# What makes the S more creative than the N?



## Daithi (Dec 13, 2011)

The creative types all have S. I am just curious how they are.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Um, creativity isn't type dependent. Just fyi. The only thing that would be is the way in which each type _expresses_ their creativity.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

The MBTI people seem to think that creativity is the result of Intuition.

I don't really agree with this standpoint (though they have held firm on it), but I think it really depends on how you define creativity. I know plenty of creative people who are primarily oriented toward sensing and plenty of who are intuitives. It would be hard to say JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney -- all dominant intuitives are less creative than their sensory-oriented counterparts like Michael Bay, Tim Burton, David Fincher, Marty Scorcese, George Lucas, and Robert Zemeckis. Lil Wayne is probably ESFP, Kanye West ENFP I'd say both are doing pretty well.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

There's a book called "Breakthrough Creativity," by Lynne C. Levesque, which addresses how each of the 16 types are creative in their own way.

http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-...ce-Creative/dp/0891061533/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

A preview:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nGy3MYYAwNAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Hi, @LiquidLight, I edited and linked a book preview, if you haven't read the book and are interested. I've been researching the area of people's strengths, which is why I've been so persistent in trying to figure out my own.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

IMO Si Doms make good artists, since Si is about one's own subjective reaction to the object of perception.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Sarah said:


> Hi, @LiquidLight, I edited and linked a book preview, if you haven't read the book and are interested. I've been researching the area of people's strengths, which is why I've been so persistent in trying to figure out my own.


Saaweeet I'll take a look. I LOOOVED your other posts. I even got a bunch of people over at Personality Nation talking about them.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> Saaweeet I'll take a look. I LOOOVED your other posts. I even got a bunch of people over at Personality Nation talking about them.


Okay, now I've got the major giggles! I was sooo embarrassed to go on and on about my psyche, but if it gives anyone else insights about themselves or teaches them what can happen Myers-Briggs-wise when someone has a screwed-up childhood, then I'm almost glad I posted so much. haha!


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

I was always under the impression that Ns were considered more creative. But alas, I too believe it to be all poppycock. Creativity can be measured in different ways. Sensor creativity and iNtuitive creativity are probably very different.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I think the fine arts may be associated with Sensing because of manipulation of the concrete world: painting, musical instruments, cooking/culinary, fashion, etc. This is a Keirsey thing, methinks.

However, there are other descriptions that make the INFP sound like the creative one, and the ISFP sound like some couch potato who watches television. 

Even Jung mentions the heightened aesthetics of Se and Si...but like...that doesn't mean that S's are more creative. There are intelligent and not-so-intelligent, educated and uneducated, creative and non-creative people of both S and N types.

The *medium* or *style* or *form* may give away the person's personality, though. An xNTP musician typically differs from an xSFP musician, though. It's like comparing Beck or The Aphex Twin (most likely Ne/Ti or Ti/Ne types) to PJ Harvey or Bob Dylan (Se/Fi or Fi/Se types).


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

EVERYONE has 'S' & 'N'

A Sensor has S as their dominant or auxiliary function with N as their tertiary or inferior function
An Intuitive has N as their dominant or auxiliary function with S as their tertiary or inferior function...
btw neither one can exist without the other (nor should it, really). Both side of the perceiving functions work in tandem

though regarding the thread topic: yes I agree with everyone else here that creativity isn't S/N dependent. I'd say they arrive at the same (or similar) points via different routes


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@LiquidLight, I just realized you might have been referring to my MBTI rant/confusion, lol, and I got caught up in "Who Am I?" and forgot about it, so I'll go to Personality Nation and see what I can find.

@Daithi, Keirsey calls SP's "Artisans," which I don't agree with since it specifies that they're the artistic ones. Another author -- can't remember the book now -- said that N's are the more artistic and more into aesthetics. I think being artistic is like having a high IQ -- possible for any type, they just give their gifts a particular flavor, depending on their type.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

I think people who lead with intuition find it easier to acess correct possibilities and undertone - 'What is the general tone/idea he is communicating' - that is something they have more imagination in regards to in that it is not a step they have to work to get over.

