# Brain exploding occurring due to recent N vs S conundrum



## de l'eau salée (Nov 10, 2008)

Please help, for the sake of my brain.
Well, I've always though of myself as an INFP. Well...that is...until I started reading about the ISFP. Umm...
Let's see. I relate to both! I've always tested as INFP, but I don't really know if I answered the questions right.
Lots of people here are really good at typing, so I would like your opinion, do you see me as an INFP or ISFP, and why? Pretty please, tell me why


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Perhaps you would note the HUMIAN philosophy basis of this conundrum.

David Hume: Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I had the same question about myself for a while because of my approach to music and art. It didn't seem very N, since I was mostly enjoying the sensations of the immediate process. After much consideration, I saw that I dealt with everything else from an N perspective and learned to trust what the tests had said. What part of the ISFP descriptions are you relating to?


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Snail. The base to this dilemma is in regard to a discussion undertaken in chat, where I was introducing Hume to Trope. It was not regarding ISFP as such, just the contrast of Ideas and Impressions as described by Hume.

Impressions = information obtained from experience, learning and observation.
Ideas = abstracting an inferred experience, learned subject or observation the formulation of complex mental images through the integration of constructive systems of several impressions.

I also noted that it was such a philosophy that was the grandfather of Jungian type description, and it's descendants by association really.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

I had a similar conversation once with another INTP and an ISTP in which I made the claim that the what we observe in the world around us is seperate from our perception of the object, and thus true and pure objectivity is outside the boundaries of human consciousness. It went on for a while, but you get the picture. The ISTP made the claim that the world she observed was, in fact, the world as it really was and despite my arguments to the contrary she couldn't grasp what I meant by such a statement. The INTP agreed with me readily.

Philosophy aside, it's simply a question of how you perceive the world around you. There's Ne and Se for the perceivers and I've said this before but some people simply don't have as strong a preference as others. This doesn't necessarily make you anything other than what you already are. My only suggestion is to go over the definitions and decide which is more applicable to you. 

Both the ISFP and the INFP are Fi dominant, so it's entirely reasonable that there would be a great deal of overlap in the descriptions.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Trope said:


> The ISTP made the claim that the world she observed was, in fact, the world as it really was and despite my arguments to the contrary she couldn't grasp what I meant by such a statement. The INTP agreed with me readily.


It is evident that an intuitive would agree with another intuitive, it is not however a confirmation of the opinion.
For if you are unaware of the cognitive processes themselves, you are decreasing your awareness of objectivity. For although there would remain a subjective element, one could minimalise its influence by making an effort to impede its probable influence on perceiving the environment and constructs.


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

NephilimAzrael said:


> It is evident that an intuitive would agree with another intuitive, it is not however a confirmation of the opinion.


I realize this. My aim was simply to illustrate a parallel.



> For if you are unaware of the cognitive processes themselves, you are decreasing your awareness of objectivity.


They were both aware of the cognitive processes and typology, but the ISTP was unsure of her type at the time. 



> For although there would remain a subjective element, one could minimalise its influence by making an effort to impede its probable influence on perceiving the environment and constructs.


Explain the relevance of this statement.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Subjectivity is inescapable and is the filter through which any objective reality must be perceived. That doesn't necessarily make me an N, because if it did, we would all be N types.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Manners Trope, it is Explain the relevance PLEASE. :tongue:

Well, objectivity is infringed by our senses and subjectivity. If we were to attempt to enhance the human comprehension of objective reality we must accumulate information initially on the basis of our own biases. In doing such, we become aware of the influences on our perceptions, which alter the objective world to the subjective. Much in the same way that whatever does influence our perception of the impression alters our ideation of that same objects in our direct environment. 

Should we (to greater and greater extents) consciously Deconstruct the impediments of cognitive and sensory limitations on our inferences, we can compare empirical evidence with deductive evidence. A concise negation of abstractive influences allows for a clearer picture of objectivity. 

Relevance. The world before us is objective. How we perceive it is subjective and less accurate than the prevalent existence of empirical forms. 
IOW: We see what we want to see rather than what is there.


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

snail said:


> Subjectivity is inescapable and is the filter through which any objective reality must be perceived. That doesn't necessarily make me an N, because if it did, we would all be N types.


A filter, yes. That's the word I was using at the time but couldn't remember. I made a similar argument not even realizing that someone else would see it differently, but she did. It was only later that I learned her actual type.

An SP is more grounded in physical reality, most often not realizing that what he or she observes isn't necessarily anything but a direct and clear view of the world around them, untainted by 'filtered perception'. Such is the nature of Se as I understand it.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

So, they're delusional? I don't think they all think that way, do they?


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Manners Trope, it is Explain the relevance PLEASE. :tongue:
> 
> Well, objectivity is infringed by our senses and subjectivity. If we were to attempt to enhance the human comprehension of objective reality we must accumulate information initially on the basis of our own biases. In doing such, we become aware of the influences on our perceptions, which alter the objective world to the subjective. Much in the same way that whatever does influence our perception of the impression alters our ideation of that same objects in our direct environment.
> 
> ...


Before we make Selv's brain explode again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether (and if so how) this situation can be reversed. Not simply from N --> S as you describe, but from S --> N.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

snail said:


> Subjectivity is inescapable and is the filter through which any objective reality must be perceived. That doesn't necessarily make me an N, because if it did, we would all be N types.


Okay, taking from this statement, what is subjectivity snail?


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

snail said:


> So, they're delusional? I don't think they all think that way, do they?


I don't think they're delusional. It's just that they don't have the same perceptive filters as an iNtuitive. 

It's like comparing a pane of ordinary window glass to a magnifying lens. Both filter the light, but one bends it more than the other, thus making the shift more apparent.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Trope said:


> Before we make Selv's brain explode again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether (and if so how) this situation can be reversed. Not simply from N --> S as you describe, but from S --> N.


How one could describe to an S, or facilitate the reconstitution of subjectivity from objective parts?


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

NephilimAzrael said:


> How one could describe to an S, or facilitate the reconstitution of subjectivity from objective parts?


You describe, and I'm paraphrasing slightly for the sake of my own clarity, "A concise negation of abstractive influences to allow for a clearer picture of objectivity."

What I'm wondering is if you can describe a manner in which the polarity of this process can be reversed in such a way that a sensor could perhaps become more adept at understanding highly abstract concepts. I guess that means the former.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

So you are trying to influence a sensor to become more abstract.. Essentially grant them intuitive manipulation of impressions?


----------



## Trope (Oct 18, 2008)

In theory, yes. That would be an idealized end result, but I don't see how they could become as adept at it as a natural intuitive due simply to natural preferences. 

I would have to act in a painstakingly meticulous fashion to acheive a firm grasp of the reality around me with the level of physical detail that they attain with little more than a glance, so this goes both ways.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Well, I will have to consider this, considering the impediments I have focused my efforts on deconstructing have been N -> S.. Hmm..
And don't be fooled, your personality resolved itself with the influence of stressed success/fail relationships in your early impressions. I do not think it is as fair to assist conversions of sensors to intuitives on the same grounds of converting an intuitive into a sensor.. That being because it takes so much training to enhance ones capabilities in either direction.

Try and operationally condition them first is my initial ideation on the matter. Give them a concrete example of some concept that you wish to influence (your independent variable) and then progressively inform them of it. Gaging their reaction to the subject matter, use reinforcement cues for deviations from the training.


----------

