User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 216

Thread: Baffled by Fi

  1. #121
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I agree, but my contention was that ISPs don't suddenly gain Ni like it was a superpower, it doesn't need to be "awakened" - it's something to grow out of, because the influence it has on ISPs can be too selfish and negative. I'm not sure the Neo character really illustrates that development.
    Ni also doesn't allow you to manipulate a computer system you're neurally locked into. In other words, it's still just a movie.

  2. #122
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I've made no such assumption. You chose one shade of meaning for the word "value" out of many and decided arbitrarily that that's the one I intended. It's not..
    I chose this specific definition of "value" as a represenation for what you meant on the basis below.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So "using Ti", for instance, means holding the worldview that logic should be derived from an internal standard of innately consistent natural reason, and that logic exists and maintains its consistency independently of any external variables..
    You clearly used the word 'worldview' which in all appropriate cases of the word's usage refers to an ideology or one's perspective regarding life and the world as a whole which is by definition underpinned by moral values that the holders of this worldview are aware of. Fascism, communism, or even Ti-ism is the folk typological sense are examples of a worldview. In the case of the first two worldviews, its clear that their adherents rely on clearly defined moral principles that maintain and expand their vision of the world. The same could be said about the third case, many MBTI enthusiasts see typology as a personality system where people belongning to a certain type endorse a clear set of values that are not shared by people of other types.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    We all have these biases and we all have varying degrees of awareness of them--Jung did a lot of work on identifying the unconscious value systems that influence our behavior in ways we do not realize; I do not see why the term "value system" necessitates reference to conscious ethical decisions...
    The term value in this case is too general as too often the word is used to character firm moral principles that guide a person's actions. Unconscious motivations are more precisely described as tendencies or inclination.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What evidence have you that Jung was focused exclusively on cognitive tendencies as they apply to intellectual endeavors.
    I never made the claim that he was focused exclusively on tendencies that apply to intellectual endeavors, only that he focused exclusively on human thought rather than behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    He seems intent on describing the whole of cognitive tendencies and the way these unconscious biases lead to the construction of people's worldviews and value systems.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    He wanted to know how people see themselves and the world and how this translates into their behaviors and reasons for those behaviors--whether or not those reasons are consciously understood by people themselves. (Again, many value systems are unconscious and do not apply directly to ethics.).
    Behaviors were merely means to the end of understanding the human cognitive constitution.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, I make no claim that anything I'm saying here is empirically verifiable. At the end of the day it's all just speculative and arbitrary interpretation..
    No, not quite. There is a significant difference between unfounded conjecture and plausible apriori reasoning. That is how we separate a substantial typological notion from a folk one. Jung's system has conceptual integrity despite its lack of empirical support.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    When you speak of "folk typology", are you referring to anyone who attempts to extrapolate Jung's ideas about cognitive tendencies to explain interpersonal behavior?..
    I refer to thought-experiments that employ typology to explain common human behavior while paying little heed to their own internal logical consistency or grounding in factually accurate premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Is it your contention that none of Jung's ideas can actually be used to describe or understand anything about the belief systems or behaviors of real people? ?..
    No, Jung described features of the mind that are regularly exhibited by people ot the temperaments that he has described. These features describe mere tendencies rather than behavior that must and will be constantly displayed by people to whom they apply. For instance, the material Jung was quoted on in the Extroverted Intuition description cites mere inclinations that people have rather than behaviors by which their type is identified. Thus, the following type of thinking would be mistaken. 'Oh look, Jon matches this, this and that quality Jung says an Ne type has, but goodness I have never seen him acting like he does not at all notice physical objects, so he cannot be an Ne type!' In other words, if you interpret Jung as describing rigid and obvious habits of thought and action, then yes his theories have very little application to description of real people. However, if you interpret him as describing mere cognitive tendencies, then his insights are indeed quite applicable.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Is Would you mind quoting wherever it is that he says his work in no way intends to describe the tendencies of actual people? If that is actually the case then I'll have to reread Jung's work and reconsider my interpretations.?..
    Jung does not state that he is not describing the tendencies of actual people. I did not claim that either, I claimed that he is not describing the core of their characters, but merely their tendencies.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Right, but I don't claim that no one uses the inferior function--only that we don't use the so-called "shadow functions." Everyone has some use of each process N, S, T and F but very rarely in the direction other than the preferred one..?..
    That claim seems rather counterintuitive. It is a fact that all functions are grounded in a person's mental constitution or what Jung calls psyche. A function is extroverted if it is most easily stimulated by interaction with the world than through solitary activity, and introverted if vice versa. The scenario that all functions can be stimulated only through one kind of activity and not another paints a grotesquely disorganized and desynchronized picture of the human mind. It simply does not reflect the basic facts about the mind. For one that all of us are easily able to become stimulated to use all of our cognitive faculties either in quiet group activity or active interaction with the world. If half of those functions were missing, one could be sure that a person of an SJ type would be absolutely incapable of any abstract reasoning alone. He would have no intuition at all unless he manages to become connected to the external world sufficiently. For example, an ISJ accountant would be almost altogether incapable of imagining anything when he is sitting at his desk alone, yet with a relative ease, he manages to reason and contemplate about his job tasks while alone. If his intuition was gone or nearly completely gone, he wouldn't be capable of any coherent thought at all, as all thinking requires intuition or basic imagination that we use in order to attain a mental conception of even the simplest and the most mundane of tasks.

    Similarly, the idea of an INTJ scholar working in disciplines that require rigorous logical thinking would also be impossible as this person by his very nature would incur immense struggles to use Thinking or to see structure in his ideas when working alone and therefore receiving little stimulation from the outside.

    Instead of advocating the absurdity above, I suggest that all eight functions exist, however, they are all in the state of antithesis with one another. There is also far greater conflict between the functions that are headed in the same direction than between those facing opposite directions. For instance, in the case of the INTJ, Si is more opposed by Ni than Se.

    Thus, since the opposition from the dominant function is often very strong, it often seems as if the weakest function does not exist at all. However, not all 'shadow functions' are as weak as the weakest function. For instance, I'd posit that the other side of our dominant two functions is fairly advanced or we are at least somewhat comfortable using them. Consider the ENFP.

    This is the model that I'd have for the type.

    1.Ne
    2.Fi
    3. Ni
    4.Fe
    5. Te
    6. Ti
    7. Si
    8. Se

    Altogether, we often see this type naturally engaging in what Neo-Bebeans call Fe activity. Altogether it is conceivable that they were genuinely stimulating Feeling-wise by the external world often rather than in the way that is the most natural to them (Fi). However, since Fi predominates, the Fe way will always be less natural for this type and shall always be met with far greater internal opposition than in the case of an Fe type.








    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Yes, it does seem trivial--why would he bother pointing it out?..?..
    The principle is that people have many functions that are opposed to one another and aren't committed to any one of them entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Once he's described the nature of introversion and extroversion, it hardly seems necessary to further specify that introversion is not extroverted and vice versa. I took these descriptions to mean that those who exhibit a given introverted attitude (such as Ti) cannot simultaneously exhibit its opposite extroverted attitude (Te in this case.)
    I'd modify the Jungian claim and maintain that those naturally exhibit introversion can't also exhibit extroversion just as naturally without any experience or training. However, with experience and training, they could become more comfortable exhibiting the extroverted attitude, however, rarely, if at all will it be more natural than their main attitude.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But if, as you say, Jung had no intention of describing any real human behavior whatsoever, and merely intended to describe each function in total isolation from the others, how can he be commenting here on the relationships between the functions?.)
    This claim of mine referred only to his type descriptions where only one function was discussed in depth and not the entirety of his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wouldn't discussing the relative emphasis on one function over another require him to describe the value hierarchies/behaviors of real people? ?.)
    In principle you can discuss relations between functions in the regard of how they describe the cognitive constitution alone. However, some appeal to empirical experience is necessary to attain a basic understanding of how the human mind works. An appeal to behavior is minor and was reduced to the very minimum; it served the sole purpose of understanding the human cognitive tendencies rather than predicting and explaining their behavior.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Before I comment any further on this part, what exactly is a "type", if not a category of cognitive preference??.)
    A solidified habit of cognition, in the Jungian sense it is one of the four habits that in a very broad sense define the basic elements of all human thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why can't we translate common cognitive tendencies between people into common value systems regarding which types of information should be derived according to which methods??.)
    A type can entail multiple value systems and methods of doing things. The common practices of INTPs in China in the year of 1500 are different from those of the U.S today. A type is simply a solidified tendency for people to respond to cognitive stimuli. This way of responding will create one value system and metods of operation in one environment and a wholly different one in the other. The nurture aspect is crucial to a person's identity as culture builds the core of an individual's character far more than his psychology or inner constitution. Surely your personality would be radically different had you grown up in China, although your type would have been the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This may just be a question of semantics. For instance, if all Ti people show a cognitive tendency to use Thinking in a purely subjective and internal way, can we not reason that Ti represents the value system that Thinking is best done internally???.)
    That's not what Ti is, you've been infected with the germ of Neo-Bebbean typology that you've been severely criticizing. You ascribed too many illegitimate behavioral tendencies to type. Ti is just a tendency to be stimulated to think or perceive structure in the world by inner mental content more so than the external world. In principle, its possible for a person with this firm cognitive habit to behave in a way we expect a conventional Te type American behaves.

    You could call Ti as a 'value system' of activating thinking in response to cognitive stimuli that are internal more than external, yet I still think that the term value is misleading in this context. First of all, its far too broad, as the conventional dictionary has 18 disparate definitions for this term, most of which refer to some kind of conscious cognition. Its manifest ambiguity would compel me to resist using the word as much as possible, let alone in a discussion of an abstruse philosophy of mind topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Jung may not have explicitly stated this, but I think it can be reasonably inferred from what he did say. ???.)
    What textual support can you provide for this inference?




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Indeed, I've agreed that the shadow functions may be used very rarely...if Ti is, for instance, "far more pronounced" than Fi, then use of Fi would have to be pretty unusual by comparison.
    Yes, it is the most supressed of all cognitive faculties in the Ti dominated mental constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I will concede that perhaps we can occasionally use the shadow functions, but they must necessarily be weaker and of vastly lesser influence than the preferred forms..
    Not in all cases, I'd argue that in the case of an INTP, Te is stronger than Si and Se than Fe. Generally, if a certain function is strong, say Thinking for example, I see no reason why it would be by far more easily stimulated from within than from without. Otherwise, as I've mentioned, the human mind would be by far more disorganized and grotesque than it truly is. Functioning in an environment that requires competence with skills associated with all functions would be extremely difficult, if not impossible altogether.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So I don't see how one could have both strong Ti and strong Fi. Ti's strength necessitates Fi's relative great weakness and vice versa, does it not?..
    To have a strong function means to be comfortable using it without making a conscious effort to. Generally, it takes a great deal of practice for a person to awaken the natural tendency to use the most supressed function without great discomfort. Most people do not achieve this feat until they are well past their middle age.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, this would not lead to concluding that dominant intuition would lead to no sensing--it would lead to concluding that dominant Ne would lead to no Se, and dominant Ni would lead to no Si, and vice versa for each. ?..
    Implausible conclusion for reasons mentioned above.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm willing to consider that perhaps these processes are used occasionally, but only weakly and certainly not in any capacity comparable to the preferred forms of each process.?..
    As far as Se for the ENTP is concerned or the most supressed function, yes, yet as far as Ni and Te are concerned, most likely not.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Can you elaborate on what Thinking alone or Feeling alone actually does? .?..
    Its in principle impossible because a creature that does not feel at all cannot have any desire conscious or unconscious to continue its own existence. It would be altogether devoid of motivation and therefore it will be impossible for this thing to be alive in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Fair enough--what sort of circumstances do you think might lead a person to choose the non-preferred orientation of any function, and how often do you think this might happen?.?..
    Military and a fast paced busy city office work. Someone who has Te as the naturally supressed function could simply be forced to realize that operating in the Te way or receiving stimulation is simply the easiest way to prevail. Even animals have been known to unconsciously adjust even their most firmly grounded habits to embrace new, more conducive to their own survival dispositions. Over a great deal of experience one could be forced to tap into their least preferred function automatically, regardless of how unnatural that may seem. Similarly to how if an NTP was to join a skateboarding team, sooner or later he'd tap into Se or the tendency to be stimulated directly in response to the environment rather than through internal impressions. Though, in most cases, great stress is a prerequisite for such cognitive functioning.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Most of my disputes with the eight-function model are with those who define functions according to individual surface actions; e.g., "I looked around and saw what was around me" = "I used Se......I take most issue with the idea that any given action constitutes use of any particular function; rather, I think my use of the term "value systems" is very similar to what you mean when you say the functions represent "cognitive tendencies"--they can be conscious or unconscious and do not necessarily involve ethical decisions....So when an ENFP shows up and says something like, "Yeah guys I use Ti all the time!", it's usually because he's misinterpreted "using Ti" as "doing something logical", and it's this interpretation that bothers me most. If ENFPs do indeed use Ti, they would only do so in occasional instances of unusually stressful circumstances that force them out of the standard preference for Fi+Te...they are not "using Ti" on a regular basis every time they make a logical judgment
    Oh, but that's just folk typology. Its far too shallow and confused to even be bothered with.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #123
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    I don't know about you, but I am positively baffled by Fi. When people tell me to "go inside myself and see what I want and need and feel and believe and blah blah blah," I just scratch my head and wonder what the hell that means.

    Of course, I wouldn't say that I have no values or principles! I have very strong values and principles. I just find it hard to go 'inside myself' to see what 'I want' if it is not an 'instilled principle.'

    Can anyone else relate? How did you overcome it?
    Relate? Yes, very.
    Overcome? Introspecting isn't for everyone. I can't find what I want, need, believe,... by "going into myself". Make me meditate and I'll imagine stories and physical theories. I've even worked out problems from theoretical physics while some psychiatrist wanted me to relax and think of nothing. I just can't do that!
    However, I can find what I want, need, feel and believe by trying things out. I've been a reseacher and a teacher. I prefer teaching. I've been part of a religious group and it didn't go well - they made me meditate . I want to work for charity instead of trying to find God in my heart!
    It's not necessary to be able to "look into yourself" to be a decent human being.
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

  4. #124
    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 SolitaryWalker View Post
    I chose this specific definition of "value" as a represenation for what you meant on the basis below.



    You clearly used the word 'worldview' which in all appropriate cases of the word's usage refers to an ideology or one's perspective regarding life and the world as a whole which is by definition underpinned by moral values that the holders of this worldview are aware of. Fascism, communism, or even Ti-ism is the folk typological sense are examples of a worldview. In the case of the first two worldviews, its clear that their adherents rely on clearly defined moral principles that maintain and expand their vision of the world. The same could be said about the third case, many MBTI enthusiasts see typology as a personality system where people belongning to a certain type endorse a clear set of values that are not shared by people of other types.
    I don't agree with the assertion that the term "worldview" necessitates conscious moral values:

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.com
    worldview (wrld'vy??')
    n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.

    1.

    The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
    2.

    A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
    Since it's impossible for any person to be totally aware of all the unconscious biases in his own perspective, I reason that one's "overall perspective" must necessarily also include unconscious tendencies and biases of which he is not directly aware. Also, "overall perspective" or "collection of beliefs" does not necessitate strictly moral beliefs either--simply any beliefs about life and the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The term value in this case is too general as too often the word is used to character firm moral principles that guide a person's actions. Unconscious motivations are more precisely described as tendencies or inclination.
    You could just as well describe them that way, sure, but I don't think your choice of terminology is superior or more precise.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I never made the claim that he was focused exclusively on tendencies that apply to intellectual endeavors, only that he focused exclusively on human thought rather than behavior.
    That's interesting, as it seems to contradict what you've said below about how, for instance, being in the military might motivate one to "behave in a Te way." How is it possible to behave in a Te way if Te is only a description of human thought and not human behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, not quite. There is a significant difference between unfounded conjecture and plausible apriori reasoning. That is how we separate a substantial typological notion from a folk one. Jung's system has conceptual integrity despite its lack of empirical support.
    Sure, from a Ti standpoint it has conceptual integrity. I know plenty of Te people, however, who find Jung utterly ridiculous and irrelevant due to the lack of empirical support for his theories. Good luck convincing them to look at it from a Ti perspective instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I refer to thought-experiments that employ typology to explain common human behavior while paying little heed to their own internal logical consistency or grounding in factually accurate premises.
    Isn't the insistence that they pay attention to internal logical consistency a Ti-biased request on your part? This seems to imply that you have some a priori knowledge of what constitutes internal logical consistency, but others might not agree with your definition, or even agree that internal logical consistency is an important value.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, Jung described features of the mind that are regularly exhibited by people ot the temperaments that he has described. These features describe mere tendencies rather than behavior that must and will be constantly displayed by people to whom they apply. For instance, the material Jung was quoted on in the Extroverted Intuition description cites mere inclinations that people have rather than behaviors by which their type is identified. Thus, the following type of thinking would be mistaken. 'Oh look, Jon matches this, this and that quality Jung says an Ne type has, but goodness I have never seen him acting like he does not at all notice physical objects, so he cannot be an Ne type!' In other words, if you interpret Jung as describing rigid and obvious habits of thought and action, then yes his theories have very little application to description of real people. However, if you interpret him as describing mere cognitive tendencies, then his insights are indeed quite applicable.
    How can one directly observe so-called "features of the mind"? The minds of others are not real physical things that can be directly observed; we can only observe their effects second-hand via their behavior and our (subjective) attempts to interpret it.

    Clearly, assuming that Ne types never use any Sensing would be a mistake, but that is not and has never been my contention. I also interpret him as observing mere cognitive tendencies; however, I don't believe any function is directly responsible on its own for any given behavior, since no function ever acts alone or in a vacuum. All thoughts/behaviors/actions/values are the result of all (four) functions working in concert, with perhaps occasional influence from a "shadow function" during unusually stressful times.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Jung does not state that he is not describing the tendencies of actual people. I did not claim that either, I claimed that he is not describing the core of their characters, but merely their tendencies.
    Would one's cognitive tendencies not comprise the core of his character? By what other means would one assess a person's character, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That claim seems rather counterintuitive. It is a fact that all functions are grounded in a person's mental constitution or what Jung calls psyche. A function is extroverted if it is most easily stimulated by interaction with the world than through solitary activity, and introverted if vice versa. The scenario that all functions can be stimulated only through one kind of activity and not another paints a grotesquely disorganized and desynchronized picture of the human mind. It simply does not reflect the basic facts about the mind. For one that all of us are easily able to become stimulated to use all of our cognitive faculties either in quiet group activity or active interaction with the world. If half of those functions were missing, one could be sure that a person of an SJ type would be absolutely incapable of any abstract reasoning alone. He would have no intuition at all unless he manages to become connected to the external world sufficiently. For example, an ISJ accountant would be almost altogether incapable of imagining anything when he is sitting at his desk alone, yet with a relative ease, he manages to reason and contemplate about his job tasks while alone. If his intuition was gone or nearly completely gone, he wouldn't be capable of any coherent thought at all, as all thinking requires intuition or basic imagination that we use in order to attain a mental conception of even the simplest and the most mundane of tasks.
    I think your ideas here are based on overly rigid interpretation of what constitutes "use" of each function. You claim that an SJ type would be incapable of internal abstract reasoning without Ni; however, I don't think this is the case as I consider Si+Ne fully capable of performing internal abstract reasoning on its own. You seem to have connected functions directly to specific actions, which is exactly what we seem to agree is the greatest mistake of so-called "folk typology."

