N's: beating around the bush

[substitute]

I came across this comment in the S vs N thread and it immediately triggered thoughts in my head and explanations as to why (apart from the specific question actually BEING the point) it might appear this way...

I like this board, but sometimes Ns can be very annoying about getting to the point too. They ask really vague questions when they want to know about solutions to very specific problems. For example, an opening post might ask about why ESFPs are flighty, but a few posts later the real question would turn out to be "How do I get this ESFP to pay attention to me?". (An exaggeration, but common phenomenon.)


I know this has to do with the way N's think - or at least, I do - being to solve problems and explore solutions and methods etc by linking something specific to as many other things as possible, in order to gain a bigger general picture.

But I'm having a bad vocabulary day today and seem unable to articulate what it is I'm thinking properly. Anyone care to input?

[substitute]

Oh, a word just came to me: leverage. It's all about leverage for N's, isn't it? Or is that just me? You know, the reason we're more interested in 'why ESFP's are flighty' than asking 'how do I get this ESFP to notice me' is because the general idea is that when you understand the whys and hows of something, it enables you to know exactly where to apply leverage in order to achieve the desired effect.

No? :unsure:

[whatever]

agreeing with the second post there :)

I prefer to ask a question that appears more vague, I suppose, because I want a more universally applicable answer to the question as opposed to an explanation of a specific phenomonon. It's just a manner of being more efficient ;)

[substitute]

yeah that's it - one eye on the future possibilities all the time isn't it? like never just thinking 'how can I solve this specific problem right now' but more like 'how is this specific problem linked to other things that happen more generally, and how can get the maximum learning experience from it so as to be armed against future events?'

[Rachelinpa]

I don't think I tergiversate intentionally. Often, I ask broad questions because I'm not sure entirely what it is I want to know yet. Sometimes I even ask stacked questions because in order to know what it is I want to know, I have to hear myself ask it or it doesn't count yet. As NF, I find the point is the process of understanding and the rapport. I like the discussion more than the outcome.

[Rachelinpa]

yeah that's it - one eye on the future possibilities all the time isn't it?

Definitely! You never know what may come of it. It's better to keep the questions broad because you never know what people will say... why limit them?

[substitute]

I don't think I tergiversate intentionally.

+1 for wanton sesquipedalianism :laugh:

I like the discussion more than the outcome.

yes, it's what you learn from it that's more the point than just getting what you want right now?

[Rachelinpa]

Well, yes and no. Because I do get what I want in the immediate... the interesting conversation! The new viewpoints!

[substitute]

Well, yes and no. Because I do get what I want in the immediate... the interesting conversation! The new viewpoints!

Ha, yeah... whether or not the ESFP notices you becomes of secondary importance... "what's happening now" just never quite seems as interesting a topic for N's as "what could happen in the future" :laugh:

perhaps sometimes we're too busy future-proofing ourselves to notice the present :rolleyes:

[Jack Flak]

Perhaps it's because if you ask a very specific question online the thread tumbles to the bottom with zero replies. That's been my experience.

[substitute]

Perhaps it's because if you ask a very specific question online the thread tumbles to the bottom with zero replies. That's been my experience.

Okay, pragmatic but astute :yes:

Do you not do it in RL then? Assuming you actually have any friends to beat around the bush with that is? :alttongue:

[milti girl]

Exactly. To Ns it's more important to understand the general principles behind what make ESFPs tick. Then they'll attempt to apply what they have learnt to the ESFP in their personal life. Ns do not want to personalise their questions right away. They need to know whether what they are experiencing is generally true or not - and if not, then how they should redefine the way they look at ESFPs.

[Jack Flak]

Okay, pragmatic but astute :yes:

Do you not do it in RL then? Assuming you actually have any friends to beat around the bush with that is? :alttongue:
Yes I have friends. Just forty minutes ago one, and I, were laughing about shit at the gym. I honestly got most of my intellectual discussions out of the way in high school.

[Rachelinpa]

Exactly. To Ns it's more important to understand the general principles behind what make ESFPs tick. Then they'll attempt to apply what they have learnt to the ESFP in their personal life. Ns do not want to personalise their questions right away. They need to know whether what they are experiencing is generally true or not - and if not, then how they should redefine the way they look at ESFPs.

Very well said.

[substitute]

Yes I have friends. Just forty minutes ago one, and I, were laughing about shit at the gym. I honestly got most of my intellectual discussions out of the way in high school.

Thank Krishna for that! I thought I was the only one who'd rather hack off his arm than talk about existentialism etc... talk about done to death!! :coffee:

[Jack Flak]

Thank Krishna for that! I thought I was the only one who'd rather hack of his arm than talk about existentialism etc... talk about done to death!! :coffee:
*low five*

[substitute]

They need to know whether what they are experiencing is generally true or not - and if not, then how they should redefine the way they look at ESFPs.

Yes, this is really it, the part that perhaps some find difficult, especially about NP's (maybe). We ARE very willing to change our minds if given new information that conflicts currently held theory. And all opinion isn't opinion as such, more a work in progress. So I wouldn't want to go acting on my current idea of this person or ESFP's or advice given before I figure out if I'm starting my enquiries from the right point. Does that make sense?

[Rachelinpa]

See, that makes me feel better about us. It's not that we don't want accuracy. We do! It's just a different way of getting the information.

[substitute]

See, that makes me feel better about us. It's not that we don't want accuracy. We do! It's just a different way of getting the information.

yeah. and it's different aspects of a situation that we're more interested in being accurate about... sorta :huh:

incidentally, do you have a particular attachment to sodium? (your avatar)

[Jennifer]

Exactly. To Ns it's more important to understand the general principles behind what make ESFPs tick. Then they'll attempt to apply what they have learnt to the ESFP in their personal life. Ns do not want to personalise their questions right away. They need to know whether what they are experiencing is generally true or not - and if not, then how they should redefine the way they look at ESFPs.

yes.

Life is broadened out to "concepts/principles," then reapplied the situation. That seems far more efficient than having a particular fix for each little situation that is not applicable elsewhere... plus it's the "understanding the big picture" thing.

If a particular fix doesn't fit into the big picture, then it's not valid anyway. It's a way to check a particular piece of advice. Choices are driven from top-down (concept -> application) and not just application -> application.

yeah. and it's different aspects of a situation that we're more interested in being accurate about... sorta :huh:

N's tend to be less concerned over where the "focal points" of the picture are and more interested in whether they are correctly "related" to each other.

An S will want specific points nailed in place at specific locations; the N wants the "pattern" or relationship between the points to be determined, and then the pattern can be overlaid over any situation to see if the specific points in that situation are properly related.

See, that makes me feel better about us. It's not that we don't want accuracy.

Yup, accuracy in the relationality of the points. (If the big picture doesn't gel, something is very wrong and needs corrected.)

[Rachelinpa]

incidentally, do you have a particular attachment to sodium? (your avatar)

NA - Negative Asian.

[substitute]

so, is it woods and trees again?

[Rachelinpa]

An S will want specific points nailed in place at specific locations; the N wants the "pattern" or relationship between the points to be determined, and then the pattern can be overlaid over any situation to see if the specific points in that situation are properly related.


I can see the value of the specific points an S would want. Do S's see the value of the pattern or relationship between points?

[alicia91]

For example, an opening post might ask about why ESFPs are flighty, but a few posts later the real question would turn out to be "How do I get this ESFP to pay attention to me?".

When I get this sort of question my first response is usually "Why--what's going on?" or "which one of your ESFP friends is annoying you?"

I prefer to start with the specific, personal, hear all the details of a specific example (heck, I even want a name!) THEN I will generalize it and discuss the pattern and the relationship between all the RELEVANT points.

I sometimes get annoyed by the N-style questions because it often feels manipulative, or is wasting my time.

[substitute]

When I get this sort of question my first response is usually "Why--what's going on?" or "which one of your ESFP friends is annoying you?"

I prefer to start with the specific, personal, hear all the details of a specific example (heck, I even want a name!) THEN I will generalize it and discuss the pattern and the relationship between all the points.

Yeah, my close friend (an ISTJ) is the same. It frustrates me as much as my beating around the bush frustrates him. I just want to introduce the topic and get to the part that I wanted to tell him about, the part I need his input for, and he just keeps stopping me and pressing for detail and I'm like dude, look, that doesn't matter, that's not what I wanted to talk about, that's just what inspired me to want to talk about it.

Of course he says it's the same the other way round. He just wants to know what the heck I'm talking about in detail so then he can more 'safely' theorize. I guess for me, I need to theorize first before I even feel able to define what it is that I'm talking about...

[Jack Flak]

When I get this sort of question my first response is usually "Why--what's going on?" or "which one of your ESFP friends is annoying you?"

I prefer to start with the specific, personal, hear all the details of a specific example (heck, I even want a name!) THEN I will generalize it and discuss the pattern and the relationship between all the points.
This may be obvious, but my fingers are energetic: Probably because sensors have more experience with details, and intuitives more with theory. As sensors age they become more adept at the big picture stuff, and as intuitives age we gain experience in life--thus we become like each other.

[563 740]

Most of the good points were already hit so I'll try to come up with an analogy...

We beat around the bush instead of just trampling straight over it - for all we know, we might not even need to do anything with the bush!! Better to give it a good looking over first.