Imagination can be an empathic thing, like putting yourself in someone elses shoes - a good actor can submerge themself in the idea of someone else.

Creativity...creating/thinking up something new/novel, not done yet.

As an SJ my focus is on understanding things, working through them in my mind until I'm secure with them and they can fit into my world view. Si is quite abstract in some ways, atleast IMO, I get a vibe, rather than an idea - associations, sort of like mental(/ideal)/emotional/physical syntheses, and have to work to get the idea. If I take something away from its sure fire connections it can go anywhere. It has to be something I'm comfortable doing that with though - sort've like if I move from the rules, I'm on a level where a different set of rules apply, or no rules at all either because they really don't exist, or I don't really sense them beyond a degree of instinct, but I could choose to go against that instinct.

Sort of like art to music, don't _think _about it, go where this unfarmiliar set of rules and sensations/propulsions push you.

Perspicatious is a word that's been used to describe the way I think - an insight into the nature of things. I am focused on this, if I did not focus on it, I would be highly incapable at it. When I step back and relax my thoughts things become free floating I guess. I can see how something _is_, or is generally considered when I work at it, so if I forget that outline I can see other, highly unusual possibilities, like filling in a dot to dot, but then taking the lines away and making it something else, but the initial one will always be a point of security. Maybe intuitives arn't as concerned with that initial idea, or holding onto it, or the significance of it I might feel, as the first conception I had of whatever it was.

I guess we're lost about concepts, so must find our way to them, being lost isn't comfortable for us, we get to know the route like the back of our hand, then we could...try and just go wherever, once we are comfortable with having a set of bearings - it's okay to get lost again with that security.

The internal world, and aesthetics isn't something I can pin down so easily though - there's no external standard which I looks for to make sure I'm on the right track, in some senses, so I can be more creative in things like art or music - being creative doesn't cause me much distress from the word go.


If I wasn't clear in this rabble, I think we're all creative, just go about it in different ways/at different rates.


----------



## Mind Swirl (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm not sure why SPs are called artistic or creative over other types....probably for the same reason INTJs are called "Scientists". There are traits that fit the stereotypical artist, as the INTJ profile has traits that are stereotypically scientific. I see the titles as a general focus of the type for the sake of giving a title that fits with traits, but it's not exclusive. Also, as @_Kayness_ pointed out, we all have S and N. I may have Ni, but I also have extraverted sensing. 

Each person might have a different focus creatively. Within art, some focus on competence, some on expression of feelings, others want to re-create what they experience. Others may follow their imaginings and ideas to paint something that doesn't exist. 

On a side note, I started a thread a while back asking artists of different types about their view of creation if anyone is interested;
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/71634-mbti-types-creating-art-3.html


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I just think a N will get a Bachelor in the Fine Arts, and say now that I have this piece of paper and took classes and such, I am creative. An S will likely drop out of the school to do their own thing,because we beat the N in being born with it. There's a certain theme in artists like Pink Floyd, or the Beatles or Bob Dylan, or Patti Smith, or Picasso, or Polluck, we just organize and do, and are self taught. Ns would I think want to draw in the lines because those are the rules, but I'm not sure they'll ever reach their highest potential doing that? Being in a group of Ns, when I showed them my art, they were like 'oh I can't do that.'



I'm not saying there is anything wrong with how Ns create, but Ss are just better at it. I think.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Sensors are creative with their hands, and intuitive's are creative with their mind. So the theory goes. But just because a personality theories tell you that you aren't creative in a certain way, doesn't mean you aren't.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I think the fine arts may be associated with Sensing because of manipulation of the concrete world: painting, musical instruments, cooking/culinary, fashion, etc. This is a Keirsey thing, methinks.
> 
> However, there are other descriptions that make the INFP sound like the creative one, and the ISFP sound like some couch potato who watches television.
> 
> ...


