# I think I'm an N but I'm not: How would I know?



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

So pretend I'm a new member here. As a new member, I've read up on typology and MBTI and Socionics and I think I'm an N type, but I, the new member, am actually not. Maybe this is because I have poor self knowledge, or because I have been somehow unconsciously biased toward wanting to be N so I unconsciously rig the test to get "N". Doesn't matter. Here's what I want to know:

For those of us (any of us) who believe we are "N" dominant types but are actually "S" dominant types, how would we go about detecting our true "S" nature? What would be clues that we are really "S" dominant instead? What would be clues that we really have no idea what "N" is? 

Based on my (brightflashes) current understanding of Jung, the _average_ person is only conscious of one perceiving process and one judging process. So, if one were an "S" type, they'd largely bury their "N" in the unconscious mind. 

So help me (brightflashes) convince myself (the new member) that I'm completely mistaken and I am, in fact, an "S" type. 

If Ns are over represented in the population, it's likely this new member is one anyway. heh. 

***I propose this as a fun activity to become more conscious, not as a way to question a person's type.***


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Proposed fun activity. Definitely S type. :thinking:


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

What model?
Definitions of intuition and sensation are inconsistent across virtually all models/theories.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Dissymetry said:


> What model?
> Definitions of intuition and sensation are inconsistent across virtually all models/theories.


I didn't say to appeal to more people. I prefer Jung's definitions. So let's hear it.


----------



## _He_ (Nov 26, 2014)

I don't believe psychological types is about actions or observable behavior. It's about what motivates such on a psychical level.

That said, here is a comment from a free ebook by a jungian analyst I was reading just this afternoon about Jung's conception of type:

(begin quote)
It can be as difficult to establish one's own type as that of
another person, especially when people have already become
bored with their primary function and dominant attitude. Von
Franz comments:
They very often assure you with absolute sincerity that they
belong to the type opposite from what they really are. The extravert swears that he is deeply introverted, and vice versa.
This comes from the fact that the inferior function subjectively feels itself to be the real one, it feels itself the more important, more genuine attitude. . . . It does no good, therefore,
to think of what matters most when trying to discover one's
type; rather ask: "What do I habitually do most?"31
(end quote)

That last phrase seems like a cop out on Von Franz's part, but it highlights the fact that even trained, well-known jungian analysts get confused while meandering about their own (and others') minds.

I'm tempted to go along with the "do" method and say that you follow one of the many free tests available online that average up all your "do's" and type you that way. In such a case, I'd simply ask you if you hate paperwork or brainstorming MORE. xD That would give me a pretty good idea in that way.

But if I ask myself the same question, it would be a mental scenario similar to this: 

I compare how often I reference sense detail (namely concrete memories and my immediate sensations) with how often I allow my decisions to be impacted by reference to images or impressions from the unconscious (namely the contents of the mind that come forth with no apparent connection to the immediate sense experience); and what's more than how OFTEN I reference them - how naturally, and how much weight I give their importance. 

I've been prone to characterize S as "concrete" and N as "abstract", but that can be a confusing simplification because anyone can imagine abstract concepts (maybe sensors can even do it better), but where did the concept come from? Einstein or your own mind five seconds ago? (Incidentally, I do think that F is relative evaluation - think "less than" or "greater than symbols", and T is absolute evaluation - think equations with equals signs).

Basically, with good definitions of the terms and self awareness (both are indispensable), the process can be done.

"what kind of information do I prefer to feed to my dominant judging process" is the TL;DR, I guess.


----------



## AdaptingMotif (Apr 30, 2019)

Challenge yourself to a game of Tekken... N's will pick flowery, exotic dance like fight styles and end up swatting at butterflies in their attempt to master that particular dance of martial arts... S's will stand there stoically and say hey that's pretty and all but I'm over here before smacking you into the next area of the arena.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

I like to look at it in a multitude of ways.

1. What you said, the unconscious processes can also help us tell which one we are.
2. That the cognitive functions line up and we only use the functions in the line up, but they can look like different things at different times.
3. It doesnt matter what type you are, only the cognitive functions you are currently using matter.
4. Only the letters matter.
5. Only type description is relevant.
6. None of it matters.
7. All of it matters.
8. [and this is what I would use, I suppose, to show them it hardly matters whether they are N or S.]
That what is seen as abstract is subjective. What seems abstract to a person now, might seem concrete to a person later. same with concrete being subjective.
Concreteness vs Abstractness are what I use to measure N vs. S [used to, rather, but the paradigm is still with me.]
So its kind of your own perception of yourself. If you think youre an S, you are likely an S. but it also escalates with other peoples perceptions of you, which can in turn color your view of yourself.
If you cant find a role immediately, people will be your sorting hat for you.
9. Abstract = The Unseen, theoretical world and Concrete = the solid, known world.
Inbetween those two worlds is the world of discovery and curiosity. It is the bridge that binds them together.
If you would like to be an N so badly, just spend some time on the bridge and eventually youll get there. You might end up there anyway, whether you want to or not.



and then I would add that being a sensor isnt a bad thing, doesnt make you stupid, and that you might not understand now, but someday you will, young padawan. If you insist on your identity being intuitive, there is room for you. If you insist that your identity is sensor, there is room for you. Just be at home and feel welcome.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> I didn't say to appeal to more people. I prefer Jung's definitions. So let's hear it.


