User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 234

  1. #61
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
    Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off
    Well, okay.

    I know we're not ever going to agree on this. Te wants ideas to apply near-universally in virtually any context before committing itself to accepting them, and once an idea passes this test and is accepted it becomes part of the ENTJ's sense of self. So, Te reasons, we should be very very careful about accepting or showing support for an idea until we have seen clear evidence that it is universally applicable and very unlikely to change.

    Te asks: How could we ever accept an idea without carefully testing it to ensure that it will apply in all contexts?

    And Fi asks: How can we pretend to support an idea without really believing it? To do so would reveal a total lack of substance and integrity!

    And Te again: If we have not yet determined that the idea is objectively and universally applicable, we should not make the mistake of showing support for it or appearing to commit ourselves to it--because (and here comes Fi again) this would force us to admit that we had hastily accepted an idea without giving it due consideration, which would threaten our integrity.


    The NeTi approach to ideas is much more fluid than that. The way we decide whether or not to accept an idea is by presuming that it's true long enough to test out how well that works, and then discarding it if it turns out not to hold up. We build a model based on one idea, and if it turns out that idea was wrong, oh well--we quickly and easily discard it and build a new one.

    But again, we don't know if it holds up until we try it out for ourselves, and Ti doesn't feel that it's given the idea a fair chance without at least trying to make a case for it.

    To me, refusing to try out an idea or make the best argument I can for it feels like I'm giving up integrity because I haven't tried every possible angle for that idea yet.

    I hope this makes some sense?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #62
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You like potato and I like potahto,
    Aww you guys. Don't fight over me now. No one wants you to get hurt. You're going to have to compete in my mandatory triathlon first by doing 10 grams of crack...



    before scaling this mountain



    and finally swimming in a tank loaded with goblin sharks




    The victor likes me more.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, okay.

    I know we're not ever going to agree on this. Te wants ideas to apply near-universally in virtually any context before committing itself to accepting them, and once an idea passes this test and is accepted it becomes part of the ENTJ's sense of self. So, Fi reasons, we should be very very careful about accepting or showing support for an idea until we have seen clear evidence that it is universally applicable and very unlikely to change.

    Te asks: How could we ever accept an idea without carefully testing it to ensure that it will apply in all contexts?

    And Fi asks: How can we pretend to support an idea without really believing it? To do so would reveal a total lack of substance and integrity!

    And Te again: If we have not yet determined that the idea is objectively and universally applicable, we should not make the mistake of showing support for it or appearing to commit ourselves to it--because (and here comes Fi again) this would force us to admit that we had hastily accepted an idea without giving it due consideration, which would threaten our integrity.


    The NeTi approach to ideas is much more fluid than that. The way we decide whether or not to accept an idea is by presuming that it's true long enough to test out how well that works, and then discarding it if it turns out not to hold up.

    But again, we don't know if it holds up until we try it out for ourselves, and Ti doesn't feel that it's given the idea a fair chance without at least trying to make a case for it.

    To me, refusing to try out an idea or make the best argument I can for it feels like I'm giving up integrity because I haven't tried every possible angle for that idea yet.

    I hope this makes some sense?
    Do you enjoy complicating something simple?
    I just want you to stop being a flake.

    I'm off to bed.
    Work on making concise posts.

  4. #64
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Do you enjoy complicating something simple?
    I just want you to stop being a flake.

    I'm off to bed.
    Work on making concise posts.
    I'm trying to break down the value system differences between ENTJs and ENTPs that give you the impression that I have no substance or integrity.

    Many Js frequently find many Ps flaky: Why is this, and what can we learn about our perceptual biases from it? How can we use it to foster more effective communication?

    I am trying to explain the way I approach evaluation of ideas so that hopefully we can understand each other a little better.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #65
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    In short, FiTe believes internal value judgments should be made according to personal ethical values, while TiFe believes they should be made according to impersonal logic.

    To FiTe, the idea of changing your feelings according to external standards is insincere and offensive. FiTe doesn't see how impersonal judgments can be made internally without external influence.

    TiFe believes the same thing about changing your ideas regarding impersonal reasoning according to external standards, and doesn't see how ethical value judgments can be made without external influence.

    This is the best explanation I have seen:
    I will try to be as clear as possible. You did not answer my question.

    I asked specifically how Fi and Ti do not work together, and you gave me some vague stuff about FiTe and FeTi, and referred me to Uumlau's response.

