Is N>S?

[Jgib5328]

I can't help but think that N types are superior to S types. N types are gifted with vision, deep though, insight, abstract thinking etc, while the S types are gifted at concrete thinking, the hear and now, details etc. It just seems that the N types are the leaders, the supervisors, the bosses, while the S types follow the Ns. I just see it as the Ns coming up with the plan, the implementation, the strategy, while the S types work on the smaller details of our plans.

So why is N=S?

[Haphazard]

I can't help but think that N types are superior to S types. N types are gifted with vision, deep though, insight, abstract thinking etc, while the S types are gifted at concrete thinking, the hear and now, details etc. It just seems that the N types are the leaders, the supervisors, the bosses, while the S types follow the Ns. I just see it as the Ns coming up with the plan, the implementation, the strategy, while the S types work on the smaller details of our plans.

So why is N=S?

One type isn't better than another. Even if Ns get to be the 'visionaries,' I'd say that in this respect Ss have an easier time with life than Ns. And what's better, seeing what could be or seeing what is? There are very strong arguments for both.

[Jgib5328]

One type isn't better than another. Even if Ns get to be the 'visionaries,' I'd say that in this respect Ss have an easier time with life than Ns. And what's better, seeing what could be or seeing what is? There are very strong arguments for both.

I just see it as the N leader comes up with the plan, and the S follower just takes care of the details.

[Haphazard]

I just see it as the N leader comes up with the plan, and the S follower just takes care of the details.

So, an N gets to be the leader, but is the leader usually the happiest of the group?

INTJs don't normally become leaders by choice even if they could make good ones -- leaders can be very unhappy people. Leadership may give the N preferential treatment when it comes to some things, but unless the N is severely mistreating the Ss in the project, the Ss may be happier with their lives.

[Jgib5328]

So, an N gets to be the leader, but is the leader usually the happiest of the group?

INTJs don't normally become leaders by choice even if they could make good ones -- leaders can be very unhappy people. Leadership may give the N preferential treatment when it comes to some things, but unless the N is severely mistreating the Ss in the project, the Ss may be happier with their lives.

We're talking about superiority though. Of course Ss are going to tend to be happier, they aren't as complex as Ns. My ISTJ friend's life goal is to work as an electrical engineer for the rest of his life in small town outside of Rochester, NY. As long as he can be an electrical engineer, he will be happy. An N type with a lot more complex and robust goals will have a harder time finding this contentment.

[Haphazard]

We're talking about superiority though. Of course Ss are going to tend to be happier, they aren't as complex as Ns. My ISTJ friend's life goal is to work as an electrical engineer for the rest of his life in small town outside of Rochester, NY. As long as he can be an electrical engineer, he will be happy. An N type with a lot more complex and robust goals will have a harder time finding this contentment.

Well, what's a leader without his followers?

The N may be a superior in line of command but the Ss are the ones supporting him. Without the Ss, nothing would get done, under your plans. All empires need a good range of peasants or a workforce to support itself on, and through revolts we've seen that you've got to keep them contented.

What sort of superiority are you talking about? You've got to be more specific.

[Vicimdhar]

Instinctively, I think the same. However, by looking at temperament intelligences you can get a different perspective.

NT = Strategic
NF = Diplomatic
SP = Tactical
SJ = Logistical

Looking at wars, you can see that all are 'equally' necessary to win.

Whether S's (heh) follow N's or the other way around can be dependent on the situation. In certain cases, you might want to base your strategy on what your tacticians or logistic managers consider the right thing to do.

At work, I often want to focus on the end-goal and how to achieve it. I hate dealing with all side jobs that pop up and have a tendency to ignore them. An SJ in charge can be useful as they're quite good in organizing things to include those details as well. The strategy will mostly be provided by me, but the SJ can fit it into a detailed plan that he administers as well.

Imagine that the world would be 95% N and 5% S. Would N still be 'better'? I would guess not. But as IRL N's are more rare than S's, you could consider them more valuable in that sense.

[Kotetsu]

I suppose it is easier for S types in school. Too much detailed crap for my liking. >_>

More seriously, they aren't [normally] going to do something if there isn't a concrete reason for doing it. N types are certainly more able to imagine other possibilities and come up with new ideas, but they also have a higher propensity for misleading themselves due to their own intangible intuition. S types are also better at the 'social puzzle' generally than Ns, in my experience.

On the whole Ns are less likely to be duped by, or act ingenuinely because of, other people, but are more likely to delude themselves. Ss are the opposite. That's what I make of it, anyway.

