# Please help me with typing! Can S be theoretically talented ?



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Please help me to type my close friend. I persuaded her to do MBTI-test, she got result INFJ. She didn´t notice herself of the descrition of INFJ and also I thouhgt it wasn´t correct aswer.

I know for sure she is Introvert. She is very organized and detailed, so I´m very sure she is J. But she is not NF. Witch letter is wrong or both?

About N/S:
-She is very conservative.
-She is very good to make things with her hands: to sew beautiful clothes, to bake amazing cakes, to decor beautiful home, have very beautiful handwriting.
-She is not meditative.
-She is very intelligent and had good grade from school.

*Question*: Can S be intellectually/theoretically talented?

About F/T
-She is very sensitive and have strong feelings, but she doesn´t seem to have very strong instinct of helping people (except her own family). Actually she doesn´t understand my will to safe everybody.
-For those who don´t know her, she might look like cold, but for very close people she is caring.
-She looks like very sedate and composed and she doesn´t show feelings.
-She is making decisions with feeling. She always asked how she feel about something before she do it.
-Her life shows her values are very important to her.

*Question*: Does F (Fi/Fe) always means wanting to help others?

Quickly it looks like S and F fit better, but she defenetly can´t be ISFJ, her Fe is not that strong. And ISTJ doesn´t fit with the that fact, she always do her decisions with feelings.

Please help me typing her! Ths looks like the stalement.


----------



## Mind Swirl (Sep 7, 2011)

doucette said:


> About N/S:
> -She is very conservative.
> -She is very good to make things with her hands: to sew beautiful clothes, to bake amazing cakes, to decor beautiful home, have very beautiful handwriting.
> -She is not meditative.
> ...


Yes, they can be smart/intellectual and obviously can enjoy theory, otherwise there would be no sensors interested in MBTI. I'm leaning towards S, but an N can enjoy those same things. It's hard to tell how someone thinks through the hobby itself, probably easier to tell in how they approach the hobby and why they enjoy it. 



doucette said:


> -She is very sensitive and have strong feelings, but she doesn´t seem to have very strong instinct of helping people (except her own family). Actually she doesn´t understand my will to safe everybody.
> -For those who don´t know her, she might look like cold, but for very close people she is caring.
> -She looks like very sedate and composed and she doesn´t show feelings.
> -She is making decisions with feeling. She always asked how she feel about something before she do it.
> -Her life shows her values are very important to her.


I'd likely say Fi here so she might want to look at Fi-dominant types.
I wouldn't discount her being a P because she's orderly. If she says INFJ doesn't fit her at all, nor ISFJ or ISTJ, maybe she should try looking at ISFP or INFP which use introverted feeling.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Mind Swirl said:


> Yes, they can be smart/intellectual and obviously can enjoy theory, otherwise there would be no sensors interested in MBTI. I'm leaning towards S, but an N can enjoy those same things. It's hard to tell how someone thinks through the hobby itself, probably easier to tell in how they approach the hobby and why they enjoy it.
> 
> 
> I'd likely say Fi here so she might want to look at Fi-dominant types.
> I wouldn't discount her being a P because she's orderly. If she says INFJ doesn't fit her at all, nor ISFJ or ISTJ, maybe she should try looking at ISFP or INFP which use introverted feeling.


Thank you. Maybe ISFP could be possible.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

i think she definately lines up with ISFJ

ISFJ's are deeply into taking good care of their family, being scheduled with meals, being conservative, everything about her shows ISFJ, and they are sensitive people, and yes they are extraverted feelers (fe) as to their family always concerned about how each one in the family is doing on a day to day basis, they make the most stable and nurtured family home; the wellbeing of their family is more important to them than their own wellbeing, hence Fe, not Fi.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Dreamer777 said:


> i think she definately lines up with ISFJ
> 
> ISFJ's are deeply into taking good care of their family, being scheduled with meals, being conservative, everything about her shows ISFJ, and they are sensitive people, and yes they are extraverted feelers (fe) as to their family always concerned about how each one in the family is doing on a day to day basis, they make the most stable and nurtured family home; the wellbeing of their family is more important to them than their own wellbeing, hence Fe, not Fi.


Otherwise yes, but don´t ISFJ´s is (because of Fe) very caring and loving type, want to help others (not only own family), easily feel pity for someone, empathic, look like warm, maybe even social/extravert?


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

doucette said:


> Otherwise yes, but don´t ISFJ´s is (because of Fe) very caring and loving type, want to help others (not only own family), easily feel pity for someone, empathic, look like warm, maybe even social/extravert?