    Let me rephrase: How do you perceive Fi and Ti work? Can you define them for me, giving me specifics? Let's just assume we are talking about them in the dom and tert positions.

    And since you brought in Uumlau's quote, I will respond to it with my opinion, addressing sim but anyone, of course, feel free to respond (the more the merrier):

    Fi is selfish, but what people often don't realize is that Ti is just as selfish. For shorthand, let us call the entities that Fi processes "feelings" and the entities that Ti processes "ideas."
    Yes. They are very very focused functions. I see you (sim) get caught up in Ti all the time, defining something and nitpicking definitions, so much so that we can't even dialogue. But that is just Ti. I think it's the most focused cognitive function of all.

    Fi users predominantly use Te, and Ti users predominantly use Fe. So Fi is selfish about feelings, but unselfish about ideas. Ti is selfish about ideas, but not selfish about feelings.
    Having bought into this ideology for a while now, I am leaning the other way on the orientation of the tert function, for numerous reasons, so I don't buy into this personally anymore.

    For Fi users, it's about what I feel, what I feel, what I feel. For Ti users, it's all about what I think, what I think, what I think.
    Okay.

    Fe/Ti tries to communicate with Fi, but can get stuck on this selfishness crosstalk. Fe's feelings are shared: feelings are precisely how you connect with other people. If you're not sharing your feelings, if you do not adjust your feelings to accomodate others, you're being selfish. But remember, this is all because Fe is a primary communication tool: by hiding one's own feelings, by not adjusting one's own feelings in response to others, of course it looks selfish to Fe.
    As an Fe-er, I know I don't really use Ti, like it's been purported that INFJs do. As a Ti-er you shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing with me, I'd think. I suck at Ti. Since I live with one (Ti dom) I should know. I think our problems communicating (you and me) are in large part due to my sucky Ti and your slavery to it. I think it looks like Ti, because I am thinking hard in an introverted way when I appear to be using it. After much contemplation, I realize it's really my Ni, my intuition, telling me how Te data I've gathered from the environment generally works, and whether that info is worthy of being catalogued in my databanks. Because my intuition rocks I hit close most of the time, like I'm really good as guestimation and knowing what works best, but it's not Ti that has given me that, it is Ni/Te, not unlike an intj, I'd suppose, albeit a very fuzzy version of one, due to the tert Te.

    However, the same thing is true between Te and Ti. When I talk with someone using Te, there is a free flow of ideas. The ideas change and alter on the fly, we work together to develop new ideas, to share ideas. We connect and communicate via ideas. Enter the Ti user, who alternately seems like a brick wall, black hole, or source of technically correct and accurate but useless and noncommunicative information (think Microsoft Technical Support). With Te, I can't tell a Ti user a damn thing. I present ideas to the Ti user, who only procedes to pick them apart, accuse me of being inconsistant or incomplete or shallow. In the meantime, I hardly get any clue what the Ti user thinks. I get no "hooks" with which to show him where he might have some bad assumptions. He rejects my ideas based on his bad assumptions, and keeps on saying things like, "I don't understand how that could be true," and leaving me without a clue on which stupid idea he has in his head that makes him possibly think it couldn't be true. Why? Because he has to figure it all out for himself, selfish bastard. He can't trust even for a moment that I might be correct.
    Absolutely agree here. That is my experience as well. With INTJs I seem to have that free flow thing, but with Ti-ers there are gaps and pauses and misunderstandings.

    Thing is, though, that's just my impression. What really goes on is that he is self-doubting. He is unsure. But it's Ti, so he doesn't express it. He's Ti, so he has a lot of trouble expressing his confusion. If his ideas are wrong, then there is something seriously wrong with him, and he's going to take a long time to refigure them out.
    Well, are we talking Ti dom here? I wouldn't think so. Ti doms are very sure of themselves. They feed S and N perceptions to Ti dom and they are balls to the wall sure of themselves, and are usually right. Ti aux, like yourself? Perhaps. But the flip side is that, while you might not be as raucous with Ti as a Ti dom, you are as an Ne or Se dom, able to accomodate that easily, without spending too much time on it, I'd wager. Ne will just kick in and say, "That thing won't work like I thought, so maybe this will" and find a new path to follow. So I agree on everything but perhaps the part about having it take a long time......I think the problem can enter in when a Ti aux doesn't let Ne or Se dom do its work; when he/she tries to stick to a faulty Ti definition when he/she should really just let Ne or Se do its thang.