[SShack]

I just see it as the N leader comes up with the plan, and the S follower just takes care of the details.

As somebody whose career involves coming up with those big picture plans, taking care of the details isn't simply a "just" issue. That's half the task right there, sometimes even more. Coming up with plans is a completely useless skill unless you're able to get the S folks on board to implement it. I've gone through the frustration of having to set aside a plan because of ST folks at the workplace pointing out logistical problems that hadn't crossed my abstract mind.


Oh, and somehow I missed Vicimdhar's post. To verify that, I just had to change a huge strategic plan to accommodate logistical and tactical issues I would not have known about with input from S folks. If I had followed through with the plan without this information, it would have been a disaster.

[Haphazard]

Imagine that the world would be 95% N and 5% S. Would N still be 'better'? I would guess not. But as IRL N's are more rare than S's, you could consider them more valuable in that sense.

:stunned: I have a feeling that the world would be a horrible, horrible place.

You need both. In some ways I'd find S much superior to Ns. But if you're an N, you've just got to make the most of it.

[Jgib5328]

Well, what's a leader without his followers?

The N may be a superior in line of command but the Ss are the ones supporting him. Without the Ss, nothing would get done, under your plans. All empires need a good range of peasants or a workforce to support itself on, and through revolts we've seen that you've got to keep them contented.

What sort of superiority are you talking about? You've got to be more specific.

It just seems like Ns are more capable of achieving. Ns are better at leading, better at the big picture, better at seeing things more deeply, while the Ss excel at seeing the details and the here and now. It just seems like it is set up for the Ns to lead or control the Ss. The Ns come up with the more important plan or big picture and the Ss just carry out the Ns plans. I see it as the Ns being executives and Ss being accountants. The Ns are great at leading the Ss. Since there can be only one leader and many followers, the leader is more important than a single follower. Just like the President's life is more objectively important than the life of a regular citizen. That's pretty much how I see the N S relationship.

[paradanmellow]

Instinctively, I think the same. However, by looking at temperament intelligences you can get a different perspective.

NT = Strategic
NF = Diplomatic
SP = Tactical
SJ = Logistical

Looking at wars, you can see that all are 'equally' necessary to win.

Whether S's (heh) follow N's or the other way around can be dependent on the situation. In certain cases, you might want to base your strategy on what your tacticians or logistic managers consider the right thing to do.

At work, I often want to focus on the end-goal and how to achieve it. I hate dealing with all side jobs that pop up and have a tendency to ignore them. An SJ in charge can be useful as they're quite good in organizing things to include those details as well. The strategy will mostly be provided by me, but the SJ can fit it into a detailed plan that he administers as well.

Imagine that the world would be 95% N and 5% S. Would N still be 'better'? I would guess not. But as IRL N's are more rare than S's, you could consider them more valuable in that sense.

Very good point!



On the whole Ns are less likely to be duped by, or act ingenuinely because of, other people, but are more likely to delude themselves. Ss are the opposite. That's what I make of it, anyway.

I constantly delude myself, I couldn't function without an S by my side (mom for example), no no! let's be real, S are indispensable rather than inferior, reason enough to "hate" them :laugh: (and they like my jokes, they think I am smart and funny, what more can I wish for???)


As somebody whose career involves coming up with those big picture plans, taking care of the details isn't simply a "just" issue. That's half the task right there, sometimes even more. Coming up with plans is a completely useless skill unless you're able to get the S folks on board to implement it. I've gone through the frustration of having to set aside a plan because of ST folks at the workplace pointing out logistical problems that hadn't crossed my abstract mind.

happens all the time. even Ns reject my plans apparently...


The Ns are great at leading the Ss. Since there can be only one leader and many followers, the leader is more important than a single follower. Just like the President's life is more objectively important than the life of a regular citizen. That's pretty much how I see the N S relationship.

I think you are wrong according to this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Ns are losers!

[Haphazard]

Jgib, I think you should take a look at my family.

Me, my brother, and my dad are Ns. Mom is not. Mom is the only one who ever gets anything done. She's usually the ones leading us around when we can be coaxed out of our own little worlds.

[Antares]

Jgib, I think you should take a look at my family.

Me, my brother, and my dad are Ns. Mom is not. Mom is the only one who ever gets anything done. She's usually the ones leading us around when we can be coaxed out of our own little worlds.

Well, depends on which S you're talking about. SJs? Excellent. SPs? Not exactly as efficient.

[Jgib5328]

Jgib, I think you should take a look at my family.