Depends on the situation. Fe can be the complete opposite of those things.

Edit: And I was thinking ISFJ as well.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I don't know why you don't think she's ISFJ. ISFJs can be extremely loyal to their families but not have any interest in helping the greater world. 

My ESFJ ex would sometimes have these crazy moments where he'd do things like chase down shop lifters, he really hated anyone who hurt kids, and on Thanksgiving one year he took a plate of food to the homeless man across the street. But, like, even in helping people outside his family they were people he could physically see right in front of him. Hated any kind of "political" idea of helping people through mass organizations or that kind of thing. But you see...he was also an Fe DOM and they tend to be more outwardly expressive and "people persons."

ISFJs can seem cold sometimes on the surface, and people can sometimes mistake their reserve for not caring. However, if she consistently puts family loyalty and the needs of her immediate loved ones before herself, that's still Fe. It also makes sense with her being very conservative, because she probably absorbed those morals from her environment (and that's why she doesn't want to "save the world"...not because she doesn't have Fe, but because she's a conservative and believes people should take care of their own; her moral value system is just different from your own.)

She could be an ISFP, but I don't know how "composed" ISFPs are AND also I think as an ISFP Fi/Ni would make her more "meditative" and you said she is not that.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

WSidis said:


> Depends on the situation. Fe can be the complete opposite of those things.
> 
> Edit: And I was thinking ISFJ as well.


 Interesting. I wanted to find out what you meant by that, so yesterday I was spending several hours consentrating on what being ISFJ really is.

Because of some descriptions I have seen, I has been thought ISFJs are obedient, humble, weak, not very intelligent, feels pity for others etc. It didn´t seem to fit well with person I´talking about: she is intelligent, ambitious, attractive, brave (not bold but persistent). But at the same time so many things seems to match with INFJs.

What did I found, was very eye-opening, especially the differences between INFJ and ISFJ.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...trices/13264-how-distinguish-isfj-infj-3.html


> ISFJs take care of people in practical ways and by being there, giving their time and making tremendous efforts for their families.
> 
> INFJs give therapy.


 taken from here


 Now I see that _Caring and loving_ have different meanings when it comes to INFJ or ISFJ. ISFJ shows it straight and practical way, with INFJs it is more idealistic. I think this was the reason why I have misunerstood ISFJs. From my INFJ opinion, I have had different kind of vision of what Fe mean.
An example: I had been very satisfied with my wedding cake. 
Next time when I visited her, she had made for me a princess cake!​

 After I read this I understood that being practical doesn´t mean cannot be intelligent. ISFJs can be master in what they do, but they don´t learn just to learn (like INFJs), they want to learn skills and seeks an education in order to work.
Now I believe she is ISFJ :kitteh:


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I don't know why you don't think she's ISFJ. ISFJs can be extremely loyal to their families but not have any interest in helping the greater world.
> 
> My ESFJ ex would sometimes have these crazy moments where he'd do things like chase down shop lifters, he really hated anyone who hurt kids, and on Thanksgiving one year he took a plate of food to the homeless man across the street. But, like, even in helping people outside his family they were people he could physically see right in front of him. Hated any kind of "political" idea of helping people through mass organizations or that kind of thing. But you see...he was also an Fe DOM and they tend to be more outwardly expressive and "people persons."
> 
> ...


Thank you! Your reply just confirmed my new assesment of ISFJs.


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

" ISFJs are obedient, humble, *weak, not very intelligent*, feels pity for others etc." That is offensive. N doesn't mean intelligent as evidenced by this bias. And S certainly doesn't mean unintelligent.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> weak, not very intelligent


Ha! I know an ISFJ who's very non-conformist and smarter than tons of the Ne doms I know. Most of the ISFJs I know are rather non-conformist (some beat some of the INFPs I know in this department). I'm dead serious. I can definitely see ISFJ for this person we're discussing though.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

WSidis said:


> " ISFJs are obedient, humble, *weak, not very intelligent*, feels pity for others etc." That is offensive. N doesn't mean intelligent as evidenced by this bias. And S certainly doesn't mean unintelligent.


How dare you distord my words! What did I wrote:


> *Because of some descriptions I have seen*, I has been thought ISFJs are obedient, humble, weak, not very intelligent, feels pity for others etc.


I didn´t wrote those decriptions. Yeah, and I know it is offensive, but what I can do, when so many description of ISFJ gives image of weak and humble person because they said ISFJ´s are _unappriciated_ and _treated like doormats_?! (for example here.) So, let me ask, is this my fault, that ISFJs are are also often described in less flattering?