    Now, reverse that, and that's how Fe/Ti views us. Their feelings aren't shallow, they just feel that way to us. They share and develop feelings together, with other people as a means of connecting, and Fi users refuse that connection, which hurts them. We reject their feelings (because we feel they're "forcing them on us"), and that hurts them. We wish them happiness and all sorts of abstract positive things, but we don't respond to their particular feelings, which hurts them.
    If we view you as rejecting our feelings, how you come off to us F types, will depend somewhat on if you extravert or intravert feeling; Fi can be harsher than Fe, but not always; and also gender dependent (women vs men). As far as F in the quaternary position: I just don't think T doms need a lot of F activity to be happy; and if they do it's in the moment, not as a large part of their lives. As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings, they are very cognizant of societal mores and expected behavior, but I can view them as dogmatically tied to facts, and feel the cold edge of that when they are not in top form, because F is their tert function, so if they are not up to par, an Fe-er will indeed feel that. But this is true with most NTs.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  6. #66
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I will try to be as clear as possible. You did not answer my question.

    I asked specifically how Fi and Ti do not work together, and you gave me some vague stuff about FiTe and FeTi, and referred me to Uumlau's response.
    That's because Fi doesn't really operate in isolation from Te, and Ti doesn't operate in isolation from Fe. FiTe and TiFe are fluid processes that make up the basis of judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Let me rephrase: How do you perceive Fi and Ti work? Can you define them for me, giving me specifics? Let's just assume we are talking about them in the dom and tert positions.
    Fi leads us to make value judgments in terms of how they affect our personal, subjective feelings. It rejects the idea that it should ever have to compromise its values or change its feelings in response to anyone else's, and holds that personal, subjective values are the only way to maintain integrity when it comes to ethical decisions. The idea that true ethics could come from any external standard seems absurd to Fi. Fi will ignore logical consistency in favor of maintaining its values.

    Ti leads us to make value judgments in terms of impersonal, natural logic. It rejects the idea that it should ever accept or go along with any idea which seems to contradict its own principles or appears inconsistent from a strictly impersonal standpoint. It rigidly refuses to change its ideas about the nature of logic and consistency because it holds that the only true source of guidance for such decisions is an immovable, internal sense of natural logic. The idea that true logic could come from any external standard seems absurd to Ti. Ti will ignore emotional interference in favor of maintaining its idea of consistency.

    Both Fi and Ti are subjective because they ignore external influence entirely, and in fact tend to resent any external attempts to change them or force them into something they judge to be unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    And since you brought in Uumlau's quote, I will respond to it with my opinion, addressing sim but anyone, of course, feel free to respond (the more the merrier):



    Yes. They are very very focused functions. I see you (sim) get caught up in Ti all the time, defining something and nitpicking definitions, so much so that we can't even dialogue. But that is just Ti. I think it's the most focused cognitive function of all.
    The dialogue is meaningless if you don't understand the terms and their definitions well enough to use the model effectively. Hang out with some INTPs for a while. If you pay attention, you'll discover that their "nitpicking" is usually because they understand the significance of the distinctions in question better than you do. It may look to you like pointless nitpicking, but that is usually because you lack the depth of understanding of the topic at hand to recognize why it's so important in the context of the system in question.

    I'll use a game theory example: Jane is teaching Dick to play poker. Dick shows Jane a hand where he raised with Ace-Nine because he remembers seeing Jane raise Ace-Nine. She tells him that he made a mistake by playing that hand from an early seat and that it only works in later position.

    "What is all this nitpicking about 'position'?" asks Dick. "Either it's a good hand to open with or it isn't. I don't want to hear your nitpicking about which seat I'm in when I play it."

    Dick doesn't yet possess the understanding of poker to recognize the multitude of mistakes he's opening himself up to by presuming that Jane's distinction between Ace-Nine in an early seat and Ace-Nine in a late seat is "trivial nitpicking." It may seem that way now, but it won't when he improves his understanding of the specifics of this subject.

    When NTPs "nitpick" you, it's usually because they understand the topic better than you and are more aware of the implications of subtle mistakes.