Me, my brother, and my dad are Ns. Mom is not. Mom is the only one who ever gets anything done. She's usually the ones leading us around when we can be coaxed out of our own little worlds.

Well if your mom is SJ, then she is going to get things done. N's aren't all good at getting things done, only the NJs. NPs tend to be lazy and less focused.

[eclecticjoker]

I get the impression that S's are more in tune with reality, and N's are more theoretical. Both can play both fields, but I think that often the person with the strong grasp on reality will have an advantage in general, although the person with a more theoretical perspective is capable of making greater deductive leaps, which can be a large advantage or a similar disadvantage, depending on their other tendencies.

[INTJoe]

It's hard for N's to see the value of an S, because, well, we don't really utilize S mode, so we can't appreciate what it is.

Some things I've noticed about S's, that are "superior" to myself, a strong N, at least:

They are quick thinkers.
They pick up on every little nuance around them.
They are better at "small talk".
They follow the rules.
They generally give off the "normal, down-to-Earth vibe".

Things like this...these things can make them good at business. They appear practical, conformist, sensible, sharp, observant, trusting, etc.

Albeit, and this isn't to be mean, but they are far more shallow in thought than an N, and have difficulty seeing the bigger picture.

N's are typically more brilliant, but our achilles heel is our difficulty selling our brilliance to others. (Especially the 65% of people who are S's...they don't want to buy it.)

[Jgib5328]

I realize that everyone has their place in society, but I still see S as subservient to N. I just see the Ns at the top and the Ss at the middle or bottom.

In regards to your war example. The N would be the general and the other high ranking officers and the S would be the colonels and other low-mid range officers (my knowledge of military positions is limited), because that's where they'd excel. Since General>Colonel I keep thinking that N>S.

[Haphazard]

What I see is S types being elected officials and N types being chosen by the S who trust them.

So be nice to Ss, I guess.

It'd be like some kind of alternating chain of command:

President (S)--> General (N) --> Colonel (S).

So Ns make the meat in the sandwich.

[Jgib5328]

What I see is ES types being elected officials and IN types being chosen by the ES who trust them.

So be nice to ESs, I guess.

ENTJs, INTJs, ENTPs, & ESTJs I think dominate the corporate world though. ES's tend to be the politicians, and politicians are basically slaves. They are just a spokes person for the people who fund their campaigns and their constituents.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 2 minutes and 21 seconds later...


It'd be like some kind of alternating chain of command:

President (S)--> General (N) --> Colonel (S).

So Ns make the meat in the sandwich.

That's a good point, but the General makes the majority of the decisions about war and the president Oks them. I think it may be like this anyways

President(S)>Secretary of Defense(N)>General(N)>Colonel(S)

I think most cabinet members are Ns.

[Haphazard]

ENTJs, INTJs, ENTPs, & ESTJs I think dominate the corporate world though. ES's tend to be the politicians, and politicians are basically slaves. They are just a spokes person for the people who fund their campaigns and their constituents.

Jgib5328 added to this post, 2 minutes and 21 seconds later...

That's a good point, but the General makes the majority of the decisions about war and the president Oks them. I think it may be like this anyways

President(S)>Secretary of Defense(N)>General(N)>Colonel(S)

I think most cabinet members are Ns.

The S needs to make a face for the public. You just made a meatier sandwich there, it looks like.

But are we only talking about the US military or are you applying this to all realms? Because all of them are going to be different.

[Jgib5328]

The S needs to make a face for the public. You just made a meatier sandwich there, it looks like.

But are we only talking about the US military or are you applying this to all realms? Because all of them are going to be different.

Yeah S types need to be a puppet for the Ns in regards to the public. The Ss are better with people.

I was just talking about the military. If you wanted to look at the corporate structure...

High Level Executives (N)>Lower Level Executives (S/N)>Middle Management (S)>Low Level Employees (S)> Disgruntled Employees (N)

ENTJs are the most popular high level executive, lower level can be a mix probably more ENTPs and ESTPs are the majority. Middle management just seems like more of an S thing, so most S types occupy this area.

[Meyer]

Well, what's a leader without his followers?

The N may be a superior in line of command but the Ss are the ones supporting him. Without the Ss, nothing would get done, under your plans. All empires need a good range of peasants or a workforce to support itself on, and through revolts we've seen that you've got to keep them contented.

What sort of superiority are you talking about? You've got to be more specific.

I think the superiority he speaks of is that of seeing the entire picture.

[Haphazard]

I think the superiority he speaks of is that of seeing the entire picture.

