intution is difficult for me to understand. I see it as perceiving sensory impulses not so much directly as they are, but processing them first and then perceiving a more general ‘concept’, which permits thinking in the realm of ideas instead of in the realm of facts. Therefore, it occurs to me, N is deeper than S, because it literally involves a second layer of mental processing. It also permits more creativity. S (especially ST) seems dry, more animal- or robot-like, whereas N seems to add grandeur, richness and ‘human-hood’ to life. If I read descriptions of S-types, it’s very recognizable, but it also screams ‘BORING!’ to me. (16personalities.com on ENFJ: “see [life] through a prism of emotion, compassion and mysticism”, on INFP: “have an inner flame and passion that can truly shine”... on ISTJ: “enjoy taking resonsibility for their actions”.) It is as if the N-types are the ones leading humanity forward, with grand things like art and philosophy, whereas the S-types are merely the working ants pulling the cart. I know there is something very childish and pathetic about this, wanting to be like them, and I also know of the Jungian functions behind MBTI and that everyone has all four of them in different distributions, but it keeps bothering me. I have often been sad lately (a feeling that is odd to me because my sadness usually transforms into anger before I have a chance to experience it) and I think this has something to do with it. I don’t have a specific question about this matter, but I hope someone can help me with how to find peace with this.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Hey @Fitzsimmons there were several things in your post I feel need addressing. Might not have caught them all but here's something.

Firstly, in case you are suffering from sadness, emptiness or a sense of meaninglessness, I am not sure if typology is the answer or even helpful. It certainly can help you understand things about yourself and others (and it did help me too when I needed to face certain things related to my way of thinking, but it also has kind of "trapped" me to this one perspective that I am now obsessed with because I cannot fully understand it yet... however, is isn't any longer beneficial to me or helping me be the person I want or need to be). Just saying, if it increases these kinds of negative feelings, you are probably not doing yourself any favors by becoming too focused on it.

Also this idea that N "adds" a second/deeper layer to mental processing is false, at least I am pretty sure it is wrong. It would make no sense. The way I understand it is that S actually has to make sense of the sensations (we all gather "raw data" as human beings), as a separate process; just as well as where N tends to skip that kind of "sense-making" and draw the perception elsewhere, more indirectly... 

It is a focus on different things; perceiving what is _verifiably_ there and what isn't vs. perceiving what _could_ be there ... not as an _additional _thing, mind you (that'd be imagination, and that can be practised... like when you gain better access to your ideas when drawing), but in place of the actual thing, supposedly. Or the intuitive may entirely reject perceiving what actually exists in favor of some "fantasy". So it could be all wrong and this person could be delusional for all we know. Or they might be anticipating something that is yet to become verifiable, and be called "visionary", but whether they are or not remains to be seen. After all, you cannot really be sure with intuition. With sensing, you usually can, and there is a certain comfort to that.

Rest assured the N types here certainly aren't leading humanity forward the way those descriptions would have you believe. Plus I wanted to say, there are plenty of things and traits that you describe about yourself and your type that are actually appreciated dearly by other people. I love the realism, seriousness and rigorous thinking of ISTJs as it has a sobering and refreshing effect on me and in turn I can at least make them laugh and have arguments with me (I find most of them have a philosophical or passionate side to them btw there seems to be this need in everyone). So don't _ever _think your input isn't as necessary than that of others.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

I just want to say that you sound more like an INTP than an ISTJ, especially this part: "I am not that interested in how to solve problems, but more in how and why the problems occur."
and this: "However, I am able to see multiple sides of problems or arguments"
Maybe you're caught up in a Ti-Si loop and that makes intuition so interesting to you as you long for your "lost", not used auxiliary function.
As you described your childhood, that also sounds like a vivid and imaginative childhood. "As a child of 5-10 years old I spent a lot of time thinking about mortality and the meaning of life."

If not, then sorry.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

hold on a second, what you tell about how your bf describes his mind sounds a bit too complex to be human, i mean, i know a lot of very intelligent people who doesn't really need to act like deep to be that fucking deep, i mean, unless your bf is Elon Musk or some astronaut i remain skeptical about it.
I think a lot of people use aesthetics as a deep facade, aesthetics can be loyal blabla, or just dressing nicely, or having the ideal group of friends, that doesn't mean they are the ones who know. Plus if you are really interested in a topic, you are likely going to know how to talk about it because you have read many arguments and made up your own, etc. It doesn't have to bring you down. A good example is a friend of mine, who's really well spoken and knows tons of things about art and has quite abstract thoughts and ideas and i'm not like that, at all, i don't know how to cover my language with this big pile of what seems to be decoration, but then i'm thousand times better than him at painting or at making music. So, i believe some people are really good teachers and others like me are good at beating the shit out of our teachers.

your bf and his friends sounds like: 



which i hope is just some hard trolling over the community of mbti


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I don't know if this will help or not, but I have the same feelings and thoughts about "S" people, particularly Se people. I wonder if this is an inferior function thing. In other words, I wonder if your interest in N is more in the Ne direction rather than the Ni direction since Ne is your inferior function.

Either way, I find S types so informative and interesting that I fear I probably scare most of them away with my questions about all the knowledge they have.