    If you want to discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective, that's cool with me. It's your inaccurate use of Jungian terms that I'm taking issue with, not your desire to interpret cognition differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Having bought into this ideology for a while now, I am leaning the other way on the orientation of the tert function, for numerous reasons, so I don't buy into this personally anymore.
    k

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    As an Fe-er, I know I don't really use Ti, like it's been purported that INFJs do. As a Ti-er you shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing with me, I'd think. I suck at Ti. Since I live with one (Ti dom) I should know. I think our problems communicating (you and me) are in large part due to my sucky Ti and your slavery to it. I think it looks like Ti, because I am thinking hard in an introverted way when I appear to be using it. After much contemplation, I realize it's really my Ni, my intuition, telling me how Te data I've gathered from the environment generally works, and whether that info is worthy of being catalogued in my databanks. Because my intuition rocks I hit close most of the time, like I'm really good as guestimation and knowing what works best, but it's not Ti that has given me that, it is Ni/Te, not unlike an intj, I'd suppose.
    Well, I kind of suck at Fe but it still has an influence on me. That's the nature of tert/inferior functions.

    What makes the data you have gathered from the environment "Te data"? I don't recall you making any comments that sounded very Te at all.

    Deciding whether information you've perceived is worthy of being catalogued in your databanks is something everyone does regardless of functional makeup. Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are (in practice) orientations that describe the way you derive your sources of ethics and logic.

    What values/tendencies/thought patterns on your part do you think are indicative of a Te perspective?



    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Absolutely agree here. That is my experience as well. With INTJs I seem to have that free flow thing, but with Ti-ers there are gaps and pauses and misunderstandings.
    Probably Ni communicating well with Ni.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Well, are we talking Ti dom here? I wouldn't think so. Ti doms are very sure of themselves. They feed S and N perceptions to Ti dom and they are balls to the wall sure of themselves, and are usually right. Ti aux, like yourself? Perhaps. But the flip side is that, while you might not be as raucous with Ti as a Ti dom, you are as an Ne or Se dom, able to accomodate that easily, without spending too much time on it, I'd wager. Ne will just kick in and say, "That thing won't work like I thought, so maybe this will" and find a new path to follow. So I agree on everything but perhaps the part about having it take a long time......I think the problem can enter in when a Ti aux doesn't let Ne or Se dom do its work; when he/she tries to stick to a faulty Ti definition when he/she should really just let Ne or Se do its thang.
    That's far, far, far more likely to happen to a Ti dominant. It's very rare that the dominant gets neglected in favor of the auxiliary--but the opposite problem is quite common.

    Ne likes inventing a lot of different patterns and approaches based on the building blocks Ti has defined. If you're not using the same blocks we are, we can't build new patterns with you because we're speaking different languages. Any meaningful patterns would be lost in translation.

    This is why NTPs "nitpick" you when you ask them about topics they've put a lot of study into. They recognize how quickly meaningful communication will break down if some common terminology isn't clearly defined, and that if you're routinely misinterpreting the meaning of the terms, you won't be able to articulate your ideas in a way that makes sense in the framework of the model.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    If we view you as rejecting our feelings, it's because I don't believe that types with F in the tert position need a lot of F activity to be happy; and if they do it's in the moment, not as a large part of their lives. How they come off to us F types, will depend somewhat on if they extravert or intravert feeling; Fi can be harsher than Fe, but not always, especially considering gender (women vs men) As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings, they are very cognizant of societal mores and expected behavior, but I can view them as dogmatically tied to facts, and feel the cold edge of that when they are not in top form, because F is their tert function, so if they are not up to par, an Fe-er will indeed feel that. But this is true with most NTs.
    INTJs tend to utterly ignore Fe and are frequently insulted by the suggestion that they should have to change their personal feelings in order to align with prevailing social or cultural standards. They place high value on, as Zarathustra put it, "a rugged sense of individuality." The Fe-driven need for the emotional/social/ethical validation from community groups is practically nonexistent with them. (In fact, as Z explained it to me, it's one of the things that annoys INTJs most about ENTPs.)

    If they're accommodating such standards, it's usually because Te has a specific purpose in mind and considers "avoid offending these people" as one of the necessary steps toward completing its private goals. A natural Fe perspective would place inherent value on adapting to the Feeling standards of the groups to which it feels it belongs--not just pretend to go along with them in order to achieve some unrelated end.