I would hardly consider myself creative in the proper sense in that I don't really feel I can create much new, not that I flat out can't. I am much more into creating something new out of something that already exists. Sort of like plagiarism, but not really.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

I think Creativity is an Individual thing.It has nothing to do with Type.I have Artist friends and they are all different Types mostly.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> It would be hard to say JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney -- all dominant intuitives are less creative than their sensory-oriented counterparts like Michael Bay, Tim Burton, David Fincher, Marty Scorcese, George Lucas, and Robert Zemeckis. Lil Wayne is probably ESFP, Kanye West ENFP I'd say both are doing pretty well.


Did any of these people actually type themselves?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Did any of these people actually type themselves?


I'm generalizing here, though many of them I know personally and well enough to make an educated guess. That's why I used those specific names.


----------



## taptap (Jun 17, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> The MBTI people seem to think that creativity is the result of Intuition.
> 
> I don't really agree with this standpoint (though they have held firm on it), but I think it really depends on how you define creativity. I know plenty of creative people who are primarily oriented toward sensing and plenty of who are intuitives. It would be hard to say JJ Abrams, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney -- all dominant intuitives are less creative than their*sensory-oriented counterparts like* *Michael Bay,* *Tim Burton*, *David Fincher*, Marty Scorcese,* George Lucas*, and *Robert Zemeckis*. Lil Wayne is probably ESFP, Kanye West ENFP I'd say both are doing pretty well.


Red and bold: You're either trolling and trying to get a rise out of people(in that case, successful) or you know nothing about *Ne*. Probably both.Please, if creativity has nothing to do with MBTI, explain to me how George Lucas and Tim Burton are sensors. Just do that and I'll.. I'll buy you a pet camel.
Blue: Don't know, don't care.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> LOL, as an Ni dom, I definitely don't agree that I have no "appreciation for the aesthetic." I'm probably a lot pickier about it than the average higher Se user, but I think Jung was stretching it a lot by saying "*no* appreciation." I think this extends to all inferior functions in general, that they are very picky and individualistic, but I highly doubt they're anywhere near as lacking as Jung makes them out to be.


Why do you think you are not using your Se to appreciate the aesthetics? I am reminded of Berens descriptions of how each cognitive function notices an apple tree:


> Ni – If you did not even notice the apple tree this there, but instead go a sense that the orchards around will soon be cut down and replaced with a housing development, you have experienced Ni.


 Compare this to Se:


> Se - You might look at the apple tree and notice the contrast of the ruby red apples and the deep green leaves, the rich brown-gray of the trunk and branches, and how the sunlight plays across the yard. You go to the tree and pick an apple, and bite into it with a crunch, savoring the tree ripened sweetness and the aroma of a really fresh apple. Sitting down on the ground you feel the coolness under you and the warmth of the sun.


----------



## Smiling Aria (Dec 11, 2011)

I wouldn't say creativity is type dependent.. Although, like a few previous posters said, it's the way the 2 express themselves that would be different.
I would expect that an S would creatively express themselves in things that slightly mirror their reality with a different theme to it. Maybe they would create and be creative in out of ordinary but close enough to ordinary to stay relatable way.
As for intuitives, I think they would express their creativity in a much more abstract way. I feel as though we're less likely to make as much sense as S types. So we'd more likely make abstract art I think. Most of my art is conceptual, not like blueprints or concepts for something you'd expect to see with your eyes, no. Conceptual in the sense that it's usually representations of essences of things, emotions felt towards something, how I think or feel about a topic or how I think it feels.
I really don't know a lot about sensors though. Also, I could be wrong about all of this, I'm just assuming based on what I know. However, I know many sensors without even a little bit of creativity or ability to think out of the box. I also know intuitives who can't find their way out of that box, who usually don't have a desire at all to even try to be creative and claim to have never or rarely had creative thoughts.
It really seems up to the individual.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

taptap said:


> Red and bold: You're either trolling and trying to get a rise out of people(in that case, successful) or you know nothing about *Ne*. Probably both.Please, if creativity has nothing to do with MBTI, explain to me how George Lucas and Tim Burton are sensors. Just do that and I'll.. I'll buy you a pet camel.
> Blue: Don't know, don't care.