[Jack Flak]

We beat around the bush instead of just trampling straight over it - for all we know, we might not even need to do anything with the bush!! Better to give it a good looking over first.
Alternatively, pull the bush out with a Chevy and toss it in a ditch. Some bushes just clutter up the view.

[Rachelinpa]

Alternatively, pull the bush out with a Chevy and toss it in a ditch. Some bushes just clutter up the view.

Do it.

[substitute]

Alternatively, pull the bush out with a Chevy and toss it in a ditch. Some bushes just clutter up the view.

dude, you're so misdiagnosed it's not even funny...

[Jack Flak]

dude, you're so misdiagnosed it's not even funny...
"Joeeyyyy! I wanna hit you!"

[ptgatsby]

But I'm having a bad vocabulary day today and seem unable to articulate what it is I'm thinking properly. Anyone care to input?

Any other Ss find irony in... the lack of question to answer in the OP? :D

I would, however, like to draw a line between NP/SP and NJ/SJ differences here. It is mostly Ps that ask open ended questions like this, while it is mostly Js that ask the "wrong", but defined, questions.

IMO, it has to do with what we get rewarded with.

Asking a direct question and getting a direct answer leaves you nothing to think about. Resolution goes against both N and P in different ways.

[563 740]

Alternatively, pull the bush out with a Chevy and toss it in a ditch. Some bushes just clutter up the view.

After careful consideration, we have decided to use the SP approach. Everybody step back... :devil:

[substitute]

well yeah, you got a point PT, but address it to Colors since she was the one complaining about N's being too vague... SHE'S the one who failed to specify NP's :laugh:

[563 740]

Any other Ss find irony in... the lack of question to answer in the OP? :D

We're still busy framing the question in order to properly answer it. :headphne:

[ptgatsby]

well yeah, you got a point PT, but address it to Colors since she was the one complaining about N's being too vague... SHE'S the one who failed to specify NP's :laugh:

Heh heh... well, we wouldn't want to close the door on possible avenues of disagreement, otherwise we'd have nothing to talk about, right? :D

We're still busy framing the question in order to properly answer it. :headphne:

:rolli:

Another thing crossed my mind;

But I'm having a bad vocabulary day today and seem unable to articulate what it is I'm thinking properly.

Could this indicate resistance against forming a... properly framed... question? ;)

[substitute]

Could this indicate resistance against forming a... properly framed... question? ;)

On many occasions you'd be quite right in suggesting that PT, but I'm afraid on this occasion it's indicative only of severe lack of sleep coupled with a badly timed decision to give up caffeine! I actually really tried several times before giving up and just posting it as it is hahaaha :cry:

[Jeffster]

I don't think I tergiversate intentionally.

I hope I don't either. That sounds painful.

[ygolo]

The reason I like to solve more general problems than specific ones is due to the inventors paradox.

In B. Fuller's terms:
"the more ambitious plan may have more chances of success".

In more general terms:
"Solve a concrete problem by solving a more general problem. The general problem has paradoxically a simpler solution. But you have to invent an appropriate general problem which covers your concrete problem. "

This is my main problem solving strategy. It elucidates the principles at work.

[Colors]

No, S's never think about the big picture or general principles. :violin: We do. (And it does seem to tie into P/J difference as well.) The N just comes after the natural S process.

It is however, quite difficult to solve or fully explore anything when facts are missing.

In the same post that you started this thread to respond to, I mentioned my ESTJ friend often parrots back uninteresting side information or titles/resume facts when asked to describe someone. I've found this often among STJs- (the facts are slightly different among SFJs). However, my ESTJ friend is the starting point of such thought- the majority of my experience with the frustration of hearing such uninformative answers. Although I think my experience *can* be applied more universally perhaps, it would be disingenuous and even misleading to not state said experience upfront and leave it to the audience to judge validity.

Oh, a word just came to me: leverage. It's all about leverage for N's, isn't it? Or is that just me? You know, the reason we're more interested in 'why ESFP's are flighty' than asking 'how do I get this ESFP to notice me' is because the general idea is that when you understand the whys and hows of something, it enables you to know exactly where to apply leverage in order to achieve the desired effect.

Isn't that the point of all psychology? (The opening speech of every psychology class I've ever taken. :laugh:)

[alicia91]

It is however, quite difficult to solve or fully explore anything when facts are missing

Very true.

It's not that I want a lot of irrelevant details, I just want to understand the important facts so that I can safely theorize.

On a side-note, I also am weary with certain N's (NFs mostly) because being the T - problem-solver I can get myself in trouble if I don't have the facts. Example (a bad one I know)

NF friend - "Alicia, why do I often feel like somebody hates me"

Me - 'why do you say that?"

NF friend - "because I get crapped on all the time"

Me- "well, maybe you need to have a more positive outlook, be friendlier, try harder"

NF friend - "why you think I'm not friendly?"

Me - (backpeddaling)"perhaps, sometimes. What really happened today?"

NF friend - "I got a flat tire"

[Jack Flak]

Understanding is the key, alicia. Once you realize everyone's going to be ridiculous in his own way, or her own way, it's like water off a duck's back.

[alicia91]

Very true Jack - that's why I'm still friends with all different types. :yes:

[Grayscale]

Exactly. To Ns it's more important to understand the general principles behind what make ESFPs tick. Then they'll attempt to apply what they have learnt to the ESFP in their personal life. Ns do not want to personalise their questions right away. They need to know whether what they are experiencing is generally true or not - and if not, then how they should redefine the way they look at ESFPs.

i think the difference is not in the application, but in how different people gather information. at least speaking on behalf of SP experiencers, this information is gathered through direct experience or a specific question regarding that, but is still quite malleable in future application.

maybe so-called "S"-types realize how things apply to reality in the big picture without having to discuss it at a meta-level... which is why hands-on works better for those people. personally speaking, i dont need the theory laid out to "get it" because it's inherent to me, while i guess some people do... which is why it's easy to get impatient.

it's like im trying to figure out how to cut down a tree for a fire and some goof is still saying "my god, it's a FOREST!" ;)

[substitute]

I can see the value of the specific points an S would want. Do S's see the value of the pattern or relationship between points?

As a thing that's primary and disconnected from the facts as pure abstract... explored for its own intrinsic value...



It's not that I want a lot of irrelevant details, I just want to understand the important facts so that I can safely theorize.




It is however, quite difficult to solve or fully explore anything when facts are missing.

....Although I think my experience *can* be applied more universally perhaps, it would be disingenuous and even misleading to not state said experience upfront and leave it to the audience to judge validity.


Apparently not :devil:

Seriously though Esses, do you not understand the idea of talking hypothetically? I mean, can you not see that we're talking here about doing the same thing you do but in reverse? Whilst I obviously acknowledge that your approach has its merits, can you allow that the N's does too? Or does it really just seem all 'silly and pointless' to you?

I mean for example I might have a specific thing in mind but it's personal to me, and I'm just trying to gather input to create a general theory from as many OTHER examples as possible. So i ask hypothetical questions. I don't want the other person to dissect this specific incident with me, I just want them to tell me how they'd respond to a hypothetically similar situation, or how they have responded to similar ones in their experience. Then I can relate what they tell me what I know, see the patterns and connect the dots and solve the problem myself. Is that not also a valid way to work?

"I don't want you to solve my problem for me. I just want you to help me out with some information so i can solve it myself. Don't worry about context, facts, details etc, just answer my questions with whatever your genuine response is, muse over these things with me in the abstract, and that will help me."

[CaptainChick]

:rolli:

I cannot stand meandering, self-indulgent posts that are not supposed to, or meant to be meandering and self-indulgent.

I appreciate those, both Ns and Ss (lol, that looks weird) alike, who can state their ideas and points clearly.

I also prefer the concise to the needlessly convoluted.

The End

-CC

[digesthisickness]

I cannot stand meandering, self-indulgent posts that are not supposed to, or meant to be meandering and self-indulgent.

I appreciate those, both Ns and Ss (lol, that looks weird) alike, who can state their ideas and points clearly;

I also prefer the concise to the needlessly convoluted.

The End

-CC

me too.

[CaptainChick]

me too.
You cut a bit too much but I feel ya. ;)

Lol, whoops, my bad, nice job.

:D

[ptgatsby]

Seriously though Esses, do you not understand the idea of talking hypothetically?



Hypothetically is a good word to use for Ns.

That's the nature of preferences. Ns don't want the effort of parsing through huge amounts of data to come up with both a solid hypothesis and meaningful data to support the hypothesis. They want to leap right into making connections. Ss don't want the effort of making many connections; they want to leap right into distilling information to make the connection easy.

So, Ss view hypothetical as being as useful as the smallest jump required. Sure, we understand it, we just don't understand the N preference for it. Hence, we both use both functions, so to speak... it is just an order of preference.

Are both valid? They go together. I don't think one can be called invalid without the other also being invalid - they don't work seperate from each other. Chances are, in balance, N modelling is more valued, if kept within reasonable limits. Or if you not, you become a string theory believer.

I tend to try to give space for N air-headedness before I bottomline something, but it is tolerance, not acceptance. I just about had a heart attack when you said that you develop a theory, then try to find the data to support it. This happens during the process too - the glossing over of details. In (my) S eyes, Ns tend to do fancy feetwork to keep their theory alive. The biggest one is 'generalising' (you mentioned leverage). The theory is a hammer and all of a sudden, screws start to look like nails. This can be a big irritation to detail centric and bottom lining types! Especially when they ask "what do you think about this" and you want to answer "see what? You made it out of thin air, with weak data - what is there to see? Come back when you have something useful".

