Confusing Functions.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by athenian200

Okay, well, that finally explains what I've been trying to determine. I finally see how they can both be Intuition, and one can be introverted. The thing that confused me was the fact that I was aware of possibilities in the external situation. For instance, I know that my computer mouse can be plugged into the computer and used as an interfacing device, but it could also be used as a paperweight, or thrown as a projectile. I suppose the point was my primary motivations and concerns, not the things I can perceive, right?

Well, every person has all functions. It is just that we feel comfortable with certain ones and thus spend our time developing them, and part of that process means we end up ignoring the opposite of those function(s) -- because we only have so much time, and because we are choosing to look at the world one way to the exclusion of another.

As we get older, we hopefully realize this is a weakness and sometimes we need to use the functions we've ignored, so we begin to explore other ways to view things... and thus develop our inferior and the other functions. (This is a frightening process, though, because it's like starting from scratch and we feel unsure and clumsy with these relatively unused functions... and it's so tempting to stick with the ones we HAVE developed.)

So for example, an SJ person might look at their mouse and say, "Um, it's a mouse." Because that's the mode they're in - the tangible, practical value of something. But if you instigate some brainstorming with them and they shift gears, they are very capable of using Ne and thinking of all the things it's similar to. still, they'll be "rusty" until they practice this a lot.

An NP, though, will look at that mouse and see it as a mouse, PLUS lots of other things all simultaneously. I look at mine right now and see a computer mouse and a bola and a real mouse and a grappling rope and a rip-cord and a pendulum and a clown-face (because it's all white, with red on the tip/nose where the infrared part is)... well, the list goes on and on. I'm never confused that it's really "just a mouse" and that's how I primarily use it, but I find it boring to just see a mouse and like the feeling of imagining all the patterns it fits with, giving me more ideas to think about.

So yes, you can use ANY of your functions... but you are going to usually start with a perceiving function (S or N) and a judging function (T or F), one of them used in the extroverted realm (external world) and one in the introverted realm (internal world), because we need to take in information, evaluate it, then act upon it somehow. This covers all the bases and keeps the main functions from interfering with each other.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

I think S's (most of them) have more trouble with this, because they focus so much on the outer behavior, and some will try to extrapolate mnotivation from too few behavioral clues. N's are more inclined to be in "pattern recognition" mode and think holistically.

I find the exact opposite to be the problem with Ns, which doesn't make it less of a problem. Too often Ns take the wrong intuitive leap, basing their prognosis on a faulty diagnosis. Ns often fail to take account of the facts of the situation, and base their framework on a tenuous foundation. The S focus on "outer behavior" is not always incorrect. If someone's sick you have to look at their symptoms. You can extropolate from there. I often find with Ns that they looked at two or three instances of something occuring and though they had all the answers (myself included). An S would look most of the instances, and the pattern they pull (which they're capable of doing), may be closer to the truth because the N failed to look long enough at the smaller things to be accurate enough.

@ Athenian: Lenore Thomson's writing are very helpful when trying to figure out your type. When I've given her book to people instead of letting them complete these stupid online tests, then there's less ambiguity about type.

All of us use all eight cognitive process. Like Jeniffer said, it's just your preferred functions that gives you your four letter type.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

I find the exact opposite to be the problem with Ns, which doesn't make it less of a problem.

I thought of that but didn't bother to cover it...

Too often Ns take the wrong intuitive leap, basing their prognosis on a faulty diagnosis. Ns often fail to take account of the facts of the situation, and base their framework on a tenuous foundation. The S focus on "outer behavior" is not always incorrect. If someone's sick you have to look at their symptoms. You can extropolate from there. I often find with Ns that they looked at two or three instances of something occuring and though they had all the answers (myself included). An S would look most of the instances, and the pattern they pull (which they're capable of doing), may be closer to the truth because the N failed to look long enough at the smaller things to be accurate enough.

I don't know. It definitely happens, but I have observed it less than the scenario I described earlier. What I see is S's doing what you're crediting to N's -- because their Intuition is less developed. Immature N's also can fall prey to that impulse.

To me, N's seem more prone to coming up with reasonable interpretations and trusting them, without checking them first, and that is where they stray.... believing in the "reasonable" assumption without validation. So the diagnosis isn't a bad one -- it's just inappropriate to this particular situation. I do see that happen a lot, and I have to be careful with that myself.

S's are much more apt to come up with wild and wacky interpretations -- THAT seems to be the straying point. Their intuition is undeveloped and they do not yet have the pattern repository that mature Intuitives have developed. (Just as a silly example, I heard an S w/ little N and who is actually a nurse -- she has specialized knowledge in that field -- diagnose someone as possibly having tuberculosis (!) based on two or three generic symptoms that could have fit many less exotic conditions. And ISFJs who have Ne as an inferior are prone to extreme paranoia and bizarre interpretations of reality and behavior until they develop it.)