----------



## Fitzsimmons (Feb 27, 2018)

@jetser,

Hmm. I'm about the J'est person ever (I make lists of lists, spend more time planning than doing the actual task, am only spontaneous when I am drunk, and as a child I had a favorite jigsaw puzzle that I always laid in exactly the same order )... But I do feel like I had more access to intuition when I was little. For example, I could read faster as a small child than I do now, because today I process everything in a literal way and back then I was more 'in' a book; and as I said I was also more imaginative. Maybe children are more intuitive in general, or is that a weird idea?

I do feel a kind of child-like, long-lost spark of joy when I read a thoroughly thought out, enlightening theory, but that has more to do with the general joy of understanding, of puzzle-pieces coming together. 

From https : // www . typologycentral. com/forums/myers-briggs-type-profiles/68496-istj-jungian-cognitive-function-analysis-simulatedworld . html: "Ne creates that nagging sense of incompleteness in the back of the ISTJ's mind: when undeveloped, it's responsible for the feeling that no matter how much we think we've mapped out, there's always an infinite number of unexplored pathways that will ultimately change the meaning and significance of everything we think we've learned thus far. While Si is most at home extending its depth of understanding in a few specific comfort zones, Ne seems to strike at the very heart of this approach by insisting that we change course as often as possible, just in case we happen upon something interesting and unexpected."

This is very familiar to me, overchoice stress while trying to control everything is at the core of my existence. I think my Ne may have become more developed (leading to interest in the how and why of problems etc.), but maybe also overly present in a disturbing way, by being in a long relationship with someone who has Ni as his dominant function.


----------



## Fitzsimmons (Feb 27, 2018)

@brightflashes,

Thanks, that is nice to hear. 

I think I'm actually more intrigued by Ni than by Ne. The Ne-dominant types (especially ENFPs) that I know are overwhelming to me, all over the place/chaotic, hard to follow, and very physical/touchy (which I understand but thoroughly dislike). I love their enthousiasm, empathy and spirit, but it can become too much for me.

Ni-dominant types (INTJ and INFJ), on the other hand, have a kind of 'magical' insight that fascinates me, they come up with things I would never think of, but often strike me as very true.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Fitzsimmons said:


> Ni-dominant types (INTJ and INFJ), on the other hand, have a kind of 'magical' insight that fascinates me, they come up with things I would never think of, but often strike me as very true.


I find this to be true for Si types when I'm around them. They notice the details that I would otherwise miss, usually.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

You sound like you've just gotten into typology. I think if you learn more about it, you'll realize that the types are more similar than you realize, even when we all have different letters - ESFP to INTJ. We're all the same really.


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

The way I think about Ni is, it's like fitting a best-fit line onto a scatterplot or zooming out to see that what looks like a random chaotic mess from up close actually forms a shape or pattern from viewed from afar.

But note that it only works out if certain preconditions are met:

1. You have a large enough pool of observations that reflect the true distribution, i.e. the sampling was not biased
2. You are able to access some kind of organizing principle with which to fit a shape or pattern over the observations

Also, all of this is literally meaningless if you don't approach the issue with some kind of value system.

Ni-doms use Se to gather fresh observations, Ti or Te to organize them and Fe or Fi to assign value. Their Ni insights are only as good as their use of Se and other functions, with Se probably being the most important in that it supplies the raw ingredients. But remember that Se is the weakest function in the INFJ stack and second-weakest in the INTJ stack. So Ni-doms have to be careful to develop and actively use Se, otherwise they end up with a bunch of weird notions that basically have no connection to reality. And the less they use Se, the more out of touch they get, and their amazing "magical" insights start to look more like magical thinking.

Conclusion: N needs S to actually be relevant in the world.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

> But when they talk about abstract subjects or the alien way they think, I feel left out, as if I am missing something. My boyfriend talks about how his thoughts are infinitely deep and not verbal or visual (something I cannot even imagine) but contain meaning about the whole world.


For what it's worth, I basically feel this way about S. It's alien, and beautiful, and I don't fully grasp it. It seems like Ss have access to a whole world that I see through a frosted glass pane. Ss have access to _reality_. Being abstract and big-pictured is great and all but what does it matter if you never really interface with the world that actually exists?



> Therefore, it occurs to me, N is deeper than S, because it literally involves a second layer of mental processing. It also permits more creativity. S (especially ST) seems dry, more animal- or robot-like, whereas N seems to add grandeur, richness and ‘human-hood’ to life. If I read descriptions of S-types, it’s very recognizable, but it also screams ‘BORING!’ to me.


N is also full of it, though. We just make up things to "fill in the blanks". Sometimes it's awesome and it lets us make cognitive leaps. On the other hand, sometimes Ns have lept too far from reason. I think of it this way: an N might get from A to Z in the same amount of time an S gets from A to M. What's not clear is whether the N actually grasps the full alphabet or if in their heads it's going A-B-#-fish-(-potato-Q-Z. Most of the time I think we do ok but usually end up with a fish or potato or two somewhere in there instead of a proper letter. Ss on the other hand know all the letters, remember the proper shapes of the letters, remember the order of the letters, can tell you where in the order a certain letter is... like... Ss actually take reality in and hold it within themselves with a high degree of accuracy. It seems like nothing short of a miracle.