On both Sensation and Intuition:


> Here we should speak of sensation when sense impressions are involved, and of intuition if we are dealing with a kind of perception which cannot be traced back directly to conscious sensory experience. Hence I define sensation as perception via conscious sensory functions, and intuition as perception via the unconscious.





> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation


On Intuition:


> In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents.





> ...the intuitives concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but surrender themselves wholly to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented.


On Sensation:


> Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus. It is, therefore, identical with perception.





> ...there are many people who restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account. They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation. I describe such people as sensation types.



It is clear to me that intuition, as far as Jung is concerned, is the same intuition everyone else outside of the MBTI community seems to understand as intuition, Google says:
- "the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning." and;
- "a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning."


Sensation is the standpoint of facts, observing what you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears.

The answer then to the question of does one prefer Sensation or Intuition is as simple as "Do I prefer to rely on information I can verify with my own eyes/ears, or do I prefer to rely on information I just "know", without verification?"

Unless you are severely disabled, we all perceive both the sensory and intuitive information Jung is talking about, it is just a case of which is _more _preferred.

If this is too difficult to answer then perhaps considering which one is more difficult for you to rely on is a better question to consider. 

For myself, I prefer intuition. There are many instances throughout my life where I have forgone my own intuition in favor of the facts, and many of these instances I have regretted. On the other hand, I consistently have dismissed the sensory facts and instead followed my intuition my whole life, and even when I have been proven wrong beyond of a shadow of a doubt, I have never regretted following my intuition. I have only ever regretted not following it.
This is how _I_ know I am an intuitive type, it is as simple as intuition is _good_, sensory is _bad_, for me (hello, Feeling decision).

When it comes to crunch time, in the final moments when under pressure, is a person more comfortable following sensory data or intuition? Whichever one is chosen is preferred over the other.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

AdaptingMotif said:


> Challenge yourself to a game of Tekken... N's will pick flowery, exotic dance like fight styles and end up swatting at butterflies in their attempt to master that particular dance of martial arts... S's will stand there stoically and say hey that's pretty and all but I'm over here before smacking you into the next area of the arena.


Which type picks Eddie and spams X and O?


----------



## AdaptingMotif (Apr 30, 2019)

looool... touche xD


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Hi brightflashes. The best indicator in determining whether someone is "S" or "N" based off of superficial characteristics - or snap judgments - is actually their face. It's complex to articulate through text however, but the general idea is that the face shows "habits" formed by the muscle memory within the integrity of movement. A sensor is someone who would have a face that is more "present" and less "zoned out" - therefore a face that is receptive to the environment at any given moment. An intuitive is someone who would have a face that is more deeply configuring based on the demand of the present moment. They pay attention when it's necessary.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Dissymetry

You make it all sound so simple. And of course I, as brightflashes, prefer N. 

However, if it _is_ this simple, why is this such a common mistyping? Are the N types that are accused of being more "S" just being attacked for no reason? Or, is 'N' something that really is grossly misrepresented? It seems to me something this simple should be obvious. Further, it seems that this simple definition (one that I have come to as well) would make "S" types not only more attractive to the average person, but also clearly the superior one when it comes to intelligence. 

How did the stereotype start if it's so absolutely wrong?


@WritingLove 

I can understand facial typing in theory, but in actuality it seems "off" to me. Is there a way to differentiate between an Se type and an Si type? Or is it just limited to the functions S vs N?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

@brightflashes

Well, I don't use both Se and Si consciously on an individual level as one would be working in the shadows. I could imagine a shadow function operating as a "tic" in movement that happens when you feel someone looking at you or sending their psychic energy your way. The difference between the two might be harder to figure out because of where at in the totem pole the function falls. With enough observational skills, I know it's possible to read any face like a book.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> @Dissymetry
> 
> You make it all sound so simple. And of course I, as brightflashes, prefer N.
> 
> ...


I assume it is a common mistyping because N sounds 'cooler' the way the MBTI portrays it than S, I have written about this in some other thread a few days ago. I do not believe MBTI definitions match Jungs. The MBTI twists intuition and sensation into something that is very different from what Jung and the rest of the world understands, so yes I believe N (and S) are grossly misrepresented by official and unofficial MBTI sources.