Which is all the flip side of Ns going "why can't you seeeeee?", of course.

Don't worry though, I see the value in how you think :)

(It often takes a bit of effort for me to not just post hundreds of "Did you know research has already been done on this topic?" Do I get to ask if Ns will ever start putting some effort into their thoughts before throwing them around everywhere... or would that be rude? ;) )

[Jack Flak]

I also prefer the concise to the needlessly convoluted.-CC
Why can't they all be like you.

[substitute]

I just about had a heart attack when you said that you develop a theory, then try to find the data to support it. This happens during the process too - the glossing over of details.

Yes, I can see that some people do that, though if done properly, you're not specifically looking for evidence just to support it, you're looking for any evidence at all that's connected with it, in order to evaluate it in light of all pros and cons. Though in fact, in my case, usually I don't even have a theory to begin with. I'm not even sure if what I have is a problem. That's the thing... I don't like to even try to define something until I've enough data on it to see where it fits into the bigger picture.

This can be a big irritation to detail centric and bottom lining types! Especially when they ask "what do you think about this" and you want to answer "see what? You made it out of thin air, with weak data - what is there to see? Come back when you have something useful".

That's the thing... many abstract theories ARE useful. You can start out with a "what if?" and then look for ways to find out whether your "what if?" is possible, desired, necessary, etc. all of which would never have happened if you'd insisted that no theorizing was possible without FIRST knowing all those facts.


(It often takes a bit of effort for me to not just post hundreds of "Did you know research has already been done on this topic?" Do I get to ask if Ns will ever start putting some effort into their thoughts before throwing them around everywhere... or would that be rude? ;) )

I always assume the research has been done into everything I could conceivably think of. But that's not the point :D

It wouldn't be necessarily rude to ask that question, but y'know... perhaps you could allow for the idea that the 'throwing around' actually *is* the process of putting thought in? Especially with NP's, it's done in the open air. What you're hearing is the PROCESS, not the result. I don't personally get why you would see it as such a bad thing that somebody just thinks aloud... do we all have to have our thoughts sit an entrance exam before they're allowed expression?? :huh:

[Jeffster]

What the hell is the point of this topic?

;)

[Colors]

ptgatsby did a pretty stellar job of saying what I was going to try to say (and a bunch of other good stuff I wouldn't think of saying) while I was still mulling over how to respond to the emotion of being misunderstood.

It's called a preference for a reason... All Ns use S and all Ss use N- it's just they use them in a different order. Ns want to find a general rule and just about infer a specific solution later. Ss want to find a specific solution and just about infer a general rule for the future.

Seriously though Esses, do you not understand the idea of talking hypothetically? I mean, can you not see that we're talking here about doing the same thing you do but in reverse? Whilst I obviously acknowledge that your approach has its merits, can you allow that the N's does too? Or does it really just seem all 'silly and pointless' to you?

I mean for example I might have a specific thing in mind but it's personal to me, and I'm just trying to gather input to create a general theory from as many OTHER examples as possible. So i ask hypothetical questions. I don't want the other person to dissect this specific incident with me, I just want them to tell me how they'd respond to a hypothetically similar situation, or how they have responded to similar ones in their experience. Then I can relate what they tell me what I know, see the patterns and connect the dots and solve the problem myself. Is that not also a valid way to work?

"I don't want you to solve my problem for me. I just want you to help me out with some information so i can solve it myself. Don't worry about context, facts, details etc, just answer my questions with whatever your genuine response is, muse over these things with me in the abstract, and that will help me."

I never maligned the use of the hypothetical (as whole), and I'm very sorry if you read it that way. My response in the "N vs. S" thread was to highlight that individuals could level the same criticism at each other- but for very different reasons.

For me, sharing something personal is necessary in asking other people to share something personal about themselves. (Obviously, there are plenty of experiments which don't tell the human participants key information for a reason- the real study subject even sometimes! The reason being that such knowledge could color the results. However, when it is not necessary, such information should be given.) It can feel very exclusive to give another to judge oneself/one's ideas without being given a chance to evaluate fully in return.

[entropie]

What the hell is the point of this topic?

;)

I dont know myself, I heard though there will be beer for free later :D

[ptgatsby]

I want to make it clear that I'm trying to highlight differences, not objectively claim one is better than the other. What I'd like to encourage is understanding from both sides, but since I am on one side, I naturally understand it better.

Yes, I can see that some people do that, though if done properly, you're not specifically looking for evidence just to support it, you're looking for any evidence at all that's connected with it, in order to evaluate it in light of all pros and cons. Though in fact, in my case, usually I don't even have a theory to begin with. I'm not even sure if what I have is a problem. That's the thing... I don't like to even try to define something until I've enough data on it to see where it fits into the bigger picture.

Sure - I seperated the part you quoted from the rest of my post because that's how I feel (so I kinda answered the question objectively first, then subjectively).

But this description is the problem. If you don't know what you are looking for, how can you know when you have found it? Is it just when you find something? That doesn't sit well with me :) I need to know what you are looking for, so that I can then answer it properly - that is, give you data on the topic you want to solve.

(Illustration: You recently asked about bullying and different personality types in another thread. There is huge amounts of research on bullying now, including a lot on personality influences (though, not much with MBTI, but there never is :) ) Did you want to know? Or is it just for discussion? Which would feed the theory, which would create more theories to work on? Which is your preference? I could answer your questions on personality and theories in a very dry way, and even explain what the sub-scales show so that you don't have to theorize much. You wouldn't like that, would you...? Yet, that will provide a great deal of data around the problem, but it will be structured and not leave much room for you to theorize inside.)

I do understand the need to understand something, the drive to gather data, to model it. I'm not that different. But we do have a strong divergence when it comes to defining something. To me, the theory serves as a tool to solve a problem. As above, with the bullying, I know the answer to a high enough degree of confidence that I don't need to theorize. Do you want to reach that point, really? I never feel that NPs do want to, and avoid it at all costs!)

That's the gap we face when we talk. You start theorizing, I see you struggling for an answer, and so I give you an answer. At the same time, I can provide you an answer, and then you'll ask me what it means, and I'll answer "exactly what it says", and I'll get frustrated with your need to find meaning - you'll be thinking about how closed minded I am. Both of our feelings end up being correct - they don't come from being right, but not being able to close the gap. One of us can't be ourselves in that situation.

Opposing functions (and we) will always be in conflict, in that regard. It probably becomes worse coming from me, who uses Ti like a sledgehammer for any problem (way more than the INTPs :D ). I will have structure, even if it means I'm going to try building a giantic rib frame for a personal submarine on a whim. ;) My methodology is very well honed, and it doesn't agree with your well honed method. Doesn't mean that we aren't useful to each other, but we might not be useful when we work on the same thing, in the same room!



That's the thing... many abstract theories ARE useful. You can start out with a "what if?" and then look for ways to find out whether your "what if?" is possible, desired, necessary, etc. all of which would never have happened if you'd insisted that no theorizing was possible without FIRST knowing all those facts.


Do you consider a theory abstract after it has been validated? I don't.

"What ifs" are not my strong point, naturally. But this is intentional for me (well, 'I don't regret it intentional'). If you come up with 1000 theories, but only 100 are validated, is it better or worse than me coming up with 100 theories, but 90 being validated.

What if you assign a low confidence to the validation? (Meaning, you don't really know which of the 100 are actually good?) However, I know that NPs tend to be happy with this, because they don't really think that much of their own theories. I can't afford that luxury - no practical application means the theory doesn't exist (and then, if I need a theory to apply, it has to work, so I need very high confidence.)

Again, just to avoid making it sound like I'm attacking Ns in general, this is my perspective, and my frustration. Yes, abstractions are useful, but they can't be useful for *me*, now, in my project or life. I can't take an N theory and use it because I can't *trust it*. I need to validate it, but when I validate it, I'm removing the whole N-centric approach.

Both Ns and Ss reach this point, just in a different order.

I would say that N theories are useful because of their farther reach, but my general feeling is to never trust an obvious N theory - that is, if I can tell where it came from, it probably isn't refined enough. I'm looking for middle ground between abstract and validated.


(The other side of this is that many "S" theories are so obvious that there is no point calling them theories. It is all a matter of scale. Too big to be validated isn't useful, too small isn't useful... but inbetween? Perfect.)


It wouldn't be necessarily rude to ask that question, but y'know... perhaps you could allow for the idea that the 'throwing around' actually *is* the process of putting thought in? Especially with NP's, it's done in the open air. What you're hearing is the PROCESS, not the result. I don't personally get why you would see it as such a bad thing that somebody just thinks aloud... do we all have to have our thoughts sit an entrance exam before they're allowed expression?? :huh:

Putting 'thought' in doesn't impress me as a methodology, and that's the issue. I'd rather be out gathering the validation long before you guys have discussing something. It would be like facing an entrance exam and instead of studying, you guys think about the exam a lot.

I answer "what do I need to know to understand this" first, then go hunting for it. When you guys don't do that, it feels like you are just spinning wheels pointlessly. That's where the Smallest link between two points comes in. I want to make as few intuitive leaps as I can, which means more data to fill in the gaps. To hear that data is often not welcome in these situations... that's a very heavy statement to put in. It isn't always true - depends on the balance on the individual/the theory being worked out. But to be biased against data during the forming process isn't a high compliment to me.