Personally, nothing inspires more deep/awestruck feelings in me than natural landscapes, like a verdant emerald forest or a striking colorful sunset over the ocean. Those aren't conceptual ideas - they just _are_, and that's part of what makes them so incredible. And Ss process that reality better than I ever will. 

I guess my point is, _value_ isn't N or S. N and S are just lenses, ways of seeing. It seems like you're infusing a little sad Fi into your S that's coloring it "boring". Also, if it's any consolation, I sort of feel the same way about Ne/Si. Ni/Se seems so much more deep and fascinating. Oh well, grass is always greener, I guess.



> It is as if the N-types are the ones leading humanity forward, with grand things like art and philosophy, whereas the S-types are merely the working ants pulling the cart.


It is also as if Ns who have bias towards their own types and who don't really understand the depth and beauty and importance of S perception wrote lots of the MBTI type descriptions out there. 



> I have often been sad lately (a feeling that is odd to me because my sadness usually transforms into anger before I have a chance to experience it) and I think this has something to do with it.


Oh, hey, me too. I usually process in anger. I'm sorry you're feeling sad. I think this might be a sort of translation of your sadness though. It sounds sort of like an incarnation of your childhood anxiety/sadness. Also, I love that your bf loves his Ni, but that's some pretty intense/flowery language he's got about it. And don't forget that assigning too much meaning to everything can be a burden... that's when you end up crying at the grocery store because you can't decide what color plastic cups to buy. No, I haven't ever done that, really. 

The best suggestion I can think of would be to use your Fi - your personal subjective value judgment - to help you get in touch with some things that are personally meaningful to you, regardless of whether that's individuals you know or dreams you've had or music you want to listen to. The ISTJs I've known have been awesome, surprisingly quirky people who are reflective, thoughtful, reliable, very sassy funny, and very effective at what they care about, which at least to me seems pretty hugely meaningful. One of my ISTJ friends is a marine conservationist who's made policy and biological change to help preserve our state's natural coastline. She's preserving the beauty and life and wonder of our planet. I think that's incredible. What's the good of an inner flame if no one ever sees the light, you know? N and S need balance.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I know this isn't applicable to the OP, but it would would seem advantageous for males to be sensers (at least in the 1990s, wish there was somethig newer) based on these studies from the MBTI Manual (link). But in a more general context you can use it to argue that it's actually intuitives that are inferior.

Somewhat ironically, I would believe that seeing S types as lacking is usually what intuitives do, and I would consider that you are actually on the N side @Fitzsimmons. You seem drawn to intuitive ways of looking at things and intuitive people, even your OP shows a lot of intuition.

I would also suggest that your boyfriend could be full of shit (most people who talk about how deep they are, are in fact full of shit), whether or not he's consciously using it to make you feel inferior. And maybe not best described as INFJ if he's really into MBTI (a lot of people "discover" they are INFJ when they read heavily biased descriptions which actually don't reflect reality).

Above all though, it seems like this MBTI stuff is just helping you destroy your confidence and see yourself in a negative light, which is probably a sign of a larger problem that needs to be addressed. I bet if it wasn't MBTI it'd be something else filling that role.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

You shouldn't be concerned about this. On the other hand, cultivating self-awareness and mindfulness will help navigate your way through life.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Fitzsimmons said:


> I am a 23-year-old, female ISTJ. I am very responsible and I will rarely question authority. I dislike cooperating with others and am a very individualistic worker; in a team, I often end up doing most of the work myself, unless the rest is as perfectionistic and capable as I am. I need a lot of structure and routine and I’m very risk-averse. I value honesty over anything, certainly including feelings, thus I can come across as blunt or tactless. I see the world as a big collection of things, or forms, which I am quick to attach labels to. One thing may fall into a variety of different categories, but one of those those labels is always ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – I can’t help having quite a black-and-white view of the world. However, I am able to see multiple sides of problems or arguments (which makes me a slow and doubtful decision maker). I spend a lot of time organizing things, both physically and mentally. Forms interact with each other in a way that can be modeled or approached with ‘mathematical’ formulas: if x, then y. I am very interested in finding the most exact gauge of those interactions.
> 
> But I also have a more philosophical, imaginative side. As a child of 5-10 years old I spent a lot of time thinking about mortality and the meaning of life. I have always felt detached from other people because they seemed so superficial and happy while I was struggling with a problem literally bigger than life. The thing is, I did not get ahead with this problem because the idea that there is more than the world of forms would never spontaneously occur to me. The world was an utterly meaningless place, and this made me feel desperate. Rather than interacting with others, I preferred to read or play on my own, crafting or fantasizing about a wild black horse that I had or other things that were in my head. I’ve always excelled at school, and this is not different when I have to write a philosophical essay. It takes me more time than an assignment usually does, but I collect all necessary information and then I sit and try to reorder it in a meaningful way or to find a missing link, and I do manage to end up with something original. My dreams are very vivid, weird and visual. I like books (and music alike) that have a certain ‘dreamy’ vibe, that give me an experience of visual and emotional richness that I miss in the ordinary world. I draw a lot and I do this in an ‘intuitive’ way: I grab some pencils, put on music and just draw stuff that adheres to an idea that’s somewhere in me but that I don’t really have access to. I have studied Medicine for four years (because it was the most useful thing I could think of), but it didn’t suit me at all. I had no connection with the other students, who were very straight-forward and practical, whereas I am much more of a thinker instead of a doer. I am not that interested in how to solve problems, but more in how and why the problems occur. Now I am studying neuroscience, and I’m much happier studying the neural correlates of consciousness and setting up my own experiments than when I was multitasking and examining patients in the hospital.
> 
> ...


