User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 110

  1. #51
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Were there a form of perception that you could not consciously use, how would you know it if you automatically assume you can use all of them consciously?
    I don't assume; I know. The reason I know is because the subconscious only exists as an idea that helps to explain our behavior. When you start to treat it as a real thing (and yet, paradoxically, a thing that doesn't exist) you end up saying things that don't make a whole of sense; things that become caught up in an ever more tangled web of logic, while they lose sight of reality altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    As for your last sentence here--obviously. NPs use Si (not Se) to directly perceive their environment and Ne to intuit how to respond quickly and instinctively to it. Ne is just not as good at responding to the physical environment as it is at responding to theoretical or abstract environments.

    You don't actually need Se to see or directly experience what's going on around you. Si will do that too; it just stores away these impressions for later instead of responding to them immediately in an externalized manner.

    Notice how Ne doms often respond to their physical environments in inappropriate ways? They are trying using Ne to intuit answers to Si's sense impressions, and they are not very good at it--most Ne users are pretty clumsy and unaware of their surroundings in comparison to Se users.
    We're obviously operating on different definitions of Sensing. Si as I understand it is cut off from the external world and focused only on stored impressions.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  2. #52
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The way they structure time is, again, just one minor surface behavior.

    The point here is the fundamental attitudes by which information is derived and provided to the judging function for use.

    ENTJs and ENTPs simply don't value the same things or the same approaches at all.

    I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're focusing on similarities that are less significant because people with similar functional directions tend to display much more similar basic value systems in terms of life philosophy and approach to learning than those who share the same letters in the middle two spots.
    okay, then I'll say you are wrong.


  3. #53
    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 Evan View Post
    okay, then I'll say you are wrong.

    Well that's not very good for discussion then, is it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I don't assume; I know. The reason I know is because the subconscious only exists as an idea that helps to explain our behavior. When you start to treat it as a real thing (and yet, paradoxically, a thing that doesn't exist) you end up saying things that don't make a whole of sense; things that become caught up in an ever more tangled web of logic, while they lose sight of reality altogether.
    Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    We're obviously operating on different definitions of Sensing. Si as I understand it is cut off from the external world and focused only on stored impressions.
    Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time. The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne. With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #54
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well that's not very good for discussion then, is it?
    Nope.



    Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.
    All logic is circular. And yes I can provide an argument for that if you make me.

    Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time.
    No. If it's focusing on physical, concrete things, it's S.

    The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne.
    How would you justify this claim?

    With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.
    I honestly think you don't get it.

    The functions are all defined such that there is no overlap (at least N, S, T, and F). Any conscious judgment that is not T is F and vice versa. Any unconscious perception that is not S is N and vice versa.

    The annoying part is that any Xe and Xi can overlap; the only way I can think of to resolve this is to think of MBTI as only having four functions, with a dimension of introversion to extroversion for each. This way you can not only account for any possible eight function order, you can also deduce exactly which of the four functions are being used for each instance of cognition.

    If you don't make the distinctions I mentioned above (or any other distinctions that achieve the same thing), you'll end up hopelessly confused, with no deterministic way of figuring out which function accounts for which mode of thought.

    I've done lots of work on this stuff for the last few years if you're interested in my conclusions. I have links in my signature to an explanation of the functions and a calculator I wrote that maps function usage to MBTI type.

  5. #55
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.
    There's nothing wrong with circular logic, if you ask me, and even if there were, I haven't really given you an adequate idea of where I'm coming from. I suppose one thing I would mention is that where you choose to focus your attention is just that: a choice. This means there's an element of conscious activity, even though you don't decide what you'll find upon making that choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time. The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne. With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.
    I'm not seeing how this would work. Could you explain in greater detail?
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  6. #56
    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 Evan View Post
    All logic is circular. And yes I can provide an argument for that if you make me.
    Well, now I'm just curious! Knock yourself out.



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    No. If it's focusing on physical, concrete things, it's S. How would you justify this claim?
    I don't agree with that limited definition of Sensing. I've used Ne to read people's body language before, but only because I've noticed these patterns and associated them across different contexts. I use Ne to perform a task that is most often associated with Se, but I'm not doing it in the same way natural Se users are. This, to me, constitutes shadow Se--at the end of the day whether or not it's really "true Se" doesn't even seem that relevant.

    I think smart Se users are able to perform a lot of traditional "Ne tasks" really well and vice versa, but only through training the other Pe function to point it elsewhere.

