# "S" Type vs. "N" Type



## LotusBlossom

I think a lot of sarcasm detecting ability comes from the way we are raised, the company we surround ourselves in and the sort of media we expose ourselves to/we are exposed to.


----------



## niss

Kayness said:


> I think a lot of sarcasm detecting ability comes from the way we are raised, the company we surround ourselves in and the sort of media we expose ourselves to/we are exposed to.


QFT. 

Also, it depends on the context. I have some friends that are seldom sarcastic and who try to make their sarcasm obvious. I have other friends that are frequently sarcastic and you have to watch their expressions in order to verify that they are being sarcastic.


----------



## StrixAluco

Kayness said:


> I think a lot of sarcasm detecting ability comes from the way we are raised, the company we surround ourselves in and the sort of media we expose ourselves to/we are exposed to.


Plus, some people have a disorder which makes them less likely to get non literal things in conversations EVEN when they are able to use abstract thinking themselves for various reasons such as : they fail to notice body language. It does not change one's type.

(I have dyspraxia and have this problem, apparently it is common for people with medium to severe dyspraxia even when the physical disability becomes less obvious.)


----------



## Vtile

TreeBob said:


> Where did the hole in the doughnut come from?


More relevant question would be: "why it's there?" And if these are made from a solid cake by drill of some sort who is the lucky one who can eat all that excess stuff. 

75% of these post in this topic is totally BS, so typical  .


----------



## dimane

With a knack for improvisation, the INTP can cause no end of frustration to ESTJs and ISTJs. These types generally cannot make the same intuitive leaps that come naturally to the INTP. On the other hand, they are quick to note (sometimes smugly) when the INTP must stop in the middle of a project to puzzle over the previously discarded instructions, which the STJs read at the start.[11]
[edit]



It is well known that INTPs like to conceptualize before taking action. The need for the manual is not memorization. It is used as a foundation for the ideas and theories. No one implied that they have to follow a rule set in this example. Notice that I used the word 'understanding.' Either way it is a far stretch to say that INTPs are "hands on learners."

I don't like to pull the "agree to disagree" card but my Fi is getting me stressed out. Sorry if I don't respond to the rest of your posts.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Adesi

Kayness said:


> I think a lot of sarcasm detecting ability comes from the way we are raised, the company we surround ourselves in and the sort of media we expose ourselves to/we are exposed to.





niss said:


> QFT.
> 
> Also, it depends on the context. I have some friends that are seldom sarcastic and who try to make their sarcasm obvious. I have other friends that are frequently sarcastic and you have to watch their expressions in order to verify that they are being sarcastic.


I am noticing this more about myself as I get older. A lot of times people have trouble detecting if I'm being sarcastic or literal. I can be sarcastic pretty frequently, but have developed a sarcastic tone even at times when I am being literal. The tone isn't intentional, but I am generally aware of it after the fact. People often ask me now if I'm being sarcastic or not now. This wasn't always the case. But, this is in my delivery more so than in their detection.


----------



## TaylorS

I, as a Sensor, see the details and then build them up into the big picture, while an Intuitive would see the big picture first but then has to break it down into details to make sense of it. It is two different and equally valid ways of seeing the world. Intuitives are not more open-minded or abstract than Sensors.



AirMarionette said:


> Some experiential _examples_:
> 
> When you start rambling about Mendelian genetics, Mandelbrot Fractal sets, or etymology, by carrying it further than normal, they calmly tell you to STFU, stop thinking so much. (STJs)


You got it backwards, it is us STJs who are most likely to ramble on about some obscure, highly detailed interest.


----------



## TaylorS

Ooh, another fan of the Philosopher-Emperor!!!



Tranceman80 said:


> Yesterday I was reading a book called, "The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius". The book is an examination of his philosophical work (The Meditations) which I was reading for "fun".
> 
> I noticed that when I read philosophy, I'm not overly concerned with getting distinctions of different schools of thoughts absolutely correct, although if I was writing a paper on the subject, I would focus on this more. Rather, since I was reading just for the fun of it, I was happy to take away the general idea. However, if someone asked me to explain it back to them, I would have a significant amount of trouble doing so. My tendency would be to try to then sort it out in my mind exactly as it was defined in the book, but since I couldn't do so, it would come across to the other person like I have no idea what I just read, even though, conceptually, I believe I do understand it.
> 
> My question: Is this the behavior of an "S" or "N", or neither?


