<p>Anyhow - I wonder if type Ns are interested in statistics and generalizations across different systems. And are type S's really more interested in the idiosyncrasies of particular systems?</p>
<p>Is "system" the best word for "specific instance". There are "specific instances" of humans, of planets, of animal species, of stars, of forums, of computer games, of forum software, of compiler software, of countries, of observational instruments, of belief systems.</p>
<p>And what of the periodic table of elements? There are only 109 of them. Eh, if you think of them atomically, they they become general vs. specific cases - it's just that a generalized intuitive doesn't have to spend TOO MUCH time memorizing the idiosyncrasies of individual elements - at least the person can help use those idiosyncrasies as aids for chunking => memory. </p>
<p>Our world is finite, of course, so generic cases are not infinite. We can effectively say that intuitives UTILIZE idiosyncratic elements of "specific instances" as memory aids in understanding general cases - or they pay attention to idiosyncrasies of specific instances later on (after the general cases are understood). Still I am somewhat of a sensor because idiosyncrasies are so fun =D. And I don't care about standard means of expression. Ooh, and I wonder if intuitives are more likely to appreciate linguistics and different languages.</p>
<p>Also I wonder if intuitives are more interested in phylogenetic history than sensors. I noticed that I became A LOT more interested in phylogeny as of late. As well as the development of the embryo of the womb. I used to only care about diseases. :p</p>
<h1>There exist changeable-by-intention systems and observable systems. Type Ns realize that changeable-by-intention systems are often not the best systems due to the presence of lack of information in the beginning - and are willing to develop systems that are more adaptable to the input of more information.</h1>
<p>holy crap - I was meaning to write something like this for several weeks (or months now?) It finally came out! w000t. And the excitatory factors that made me write this post are (a) having the curiosity to take the test again, (b) knowing that I changed, and (c) having the curiosity to take it in another instance. In fact - even tests themselves can contain "generic cases" and "specific cases." There are specific tests - with different scales (Likert vs. true/false) and the intuitives are more likely to realize that individual tests can be rather arbitrary (what of the psychological factors involved as well? people of certain personality types might be more likely to respond as they WANT to be rather than as they ARE). And denial isn't that uncommon</p>
<p>Also I don't think type Ns care about Erdos Numbers :p</p>
<p>And we realize environmental factors can produce arbitrary outcomes, like AP self-study outcomes or collegeboard tests. I think I care about them less now than I used to (though I used to use the collegeboard as a way to get by my pathetic school system)</p>