Are you sure this is really about S vs. N?

I think this discontentment has more to do with not really pinning down your true type.

because if you are sure with your true type you feel "at home" with it and 'doth not protest too much'.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

mbti is conspiracy


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> I find this to be true for Si types when I'm around them. They notice the details that I would otherwise miss, usually.


The people in my life who I respect most for their intelligence and insight are largely ISTJ and ISFJ, with the odd ENTP or INTJ. I do see that the grass is greener on the other side, but the folk typology that intuitives are just "deeper" than sensors breaks down immediately if you actually talk to some remotely intelligent sensors. I suppose it might not if you define "deeper" as "less in touch with physical reality", but that is not what I would consider to be a positive attribution. Ni-doms are supposed to instinctively want to work on improving their Si, even if our ability to do it is naturally limited by its being the opposite form of our dominant function.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

The S has strengths I don't have!

"...By developing individual strengths, guarding against weaknesses, and appreciating the strengths of other types, life will be more amusing, more interesting, and more of a daily adventure than it could possibly be if everyone were alike..."Isabel Briggs Myers

"...No type has everything..." Isabel Briggs Myers, Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. 



> Assumptions of Type Theory
> • Preferences are inborn.
> • Environment enhances or impedes
> expression of type.
> ...


If I were an S, I'd get Gifts Differing, read it, and then think... *look at all the cool things she says about me* I'm as good as an N!


----------



## Fitzsimmons (Feb 27, 2018)

First of all thanks for all the replies. Many of them have been truly heartwarming and insightful.



Fitzsimmons said:


> My boyfriend talks about how his thoughts are infinitely deep and not verbal or visual (something I cannot even imagine) but contain meaning about the whole world.


Haha, it seems like this particular sentence hit a sensitive nerve for some people. To be honest, I think it’s mainly my own problem, not his. I try to reach common ground with my boyfriend when we discuss a complex subject, and when I hear him trying to explain how he views it, I start obsessively questioning him about it because I want to fully understand it. I think I project my own insecurities on this; thus I am the one who makes this intuition thing bigger than it is, rather than that he is constantly ‘bragging’ about how special he is.



letsrunlikecrazy said:


> The way I think about Ni is, it's like fitting a best-fit line onto a scatterplot or zooming out to see that what looks like a random chaotic mess from up close actually forms a shape or pattern from viewed from afar.


Funny and relatable how you describe this, I also tend to use statistical metaphors as a visualization for mental and multi-particle processes.



Ocean Helm said:


> Somewhat ironically, I would believe that seeing S types as lacking is usually what intuitives do, and I would consider that you are actually on the N side @Fitzsimmons. You seem drawn to intuitive ways of looking at things and intuitive people, even your OP shows a lot of intuition.


Well... I already listed some things that I really recognize in the ISTJ description in the OP. However, I’m not as typically an ISTJ as my dad for example. He keeps sheep as a hobby, and he tracks everything that happens to them in ‘The Excel Sheet’, as we call it at home. I find this hilarious, by the way. He has also lived in the same house for his entire life. And he doesn't have a constant internal struggle about what he wants with his life or a desire for greatness, he just wants to earn money and to care for his sheep.

Moreover, in my study (neuroscience) I’m really only interested in the big picture, not in details like cells, genes and molecules. Those things are quite meaningless to me (because they’re too fundamental, have no practical use). However, the big picture for me is _built out of details_. And that’s also something I envy about iNtuitives: I have to iterate over all those details everytime before I have the big picture in mind. I cannot make abstractions easily, and I cannot easily ‘summon’ complex concepts. 



Hanged Man said:


> You sound like you've just gotten into typology. I think if you learn more about it, you'll realize that the types are more similar than you realize, even when we all have different letters - ESFP to INTJ. We're all the same really.


That also relates to what Hanged Man said here: I either think in the ‘everyone’s essentially the same’ paradigm, or in the ‘MBTI types think in a fundamentally different way and people should be viewed in light of their type’ paradigm. I can’t reconcile the two. But maybe if I study this subject more, I will be able to build a bigger abstraction that incorporates both of these views.

What I like about research is programming, making thorough experimental plans and writing/thinking about how experimental results enlighten theoretical insights. I see data collection as a highly repetitive and annoying task that has to be done. I found it astonishing when I found out that data collection is actually some students’ favorite part of research. 