I don't think that's what he means, but I think that's by definition an N trait, to see the entire picture as opposed to an S type.

[athenian200]

Well, in some ways N is better. The weakness of N, however, is that it can miss obvious data. I see it this way: N's go through life looking at everything through binoculars, which allows you to see things far away clearly, but blurs what's right in front of you. S's go through life looking at everything through a magnifying glass. They see what's right in front of them clearly, but they miss the surrounding context and bigger picture.

So metaphorically, N's are far-sighted, and S's are near-sighted. Both can be handicaps.

[Alpha Prime]

Well, in some ways N is better. The weakness of N, however, is that it can miss obvious data. I see it this way: N's go through life looking at everything through binoculars, which allows you to see things far away clearly, but blurs what's right in front of you. S's go through life looking at everything through a magnifying glass. They see what's right in front of them clearly, but they miss the surrounding context and bigger picture.

So metaphorically, N's are far-sighted, and S's are near-sighted. Both can be handicaps.

Well put.

I find this kind of thinking "Is N>S?" to be very immature and unbalanced.

[eternaltriangle]

I would say there is a greater social need for S's than there is for N's - too many cooks spoil the broth.

[Victoria Silver]

It seems pretty clear to me that we need to see the Big Picture and the Little Details in just about any field of endeavor. I don't think my "N" tendency is in any way "superior" or "inferior" to an "S" tendency; it's just who I am.

[sriv]

They are quick thinkers.
They pick up on every little nuance around them.
They are better at "small talk".
They follow the rules.
They generally give off the "normal, down-to-Earth vibe".
They appear practical, conformist, sensible, sharp, observant, trusting, etc.

Odd. You say S makes a person more observant and practical. But I have a strong N and consider myself a follower of pragmatism. I often look down and forward when I walk instead of looking at the sky or very far. I think of ways America can become a better place. I am horrible with quick thinking unless I am feeling comfortable and confident.

I do not see only the big picture or details. I see what I decide to focus on. I am sure lots of other people can too. Is S and N just what people are better at seeing...or what people at default see?

[Uytuun]

One perspective:

Take one of the big pictures: survival of the species. In order for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens to survive, we need both N and S people...so N=S.

I can relate to that feeling of superiority, though. It's very strange because it's always in the background even when I feel that I genuinely admire an S person for being very good at something S-like. I think it's mostly SJs I feel superior to, though. It might well be a shield so that I don't have to acknowledge the importance of the areas I suck at. Then again, these areas do seem genuinely trivial to me.

I would say there is a greater social need for S's than there is for N's - too many cooks spoil the broth.

Good point.

[Antares]

I think the only way an N can be superior to an S is for him to acquire the sensing abilities also, and it can be the other way around. I consider myself as someone who can use both functions according to the situation. Before, I shunned the S, but after careful consideration, I decided to become more like them to gain their abilities. When working on projects, I would look at the 'big picture', draw an outline and start working on the details. After it's all done, I move away and look at the 'big picture' again, to make sure I didn't lose sight on what's important, then I tie up the lose ends (S) should I find any based on my N examination.

I think, due to an intuitive's tendency to be open to possibilities, it would be easier for an N to become more S than the other way around, but after all, N/S is a preference. If an S person see the benefits of N (which they often do), it's very hard for them 'not' to miss the big picture (as we are constantly reminded by the intuitives around us)

[sriv]

A better question than is N greater than S would be:

After it becomes known that too much N and too much S is inefficient, is a slight nudge in a direction slightly more efficient than a perfect balance?

Is it easier to go from percieving just data to abstract application or from abstract application to percieving data? In other words, is it easier for a senser to become more intuitive or for an intuitive to become more sensing?

[lancelot]

Well, in some ways N is better. The weakness of N, however, is that it can miss obvious data. I see it this way: N's go through life looking at everything through binoculars, which allows you to see things far away clearly, but blurs what's right in front of you. S's go through life looking at everything through a magnifying glass. They see what's right in front of them clearly, but they miss the surrounding context and bigger picture.

So metaphorically, N's are far-sighted, and S's are near-sighted. Both can be handicaps.

In reality, the IN personality understands the concept without having all the details; this can be a source of frustration for an IN person who is forced to expain everything, and prove everything.
I think it's wrong that people can't just say ok, or I get it.
Einstein said that light is bent by gravity, 14 yrs. later someone proved he was correct; I have seen the photographs they remove all doubt.
Please don't tell me Einstein was not an IN person, he is famous for his intuition: "imagination is more important than knowledge".