But we are different people, with different methods. I respect the outcome of Ns in the big picture, but dealing with them locally requires understanding, and tolerance. Better that they vet their own ideas first, then bring them to me to review... I can't handle being part of the process as well!


Hence, fewer, long posts, on topics that I can contribute and not get rejected :cheese:

---

Also note that there are fallacies to the preferences as well - Ss might invalidate theories that they can't see in their own life (often falling prey to statistical issues, like clumping, etc). I'm not pointing out these because they are intrinsic to the method we use anyway.

[substitute]

Woah PT, you've had some seriously bad experiences at the hands of some crazy N's by the sounds of it... :mellow:

Then again, knowing INTPc the way I do... I can understand it ;)

Hm... what else...?

Ah yes, your research and facts would've been very very welcome in the bullying thread, I can tell you that. By me, at least, obviously I can't speak for anyone else but ... you're wrong though that this really is always the end of the discussion. If 'the facts' were always the end of a discussion then nobody would ever go in search of NEW facts.

Example: suppose you said 20% of people bullied in school had red hair. How is that the end of the discussion? How is there nothing more to say? What, like one wouldn't naturally ask 'why is that?' and consider the psychology behind it, perhaps theorize as to ways to challenge it? Suppose you then come and slam another load of data on the table that says research has shown that it's because XYZ, and of the following methods N was shown to be the more effective strategy. Again, how is that end of story? Why were the others not effective? Is there some way that they could be tweaked and tried again and yield different results? Were the criteria for deciding what was successful comprehensive enough? Do I agree with them?

The thing is, your facts are only the result of human beings as you say, going out to find them. But humans are fallible and can miss things. Especially when they're concentrating on something specific, when they're looking only for a certain thing, knowing in advance what that thing is. Sometimes it pays to beach-comb; you never know what you might pick up that somebody else missed. Guard against not seeing the wood for the trees.

When you said this:

I know the answer to a high enough degree of confidence that I don't need to theorize

That made me jump almost as much as I made you jump earlier :laugh:
I just can't help thinking when I hear things like that, you know, sure, that's what people said about the sun going round the earth once...

Do you consider a theory abstract after it has been validated? I don't.

Yeah, I kinda do. I tend to think of it as 'theoretically validated'. That is, the theory that it's validated rests on the evidence gathered to have been comprehensive, exhaustive and correctly interpreted. But there's always room for doubting those things, for me.

"What ifs" are not my strong point, naturally. But this is intentional for me (well, 'I don't regret it intentional'). If you come up with 1000 theories, but only 100 are validated, is it better or worse than me coming up with 100 theories, but 90 being validated.

What if one of my 10% was a cure for AIDS? ;)
Thing is though, as I go through my life, I can honestly say that 90% of my theories are validated sooner or later, since I don't tend to theorize except on things whereof I have a reasonable level of confidence in my prior knowledge... that knowledge being itself a back catalogue of theories that are yet to be disproven, based on a combination of research, experience and intuitive connections... it just takes longer for it to play out in the real world, really, in order to be seen to the senses... but if I lived my life in a state of only ever being right 10% of the time, wouldn't I by now have been committed to some kind of home for the terminally incompetent?? LOL And yet... I seldom pay attention to those things you feel are so important and straight A'd my way through school by guesswork, without ever looking at those tables in the textbooks. So, whatever you want to say about it, it WORKS *for me* :D

Putting 'thought' in doesn't impress me as a methodology, and that's the issue. I'd rather be out gathering the validation long before you guys have discussing something. It would be like facing an entrance exam and instead of studying, you guys think about the exam a lot.

Ah... yeah. Actually, it's more a case of putting a lot of thought into figuring out exactly what needs to be done, considering lots of alternatives so that I don't go running out and spending all afternoon collecting data that turns out to be completely useless. :)

I answer "what do I need to know to understand this" first, then go hunting for it.

I do a similar thing, but I also do "why do I want to understand this? by what criteria will I judge whether I have understood it?" as well...

I want to make as few intuitive leaps as I can, which means more data to fill in the gaps. To hear that data is often not welcome in these situations...

It sure is welcome by me!!! It's like I'm trying to see what the top of a tree looks like and when I turn around, someone's put a ladder there. How incredibly useful, thank you very much!!! :laugh:

To me that data is very useful, though its main use is as a springboard for figuring out where else it can go.

Ha... well look, I don't want to go down that whole S vs N path, so well worn it's more like a trench nowadays... heh.

My main aim (now that I'm able to articulate it) was to see what light could be shed on the subject in the hope it might reduce Colors' frustration a bit, as understanding does tend usually to lead to easier tolerance. But my point of origin was with a Sensor expressing what felt to me to be a misunderstanding leading to negative feelings which I thought might be unnecessary.

I personally have no axe to grind with sensors, I just figured that this particular bone of contention could use some addressing :)

But please PT, to say I wouldn't welcome input is like saying a Labrador Retriever wouldn't welcome a nice juicy steak :D In fact, the input that challenges and forces me to think and rethink is the most welcome of all. Your kind of input (like the ISTP I have in my RL) gives me mulling matter for days! No danger of rejection here for you dude :)

[substitute]

oh yeah and... I didn't really wanna go into it a great deal unless others felt it was warranted, but there is a lot of research that's been done into the intuition process and how in fact, perhaps it has more basis in fact than given credit for... y'know, the idea of subconsciously taken-in data that the brain sifts through on a subconscious level to reach an instant conclusion that you 'just know', without being able to explain why?

It remains true that when challenged (I've been practicing actually by challenging myself for fun) I often CAN back-engineer 'how' I knew something, though it's a long and meandering process that would bore to tears any listener.

[Grayscale]

oh yeah and... I didn't really wanna go into it a great deal unless others felt it was warranted, but there is a lot of research that's been done into the intuition process and how in fact, perhaps it has more basis in fact than given credit for... y'know, the idea of subconsciously taken-in data that the brain sifts through on a subconscious level to reach an instant conclusion that you 'just know', without being able to explain why?

what happens when two intuitive thoughts disagree? :thinking:

this is sort of my beef with it. i have no problem with generating ideas, but everybody has ideas and the difference between good ones and bad ones is up to reality, not the person who came up with them.

after all, reality is ultimately what we all have in common, and if someone wants their ideas to hold value to other people then they will need to show validity there somehow.

[substitute]

what happens when two intuitive thoughts disagree? :thinking:

this is sort of my beef with it. i have no problem with generating ideas, but everybody has ideas and the difference between good ones and bad ones is up to reality, not the person who came up with them.

after all, reality is ultimately what we all have in common, and if someone wants their ideas to be respected then they will need to show validity there somehow.

yeah, that's why we talk about them with each other to compare, contrast, reconcile and kick to the kerb that which doth not make the grade! :)

Oh, I mean, that's why we EN's... :doh: :alttongue:

[Grayscale]

yeah, that's why we talk about them with each other to compare, contrast, reconcile and kick to the kerb that which doth not make the grade! :)

Oh, I mean, that's why we EN's... :doh: :alttongue:

but if ideas have been wrong in the past, how can you "just know" anything? this is the disregard for objectivity i think gets on the nerves of people like pt and I

what of people who continue to have such a high opinion of their own thinking but cant manage to succeed in achieving what they want in life or solving problems that other, less "enlightened" people have less trouble with?

[substitute]

what of people who continue to have such a high opinion of their own thinking but cant manage to succeed in achieving what they want in life or solving problems that other, less "enlightened" people have less trouble with?

uh... are you saying N's have a monopoly on this? cos I can assure you, they don't...

I mean, basket cases come in all shapes and sizes, I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish...?

[Grayscale]

uh... are you saying N's have a monopoly on this? cos I can assure you, they don't...

I mean, basket cases come in all shapes and sizes, I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish...?

^ ninja edit

i dont think this has anything to do with intuition or sensing, it just seems like self-identified intuitives do it more often.

really, anyone who allows themselves to be "right" without any sort of objectivity gets on my nerves because i put a lot of thought on practicality and objective measurement into anything i claim with certainty

this is why we have the scientific method. i dont have a problem with theories, i just dont like it when they get promoted by their creator to full blown scientific law, just cause they "know" or "have a feeling" :)

[MacGuffin]

what happens when two intuitive thoughts disagree? :thinking:

this is sort of my beef with it. i have no problem with generating ideas, but everybody has ideas and the difference between good ones and bad ones is up to reality, not the person who came up with them.

after all, reality is ultimately what we all have in common, and if someone wants their ideas to hold value to other people then they will need to show validity there somehow.

Reality is subjective.

[563 740]

really, anyone who allows themselves to be "right" without any sort of objectivity gets on my nerves because i put a lot of thought on practicality and objective measurement into anything i claim with certainty

I think we can all agree that pompous blowhards suck balls regardless of type... :cool:

[Grayscale]

I think we can all agree that pompous blowhards suck balls regardless of type... :cool:

i wouldnt call it that, and i would say its fairly common even if they dont use those very words. some people take more responsibility for accuracy than others

Reality is subjective.

by my definition, reality is all that isn't subjective, which can be determined through pattern observation. most people probably wouldnt argue that humans dont need to breathe oxygen to survive for prolonged periods of time because we have plenty of examples that most sane people will agree prove otherwise. someone will always say that anything is possible, but i dont see them putting a plastic bag over their head anytime soon.

i, too, wish we lived in a world without rules (i dont like them after all) but i wont deny that everything fits together in only one way that holds true no matter how much testing you subject it to. the question is whether it is more important for people to really find out what that is or merely appear as if they have. some of the best scientists will probably never get recognized because their dedication to the rigors of the process means that they wont find an answer in their lifetime.

