# Would SJ's enjoy/appreciate music more than other types?



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

I was just thinking about Si, and it would make sense that SJ's would be more likely to be huge music listeners/art appreciators/etc. than other types.



Would you say that's true?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

bububbbubububulllshiiitshihishiittt.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> bububbbubububulllshiiitshihishiittt.


Sorry.
I shouldn't attribute any *special* or *good* qualities to SJ's other than _"good at gardening"_ or _"stubborn with lists."_



It may offend people.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> Sorry.
> I shouldn't attribute any *special* or *good* qualities to SJ's other than _"good at gardening"_ or _"stubborn with lists."_
> 
> 
> ...


It's not about assigning a special 'ability', nor was @_DonutsGalacticos_ implying that SJs are only good at gardening and making lists. Appreciating music, I think, is independent of cognitive functions, or at least Si. Different people appreciate music for different reasons. Music is universally appreciated, whatever be the genre or style. According to the assumption that SJ's are most prone to appreciating music, it would be logical to presume that INTJs have little or no affinity towards music (with Si being the inferior function of their shadow functions) which sounds absurd. As a matter of fact, I have an INTJ friend (might be ENTJ) who loves music and plays guitar in a band.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Appreciating music is a universal thing, but I think the functions allow people to appreciate it through different methods. I imagine Si would allow music to evoke certain sensations within them (to jump for joy or tear up? nostalgia? experiences associated with the particular music? ---> much appreciation).


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

Chrnos said:


> Appreciating music is a universal thing, but I think the functions allow people to appreciate it through different methods. I imagine Si would allow music to evoke certain sensations within them (to jump for joy or tear up? nostalgia? experiences associated with the particular music? ---> much appreciation).


Basically this. All types appreciate music although the flavor through which they experience it may be affected by varying functions.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

As further described in this post, the statistics in the MBTI Manual show pretty strong correlations between artistic/aesthetic interests and an N preference. And that's consistent with Jung's take on things, since Jung associated an artistic bent with both N and F.

And, as also discussed in that linked post, it's widely accepted (and I agree) that the Big Five Openness to Experience factor is essentially tapping into the same underlying human temperament dimension as MBTI S/N, and being high on Openness (the Big Five equivalent of an N preference) is associated with aesthetic interests of all kinds — in both the verbal and non-verbal arts.

The most well-established version of the Big Five is McCrae and Costa's NEO-PI-R, which breaks down each of the five factors into six "facets." One of the Openness to Experience facets is _Aesthetics_, and McCrae and Costa note that "high scorers on this scale have a deep appreciation for art and beauty. ... They need not have artistic talent. ... However, for many of them, interest in the arts will lead them to develop a wider knowledge and appreciation than the average individual."

The Big Five Inventory is one of the more well-regarded (and academically sanctioned) Big Five tests, and its 44 items include the following three (all of which test for Openness to Experience):


Has few artistic interests [_reverse-scored_]
Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
MBTI preferences are about _tendencies and probabilities_ and, as previous posters have suggested, there aren't that many people of _any_ type with no appreciation for at least some kinds of music. But if you're looking for the types most likely to demonstrate an above-average passion for music, I'd say it would be the N's — and, as among the N's, I'd give the edge to the INs.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

I know a ESFJ who dances. 
She has a very good memory of even old daces she has done. 

It makes me think of how Si is good for that because it's about your bodies movements.


----------



## Amandine (May 11, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> I was just thinking about Si, and it would make sense that SJ's would be more likely to be huge music listeners/art appreciators/etc. than other types.
> 
> Would you say that's true?


Music is extremely important to me and I hold it in high regard. It has the ability to tap into my being on a deep and almost spiritual level if you will. The vibes I get from different songs can definitely bring out some interesting sensations. 

I can't say that it makes all Si-users appreciate music more than everyone else since I believe the function plays out in various ways depending on the individual. From what I know, Si is subjective. Music itself is subjective. 

It doesn't mean that anyone values something _more_, but simply experienced through particularly distinct filters, and, like @Chrnos mentioned, appreciated in different methods.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> As further described in this post, the statistics in the MBTI Manual show pretty strong correlations between artistic/aesthetic interests and an N preference. And that's consistent with Jung's take on things, since Jung associated an artistic bent with both N and F.
> 
> And, as also discussed in that linked post, it's widely accepted (and I agree) that the Big Five Openness to Experience factor is essentially tapping into the same underlying human temperament dimension as MBTI S/N, and being high on Openness (the Big Five equivalent of an N preference) is associated with aesthetic interests of all kinds — in both the verbal and non-verbal arts.
> 
> ...


You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> You can't have your cake and eat it too.


I can if it's N-style _theoretical_ cake. :tongue:

In what sense did you see my post as trying to have and eat at the same time?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I can if it's N-style _theoretical_ cake. :tongue:
> 
> In what sense did you see my post as trying to have and eat at the same time?


List me five things you think an S type would be better than an N type at.


*RULES*
(1) If you twist it in some condescending way, you lose - _"S's are probably better at doing long boring tasks"_
(2) If you twist it to make N's look like special snowflakes over the "boring" S-types, you lose.
(3) If you say "detailed boring tasks," you lose.
(4) If you say something like, _"I wish I could focus and pay as much attention to detail as S-types... but I am just TOO creative and imaginative! Poor me!"_ then you lose.
(5) If you say _"better at following directions"_ you lose
(6) If you say _"they think less"_ or anything that implies that, you lose.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.
You might want to stop eating that cake right about now.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> List me five things you think an S type would be better than an N type at.
> 
> 
> *RULES*
> ...


Your request that I list "five things that an S type would be better than an N type at" has _absolutely nothing_ to do with whether, on average, an N is more likely to have an above-average passion for music — as lots of the type-related data suggests (e.g., here and here) — and I assume (or hope, anyway) that you really understand that.

Just to humor you, though, here's a post that lists the top occupational choices for ENTPs and ESTPs from a sample involving 92,000 people — i.e., a very large sample.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that most of the jobs on the ESTP list that aren't on the ENTP list (and especially the ones on the ENTPs' "least favored jobs" list) are reasonably likely to be jobs that, on average and all other things being equal, ESTPs tend to be better at than ENTPs.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Your request that I list "five things that an S type would be better than an N type at" has _absolutely nothing_ to do with whether, on average, an N is more likely to have an above-average passion for music — as lots of the type-related data suggests (e.g., here and here) — and I assume (or hope, anyway) that you really understand that.
> 
> Just to humor you, though, here's a post that lists the top occupational choices for ENTPs and ESTPs from a sample involving 92,000 people — i.e., a very large sample.
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd guess that most of the jobs on the ESTP list that aren't on the ENTP list (and especially the ones on the ENTPs' "least favored jobs" list) are reasonably likely to be jobs that, on average and all other things being equal, ESTPs tend to be better at than ENTPs.


Derailing!
Get back on the point at hand. 

(And I don't know how dumb you have to be to think that *SENSORS* are less likely to enjoy music which *YOU USE YOUR SENSES TO LISTEN TO* than intuitives... 
_"B-b-but iNtuitives OBVIOUSLY like music more because they can see a deeper meaning to it that Sensor's don't!"_
<<if you were thinking of replying with that, I will laugh at how dumb you are. )

You asked what I meant when I said _"you can't have your cake and eat it too"_ and so I was showing you what I meant with my question.