That's what makes sense to me, theory-wise; and it's also been my experience with S's and N types people, just as a general rule.

... or maybe I'm just extrapolating on too little information... it's interesting to think about...

[rivercrow]

I've seen iNtuitives make "intuitive leaps" and figure that everyone will leap along with them.

It's a frustrating type bias to chide Sensors for not making the same intuitive leap, when not all people (type aside) share the same repertoire of experience and knowledge.

I'll agree with the "Sensors having wacky intuitive leaps" comment. I've seen some downright weird ones. Though, to be fair, my Sensor skills make me seem in left field frequently.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by rivercrow

I'll agree with the "Sensors having wacky intuitive leaps" comment. I've seen some downright weird ones. Though, to be fair, my Sensor skills make me seem in left field frequently.

I will concede that... Sometimes my sensor skills can leave a lot to be desired, unless I'm actively scanning.

Then again, S's aren't so hot either with Sensing stuff. The spouse commonly misplaces things and *I* know where they are because I was observing or because I was the one putting things where they belonged (!)... and the kid often is standing on the thing he is looking for and never even sees it!

Sigh.

So Sensors and iNtuitives are guilty alike, for mucking up their natural [supposed] gifts.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

I thought of that but didn't bother to cover it...

I don't know. It definitely happens, but I have observed it less than the scenario I described earlier. What I see is S's doing what you're crediting to N's -- because their Intuition is less developed. Immature N's also can fall prey to that impulse.

I'm very hesitant to make statements like this about people. Are we equating a "immature" N to a "regular" S? Just let 'em mature and they'll loop circles around an S!

Originally Posted by Jennifer

To me, N's seem more prone to coming up with reasonable interpretations and trusting them, without checking them first, and that is where they stray.... believing in the "reasonable" assumption without validation. So the diagnosis isn't a bad one -- it's just inappropriate to this particular situation. I do see that happen a lot, and I have to be careful with that myself.

S's are much more apt to come up with wild and wacky interpretations -- THAT seems to be the straying point. Their intuition is undeveloped and they do not yet have the pattern repository that mature Intuitives have developed. (Just as a silly example, I heard an S w/ little N and who is actually a nurse -- she has specialized knowledge in that field -- diagnose someone as possibly having tuberculosis (!) based on two or three generic symptoms that could have fit many less exotic conditions. And ISFJs who have Ne as an inferior are prone to extreme paranoia and bizarre interpretations of reality and behavior until they develop it.)

But why do you think this is something that has to do with her S? If an N had said it would it have been more probable? I don't get when people make statements like this.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

That's what makes sense to me, theory-wise; and it's also been my experience with S's and N types people, just as a general rule.

... or maybe I'm just extrapolating on too little information... it's interesting to think about...

Perhaps. Or maybe I should reconsider my type.

If you haven't noticed, I'm all about knowing how this MBTI stuff plays out in the real world. It's all fine and great to know that Si does this and Te does that, but when I interact with people, unless they are strongly S or N, they seem to grab from the whole bag. This is why I have such difficulties figuring out S or N. I see just as much correctness and error on either side.

I've never seen any definition of intuition saying that when an N sees a patter, their interpretation of what it is is usually correct. I can notice a pattern in something, but the conclusion I reach for why that pattern is can be incorrect. It has just as much of a chance of being right as it does of being wrong. Ns are just better at noticing it first, not being right first.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

I'm very hesitant to make statements like this about people. Are we equating a "immature" N to a "regular" S? Just let 'em mature and they'll loop circles around an S!

Ouch, I'm sorry, "immature" was a bad word to use -- I didn't mean it in that [negative/hubris-loaded] context.

Is "undeveloped" better? (Or something similar?)

But why do you think this is something that has to do with her S? If an N had said it would it have been more probable? I don't get when people make statements like this.

A developed N has a:

1. Larger repository of patterns (because they collect them / think in terms of them).
2. Is usually thinking in terms of conceptualizing things or coming up with an overall concept of things.

What's that mean? It means the N has (1) more experience and (2) more practice with the skill.

This is the whole basis of function theory, isn't it? That we develop the skills we prefer, and thus get better at their use?

Let's think of it in terms of something else, let's say baseball or playing the piano. If someone likes baseball or the piano, they'll practice it. In the practicing of it, they will come across many varied situations, thus gaining a lot of experience and exposure to the field of interest. They not only learn how to do it, but what the pitfalls and problem areas are and how to deal with them.

Now: Take a developed baseball player or pianist and drop them in a performance situation with someone who did not have much interest in the sport/art, even if they have the ability but it's just undeveloped.

Is it unreasonable to say that the one who developed their skill will perform much much better than the undeveloped one?

That's where I'm coming from here...

If you haven't noticed, I'm all about knowing how this MBTI stuff plays out in the real world. It's all fine and great to know that Si does this and Te does that, but when I interact with people, unless they are strongly S or N, they seem to grab from the whole bag. This is why I have such difficulties figuring out S or N. I see just as much correctness and error on either side.