Lastly, something that I find really not in sync with the ISTJ description is my drawing style. Here’s an example of something I made: https : // accumulatingevidence.tumblr . com/image/171421855685. When I browse personality fora for how other ISTJs make ‘art’, they either don’t or say things like “I can draw a variety of airplane types really accurately”. I despise hyperrealistic drawing styles and think it has nothing to do with creativity. This point in particular may be why the N/S thing bothers me so much: it feels like it implies that I can’t be creative, while I derive self-esteem from creativity.

But the creative, quirky side of me is really quite literally a different side, a different state. I seem to have this biorhythm where once in a while, I get super inspired and creative and manic. It usually lasts for about a week, because I sleep about four hours per night so I always end up devastated after a while. I feel much more alive in such periods, but also kind of crazy and restless, and much too egocentric (I get a bit narcissistic). It’s not nice for people that are close to me. The reason why I'm not fond of people like Zooey Deschanel (I read somewhere that mentioning her is the easiest way to bother an ISTJ, haha) is not that I think she’s weird, but that I can have that kind of quirky thoughts too – only I immediately dismiss them by deriving their origin with logical thinking (‘this idea is not that special and creative, I can see that it’s a symbiosis of this and that thing in the room or in my mind right now, so no need to blurb it out and act all naive and cute about it’). So I think she’s a bit of a poser.

So, to end this long, long post, here’s a theory that I was thinking about today: 
I was looking at typeinmind . com, a website where someone described cognitive functions of all the types quite extensively. What struck me was that for types with Te or Ti as their inferior function (like INFP), they say: “Overuse of an inferior function can be very draining, and may be unhealthy when constantly given priority over other functions”. On the other hand, for types with Ne or Ni as their inferior function (like ISTJ), they say: “because it is their weakest function, it can only be used in simple ways or for short periods of time”. To me this implies that INFPs are able to use their inferior function, but it’s tiring for them, while ISTJs just don’t have that much access to their inferior function.


angelfish said:


> It is also as if Ns who have bias towards their own types and who don't really understand the depth and beauty and importance of S perception wrote lots of the MBTI type descriptions out there.


I think this may be an example of what angelfish mentioned: this kind of analyses tends to be written by N-types. So I think for people like me it’s the same as for INFPs and the like: I can use my inferior Ne quite a lot, but it’s typically exhausting (like I described above). It’s also clear that my intuition is indeed extraverted and needs a lot of external stimulation; I often get these ‘manic episodes’ when I encounter a great amount of novelty, such as when I meet many new people in a short period.



Ocean Helm said:


> Above all though, it seems like this MBTI stuff is just helping you destroy your confidence and see yourself in a negative light, which is probably a sign of a larger problem that needs to be addressed. I bet if it wasn't MBTI it'd be something else filling that role.


Yeah, I know. But I’ve been trying to figure out what the larger problem is for months now. Maybe it’s just growth pain.


----------



## Agent Washintub (Oct 6, 2012)

Life is, both individually and as a society, is about balance. Yes, N will certainly excel in a lot of areas different from you. However, you will excel in areas different from them.

Making the broadest of broad strokes here, N is good at imagination. They can see the abstract, both in a vast expanse of their mind and in hyper focused moments of brilliance. But, they also tend to be slightly disconnected from reality a little, depending on how far in the abstract they are. The amount of times I've had to reel in an N because they come up with this hairbrained scheme, completely convinced it's going to work, is astounding. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, by any means. I'm actually impressed by some of the shit they come up with. But other times, I'm left standing there thinking, "you're an idiot if you think that's actually going to work."

As an S, you see the gears of the world for what they are, their limitations, their functions, their realities. Ns see the space between the gears and what could possibly go there.

The world needs people to dream up new things, and the world also needs people to stand behind those people and call them an idiot when the new things are just too batshit.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

I don't "summon" complex concepts. I look for patterns. That's what intuition does. We all have intuition. 

And yeah, I'm low Se, but I have no issues being grounded in reality. I'm a balanced individual. For me the details point to the bigger picture which is the bottom line. At the end of the day, it's like "screw reality. I don't care if it seems impossible. This is my vision." The difference between that and Ni last, Se dom is this. They think "yeah, the vision is nice and all, but it's not realistic." This is way too simplified, but this is how I see the two types. We're both capable of Ni and Se but the way we focus is different. I would never ever say that any type is incapable or less capable at something. Sure, focusing on Se is draining for an Ni dom, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of Se. 

The ISTJs I know have no issues with abstraction. They just prefer not to do it. They're like "I know you can make all these connections, but screw that because these are the facts." It doesn't make them inferior. It doesn't even make them bad at Ne. If you have difficulty with abstraction, I think it's more personal than anything else, I think. 
.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Fitzsimmons said:


> However, the big picture for me is _built out of details_. And that’s also something I envy about iNtuitives: I have to iterate over all those details everytime before I have the big picture in mind. I cannot make abstractions easily, and I cannot easily ‘summon’ complex concepts.


For me it's the opposite - I can't fit any of the pieces in place until I have a big picture. The Ss in my life will sometimes give me lots of details before the big picture and I'm nearly hopeless at grasping them until I understand what the overall concept is. Only then can I start identifying the places for the details in their "map" in my mind and hold them together in a way that makes sense. It's a bit embarrassing actually. I feel like a little kid who's being asked to quickly assemble a puzzle except I have no idea what size the puzzle is, or shape, or any idea of the overall picture. 