When you failed to post the 5 reasons, you proved my point.
You view N as somehow "better" than S... you even think N-types are better at *SENSORY REQUIRED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ART* than S-types.
That is the definition of having your cake and eating it too


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> You view N as somehow "better" than S... you even think N-types are better at *SENSORY REQUIRED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ART* than S-types.
> That is the definition of having your cake and eating it too


First, I agree with Isabel Myers that N and S involve "Gifts Differing" and it's a mistake to view either side as "better" than the other in any kind of overall sense.

That said, I disagree with what seems to be your suggestion that, if an activity _involves the senses_ (and that would be _most activities_, right?), then it's an activity where S's have the advantage — or, at least, it can't be an activity where N's have the advantage. Is that really your view?

The second edition of the MBTI Manual discussed a study of 114 professional fine artists that turned out to be _91% N_. As the Manual explained: "Because true creativity in the arts requires highly differentiated use of tools and materials, one might expect artists to prefer sensing perception rather than intuition. Empirically, N types outnumber S types in art students and among artists. The theoretical explanation is that the insights and inspirations provided by intuition are more important, but true artistic skill requires the development of S skills for use in the service of N inspirations."


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> First, I agree with Isabel Myers that N and S involve "Gifts Differing" and it's a mistake to view either side as "better" than the other in any kind of overall sense.
> 
> That said, I disagree with what seems to be your suggestion that, if an activity _involves the senses_ (and that would be _most activities_, right?), then it's an activity where S's have the advantage — or, at least, it can't be an activity where N's have the advantage. Is that really your view?
> 
> The second edition of the MBTI Manual discussed a study of 114 professional fine artists that turned out to be _91% N_. As the Manual explained: "Because true creativity in the arts requires highly differentiated use of tools and materials, one might expect artists to prefer sensing perception rather than intuition. Empirically, N types outnumber S types in art students and among artists. The theoretical explanation is that the insights and inspirations provided by intuition are more important, but true artistic skill requires the development of S skills for use in the service of N inspirations."


I'm not humoring you until you give me your list.
it has to come from YOU and not a link to something.
2 posts now. Further proving my point


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> I'm not humoring you until you give me your list.
> it has to come from YOU and not a link to something.
> 2 posts now. Further proving my point


I'm not looking to be humored, nor am I interested in humoring you.

I already pointed you to a multi-occupation list of jobs that I'd tend to assume, based on those statistics, an _average_ S would be better at than an _average_ N. And I did that notwithstanding the fact that, as I said, that has _absolutely nothing to do_ with whether N's or S's, on average, are likely to be more interested in music.

I'm not the derailer here.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'm not looking to be humored, nor am I interested in humoring you.
> 
> I already pointed you to a multi-occupation list of jobs that I'd tend to assume, based on those statistics, an _average_ S would be better at than an _average_ N. And I did that notwithstanding the fact that, as I said, that has _absolutely nothing to do_ with whether N's or S's, on average, are likely to be more interested in music.
> 
> I'm not the derailer here.


You lose.


Your opinions and viewpoints are trash and you can't even support yourself.
Go home.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> I was just thinking about Si, and it would make sense that SJ's would be more likely to be huge music listeners/art appreciators/etc. than other types.


Why would you think this makes sense?



> Would you say that's true?



Not in the least. Appreciating music and the arts takes more than just senses.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> As further described in this post, the statistics in the MBTI Manual show pretty strong correlations between artistic/aesthetic interests and an N preference. And that's consistent with Jung's take on things, since Jung associated an artistic bent with both N and F.
> 
> And, as also discussed in that linked post, it's widely accepted (and I agree) that the Big Five Openness to Experience factor is essentially tapping into the same underlying human temperament dimension as MBTI S/N, and being high on Openness (the Big Five equivalent of an N preference) is associated with aesthetic interests of all kinds — in both the verbal and non-verbal arts.
> 
> ...


Can you cite where Jung associated artistic persuasion with N? (I can see where he associated it with F). He mentioned it in his descriptions of Ni and stated that Si types are not often artists (though apparently often enough so that he was able to recognize patterns in it to help explain Si). However, I don't see where he got more explicit than that. Did he ever state that Se types were not artistically inclined? Or that Ne types were? 

For example, something to contradict his thought that a (implicitly meaning a dominant) Se type would often be a 'refined aesthete'. That doesn't mean they'd be an artist, but it does seem he is correlating art with Feeling, but also fairly well with Ni and Se. Si is seen as certain capable of it, but more rarely so... and he makes no mention of Ne itself being so inclined, nor does he make any artistic association with Ne at all... at odds with his description of Se. Artistic tendencies are at no point in his description mentioned as common or typical traits of a (dominant) Ne. He cites what he thinks an Ne might incline themselves to, and art is mentioned nowhere. 

Wouldn't it then be much more sensible to surmise that an FiSeNiTe would be fundamentally more inclined to art than an FiNeSiTe? Jung's function ordering would not really affect this consideration, I don't think.

I recognize that I sometimes overlook things, so, yes, please show me where Jung associated art with N. 



----

To the OP. No, I don't think so.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> (3) If you say "detailed boring tasks," you lose.


Why would it be a "lose" to say that S's are better than N's at "detailed boring tasks"?

In what way does saying that N's tend to have a greater appreciation for music imply that N's are better than S's?

Ultimately, a society could function just fine without people who make/appreciate music. It couldn't very well function, however, without people doing those "detailed boring tasks" that SJs tend to do and the rest of us manage to avoid.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Can you cite where Jung associated artistic persuasion with N? (I can see where he associated it with F). He mentioned it in his descriptions of Ni and stated that Si types are not often artists (though apparently often enough so that he was able to recognize patterns in it to help explain Si).


What Jung said about Si-doms was that their "conception of reality" was so "illusory" and "irrational" that their best hope for giving the rest of the world a decent glimpse of it was through art — but Jung also said that Si-dom artists were "the exception," with the result that the typical Si-dom "resigns himself to his isolation."

By contrast, Jung said "the artist might be regarded as the normal representative" of the Ni-dom.

In typing Nietzsche, Jung said that he "must surely be reckoned an intuitive with leanings toward introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive-artistic manner of production."

In his definition of Fantasy, Jung noted that "_Active_ fantasies are the product of _intuition_" and also that "active fantasy is the chief mark of the artistic mentality."

And, as I also noted (and you acknowledged), Jung also associated art and feeling. In his description of a Te-dom, he said that "all those activities that are dependent on feeling will become repressed in such a type — for instance, *aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense*, cultivation of friends, etc." And in his discussion of the auxiliary function, Jung explained: "Besides the ... primary function there is [an] ... auxiliary function, ... [and the] resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, ... *artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values*, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on." So you might say Jung, to some extent, associated NFs with art.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> Why would it be a "lose" to say that S's are better than N's at "detailed boring tasks"?
> 
> In what way does saying that N's tend to have a greater appreciation for music imply that N's are better than S's?
> 
> Ultimately, a society could function just fine without people who make/appreciate music. It couldn't very well function, however, without people doing those "detailed boring tasks" that SJs tend to do and the rest of us manage to avoid.


