# I really cannot figure out the difference between N vs. S. Can someone help?



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

Okay, so I type as an INFP when taking tests (both Myers-Briggs and Cognitive Functions), but I am starting to have doubts about whether I am really an N or an S.

I definitely value common sense and am aware of my surroundings (not necessarily consciously, but subconsciously I have a pretty good idea of what is happening around me). I don't often get lost and I am definitely not absent-minded or unobservant. However, I am extremely prone to what others might call flights of fancy. For example, I firmly believe in the existence of mythical creatures, psychic ability, and the paranormal. Like I am convinced that dragons, mermaids, fairies, etc. do actually exist but remain hidden. And I most certainly believe in the manifestation of the paranormal on this plane (I saw the spirit of my grandfather twice when I was younger). I have many more stories, but the short version is that it is quite easy for me to believe in what others might deem "impossible" even if I don't have any solid proof.

In my mind, that seems to suggest that I am more than likely an N, but I am no expert in MBTI, so is this one way to make a definitive judgement about whether I am N or S? If it is not, what is a way to tell? Please don't just tell me the same things that I have read in all the type descriptions because I have read them already and still can't decide. What are situations that could distinguish an N from an S?

Thanks for you help guys.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well sensing is about physical perception of the moment you're in. Or a sense or recollection of a moment (not necessarily a memory though just more of a feeling that you've experienced this before).

Intuition is about time. Specifically intuiting that a certain event will happen or has happened in the past or in the future, without necessarily having the evidence to back up that conclusion. So when you look at a shady guy on the street and say "this dude doesn't seem right," what you are doing is predicting, via your intuition either that this man has done something shady in the past or will do something shady in the future. With intuition time is nonlinear; past, present and future all exist at the same time. What could be (Ne) isn't dependent upon 'what is.' So when someone says they had a foresight or premonition they are using their intuition to mentally place themselves into the future (obviously without actually being in the future). This is why people with a strong Se-preference can be flummoxed by intuitives because Se is concerned with what's in the moment (or what did I take away from the moment in the case of Si). 

More importantly though everyone senses and everyone has intuition. Whether or not you show up as N or S, just is a matter of how strong sensing or intuition is in your function stack. An ENFJ with a really well-developed tertiary Se might think of themselves as a sensor for example (yet they are technically an Intuitive because Ni is the auxiliary function). 



> I am extremely prone to what others might call flights of fancy. For example, I firmly believe in the existence of mythical creatures, psychic ability, and the paranormal. Like I am convinced that dragons, mermaids, fairies, etc. do actually exist but remain hidden. And I most certainly believe in the manifestation of the paranormal on this plane (I saw the spirit of my grandfather twice when I was younger). I have many more stories, but the short version is that it is quite easy for me to believe in what others might deem "impossible" even if I don't have any solid proof.


On its face this might sound like intuition (and might be to an extent) but its really higher-order thinking. When you step back its really no different than someone who has devout religious beliefs (which you might also not be able to prove) and as we know deeply religious people come in all 16 flavors. 



> I definitely value common sense and am aware of my surroundings (not necessarily consciously, but subconsciously I have a pretty good idea of what is happening around me). I don't often get lost and I am definitely not absent-minded or unobservant.


This is what would give me pause about you being an iNFP specifically. Your predilection for common sense (or common values) speaks potentially more to Fe than Fi. Certainly a Fi type could have values that look a lot like those that are commonly held in a specific culture, but the Fi type would have manifested them from his own perspective and judgment rather than first looking to an external standard and then adopting those values. NFPs aren't necessarily absent-minded, but strong Ne can produce a certain ungrounded quality as Ne is always off trying to take a situation and imagine the possibilities of what that situation could become. The 'ADHD-like' or absent-mindedness' that Ne-types (NFP, NTP) are sometimes known for is more of their penchant for never settling on anything, always forever searching for the next new idea. This is different than someone who just appears unintelligent.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Your predilection for common sense (or common values) speaks potentially more to Fe than Fi.