> That also relates to what Hanged Man said here: I either think in the ‘everyone’s essentially the same’ paradigm, or in the ‘MBTI types think in a fundamentally different way and people should be viewed in light of their type’ paradigm. I can’t reconcile the two.


Well, they're both true, right? Just on the basis of DNA, we _are_ really essentially all 99.9% the same. Yet because we are indeed so similar, we really notice the small differences that do exist, and those become very important to us both in distinguishing ourselves as individuals and in recognizing others for how they are unique. The MBTI is a quick, clear "language" that communications a handful of those differences.



> This point in particular may be why the N/S thing bothers me so much: it feels like it implies that I can’t be creative, while I derive self-esteem from creativity. [...] It’s also clear that my intuition is indeed extraverted and needs a lot of external stimulation; I often get these ‘manic episodes’ when I encounter a great amount of novelty, such as when I meet many new people in a short period.


As far as I can tell it seems like you are relatively well-balanced in N and S and you tap into your N especially when you create. That's awesome and ideal. 



> But I’ve been trying to figure out what the larger problem is for months now.


Have you ever looked into the Enneagram? I wonder if you land somewhere around 5w4...


----------



## Fitzsimmons (Feb 27, 2018)

angelfish said:


> For me it's the opposite - I can't fit any of the pieces in place until I have a big picture. The Ss in my life will sometimes give me lots of details before the big picture and I'm nearly hopeless at grasping them until I understand what the overall concept is. Only then can I start identifying the places for the details in their "map" in my mind and hold them together in a way that makes sense. It's a bit embarrassing actually. I feel like a little kid who's being asked to quickly assemble a puzzle except I have no idea what size the puzzle is, or shape, or any idea of the overall picture.


Very relatable! I often explain someone's character to my friends using something like: "She's the kind of woman who wears _checkered pants_ to work, you know, and who mispronounces your name, but not on purpose, and who probably has a big dog named Manfred of whom she keeps a photo on her desk", and they'll have absolutely no idea what kind of person I'm describing. I guess in the end we have the same kind of meaningful concept in mind, but for me the meaning is in the details and for them it's in a more fluffy cloud of ideas.



Hanged Man said:


> I don't "summon" complex concepts. I look for patterns. That's what intuition does. We all have intuition. [...]The ISTJs I know have no issues with abstraction. They just prefer not to do it. They're like "I know you can make all these connections, but screw that because these are the facts." It doesn't make them inferior. It doesn't even make them bad at Ne. If you have difficulty with abstraction, I think it's more personal than anything else, I think.


I think I'm starting to grasp the concepts of intuition and cognitive functions in general better  It's really more like you say (everyone can use every function, but there are tendencies and preferences), but every detailed description of MBTI types and cognitive functions I've read so far seemed far more black-and-white to me, especially when it comes to sensor types. An earlier thread about negative bias towards sensors also helped me understand this - people like to feel special and superior and therefore dismiss others as 'boring' and 'normies'. When I think about it, I've heard people near me say things like
"Well... You're not as rare, no... But you're... intelligent, that should be a comfort"
"Haha, how delightfully practical"
"ISTJs and ISFJs: the small people"
(about someone else) "She must be a sensor, she never showed any sign of insight in anything"
(about yet someone else) "She must be an intuitive, 'cause sensors _never_ bear to listen to my monologues"
etc.
which, yeah, might be a tad douchy.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Looking at this through the cognitive functions makes this seem really interesting. Not sure if any of this is true but just somthing to ponder. You as an ISTJ have Ne as an aspirational function, so you already are in a position to want to grow you intuition more, BUT you also have Ni as your 8th function, and your very last function is something that is very difficult for you to use and have conscious control that function, and being up close and personal with your 8th function (your bf) would make you extra conscious that you lack control over that function. BUT you also do what Ni does with your Si (Seeing forms and labeling them) except you label them based on physical properties and past information collection, Ni labels them according to conceptual properties and pattern recognition. Si and Ni work very similar except Si works more specifically and Ni is more broad, but they can accomplish similar things much like Se and Ne.

Example: ISTJ and INTJ both see the movie Avatar. ISTJ might think "This movie's plot reminds me of the plot of Disney's Pocahontas, the blue people are like the indians and one of their enemies swoops in to save them."

INTJ might think " This movies is using the concept of a greedy oppressor stealing the goods of the land of indigenous people, and one of the oppressor's comes to save those people, same plot as Pocahontas and plenty other movies."

They both categorize the movie and sometimes they end up with the same conclusion, but they go about it differently.


----------



## Saira (Feb 2, 2012)

angelfish said:


> For what it's worth, I basically feel this way about S. It's alien, and beautiful, and I don't fully grasp it. It seems like Ss have access to a whole world that I see through a frosted glass pane. Ss have access to _reality. Being abstract and big-pictured is great and all but what does it matter if you never really interface with the world that actually exists?
> _


THIS. I want to feel real. I think I am missing so much from life just because I can't focus on the real world around me. It can be a really scary and depressive feeling.