Not surprising to see this comment from someone who identifies as an N.
It's easy to label one function as "inferior" if that function isn't the one you use.... _"Those tasks the rest of us tend to avoid"_ 
Oh please. Could you get any more condescending?



And that's the thing. 
I said SJ's would appreciate music more than other types because of Si... (which is actually what many socionics descriptions say about SEI's - Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion
_"The aesthetic connoisseur who demonstrates incredible taste in art, in cuisine, or in fashion and lives for aesthetic pleasure."_

But the moment I attributed any quality to SJ's other than "detail-oriented mindless task fulfillers" there is a full-on shitshow on the forums full of people rushing to say "_NO! SJ'S AREN'T ARTISTIC AT ALL! THEY CAN'T APPRECIATE ART! THAT IS N TERRITORY!" _



It's really pathetic, actually.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> .


and let's not forget that, on an objective level, it's widely accepted that INFP is theoretically (i.e. has the potential to be) the most close-minded type (no offense INFP's D: ), so your "Big-5" thing correlating "openness" to N is ridiculous


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> and let's not forget that, on an objective level, it's widely accepted that INFP is theoretically (i.e. has the potential to be) the most close-minded type


If it's "widely accepted," I'm sure you'll be able to cite me some good sources.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> If it's "widely accepted," I'm sure you'll be able to cite me some good sources.



Go into the INFP forums and try to convince someone to change their mind on an issue.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Go into the INFP forums and try to convince someone to change their mind on an issue.


OK, I admit it. I lied. I wasn't really "sure you'll be able to cite me some good sources." :tongue:

How about the characters in _Rent_, which you just recently pointed me to as a good MBTI data source... Are any of them a good example of INFP closed-mindedness, in your considered opinion?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> OK, I admit it. I lied. I wasn't really "sure you'll be able to cite me some good sources." :tongue:


There are no "studies" done measuring _"what type is the most close-minded?"_... why would there be? Just use your common sense. 
If that's not sufficient do a few quick searches.



reckful said:


> How about the characters in _Rent_, which you just recently pointed me to as a good MBTI data source... Are any of them a good example of INFP closed-mindedness, in your considered opinion?


There aren't any INFP's in RENT... iirc


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Not surprising to see this comment from someone who identifies as an N.


Now who's exhibiting typism?



> It's easy to label one function as "inferior" if that function isn't the one you use.... _"Those tasks the rest of us tend to avoid"_
> Oh please. Could you get any more condescending?


Where did I say any function was "inferior"?

Having the willingness and patience to spend long periods of time focusing on tasks that others would consider too boring is astrength, is it not?



> And that's the thing.
> I said SJ's would appreciate music more than other types because of Si... (which is actually what many socionics descriptions say about SEI's - Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion
> _"The aesthetic connoisseur who demonstrates incredible taste in art, in cuisine, or in fashion and lives for aesthetic pleasure."_


and let's not forget that, on an objective level, it's widely accepted that Si-dom is theoretically (i.e. has the potential to be) the least aesthetic type (no offense Si-doms D: ), so your "socionics" thing correlating "Sei" to Si is ridiculous 



> But the moment I attributed any quality to SJ's other than "detail-oriented mindless task fulfillers" there is a full-on shitshow on the forums full of people rushing to say "_NO! SJ'S AREN'T ARTISTIC AT ALL! THEY CAN'T APPRECIATE ART! THAT IS N TERRITORY!" _


Who said that SJs are "mindless" or "aren't artistic at all"?



> It's really pathetic, actually.


Unlike your straw men.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> Now who's exhibiting typism?


Still you.
To clarify for you. it's not surprising to see an N check off the bullets on my list of things I posted a few pages back... because as a non-S it must be easy for you to bash on them.




Octavarium said:


> Where did I say any function was "inferior"?


_"[...] people doing those "detailed boring tasks" that SJs tend to do and the rest of us manage to avoid."_
Implies you think *the rest of us* are somehow "smart enough" to "avoid" these tasks whereas SJ's aren't 



Octavarium said:


> Having the willingness and patience to spend long periods of time focusing on tasks that others would consider too boring is astrength, is it not?


(A) Check my list
(B) People aren't robots 
(C) You are basing your arguments on stereotypes.





Octavarium said:


> and let's not forget that, on an objective level, it's widely accepted that Si-dom is theoretically (i.e. has the potential to be) the least aesthetic type (no offense Si-doms D: ), so your "socionics" thing correlating "Sei" to Si is ridiculous


Except that Si, almost by definition, correlates to "affinity for aesthetic appeal," and all of the xSFJ descriptions talk about how SFJ's would make good designers/decorators... even the bad/stereotyped ones.
It IS commonly stated that INFP's are close-minded - even by INFP's themselves.
And SEI is literally "ISFJ" so... 
I don't know whether or not you're actually stupid or just being forcefully dense.





Octavarium said:


> Who said that SJs are "mindless" or "aren't artistic at all"?


Not necessarily in this thread, but it's an attitude prevalent all around the forums... 

Add that to the fact that me merely suggesting that SJ's may have artistic affinity caused such outrage on the forums... LOL.


----------



## Amandine (May 11, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> and let's not forget that, on an objective level, it's widely accepted that Si-dom is theoretically (i.e. has the potential to be) the least aesthetic type (no offense Si-doms D: )


What about Si makes it widely accepted as the least aesthetic type? 
It sounds more like widely misunderstood to me. 

Aesthetics certainly seems to be in the sensory ballpark.

Even if it may turn out to be rare to see an Si-dom artist, that by no means proves they are any less capable of pursuing that field and being as or even more successful at it than any other dominant function type in any way. Si is not an aesthetic disability or handicap. It can actually be used to their advantage.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> _"[...] people doing those "detailed boring tasks" that SJs tend to do and the rest of us manage to avoid."_
> Implies you think *the rest of us* are somehow "smart enough" to "avoid" these tasks whereas SJ's aren't


Where did I say that the reason why the other temperaments manage to avoid "detailed boring tasks" is that they're "smart enough" to do so? There are lots of reasons why people avoid that kind of work, not all of which reflect well on them.

Anyway, if you still want to know what S's tend to be better at than N's, have a look at this CAPT career page.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

> But the moment I attributed any quality to SJ's other than "detail-oriented mindless task fulfillers" there is a full-on shitshow on the forums full of people rushing to say "NO! SJ'S AREN'T ARTISTIC AT ALL! THEY CAN'T APPRECIATE ART! THAT IS N TERRITORY!"


Who said that? Two different ways of going about things, but they can come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Amandine said:


> What about Si makes it widely accepted as the least aesthetic type?
> It sounds more like widely misunderstood to me.


I was just making a point based on UglierBetty's post (post 24, about INFPs) which was that correlating MBTI to the big five is no more "ridiculous" than correlating it to socionics. And I agree with you that, even if SJs are rare in the arts, that doesn't mean any particular SJ couldn't be successful at it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Except that *Si literally translates to "affinity for aesthetic appeal" in all of the xSFJ descriptions... even the bad/stereotyped ones.*
> It IS commonly stated that INFP's are close-minded - even by INFP's themselves.
> And SEI is literally "ISFJ" so...
> *I don't know whether or not you're actually stupid or just being forcefully dense.*


Here's the round-up of online ISFJ profiles I point type-me subjects to:

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

None of the big-name ISFJ profiles (including the very function-centric Berens and Nardi) include a _single mention_ of aesthetics or the arts.

