Briefly, some thoughts on the S/N dichotomy in Jungian personality typology as relates to the interaction of xSxx and xNxx types.

I had always somewhat bought the [1] Socionics idea that, all other things being equal, the only attribute that a dynamic, truly flourishing couple (or pair of close friends) had to share was the last of the four dichotomies: if one was Judging, the other had to be; if one was Perceiving, the other had to be. As an INTP, I didn’t at all buy the rest of the theory—according to Socionics, my “ideal” friend/partner is an ESFP. (Generally, ESFPs wear me out on all sorts of levels, to put it mildly.) And though I’m not ready to join D. Kiersey in much else, I may agree with his interpretation of Jungian typology insofar as he says an emotio-intellectual successful couple/pair of friends must share the information-gathering part: the Sensing or iNtuitive type. (Note: iNtuitive is spelled the way it is to yield a dichotomous pair of S/N versus S/I, since the first dichotomy is E/I: Extraversion versus Introversion.)

Why is it that this difference (rather, similarity) is so crucial?

Well, in a rough overview, the difference between these two types is the way in which they receive information and, as I usually put it, where they “dwell” mentally most of the time. Unlike some of the German that gets lost in translation, the difference between “Sensing” and “iNtuitive” types is characterized most succinctly by the dichotomy between “concrete” and “abstract.” Sensing types that have really become aware of and honed their concrete thinking tend to be facts-oriented, based in the here-and-now, highly situationally aware, tend to be realistic and self-assured, and derive pleasure most frequently from physical pleasures. This makes them excellent soldiers, musicians, and organizers. iNtuitive types are future- or past-focused, highly trained on possibilities and abstractions, theoretical thinkers and deeply self-aware feelers; are frequent self-doubters, commonly hate routine and “sameness,” making them excellent researchers, writers, counselors, and the like.

It fascinates me that, in conversations with people who are familiar with Jungian typology (if you’re not, I’m planning to post a good little summary here soon; but meanwhile, check out brief overviews at [2] TypeLogic and [3] Socionics.com), N types tend to complain of the same basic things that S types complain about Ns over. Specifically, S types think N types seem childish; and vice versa. It’s made worse (perhaps much worse) with a different Perceiving / Judging (P/J) rating.

And why not, right? To S types, Ns seem self-absorbed, absent-minded dreamers at best, and bass-ackwards clowns with no sense of time, routine, schedule, organization, or respect for the facts, at worst. Likewise, S types eschew types of thinking on which Ns thrive, preferring to see things-as-they-are rather than spend hard hours introspecting on their nature with respect to others (and so forth).

Is this difference impassable? Hardly. It’s just an area where two people have to be willing and able to communicate, and granted, that communication is made more difficult because of this seeming disrespect between the two types.

Has this been your experience?

Briefly, some thoughts on the S/N dichotomy in Jungian personality typology as relates to the interaction of xSxx and xNxx types.

I had always somewhat bought the [4] Socionics idea that, all other things being equal, the only attribute that a dynamic, truly flourishing couple (or pair of close friends) had to share was the last of the four dichotomies: if one was Judging, the other had to be; if one was Perceiving, the other had to be. As an INTP, I didn’t at all buy the rest of the theory—according to Socionics, my “ideal” friend/partner is an ESFP. (Generally, ESFPs wear me out on all sorts of levels, to put it mildly.) And though I’m not ready to join D. Kiersey in much else, I may agree with his interpretation of Jungian typology insofar as he says an emotio-intellectual successful couple/pair of friends must share the information-gathering part: the Sensing or iNtuitive type. (Note: iNtuitive is spelled the way it is to yield a dichotomous pair of S/N versus S/I, since the first dichotomy is E/I: Extraversion versus Introversion.)

Why is it that this difference (rather, similarity) is so crucial?

Well, in a rough overview, the difference between these two types is the way in which they receive information and, as I usually put it, where they “dwell” mentally most of the time. Unlike some of the German that gets lost in translation, the difference between “Sensing” and “iNtuitive” types is characterized most succinctly by the dichotomy between “concrete” and “abstract.” Sensing types that have really become aware of and honed their concrete thinking tend to be facts-oriented, based in the here-and-now, highly situationally aware, tend to be realistic and self-assured, and derive pleasure most frequently from physical pleasures. This makes them excellent soldiers, musicians, and organizers. iNtuitive types are future- or past-focused, highly trained on possibilities and abstractions, theoretical thinkers and deeply self-aware feelers; are frequent self-doubters, commonly hate routine and “sameness,” making them excellent researchers, writers, counselors, and the like.

It fascinates me that, in conversations with people who are familiar with Jungian typology (if you’re not, I’m planning to post a good little summary here soon; but meanwhile, check out brief overviews at [5] TypeLogic and [6] Socionics.com), N types tend to complain of the same basic things that S types complain about Ns over. Specifically, S types think N types seem childish; and vice versa. It’s made worse (perhaps much worse) with a different Perceiving / Judging (P/J) rating.

And why not, right? To S types, Ns seem self-absorbed, absent-minded dreamers at best, and bass-ackwards clowns with no sense of time, routine, schedule, organization, or respect for the facts, at worst. Likewise, S types eschew types of thinking on which Ns thrive, preferring to see things-as-they-are rather than spend hard hours introspecting on their nature with respect to others (and so forth).

Is this difference impassable? Hardly. It’s just an area where two people have to be willing and able to communicate, and granted, that communication is made more difficult because of this seeming disrespect between the two types.

Has this been your experience?