Nice anti-sensor bigotry you got there.

If you had read Jung's discriptions in _Psychological Types_ and other books by him, rather than pop-sci bastardizations, you would be aware that N does not equal "creative" and S does not mean one is a close-minded idiot.


----------



## taptap (Jun 17, 2010)

TaylorS said:


> Nice anti-sensor bigotry you got there.
> 
> If you had read Jung's discriptions in _Psychological Types_ and other books by him, rather than pop-sci bastardizations, you would be aware that N does not equal "creative" and S does not mean one is a close-minded idiot.


 Nice assumptions you got there.
The only reason I'm replying to you is that I don't consider you a close-minded idiot.

Here's the deal, you're wrong and I'm about to tell you why. But first, I'm just going to say that I have plenty of sensor and specifically SJ friends(my best friend is ESFJ) so I obviously have nothing against sensors. They're definitely not stupid but they all think in very conventional, linear patterns, which stifles creativity. This makes them good at other things though, like common sense, having detailed memories(in the case of SJs), being amazing at sports(in the case of SPs) and basic math, to name a few examples.

Now lets begin. See, Openness to experience, in the Big 5 personality traits, correlates with both intelligence and creativity. Now, Openness, in the Big 5 and intuition in the MBTI are very closely related concepts.


> *Understanding the Openness Factor*
> 
> Openness:
> I have a vivid imagination.
> ...


Would it not make sense for someone who fit this profile to be considered more creative than someone who does not?

Also, take a look at this. Extraversion seems to also be associated with creativity.


> Latent inhibition (LI) is a preconscious gating mechanism that allows animals with complex nervous systems to ignore stimuli previously experienced as irrelevant. Decreased LI has been associated with dopaminergic agonist intoxication and schizophrenic conditions. We previously demonstrated reductions in LI among individuals characterized by higher levels of trait Openness and Extraversion. This study replicates our previous findings, using another university student sample (Total N=79; aged 18-40 yrs). Participants characterized by decreased LI (N=23) were significantly more Open and Extraverted than those who manifested intact LI (N=54). The 2 groups were better differentiated, however, by the simple additive combination of z-scored Extraversion and Openness, deemed Plasticity. Differences between the 2 groups also emerged with regards to H. G. Gough's (1979), with the Low LI group scoring higher than the High LI group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
> Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: replication and commentary | Mendeley


And the link between low latent inhibition and creativity is pretty much established. Here's a random article on just that:


> Those students who were classified as “eminent creative achievers” – the rankings were based on their performance on various tests, as well as their real world accomplishments – were _seven times_ more likely to “suffer” from low latent inhibition. This makes some sense: The association between creativity and open-mindedness has long been recognized, and what’s more open-minded than distractability? People with low latent inhibition are literally unable to close their mind, to keep the spotlight of attention from drifting off to the far corners of the stage. The end result is that they can’t help but consider the unexpected.
> Are Distractible People More Creative? | Wired Science*| Wired.com


This makes sense since the cognitive function that is associated with creativity, e.g making connections between seemingly unrelated dots, is *Ne*. Extraverted i*N*tution. And it makes perfect sense, since Ne-doms(and aux) frequently get misdiagnosed with ADHD, which is associated with high creativity.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't know. I think I have zero creativity in most art forms, except writing. Chicken scratches are way more creative than my art. :/


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

taptap said:


> Here's the deal, you're wrong and I'm about to tell you why.
> 
> Also, take a look at this. Extraversion seems to also be associated with creativity.
> And the link between low latent inhibition and creativity is pretty much established. Here's a random article on just that:
> This makes sense since the cognitive function that is associated with creativity, e.g making connections between seemingly unrelated dots, is *Ne*. Extraverted i*N*tution. And it makes perfect sense, since Ne-doms(and aux) frequently get misdiagnosed with ADHD, which is associated with high creativity.