_Not one_.

personalitypage is the only website on that list that's an exception. In their ISFJ portrait, they say:



personalitypage said:


> The ISFJ has an extremely well-developed sense of space, function, and aesthetic appeal. For that reason, they're likely to have beautifully furnished, functional homes. They make extremely good interior decorators. This special ability, combined with their sensitivity to other's feelings and desires, makes them very likely to be great gift-givers - finding the right gift which will be truly appreciated by the recipient.


And on personalitypage's ISFJ Careers page, they say:



personalitypage said:


> Their excellent sense of space and function combined with their awareness of aesthetic quality also gives them quite special abilities in the more practical artistic endeavors, such as interior decorating and clothes design.


But there's _no mention_ of aesthetics in the creative-arts sense that includes music (the subject of this thread). And their list of "possible career paths for the ISFJ" doesn't include _any_ creative-arts professions.

And again, personalitypage is the only one that mentions _any_ kind of aesthetics in connection with ISFJs.

When you told Octavarium that "Si literally translates to 'affinity for aesthetic appeal' in all of the xSFJ descriptions... even the bad/stereotyped ones," and asked her — in your characteristically charming way — whether she was "actually stupid or just being forcefully dense" for posting to the contrary, did you really not know that your statement was pretty much a steaming pile of horseshit or did you leave your integrity in your other pants?


----------



## Amandine (May 11, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> I was just making a point based on UglierBetty's post (post 24, about INFPs) which was that correlating MBTI to the big five is no more "ridiculous" than correlating it to socionics. And I agree with you that, even if SJs are rare in the arts, that doesn't mean any particular SJ couldn't be successful at it.


I know, and you mentioned that it's widely accepted that Si is theoretically the least aesthetic type. I'm just wondering what it is about Si that makes it generally be seen as less aesthetically inclined than any other function.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> And that's the thing.
> I said SJ's would appreciate music more than other types because of Si... (which is actually what many socionics descriptions say about SEI's - Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion
> _"The aesthetic connoisseur who demonstrates incredible taste in art, in cuisine, or in fashion and lives for aesthetic pleasure."_
> 
> ...


There's a difference between the statements "SJs are not necessarily most inclined towards aesthetic pursuits" and "SJs are incapable of being artistic and having interests in aesthetic pursuits". You seem adamant about your interpretation that we are championing the second statement, I think, in order to reinforce your belief that there is a raging barrage of typism going on against SJs which is understandable but highly exaggerated in this case. Essentially, if we say that something is not exclusive to a group, you're accusing us of degrading the importance of that group. In an ironic case, you exhibit another case of typism because you're indirectly opposing the idea that other types than SJs can also be as into aesthetics as they are instead of accepting the possibility that such a tendency is independent of cognitive functions in the sense that different types might be into aesthetics for different reasons, and not that different types will have different and predetermined levels of interest in aesthetics.
Incidentally, INJs are often identified as having more refined aesthetic tastes and interests in comparison to some other type (almost always INPs) because of inferior Se. Not implying anything (I might not even take credence to it), just putting it out there for you to absorb. Basically, music is universally appreciated but for different reasons.
I appreciate your initiative, but sometimes it can get far too emphatic, in the negative sense.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

*Recipe for a stoopid thread:*


Post an OP that makes an assertion about SJs that's contrary to Jung, Myers, Keirsey and the leading function-centric theorists and has no respectable data support you can point to.
Accuse N's who disagree with you of believing that S's are inferior at everything.
_Bonus stoopid_: Challenge one or more N posters to tell you when they stopped beating their wives name five things S's can beat N's at.
_Extra bonus stoopid_: Ask an N poster who disagrees with you if they're "actually stupid or just being forcefully dense."
_Double extra bonus stoopid_: Cite your own typings of the characters in a Broadway musical in support of your embattled thesis.


----------



## ENTPenis (Feb 2, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> I was just thinking about Si, and it would make sense that SJ's would be more likely to be huge music listeners/art appreciators/etc. than other types.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that's true?


Every post I've seen from you is comically ignorant 

Anyway, you're wrong, Fe people like music the most because when they jump up and down at a concert, they are abiding by the social norms in the room and feeling harmonious!!!!


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

I only know one SJ in RL and she is extended family, so I don't know much about her level of music appreciation. I have a hard time imagining that anyone wouldn't get the greatest possible enjoyment out of music to the point where they'd almost rather die than go deaf, but obviously, they exist and I even know a few. The one of these whose type I know is an ENFJ. 

As for myself, I can't even begin to put into words the importance that music has in my life. As a child, the only thing I needed to entertain myself was music. I could just sit on my floor in the middle of my room and listen to music all day. I'd have given up every single toy I owned if only to keep my old walkman that I had back in the day. But I am not an SJ (Im INTJ). Maybe I'm a strange anomoly or maybe the Si folks out there really do have a special appreciation that I can't even begin to fathom (in which case, I would be extremely jealous). I'm thinking its more likely that there is some other cognitive function unrelated to the M-B types that relates to music, but I am hardly the one to make any educated assertions like that, so...


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Pot calling the kettle black. Except that in this case, the pot is becoming blacker and the blackness of the kettle is only apparent in the eyes of the pot.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Do SJs (why are we mainly talking Si doms btw? What about Te and Fe doms? ESTJs and ESFJs are also SJs) enjoy and appreciate music?
Yes.

Do they enjoy it *more* than other types?
I doubt it.

Reasons for my opinion:
_Everyone_ can listen to and enjoy music. Working as a musician, on the other hand, requires a certain skill-set, and whether you possess that has mainly to do with your wish to develop those skills. In theory, every type can do that, enough interest and basic talent provided.

I work with musicians and performers every day, and I don't meet *more* SJs than other temperaments. I know all sorts of musicians, and the most common trait seems to be some sort of feeling preference on the judgment plane. I'd say the only group really underrepresented are Te doms (even more than Ti - I know quite a few Ti/Se performers), but I also know Te musicians. 

That's just anecdotal evidence though, despite probably knowing more professional performers and musicians than Joe Average. 

MBTI funded stats, I'm not particularly interested in because MBTI is too far removed from Jung for me these days (that's just my personal view, whatever floats people's boats). If you talk MBTI, you might still want to look into those though. If you mention "SJs" however, you mainly talk about Keirsey anyway...


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> Pot calling the kettle black. Except that in this case, the pot is becoming blacker and the blackness of the kettle is only apparent in the eyes of the pot.



One simple question - "list me 5 things" - can cause so much trauma.... 
Why is it so hard for people to answer that?


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> One simple question - "list me 5 things" - can cause so much trauma....
> Why is it so hard for people to answer that?


I don't understand why you're fixated over that particular activity. What would it even accomplish? It's not hard. It's pointless.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> Is it really so unreasonable to assume that the biggest reason why certain careers tend to be more appealing to sensors than intuitives is that sensors tend to be better at the skills, and are more likely to have the positive traits, that are required in those jobs?


so you're not really answering my question at all.