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ha! I know an ISFJ who's very non-conformist and smarter than tons of the Ne doms I know. Most of the ISFJs I know are rather non-conformist (some beat some of the INFPs I know in this department). I'm dead serious. I can definitely see ISFJ for this person we're discussing though.


I can believe it now, because if this my dear friend is ISFJ (and I believe she is), it totally change my picture of ISFJs. She is so intelligent, ambitious, and brave. Nothing to do with the _doormats_.

And I just want to repeat myself:


> *Because of some descriptions I have seen*, I has been thought ISFJs are obedient, humble, weak, not very intelligent, feels pity for others etc.


Maybe we should ask are those description of ISFJ very rustworthy.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

doucette said:


> I didn´t wrote those decriptions. Yeah, and I know it is offensive, but what I can do, when so many description of ISFJ gives image of weak and humble person because they said ISFJ´s are _unappriciated_ and _treated like doormats_?! (for example here.) So, let me ask, is this my fault, that ISFJs are are also often described in less flattering?


Well, I think a lot of it is down to how one interprets a description like that.

First off, bear in mind that not everyone of a type is going to be the same. There are a lot of similarities, but it's impossible for any one description of a type to be accurate for every person of that type. I think the idea is to see if the *general picture* of the description fits the person you're thinking about, even if the details don't.


I think the main phrase that you said that is problematic is "not very intelligent". To me, there's nothing in that description you posted that suggests anything about intelligence one way or the other. 

I will say that being humble sometimes means *hiding* one's intelligence, and it's debatable when/if this is a good thing or not. So it may be that ISFJs some sometimes viewed an unintelligent because they don't outwardly project it like many types do. They may keep a lot of their thoughts to themselves. I, for example, teach high school Pre-Calculus, an area that is often associated with NTs. But I don't talk about it much on PerC.


The other word you mentioned is "weak". Weakness is something that can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. The same action can look like strength to one person and weakness to another. Even the idea of being a "doormat" is something that can be looked at two ways. One person may view it as weak because someone's letting someone else walk all over them, but it can also be perceived as a strength because one is steadfastedly doing their job and continuing to help others no matter what someone else is doing to them.


You mentioned that your friend is brave, but not bold. You said that she was persistent, but not bold. This is what the description you posted is describing. Loyalty and unstinting high quality work...that is evidence of persistence. 

It also said that ISFJs will sometimes let others treat them like doormats....not necessarily that they view themselves as a doormat. It was basically saying that ISFJs don't always toot their own horns, in a similar way to what I described above.



So while I wasn't offended by anything you wrote, I think you might have projected a few personal viewpoints onto the description based on what the description made you think of.



But like I said, there is going to be some variation within a type. ISFJs aren't known for being particularly ambitious, but that doesn't mean that they can't be. In general I think that introverts may be less ambitious than extroverts, though I may be mistaken about that. But if you're sure she's an introvert, then I don't know if I would view any other introvert as particularly more ambitious than an ISFJ. 



I really like this ISFJ description (though not all ISFJs agree with me on that)

http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/79104-good-isfj-description.html

(It's Rim's post, # 6, on that thread).



It may be hard to tell if you friend exhibits any of these qualities, because they are more of a personal mentality sort of thing.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> To me, there's nothing in that description you posted that suggests anything about intelligence one way or the other.


Thank you for your long post. I have to write more later, and also have to check the link you gave, but at first I wanted to say this:



> ISFJs learn best by doing, rather than by reading about something in a book, or applying theory. For this reason, they are not likely to be found in fields which require a lot of conceptual analysis or theory. They value practical application.  Traditional methods of higher education, which require a lot of theorizing and abstraction, are likely to be a chore for the ISFJ.


taken from here

The ability to abstract binary thinking is something that I think that definitely related to intelligence.

Like i said, I didn´t invent "not very intelligent" myself. You can read it yourself, when it is saying  "theorizing and abstraction, are likely to be a chore for the ISFJ."

By the way, my friend is highly educated, but in practical subject, and it wasnt very "chore" for her.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

doucette said:


> taken from here
> 
> The ability to abstract binary thinking is something that I think that definitely related to intelligence.
> 
> Like i said, I didn´t invent "not very intelligent" myself. You can read it yourself, when it is saying  "theorizing and abstraction, are likely to be a chore for the ISFJ."