I wouldn't say I prefer common sense to intuition or fantasy. I appreciate them both. As for experiencing intuitive feelings, I have experienced like that quite often. For instance, usually when I get into a cab or something, I have an immediate feeling of whether the guy is trustworthy or will try to scam me, and sometimes I feel like the guy is "shady" as you put it. However, unless the feeling is incredibly strong, I usually try to tell myself that it is extremely prejudice to make those decisions on a first instinct, so I tell myself to give the person a chance. Usually though, I am right. However, my desire not to be prejudice usually overrides my intuitive experiences, no matter how often they are right.



LiquidLight said:


> Certainly a Fi type could have values that look a lot like those that are commonly held in a specific culture, but the Fi type would have manifested them from his own perspective and judgment rather than first looking to an external standard and then adopting those values.


In terms of values, I just want to point out that I NEVER base my values on external standards. In fact, it is very common for me to get into arguments with my family and on occasion my close friends because we hold extremely different values. For example, my family has certain prejudices about homosexual people (they are not homophobic per se, but they certainly are prejudiced) and it honestly makes me so frustrated and upset when I here them making such awful judgements about people. I usually end up getting into a heated debate (not so much an argument because I just back down when tempers really start to flair), but it actually make me very emotional. I am actually known in my community for being very opinionated and holding quite different beliefs than most people. So no, I would never say that my value system is based on external standards.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> As for experiencing intuitive feelings, I have experienced like that quite often. For instance, usually when I get into a cab or something, I have an immediate feeling of whether the guy is trustworthy or will try to scam me, and sometimes I feel like the guy is "shady" as you put it.


Well the question then would be are your intuitions more like Ne or Ni. Ne takes the real world and intuits how it could be by looking at patterns and possibilities. Ni allows us to change our point of view and view things in perspectives that are not tied down to the rules of the physical world. So premonition is traditionally much more of a Ni thing, a Ne user might come up with the possibility but would require one of his or her other functions to determine whether it was a salient possibility or not.

With Ni your subconscious is considering all the possibilites and narrowing it down to the one that seems to be the best case scenario. That then springs forth from your subconscious into your consciousness through Ni (Ni is like that bridge between conscious and unconscious.) Because your subconscious has 'examined' a situation in what it thinks is all the angles, Ni will be very steadfast in its conclusions and tough to challenge without new information (where Ne just posits a possibility and moves on to the next one) Ni-doms can annoyingly seem like they know everything (no surprise that Darth Vader is a Ni-dom INTJ).

If you identify more with Ni you are probably ISFP. If Ne then INFP.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> With Ni your subconscious is considering all the possibilites and narrowing it down to the one that seems to be the best case scenario. That then springs forth from your subconscious into your consciousness through Ni (Ni is like that bridge between conscious and unconscious.) Because your subconscious has 'examined' a situation in what it thinks is all the angles, Ni will be very steadfast in its conclusions and tough to challenge without new information (where Ne just posits a possibility and moves on to the next one) Ni-doms can annoyingly seem like they know everything (no surprise that Darth Vader is a Ni-dom INTJ).
> 
> If you identify more with Ni you are probably ISFP. If Ne then INFP.


Well, I definitely think that I tend to posit all the possibilities and move on from there. I'm very much a "what if" kind of person. I tend to look at all possible ways a scenario might go so I am more prepared for anything that occurs. I don't really think that I feel steadfast in any one particular scenario outcome which is why I tend to prepare for all of them and have contingency plans (not necessarily for everything, because often times that is impossible, but for most things).

On RARE (extremely rare) occasions, the instinct will be particularly strong. I may not trust it 100%, but I am pretty sure it is accurate. For instance, when I heard that Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson got married, the first thing that came into my mind is that their marriage would last for about a year to a year and a half. I was so sure of that. I told everyone because I was absolutely positive about it. Then in two years I heard that they did indeed get a divorce. Those things will happen on occasion but, like I said, it is EXTREMELY rare.

For the most part, I am usually seeing all possible outcomes and I hardly ever get to the point where my feeling for a particular outcome is so strong I feel it is the only way things will play out.

In the cab scenario I gave you, what would be the difference between an Ni and Ne reaction? I'm just trying to better understand how this works.