    Please explain what you see INTJs doing frequently that you think is representative of Fe. Your model suggests that every type prefers two judgment functions oriented in the same direction rather than one in each direction, and this seems pretty counterintuitive to me, given the way Fe naturally compliments Ti, and the way Te naturally compliments Fi.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #67
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I am freely admitting that my 4-function model was wrong.
    I have never heard about this. Do you mind sharing a link to explain how the 4-function model doesn't work? I've always thought shadow functions were used subconsciously but never really in their proper form of functionality.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustHer View Post
    I think the point is that you stubbornly and emotionally argue some ridiculous unfounded idea and then change your mind afterward without a) taking any responsibility for what you said, and b) taking the hint and learning for future reference to stop and think about what you are saying beforehand, and whether there is just the slightest chance it may be retarded.


    On a different note...

    Consider that you may be a dominant F type.
    TiNe as an excuse for that emotional argument with ridiculous unfounded idea and sudden change of mind. Blame it on the type.

    But, seeing as that you are FiTe type, I think I'll blame your inabilities on type as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Often, when I am considering an idea and uncertain of whether or not it really holds up, I can learn more about it by arguing from the perspective of that idea and seeing if anyone else is able to find something wrong with it.
    This is how I usually try to understand things. It's not always effective though. Depends on who and what.

    Sometimes the idea turns out to be bad and I abandon it and move on to a different one. Sometimes there's a problem with it that I hadn't noticed and it takes arguing it out with others to figure that out. I think all of this is pretty typical ENTP. For extroverted perception, part of the idea evaluation process involves finding out what others think about it and testing it out against people who oppose it.

    I know Jaguar thinks arguing for positions that one doesn't necessarily support is ridiculous, but it's part of the way EPs evaluate ideas and you'd think that by now he'd at least expect me to be doing it, instead of quoting my discarded ideas 600 times as if he expects me to support them all the way to my deathbed.

    I guess "support everything you've ever said to your deathbed" is associated with some kind of Fi honor thing. From a Te perspective, I imagine it looks flaky and disingenuous. "Why can't he figure out what he thinks for sure before arguing it with people?" Well, because sometimes other people introduce a perspective I didn't notice on my own and that forces me to reevaluate my idea.

    It's in the EP's nature to experiment with things before we know for sure if they work. The process of experimenting with them (by trying them out, arguing in their favor, etc.) is a crucial part of finding out whether or not we really want to support them.
    EP's? I'm assuming Pe, extroverted perceivers, and not ExxP's?

    So, Ne Ti, Se Ti, Ti Ne, Ti Se. but....Including Fi users? wouldn't that mean including FiTe? I believe it's best to simply call it TiFe, not EP.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustHer View Post
    There's the mature way to discuss(argue?) an idea and then there is the SimulatedWorld way. Just a thought.
    I've actually found flexible argument to be my own highest form of maturity. Controlled argument. that is, testing my patience.

    I've considered simple discussion early on but the responses to those are not so critical as one might expect from the more tensed"argument. Argument to me is simply another way of learning. several ways are used in several different ways anyways.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    All EPs aren't flakes who change their mind 72 times an hour.

    Looks like he changed his mind, yet again.
    Perhaps perceivers have to adapt to a behavior in favor of Judgers, so as not to find conflict. Slash that, you're just trolling/baiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, why does playing devil's advocate necessitate having no depth or substance?

    I don't know about you, but for me, taking a position and trying to come up with a justification for it is a useful thought exercise that helps me to consider different ways of looking at an issue. I think of it like a court of law: I can't fully dismiss an idea until I've tried to put myself in its shoes and see if I can make it work in an argument against someone who opposes it. (Not to mention, it's just fun to explore the different angles.)

    Sometimes the idea ends up being wrong, but I don't really know until I try. Ti is isolated from outside influence and so Ne's experimentation with how others will respond to the idea is often the only effective way of incorporating any external influence into decision-making.

    I can see why, from a TeFi perspective, this creates a lack of integrity. But I don't really see it that way...it's just part of the process of evaluating ideas.
    This was very informative. I am almost certain to have dominant TiFe behavior and it only adds up to my recent observations of people. it makes too much of sense to ignore...

    Though, I am quite sure that TiFe's can overdo it in a way that what they initially thought as "experiment" became an emotional drive of simply the pride of "being right". Of course, control is not impossible.