[substitute]

this is why we have the scientific method. i dont have a problem with theories, i just dont like it when they get promoted by their creator to full blown scientific law, just cause they "know" or "have a feeling" :)

Hmm... but doesn't the scientific method itself begin with a theory, an idea, a "what if?" inspiration that's then discussed and taken to the lab to be proven, disproven or adapted?

If I were to claim some theory I had about say, social science for example, were infallibly correct because I 'just knew', you'd be dead right in calling me on it.

But if I were to say a theory I had about something pertaining to my own personal life, where I'm the key player and am the ultimate authority with regard to the dynamics from my POV between myself and another person, surely on this level, subjectivity is allowed??

Are you sure that you don't have a bit of anti-N bias in there somewhere? it just sorta seems like you're saying in your belief N's don't value objective reasoning... which would sorta fly in the face of NT being generally held to be the 'scientific' temperament...??

After all, intuition is about data gathering, not processing. T/F is the objective/subjective dichotomy, not S/N.

[Grayscale]

Hmm... but doesn't the scientific method itself begin with a theory, an idea, a "what if?" inspiration that's then discussed and taken to the lab to be proven, disproven or adapted?

If I were to claim some theory I had about say, social science for example, were infallibly correct because I 'just knew', you'd be dead right in calling me on it.

But if I were to say a theory I had about something pertaining to my own personal life, where I'm the key player and am the ultimate authority with regard to the dynamics from my POV between myself and another person, surely on this level, subjectivity is allowed??

Are you sure that you don't have a bit of anti-N bias in there somewhere? it just sorta seems like you're saying in your belief N's don't value objective reasoning... which would sorta fly in the face of NT being generally held to be the 'scientific' temperament...??

After all, intuition is about data gathering, not processing. T/F is the objective/subjective dichotomy, not S/N.

i dont care to even categorize people into type, i am simply expressing my frustration for people who exhibit this type of behavior. my experiences are that a lot of the big picture thinkers are more prone to doing it (perhaps because they dont like to get bogged down in what they consider to be unimportant details?) but it's irrelevant to the fact that i find that behavior annoying and why.

even if were prone to letting personal agenda play a part in my opinion, i still consider myself a fairly intuitive person and know lots of what i can only guess would be N-types that i consider to be intelligent (even if were not always on the same page) :)

i have to agree with PT in the sense that a balance is required, but often times the importance of the boundaries created by having to prove the concrete validity of ideas is under-emphasized next to imagination when this is the only way we can separate good ideas from invalid ones.

[ptgatsby]

Woah PT, you've had some seriously bad experiences at the hands of some crazy N's by the sounds of it... :mellow:


Not so much :) Ok, well, I have ;) But I meant that I don't mean that every N is a fringe case that drives me nuts. Only in particular cases where the N is strong, and they are stubborn.

The difference depends on the situation!


Ah yes, your research and facts would've been very very welcome in the bullying thread, I can tell you that. By me, at least, obviously I can't speak for anyone else but ... you're wrong though that this really is always the end of the discussion. If 'the facts' were always the end of a discussion then nobody would ever go in search of NEW facts.


They would be welcome now, but they generally are *not* reflected upon if I simply put out the data. I don't mean this as a bad thing, or a comment beyond what it says. My style is particular and I know it. And really, what is the point of just delivering information? I mean, there are textbooks of information that could explain it all, so at some point the answer would just be "read thousands of pages of theories and data instead of talk about it". All it does is interrupt the flow of thought, but that flow of thought here is very N. I have a very different response when I'm at a hobby forum, or DIY forum. There, actual solutions and data is like a glass of water.

That's mostly what I'm highlighting - not that we don't both theorize, just that we do it in different amounts/times. And since it is only the differences being talked about, it sounds like fringe cases, and seems larger than it is. Most of us are likely pretty balanced individuals, but that doesn't mean the gap in preferences don't come out.

Besides, the difference is related. It's like type 1 and type 2 statistical errors. You gain more coverage, at the expense of less defined theories. I gain more defined theories, but at the expense of coverage.

(The big ones for me are bullying, IQ and stereotyping - since I care very much about those topics, things tend to go downhill when I impose ;) )



I just can't help thinking when I hear things like that, you know, sure, that's what people said about the sun going round the earth once...


Exactly. But at the same time, I don't really want you to (common stereotype) be working with my engine and theorizing on new designs at the same time. And it doesn't mean you couldn't work on an engine, or that I couldn't theorize the design of one.

It's just that there will be more cases where I would rather not be designing an engine, and more cases where you don't want to be talking about dismantling (x) engine.

Even though we do use both and both serve a function, it doesn't mean that we serve it well together/same situations/etc. And both taken too far (ie: the earth is supported by a giant turtle a few elephants)... it doesn't work either.


But there's always room for doubting those things, for me.


Oh, we are both still Ps, believe me. There is no clear line to draw - each person is different. That's the price of a generality.

I can handle abstractions and imperfect theories - MBTI comes to mind ;) But that doesn't matter too much to me because (as I'm sure we both do) I also don't have a problem defining the limits of a theory, and simply not using it.

And we are both very similar in the whole impulse-thinky way. One day I'll be designing my Wii project, the next designing water fountains, then sketching personal submarines. In a literal "this month" kind of way... but I'm similar with the projects I have in the physical world (which all of those lead into).I am not, however, generally looking at abstract concepts. I'm designing circuits, not religion. I'm not reading about MBTI, I'm reading marketing psychology. I don't care about naval architecture, I care about getting my sub underwater with me in it (saftey optional!).

In each of those cases, when an INTP says "wouldn't it be cool", I want to stop them and ask - we'll talk about this, but first, can it be built now? Should I take you seriously?


What if one of my 10% was a cure for AIDS?


Which one...? Want to try all of the different theories on humans to find out?

This is just to relate to the type 1 and 2 errors in statistics :D


oh yeah and... I didn't really wanna go into it a great deal unless others felt it was warranted, but there is a lot of research that's been done into the intuition process and how in fact, perhaps it has more basis in fact than given credit for... y'know, the idea of subconsciously taken-in data that the brain sifts through on a subconscious level to reach an instant conclusion that you 'just know', without being able to explain why?

This is where I break out Step II to talk about defining intuition within the context of MBTI ;) And by that, I mean, intuitive by MBTI doesn't have to mean 'intuitive'. If anything, 'intuitive' means 'smart P', and I might even say "experience" rather than that.

I would hazard a guess that once you remove ability (IQ) from the equation, preferences would show better 'in tunement' (bwahah) along the items they are most familiar with. Small intuitive leap, right? ;) But really, I wouldn't be trusting intuition in probability, nor when taking apart my engine for the first time. But I would trust a mechanic telling me something, but he doens't know what, is wrong with my car just by looking at it.


Doesn't the scientific method itself begin with a theory


I think it normally begins with an observation, because the fundamental requirement for science to be science is to have a testable hypothesis. That is, it has to explain something, which is normally an observation first.

[Hmm]

^ ninja edit

OhMyGaaawd Subs

[ygolo]

Intersting discussion.

I am finding that I can relate to both sides quite well even though I am an N.

To be honest, I actually have an easier time understanding what the S's are saying than the N's (poor subs.) I think substitute's main aim was to get S's to air greivences, but I may be mistaken.

Unfortunately, only three S's have had significant participation in this thread.

Please correct me is I am sumarizing improperly, but I also see three main greivences.

1) Dislike of general questions and discussions when more specific ones would be more direct.

2) Dislike of people speculating.

3) Dislikes the lack of value placed on reality testing.

Is that a good summary?

If so, I would like to convey my perspective on each item.

1) I mentioned the inventor's paradox earlier. But it means more than just leverage. It is about the elucidation of "principles." This is one of my chief aims and gratfications in life. I have no further need nor desire for those priciples to be used for anything--though using them brings great joy also.

When it comes down to it, what is "parctical" is subjective. What is the point of doing anything? Is playing cards or games "practical?"--many would say not. What about whatching movies or TV shows? What is the point of climbing a mountain? What, even, is the point of being alive?--what practical purpose does it serve?

I believe, we are simply doing what we want to do. I know this may do nothing about the dislike of a particular activity. But keep in mind what it would be like if someone turned off your favorite show--there ought to be a good reason.

2) All percieved reality is speculative. To believe differently is delusion. Granted, some speculation is downright ridiculous, and that type bugs me too (unless we just B.S.ing anyway).

Illusions exist. Experience is limited. Data is often doctored, mismeasured, or misrepresented. Objectivity is nothing more than the repeatability of subjective experience. Please let me know which of those statements you disagree with.

3) Perhaps it is my technical background, but I found myself sharing many of the sentiments of Grayscale and pt on this matter. One of my favorite phrases at work is "if it isn't tested, it doesn't work" (an exageration, but not far from the truth).