Thanks by the way for all your help.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

I just thought I might also mention another "intuitive" thing I tend to do. Usually when I read something I can tell the gender of the person who wrote it (obviously without looking at the name and gender of the author beforehand). It happens all the time. For example, we were reading anonymous journal samples in one of my previous English classes to see what to do and not do, and when discussing, I would usually get the feeling of whether the writer was male or female and I would use "he" and "she" pronouns without a second thought. Eventually someone asked me why I assumed that the writer was male/female and I said, I didn't know. I honestly didn't know what about the paper made me think male or female, I just knew. As it turned out, most of the time I was spot on.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> I just thought I might also mention another "intuitive" thing I tend to do. Usually when I read something I can tell the gender of the person who wrote it (obviously without looking at the name and gender of the author beforehand). It happens all the time. For example, we were reading anonymous journal samples in one of my previous English classes to see what to do and not do, and when discussing, I would usually get the feeling of whether the writer was male or female and I would use "he" and "she" pronouns without a second thought. Eventually someone asked me why I assumed that the writer was male/female and I said, I didn't know. I honestly didn't know what about the paper made me think male or female, I just knew. As it turned out, most of the time I was spot on.


In your case this is probably Si. Si and Ni can be very similar in that they both work based off subconscious, individualized perceptions. I'm sure there are pronounced cultural differences (even if they are very subtle or ignored outwardly) in the way men and women articulate things that we may not pick up on consciously but our subconscious takes note of. 

The cab scenario sounds like Ni, but everything else you wrote suggests extraverted intuition (Ne); seeing an ever-expanding array of possibilities of what could be, and then what could be from that, and then what could be from that, etc without any real agenda. Like branching out from the trunk of a tree. The cab scenario was probably Ne+Si working together (correctly and not in conflict with one another) to create a possibility based on some subconscious perception you have of cab drivers. It sounds like then your Fi values are strong enough to override an erroneous conclusion about something or someone (or a conclusion that conflicts with some ideal of yours). So you are probably in fact INFP. (In ENFP, the _what ifs_ might get the best of them from time to time because Ne is the dominant and Fi is the 'helper' secondary function).


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

I'm starting to see the difference now.

Out of curiosity and clarity, what is the difference between Se and Ne. I know the INFPs have and auxiliary Ne function and ISFPs have an auxiliary Se function. What is the difference between the two?


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Here is an article I wrote a while ago about Ni vs Ne. Perhaps that might help define your question of N vs S?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> what is the difference between Se and Ne. I know the INFPs have and auxiliary Ne function and ISFPs have an auxiliary Se function. What is the difference between the two?


Not much in terms of how they take in information. Its more a matter of Ne taking in sensory information and then running off with it to see what it could become. But Ne (and all extraverted functions) have to be grounded in the real world. So Ne might imagine something fantastical, but it's always got to be something that is based on objective reality. Where Ni can imagine something that couldn't possibly exist in tangible reality (hence why Ni types can sometimes masquerade as psychics or shamans or having ESP or something). 

Se just looks at what is there. In fact Se is just sensory.

With Se, when you are outside and you look up and see white puffy things in the air it's actually Ti that's telling you those are clouds. Se just sees white and the shape and form, wispiness or puffiness. It doesn't categorize or try to determine what type of cloud is better than another. Nor does Se make the connection about the purpose of the clouds. It just sees what is there for its own sake. 

Ne and Se are like 75% alike as external perception functions (everyone has to have some way of processing sensory data from the outside world) its just that Ne functions on an intuitive level positing what something could become, where Se just explores the nuances of what it is. Ne would look at the clouds and imagine that maybe a wispy cirrus cloud might turn into a puffy cumulous cloud even with no visual evidence to prove this is happening or could happen in this circumstance. Or that a white cloud could become a dark cloud.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Not much in terms of how they take in information. Its more a matter of Ne taking in sensory information and then running off with it to see what it could become. But Ne (and all extraverted functions) have to be grounded in the real world. So Ne might imagine something fantastical, but it's always got to be something that is based on objective reality. Where Ni can imagine something that couldn't possibly exist in tangible reality (hence why Ni types can sometimes masquerade as psychics or shamans or having ESP or something).
> 
> Se just looks at what is there. In fact Se is just sensory.