    If it's external information, wouldn't it have to come from an extroverted function? If Ne can't perceive anything about the physical or concrete environment, and ENTPs can use Se for that, why would they ever bother using Si at all? Why would it even be be part of their functional order?




    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I honestly think you don't get it.

    The functions are all defined such that there is no overlap (at least N, S, T, and F). Any conscious judgment that is not T is F and vice versa. Any unconscious perception that is not S is N and vice versa.
    Again, limited definitions based on outdated theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The annoying part is that any Xe and Xi can overlap; the only way I can think of to resolve this is to think of MBTI as only having four functions, with a dimension of introversion to extroversion for each. This way you can not only account for any possible eight function order, you can also deduce exactly which of the four functions are being used for each instance of cognition.
    Sure, Xe and Xi can overlap, just not to the degree that the two Pe functions (or the same for the other groups) do.

    If Ne and Ni could never overlap, we wouldn't call them both N functions--but if Ne and Se didn't also overlap, we wouldn't call them both E functions. (For that matter, there'd be no point at all to the terms Je, Ji, Pe, and Pi. Why bother making the distinction between Perceiving and Judging types of functions if this isn't even significant?) There's lots of overlapping everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    If you don't make the distinctions I mentioned above (or any other distinctions that achieve the same thing), you'll end up hopelessly confused, with no deterministic way of figuring out which function accounts for which mode of thought.
    Unfortunately I'm afraid searching for "deterministic" methods on a topic so inherently abstract and unquantifiable is, in itself, a wild goose chase.

    Suffice it to say there's a reason there's so much disagreement about the types of various people, even from those with a lot of experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I've done lots of work on this stuff for the last few years if you're interested in my conclusions. I have links in my signature to an explanation of the functions and a calculator I wrote that maps function usage to MBTI type.
    Yes, I am interested. Please continue.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #57
    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 Nunki View Post
    There's nothing wrong with circular logic, if you ask me, and even if there were, I haven't really given you an adequate idea of where I'm coming from. I suppose one thing I would mention is that where you choose to focus your attention is just that: a choice. This means there's an element of conscious activity, even though you don't decide what you'll find upon making that choice.
    No, but I did operate under the "middle two letters are most significant" assumption for a long time and found that the resultant classifications provide far less precision when describing similarities between the value systems of different types.

    EDIT: It just occurred to me that we are essentially in agreement about the processes; we're just labeling them differently. If I think an NP making concrete externalized perceptions is doing it via Ne and you think he's using Se to do it, we actually agree in principle, just not on how to label the behavior. There's probably no need to continue this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki
    I'm not seeing how this would work. Could you explain in greater detail?
    There are four basic types of tasks: those requiring absorption of information from the external environment (Pe), those requiring making a decision in the external environment (Je), those requiring absorption of information and our personal impressions of it internally (Pi), and those requiring internal decision-making that occurs independently of any external influence (Ji.)

    Each person has four "natural" functions so that each of these situations can be handled properly.

    Note that J types seem to perform better on tasks requiring Je and Pi, because those are typically the best two functions for J types. The opposite is true for Ps with Pe and Ji tasks.

    I would suggest that the whole "concrete perception only" vs. "abstract perception only" is a false dichotomy, and that each Pe function is capable of both concrete and abstract perceptions. Ne is better at the abstract ones and Se is better at the concrete ones, but if Ne could not perceive anything concrete (instead magically switching to Se, as you suggest), Ne users would have absolutely no reason to ever use Si for anything--they would already have a super introverted function (Ti/Fi) and a super Sensing function (Se)--so why would there ever be any reason for Si use at all?

    I would suggest that at times when the Ne user needs Pi, the only available function is Si, which is why we sometimes use inferior Si despite the fact that it obviously sucks. When we need to use introverted perception, we don't really have another option because our iNtuition naturally occurs on the outside.

    I have seen Si doms make intuitive assumptions that appear to be Ni-motivated, but in fact are only manifestations of Si because they relate directly to the physical environment and one's previously stored impressions of it--even though the Si user is "intuiting" something new by considering its sensory impressions!

    In short, you cannot use a Pi function to perform a Pe task, so this leads me to the conclusion that the conventional definitions of Sensing vs. iNtuition are flawed, limited and based too much on arbitrary surface characteristics, not enough on true inner motivations.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #58
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    I read your post, and I still don't see how making external connections (Ne) can be used to mimic an immediate, physical response to the environment. The only real relationship I see between these two is that one may prompt the other.