(Please note that I am also rather busy at work, and will not likely respond again till late tomorrow)

[Eldanen]

When I ask questions, I tend to be very precise in how I ask them because I usually already have some idea as to what the answer might be, and I'm trying to lead the person into framing their answer in a way that I can understand it, to learn something new. When I theorize, I can be /extremely/ vague at times, lol. And I love to speculate based on synthetic experienced derived from my imagination. And I also understand trying to comprehend something by linking it to as many other things as possible to gain the bigger picture. I had a class in Electronics once with an ISTJ professor. He kept piling detail upon detail with us, so much so that we got lost in the detail and I was unable to find the main point of what he was saying. I remember asking him for analogies at times, but he admitted that he sucked at analogies. He could do one, or maybe two occasionally, and they weren't all that good :P.

[mlittrell]

I don't see XNTJs as beating around the bush. They tend to be more "to the point" then anyone I know. Sometimes moreso then XSTJs.

[substitute]

yeah well, I did say all the way through that I'm suffering from severe lack of sleep and so can't really get my brain in gear lately...

I wasn't really intending for a blow by blow dissection of the N's way of thinking... by its very nature it's going to be more difficult to express than the S way so already we're at a disadvantage!!

Like I say, I was more hoping that other N's would be able to express in a better way than I could, why we do what Colors said she felt frustrated by, in the hopes it would illustrate that we're not 'just making things up' or avoiding talking about reality for some kind of unbalanced/stupid purpose.

The reason it piqued my interest in the first place is because I've had a lifetime of being told I talk shit and then having my 'shit' played out and proven right, and then people STILL don't apologize or trust me next time. There's always method to my madness, it sorta hurts though to have all my thinking put down to either personality flaws or lack of knowledge. There's a reason why N's choose to do things the N way when we could do it the S way...

PT I'm cool with what you say :) It's basically a case of 'we need both, and THIS is MY one!' that's fair enough.

[Jack Flak]

The reason it piqued my interest in the first place is because I've had a lifetime of being told I talk shit and then having my 'shit' played out and proven right, and then people STILL don't apologize or trust me next time. There's always method to my madness, it sorta hurts though to have all my thinking put down to either personality flaws or lack of knowledge. There's a reason why N's choose to do things the N way when we could do it the S way...
"How glorious, and how painful to be the exception" --R. Crumb, possible paraphrase.

[Little Linguist]

I definitely beat around the bush, insofar as I do not come to the point directly. In order to discover an answer, I have to jump from A to D to Z to S to B.

This confuses the shit out of people almost all of the time, so I had to avoid this while teaching. It took a lot of prep time to teach my classes at first to avoid this tendency. Teaching has enabled me to sort of refine my thoughts a bit and not be so wordy.

So has years of getting Bs on papers for having a "well-written, well-structured, grammatically flawless paper with no thesis." Uh yeah, things like that frustrated the hell out of me.

After a while, you learn how to invest the time and effort to organize your thoughts and ideas, but I have to admit, the Te does not come to me naturally. I had to develop it, and it was only until I was in college that I learned how to develop my Te to a degree where OTHER people were asking me to correct THEIR papers. One day it was like BOOOOOM!!!! I got it. And I wondered, "What the hell was wrong with me for all those years?!?!?!" Then I started criticizing papers for the same mistakes *I* had always made.

But as you can see, when I am not doing academic writing, I slip back into my old Ne habits of flitting from one topic and idea to the next with no real rhyme or rhythm (except for me - but that's not exactly helpful in communication).

So yeah...hmm...what was my point? Oh yeah, right. Yes, I do beat around the bush. :D

[563 740]

The reason it piqued my interest in the first place is because I've had a lifetime of being told I talk shit and then having my 'shit' played out and proven right, and then people STILL don't apologize or trust me next time. There's always method to my madness, it sorta hurts though to have all my thinking put down to either personality flaws or lack of knowledge. There's a reason why N's choose to do things the N way when we could do it the S way...

Life would be easier for everyone if they would just accept that I know what the f*** I'm talking about. :yes:

[substitute]

Little Linguist - Te's not a problem for me. I can structure with the best of 'em. Well, almost with the best of 'em, I had a live-in ENTJ for a while that saw to that... it's the S part that's my problem!! I've an ISTP and ISTJ in my garage though, heh, and they're gradually helping me out with that as I'm helping them out with a bit of Spongebob action... haha... still a long way to go though on both sides!

563 740 - you don't know how many times I've wanted to say that. Very loudly.
Joking aside though... of course I don't expect a stranger or colleague or something to take me seriously without evidence to back me up, that'd be unreasonable, especially if the person has no or limited previous experience of my methods - and results. But if we're talking about someone who's known me for years, I would've thought that by now they could've noticed that though my methods and stuff might look a bit fuzzy from where they're standing, they can't really deny that I get results. Good ones. And learn to trust me. But yet... they often don't... :(

It can go both ways though... for example, when I let my ESFP sister take care of something for me, I had to trust that she knew what she was doing even though to me, it seemed like she was acting on impulse dictated purely by what was in front of her senses, without consideration of longterm effects or how what she was doing fitted into the bigger picture. And that was very difficult for me to do.

edit - but the particular point made in the quote I put in the OP, or the point it brought up in my mind was that here, the N isn't even being trusted to know how to handle THEIR OWN LIFE, to know or be able to judge what information they need, what's relevant to a situation... ?!

[Jeffster]

So has years of getting Bs on papers for having a "well-written, well-structured, grammatically flawless paper with no thesis." Uh yeah, things like that frustrated the hell out of me.


I had the opposite problem. I would get to the point too fast without all the flowery window dressing words, and the teacher would be like "it has to be 500 words", so I'd have to repeat the words "Screw Flanders" at the end of it, over and over and over again.

[CaptainChick]

Sorry sub, but all this "beatin' around the bush" has to do with all you I/ENTPs.

You and your Ti-driven tirelessly tidy, meticulous attempts to tinker out the tiniest of details into tenuous tissues of "coherent", titanic meaning can render the rest of us in somewhat of a tizzy!

[substitute]

Sorry sub, but all this "beatin' around the bush" has to do with all you I/ENTPs.

You and your Ti-driven tirelessly tidy, meticulous attempts to tinker out the tiniest of details into tenuous tissues of "coherent", titanic meaning can render the rest of us in somewhat of a tiizzy!

:D

Guilty as charged for the most part.
Entirely innocent of the bold parts :D

[Mondo]

I can strongly relate to this notion.
I think this is a phenomena that can be connected to the cognitive function: Ne.
I think it is often that people want an answer from something but are afraid to get straight to the point- so we choose to engage in bullshitting instead- hoping that our 'hidden' motives won't be dug up.
It's a somewhat craven thing to do.

[563 740]

I can strongly relate to this notion.
I think this is a phenomena that can be connected to the cognitive function: Ne.
I think it is often that people want an answer from something but are afraid to get straight to the point- so we choose to engage in bullshitting instead- hoping that our 'hidden' motives won't be dug up.
It's a somewhat craven thing to do.

I think it goes both ways. I will admit to sometimes avoiding the direct question if I'm trying not to look stupid or whatevs. :blush: But like was hit somewhere else in this thread, I'll also avoid the direct question if I'm looking for more than just the direct answer (beating around the bush to learn more about it).

[ptgatsby]

I believe, we are simply doing what we want to do. I know this may do nothing about the dislike of a particular activity. But keep in mind what it would be like if someone turned off your favorite show--there ought to be a good reason.


That is more or less the point, I agree. When we split groups up on preferences - and this doesn't require MBTI at all - we are going to get groups that have different preferences... obvious, right? :) It shouldn't be surprising that we each have our own 'show' that we prefer.

You could do the exact same thing with sport preferences and repeat the discussion. It goes a bit deeper when it is personality, but same concept.


Illusions exist. Experience is limited. Data is often doctored, mismeasured, or misrepresented. Objectivity is nothing more than the repeatability of subjective experience. Please let me know which of those statements you disagree with.


I agree with all, but it doesn't change my preference.

For each point that can be brought up in the subjective world, it is always the progression towards objective that I (we) strive for. Illusion and bad data is the enemy, meant to be overcome, not an excuse to avoid using a particular method.

If anything, the intuitive approach is less rigid with illusion and bad data - granted, Ss can take it at face value, but theorists can be heavily misled into believing their own theories when supported by even the weakest (anecdotal, etc) data or the flimsiest of illusions (human biases come to mind here for some reason).

The downside to the more rigid thinkers is that they can become rigid with bad data and illusions and not let go of them, whereas the theorists tend to... retheorize. On the balance, the openness part is probably more important right now, due to the acceleration of technology.


3) Perhaps it is my technical background, but I found myself sharing many of the sentiments of Grayscale and pt on this matter. One of my favorite phrases at work is "if it isn't tested, it doesn't work" (an exageration, but not far from the truth).


The only difference here would be that I say "if I can't use it, it doesn't work". A very subjective thing - I have no comment on anything that I do not use/know about. That's why I say I don't have patience for just theory. I need to use it to care.


edit - but the particular point made in the quote I put in the OP, or the point it brought up in my mind was that here, the N isn't even being trusted to know how to handle THEIR OWN LIFE, to know or be able to judge what information they need, what's relevant to a situation... ?!

The most competent people I know are all Ns, and most of them are very balanced.

However, it does bother me when something happens to them and automatically cope by saying "what do you think about..." in a general way. Don't do that! Just tell me what happened so I can understand *you*. I don't want to talk about something for 15 minutes only to realise that it had happened to you!

It'll help you too. A solution made *for* you will be better than understanding the big picture, of which you could be an exception (one of many!).