Okay, so I tend to do this thing where I am watching a film or tv show and every so often, I will pause and let my mind imagine different ways the scene could have gone or will go. I insert other characters or I remove characters and imagine how it would have played out in that situation. I'm not trying to predict what will happen. I just like exploring the way things could be within a given situation. After I have gone through a number of different scenarios I play the movie or show and continue to watch for a while, then pause again and do the same thing. That is why it often takes a really long time for me to get through a show or movie on my own. Would that be something an Ne would do?

On the same note, I also like observing the way people say or do things in those same films and tv shows. Just as frequently as the letting my mind wander bit, I also often rewind a film or show at an interesting interaction or when there is something interesting going on in the background. I watch it over and over again because I enjoy noticing the little nuances of peoples interactions, facial expressions, etc. That seems to me like a very Se thing to do.

Its stuff like this that makes me REALLY confused as to whether I prefer Se or Ne.

Also when you say the intuitiveness of the Ni is not grounded in actual reality, what do you mean? What is considered grounded in physical reality and what isn't.

Thanks again for all your help LiquidLight. I really appreciate what you are doing.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

If you are an INFP, your auxiliary function is Ne which is...


> Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone’s behavior really means. It also involves seeing things “as if,” with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don’t know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking. Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership.


If you are an ISFP your auxiliary function is Se which is....


> Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Okay, so I tend to do this thing where I am watching a film or tv show and every so often, I will pause and let my mind imagine different ways the scene could have gone or will go. I insert other characters or I remove characters and imagine how it would have played out in that situation. I'm not trying to predict what will happen. I just like exploring the way things could be within a given situation. After I have gone through a number of different scenarios I play the movie or show and continue to watch for a while, then pause again and do the same thing. That is why it often takes a really long time for me to get through a show or movie on my own. Would that be something an Ne would do?


Yes. Ni would probably spend its energy trying to intuit the end of the movie or the plot twist or what character would die off next rather than try to take the movie out of its own context. Ni works more by narrowing down possibilities (if your considering all the information in circumspect you're trying to draw patterns and figure out what two seemingly disparate things have in common with Ni). Ne creates new patterns based on existing information.



> On the same note, I also like observing the way people say or do things in those same films and tv shows. Just as frequently as the letting my mind wander bit, I also often rewind a film or show at an interesting interaction or when there is something interesting going on in the background. I watch it over and over again because I enjoy noticing the little nuances of peoples interactions, facial expressions, etc. That seems to me like a very Se thing to do.


This is probably Si because you are making subjective perceptions. A Se user would watch the scene over and over and over again and literally it would be like a new experience every time. (My ENFJ dad is like this with movies every time he watches _Independence Day_ its like the first time all over again even though he's probably seen it hundreds of times). 

Si loves repetition as a way of taking in more and more subjective data about something. It thrives on it (it's why Si-doms like ISxJs are known as being traditionalists and wary of unsolicited novelty). It's likely a Si-user who believes things get better the more you do them. Si-types are often better at memorization or musical pitch or language nuances because to them the familiarity that repetition brings is comforting. The Si musician would probably learn through intense practice, the Se+Te musician would probably learn by ear or learn just enough function and theory to get as good as they feel they need to be. 

See it would be different if you said you watch movie after movie after movie to examine facial expressions and what not, but you sound like you watch the _same _movie ad nauseum to try and mine as much info from it as you can. 



> Also when you say the intuitiveness of the Ni is not grounded in actual reality, what do you mean? What is considered grounded in physical reality and what isn't.


Well the nature of introverted functions is that they are subjective. It's why its so hard for people to explain because in a way everyone experiences them different, they are personalized mindsets that deal only with your own mental cognizance. They are directed back at the self not at the outside world and they don't care anything about the outside world its all about you. So Ti for example might come up with logical explanations that have no actual bearing or application in reality (This might manifest in an ISFJ, for example, concluding it is logical to go along with the group and not stand out - but this isn't empirically logical in a Te sense, its subjectively logical). Fi values are self-generated, expressions of worth viewed through the lens of your own thinking without regard for what anyone else thinks. 