    FiTe's could also be experimental.

    Yet, how do you explain a social-norm concerned ESTP?


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    As far as INTJ go, you guys use Fe (in my opinion, not Fi) and I see this irl all the time. So, no, I never perceive INTJs as lacking in consideration of my feelings.
    Interesting. This conflicts so very much with my experience with that type. In comparison, what I've observed from IxTJ's is that they will try to do things based on what they feel is right but the way they do it is somewhat less considerate of the process and more directed towards the goal.

    My father is one actually. The man never tried to control social dynamics. Social understanding and connecting was never priority to him. He did occasionally express Te in some manipulative ways but it never seemed to be genuinely Fe. But this is no problem in my opinion since I myself can relate only so much.

  8. #68
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Would the J/P difference have any correlation with a tendency toward short-range or long-range thinking? (If this has been discussed before, I couldn't find it in a search.)
    Yes, to a degree. All J types have introverted perceiving, which is associated with temporal information gathering. SJs tend to look backwards, to see what has worked/failed/occured before and us that to predict events and chart a reliable passage into the future. NJs tend to look into the future to find some desirable outcome, then look backwards to see how they can be made to happen/avoided.

  9. #69
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's because Fi doesn't really operate in isolation from Te, and Ti doesn't operate in isolation from Fe. FiTe and TiFe are fluid processes that make up the basis of judgment.



    Fi leads us to make value judgments in terms of how they affect our personal, subjective feelings. It rejects the idea that it should ever have to compromise its values or change its feelings in response to anyone else's, and holds that personal, subjective values are the only way to maintain integrity when it comes to ethical decisions. The idea that true ethics could come from any external standard seems absurd to Fi. Fi will ignore logical consistency in favor of maintaining its values.

    Ti leads us to make value judgments in terms of impersonal, natural logic. It rejects the idea that it should ever accept or go along with any idea which seems to contradict its own principles or appears inconsistent from a strictly impersonal standpoint. It rigidly refuses to change its ideas about the nature of logic and consistency because it holds that the only true source of guidance for such decisions is an immovable, internal sense of natural logic. The idea that true logic could come from any external standard seems absurd to Ti. Ti will ignore emotional interference in favor of maintaining its idea of consistency.

    Both Fi and Ti are subjective because they ignore external influence entirely, and in fact tend to resent any external attempts to change them or force them into something they judge to be unreasonable.
    I like your definitions.


    The dialogue is meaningless if you don't understand the terms and their definitions well enough to use the model effectively. Hang out with some INTPs for a while. If you pay attention, you'll discover that their "nitpicking" is usually because they understand the significance of the distinctions in question better than you do. It may look to you like pointless nitpicking, but that is usually because you lack the depth of understanding of the topic at hand to recognize why it's so important in the context of the system in question.
    I just have a different focus and strength, is how I see it. I understand that you don't validate that. You seem to feel like the proof is in the definition, and definitions are important, for sure, but I feel like you criticize me ad nauseum about my weakness in this area, yet fail to see that I perhaps make up for lack of Ti by using more Ni, Ni/Fe or Te(call it T if you don't agree with my Te hypothesis). Furthermore, I haven't seen you really get beyond definitions very much. It's like the primary thing you seem to argue about, although I don't doubt you have in the past (talked about your theories). As for function theories, it sounds like you are saying until I understand functions according to how you view functions, whatever I say is necessarily suspect. That is why debating with you is fruitless for me because you think you are the holy grail when it comes to this stuff, and denigrate my knowledge at every turn. I admire Jung and his contributions to type theory and for identifying some archetypes, but I don't think Jung is some typology God either. I think you can see the INTJs on here do not necessarily have him on a pedestal either. This is a manifestation of Ni doms; we look outside for answers. Not to say we can't be guided by, nor influenced by, gurus who have gone before; it's just that we don't limit our thinking to what they have said necessarily, like you seem wont to do.

    So, until you can understand this fundamental difference, and accept it, I don't see how discussing things with you can go anywhere good for me. You also are missing out on my strengths by holding your way of being as the epitome of enlightenment.

    I'll use a game theory example: Jane is teaching Dick to play poker. Dick shows Jane a hand where he raised with Ace-Nine because he remembers seeing Jane raise Ace-Nine. She tells him that he made a mistake by playing that hand from an early seat and that it only works in later position.