    But whatever. The most that could possibly come of this is for one of us to convince the other to change his mind, and that would be utterly useless. It would only make as much difference as to convince a layman that the earth is flat: a change of perception, with no effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, but I did operate under the "middle two letters are most significant" assumption for a long time and found that the resultant classifications provide far less precision when describing similarities between the value systems of different types.
    This was meant for Evan . . . Right?
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  9. #59
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, now I'm just curious! Knock yourself out.
    The premises of a deductive argument entail the truth of a set of statements. In other words, the logical content of the combination of premises is a set S. The conclusion of a deductive argument, then, is limited to S. It can either be a subset or the entire set. No matter what, then, the conclusion is either restating the logical content of the premises, or just restating a part of that logical content. Basically, you can always rewrite the premises to include the conclusion itself.

    So you can always take the premises and play around with some logic rules and rewrite them as the conclusion itself.

    A->B
    A
    Therefore
    B

    can be rewritten as

    A->B
    A
    B
    Therefore
    B

    can be rewritten as

    blah blah
    B
    Therefore
    B

    If B wasn't a part of the premises, it couldn't be logically valid to conclude B.

    An analogy would be something like
    6-2
    therefore
    4

    you can rewrite 6-2 as 4, so you're basically saying
    4
    therefore
    4

    I've used Ne to read people's body language before, but only because I've noticed these patterns and associated them across different contexts.
    No, you used S to see the body language, then you used N to synthesize what you saw and come to a possible interpretation of what it means.

    I think smart Se users are able to perform a lot of traditional "Ne tasks" really well and vice versa, but only through training the other Pe function to point it elsewhere.
    People just trade between S and N multiple times per second. The combination of the two create things like perceiving the meaning of body language.

    S by itself would just give you images with no meaning or symbols attached. N by itself would have nothing to work with.

    If it's external information, wouldn't it have to come from an extroverted function? If Ne can't perceive anything about the physical or concrete environment, and ENTPs can use Se for that, why would they ever bother using Si at all? Why would it even be be part of their functional order?
    External information is taken in through Sensing, always. Intuition attaches possible meanings to that information. By the time the information bubbles up to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sense data (S) and metaphorical meaning (N).

    Extroverted judging functions don't take in any external information at all. They just make conclusions based on the data they have, with a bias towards including premises that are relevant to the environment. Introverted judging functions are biased towards using premises that are relevant to the current thought process, regardless of environmental relevance.

    The difference between Se and Si is that Se tries to pick out sensory data about as many different pieces of the environment as possible, whereas Si tries to pick out sensory data that's specifically relevant to the current thought process.

    Ne and Ni are different analogously to Se and Si -- Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to all the information it gets. Ni attaches more meaning to things that are relevant to the current thought process, potentially missing out on assigning meaning to all data.

    Extroversion is like breadth, Introversion is like depth. Pe looks to everything, Pi looks deeply at a few things. Je factors in everything, Ji factors in more stuff about fewer things.


    I've explained a lot of this in my function definitions thread.

  10. #60
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why do you think ENTPs are so much more similar to ESTPs than to ENTJs? They share Pe+Ji; ENTJs are a totally different animal with Te/Ni. The way they prioritize everything is completely different, and yet they share Thinking and iNtuition with ENTPs.
    I've always had lots in common with the ENTJ's I've encountered, even the ENTJ's that rub me the wrong way. They rub me the wrong way because I'm interested in what they are doing, but I don't agree with their method. With ESTP's we have little to talk about and I don't really care about what they're into. In some sense I probably have more in common with ENTJ's than any other type. It really just depends on what sense you are talking about, although the other two contenders are ENFP and INTP. I don't really have anything in common with ESTP except for in really superficial ways that I don't even care about.

    Also to add another $.02 I've been following the back and forth between you and Evan and I essentially agree with everything Evan is saying. His view is congruent with the original Jungian viewpoint.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. Definition of the 8 cognitive functions with real life examples?
    By DreamBeliever in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 12:02 PM
  2. How to determine function order and what the functions mean... AS A NINJA
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 07:59 PM
  3. [JCF] What is the function order?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  4. Where does the introverted/extraverted function difference show up?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:04 AM
  5. The Influence of Functions on Grammar
    By JustDave in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-29-2008, 11:01 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