You guys had no trouble saying, "N's appreciate music more than S's" yet now you're beating around the bush.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Amandine said:


> I'm good at recognizing melodies and play music on the piano mostly by ear rather than note.
> 
> If a friend asks "what's that song that goes like ____?" I can usually remember it, but not always.


That's interesting actually. I've been playing piano for years and I can play them on the piano by ear, but it's almost always in the wrong key than the original song and I have difficulty detecting this difference. Regarding pin pointing where a specific song came from, this generally takes me much longer usually. Maybe this is just me sucking and has nothing to do with types though? 

Whether this is related to cognitive functions though, I can see it as a possibility. I don't know enough about this though. Perhaps it may also be memory related in general.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> I don't understand why you're fixated over that particular activity. What would it even accomplish?



It's a simple exercise to determine whether the individual responding to me is exhibiting typism bias.
If they are exhibiting typism bias, then their comments hold less ground.

Simple concept. 
Yet everyone is freaking the fuck out about it for some reason.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> It's a simple exercise to determine whether the individual responding to me is exhibiting typism bias.
> If they are exhibiting typism bias, then their comments hold less ground.
> 
> Simple concept.
> Yet everyone is freaking the fuck out about it for some reason.


You do realize that the very act is indicative of typism?

What if I asked you to list five ways where 'Sensors' are superior to 'Intuitives'? There is no superior personality type.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> so you're not really answering my question at all.
> 
> 
> You guys had no trouble saying, "N's appreciate music more than N's" yet now you're beating around the bush.


How am I beating around the bush? If you ask for a list of five things that S's tend to be better at than N's, and my list includes, for example, S's tend to be better nurses, how is that not answering your question?


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

You're battling stereotypes by promoting or establishing more stereotypes. The only difference being that you want to reverse the positions.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> You do realize that the very act is indicative of typism?
> 
> What if I asked you to list five ways where 'Sensors' are superior to 'Intuitives'? There is no superior personality type.


-.- 
Do I need to get a fucking pen and draw a diagram for people to understand this?


I want to know whether or not the person I am talking to is biased toward N-types. 
If they are biased towards N-types, they will have trouble with my list.


How is that even remotely typism? wtf...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

O_o said:


> That's interesting actually. I've been playing piano for years and I can play them on the piano by ear, but it's almost always in the wrong key than the original song and I have difficulty detecting this difference.


People who know when something's being played in a different key are people with what's called "perfect pitch," and it's quite rare, as I understand it. (1 in 10,000, according to Wikipedia.) I can play tunes by ear (pretty common), but never have any idea if I'm in the original key or not.


----------



## Amandine (May 11, 2014)

O_o said:


> That's interesting actually. I've been playing piano for years and I can play them on the piano by ear, but it's almost always in the wrong key than the original song and I have difficulty detecting this difference. Regarding pin pointing where a specific song came from, this generally takes me much longer usually. Maybe this is just me sucking and has nothing to do with types though?
> 
> Whether this is related to cognitive functions though, I can see it as a possibility. I don't know enough about this though


I've been told by others that I have a good ear. It's pretty easy for me to find the right key from remembering something I've heard before. Though of course the more you play, the more you will be better at it.

I also don't know enough to say for sure, but I can picture my Si could certainly play a part in it.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

MBTI and Jung nazis, your jungle is where i piss on.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> How am I beating around the bush? If you ask for a list of five things that S's tend to be better at than N's, and my list includes, for example, S's tend to be better nurses, how is that not answering your question?


okay we'll just have to agree to disagree
I'm not mad at you anymore


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> People who know when something's being played in a different key are people with what's called "perfect pitch," and it's quite rare, as I understand it. (1 in 10,000, according to Wikipedia.) I can play tunes by ear (pretty common), but never have any idea if I'm in the original key or not.


1 in 10,000, that's pretty incredible. I'm going to look into this more, never really thought of doing it before


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

There's a whole branch of neuroscience that looks into tonal cognition, pitch perception and the auditory cortex, emotional processing, nature vs nurture, brain functions of professional musicians etc etc.

That branch doesn't particularly care about MBTI (which is somewhat fringe in most areas of Psychology - even Jung's Psychological Types are). It's an interesting concept, but it doth not a musician make


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> People who know when something's being played in a different key are people with what's called "perfect pitch," and it's quite rare, as I understand it. (1 in 10,000, according to Wikipedia.) I can play tunes by ear (pretty common), but never have any idea if I'm in the original key or not.


Yea, some lucky people are born with perfect pitch, but you can develop it with practice as well.



Si-users are good at this because they keep a detailed sensory map, so they can "store" each note and associate with something, thus with practice developing a really good ear (not necessary PERFECT pitch though)


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> -.-
> Do I need to get a fucking pen and draw a diagram for people to understand this?
> 
> 
> ...


Because by making that list, we are accepting the idea that 'Intuitive' and 'Sensor' are extant labels, and reinforcing stereotypes. There is nothing exclusive to these so-called Intuitives and Sensors. It's like asking someone to compare ethnicity. What the hell does bias towards N-types even imply? What in the world is 'N' supposed to imply? The logic behind your request is indescribably ridiculous and that's why people choose to ignore it. There are many things in this world that are independent of cognitive functions or the like. Music is one of them. Cognitive functions only affect how we approach music, and even that can be disputed. You just implied that Si users have the potential to have excellent ears because they have Si. That's absurd. What's next? There is a cognitive function responsible for us having the capacity to speak? Maybe deafness or dumbness is because of lack of development of a cognitive function, right?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

UglierBetty said:


> Si-users are good at this because they keep a detailed sensory map, so they can "store" each note and associate with something, thus with practice developing a really good ear (not necessary PERFECT pitch though)


This is an interesting point. I can see such a thing making it easier, that subjective sensory storage etc. 
But at the same time, I wonder how much of it is just memory related?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> Because by making that list, we are accepting the idea that 'Intuitive' and 'Sensor' are extant labels, and reinforcing stereotypes. There is nothing exclusive to these so-called Intuitives and Sensors. It's like asking someone to compare ethnicity. What the hell does bias towards N-types even imply? What in the world is 'N' supposed to imply?


Why study MBTI at all if all types are the same? ...and I started asking that question AFTER people started listing ways in which N's were "better at"/"more prone to" art appreciation than S's. 

"Bias towards N" means that the individual has a misunderstanding of MBTI and secretly (or not secretly) views N as somehow "better" than S. Thus all their arguments will favor N over S in a non-objective way. 
(Aside from the obvious implicit evidence, there is EXPLICIT proof of this right in this thread... an exact quotation that validates everything I am saying right now). 



Okay let's just ignore the heritage and culture of a specific group of people and assimilate them to being "all the same." What is the same? Who decides what that is? "I see no difference in race" is actually a really racist thing to say because you are erasing someone's identity.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Yea, some lucky people are born with perfect pitch, but you can develop it with practice as well.


Here's what Wikipedia says:



> Those with absolute pitch may train their relative pitch, but there are no reported cases of an adult obtaining absolute pitch ability through musical training; adults who possess relative pitch, but who do not already have absolute pitch, can learn "pseudo-absolute pitch", and become able to identify notes in a way that superficially resembles absolute pitch. Moreover, training pseudo-absolute pitch requires considerable motivation, time, and effort, and learning is not retained without constant practice and reinforcement.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

O_o said:


> This is an interesting point. I can see such a thing making it easier, that subjective sensory storage etc.
> But at the same time, I wonder how much of it is just memory related?


Yea, I wonder that too.
I saw that point made in an article/YouTube video or something and found it interesting. 



(Btw this is the kind of discussion I was gunning towards in the OP, but people hate to imagine SJ's being good at anything other than mindless detailed tasks)


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> Here's what Wikipedia says:



_"(not necessary PERFECT pitch though)"_

thanks for repeating what I just said


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

UglierBetty said:


> Why study MBTI at all if all types are the same? ...and I started asking that question AFTER people started listing ways in which N's were "better at"/"more prone to" art appreciation than S's.
> 
> "Bias towards N" means that the individual has a misunderstanding of MBTI and secretly (or not secretly) views N as somehow "better" than S. Thus all their arguments will favor N over S in a non-objective way.
> (Aside from the obvious implicit evidence, there is EXPLICIT proof of this right in this thread... an exact quotation that validates everything I am saying right now).
> ...


I never implied that all types are the same either. I don't want to fall into your "Pretentious Intuitive" trap but I think you're seriously taking all of this too literally, and in black-and-white terms. It's obvious. If someone disagrees with you, he's wrong. That's the type of mindset I discern in your posts.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> _"(not necessary PERFECT pitch though)"_
> 
> thanks for repeating what I just said


As anyone can see by reading our previous three (short) posts, you said that someone can develop "perfect pitch" with practice, while Wikipedia says that there "are no reported cases of an adult obtaining absolute pitch ability through musical training," and that the "pseudo-absolute pitch" that _can_ be developed through training only "superficially resembles absolute pitch."

Not a big deal; just another shining example of your lack of integrity and your disrespect for your fellow posters.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> I never implied that all types are the same either.


Then why challenge me for asking people to point out differences?



ScarrDragon said:


> I don't want to fall into your "Pretentious Intuitive" trap


Pretentious person=/=intuitive.
Jesus Christ people on here are dense.
Try to keep up.




ScarrDragon said:


> but I think you're seriously taking all of this too literally,


By asking for a list? Okay. 
#Buzzwords




ScarrDragon said:


> and in black-and-white terms.


Stop talking out of your ass.
>I asked one question.
>It's been like 10 pages now
>STILL nobody has answered me (except for that one that was a cop-out) 

what is the big deal?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> As anyone can see by reading our previous three (short) posts, you said that someone can develop "perfect pitch" with practice, while Wikipedia says that there "are no reported cases of an adult obtaining absolute pitch ability through musical training," and that the "pseudo-absolute pitch" that _can_ be developed through training only "superficially resembles absolute pitch."
> 
> Not a big deal; just another shining example of your lack of integrity and your disrespect for your fellow posters.


I was talking to people who, apparently, weren't familiar with perfect pitch.
I'm not going to go on a long rambly post about the distinction.
(And I did CLEARLY state in my post that it's not actually "perfect" pitch if you have to develop it. Can you not read?)


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

UglierBetty said:


> Yea, I wonder that too.
> I saw that point made in an article/YouTube video or something and found it interesting.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, so I just found this 

"*While the Si function does operate in a similiar manner to memory, it’s not the same kind of memory people often associate. It’s a “sensational” memory, meaning that it is memory that is notrational oridentifiable. It is a memory one “feels” out as opposed to the standard definition of memory in that we can easily recollect and explain them."
*
So regarding music, one would think that maybe they would be more keen to noticing when something feels off. It's wouldn't necessarily be memory, rather the typical memory as we know would be irrelevant. Rather Si doms may be able to recognize better than others when something is off, almost as a hunch, or even if someone else is playing it. At least what I think based on some things I just read about Si.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

ScarrDragon said:


> It's obvious. If someone disagrees with you, he's wrong. That's the type of mindset I discern in your posts.


Truthfully all I want now is for someone to post the list. 
It's hilarious that nobody has yet.



This has nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong"


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> (And I did CLEARLY state in my post that it's not actually "perfect" pitch if you have to develop it. Can you not read?)


You stated that in your _second_ post, which was the one in which you snidely asserted that my Wikipedia quote had just "repeated" what you'd already said in your first post.

So your latest post is another dishonest one we can all add to our collections.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> You stated that in your _second_ post, which was the one in which you snidely asserted that my Wikipedia quote had just "repeated" what you'd already said in your first post.
> 
> So your latest post is another dishonest one we can all add to our collections.


lol go back and read it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> lol go back and read it.


For the latecomers, the recap's in the spoiler:


* *






UglierBetty said:


> Yea, *some lucky people are born with perfect pitch, but you can develop it with practice* as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Si-users are good at this because they keep a detailed sensory map, so they can "store" each note and associate with something, thus with practice developing a really good ear (not necessary PERFECT pitch though)





reckful said:


> Here's what Wikipedia says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





UglierBetty said:


> _"(*not necessary PERFECT pitch though*)"_
> 
> thanks for repeating what I just said





reckful said:


> As anyone can see by reading our previous three (short) posts, you said that someone can develop "perfect pitch" with practice, while Wikipedia says that there "are no reported cases of an adult obtaining absolute pitch ability through musical training," and that the "pseudo-absolute pitch" that _can_ be developed through training only "superficially resembles absolute pitch."
> 
> Not a big deal; just another shining example of your lack of integrity and your disrespect for your fellow posters.





UglierBetty said:


> I was talking to people who, apparently, weren't familiar with perfect pitch.
> I'm not going to go on a long rambly post about the distinction.
> (And *I did CLEARLY state in my post that it's not actually "perfect" pitch if you have to develop it. Can you not read?*)





reckful said:


> You stated that in your _second_ post, which was the one in which you snidely asserted that my Wikipedia quote had just "repeated" what you'd already said in your first post.
> 
> So your latest post is another dishonest one we can all add to our collections.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Mmm ....I know or rather KNEW an ISTJ who had very good taste in music, but he was very very very picky about it. Musical people are musical, but Si would make it more deep and narrow, if you understand. 

I on the other hand have extremely eclectic taste in music, but I am just as musical or more musical than the ISTJ. He had this gift for finding certain kinds of songs, or the perfect song to fit me, or whatever he wanted to express to me. I don't have that gift, but I sing and dance and even tried several musical instruments, the piano being the only one that stuck, and I listen to Baroque pop, 80s New Wave, classical, jazz, electronic, guitar rock, rap, country and hipster music. I also can tell you what year a song came out in the 80s and who sings it.

But I don't have the exquisite sensitivity to nuance that he had, he only had it through Si+Fi, and much more limited taste, he would dig down into a particular couple of genres of music.

My ESFJ ex was similar with film, though because of tertiary Ne his film taste started to broaden with age, but he was like...the horror master. Im talking world cinema, obscure, catalog order only, banned black market horror.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> For the latecomers, the recap's in the spoiler:




Don't misquote me to make yourself look "right"


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Don't misquote me to make yourself look "right"


I just compared your posts to what reckful says you wrote, and I didn't notice any misquoting. Care to point it out?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ Ah, I think I see what he may be referring to:



UglierBetty said:


> Yea, some lucky people are born with perfect pitch, but you can develop it with practice as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *Si-users are good at this because they keep a detailed sensory map, so they can "store" each note and associate with something, thus with practice developing a really good ear (not necessary PERFECT pitch though)*


To me, though, saying that the particular Si-user technique described at the end would be "not necessary PERFECT pitch though" wasn't saying (with any kind of clarity anyway) that there was no ability _by any technique_ to develop perfect pitch by "practice," which is what his first sentence had (more clearly) said you could do ("you can develop it with practice").