The simple definition or understanding (which is the ordinary understanding of intuition) does not make S types more attractive to the average person in my opinion, because of how the MBTI misrepresents S and N. I do not agree if makes S clearly superior when it comes to intelligence either, just because someone selects observing facts/data over their intuition when push comes to shove does not mean they do it well, it does not immediately mean they are more observant of relevant facts than anyone else, relying on Sensation does not speak to their skill with Sensation.

It could be argued that as a dominant function, the Sensation should be more differentiated, but this differentiation of course comes in comparison to the other three functions. A person can have Sensation as most differentiated function, and still have a less useful and less differentiated Sensation than a person with Sensation as the inferior function, in my opinion. 

Just because it is that persons most dominant and differentiated function does mean it is any good.

Assuming the two are being for lack of a more apt term, "wielded" equally, I still do not believe that following Sensory facts over intuition is a more intelligent choice than following intuition and dismissing the sensory facts. It depends on the situation, the context, what the goal is, too many things. 

I do believe and this might be my own intuitive preference speaking to some degree, that Sensation is far more difficult and stressful than intuition. It is difficult to rid oneself of the heuristics, analogous thinking and unconscious assumptions that your own personal experience has observed and developed over time and instead rely more on what your senses are perceiving. It is extremely difficult to pick things apart at a surface level as Sensation does. I wish I was a Sensation type and have periods in my life where I actively try to work on this. I have always known this was a flaw, from well before I discovered these types of personality theories.

Intuitive types skip important sensation related steps, and doing this gets them in trouble. An example of Sensation is Rick from Rick and Morty, of course he is commonly typed as an N by the MBTI community, but this is incorrect, Rick thinks very literally and he questions everything at a surface level and follows this line of questioning and reasoning to its logical conclusions. His literal thinking is what gets him in (and out of) trouble, and is what makes up a good portion of the shows comedic value. He is obviously a Thinking type first and foremost, but he is an example of Sensation over Intuition. Rick does not skip steps or gloss over sensory-details, he excels so much at them that they bore him and are second nature, as a preferred function should be!

I think the stereotype started with Myers and how how she portrayed Sensors and Intuitives. I think many things that are wrong with this kind of personality theory originated from her.


----------



## Engelsstaub (Apr 8, 2016)

Some time ago I came across an interesting article about it.

In many cases identifying issues one has struggled with in his life, things he had to learn _the hard way_, are a good indicator.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Dissymetry said:


> I assume it is a common mistyping because N sounds 'cooler' the way the MBTI portrays it than S...


lol. Who wants to be "cool"? So, are you saying that those who misidentify as N are more likely to be Fe? :thinking: 



> I do not agree if makes S clearly superior when it comes to intelligence either, just because someone selects observing facts/data over their intuition when push comes to shove does not mean they do it well...


By this argument, just because someone selects MBTI 'N' over MBTI 'S' doesn't mean they're better at ReCoGnIzInG pAtTeRnS either. I would just think that 'S' would be more attractive based on how Psychology defines Intelligence. The 'S' awareness of facts implies, to me at least, that the 'N' would be oblivious to facts. I'm just pretending this in my head, though, I don't know if it's true. 

Understand also that it's entirely foreign to me to attempt to want to be "the cool one". 



> Just because it is that persons most dominant and differentiated function does mean it is any good.


Really excellent and important point to keep in mind, but I wasn't talking about whether or not someone excelled at it. If someone is going to lie about who they are (to themselves or others, consciously or not), I'm imagining they would at least want to portray themselves as if they were programmed (for lack of a better word) to excel at "facts" over "un-facts" lol. 



> Sensation is far more difficult and stressful than intuition.


lol no kidding!



> I wish I was a Sensation type and have periods in my life where I actively try to work on this.


Word. How do you personally go about working on this?



> he excels so much at them that they bore him and are second nature, as a preferred function should be!


Not certain if I agree with you on this or not (also I've never seen that show). There are many components that go into personality development and I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, that something one uses often should be so ingrained that it's "boring", but I also think that one might develop a certain function over another because of one's natural interests which force the use of that function. 

For example, musical talent runs in my family. While me and my brother tire of music theory after a certain point of understanding (because we grasp this stuff naturally), we still don't tire of actually playing musical instruments. Just because someone can do something "naturally" that "comes easily" doesn't mean that thing will bore them. But that's getting off topic ...

So, you dropped some major hints in there, Dissy. So, you're an NF of some sort, huh? :ninja:


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I often wonder the same things. How can we tell N and S apart in a more literal sense? In theory it makes sense, but I cannot practically apply the descriptions and see in my mind how an N user would think when compared to an S user on the same topic. There is just too much overlap, too many facets over a time lapse when thinking about something. One moment you are Intuiting, the next you are Sensing, in a never ending sea of both. So, how do you _know _which one you prefer _overall_? For some of us, the black and white might actually be very grey. Reading Jung descriptions, online descriptions, official MBTI descriptions, etc. have done nothing for me personally. I only think I am ISTJ because this type seems to be most fitting when I compare myself to others of the same and different types. Without these personal accounts, I don't actually have any proof other than what I read, and as previously mentioned, is unclear when applying to myself or how I perceive others to be. This is personality theory after all, and therefore must be heavily related to actual people living on Earth. Theory is fun, but application aids in truly knowing you understand.

