Confusion of the truth involving S/N and P/J

[Raver]

I realized that I have a very vague understanding of the differences between these functions. This realization came to me mainly when Rocky pointed out a misunderstanding I had about a certain area. It all started when I first introduced myself to oldham and then MBTI. My first impression was that perceiving was about understanding the big picture, being creative, caring about your surroundings and not really trouncing people for their actions. I had thought that Judging was about looking at the details. Then after a while I realized this wrong and for whatever reason I thought that thinking was about the details and feeling was about the big picture, even though deep inside I knew that made no sense.

I had a pretty unbiased view about sensing and intuition. My first impression was that intuition was about prediction and sensing was about being aware of your environment. I did not think that one was better than the other at the time, they were equals to me. Though, I developed a bias that intuition was better with time mainly due to MBTI or another source.

Then, eventually I came to the biased understanding that intuition was about seeing the big picture, creativity, imagination, creating excellent solutions. My biased understanding of sensing was that it was about looking at the details, seeing things as they appear and doing repetitive tasks. Now I'm realizing that I was wrong and the sources could be wrong too. The idea I have now is that perception (sensing and inuition) are just two different modes that are equal. With your help, I want to know the truth just by knowing ithe strengths and weaknesses of those traits and the general idea.

[Creepy-]

I understand how you can be confused there, some of the functions appear to overlap somewhat.

For those who know better than I, is this right?

Extroversion, Sensing and Logic are more objective.
Introversion, Intuition and Ethics are more subjective.

I also recall someone (pedro?) telling me that S and J were sometimes confused.

[Tov]

I was just thinking today how S could confused for J.

[Park]

Anything can be confused for something else. Why bother to understand anything?

[xiuxiu]

i agree. we should just give up.

[Newbis]

I think that in your question, you've hit upon an important reality about typology, including Socionics, MBTI, and other variants...namely, that it's a very inexact science, and establishing solid definitions is the hardest part.

I think it helps to remember that each of the Jung-based theories is trying to create a model of actual internal "wiring," so to speak, in the way our brains work; but on the other hand, to measure or describe these things, they all use external manifestations (i.e., behavior).

The various impressions that you've had aren't silly; they're natural reactions to the fact that behavior is a very imprecise way to understand the psyche; and other people have had similar understandings to yours.

I remember seeing some statistics that show that both intuition and perceiving, as measured by the MBTI, correlated positively with a preference for less detail-oriented tasks and a tendency to prefer greater freedom in work assignments. So associating S and J with detail-orientation is reasonable. Similarly, there was a theorist named Walter Lowen, who wrote a book a while back that redefined J as detail orientation.

But the key thing to remember is that statistics regarding various testing results are different from the actual definitions of the mental processes (or structures of potential phenomena, if you want to think of it in non-biological terms) that these theories are trying to model (and of course those definitions tend to be quite different between, say, Socionics and MBTI).

Most attempts at definitions that I've seen do in fact associate intuition with preferring to see the "big picture," making predictions, and preferring sometimes to avoid details. Similarly, sensing is often associated with a greater willingness to deal with details and repetitive tasks, and being grounded in a sense-oriented perception of reality.

The perception that such a definition is unequal (i.e., seems more favorable to intuition) may indicate that you're an intuitive type. A sensing person would probably think that a tendency to avoid detail-oriented or repetitive tasks when they're necessary to achieve a desired result is in fact a big weakness of some intuitive people. That doesn't mean that sensing people like to get stuck with clerical tasks; it just means that they're more generally attentive to details, more alert about what's going on around them, but usually less tuned into thinking about the big picture.

(PS - Associating F with the "big picture" is reasonable for a person viewing the world in an F way; if you view things from a feeling point of view, F is what matters, so of course it's the "big picture"!...That just goes to show how much one's own disposition can affect one's view of these definitions.)

[Park]

The perception that such a definition is unequal (i.e., seems more favorable to intuition) may indicate that you're an intuitive type. A sensing person would probably think that a tendency to avoid detail-oriented or repetitive tasks when they're necessary to achieve a desired result is in fact a big weakness of some intuitive people. That doesn't mean that sensing people like to get stuck with clerical tasks; it just means that they're more generally attentive to details, more alert about what's going on around them, but usually less tuned into thinking about the big picture.

Exactly. I can't imagine being caught up in a routine job with no freedom and strictly defined rules. That's the worse thing that could happen to me, lol. I hate routine!!! But I do love working with details and tweaking things to perfection. And I am often unaware or neglecting the real value and potential of my work.

[XoX]

Anything can be confused for something else. Why bother to understand anything?

Yes haha. I will stop now and go eat a nice meal and see a good movie. Makes more sense to me than spending my life here trying to understand these things But the hidden ENFp inside me makes me come back eventually

[XoX]

But I do love working with details and tweaking things to perfection.

Aah...sometimes tweaking is SO much fun This is where ESTj and ISTp mirrors seem to differ. My ESTj co-worker could never understand why I endlessly tweak some piece of work even when it is not necessary anymore. I don't tweak all things though. Only those which matter to me. Often I'm satisfied with "good enough".

Addition: Oops I'm not trying to hijack this thread I'm not really contributing either though

[Raver]

It is nice to know that you guys agree with me on this one. A lot of the biased systems I have created are largely a result of my misinterpretion. If it appears that I see intuition as greater and more intelligent than sensing is the result of the biased descriptions. My first thought and impression was that sensing was actually slightly better or equivalent to intuition and just different.