I see what you're saying and why you make the relation to intelligence. However, I still think it's a bit of a jump to say that just because someone has more difficulty in abstract and theoretical areas means that they're less intelligent than someone who does those things more easily. 

Intelligence is a very broad term and a broad area, and there are a lot of ways to look at it. I think Ns sometimes value areas of intelligence more than others and can attribute those areas to the whole realm of intelligence. Of course, Ss can do the same thing with other areas.


So basically, I think the description pinpointed ideas about how ISFJs tend to think, but I don't think it paints them as unintelligent.




doucette said:


> By the way, my friend is highly educated, but in practical subject, and it wasnt very "chore" for her.


And this makes sense if your friend is an ISFJ, because as the description said, ISFJs, like most Ss, tend to do better in areas with more practical application. 

Though this isn't always true. I tend to enjoy a lot of the math I teach just for the sake of understanding how the math works. Many NTs prefer to think about all of the practical applications of the math (though this is kind of a big picture/small picture situation as well).


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

doucette said:


> taken from here
> 
> The ability to abstract binary thinking is something that I think that definitely related to intelligence.
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree with you there. Intelligence comes in different forms, and theorizing and abstraction are just _two_ types of intelligence, out of the *many* kinds out there. Just because ISFJs may not be good at theorizing doesn't mean we're "not very intelligent". If you get someone to do something they're not good at, of course they're going to appear as "not very intelligent". It's like putting a square peg into a round hole. It's not going to work, no matter how you slice it. 

HOWEVER,if you were to instead say that ISFJs aren't very *intellectual *or *intellectually inclined*, then I would agree with you. We tend to prefer the practical to the theorotical, and our intelligence would be more of the practical sort.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

@doucette

There's so much great information in this thread! 

You're right, the type descriptions are poor on many sites. Rarely are they written from the perspective of someone of that type. Think about it this way, if you're a Ni dom type writing type descriptions, which area of intelligence will you value? Whether the descriptions clearly deride the other or not, there will always be bias there, just as there would be if I wrote an INTJ description. I would work harder to balance that than some, though. You swear from some descriptions that INFJs are psychic otherworldly angels while ISFJs are simple bland mouthbreathers. They're outwardly very similar types. 

You'll see that a lot even here on PerC: people of all types who know and believe only what they've read, and without deep contemplation of what it can mean from differing perspectives. 

The theory talk is misleading. Sensors do theory, as you're seeing. I'm typical of other ISTJs in that I want to see you examples of things before I just accept them. So while I love psychological theory, I'm skeptical of changing perspectives within it until I've seen the research and made real world observations on it. And of course, every ISTJ will be different. I can only speak for myself. 

Good luck with your ISFJ friend! They can be amazingly committed and selfless people.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> I see what you're saying and why you make the relation to intelligence. *However, I still think it's a bit of a jump to say that just because someone has more difficulty in abstract and theoretical areas means that they're less intelligent than someone who does those things more easily.*


Exactly. 



> And this makes sense if your friend is an ISFJ, because as the description said, ISFJs, like most Ss, tend to do better in areas with more practical application.
> 
> Though this isn't always true. I tend to enjoy a lot of the math I teach just for the sake of understanding how the math works. Many NTs prefer to think about all of the practical applications of the math (though this is kind of a big picture/small picture situation as well).


Same here for me. I like studying certain subjects for the sake of understanding them. (I suppose MBTI _could_ be counted as one of them. )


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

@MCRTS

That depends on how you define intellectual. A lot of people assume it's the same thing as intelligent, and it's not. That's why I like to instead say ISFJ is a more practical type than INFJ. Si doms prefer the concrete over the abstract because it feels more useful, but can do abstract just fine.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

Stephen said:


> @MCRTS
> 
> That depends on how you define intellectual. A lot of people assume it's the same thing as intelligent, and it's not. That's why I like to instead say ISFJ is a more practical type than INFJ. Si doms prefer the concrete over the abstract because it feels more useful, but can do abstract just fine.


I mean intellectual as being more inclined to theory-based subjects. (like philosophy)


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

What's strange to me is how consistently people confuse interest with ability.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

MCRTS said:


> I strongly disagree with you there. Intelligence comes in different forms, and theorizing and abstraction are just _two_ types of intelligence, out of the *many* kinds out there. Just because ISFJs may not be good at theorizing doesn't mean we're "not very intelligent". If you get someone to do something they're not good at, of course they're going to appear as "not very intelligent". It's like putting a square peg into a round hole. It's not going to work, no matter how you slice it.