Haha, I think I sounded really S in the above. Do you relate at all @brightflashes? Or does your mind work totally different when thinking about this topic?


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Bunniculla said:


> Do you relate at all @brightflashes? Or does your mind work totally different when thinking about this topic?


I can't say that I do relate, honestly. I just notice when I see people complaining about a problem (N types are really S types) and I cannot figure out why they would say that, but most people tend to say it, I get confused. Boyfriend told me recently that he thinks the same thing. This was what triggered this post. When I can't understand Boyfriend's mind, that's a big deal to me. So, I posted this hoping to understand a bit more why there is this general mistrust of N types in that the mistrust tends to slant toward "you're really an S type". 

I'm not familiar with the idea of having a strong urge to define someone else. I'm not familiar with the idea that an N type would be more appealing than an S type. I'm also not familiar with the idea that anyone would want to lie to themselves or anyone else - especially strangers on the Internet - about who they are. This concept is entirely foreign to me. 

I think that if there really is a problem, then one must figure out how to solve this OR one must admit that the so-called "problem" is a figment of the imagination. I don't know which is true. I'm just interested in the discussion. 

Often times when I post a thread, people think that this is somehow personal and it usually isn't. My personal remarks are reserved for my closest friends and family members and Boyfriend. So, no, this question of "am I S or N?" isn't really my personal question. It's just a quest to understand human behaviour, especially collective human behaviour when it doesn't make sense to me.

Just to add: I think that I have a satisfactory understanding of what S is vs what N is. Of course there is always room for improvement, but my understanding of the functions is much different from my understanding of a collective group attempting to tell others that they're lying or misrepresenting themselves or whatever. It seems life is for these sorts of lessons to be learned and sorted out and I'm fond of the saying that a blind man cannot lead a blind man because both will fall into a pit.

Essentially, a person who *thinks* they know what another person's type is will be blind to that person. Similarly, if the person does not share in the same "vision" of the first person, then they, too, will be blind to whatever idea is being pushed onto themselves. They are both blind in the situation.

This might go back to early childhood. I had a parent who tried desperately to control my autonomy and to define me in multiple ways. I suppose I find it repulsive to have any sort of desire to define another or take away their autonomy. If a person is CLEARLY an S type but says they're N, who am I to mess with their reality? How do I know they're not joking or may be going through some sort of transformative experience. I cannot make that judgement and feel "good" about it. It seems wrong to me.

However, if the clues were more obvious, maybe I'd feel more comfortable making that judgement. In this post I'm looking for the clues.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> So, I posted this hoping to understand a bit more why there is this general mistrust of N types in that the mistrust tends to slant toward "you're really an S type".


Oh, I see intention for this post now. Yeah I have the same thought sometimes. I figure people would know themselves better than strangers on the internet in most cases. I guess some people also just can't hold it in and will just say whatever if it makes them feel better.



> I'm not familiar with the idea of having a strong urge to define someone else. I'm not familiar with the idea that an N type would be more appealing than an S type. I'm also not familiar with the idea that anyone would want to lie to themselves or anyone else - especially strangers on the Internet - about who they are. This concept is entirely foreign to me.


I personally don't either as I find people to either be talented or untalented all on their own, regardless of their type. Or talented in some areas and not in others, and vice versa. It's just annoying when others attempt to manipulate this to their own advantage as a means to boost their ego and stomp on others. While hiding under pretenses that they are only after the truth. Then again, what do I know? I'm not in their mind.




> So, no, this question of "am I S or N?" isn't really my personal question. It's just a quest to understand human behaviour, especially collective human behaviour when it doesn't make sense to me.


Yeah gotcha, I read that loud and clear in that sentence you had at the end of the opening post. For me, it was intriguing to go down the rabbit hole of the distinctions between S and N and how deep it runs for various people.



> Essentially, a person who *thinks* they know what another person's type is will be blind to that person. Similarly, if the person does not share in the same "vision" of the first person, then they, too, will be blind to whatever idea is being pushed onto themselves. They are both blind in the situation.


Correct. In other words, if somebody is already biased, whatever objective piece of evidence you throw at them...they're going to toss it right back into the biased bucket. I get it though, we're humans...it's not always easy to be truly objective. Otherwise, we'd be robots.



> This might go back to early childhood. I had a parent who tried desperately to control my autonomy and to define me in multiple ways. I suppose I find it repulsive to have any sort of desire to define another or take away their autonomy. If a person is CLEARLY an S type but says they're N, who am I to mess with their reality? How do I know they're not joking or may be going through some sort of transformative experience. I cannot make that judgement and feel "good" about it. It seems wrong to me.