[eternaltriangle]

In reality, the IN personality understands the concept without having all the details; this can be a source of frustration for an IN person who is forced to expain everything, and prove everything.
I think it's wrong that people can't just say ok, or I get it

Would you like it if your neurosurgeon said "yeah yeah, cut cut, insert, sew, whatever... I get the basic idea" before operating on you?

[lancelot]

Would you like it if your neurosurgeon said "yeah yeah, cut cut, insert, sew, whatever... I get the basic idea" before operating on you?

I know you are very intelligent, but what you just said makes no sense.
We are talking about theories and concepts, not a step by step procedure. However, there are times when even the most observent, practical person may need to guess at something serious; I would perfer an INTJ's guess.
IN people are often bored with obvious things, and we may on occasion miss things; I think it is because we "get off" on the abstract, the deeper meanings of things; we know this is where most people get lost, and it gives us a chance to show other people what we can do.
INTJs, according to the book Introduction to type, are the most intellectual and theoretical of all types, able to penetrate deeper and futher into the unknown than any other type.

INTJ: Head above the clouds, feet firmly on the ground.

My goodness, able to think abstractly, and to theorize more so than the than the other types, and all this combined with critical thinking and deep self awarness, I don't feel superior, I do feel lucky, and enjoy being INTJ.

[sam988]

I can't help but think that N types are superior to S types. N types are gifted with vision, deep though, insight, abstract thinking etc, while the S types are gifted at concrete thinking, the hear and now, details etc. It just seems that the N types are the leaders, the supervisors, the bosses, while the S types follow the Ns. I just see it as the Ns coming up with the plan, the implementation, the strategy, while the S types work on the smaller details of our plans.

So why is N=S?



N>S, I>E, J>P, and, guess what, T>F ;D

[INTJoe]

In other words, is it easier for a senser to become more intuitive or for an intuitive to become more sensing?

Huh...good question. It may be all relative. Like, an S could learn to spend 80% of their day utilizing intuition over sensing, but the value of their intuition will be much lower than that of a natural N. Conversely, an N could go around all day being Sensory, yet still not as good as a natural S.

If what I've just typed is correct, then we know that it is INEFFICIENT for N's to utilize S mode, and S's to utilize N mode too often.

I'm simply amazed at how some S's just...know what is going on everywhere around them...it's uncanny. Much like our N. We have the uphill battle though, because S's can prove where they get their information "Tom told me the deadline is Thursday; you're wrong." whereas an N might have a sneaking suspicion the deadline will get moved back to Monday, but they cannot readily explain why the believe this...so, in many cases, it's just futile (even moreso due to the fact that ~65% of people are a natural S.)

Uphill battles suck. :thumbsdown:

[Over]

I can't help but think that N types are superior to S types. N types are gifted with vision, deep though, insight, abstract thinking etc, while the S types are gifted at concrete thinking, the hear and now, details etc. It just seems that the N types are the leaders, the supervisors, the bosses, while the S types follow the Ns. I just see it as the Ns coming up with the plan, the implementation, the strategy, while the S types work on the smaller details of our plans.

So why is N=S?

N>S for sure.

S are more narrow minded

[Jgib5328]

N>S for sure.

S are more narrow minded

Narrow minds see details.

[Over]

Narrow minds see details.

Yes, but I rather see the point.

[Antares]

Yes, but I rather see the point.

My S classmates work on the details so much that the amount of it in a part of the project just doesn't go together xD

[Over]

Well, I just thought... It is good that there are S people arround. The more of them, the more superior I am.

[Antares]

Well, I just thought... It is good that there are S people arround. The more of them, the more superior I am.

And the more precious and valuable; there can be as many of them as they like, but not to the point where I can't get my opinion out. They *need* our precious opinions!

[Over]

Hm, another thought.
As you know, we can learn an oposite preference aswell. Of course it will not be natural to us, but we can still become good at it. My work requires 100% S, becouse it is all about correct order and details. So I am S when I am doing work.

So my thought was:
Person with default S preference can not learn N.

It is possible to narrow your mind. But you can not widen it.

[Antares]

So my thought was:
Person with default S preference can not learn N.

It is possible to narrow your mind. But you can not widen it.

My ISFJ mother learned to use N, but she's not 100% S. I'm not sure if her S preference is stronger than my N preference (since I've long since learned to use S). She can only use N if I drill it into her the hard way (no, not involving electric drills, blood and fragments of the skull. Don't worry), and if I 'let go', she goes back.