So, you're saying that only ENTPs and ENFPs, like yourself, can be creative?

And the rest of us are... what? Wannabes? Followers? Drones? 

Well, I guess I need to go burn my portfolio, wipe my hard drive, and restrict myself to menial tasks 'cause I'll never be as creative as you.


----------



## taptap (Jun 17, 2010)

ChanceyRose said:


> So, you're saying that only ENTPs and ENFPs, like yourself, can be creative?
> 
> And the rest of us are... what? Wannabes? Followers? Drones?
> 
> Well, I guess I need to go burn my portfolio, wipe my hard drive, and restrict myself to menial tasks 'cause I'll never be as creative as you.


*No, that's not what I'm saying at all.* What I'm saying is that based on available scientific data, Ne-doms are the* most likely* types to exhibit high levels of creativity. _Of course_ other types *can be* highly creative as well.
EDIT: Like I said, people who score high in openness are likely to be creative. As an I*N*TJ, you're more likely to score high in openness than the average per*S*on. Get it?


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

taptap said:


> *No, that's not what I'm saying at all.* What I'm saying is that based on available scientific data, Ne-doms are the* most likely* types to exhibit high levels of creativity. _Of course_ other types *can be* highly creative as well.
> EDIT: Like I said, people who score high in openness are likely to be creative. As an I*N*TJ, you're more likely to score high in openness than the average per*S*on. Get it?


I got it the first time, thus the sarcasm.

Honestly, your aggressive posturing is what prompted my post, not the validity/invalidity of your statement. You're poised to stomp on anyone who disagrees with you which precludes any useful discussion with you.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

taptap said:


> Nice assumptions you got there.
> The only reason I'm replying to you is that I don't consider you a close-minded idiot.
> 
> Here's the deal, you're wrong and I'm about to tell you why. But first, I'm just going to say that I have plenty of sensor and specifically SJ friends(my best friend is ESFJ) so I obviously have nothing against sensors. They're definitely not stupid but they all think in very conventional, linear patterns, which stifles creativity. This makes them good at other things though, like common sense, having detailed memories(in the case of SJs), being amazing at sports(in the case of SPs) and basic math, to name a few examples.
> ...


 I score extremely high on openness in the Big Five and I'm a Si Dominant *according the definition of Si as actually used by Jungian analytical psychology.*

That N in MBTI is correlated with Big Five Openness just shows that MBTI as popularily used has degenerated into a poor substitute of the Big Five. In fact, I would expect Ni-users to score lower than Si users on Openness because according to Jung Ni is anti-realist and anti-empiricist. Neurotic Ni Doms just "know" something is right, facts be damned. But yet Ni can be very creative exactly because of that anti-real mentality and despite it's close-mindedness.

In terms of Creativity:
Ne
Ni
Si
Se

In terms of open-mindedness:
Ne
Se
Si
Ni


----------



## Finaille (Aug 8, 2010)

TaylorS said:


> I score extremely high on openness in the Big Five and I'm a Si Dominant *according the definition of Si as actually used by Jungian analytical psychology.*
> 
> That N in MBTI is correlated with Big Five Openness just shows that MBTI as popularily used has degenerated into a poor substitute of the Big Five. In fact, I would expect Ni-users to score lower than Si users on Openness because according to Jung Ni is anti-realist and anti-empiricist. Neurotic Ni Doms just "know" something is right, facts be damned. But yet Ni can be very creative exactly because of that anti-real mentality and despite it's close-mindedness.
> 
> ...


I agree with your Ne and open-mindedness... but I guess I'm having a hard time pinning why the creativity is actually so high on your list. Yes, I think a lot of Ne doms have the potential to be extremely creative. Have you checked out @viva 's paintings on her page? HOLY COW!!! They are amazing. A lot of our creativity is abstract... and doesn't come out as well cause we have the tendency to be lazy. If we can stick our minds to something, I suppose I could agree very much with your post.