Here I meant intelligence in traditional way, which is quite popular view of intelligence: "the general mental ability to learn and apply knowledge to manipulate your environment, as well as the ability to reason and have abstract thought "(here).



> According to MBTI theory, it is expected that academically successful students are introverted and intuitive. It is assumed because introvert has the ability to intensely focus on the concepts and ideas, and the intuitive ability to work with symbols, theories and other abstractive things. (Myers & McCauley, 1 0 p. 6).


 from here

That is the one reason why I have misunderstood sensors.

Nowadays scientist dissatisfied with the traditional idea of this one-sided intelligence.
Also I believe there is many aspects/components of intelligence. In the same artickle says for example


> Sensor - judging (SJ) connected the good results of these studies in macroeconomics, while the intuitive NT and NF
> were clearly weaker.





MCRTS said:


> HOWEVER,if you were to instead say that ISFJs aren't very *intellectual *or *intellectually inclined*, then I would agree with you. We tend to prefer the practical to the theorotical, and our intelligence would be more of the practical sort.


Wow, maybe that would be a better word - it is just very hard to get exactly right word with this weak language skills.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Stephen said:


> @_doucette_
> 
> There's so much great information in this thread!
> 
> ...


That was a wise writing.

I think there´s some descriptions of ISFJs writing with the some kind of unrespect way. I would not dare to show to my friend those. "Look, I have found you personality type, you are one of those _unappreciated_ people"  I think they earn something better.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> I see what you're saying and why you make the relation to intelligence. However, I still think it's a bit of a jump to say that just because someone has more difficulty in abstract and theoretical areas means that they're less intelligent than someone who does those things more easily.
> 
> Intelligence is a very broad term and a broad area, and there are a lot of ways to look at it. I think Ns sometimes value areas of intelligence more than others and can attribute those areas to the whole realm of intelligence. Of course, Ss can do the same thing with other areas.


 Maybe I have been value the academic type of intelligence, because I´m good with abstract thinking, but terribly bad for example kinesthetic intelligence... I still think it is one part of intelligence, and there is many others.

Btw, thanks of that huge description of ISFJ. At least in the beginning it sounded good, I must admit that I still need to work with the translation :wink:


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Thank you everybody taking part of this thread. I wish anybody did not harm their mind, it was not my purpose!

And when it comes to the title, I can expose that it was purposely written in a provocative way, so to get people interested in and feel the need to reply.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Kayness said:


> What's strange to me is how consistently people confuse interest with ability.


In Finland we have the saying: "Sour said the fox about rowan berries." :wink:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> The ability to abstract binary thinking is something that I think that definitely related to intelligence.


This is correct. But, OH PLEASE, I know tons of borderline idiotic iNtuitives in these areas (they spit utterly meaningless crap out of their mouths that seems esoteric and whatnot, but is way off the mark in showcasing their understanding of anything). I've seen this way too many times to not realize that some of these people can be intellectual, but not actually intelligent.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

doucette said:


> In Finland we have the saying: "Sour said the fox about rowan berries." :wink:


 Oh you mean sour grapes? yeah, I've heard of that, too. What I don't know I'll never miss (and how haughty are the implications in that short sentence!...and yes, I can read between the lines too :dry, though my tertiary Ni serves me just fine, and to be honest, that could be said to anybody who's not the same type as you.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

doucette said:


> In Finland we have the saying: "Sour said the fox about rowan berries." :wink:


Who is the fox then? I'm thinking it's the intuitives who feel the need to deride sensors in order to feel special in some way, often with the implication that intuitives have everything sensors have, plus something extra that sensors lack. By clinging to poorly written type descriptions and interpreting them in their own favor, they get to feel special.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

@Stephen

Heh, ALL WE are foxes sometimes!

I could say: Well I´m not *able* to speak English that well, but really I´m not even *interest *to can.

If someone who is not even able to do something, says that is not interested in doing it, it's not very convincing. And this isn´t now a hidden meaning which refers to ISFJs / Sensors, but just to comment to what @Kayness said. 

I didn´t agree because I think it mostly is like this way: when I am not *interested *in doing something, in the fact that´s something I´m not very good at. But I have a habit of avoiding things outside of my comfort zone.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

doucette said:


> @Stephen
> 
> Heh, ALL WE are foxes sometimes!
> 
> ...