In any case, my Wikipedia quote certainly didn't just "repeat" what UglierBetty had already said.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> *Recipe for upsetting idiots on the forums:*
> (1) Claim SJ's might be good at something.
> ...
> oh is that it? Yep. That's all it takes.
> ...


It seems clear to me that all you've been doing in this thread is baiting anyone who disagrees with your premise.

As an ENTP happily married to an ISTJ, I can say we approach things from a very different perspective, but we have no problems articulating our appreciation for the arts in our own way. My wife and I happen to have very similar tastes in music.

What is so wrong with the notion that types can have very different kinds of appreciation for music, neither being "superior" to the other in any way? 

Why this attitude that assumes intuitives believe they're somehow better than sensors?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

O_o said:


> Yeah, so I just found this
> 
> "*While the Si function does operate in a similiar manner to memory, it’s not the same kind of memory people often associate. It’s a “sensational” memory, meaning that it is memory that is notrational oridentifiable. It is a memory one “feels” out as opposed to the standard definition of memory in that we can easily recollect and explain them."
> *
> So regarding music, one would think that maybe they would be more keen to noticing when something feels off. It's wouldn't necessarily be memory, rather the typical memory as we know would be irrelevant. Rather Si doms may be able to recognize better than others when something is off, almost as a hunch, or even if someone else is playing it. At least what I think based on some things I just read about Si.


Yes. The problem with SJs is that there are so many, so they get stereotypes of all being average and overly concerned with tile grout. And I will say, ESFJ liked his movies alphabetically, ISTJ said there was clean then HIS CLEAN, and another ESFJwho used be my friend loved to clean, man, she was li ddon't yyou love doidoing stuff like this, and I am all like....no.

But the ones who focus their intelligence into aesthetic of some kind, whether it be wine, art, music, film or architecture, they have a wonderful depth and intensity that will make them weed out everything except what they think is the best, and will know that thing inside and out.

My ESFJ ex used to yammer away details about Italia directors like there was going to be a test. Sometimes I had to tune him out.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

fourtines said:


> Yes. The problem with SJs is that there are so many, so they get stereotypes of all being average and overly concerned with tile grout. And I will say, ESFJ liked his movies alphabetically, ISTJ said there was clean then HIS CLEAN, and another ESFJwho used be my friend loved to clean, man, she was li ddon't yyou love doidoing stuff like this, and I am all like....no.
> 
> But the ones who focus their intelligence into aesthetic of some kind, whether it be wine, art, music, film or architecture, they have a wonderful depth and intensity that will make them weed out everything except what they think is the best, and will know that thing inside and out.
> 
> My ESFJ ex used to yammer away details about Italia directors like there was going to be a test. Sometimes I had to tune him out.


Careful, people might start attacking you soon for that opinion.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> As you know, a great deal of the "arguing" in those 16 pages was "arguing" with your repeated and offensive assertions that anyone who disagreed with your OP was probably a typist with an anti-S bias.


Too bad it's true... 
You are delusional about this, which is sad to see someone of the Generation X age. 



reckful said:


> I suspect you could have pointed to any type in your OP and, if you'd had the same kind of reaction to anyone who disagreed with you, you would have faced similar arguments against your unfounded charges.


Where is your Te argument now?
#poser



reckful said:


> I'l grant you, though, that there probably would have been _fewer people for you to argue with_ if the type you'd chosen to point to was a type that was more widely viewed — based on, you know, MBTI theorists and studies and stuff — as tending to have a stronger-than-average interest in music.


So out of touch with the internet it's sad.
You don't link to your own posts as "proof" in a forum debate.



reckful said:


> But, alas for you (and the targets of your misdirected indignation), you chose the SJs.


Heaven forbid I say anything good about them, right?


----------



## pianodog (Jan 25, 2013)

I'm aware that certain types would be more emotionally affected by music than others but my point was that EVERY type can love making music in different ways. I'm dominant Ne so my manner of experiencing music is interpreting lyrics, understanding song structure, and other things I can't put into words exactly.

I mean, I wrote this, and Si is the inferior in my stack. 
https://soundcloud.com/pianofreak96/album-preview-song-dont-trip-on-the-broken-glass
Not to mention I drew my avatar picture too.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> You don't link to your own posts as "proof" in a forum debate.


But I do! Assuming they contain "proof," that is.

What you do is up to you.


----------



## pianodog (Jan 25, 2013)

How about we change the discussion to "How do different types experience music?" But I already had a post for that before :/


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

pianodog said:


> How about we change the discussion to "How do different types experience music?" But I already had a post for that before :/


That's ultimately what I wanted to get at - (I just had a little fun in mind when I changed the wording, because I had a feeling that claiming SJ's were the best at anything would start a lot of drama.... and it did!  )


I mean, we see people experiencing music differently all the time - from those people who claim "music gets inside of me and makes me feel different things" and others like it for a more intellectual challenge - "what is this piece supposed to make me think?" etc.


I was starting off the discussion in the OP with suggesting Si would be the "music gets inside of me" types (and then those people who post on facebook "I'd die without music in my life"...just because Si types are said to indulge the senses), but then who knows...? 
I don't know my type so I can't really give my experiences as input... but I'm wondering whether different types appreciate it differently and how the experience differs.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> iirc introverted sensing involves a detailed and deep sensory map for people. I was theory-crafting that if Si users have such a deep internal sensory connection, they would indulge in sensory experiences more than other types, thus giving them a good aesthetic taste and appreciation.
> (Obviously everyone can appreciate/enjoy art in different ways - I was wanting to gauge what people thought of my above theory)
> 
> 
> ...


I can sort of agree that saying nice things to SJ in this forum is more of a hassle than compilmenting any other types. It doesn't really matter anyways, because outside the internet, SJ's are the most numerous folks out there. We all live in a world where everything depends on the SJ's.

Deep and detailed sensory map? Mmm... I think you are taking "introverted sensing" too literally here. What you just described should actually belong to the Extroverted Sensing realm. Se is the function which deals with finer aesthetics, tastefulness of different environments, sees the artistic value in things etc.

Introverted Sensing, especially by the socionics definition (which goes more in depth than other descriptions), is actually something different. First, remember this:

Extroverted Sensing / Extroverted Intuition = Experience-based
Introverted Sensing / Introverted Intuition = Lifestyle-based

What does lifestyle-based mean? It means that Si orients around maintaining and perpetuating a certain sense of personal intergrity in terms of lifestyle. Si is largely driven by the need to feel at ease, in control and safe. Si can lash really horribly and powerfully towards anyone who attempts to ruin or endanger the carefully controlled Si-produced tranquility. A lot of this is very similar to Introverted Intuition, except that Ni sets it's focus on achieving long-term goals. People like INTJ's and INFJ's usually never ponder about the questions such as "What's the meaning of life?" since their whole life can be just slow work towards achieving their personal grander goals, or "wanting to live the dream". 