I always believed Sensor types are more creative because their art is expressed in ways that can be more commonly appreciated, if that makes sense. I believe they are way more attuned to their surroundings and can express that in their own art, even if their art is abstract. There is always a sense of familiarity; something that keeps you tied to the past and present. It's much harder to appreciate art that has future, random focus, in my opinion. So I don't think that makes one type less creative than another, but Sensor types of art tend to make a lot more sense to a larger group. I wish I had that ability sometimes.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

One of the things I notice about this thread is the disagreement on what it means to be creative. I'm noticing many people only seeing creativity from a Ne (or just intuitive) standpoint. 

The Myers Briggs people say that creativity can be linked to intuition but you can't really read too much into that. Here is a more concise breakdown Another Look At Creativity Styles: Reporting On Research and A New Question | The InterStrength Group



> In the early literature, a survey of studies relating the MBTI to creativity showed a tendency for N's, especially NP's to be considered more creative than S's and SJ's (Myers & McCaulley p. 214 - 221, Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, Hammer, 1998 p. 191 - 194).
> 
> Support for intuitive perception as being the more creative function was also given in a review of Dr. Donald MacKinnon's (1978) study. When MacKinnon's research was being conducted, creativity was thought to be demonstrated through divergent thinking characterized by...thought processes that radiate outward, visualize, generate and explore new ideas, options and possibilities." (Carson & Runco, 1999).
> 
> ...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Wouldn't a Te-aux user just ignore the emotional overtones that may or may not have been there?


Completely untrue!!!!!! There's nothing illogical about paying attention to feeling undertones at all. Who the hell doesn't do this, unless they're autistic? That's what autism is to begin with - not having the innate ability to detect emotional nuances in others, thus an inability to relate to others. That would represent a disorder, since picking up on the emotional nuances of others is extremely important to any normally functional human's self-preservation instinct. Paying attention to feeling undertones of others is not representative of the F functions at all. Think about it, there are autistic F types out there too. I know some. Paying attention to feeling undertones can be a very logical thing to do to know whether or not someone seems credible in what they're saying and whatnot. If you can't understand what I'm saying here, then you're autistic. I know all of this because one of my best friends has high functioning autism, and this is exactly what she experiences, based on everything she ever told me about autism. I have no reason not to believe her. She's the most honest person I know (go figure).


----------



## anon (Oct 19, 2009)

What is 'creative' is subjective to one's perception, preferences, and views. I know people from both the N and S categories that are creative. Sensors are creative by accurately manifesting immediate stimuli of their surroundings into their work/task/actions, so they're very absorbing of what is concrete and then shaking it up to create something out of it. What comes to mind is Jessica Alba in the movie 'Honey', when she was completely focused on watching people play basketball, and she manipulated the basketball performance to suit dancing. The dance incorporated the exact moves of the basketball performance, but since it was dancing, it had more flair and grace to the movements compared to if the same movements were used in playing a sport.

An intuitive's creativity is sparked from attempting to translate their thoughts/visions/ideas into something receivable. Hence, they're highly likely to be skilled with manipulating the concrete to suit a multiple set of ideas they wish to project in the functioning of an object, giving it a contrasting and almost highly new definition, perhaps somewhat dimensional, and quite novel in it's experience. Think Bjork (singer) or Kanye West for a more 'contemporary' example.

I think both Sensors and Intuitives can be equally creative, it really boils down to the individual.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> In terms of open-mindedness:
> Ne
> Se
> Si
> Ni


Ni is the least? No way. I mean, it has a lot more in common with Ne than it does with the other two, but since it's known for perspective shifting, I would think it would be among the most open-minded. The Ni doms I know tend to be very open-minded. The only reason that Ne doms might view Ni doms as more narrow-minded probably comes from the fact that the two functions technically oppose each other (e.g. according to the Beebe model, for Ni doms, Ne is in the 5th "oppositional" position, while for Ne doms, Ni is in the 5th "oppositional" position, so an Ni dom and an Ne dom might feel a bit "opposed" by each other when sharing their reasoning - Ne doms might call Ni "narrow-minded," since Ni appears to limit possibilities, even though the Ni user may not have ignored other possibilities altogether, while Ni doms might find Ne to be irrelevant and lacking in significance, since it's random processes are out in the open.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Brian1 said:


> Okay so I hung around with NFs that were heavily teachers and nonprofit people, and who really took heart at thoughts like "you know how as a kid the teacher says who can paint, and everyone raised their hands, and then when you're an adult you ask the same question and there's not a lot of hands raised." That's where I was coming from. I really didn't see creativity coming from that group of people.


Your post reminded of a great animated lecture, dealing with divergent thinking and how it is educated out of us. The entire lecture is brilliant, but the section dealing specifically with your comment starts at about 7:30.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

taptap said:


> * What I'm saying is that based on available scientific data, Ne-doms are the most likely types to exhibit high levels of creativity. Of course other types can be highly creative as well.
> *


*

Has it occurred to you that the test or measure of creativity is subjective? That different MBTI types are creative in different ways, so that any one measure of creativity would have inherently flawed results?*


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

N is the creative thing, S just tells what is. But you see S types do have N also. Its NeSi users that make the best artists generally, by NeSi users i mean Np amd Sj types. NiSe users are better at something like painting a portrait in detail as it is, but that i dont see as creativity, its just copying whay is.

Creativity comes from the unconscious, that is something what everyone who understands creativity can agree with. And by definition intuition is perception through unconscious..


----------



## taptap (Jun 17, 2010)

niss said:


> Has it occurred to you that the test or measure of creativity is subjective? That different MBTI types are creative in different ways, so that any one measure of creativity would have inherently flawed results?


 1. It has
2. What different ways?
3. If you read those articles, you would see that they connected creativity to low latent inhibition -- what other forms of creativity are they that have nothing to do with low latent inhibition?
4. Inherently flawed? No. You probably didn't even read the articles if you say that. It's not like they gave the subjects a piece of paper and told them to "be creative". Read the articles, please.
5. I'm assuming that you consider yourself creative -- just know that I never said sensors _can't_ be creative. I just said that people who score high on openness and extraversion are usually creativ and that's usually extraverted intuitives. Now, since openness is more important here than extraversion, there are lots of introverted intuitives who are creative as well.
Okay? Okay.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I think I was part of the last wave of groups that had a significant art teacher, also I was lucky to miss S.A.Ts. I wouldn't of survived in this culture of let's test kids in the 3rd grade, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 grades, and all these cuts to classes like art or band or sports, that don't play well with competition from Germany or Japan. It's very destructive what we've done to our education system.



niss said:


> Your post reminded of a great animated lecture, dealing with divergent thinking and how it is educated out of us. The entire lecture is brilliant, but the section dealing specifically with your comment starts at about 7:30.


----------



## maIstNermiTnJd (Jan 17, 2012)

If you took the test under the tab at the top right of the page you were probably typed wrong. There are same flows in the typing method or grading aspect of this test. I've seen and taken the psychologists version of the MBTI along with having the book and this test is inconsistent. You also have to remember that Jung developed his test in the 50's and it was stemmed from astrology which is completely wrong and inaccurate. Jung created the bridge from astrology to what we have now but the difference was made when he added information from other psychologist like Freud and the Briggs essentially making the outcome four letters instead of two. I believe the MBTI gives better descriptions and can be more consistent; although, some personality types don’t understand the proses involved with looking within and accumulating past mannerisms from memory to give the best answer. The prejudice mostly come from the ability to, with a low margin of error, predict what a sensor will say or do, from repetition of circumstances, on many specific instances or that most of the time a sensor will not understand, what may seem to us as, the most simple of abstract concepts, making run-in's in real life very frustrating. On the other side, sensors will become frustrated with the intuitive because of their aloof behavior and lack of simple conversation skills. I am not trying to attack you. I’m giving you the reason why there is stipulation. In my defense to what was said, I do not lie ignorant to the sensors abilities. I consider many perceptional viewpoints at the same time giving me an eclectic outlook on the world. I also see my fault in reacting to the word ‘ignorant’ because this is a thing I am not and do not like, and the fact that I wasted time explaining. What I was meaning to portray by the “manual labor” is that *most* sensor adults, that I have come across, succumb to ‘the simple life’ (not necessarily simple minded, less involved or busy) and that requires them to have a manual labor job which they enjoy through the practice coordinating muscles and becoming fluent with a task. Again, I am not trying to attack you. I’m giving you the reason why there is stipulation and a more thorough meaning behind my other post.


----------



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

Explaining might make people less likely to call your statement ignorant (assuming that the explanation makes sense). But in general, its not fair or accurate to say that sensors can't think outside the box or don't like mental work, etc. I figure sensors prefer to think about concrete things both inside and outside the box, while intuitive types prefer to think of abstract things both inside and outside of the box. 

also, i don't know anything about the blogs really btw.

edit: @maIstNermiTnJd I can't tell if you're talking to me or someone else but for the record, i don't feel attacked and I may in fact be a sensor (i don't know). I just think what you're saying is incorrect. gotta go now.


----------



## maIstNermiTnJd (Jan 17, 2012)

No I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to you as in general 'you' (people). and ya I forgot to address the box thing but your description sounds convincing enough.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

maIstNermiTnJd said:


> If you took the test under the tab at the top right of the page you were probably typed wrong. There are same flows in the typing method or grading aspect of this test. I've seen and taken the psychologists version of the MBTI along with having the book and this test is inconsistent. You also have to remember that Jung developed his test in the 50's and [B_]it was stemmed from astrology_[/B] which is completely wrong and inaccurate. Jung created the bridge from astrology to what we have now but the difference was made when he *added information from other psychologist like Freud and the Briggs* essentially making the outcome four letters instead of two. I believe the MBTI gives better descriptions and can be more consistent; although, some personality types don’t understand the proses involved with looking within and accumulating past mannerisms from memory to give the best answer. The prejudice mostly come from the ability to, with a low margin of error, predict what a sensor will say or do, from repetition of circumstances, on many specific instances or that most of the time *a sensor will not understand, what may seem to us as, the most simple of abstract concepts*, making run-in's in real life very frustrating. On the other side, sensors will become* frustrated with the intuitive because of their aloof behavior and lack of simple conversation skills*. I am not trying to attack you. I’m giving you the reason why there is stipulation. In my defense to what was said, I do not lie ignorant to the sensors abilities. I consider many perceptional viewpoints at the same time giving me an eclectic outlook on the world. I also see my fault in reacting to the word ‘ignorant’ because this is a thing I am not and do not like, and the fact that I wasted time explaining. What I was meaning to portray by the “manual labor” is that *most* sensor adults, that I have come across, succumb to ‘the simple life’ (not necessarily simple minded, less involved or busy) and that* requires them to have a manual labor job* which they enjoy through the practice coordinating muscles and becoming fluent with a task. Again, I am not trying to attack you. I’m giving you the reason why there is stipulation and a more thorough meaning behind my other post.


I'm confused! (*emphasis *above is mine)

This is the first time I've seen it stated that Jung's theories was based on astrology. According to Wikipedia, Jung used the archetypes that are also used in astrology, which are universal and based on myth, but not that he used astrology, per se.

I thought Myers and Briggs came after Jung and based their theories on his. How did he use their work?

I'll admit that sometimes communicating with someone whose dom/aux functions are different from yours can be frustrating, but the sensors I know have no problem understanding metaphor, simile, and analogy which are all abstract concepts.

Describing intuitives as 'aloof' and lacking in simple conversational skills is a gross overgeneralization. Comments like this and the one about sensors succumbing to a simple life which 'requires them to have a manual labor job' perpetuate the stereotypes.

I realize you're trying to explain your earlier comments but I think you made it worse.


----------