I would guess the majority of the irritation I feel comes from this scenario. I can talk theory, big picture, but I'd really talk about the matter at hand. If that needs to be theory, I'll manage... but when it doesn't and it feels forced? Grrr...

But if you do that enough, I do think I might think that you don't deal with your own issues at a practical level. Maybe not fair, I agree, but the tendency would be there. Course, I think this about a lot of people and I don't seem to have a S/N divide. More like a Ti divide. And I'm looking at you too, TJs.

[substitute]

heh, well sometimes asking about it in a general way before telling you it happened to me personally is my way of scouting whether you'll be judgemental or receptive to what I'm saying before saying it... I'll admit that.

edit - I mean, say for example I'm looking for advice on how to deal with an issue with somebody, and I already know what the problem is beyond reasonable doubt, I just want to sound out various possible solutions. If I tell you it happened to me, you're gonna want to dissect the whole thing and probably reapportion blame according to your limited understanding of the situation, when all I wanted was a 'what would you do if this were the case?' meaning I know this is the case, that's not something I want to discuss. Therefore giving you the details of how I know it to be the case is pretty pointless...

[ptgatsby]

heh, well sometimes asking about it in a general way before telling you it happened to me personally is my way of scouting whether you'll be judgemental or receptive to what I'm saying before saying it... I'll admit that.

Grrrr.... :cheese:

That's always what it feels like. Plus, it often makes me stick my foot in my mouth without even knowing!

[substitute]

yeah but I mean, c'mon, if for example you were gonna come out as gay, you'd want to get some idea of a person's general opinions on the subject of homosexuality before confiding in them that you're suffering from prejudice and asking their advice in dealing with it...?

[substitute]

actually, come to think of it, it seems a staple N experience to be told you come out with things you shouldn't, that you're too controversial, talk crazy shit etc... so it's hardly surprising that we'd want to do a bit of scouting for receptivity before putting ourselves on the line to be smacked down as usual... maybe it just becomes a habit sometimes...

Mondo - I usually don't even know what my own motives are and it's in discussing things that I hope to find them crystallize somewhat...

[ptgatsby]

yeah but I mean, c'mon, if for example you were gonna come out as gay, you'd want to get some idea of a person's general opinions on the subject of homosexuality before confiding in them that you're suffering from prejudice and asking their advice in dealing with it...?

Personally, I would simply take that as a lack of trust. I'd like to think my friends would accept my opinion as mine - what, are they not going to tell me if they find out it could rock the relationship?

(The following post could be true... I don't see many Ns being told not to be controversial - I do hear them being told to focus on the matter at hand.)

[Little Linguist]

Captain Chick, I disagree that this thing is only an INTP/ENTP thing. I, too, have this problem, and I'm an ENFP.

Maybe I'm just weird??? :D Oh, wait, silly me, of course I am!!! :doh:

By the way, Jeffy - to address your point: It's funny. I think all the people who felt that way always came to me and said. "Dude, he wanted 10 pages, I wrote only four. How many pages did you write?" And I was like, "Uh, 20." And they said, "TWENTY?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! How the hell did you write TWENTY pages?!?!?!" I was like, "uhhhh, wellllll...." :blush:

[substitute]

yeah... when I get told to stick to the subject at hand it often hurts actually cos I thought I WAS!!! what I said was, in my mind, deeply connected and relevant to the subject at hand. Of course I can understand if I've made a big leap that it might not be immediately apparent as to HOW, but I'd like it if people would at least hear me out a bit more whilst I talk my way through to connecting it to the dot they're currently on... it's not easy for me to do that, so it's annoying when I'm trying my best to do it and I just get told I'm rambling... ha, can't win...

as to trust... it's more fear really, and maybe yeah, fear can denote a lack of trust but when experience in the past is bad it's pretty hard to overcome the fear, no matter how you might intellectually know it to be irrational... and then there's the other side of the coin, where people say you shouldn't ASSUME you know what people think... so which is it? Am I presumptuous to assume I know where they'd stand without asking them? Or am I being rightly trustful? Gah, well, half of that is P uncertainty and self-doubt... low self-esteem too in a way, like "I'm lucky this person tolerates me as it is, because they must be a really good person... it's too much to ask that they see past this freakery of mine as well..."

[Little Linguist]

yeah... when I get told to stick to the subject at hand it often hurts actually cos I thought I WAS!!! what I said was, in my mind, deeply connected and relevant to the subject at hand. Of course I can understand if I've made a big leap that it might not be immediately apparent as to HOW, but I'd like it if people would at least hear me out a bit more whilst I talk my way through to connecting it to the dot they're currently on... it's not easy for me to do that, so it's annoying when I'm trying my best to do it and I just get told I'm rambling... ha, can't win...

YEAH!!!!!!!!! Doesn't it freaking piss you off when someone says, "Stick to the point," and you're like, "DUDE, I AM sticking to the point." And they say, "WTF?!?! You're totally not!!!" And you're like, "WTF is YOUR problem that YOU can't see what is right in front of your face?!!??!" And they're like, "WELL SHIT FIRE!!!!!! You could have made your point in two sentences. So why the hell do you have to blither on for five minutes, giving me this detail and that analysis, and the other background when no one gives a shit?!?!?! I've lost interest in the first minute." And I say, "Well SHIT FIRE, if you understood what the hell I am trying to tell you and would LISTEN for a freaking change, then MAYBE you would *get it*! DUMBASS!!!!!!"

Yeah. Uh. Right.

My point is: I agree.

[ptgatsby]

yeah... when I get told to stick to the subject at hand it often hurts actually cos I thought I WAS!!! what I said was, in my mind, deeply connected and relevant to the subject at hand. Of course I can understand if I've made a big leap that it might not be immediately apparent as to HOW, but I'd like it if people would at least hear me out a bit more whilst I talk my way through to connecting it to the dot they're currently on... it's not easy for me to do that, so it's annoying when I'm trying my best to do it and I just get told I'm rambling... ha, can't win...

as to trust... it's more fear really, and maybe yeah, fear can denote a lack of trust but when experience in the past is bad it's pretty hard to overcome the fear, no matter how you might intellectually know it to be irrational...

Well, as to the first - that's the preference gap. Small leaps are comfortable to Ss, and you take large ones. I imagine that you take very large ones, as a product of intelligence and nature.

The 2nd - I understand, but that doesn't really change the situation. I can understand why they didn't, and they can understand why I think they should of, but it doesn't change that they don't and I don't like it :D

Sometimes it is more about preference, sometimes more about trust... and sometimes both equally. Meaning, it can be complex - interactions with people normally are :D

[booyalab]

This thread is full of Ns using way too many words to say how much they hate people who use too many words.

[Little Linguist]

This thread is full of Ns using way too many words to say how much they hate people who use too many words.

Well, I personally love saying too many words to say why I love using too many words. In my defense: I'm consistent.

[ptgatsby]

This thread is full of Ns using way too many words to say how much they hate people who use too many words.

It isn't the volume, it's the scope. Anyone talking shop can talk and talk. It is about what we believe 'shop' to be. N shop talk sounds like a lot of talk about nothing to Ss. And S shop talk sounds like a lot of talk about nothing to Ns.

[substitute]

...and anyway I thought it was more about S's complaining that N's use too many words whilst N's explain why they do! lol

PT yeah I can understand the frustration that occurs when 'the gap' is encountered. Frustration's cool with me but when people actually get ANGRY, it sorta irritates me a bit because it's like they're judging me. Like they're not realizing that if people don't trust then it's not usually because they don't want to but that some kind of fear is holding them back from doing so, and to overcome that fear, support is needed... to get angry with me and judge me only adds to the fear really...

Not that you've done that at all, just saying, y'know... hahah... GENERALLY :rofl1:

[ptgatsby]

...and anyway I thought it was more about S's complaining that N's use too many words whilst N's explain why they do! lol

Well, some people think I'm still an N, so you know... plays at many levels ;)


Not that you've done that at all, just saying, y'know... hahah... GENERALLY :rofl1:

:) Generally I get along with S and Ns, if we have common interests, too. But there are times when it also feels like they are just probbing me. Happened recently with an ENFP that didn't want to say that she dislikes IQ tests - given that I don't really care about IQ, but was talking about the influences on the (her) medical field and various levels of education, she took it to mean that I was a big believer in IQ. Instead of stating her POV, she just kept asking questions, as if to hope that I would mention a weakness. Which of course, I eventually did, and she pounced on, and I suddenly realised the intent.

I didn't get angry, but it is irritating. I could of spent the same time talking about the Flynn effect or something similar to get her perspective.

It is the lack of communication that is irritating.

The whole anger thing is just a reaction to the differences, IMO. Both sides need to be understanding and try... but keep in mind, if you start talking to someone, they tend to feel an obligation to respond. It is as frustrating for them as it would be for you being 'right' over and over, yet not listened to.

[Hmm]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4299/findxbr5.gif

[563 740]

You and your Ti-driven tirelessly tidy, meticulous attempts to tinker out the tiniest of details into tenuous tissues of "coherent", titanic meaning can render the rest of us in somewhat of a tizzy!

Alliteration is overrated.

:D

[Alpha Prime]

Anyone care to input?

I like this board, but sometimes Ns can be very annoying about getting to the point too. They ask really vague questions when they want to know about solutions to very specific problems. For example, an opening post might ask about why ESFPs are flighty, but a few posts later the real question would turn out to be "How do I get this ESFP to pay attention to me?". (An exaggeration, but common phenomenon.)