----------



## artisanrox (Nov 5, 2016)

Fitzsimmons said:


> It's really more like you say (everyone can use every function, but there are tendencies and preferences), but every detailed description of MBTI types and cognitive functions I've read so far seemed far more black-and-white to me, especially when it comes to sensor types. An earlier thread about negative bias towards sensors also helped me understand this - people like to feel special and superior and therefore dismiss others as 'boring' and 'normies'.


I know as an intuitive, if I even had a chance to hire someone that has a MASSIVE amount of immediate and continuing responsibility, like for example...a nuclear power plant? they'd have to be grounded, detail oriented, responsible, LISTEN to authority, precise, and defer to experts.

That'd be an ISTJ over an INTJ. that's why INTJs are ideally never directly involved with the project we're advising or working on. intuitives are either too spacey or too distracted for that.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Actually, if you pay attention it's the other way around. The S types show up the N types in terms of productivity rate. They can get a lot more done and make more hits than the N types can because they are constantly active, and aren't just stuck inside of their heads about a scenario. They're making practical, concrete choices, and getting more things done in the actual world.I think the N's have the ability to make few very good hits by coming up with something imaginative once in a while, but only a few hits at a time compared the S's of the world.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I totally understand what you're saying. I think of all S types, ISTJs are the ones whom most vehemently deny the fact that Intuitives are smarter/deeper than sensors. Apparently ISTJs are the smartest sensory type, or so I've seen many times in MBTI statistics, so that could explain. Even though we supposedly still rank at number 9 (bottom half) smartest type because all Ns ultimately have a bigger IQ. That of course is going to be highly offensive to the ISTJs' sensibilities. We just won't accept that even some dumbass, emo 16 year old N type is automatically smarter than us just by description alone and with good reason.

It's ultimately all a question of strengths vs. weaknesses, how one deals with them and what one considers to be intelligence. I've said this many times, but a type like ESFJs for example, which is often pigeon-holed as the least smartest type, can easily become the most successful people on the planet just by accurately navigating the social aspect of life and coming out on top while your typical ''gifted'' INTP still lives in his parents' basement playing video games.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I just want to chime in with something I've said like a few times over the last few months, but just because someone is an N type, doesn't mean they're actually 'good' at Ni, Ne, or whatever - it just means they prefer the abstract world, patterns, concepts etc over the real world of facts, evidence and data.

In no way should it ever be implied, that the N type is actually 'good' at recognizing patterns - there will be N types out there who get it all fucking wrong every fucking time and are STILL 'real' N types, still really preferring an abstract world, it's just a fucking crap one because they suck.

Same deal with S types - just because someone is an S type, doesn't mean they're actually good at gathering factual information, it just means they prefer it over the non-tangible - being an S type doesn't mean someone will beat me at a Hidden Objects game, I'll kick the shit out of you - it's just a preference for the real world, over the abstract one.

It doesn't actually mean they're 'good' at it.

I feel like N is often correlated with some kind of faux-depth, I for one believe this is the result of the plethora of pseudo-intellectuals who've been given far too much air-time in the typology community, and it's damaging our knowledge base and corrupting our interpretations and images of what each function/dichotomy is, it poisons us, and now so many of you are addicted to it and keep going back for more.

N = preference for abstract world. Doesn't imply intelligence. Doesn't mean N types are good at 'intuiting' it literally means nothing more than a preference for a non-observable perception.
The accuracy of this information is on the person to not be a dickhead.

S = preference for the real world. Doesn't imply they're more practical. Doesn't mean S types are good with 'facts' etc, it literally means nothing more than a preference for observable perceptions.


I completely understand why an ISTJ, or any S type, would feel the entire typology community is out to get them, like they're stupid, dumb, lesser people than N types - this is a completely well-founded and realistic belief - the typology community IS out to make you feel this way - it's full of dickwads who don't understand what they're talking about blowing smoke up each others ass and handing out free handjobs to everyone with a similar opinion that walks by.

Complete circular reasoning. No truth to it whatsoever, and odds are these people wouldn't be able to pick an ESTJ from an INFP using any kind of methodology that is trackable or repeatable so this vibe-fest cockfight is completely unwarranted.


The typology community is basically on life support at the moment but some truths will come out and clearly distinguish the various forms of sensing and intuition from one another, in ways that can be tracked, and neither will be 'better' than the other - and the community will understand this in time.


----------



## Saira (Feb 2, 2012)

Stevester said:


> your typical ''gifted'' INTP still lives in his parents' basement playing video games.


Can confirm, kinda.


----------



## OliveBranch (Aug 30, 2017)

You sound like an INFP, but then again, we do have the same functions. The thing is though, we're always going to prefer our strongest functions (top 2). You sound like you are pretty developed in your Fi and Ne, for an ISTJ, but those aren't your most preferred functions. Intuitives grow up believing the world is so sensory focused, because you don't see or physically experience intuitive concepts.


----------



## Kn0wB34 (Sep 2, 2016)

Fitzsimmons said:


> However, I am able to see multiple sides of problems or arguments (which makes me a slow and doubtful decision maker


 Lol, sounds like am NP tendency as well. I definitely deal with this big time. Dont think that its only an ISTJ thing.