That sounds like Pi in general, it could be either Ni or Si, depending on if impression (the "general idea" of the book) you express is more symbolic (Ni) or more literal (Si).


----------



## TaylorS

randomcouchpotato said:


> My best friend is an S and I have to make it painfully obvious that I'm being sarcastic or else he doesn't get it.





niss said:


> Sensors will often "get" the sarcasm, but since we tend to not trust our intuition, we either ignore the it (the feeling that this is sarcasm) or seek clarification.





randomcouchpotato said:


> *So that's why he used to ask me all the time if I was being sarcastic or not.* Now he just gets that when I use my sarcasm voice I'm being sarcastic.


This proves I'm an S, LOL!!!


----------



## Mr. Limpopo

vel said:


> S's have stronger reaction to the events in present moment than Ns. ISFJs are more emotionally reactive than INFJs. ISFPs have much more intense emotional spill-outs than INFPs when they get moody. And ISTPs get angry and go into that competitive "screw you" mode more strongly and rapidly than do INTPs. I typically think of this as over-reaction and it is one of the main things that bugs me about Ss.


What....no...not at all. Some stereotypes have a good amount of truth, but this is just completely wrong, even in the world of generalizations.



vel said:


> Sometimes they complain about same things over and over again while I'm thinking "yes, well same thing happened to you a month ago" *I do not see a point in complaining about it all over again. This is more of a Ni thing though*.


WAT

This is not a Ni thing at all, nor is the former a S thing. If its anything related to MBTI, it's a strong judger that can't let go of the past.

Seriously, I've seen lots of Sensor bashing, but this thread takes the cake.


----------



## snapdragons

> I can't take the S hate anymore. Gaining an understanding of the different cognitive functions should enable us to understand ourselves as well as others. It should be an instrument for us to be able to accept the differences among us. I can't see why any type is superior/inferior to the others. I don't know when the N types have gained this "entitlement" to intelligence and stuff.


Golly, I was starting to wonder. Yeah, we all know N's are smarter and all but sheesh...

One thing I have learned is people tend to forget the fact that the MBTI is much richer and deeper than a bunch of 4 letters putting us into a box. In reality, everyone uses all of the functions but what makes us different from each other are the functions we naturally lean to and the functions we naturally are comfortable with. Let's not forget different life circumstances can alter the way we use our functions, causing us to think and act differently

I know that my Ni is my inferior function, but others have told me my Ne isn't too bad and my Se is quite strong. At this point, I'm also acting like a Perceiver than a Judger because life circumstances have forced me to realize life doesn't always go on the organized path initially set out on. It doesn't mean I don't like order and believe there should be order, yet at the time it suits me better to think more perceptively (sp?). 

I find a lot of these "sensors are this" and "sensors are that" quite limiting. It's not just of me to sit around thinking that ENFP's are emotional drama queens (despite the fact I'd like to) and ESTJ's are all Judge Judy's. The various combinations of our functions, paired with the interactions of our lives can make someone who is an ISTJ appear quite different, and an INTJ as well.

I saw this and was rather surprised:


> Some experiential examples:
> 
> When you start rambling about Mendelian genetics, Mandelbrot Fractal sets, or etymology, by carrying it further than normal, they calmly tell you to STFU, stop thinking so much. (STJs)
> 
> When you enthusiastically explain theoretical cosmology and neurobiology, including random metaphysical abstractions, they are unable to concisely replicate, retort, or comprehend exactly what you're saying*, but still welcome your perspective. (SFJs)
> 
> When they're simply unable to look out of the same window you're viewing the world from, and there's a connection missing - somewhere, there's a gap in fully grasping each other's mind.



Uh, yeah...I've loved Mandelbrots since I was a preteen, used to purchase notebooks with design covers of them and then rattle off to my peers about how cool they and and how they represented the order and meaning of life, just to get freaked out stares and then I'd finally shut up. Mendelian genetics just made me seem bonkers to everyone, as well. 

Theoretical cosmology, metaphysical abstractions, and theoretical neurolobiology? REALLY, we must be friends. 

My point here is, don't take the boxes and put them upside down on people! That is different from using descriptors for the purposes of differentiation. Not to mention, if I had someone take a box and put it over me upside down, I'd probably freak out a bit.


----------



## raptured asylum

I'm an S, I don't complain NOTHING about the N types!