Well, that's true -- it's never 100% one or the other, I guess. But we still generally operate from one of the premises, overall. still, as people get older, they get harder to "read" I think, because they grab from the whole bag more and more often if they are developing. (Look, I can be taught -- I avoided that nasty "I" word...!)

I've never seen any definition of intuition saying that when an N sees a pattern, their interpretation of what it is is usually correct.

My logic for this is posted above...

I can notice a pattern in something, but the conclusion I reach for why that pattern is can be incorrect. It has just as much of a chance of being right as it does of being wrong. Ns are just better at noticing it first, not being right first.

Well, as part of being a "developed N," the N should be evaluating the pattern just as you are doing, based on their experience and knowledge, and "grading" them all in their mind as to what seems more reasonable and less reasonable. Developed N's are both collecting data AND throwing out less likely patterns. S's with undeveloped N's seem to have far less patterns and are much more inclined to go with something they've experienced before, just because they've experienced it. (Especially Si.)

Maybe that is the point of confusion...? Because at this stage a judging function is operating along with the intuitive function? So maybe the Judging function (F or T) now has to be considered as well... ? Possibly it's not the S/N thing completely, but the development of the judging function that determines the accurate view of the data?

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Well, as part of being a "developed N," the N should be evaluating the pattern just as you are doing, based on their experience and knowledge, and "grading" them all in their mind as to what seems more reasonable and less reasonable. Developed N's are both collecting data AND throwing out less likely patterns. S's with undeveloped N's seem to have far less patterns and are much more inclined to go with something they've experienced before, just because they've experienced it. (Especially Si.)

Maybe that is the point of confusion...? Because at this stage a judging function is operating along with the intuitive function? So maybe the Judging function (F or T) now has to be considered as well... ? Possibly it's not the S/N thing completely, but the development of the judging function that determines the accurate view of the data?

Good point, but what happens when two Ns reach diametrically opposed conclusions based on what you explained above? I'm not trying to be black and white about this, but is one more correct than the other? If both are reasonable, who's vantage point do we rely on when there's really no way of proving either one? That's when I think it goes back to how well each one gathered their facts.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Good point, but what happens when two Ns reach diametrically opposed conclusions based on what you explained above? I'm not trying to be black and white about this, but is one more correct than the other?

Oh, please feel free -- I had these ideas before but the conversation is forcing me to articulate them, so I am learning as we go too...

If both are reasonable, who's vantage point do we rely on when there's really no way of proving either one? That's when I think it goes back to how well each one gathered their facts.

Yes, that's where I would go next: Which one seems to have a more firm hold on sensor reality? Which has the better "fact collection" process? Also, would a choice have to be made, or could both viewpoints be right? (Depending on the topic.)

(Just to point it out, the questions you keep asking are typical for Ni...)

Is that what you would do? Examine the "hard data" points each has collected, or just overall make a decision based on which you think is more observant?

(Just to be ornery, the third possibility is that both iNuitives are wrong. )

[Athenian200]

You know, I guess I can see how this theory makes sense for it's own purposes. But it doesn't define certain aspects of personality that I consider more important.

For instance, some people are very assertive, and some are passive. Some are communicative, and some are terse. Some care mostly for themselves, and some are more concerned with others. Some think verbally, and some think in pictures. Some seek meaning in things, some are just content with reality as it is.

It seems to me that many of these traits could exist in a person regardless of their personality type. My question now is, where do I find a system defines people in these terms, the really important ones?


Also, the other thing I was curious about was how obvious it is that my Judging function is Fe (Extraverted Feeling). I mean, I don't always test as a Feeling type, especially if I take a test right after finishing my schoolwork or something. The most common types I've tested as are, in order, INFJ, INTJ, ISFJ, ISTJ, and ENFJ.

The other characteristic that puzzles me is the amount of knowledge I have about my computer. If you ask most people what kind of computer they have, at worst they'll say "Dell," and at best they'll tell you the amount of RAM, and whether their processor is Intel or AMD. I would say something like this:

512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM RAM
Shuttle AN35N Ultra 400 Motherboard
Socket "A" Athlon XP 3200+
White Linkworld Case

Also, I would mention that I continue to insist on including a Floppy Drive on every computer I build, because I still have some data on floppies, want to be prepared in case I need to read someone else's 3.5 inch disks, and I wouldn't want to break the tradition, as I've had one on every computer I've ever owned.

This makes me wonder about my type, because this doesn't sound very much like Ni or Fe (unless I'm missing something?). Actually, just to make sure everyone can read this:

Ni = Introverted Intuition
Ne = Extraverted Intuition
Si = Introverted Sensation
Se = Extraverted Sensation
Fi = Introverted Feeling (Ethics)
Fe = Extraverted Feeling (Ethics)
Ti = Introverted Thinking (Logic)
Te = Extraverted Thinking (Logic)