    "What is all this nitpicking about 'position'?" asks Dick. "Either it's a good hand to open with or it isn't. I don't want to hear your nitpicking about which seat I'm in when I play it."

    Dick doesn't yet possess the understanding of poker to recognize the multitude of mistakes he's opening himself up to by presuming that Jane's distinction between Ace-Nine in an early seat and Ace-Nine in a late seat is "trivial nitpicking." It may seem that way now, but it won't when he improves his understanding of the specifics of this subject.
    This all assumes that Jung was absolutely correct in everything he said. It also assumes you think you know everything I know about Jung. There are a lot of assumptions being made by you. I like to get down to the base of things, and build back up without assumptions, inasmuch as possible.




    Ne likes inventing a lot of different patterns and approaches based on the building blocks Ti has defined. If you're not using the same blocks we are, we can't build new patterns with you because we're speaking different languages. Any meaningful patterns would be lost in translation.

    This is why NTPs "nitpick" you when you ask them about topics they've put a lot of study into. They recognize how quickly meaningful communication will break down if some common terminology isn't clearly defined, and that if you're routinely misinterpreting the meaning of the terms, you won't be able to articulate your ideas in a way that makes sense in the framework of the model.
    I don't mind at all working on definitions to get them concise and equal, I do mind working with someone who thinks they are superior in the way they think, and who don't come at learning with/from others from an open-minded aire but a lecturing aire. Sharing personal beliefs is one thing, but to tell someone who is trying to get deeper about this stuff that they are missing the point and lack depth, is just not a functional way of communicating.

    This is why I see you as totally Fi. You can be Fe when you want to be, but I largely feel you as selfishly devoted to your ideas in a valuing kind of way. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I think that might even be a bigger hindrance to our communications than your Ti commitments, as I said before. Trying to communicate with you about this stuff (which you feel strongly about) feels analogous to me as when I have a problem communicating with INFPs; we just can't communicate, simple as that.

    INTJs tend to utterly ignore Fe and are frequently insulted by the suggestion that they should have to change their personal feelings in order to align with prevailing social or cultural standards. They place high value on, as Zarathustra put it, "a rugged sense of individuality." The Fe-driven need for the emotional/social/ethical validation from community groups is practically nonexistent with them. (In fact, as Z explained it to me, it's one of the things that annoys INTJs most about ENTPs.)
    I disagree. And I know a couple up close and personal irl. The individuality you see is their Ni. True, since F is tert, they don't place high priority on it; T drives them and their very existence. But when they are around people or interact with people, they are very Fe minded, imo.

    If they're accommodating such standards, it's usually because Te has a specific purpose in mind and considers "avoid offending these people" as one of the necessary steps toward completing its private goals. A natural Fe perspective would place inherent value on adapting to the Feeling standards of the groups to which it feels it belongs--not just pretend to go along with them in order to achieve some unrelated end.
    Occam's razor says not. If it looks like Fe, it's probably Fe, not Te trying to mimic Fe. Te doesn't care if people agree with him as much; Te wants to find a precise and new way (Ni) of doing things with reproducible results.

    Please explain what you see INTJs doing frequently that you think is representative of Fe. Your model suggests that every type prefers two judgment functions oriented in the same direction rather than one in each direction, and this seems pretty counterintuitive to me, given the way Fe naturally compliments Ti, and the way Te naturally compliments Fi.
    I already said, I thought. I hate repeating myself. I don't have time to rehash. Maybe it was earlier in this thread or another one. They don't care much about people's opinions, but they are very, very appropriate when dealing with people, very considerate. I don't feel that Fi thing at all, and you must understand that since Fe is my aux function, I have been up close and personal to Fi many times in my infp friends, and on here. My aux F will be able to intuit more F, and those attitudes, in others that perhaps you cannot appreciate.



    Finally, I find it intriguing and contradictory that you say I don't understand Jung, and am constantly making some new age theory, yet I am the only one trying to go back to Jung and say, "Hey I think Jung might have been right about the tert orientation."
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #70
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Isn't the entire Star Wars saga technically about P vs J ?

Similar Threads

  1. Long Hair V.S. Short Hair
    By kyuuei in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 08:07 PM
  2. [NF] NF: since we think 'differently' than normal folks...
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 10:54 AM
  3. Range in MBTI types.
    By Nillerz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 06:10 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO