why nobody is actually borderline P/J

[wren]

I couldn't read the whole thread-too much attention required and it's not that worth it to me. My question though is how can you prove that functions compete with one another anyway? Have you studied brain scans of people who were using the different functions in different situations? Is this just a theoretical idea? I guess if that is so my query for anyone who can distill it down enough, what is the theoretical assumption that underlies that notion? It's not very logical to me. Please clarify.

 

[BlueScreen]

It think it is deduced from watching the combinations in people and reading theory. I'm not sure at brain scan level that Jungian functions don't break down into something more primitive again. Cognitive functions are information processing styles. In that sense they shouldn't conflict. But at a larger scale they define approach and personal characteristics, some of which seem incompatible in daily life. I don't think J/P causes this problem now though. Because the function order is not too whacked out.

I'm not sure how Ne and Ni would combine, but you would expect to have a good intuitive understanding of your internal and external worlds. If you just have Ne, you love looking at external world possibilities. If you just have Ni, you love looking at internal world possibilities. If you have strong Fe you like external world judgements to help people. If you have strong Fi you like internal world judgements on people issues. This can appear to mean Ne Fi looks for possibilities, and Ni Fe looks for closure. The reasons seem to be Ni is more of a closed system so gets more focused by looking at possibilities. Ne is open and just gains more stimulus by looking at possibilities, so reinforces the search. Fe types make judgements more that Fi types in the external world, so look more decisive also.

I'd liken it to how someone observing an American college might say you can be one of sportsman, brainiac, etc. When at a fundamental level you can quite happily be all of them. People have just got used to grouping them, and find it hard to believe an Einstein could also be a footballer.

 

[simulatedworld]

I couldn't read the whole thread-too much attention required and it's not that worth it to me. My question though is how can you prove that functions compete with one another anyway? Have you studied brain scans of people who were using the different functions in different situations? Is this just a theoretical idea? I guess if that is so my query for anyone who can distill it down enough, what is the theoretical assumption that underlies that notion? It's not very logical to me. Please clarify.

If you're looking for definitive proof of anything, typology is not for you.

 

[BlackCat]

It was implied that there haven't been any scientific tests done, and that this is just a theory.

 

[Jaguar]

I couldn't read the whole thread-too much attention required and it's not that worth it to me. My question though is how can you prove that functions compete with one another anyway? Have you studied brain scans of people who were using the different functions in different situations? Is this just a theoretical idea? I guess if that is so my query for anyone who can distill it down enough, what is the theoretical assumption that underlies that notion? It's not very logical to me. Please clarify.

If you're looking for definitive proof of anything, typology is not for you.

If that's your answer to the person's question, typology is not for you.

 

[raz]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister last night. I seem to suck royally at making friends for the sake of making friends. If I'm talking to someone that doesn't have an immediate common interest with me that I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinion about, I don't give a damn about them. This keeps me from making a lot of friends because I restrict myself to people that I just may happen to come across while doing my own thing.

I've been trying to date lately, and I often come across the problem of thinking that I need to date for the sake of dating to gain experience, but when I begin to lack interest in the person, my approach to them becomes less emotional and more strategic. This throws me off completely because it makes me consider breaking things off out of a lack of genuine concern for the other person. My philosophy is, the strategy can go in all sorts of directions toward impersonal things, such as school, work, hobbies, etc. However, if I'm approaching another person from a strategic point of view, then I'm wasting my time because any second something can happen that might require an emotional reaction that will not be there.

In the end, it just came to me realizing that during all these attempts in socializing, I have to remember one thing: as much as I want to improve myself in the social realm, my personal desires should always come first and I always have a choice. There are no set rules on what I need to be doing in my life except what is required to sustain life. Everything else is my decision and it is completely unnecessary for me to put myself at the mercy of other people if it isn't working toward a personal goal.

To me, that reasoning is a lot of Te and Fi. I always wonder how other people live without really knowing their intricate thought processes. I just don't understand how you can live your life without knowing how you think inside and out, because you're really stuck with yourself all the time. I think I'll never understand the truly extraverted people. My first reaction to everything is to look within myself. If I have to look externally before looking internally, I feel as if I'm betraying myself.

 

[simulatedworld]

If that's your answer to the person's question, typology is not for you.

No, your worldview is just so colored by Te that you can't take any external methodology seriously until you have quantifiable evidence for it.

And yet you still think you use Ne routinely?

No, if you had any Ne you wouldn't be so damned obsessed with TESTS TESTS TESTS TESTS TESTS!!! and prattling on endlessly about who can "test" an untestable and unquantifiable idea best. News flash buddy: Nobody can; it's not quantifiable. I know the concept of "unquantifiable" in an external world context is nigh impossible for your Te-addled brain to deal with, but yes, external systems can still have value without empirical evidence.

But of course you can't grasp the value in that. "How could any external system be valuable without empirical evidence?", you ask.

Which is in itself highly indicative of a Te-oriented worldview!

You'll be asking this question until the end of the time. I know, I know--your next question is, "But how could you NOT see the world that way?"

Which is the very issue we seek to understand through study of philosophy, like this. It's hysterically ironic that you tout your individuality and functional flexibility to the degree that you do while still completely failing to realize how Te permeates and biases every single thing you say and do. You consider the Te approach to be "normal", the default perspective, and obviously the only "correct" perspective worth taking seriously...and you still don't realize this about yourself.

 

[Jaguar]

Your trolling behavior is so predictable these days, it's become boring.
Go away, little one.

 

[lookingglassworld]

Point 10,001 for Jaguar!!

 

[BlackCat]

Hey look, this same old crap again.

 

[nightning]

I am Ni Ti Ne Fe Te Se Fi Si what does that make me?

Personally, I think people can be borderline P/J or borderline on any other axis. MBTI is a theory to fit people's personalities. It makes no sense to me to force people to fit into MBTI types.

The definition of cognitive function ordering for individual type doesn't help the matter. Where do I place myself if I use Ni and Ti most frequently and Ne Fe secondary?