Extraverted functions have to be grounded in the real world, in physical reality. This is why Se and Si can't co-exist because you can't be directing your cognitive perceptive energy both inwardly and outwardly at the same time. (lots of people come on here are say weird stuff like "I have both Ni and Ne" but that doesn't make sense, the two functions in reality would counteract one another like trying to go north and south at the same time.) So Fe is reliant on external group consensus. Te organizes and deduces logic of things pertaining to the real world (that's why dom-Te or J's as they're often erroneously called, are known for being organized or task and achievement oriented). Se and Ne largely perceive the physical world, not the inner mental world - that's what Ni and Si are for.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Se and Ne largely perceive the physical world, not the inner mental world - that's what Ni and Si are for.


Okay, I think I get it. Just one more thing. How would one "perceive" their inner mental world. I'm slightly confused on that point because the very nature of perception (at least the way I understand it) is dealing with what is external. I get it when it comes to decision making (T and F functions) because decisions can be made with internal or external focus. But I'm having trouble seeing how one would perceive inward.

Sorry for the numerous questions. I just feel that most function descriptions are so abstract to the point of being quite useless. I think they just throw words around without any real finesse. This discussion makes a lot more sense because it is grounded in actual reality. Like, how would these functions look in the real world. Its a lot more useful to me that just saying Ns are imaginative and Ss are concrete. To me that is the most useless description because a person can be both. And a person has to at some point use their sense and at some point use their intuition otherwise they couldn't function at all in the world. So making is seem like Ns completely ignore their senses and Ss can't see past their sense seems completely unrealistic to me.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

Another thing I thought would be worth mentioning is that I read somewhere the Se functions sees and remembers objects as they are while Si functions sees objects but "touches it up" slightly, particularly in their memory.

Would this be correct?

If it is, I know that when I remember things, the image I see is not the image of reality in the strictest sense. I would liken it to a Photoshoped image. The details are basically correct, but the image is coloured by my feeling and impressions of the events that occurred within a space or around an object.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Yea most people on a lot of these forums have very elementary and rudimentary understandings of this stuff and even fewer have actually read Jung. At best many might be Google scholars. You can always tell the people on these sites who have actually learned their stuff (usually the mods and columnists). One of the other things you learn from reading Jung is that the functions are really the least important of his concepts, but he seemed to know that everyone would run away with his ideas of the functions and warns against it without considering all of his writing.

Im trying to think of a good example of inward perception. Maybe "I'm exhausted," or "I'm excited," or "I'm worried." These would sorta be inward perceptions that may not necessarily have any accompanying outward physical symptom. You are perceiving yourself. You can think of it like Se, but looking back at your own mind. Ni and Si are like mind reading tools just they are reading your own mind to either draw connections between images or symbols in your consciousness (Ni) or recall some sensory metadata of something you've experienced. Si is like memory, but not really memory (which functions outside of personality). Si is more like the impression of something you've experienced. But even though the reference point may be an actual event, Si is concerned with how your response to that event (its not judging the event as good or bad thats what Fe/Fi are for) its saying that when X happens you feel Y way. Its tough for me to personally wrap my head around Si because as an INFJ the concept is a little foreign to me (and dom-Si types can drive me nuts with their insistence on adherence to precedent). 

On another page someone asked what type would do the best with torture. And the basic consensus seems to be that SPs (Se-doms) would probably get past the physical ramifications the best because they are most attuned to physical sensation and because they don't carry those experiences past the first time (on the flip side you probably never get used to it). But from a lot of people's stories the Si-doms (ISxJs) were the ones who experienced the most extreme psychological debilitation being unable to remove those negative sensory impressions from their mind. I would imagine shell shock is probably a very Si thing (when an external stimuli recalls a negative experience). I know a Si-type who grew up in an abusive household and gets very uneasy when a situation rears itself that recalls something she may have experienced as a child, where a Se-type may be less inclined toward this.



> Another thing I thought would be worth mentioning is that I read somewhere the Se functions sees and remembers objects as they are while Si functions sees objects but "touches it up" slightly, particularly in their memory.
> 
> Would this be correct?
> 
> If it is, I know that when I remember things, the image I see is not the image of reality in the strictest sense. I would liken it to a Photoshoped image. The details are basically correct, but the image is coloured by my feeling and impressions of the events that occurred within a space or around an object.


