Did you progress beyond your S?

[Beat Mango]

A while ago someone mentioned that the S/N dichotomy correlates with stages 3 and 4 (concrete operations and formal operations) of Jean Piaget's model of cognitive development. If correct, and S is no more than the penultimate stage of a progressive theory of development, then this would put Jung's theory in jeopardy. Jung's theory is based on the balancing of opposites, so if S and N are not opposites, then the whole thing (including MBTI, even) starts to crumble.

I think my personal history shows some evidence towards the Piaget model - there's no doubt I progressed beyond my S, so to speak. Cars and machinery are something typically associated with ST, right? Well from the ages between about 6 and 10, I was very interested in cars. I bought Wheels magazine regularly, collected model cars, followed their various specifications etc. For some reason this interest faded, though, but I soon moved on to computers. I became almost a computer nerd, very interested in how my 486 PC worked, how to utilise it most effectively, how to be creative with it, etc. Computers are machines like cars except they're, well, more complex. Somewhat out of necessity I moved on from my interest in computers, and by the age of about 15 I was very interested in philosophy, the classic INT pursuit.

I now see this in hindsight as a kind of progression of my cognitive abilities. I went from cars -> computers -> philosophy. In other words, S -> S/N -> N.

Has anyone else experienced this? Did you progress beyond your S?

 

[The Fury]

That seems like a cartload of bullshit. You could just as easily say that that N is a precursor to S, or that introverts are unevolved extroverts.

 

[Beat Mango]

Well, Zen Buddhists might say that the cycle is completed as follows: S -> N -> S ("When I was a child, mountains were mountains, and rivers were rivers. When I grew into an adult, mountains were no longer mountains, and rivers no longer rivers. When I became enlightened, mountains were mountains again, and rivers were rivers")

Interestingly enough, I've mentioned Piaget twice today and twice he's been derided. Funny, considering that according to at least one psych professor he's the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.

You could just as easily say that that N is a precursor to S, or that introverts are unevolved extroverts.

Jung might say that extroverts and introverts, Ns and Ss are both unevolved Selves.

Anyway, I'm not so much interested in theory here as much as experience. So to repeat, did anyone else experience what I experienced? A progression of, or at least a shift in, cognitive abilities?

 

[Cegorach]

I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis but I am impressed that you're challenging Jung's theories, especially on an MBTI related site.
(I love the man but way too many people worship him. )


Chances are that both are not equal traits as prescribed by the theory, one is practically bound by probability to be better than the other, however marginally.
Not that we'll ever be able to ascertain which one that would be without tainting the assumption with bias...


In any case.
I can marginally relate, in that I was far more interested in the practical as a youth even if I did spend copious amounts of time in my head.
I rather foolishly demanded proof and fairness, things which appeared to be best attained through the more tangible aspects of life... at least at the time.

 

[Yellow]

Piaget was a biologist who made observations about development. As a child's cognitive functions develop, he or she will inevitably go through all of the stages, but some a bit earlier, and later. Jung's theories focused on those who had finished development: adults. While there are speculations about personalities being constant throughout life, everyone develops following the same basic pattern. Rather than opposing theories, I see them as working together, rather like a peach and raspberry pie.

Anyway, for me, the concrete operations stage finished early, and I was on to formal operations. I suspect this would be the case for most 'N' types. Similarly, I suspect that many 'S' types hit the formal operations stage a bit later. Again, I'm not sure that concrete operations = S, and formal operations = N. They are both developmental stages.

Even the most S of Ss, as an adult, is able to understand that if a+b=c, then b=c-a. It just isn't their happy place.

Likewise, even the most N of Ns can understand and categorize things at face value.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I can't vouch for my infantile years, but the first thing I ever wanted to be was a palaeontologist, because I imagined it to be the ultimate no-pressure job.
"Didn't find anything?"
"Nope, nothing"
"Damn, better luck next time"

If than isn’t "N" I don't know what is.
(or is it just lazy?)

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'd say I've always had a bit of cognitive dissonance between N and S as far as I can remember. I've always lived with my head in the clouds, thinking about the future and how I would rearrange reality - yet at the same time, I've always had a very 'S' (specifically Se) like skepticism of any claims made without some sort of hard proof. This made me a teachers worst nightmare, because in school I was either not paying attention because I was off in my own little world, or I was telling them they were full of shit.

One reason I've always been very interested in the actual neuroscience behind personality theories is because psychology has always seemed like more of a philosophy to me - interesting and even useful, but not answerable to much real world testing (that's what I mean by that skepticism). There have been brain scan tests that I've linked to in other threads about personality type theory. None of it has really made me think that iNtuitives are any more highly developed then Sensors, just different - each type uses different parts of the brain when faced with the same situations. This makes me think more that the MBTI theory still holds.

 

[Aiss]

I'd say I've always had a bit of cognitive dissonance between N and S as far as I can remember. I've always lived with my head in the clouds, thinking about the future and how I would rearrange reality - yet at the same time, I've always had a very 'S' (specifically Se) like skepticism of any claims made without some sort of hard proof. This made me a teachers worst nightmare, because in school I was either not paying attention because I was off in my own little world, or I was telling them they were full of shit.

Isn't this a Ti-specific things? I've been like that sometimes at school, too. But the rest of the time I was actually listening to the theory behind it (when I've got a good teacher, that is). Either a pet or a nightmare - I've had some teachers arguing my case with others.