That's how I would go about it too. There's no benefit or satisfaction for me to rub it in someone's face that they are who I think they are. So, why waste the time and effort to do such a thing? If it's welcome, then sure (like in the typing thread or just a helpful hint). I mean I don't mind it at all (different from you in this way). I actually welcome it because it's fun to me to ponder these different things, but I can also see the perspective of how it could be offensive for someone to try to dictate and tell you who you are.



> However, if the clues were more obvious, maybe I'd feel more comfortable making that judgement. In this post I'm looking for the clues.


Yeah, this is a fun post, like majority of this site. Love reading and discussing these things.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> If a person is CLEARLY an S type but says they're N, who am I to mess with their reality?


This is not aimed at you specifically but just at this kind of mentality which is prevalent all throughout the personality community I have found - what is "CLEARLY" an S type to one person is based on the typers own understandings and biases. I know you covered this in your post but I want to rattle on a bit on it too, when people say people are obviously this or clearly that, this means nothing other than the person saying that perceives this as that, according to their own understandings and biases and experience, it does not actually say anything about the other persons type especially going by MBTI dichotomy where a persons type is only for themselves to determine subjectively. I know that the MBTI has practitioners but they help _you _type _you _they do not type you themselves.

A person could be from your perspective a totally outgoing E and love to jump off of mountains and tick many stereotypical S boxes and be the most extreme P you have ever seen, but they might type as an IN-J type themselves and that is all that really matters, the outsider perspective means nothing.
Maybe they are super ES-P to you but the next person who is not as IN-J as the typer might see them as less extremes. Maybe someone that is even more E than them and even more S and P than them will see them as the IN-J they type as. Maybe someone that types as ISTP sees them as less S and P than themselves and perceives them as an ENTJ. 

It might be better to understand that when people say this type of thing that it is coming from their own bias subjective perspective like for example I am almost completely introverted on every test returning maximum introvert results, everybody is an E to me, but this does not mean they are actually an E. There will be people out there that even see me as an extreme E because they are even more introverted than the tests think possible.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

I feel like some things need to be explained further or clarified.



Catwalk said:


> Understanding how 'functions' work at the operative level is necessary, but not useful to be hung up on.


Well in typology, which focuses on cognition mostly and not traits, this is probably the most important part of it.




Catwalk said:


> Like opening up a car engine, knowing how the parts make the car move are important to understanding what the (car) exhausts when rolling down a street.


That's really important part, if you wanna truly understand how car works, same with typology. If you ignore the 'engine' you may be able to operate it it rather well, but there will always be a big hole in what you understand.




Catwalk said:


> Sensing utilizes "objective or 'actual' stimulus" _only sometimes_, but also produces "simulations" of things/events in the same way (intuition) does. For example, Si-doms reluctance to act based off 'imagined threats via patternized sensations' or let's call them "bodily fictions". Which seems pretty close to Ni-doms 'reluctance to act based off 'imaged state-of-affairs' to transpire. For N's, as opposed to the Sensor, they are not informed by "frictions" but outer body stimuli that can cause sensations to occur (e.g. Jung's example of snake in the belly), and I think it is Sensing that experiences this first as a "point" while N-types feel this is a reaction to something "unexplained or unobservable".


There should be more concrete example of all this.




Catwalk said:


> Both seem to be producing 'non-actual' simulations of things to help propel them forward. I think this is why we have "N"-doms that utilize past information (non-actual events), in the same way "S-types" use (non-actual past-sensations from 'events').


So, you are implying, that S and N are more like data transmission functions, rather than so well know 'observation' functions?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I feel like some things need to be explained further or clarified.
> 
> 
> Well in typology, which focuses on cognition mostly and not traits, this is probably the most important part of it.
> ...


Of course. I put emphasis on the importance of "understanding" Typology on the operative level (because without this understanding) there seems to be confusion. If I understand how an engine work(s), I can somewhat, use LOW LEVELs of information to make a 'diagnostic' or at least, recognize that X-car possibly has a bad transmission or no muffler, without "driving" the car. If you understand X function at the operative level - it will be easy to identify it's "unique" residue that comes out as traits in others [reduces biases], instead of simply "relying on how people seem to act". But it is not this exhaust that _determines _the type. Fords and Nissans both have an exhaustion pipe.

This would follow with (brains) as well. Typology and 'cognition' is _what brains do_, is it not? But of course, only the 'brain' has access to what 'brains' do. We have access to low-level(s) of information that follow from when they briefly interact. Understanding what functions do, for me anyway, makes it easier to tell "S" from "N" as opposed to utilizing 'traits' (e.g. INTJs "have more hunches") than "S" types, whatever that means, to identify an "INTJ" in the wild. It is said that Typology focuses more on 'operations' yet I have found nothing interesting regarding how the functions 'operate' and manipulate data. Only how they seem to manifest in people. My original post just simply explains possibly, '_what is causing these manifestations to appear as they do_'. Since Jung and Myers say nothing informative on that. 



> There should be more concrete example of all this.


Of what specifically? I think anything extensively 'concrete' or interesting would be determined in neurology, which has yet to answer.




> So, you are implying, that S and N are more like data transmission functions, rather than so well know 'observation' functions?


I suppose. Typology claims these 'functions' interact, manipulate and deal with data. 

_What else would they be?_ They are not brains, so they are inputs/outputs for data. Can you observe your eyes "seeing" or observe your "ears hearing"? "Cognitve functions via Typology" are mental outputs/inputs of (brain-functioning). Cognitively speaking, you can't actually "see" Ni working, but it is observable in a sense we can gather information on and from it's operations. When a specimen asks me, what does your Ni look like, well, I've never actually seen 'the process' itself, I don't know what it looks like, I can tell you however, both what it does - and how it operates, based off what information is given via Typology theory, and not just relying solely on uninformative definitions.

Brain :: (hand) :: minding :: (grasping).

Brain :: (Cognitive function) :: minding :: (ENFJ trait).


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> This would follow with (brains) as well. Typology and 'cognition' is _what brains do_, is it not?


I would say, that it's more about how personality region of brains are wired, but I ain't no scientist.




Catwalk said:


> But of course, only the 'brain' has access to what 'brains' do. We have access to low-level(s) of information that follow from when they briefly interact. Understanding what functions do, for me anyway, makes it easier to tell "S" from "N" as opposed to utilizing 'traits' (e.g. INTJs "have more hunches") than "S" types, whatever that means, to identify an "INTJ" in the wild. It is said that Typology focuses more on 'operations' yet I have found nothing interesting regarding how the functions 'operate' and manipulate data. Only how they seem to manifest in people. My original post just simply explains possibly, '_what is causing these manifestations to appear as they do_'. Since Jung and Myers say nothing informative on that.


And no one talks much about that either, just like I said, many people operate cars without knowing their parts or how they work. 




Catwalk said:


> Of what specifically? I think anything extensively 'concrete' or interesting would be determined in neurology, which has yet to answer.


Not that, I asked for real life example of how you think N and S works on operational level. For example Marry sees a flower, S operates and Marry says to Sally that flower is yellow. Something like that. Just what you explained, but with example.




Catwalk said:


> I suppose. Typology claims these 'functions' interact, manipulate and deal with data.


Well, T and F functions also deal with data. P functions more accurately be data transmission functions for further processing of data. Something in between senses and high level data processing in brains. Also P function comes with ability to change focus to things, that are most stimulating it, but this already requires minimal interaction of judging function.




Catwalk said:


> _What else would they be?_ They are not brains, so they are inputs/outputs for data.


That ain't true. Cognition is all in brains. Raw data comes from periphery nervous system. Periphery nervous system in this case is mostly receptors. All they do is gather signals and transmit them to brains. 




Catwalk said:


> Can you observe your eyes "seeing" or observe your "ears hearing"?


Yeah, but it's offtopic as it is another subject of science. So you can see those things with additional machinery. It's fascinating stuff and gives me hope, that one day we will see Neurotechnologies overtaking Psychology.




Catwalk said:


> "Cognitve functions via Typology" are mental outputs/inputs of (brain-functioning). Cognitively speaking, you can't actually "see" Ni working, but it is observable in a sense we can gather information on and from it's operations. When a specimen asks me, what does your Ni look like, well, I've never actually seen 'the process' itself, I don't know what it looks like, I can tell you however, both what it does - and how it operates, based off what information is given via Typology theory, and not just relying solely on uninformative definitions.
> 
> Brain :: (hand) :: minding :: (grasping).
> 
> Brain :: (Cognitive function) :: minding :: (ENFJ trait).


Well, if you want to explain Ni, you can, but you already did explain N and S for OP, so this most likely wouldn't be very helpful for OP.


----------



## Engelsstaub (Apr 8, 2016)

I think one of primary issues is that an S type can have well developed intuition. It's a matter of whether a person put an effort into it and works on growing his N skills. Same way an N can grow his S skills. You may have a dumb intuitive (A) and clever sensor (B) having his intuition better developed than (A).

It's more about the preference which is only clear in case of N or S being the primary driver. Otherwise it's harder because let's say an ISTP can still have decent intuition.

My hypothesis is that in case of N types intuition has an overriding power which in some situations directly fires reactions. Like the proclivity to read between the lines even if literal, meticulous reading is required. Such proclivity would need to be consciously controlled by an N while a sensor would rather need to consciously decide to listen to his intuition.

It's just my guessing, but maybe it helps. Sadly not in typing others it seems, because it's all inside person's head.


----------



## Leahomme (Dec 2, 2015)

I know this may seem very simplistic, but here are some thoughts. Assuming I don't already know someone and they ask me if they are N or S, I usually like to ask these few questions.

1) When you walk into a library, what do you notice or pay attention to the most? 

2) Do you like to have pictures and videos documenting every event and activity in your life or do you feel like you have those stored in your mind and can access them at any time? 

3) How is your work space or bedroom/home decorated? Aside from photos of yourself are there photos of people that you see regularly? 

Some possible responses ~

1) Noticing the ambiance and the lights, the couches and the quietness [sensory] vs. Thinking of all the great knowledge tucked away in the books and the authors from the past who wrote them [intuition]

2) Photo diary on their social media [sensory] vs. Daydreaming about past enjoyable experiences with friends [intuition]

3) Photo of cat/dog on desk at work [sensory], photos of immediate family members all over the house (who live in the household and are not long-distance) [sensory] vs. Photos of yourself doing something you are proud of like climbing to the top of a mountain, meeting a celebrity or getting married [intuition] *Photos of getting married can also be in a Sensor's home but if it is the only photo you see in someone's home they are more likely to be Intuitive. 

As for not knowing if someone is Se or Si, it is much harder to distinguish that in another person without them telling you their thoughts behind certain activities. For me, as Se I enjoy new things and experiences... even discovering a new sport is exciting and I love shopping. People with Si tend to feel better with routines and may decompress by doing something comforting like cooking, gardening, sewing, playing video games etc.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Leahomme

I really like your post. One thing about me, though... I get so lost in my head, especially daydreaming, that I actually sometimes come to the conclusion that I must have made up someone and they don't really exist. Understand I do have a mental disorder as well, so this might be impacting this aspect of who I am. In these situations, I need pictures or to easily be able to call them or access some sort of proof that they exist or else I worry that I'm disconnected from reality. 

I know it's really strange and I think it's a brightflashes thing rather than a strictly "N" thing, but I do know it's connected to my N. 

Do you have any similar experiences of not knowing if something really happened or if it was something you dreamed or imagined?


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Leahomme said:


> I know this may seem very simplistic, but here are some thoughts. Assuming I don't already know someone and they ask me if they are N or S, I usually like to ask these few questions.
> 
> 1) When you walk into a library, what do you notice or pay attention to the most?
> 
> ...


The example for intuition in the first one sounds a lot like this Si link. It is interesting to see how different people perceive these functions and functions-in-attitudes.

Your second example is more related to whether a person relies on memory or not. I do not know how this is related to intuition or sensation.

I think the example of photos as suggestive of intuition and sensation preferences is wrong on too many levels for me to mention.

Why do you think people "with Si" tend to feel better with routines? This is something I can not understand because it does not resemble anything I have read from Jung. It is like it is plucked out of the air because somebody had a difficult time understanding what a subjective impression of a sensory perception was.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Dissymetry

What sorts of questions do you think would be good to discern between N and S?


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> @Dissymetry
> 
> What sorts of questions do you think would be good to discern between N and S?


I think it would depend on the model for MBTI dichotomy then the MBTI has everything anyone needs to determine N from S according to the MBTI.

Following Jung I think it is a case of which is the preferable way of perceiving information - knowing it without knowing how you know (intuition) or literally observing it in reality (sensation). I know it gets more complicated than that but that is the main question. Anything past that is most likely exemplify those definitions.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Dissymetry said:


> The example for intuition in the first one sounds a lot like this Si link. It is interesting to see how different people perceive these functions and functions-in-attitudes.
> 
> Your second example is more related to whether a person relies on memory or not. I do not know how this is related to intuition or sensation.
> 
> ...


The first one doesn't seem really ask for anything to me
Agreed on second one, I as Introverted Sensing type, rely on my decent memory a lot. I hate photos myself. If i don't remember something it just wasn't important enough for me to remember.
Agreed that those photos example is terrible. I know some extraverted intuitive type people who love photos and has tons of them where I make almost none.

I think the whole routine idea comes from reasoning that Introverted sensing likes to stick to what they know.

To me S - what is, N - what means. Of course it is way more complicated but there is first thing i try to look for differentiation.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Elwinz said:


> I think the whole routine idea comes from reasoning that Introverted sensing likes to stick to what they know.


The same reasoning could apply to all introverted types if this is the case. I think it is silly.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Yeah I am coming to conclusion that habit formation is just introversion myself


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Leahomme said:


> I know this may seem very simplistic, but here are some thoughts. Assuming I don't already know someone and they ask me if they are N or S, I usually like to ask these few questions.
> 
> 1) When you walk into a library, what do you notice or pay attention to the most?
> 
> ...


This looks a bit too easy and prone to misinterpretations. I'm not even sure if it's correct, even when nothing is misinterpreted.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> This looks a bit too easy and prone to misinterpretations. I'm not even sure if it's correct, even when nothing is misinterpreted.