In corollary to this, I think S's are not that good at taking hints.

N-widescreen in all honor, but, I have a hard time respecting a person who is too wishy washy or chooses to beat around the bush due to lack of courage.

[substitute]

In corollary to this, I think S's are not that good at taking hints.


Yes. Even really un-subtle hints like "Listen ISTP best mate, you know I've got to be up early in the morning tomorrow so yeah sure you can come round but I've got to get to bed early and no getting drunk". Somehow he seems to think this means "I'll just come over with loads of alcohol and wait for you to kick me out at 3am after having been hinting at me to leave for the last 4 hours, then act like you're being uptight and stuff". :rolleyes:

apparently, to go from "I have to be up early in the morning" to "so that means you have to leave at a reasonable time" and "I would prefer you did this of your own accord rather than forcing me to ungallantly eject you" is too many intuitive leaps for some people :alttongue:

[ptgatsby]

apparently, to go from "I have to be up early in the morning" to "so that means you have to leave at a reasonable time" and "I would prefer you did this of your own accord rather than forcing me to ungallantly eject you" is too many intuitive leaps for some people :alttongue:

<S> Geeze, you guys need to learn to live in the moment! </s>

[Jeffster]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4299/findxbr5.gif

I've always loved that picture. :D

[Tallulah]

Little Linguist, I just spent 30 minutes explaining to composition student of mine how her paper was interesting and I liked her style of writing, but that she had no defined thesis. (At this point, she was just running her rough draft by me, to make sure she was on the right track.) Every time I'd try to explain that she needed to tighten up her thesis to reflect precisely what she wanted to prove, she'd just explain to me in a roundabout way what she said in her paper. And I'd say, "Yes, but I should know by the time I reach the end of the first paragraph what this paper will be about." And she'd go, "Yeah, but if you read this paragraph and this paragraph, I think you'll see what I was trying to say..." So, I, as her teacher, am TELLING her what I expect in her paper, and she's trying to argue that she's already doing it, and she's not. Argh. I fully expect that she'll just write a few more paragraphs trying to explain a little more, rather than pruning and tightening, like she needs to, to be understood.

What finally got through to you?

[01011010]

Oh, a word just came to me: leverage. It's all about leverage for N's, isn't it? Or is that just me? You know, the reason we're more interested in 'why ESFP's are flighty' than asking 'how do I get this ESFP to notice me' is because the general idea is that when you understand the whys and hows of something, it enables you to know exactly where to apply leverage in order to achieve the desired effect.

No? :unsure:

Yes

[Jack Flak]

Yes
I agree. Connections as opposed to details.

[Snowey1210]

Oh, a word just came to me: leverage. It's all about leverage for N's, isn't it? Or is that just me? You know, the reason we're more interested in 'why ESFP's are flighty' than asking 'how do I get this ESFP to notice me' is because the general idea is that when you understand the whys and hows of something, it enables you to know exactly where to apply leverage in order to achieve the desired effect.

I think the big difference between S's and N's is ultimately how they percieve life. N's like being able to transfer ideas from one context into another, as we see life as being an interwoven tapestry of concepts. On the other hand, I find S's to be very linear in their nature, what matters is what is happening now and as such they need specifics.

I think that's why the NTJ's and NFJ's are so interesting, as they are somehow able ask these broad questions and apply these quickly in reality. This differs from the NP's in that a broad question remains broad as they ever trying to deduce what is meant in pursuit of unquestionable clarity.

I wish I was an S sometimes they seem to have it made.

[ygolo]

For each point that can be brought up in the subjective world, it is always the progression towards objective that I (we) strive for. Illusion and bad data is the enemy, meant to be overcome, not an excuse to avoid using a particular method.

If anything, the intuitive approach is less rigid with illusion and bad data - granted, Ss can take it at face value, but theorists can be heavily misled into believing their own theories when supported by even the weakest (anecdotal, etc) data or the flimsiest of illusions (human biases come to mind here for some reason).

The downside to the more rigid thinkers is that they can become rigid with bad data and illusions and not let go of them, whereas the theorists tend to... retheorize. On the balance, the openness part is probably more important right now, due to the acceleration of technology.


People do have the ability to speculate wildly, and hold on to those speculations for various reason--often due to religion. Rigidity in holding on to a theory can come for various reasons. I think a lack of ego, and the ability admit being wrong (whatever one's type) go a long way to seeing the truth for what it is.

You may have expected this, but I'm going to pick a nit regarding what type of evidence is flimsy. Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily more weak that statistical data. It depends on the circumstance.

Data, is in itself an abstract description of some the results of some experiments (and those experiments can be anecdotes of the experimenter). So "data" is at least one level removed from reality itself.

Part of my job is to produce and check the validity of data being published. I have been bitten more than once for simply taking the data at face value. I think it is quite relevant that many scientists and engineers keep good log-books in addition to the data they collect. Something could seem off when collecting the data. There could be "data" that is relevant but not part of the initial experimental design. There is other information that may not be part of the official "data" but part of the "anecdotal evidence" of the experimenter (or subject, in the case of psychological experiments).

Statistics are, in turn, an abstraction of the data set. More information is lost in this abstraction step. Statistics are nothing more than a structured summary of anecdotal evidence.

Hopefully, lots and lots of "anecdotal"(experimental/observational) evidence in controlled conditions are used in the creation of statistical "data." But there is nothing keeping someone from taking a few anecdotes, making measures on them, and quoting those measures instead of describing the direct experience that data summarizes. In this case, I give the anecdotes more clout.

Another key context to keep in mind is in forensics. Finding DNA that is a 1 in 10^8 match to someone on a murder weapon is not necessarily stronger evidence than an eye-witness (anecdotal) account to the contrary. The eye-witness could be lying, but the DNA could be there for different reasons than being used in the murder.


The only difference here would be that I say "if I can't use it, it doesn't work". A very subjective thing - I have no comment on anything that I do not use/know about. That's why I say I don't have patience for just theory. I need to use it to care.


Things need to be used to be tested. But not necessarily tested to be used. There are unvalidated theories and designs that get extensive use. But no tested theories or designs that haven't been used (at least by the testers). In short, testing is the most stressful type of use (it has to be, by definition).

Usefulness is, again, subjective.

Still, it seems we have a fair amount of agreement.



However, it does bother me when something happens to them and automatically cope by saying "what do you think about..." in a general way. Don't do that! Just tell me what happened so I can understand *you*. I don't want to talk about something for 15 minutes only to realise that it had happened to you!

It'll help you too. A solution made *for* you will be better than understanding the big picture, of which you could be an exception (one of many!).

I would guess the majority of the irritation I feel comes from this scenario. I can talk theory, big picture, but I'd really talk about the matter at hand. If that needs to be theory, I'll manage... but when it doesn't and it feels forced? Grrr...

But if you do that enough, I do think I might think that you don't deal with your own issues at a practical level. Maybe not fair, I agree, but the tendency would be there. Course, I think this about a lot of people and I don't seem to have a S/N divide. More like a Ti divide. And I'm looking at you too, TJs.

When it comes to personal issues, my main reason for not wanting to be specific is to protect myself. I discuss generalities as a form of "dignified delay" by staying in the "Computer" Satir mode. I would like to go into a more straight-forward leveling mode when I fee safe, but it does not always feel safe.

It is a tip I picked up on sources about better communication. Here (http://www.adrr.com/aa/overview.html) is a website with similar information.


The Satir Mode Loops:

Blaming in response to Blaming gets you a fight.

Placating in response to Placating gets you an undignified delay.

Computing in response to Computing gets you a dignified delay.

Leveling in response to Leveling is an exchange of the simple truth; it's always the best choice when it's safe and when it's appropriate.

Distracting in response to Distracting is panic feeding panic; it's always a mistake.

Rule One:
If you don't know what to do, go to Computer Mode and stay there until you have a good reason to change.

Rule Two:
If it would be desirable for the Satir Mode coming at you to escalate -- if that's what you want to have happen -- match that mode.


Perhaps I just have trust issues in general. But I rarely feel safe expressing my emotions or view-points directly because they seem to be rather different from the people I'm with. Staying in "computer" mode initially has yielded more favorable communication.

I think all the people who felt that way always came to me and said. "Dude, he wanted 10 pages, I wrote only four. How many pages did you write?" And I was like, "Uh, 20." And they said, "TWENTY?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! How the hell did you write TWENTY pages?!?!?!" I was like, "uhhhh, wellllll...." :blush:

I have always found it hard to meet page limits on reports because I write too much. I spend a third of the time writing, and two-thirds of the time editing. It is harder for me to cut than to add.

Some teachers complained when I turned in 20-pages for projects and homework sets with calculations, simulations, and data that (while possibly interesting) are not needed for grading. This may be why many professors in grad. school gave page-limits instead of page-minimums on project reports. The limits simply made their lives easier.

[Xander]

Understanding vs Knowledge.

N's gravitate from understanding to knowledge, for something to be true they need to know why it's true.

S's gravitate from knowledge to understanding, they find the fact and then attempt to understand them.

I do ask questions that promote understanding first, the theory being that whilst striving to understand the principles of something I will be able to work out how the "fact" impacts upon other areas. It's no good to me to have the point with out the connections (to relate back to a diagram from another thread).

[Jeffster]

I wish I was an S sometimes they seem to have it made.

Wanna trade bank accounts? ;)