Probably Si.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

Thanks so much LiquidLight. This was unbelievably helpful. I am pretty certain I am an INFP now after out discussion. I definitely lean more towards Ne and Si than Se and Ni. And I definitely know that feeling of having places coloured by your internal perception of it. A lot of places I frequent are severely marked by my impressions and my emotional reaction to them. It gets to the point where if I go to a place where I have had many horrible experiences, just being in the place without any other external stimulation will make me really upset. There are times when I even cry.

Anyway, thanks again for all your help.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

velle68 said:


> And a person has to at some point use their sense and at some point use their intuition otherwise they couldn't function at all in the world.


Well, I guess. But I will say that as an N, I have a tendency to bump into things.


----------



## velle68 (Dec 7, 2010)

I swear to God, I hate being a perceiver. I can never settle on any damn thing. Just when I was convinced about my type, a bunch of things came up that started to make me question it again.

For instance, I notice a HUGE reason I watch certain movies again is if I favour the aesthetic. I love the Studio Ghibli aesthetic for instance, so I tend to watch those movie a lot. But I couldn't watch a movie like The King's Speech again. Not because it wasn't a great film with a great story and what have you. It was brilliant. But the whole gloomy feeling of it made me so morbidly depressed afterwards that I don't think I will ever be able to watch it again. The same can be said for the movie Let Me In. Probably one of the better vampire films that has come out recently. But again, the gloominess of it really turns me off. I feel that an INFP would care more for the meaning of the film than the aesthetic of it. But then again, I also read that both ISFPs and INFPs have a strong aesthetic sense. So maybe this doesn't tell me anything. I also read that both can equally enjoy abstract theory and philosophy, except ISFPs like the theory to be practical and INFPs just like theorising, even if nothing comes of it. I don't know where I stand on that. Then someone else said that ISFPs offer physical help to those who need it (money, physical nurturing, etc.) while INFPs offer more spiritual/psychological/mental help (counselling). I am definitely more in the latter. Then yet another person wrote the ISFPs prefer things to be simple, and they tend to face problems in something of a simplistic fashion. INFPs are said to revel in the intricate complexities of the world. I am on the fence about this too (although I suppose I lean more towards simplicity on this one).

Then when I read things about the functions, I just get more confused because I feel like the descriptions are either so vague, or I don't know myself well enough to see what I prefer.

This is driving me mental!!! I would give up on the whole endeavour, but accepting not knowing is even worse than the mental roller coaster I am on. Seriously, is there a really straight-forward, easy way to make the distinction that doesn't come down to meaningless words like "abstract" and "concrete"?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

LOL I think you're still INFP. And doing the stereotypical (Ne) _what if this_, and _what if that_ routine that true INFPs do about their identity (probably forever). All those things about ISFPs vs INFPs are just behavioral overgeneralizations that could apply to anyone. (You mean to tell me _only_ IPs can offer physical or spiritual help, what about all the ESTJ preachers out there? That's why trying to type yourself based on some behavioral description will drive you nuts. It's like trying to figure out how thick the foundation is to a house by counting the number of doors.)

The whole movie thing still sounds like Si to me. You're getting personal impressions from the aesthetic like Miyazaki's animation style. In contrast I as a Se type appreciate Miyazaki for his storytelling but can't wrap my head around his abstract animation style, it's weird to me. Nor did I get 'gloom' out of _The King's Speech_. I noticed the textures on the walls and costumes, the monochromatic ambience, and the extensive use of wide-angle lenses and Desplat's lighthearted music which to me gave the movie a somewhat lighthearted and quirky feel. See the difference? You're pulling out subjective interpretations of the film that have more to do with your personal impression of the movie as dark or gloomy, rather than evaluating the film as it is. (We can all do this to a degree, but in my case my predisposition is going to be first to the concrete sensory data, I have to work at finding subtext in a shot or scene or have someone else point it out to me). If someone tells me a certain movie was 'dark,' my first predilection is to think it was actually dark, as in under-lit or noir-ish. So if someone describes a Kevin Smith or Judd Apatow movie as a dark comedy, for some reason I somewhat protest, because the first thing that comes to my mind is how brightly lit and high key those movies are. (Now this is an exaggeration because we all know how to read stuff into art, but its more like a mental starting point for me).


----------