Im slowly learning the specifics of the functions myself but find Si to be interesting. Do you know how many jobs and employers constantly want crap like 'attention to detail?' Im good with Si when it comes to recalling people and what they say. But easily recalling or storing loads of factual information? Nope.

With Ne, no one practically understands what the hell Im saying half the time. Always quickly jumping from one idea to the next whenever I talk. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

angelfish said:


> It is also as if Ns who have bias towards their own types and who don't really understand the depth and beauty and importance of S perception wrote lots of the MBTI type descriptions out there.





Ocean Helm said:


> (a lot of people "discover" they are INFJ when they read heavily biased descriptions which actually don't reflect reality).


isn't the correct way to know one's true type is by reading the type description for sure, though? I think the problem is how some people interpret that or when some descriptions say "INFJ is the rarest type" like being rare=good, not the type descriptions themselves. Whatever the correct method is, by studying the dichotomy or the jungian cognitive functions, the end is always the person needs to read the type description, right?



Stevester said:


> *It's ultimately all a question of strengths vs. weaknesses, how one deals with them and what one considers to be intelligence. I've said this many times, but a type like ESFJs for example, which is often pigeon-holed as the least smartest type, can easily become the most successful people on the planet just by accurately navigating the social aspect of life and coming out on top while your typical ''gifted'' INTP still lives in his parents' basement playing video games.*


Very correct.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Each cognitive function is capable of doing a lot when it's the dominant function


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

dragonhead66 said:


> isn't the correct way to know one's true type is by reading the type description for sure, though? I think the problem is how some people interpret that or when some descriptions say "INFJ is the rarest type" like being rare=good, not the type descriptions themselves. Whatever the correct method is, by studying the dichotomy or the jungian cognitive functions, the end is always the person needs to read the type description, right?


If you mean the best method to type oneself well is to do additional research about a type beyond quizzes/tests to see if it fits one well before choosing to identify as that type, then yes, I agree. I don't believe in "true" type, personally, at least not for MBTI and Enneagram - something that can be objectively determined similar to blood type (which depends either on the clear, testable presence or absence of certain molecules in the body). Maybe in the future researchers like Nardi, who studies the correlation of cognitive functions to brain activity patterns, will pave the way to more objective personality types. I consider MBTI and Enneagram "best fit" - that one do their best to, through a combination of subjective and objective determination, identify the type that is the closest match to both their internal and external experience.

Anyway, regarding descriptions - while often valuable in fleshing out the more holistic viewpoints that correlate with type, descriptions aren't necessarily the best stopping point... first of all, of course, there are the anonymously-authored, questionable-quality descriptions you can find online - but even notable theorists lean heavily towards certain interpretations. IMO Keirsey in particular can be negative towards S. Ultimately the value of descriptions will be colored by your own perspective on type, but descriptions will also add to your understanding... At least in my view, I'm not sure that there really ever is an endpoint in typing oneself - not because one can't settle on a single type, but because there is always more to learn about oneself and about others.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

angelfish said:


> If you mean the best method to type oneself well is to do additional research about a type beyond quizzes/tests to see if it fits one well before choosing to identify as that type, then yes, I agree. I don't believe in "true" type, personally, at least not for MBTI and Enneagram - something that can be objectively determined similar to blood type (which depends either on the clear, testable presence or absence of certain molecules in the body). Maybe in the future researchers like Nardi, who studies the correlation of cognitive functions to brain activity patterns, will pave the way to more objective personality types. I consider MBTI and Enneagram "best fit" - that one do their best to, through a combination of subjective and objective determination, identify the type that is the closest match to both their internal and external experience.
> 
> Anyway, regarding descriptions - while often valuable in fleshing out the more holistic viewpoints that correlate with type, descriptions aren't necessarily the best stopping point... first of all, of course, there are the anonymously-authored, questionable-quality descriptions you can find online - but even notable theorists lean heavily towards certain interpretations. IMO Keirsey in particular can be negative towards S. Ultimately the value of descriptions will be colored by your own perspective on type, but descriptions will also add to your understanding... At least in my view, I'm not sure that there really ever is an endpoint in typing oneself - not because one can't settle on a single type, but because there is always more to learn about oneself and about others.


well the most we could do about the validity is if the person thinks "wow - this is me" when reading the type descriptions.

although in regards to keirsey, i still maintain it's how people interpret his works that is the problem - not his type descriptions.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Each cognitive function is capable of doing a lot when it's the dominant function


Absolutely. The problem is a lot of Ns like to attribute skills and perceptions typically of other X-Doms to their intuition.

_''I understand concepts and mechanics due to my intuition''
''I take take action and make things happen due to the visionary nature and drive of my intuition"
''I understand my and other people's emotions deeply and can read their body language due to my strong intuition''
''I have strong creativity due to my intuition"
''I'm super good at sports due to my in.....''_ Well no, that one they don't care. Ew, sports!

and so on...

People keep forgetting that intuition is a perceiving informational process, not a super power.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

talk is cheap no matter what type you are


----------