I see. It's a different matter, though, which is why I questioned you. I think people who are just learning about personality theory misunderstand that the descriptors are about preferences, not abilities. So for example, as a sensor, I lean toward the concrete because I favor it, but I still do abstract whenever I need to or want to. In fact none of us could function in the real world if we couldn't do both concrete and abstract, because everyday life demands both of us.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Kayness said:


> Oh you mean sour grapes? yeah, I've heard of that, too. What I don't know I'll never miss (and how haughty are the implications in that short sentence!...and yes, I can read between the lines too :dry, though my tertiary Ni serves me just fine, and to be honest, *that could be said to anybody who's not the same type as you.*


Of course, and that was the hole meaning here.

Please don´t over-interprept. That fox-thing meant your entire comment, not just you, ISFJs or Sensors. I do believe that interest and ability are very connected. When I think something I´m not interested on, I realized that I wouldn´t be even very good at those things.

If I would say "I´m not even interest to be talented in practical way, I don´t even want to know how to draw, bake, sew, dance", I tell lies. I would maybe *learn* how to do those things, but it would need so much work, because it is not naturally my strongest part.

Edit. Maybe I have misunderstood your comments, and I think you misunerstood my fox-comment. It exactly doesn´t mean "What I don't know I'll never miss". It means that someone says negative things about something he is unable to have, but he probably deep down would like to have. (berries are too high in the tree, so fox can´t get them).

I thought you meant that you Sensors would not even want to be good at N-things....


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

doucette said:


> @_Stephen_
> 
> Heh, ALL WE are foxes sometimes!
> 
> ...


IMO S/N works in tandem, and one does not - _cannot _- exist without the other. Like this excellent article by @_NiDBiLD_ that I keep on referring to says:


> First out are the percieving function pairs, Se-Ni and Si-Ne. Let's call these _paradigms_. These are the only two possible combinations of percieving functions. There are no other options, and I'll explain why....
> ....*This combination is irreducible. Ne-Ni is impossible, because there are no axioms to interpret, no anchors to reality and no test-space. Se-Si is also impossible, because there are no options, no differing viewpoints, and no possibilities for anything.*


My point is that even though you are exalting of your "N", you're still dependent on your Se to feed you information so that your Ni can synthesize and interpret, otherwise it's just using Ni in a vacuum, which is impossible IMO (and really unhealthy even if it is). This is true for _everybod_y, no matter if they're Sensors or Intuitives. It really is just the matter of preferences.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

Kayness said:


> IMO S/N works in tandem, and one does not - _cannot _- exist without the other. Like this excellent article by @_NiDBiLD_ that I keep on referring to says:
> My point is that even though you are exalting of your "N", you're still dependent on your Se to feed you information so that your Ni can synthesize and interpret, otherwise it's just using Ni in a vacuum, which is impossible IMO (and really unhealthy even if it is). This is true for _everybod_y, no matter if they're Sensors or Intuitives. It really is just the matter of preferences.


I don´t understand. Does this mean there is not Sensors or iNtuitives, just Ni-Se. What hdo I have common with ESTP/ISTPs?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

doucette said:


> I don´t understand. Does this mean there is not Sensors or iNtuitives, just Ni-Se. What hdo I have common with ESTP/ISTPs?


Basically, you and a ESTP use the same process of perceiving things with different emphasis or energy focused on parts.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

doucette said:


> I don´t understand. Does this mean there is not Sensors or iNtuitives, just Ni-Se. What hdo I have common with ESTP/ISTPs?


You should read up on cognitive functions. They are very informative and goes beyond the S/N divide. No-one personality type is pure anything. Like @Kayness said, only a very unhealthy person would run on just one function or other.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

doucette said:


> I thought you meant that you Sensors would not even want to be good at N-things....


Sorry, I hope you don't think I'm trolling or anything, but what do you mean by "N" things? I'm just curious...


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

MCRTS said:


> Sorry, I hope you don't think I'm trolling or anything, but what do you mean by "N" things? I'm just curious...


Things we have been talk here, which is generally fairly easy for Ns, but more difficult for them Ss. Theorizing and abstraction.

And so that nobody don´t get his nose out of joint, talking in generally what MBTI theory says about S and N. I´m not saying that every Sensor has difficulties with those things.


----------



## doucette (Oct 23, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is correct. But, OH PLEASE, I know tons of borderline idiotic iNtuitives in these areas (they spit utterly meaningless crap out of their mouths that seems esoteric and whatnot, but is way off the mark in showcasing their understanding of anything). I've seen this way too many times to not realize that some of these people can be intellectual, but not actually intelligent.


Shh, don´t reveal us! :laughing:


----------

