I think that it's a statistical impossibility to not use one function more often than others. Since all functions are used thousands of times a day, te chance that two functions are used the same amount is essentially zero.
Different situations call for different functions, sure...I'm just literally talking about the amount of usage of a function on average.
I'm not sure Jaguar is capable of understanding the concept of average trends. It's either 100% or 0% with him, or it doesn't exist. Classic Te.
Intuition is intuition. There is usually a preferred direction, but that doesn't imply the other direction is underdeveloped. It just means one is used more often.
I can't agree with this, based on observation and personal study of virtually everyone I know. Show me an ENTP with equal Ni to his Ne; I dare you.
MBTI is about preference, not ability. So having a well developed function is irrelevant. It's about how much your functions are used.
But the more you prefer to use a function, the more it becomes developed because you're practicing it. I don't see how development and preference could be mutually exclusive.
Circular logic, as in, you always assume your conclusion is true before you start your argument.
Your conclusion is always hidden in the premises. Deduction often times seems like you're coming to new conclusions, but you're not. You're just rewording your premises.
Well, you're just coming to conclusions that are already implied by the premises. It's just that many people don't naturally understand this deduction process, so we use deductive argumentation as a way to express it more concretely.
I have no idea if you used Si or Se. But you used S if you took in sensory data. That's what S means. If you didn't take in sensory data, you'd have nothing for your intuition to work with.
Yes I got that that's your interpretation; I just find it really unnecessarily limited.
Like I said, intuition attaches metaphorical meaning to sense data. It's called perception because it's unconscious. So once information bubbles to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sensing and intuition. If, in consciousness, that data is manipulated, it's judging.
I think metaphorical meaning is much more a function of Ni than Ne, but that's beside the point so I'll drop this part for now.
The only functions that take in data are Si and Se. They are called sensing.
How do humans take in information about the world? Through their senses. What other kind of information is even possible to take in?
How is this confusing?
The kind of information that arises from observing abstract patterns and connections between abstract external world concepts. You seem to be arguing that intuition itself is inherently introverted, and yet both Si and Se can be extroverted at different times? This doesn't hold up.
Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining to me what you think the difference between Ni and Ne is? I'm very curious now because I think you lack understanding of what Ne really does.
Well, I guess you should rework your understanding then.
Same to you, buddy.
Again, Sensing, by definition, is the part of cognition that takes in sense data. Sensing with an extroverted attitude prefers all environmental data equally. Sensing with an introverted attitude specifically focuses on environmental data relevant to the current thought process. That's why Si users go into more depth about details of one thing. If they're focusing on that thing, Si will collect all the sense information it can about it. Whereas Se doesn't care what they're focusing on; it's always looking all around, trying to get all the sense data possible.
And yet Ne is not looking around trying to get as much data as possible? You neglect the importance of external validation for Ne vs. Ni. You've implied that both are purely internal processes, which negates the fundamental definition of an extroverted function.
It's quite possible to perceive information from the outside world that doesn't consist purely of literal five-senses data. It's called Ne. Noticing that when x person takes action y, he will usually also take action z--this connection is in itself information stemming from the external world, but can't be expressed in terms of purely sense data.
How do you explain this?
So the tradeoff is, Se sees more (breadth), and Si sees in more detail (depth).
That's great; the same relationship applies to Ni/Ne. This isn't the part of your interpretation with which I take issue.
That's not what introversion means.
Then maybe you should rework your own understanding.
Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to as many different things as it can. Ni attaches metaphorical meaning to things relevant to the current thought process.
You've still defined the internal world as the ultimate source of Ne, which leads me to believe you really don't understand what it does. You seem to see it as merely a more breadth-focused version of Ni, still stemming primarily from the inside, which totally neglects the external environment as a vital component of the Ne process.
Again, think of it as breadth vs. depth. That's the best way to distinguish introversion and extroversion. Not direct contact with the world or whatever.
As I said, maybe you should rework your own understanding and stop using such a limited definition of a concept with many more implications and possible interpretations than that.
Only if you have the incorrect definition of introversion.
I don't really know what more to say...
Direct contact with the world doesn't have anything to do with I/E. The only difference between introverted and extroverted functions is that introverted functions frame their uses on the internal standard, extroverted functions frame their uses on the external standard. The internal standard is defined by the current thought process/unconscious tendencies. The external standard is just defined by what's currently happening in the environment. This is why people that favor extroverted perceiving are Ps, they are constantly changing their frame of reference...looking desperately for novelty. People that favor introverted perceiving are J, because they follow along with one line of thought and fill it out.
Latter part is fine...but I can't agree with your simplistic definition of introversion/extroversion because you've taken a surface characteristic and erroneously decided it's the root cause.
I'd agree with you that E functions do better with breadth and I ones do better with depth, but that's only one surface consequence of an even deeper cause.
My definitions are very simple and totally parallel. Not only that, but you can exactly determine which of the four functions are being used in any situation. You can't really figure out introversion or extroversion of functions, though, except by observing over time.
My definitions are parallel across a different dimension of similarity.
The fact that you can figure out
exactly anything in your system should be a clear indication that you make too many arbitrary assumptions.
I don't have a quotable source for my interpretation either, as it's based largely on personal experience and interaction with people, but your definition of Ne is grossly oversimplified and you seem to think there's a lot more "exactness" to this stuff than there actually is. (Which is pretty Ti, I would say.)
My system actually explains
why Xi dominant types appear socially withdrawn--the only reasonably intuitive answer is that introverted functions have a very difficult time expressing themselves to the external world. When you see an INTJ in his dominant Ni mode, he's typically having a very hard time communicating his ideas to anyone else because Ni doesn't translate into terms that can be separated from his personal perception. There's no way he can make you see what he sees, and most of the time he doesn't even want to--Ni requires no external validation.
When he goes into Te mode, though, suddenly he appears extroverted and very outwardly goal-oriented, briefly looking like an ENTJ. This is because extroverted functions are required in order to interact successfully with the outer world. You cannot reduce introversion/extroversion purely to a question of breadth/depth--that is
one aspect that results from being I or E in many cases, but is only one small part of the total picture of what those attitudes mean.
Furthermore, I think by reducing extroversion to fundamentally a subset of introversion, you display a basic conceptual misunderstanding of the very nature of extroversion. Given also that you're someone who used to describe himself as Ni/Ti (hence your waffling between INTP and INFJ), I'd wager a guess that you have a number of social difficulties with the external world in general, and that this is probably having an effect on your ability to grasp the true nature of extroversion.
Right now you're just trying to express it in terms of introversion, and that doesn't work because it's something completely different. This is all suggestive that you have rather weak E functions yourself and probably don't understand their significance firsthand--if you did, you wouldn't need to discuss them as if they're just another form of introversion (as you've done here with Ne.)