So what? I'm borderline S and N, thanks to my sun in Cancer. My gosh, it's rather hypocritical since you are doing the complaining. BLASPHEMY. Fuck you guys, spend some time with with an S who is autistic, I dare you, I'm autistic. We are sensitive to sound and shit, we don't like it when the chatty cathies all talk during the superbowl. We "s":-es enjoy sensory things.


----------



## Ista

S seems to view N's theorizing as intelligence and is likely to ask if they've done an intelligence test. As if N's perceived eccentric capability to draw connections and theorize is directly correlated to IQ measurement. (OK so it often is but that means something to an S, it doesn't appear to mean much at all to an N, nor do they tend to see this as an accurate measure of intelligence, particularly IN's)

S's lists and meeting notes also seem to be very ordered. They are more likely to be action lists only. N's notes are likely to not follow lines at all and contain symbols, connectors. They come out of the meeting with reams of notes (if it was a meeting discussing new concepts) No one else could read these notes probably.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Ista said:


> S seems to view N's theorizing as intelligence and is likely to ask if they've done an intelligence test. As if N's perceived eccentric capability to draw connections and theorize is directly correlated to IQ measurement. (OK so it often is but that means something to an S, it doesn't appear to mean much at all to an N, nor do they tend to see this as an accurate measure of intelligence, particularly IN's)
> 
> S's lists and meeting notes also seem to be very ordered. They are more likely to be action lists only. N's notes are likely to not follow lines at all and contain symbols, connectors. They come out of the meeting with reams of notes (if it was a meeting discussing new concepts) No one else could read these notes probably.


Yeah, well, truth is, everyone has all of the functions and are capable of using them well, so this all doesn't mean very much, since the S and N functions work in tandem, and by divorcing them, you're creating an unrealistic depiction of how S and N types most likely see the world and whatnot.


----------



## firedell

With all these misrepresentation's of what sensors are, or do, I still wonder if most of the people on this forum are typed correctly.

Even when people have typed themselves as an intuitive, they don't even understand the type they claim to be. "I'm a N because I take showers on a Wednesday in the twilight." Given, that is a tad exaggerated, but sometimes peoples excuses for being a N comes across as that pathetic. 

I used to get told I was a N, based on my writing style, or that I was interested in god forbid MBTI. I also consider myself to be creative, which Keirsey claims is a N thing. So I must be typed incorrectly, right? 

If it wasn't for a few people here on PerC, I doubt I would have known the cognitive functions. Sometimes I think the forum should ask people to enter their cognitive functions as their types instead of letters, making people actually learn them.

It's going to be off putting for someone to type themselves as a sensor, if they are meant to be stupid. Thus this doesn't allow for a great input on the forums. Just superficial outcomes from most.

Again, I usually avoid sensor hate, due to it being more of a personal claim than a logical one, or someone who knows little about MBTI. But from the superficial typism, comes lack of diversity and discussion. 

/rant


----------



## rockface

im an se and i love talking theory not as much as logic but combine with teh ti its great to tal about time and mystical creatures and shizz like that i also love fantasie games


----------



## LittleCuttie

Ugh, I really don't like S types. Talking to them is like grasping at straws.


----------



## Kintsugi

I really admire both 'S' and 'N' types (ALL types for that matter...haha :tongue

There is place in this strangely beautiful world for us *all;* we are *all *of equal value and importance.

My mother is an ESTJ and my father an ISTJ. Growing up as an NP child in a predominately SJ household did have its challenges; but was also very rewarding at the same time. I have learnt so many things from my parents; purely from being so different to them in many ways...I have been able to appreciate learning to understand and look at world from a different (and just as important) perspective than my own. This has enabled me to develop parts of myself that perhaps may have otherwise been neglected.

My weaknesses are often their strengths. I've always thought its such a beautiful thing when individuals can forget their differences...step back....and begin to learn from and appreciate one another properly

Note: I realise that people have had bad experiences with other 'types' etc. I went through my own periods of feeling 'misunderstood.' But; we all do...we are all human afterall :wink:


----------



## renna

Really, regardless of being an N or S, you should ask yourself this: "If I am having a conversation with a N/S, can I engage them well? Do I know how they tick so as to trigger exciting thoughts for them?" 

It is not about who entertains who the best. It is about understanding everyone so as to have the strong ability to help people feel connected and excited. Regardless of what type bores you, think too, do you bore them?


----------



## TaylorS

Here is a good way to determine if you are an S or an N:

If you trust your senses over your gut you are an S

If you trust your gut over your senses you are an N


----------