Meanwhile Si's lifestyle revolves about bringing stability and security, and aggressively lashing out on people who attempt to ruin it, the Ni's lifestyle revolves around their personal long-term goals. Their long-term goals can sometimes become so crazy that they can make plans for themselves even for periods like decades. Which means that they can spend their whole lifetimes going for those dreams. 

Basically, yeah. This would be a little lesson from my part. Thanks in advance for bothering to read :tongue:


----------



## BlackShugar (Apr 29, 2014)

Nope. Nope. Not at all. Many of my favorite artists are definitely Ns and there's no legit relation between types and enjoyment. Enjoyment can come in many different flavors and experiences.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I want to say I appreciate music, but I mostly listen to dubstep.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> I can sort of agree that saying nice things to SJ in this forum is more of a hassle than compilmenting any other types. It doesn't really matter anyways, because outside the internet, SJ's are the most numerous folks out there. We all live in a world where everything depends on the SJ's.
> 
> Deep and detailed sensory map? Mmm... I think you are taking "introverted sensing" too literally here. What you just described should actually belong to the Extroverted Sensing realm. Se is the function which deals with finer aesthetics, tastefulness of different environments, sees the artistic value in things etc.
> 
> ...


I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write this civil reply, and keeping things respectable.

But ultimately I think I'm finished with this site...
_"Si just makes people aggressively lash out when things aren't perfect for them."_
in addition to the ongoing "Us vs Them" dialogue on here. 


_Us few are the enlightened ones whereas SJ's are the conformists and the thoughtless crowd - the mindless drones and slaves of society_






(btw not attacking you or anything... just the forum)


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write this civil reply, and keeping things respectable.
> 
> But ultimately I think I'm finished with this site...
> _"Si just makes people aggressively lash out when things aren't perfect for them."_
> ...


So if i want to keep a security in my life, for example by not having a steady girlfriend and looking towards building a strong relationship and a safe future does this means i'm not damn impressive?, does this means, every INTJ/INFJ are little hummingbirds itching from flower to flower and they don't achieve when the time comes a tranquile serior lifestyle?. 
No goddamn, you got it wrong, that's once again a bad example.
*sounds bad boys song*


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write this civil reply, and keeping things respectable.
> 
> But ultimately I think I'm finished with this site...
> _"Si just makes people aggressively lash out when things aren't perfect for them."_
> ...


People who blame SJ's for being conformists are actually jealous, because they would like to be conformists as well, but are too scared or unable to conform. This should not be taken seriously. If you witness typism in this forum, disregard it immediately! Stereotype-enforcing opinions are never valid. 

I'd like to tell you that there are plenty of people who disregard typism, and the few ones that do never gain any good feedback on this. It's about patience :happy:


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write this civil reply, and keeping things respectable.
> 
> But ultimately I think I'm finished with this site...
> _"Si just makes people aggressively lash out when things aren't perfect for them."_
> ...


I'm rather annoyed to see all the hostility as well. In theory at its purest, Si or Ni or any other functions are names for methods we use to process information. Along the way, its real usefulness got mixed up from (incorrect) claims that from functions we could conclude one's values, one's worth, etc., becoming yet another basis for people's insecurity. This system we could potentially be using to learn about how to cognize the world to the best that each individual can and work with other people's strengths, well, failed to be that because of reasons outside its scope. What a waste.

I did learn a lot about Si and music from this thread, both things I'm not very familiar with and that others can explain better. Highly appreciated those.


----------



## Forever Jung (Sep 27, 2011)

I don't get this at all! have always thought of these functions as being on a sliding scale. Unless someone is 100% S or N then they will exhibit behaviors associated with both 'types' - just one more often than the other. 

It's frustrating to see the amount of arguing on the forum over this stuff lately, particularly since MBTI seems to exists (at least partly) to engender an appreciation and understanding of peoples differences and strengths. At least, that is what I've found it useful for..

Will also just point out that this thread had a typist premise to begin with. I know OP pointed out that this was done to provoke reaction and address an 'us vs them' problem he feels exists... certainly got a reaction too! But I just don't see the point of it - there is no way of definitively proving if its true or not and even if we could, I'm not sure what difference it would make? 

Anyway - rambling, bye.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Forever Jung said:


> I don't get this at all! have always thought of these functions as being on a sliding scale. Unless someone is 100% S or N then they will exhibit behaviors associated with both 'types' - just one more often than the other.
> 
> It's frustrating to see the amount of arguing on the forum over this stuff lately, particularly since MBTI seems to exists (at least partly) to engender an appreciation and understanding of peoples differences and strengths. At least, that is what I've found it useful for..
> 
> ...


 Funny avatar.

People do it out of self-defense for what they don't understand. It's historical. I think many would look at people they see as quiet, conservative and cooperative as ISFJs, yet there are other correlates to those attributes besides ISFJ. An INFJ, 1 could look like an ISFJ to some.

The [unintentional] point this thread plays at seems to be that even if the issue is addressed it won't be stoppable. Experiences vary waaaay too much for people to share but a certain amount of ideas consistently. The resistance of humans is fundamentally indomitable as a whole.

I'm glad you rambled. The arguing _is _irritating, but alas...


----------



## Forever Jung (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks lol 

I totally agree with you. 

Truthfully some of these recent 'typism' posts have been interesting because they have made me reconsider how I view MBTI as a whole; I think people can show any function given the right circumstance and that's what makes these arguments seem so silly. 

People are almost certainly too complex to fit neatly into 16 boxes and share views with all others of the same type. I try to only talk about the people I know personally as opposed to making generalizations for that very reason but even then I guess someone could read that as being 'typist' - which sucks. 

I dunno about you, but I just chose to base my type on test results and what seemed to fit at the time. If someone wanted to tell me that I probably had a preference for feeling or sensing or something, I'd be happy to listen to their reasons! After all it's only different ways of processing and reacting to information.. pretty hard to be offended by that!


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I pity any SJ with the OP as their advocate.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Hardly.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

What is this thread's point even? Of course SJs can appreciate music, but just as much as other types. Everyone can enjoy music but for different reasons.

Why are you boxing with shadows, OP? People are saying that "no it's not exclusive to SJs" and you're using that as an excuse to say "ooooh typism, you don't think SJs are capable of stuff that others are!!" 

No one even said that. Stop creating arguments based on perceived threats. It's getting really old.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

Does anyone get goosebumps, cry, dance while listening to music? I do quiet a lot.
Music is my ultimate mood booster.


----------



## Alex Chan (Jun 17, 2014)

INTP's listen to music 24/7 , and we're not SJ's.

music is just perceived differently between the types.


----------



## Alex Chan (Jun 17, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> That was my logic from a cognitive functions standpoint, but the imbeciles on the forums got into a temper tantrum when I suggested SJ's might be good at something even remotely artistic.


no. They think that all appreciate music, thus answering your question.

you think that they are mad because you suggested that SJ's might be better at something.

this is not what they are implying. They are just trying to tell you that it is a universal thing, but you seem to be misreading them.
you are also being typist in the way that you are degrading the iNtuition types, multiple times. Please do not ask questions we're you already have the answer in your head, unless of course you were going to be nice and accept their opinions.


----------