Otherwise I've always been more N than S. Experiments and such interest me, just not as much as theory.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Isn't this a Ti-specific things? I've been like that sometimes at school, too. But the rest of the time I was actually listening to the theory behind it (when I've got a good teacher, that is). Either a pet or a nightmare - I've had some teachers arguing my case with others.

Otherwise I've always been more N than S. Experiments and such interest me, just not as much as theory.

Theory is always more interesting to me, too. The difference is, it seems like a lot of N people (especially INTP's) seem to trust theory a lot, where I have always been very wary of things that can't be objectively tested. There's a lot of people on this forum who seem to believe in reincarnation, astrology, the symbolism of dreams, conspiracy theories, and other kinds of psychic or mystical experiences and I have always found the claims, while sometimes interesting concepts (I certainly love movies and books about it) to be very dubious.

 

[Aiss]

Theory is always more interesting to me, too. The difference is, it seems like a lot of N people (especially INTP's) seem to trust theory a lot, where I have always been very wary of things that can't be objectively tested. There's a lot of people on this forum who seem to believe in reincarnation, astrology, the symbolism of dreams, conspiracy theories, and other kinds of psychic or mystical experiences and I have always found the claims, while sometimes interesting concepts (I certainly love movies and books about it) to be very dubious.

I see what you mean. I thought it was more along the lines of learning, for example physics, in theory vs actually seeing experiments or something. I think the ideas you've mentioned are actually not possible to prove in theory, but then I've never really believed in anything.

"Blessed are those who have seen and yet do not believe."

 

[Adymus]

Jung's theory is based on the balancing of opposites, so if S and N are not opposites, then the whole thing (including MBTI, even) starts to crumble.

No no no no no no no no no!

Jung's model is not about balancing opposites at all. Jung's model was simplified into dichotomies by Meyers & briggs, which is of course a flawed model.

According to Jung we have a hierarchy of cognitive processes, all of which can be developed without harming the growth of any others. Developing Si is not going to make you less Ne. In fact, it is usually those with really developed Ne that also have strong Si.

Also, your example does not sound like you started out with Se necessarily, it sounds more like your Ti just became more advanced as you aged.

 

[Beat Mango]

No no no no no no no no no!

Jung's model is not about balancing opposites at all. Jung's model was simplified into dichotomies by Meyers & briggs, which is of course a flawed model.

According to Jung we have a hierarchy of cognitive processes, all of which can be developed without harming the growth of any others. Developing Si is not going to make you less Ne. In fact, it is usually those with really developed Ne that also have strong Si.

Uhh.... yes it is. Read more. Or google.

 

[Cogwulf]

S and N are two entirely separate entities, but it might appear as though S is precursor to N because of how each develops normally, I think almost all children's S is stronger than their N initially and it takes a couple of years for the development of the N to catch up, the balance between each probably settles down to its final level sometime around puberty.

 

[Zero]

I've always been an N type. I have some difficulty in developing my Sensing as it were. I'm trying, but it's difficult to be patient with the details and focus on the external world.

If you think you started an S type, then you're probably an S type, who either admires N types too much or you've developed your N to some degree.

 

[Devercia]

S and N are two entirely separate entities, but it might appear as though S is precursor to N because of how each develops normally, I think almost all children's S is stronger than their N initially and it takes a couple of years for the development of the N to catch up, the balance between each probably settles down to its final level sometime around puberty.

These were my thoughts when I linked Piaget with S and N. I don't even think Piaget was saying Concrete and Formal operations were progressed through holistically, but on a case by case basis, until it becomes evident that the mechanism of formal operations is not just a fluke.

COs are just more simple to understand, so even if CO can be considered S, the fact that a developing N will also reach CO before FO does not so much mean that Ns come from Ss. However, it does suggest to me how and why Ns are so much more capable of understanding the Ss viewpoint; that to Ns, Ss seem narrow minded, and to Ss, Ns seem crazy.

If correct, and S is no more than the penultimate stage of a progressive theory of development, then this would put Jung's theory in jeopardy.

Not really. S and N could be considered opisites but this does not change the possibility that you need one to develope the other, even if there is an overwhelming preference for one over the other.

 

[Beat Mango]

These were my thoughts when I linked Piaget with S and N. I don't even think Piaget was saying Concrete and Formal operations were progressed through holistically, but on a case by case basis, until it becomes evident that the mechanism of formal operations is not just a fluke.

COs are just more simple to understand, so even if CO can be considered S, the fact that a developing N will also reach CO before FO does not so much mean that Ns come from Ss. However, it does suggest to me how and why Ns are so much more capable of understanding the Ss viewpoint; that to Ns, Ss seem narrow minded, and to Ss, Ns seem crazy.

Ah so you were the person who linked them initially, cool. I remember there was a debate about whether N was higher than S back then, so I won't rekindle it, though I am tempted.

Theory is always more interesting to me, too. The difference is, it seems like a lot of N people (especially INTP's) seem to trust theory a lot, where I have always been very wary of things that can't be objectively tested. There's a lot of people on this forum who seem to believe in reincarnation, astrology, the symbolism of dreams, conspiracy theories, and other kinds of psychic or mystical experiences and I have always found the claims, while sometimes interesting concepts (I certainly love movies and books about it) to be very dubious.

That's what I'm trying to get into the practice of, putting my beliefs to the test. I love intuiting, N is probably my most dominant function, but it does need S to temper it so it doesn't get out of control (as boring as that can be for a kind of extreme N like me who gets off on possibilities rather than occurences).