I like the idea of asking questions and the answers would give clues to which dichotomy one prefers. Do you have a better idea of questions to ask which would help? 

For example, one question would be:

Before taking action, do you gather all the facts and stick with them and what they imply or do you consider the facts but still go with what you feel is true? 

I don't know if that was worded well, but I think it might be a better question than the ones listed so far (except for Dissy's, but his was so direct that it doesn't really go into nuances of S vs N).


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> I like the idea of asking questions and the answers would give clues to which dichotomy one prefers.


I would like to like it too, but it just lacks accuracy. Essentially it's trying to squeeze complexity of human mind in one line of text or two, than draw some half-assed conclusions. I like simplicity, but not when it sacrifices usability.



brightflashes said:


> Do you have a better idea of questions to ask which would help?


I will answer with question to you. Is it even possible to find your type or at least partially diagnose your type with questions alone?



brightflashes said:


> For example, one question would be:
> 
> Before taking action, do you gather all the facts and stick with them and what they imply or do you consider the facts but still go with what you feel is true?


And what is that supposed to indicate? Te or Ti? F or T in general. 

Typology aside, you can answer that question, but answers are:
option 1 - you do your research and most likely aren't careless, you may prefer to have some security in your life, most likely, because not having it stresses you out.
option 2 - you are prone to experimentation to satisfy your curiosity, your personality may indicate preference for originality and creativity

Now negative descriptions:
option 1 - you are stuck up and can't ever do anything differently
option 2 - you are moron, who never listens and fails

Okay, I think I get it, it's about J or P in general, but this is MBTI. Didn't you just a few posts ago implied, that this thread is more about Jungian typology? Also, what happens if person has no idea, what he/she does. That would be not knowing your answer to that specific question, putting pressure of person, but that doesn't mean, that person doesn't have personality or that his/her personality is not typical. And what you are supposed to answer, if you sometimes do one and sometimes another? The question only cares about what you do, but not about your cognition, which processes results before that. Therefore question is about trait, but necessarily about cognition. Also what you are supposed to do if it's not just simple J or P answer, for example, if person accidentally did something, that he/she regretted in past and forced to change that, even if him/her doesn't like that? This would imply moral or logical conclusion to not do what hurt in the past and at this point it's is way beyond expected J or P answers. 




brightflashes said:


> I don't know if that was worded well, but I think it might be a better question than the ones listed so far (except for Dissy's, but his was so direct that it doesn't really go into nuances of S vs N).


lol it was about S and N, pretty much proves, how wildly that question can be interpreted. Anyway, now I need explanation why it should have indicated S or N, because my intuition at first went to Te or Ti and only later to F or T, yet S and N dichotomy was completely anti-intuitive to me.

But if you want to know someone, the ideal thing would be to meet and talk with that person irl. It's easy to hide certain things about yourself online, to hide facial expressions, to hide some other clues. I'm deaf and I rely on visual information gathering much more than on heard words. Internet makes me kinda "blind" in that one aspect.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Ok I thought I was an N just because I'm an introvert. So consider that. My conundrum was I was too solace seeking to be an ESFP but too exploratory to be an INFP. I realized after meeting a couple of obvious ENFP that I'm not one...I like movies but never watch TV, I like literature but had to switch to hard science. I just can't prioritize the dream world. I think that's a sign your N/S are close I'm stacking that you question it. But I get angry at people who cannot face or accept the real world, I get annoyed with excessive fiction that I can't apply to real life, my favorite movies are often visceral horror, and I'm actually hostile to excess fantasy. Nothing gives me greater joy than living in the real world, such an amazing place I'm not even interested particularly in space, and I have always felt a need to impact the real physical world. If I was morbidly obese and never left the house I would shoot myself in the head, I can't overcome non engagement in the physical and sexual world. 

S doesn't mean stupid, I'm dismayed that stereotype exists, but I clean cabins in the summer and I find it comforting. I can achieve something straight forward, matter of fact, while listening to music and occasionally socializing. I think the lonely N quit the first week. Body tired and or details are a relief for you. I like jobs where I'm body tired but own my own mind. I've heard Si types just get overjoyed by the satisfying details.


----------



## meleeMermaid (Jun 25, 2018)

I find it is that S types become "at peace" when they interact with the outer world, regardless if they are introverted or extroverted. When the sensor's mind is in a state of flow, it is not when the sensor is living in his/her head, thinking practically; it is when his/her body is connected to their environment through some type of activity. This connection to the outer world which begins with the body, in turn unlocks the sensor's connection to his/her intuition and creativity. For intuitives, this process of immersion begins where the sensor's ends, and completes when the intuitive starts to find excitement in engagement, in the realization/grounding of their once "just ideas" which are now deriving inspiration from the outer world.


----------