    I posit that reasoning abstractly doesn't necessitate "using intuition" any more than looking around and taking in sensory information necessitates "using sensing." One cannot "use" any function in isolation from his others; each function is merely an arbitrary description of one aspect of his total worldview. If one is an Si type, then part of his worldview involves the unconscious tendency to perform introverted perception in a concrete manner--he seeks to associate signs and symbols with stable, consistent and predictable meanings.

    I believe Ni would directly contradict this preference by seeking all possible meanings simultaneously instead of searching for the stability of interpretation that Si does, and so an Si user would rarely make any of use Ni unless forced to do so by unusual circumstances.

    The Si user's abstract reasoning via Ne can still be used in private thought without communicating directly with the outside world--you say that he must be "sufficiently connected to the external world" in order to use Ne, which is true, but being "sufficiently connected to the external world" doesn't necessitate that he be talking to or interacting with others. So long as his private abstraction involves concepts of a nature that can be communicated and verified through external means, he is still "using Ne."

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Similarly, the idea of an INTJ scholar working in disciplines that require rigorous logical thinking would also be impossible as this person by his very nature would incur immense struggles to use Thinking or to see structure in his ideas when working alone and therefore receiving little stimulation from the outside.
    Similarly, the INTJ would still have access to rigorous logical thinking via Te; he would not need to be directly interacting with the outside world in order to be "using Te" so long as he is conceptualizing Thinking in terms of that which is objectively and empirically validated (as opposed to the subjective and internal validation of Ti.) When the INTJ needs to make an internal value judgment, he would call on the aspect of his worldview represented by Fi's deeply held personal values. Again, one can process the world in Te terms while receiving little to no external stimulation, so long as he conceptualizes Thinking in a manner that must (later) be externally validated.

    You seem to have implied that an INTJ lacking Ti would be incapable of rigorous logical thought. I suggest that this is untrue, and that your belief in it simply signifies a limitation on your overly narrow functional definitions, and that "use of Ti" is not necessary for rigorous logical thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Instead of advocating the absurdity above, I suggest that all eight functions exist, however, they are all in the state of antithesis with one another. There is also far greater conflict between the functions that are headed in the same direction than between those facing opposite directions. For instance, in the case of the INTJ, Si is more opposed by Ni than Se.
    After discussing this with you and others, I would agree that all functions exist in each individual, but that use of the shadow functions is quite unusual as it implies adherence to worldviews that are in direct opposition with the way in which we prefer to perform each type of cognitive task.

    I interpret Jung as saying that there are four types of cognitive tasks: Introverted Judgments, Extroverted Judgments, Introverted Perceptions and Extroverted Perceptions, and that each person (once he has reached maturity and solidified his tendencies) has a definite preferred method of performing each of these tasks. To contradict the preferred method is to expend considerable energy, and as such the non-preferred orientation of each process is used only occasionally when trying circumstances force it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Thus, since the opposition from the dominant function is often very strong, it often seems as if the weakest function does not exist at all. However, not all 'shadow functions' are as weak as the weakest function. For instance, I'd posit that the other side of our dominant two functions is fairly advanced or we are at least somewhat comfortable using them. Consider the ENFP.

    This is the model that I'd have for the type.

    1.Ne
    2.Fi
    3. Ni
    4.Fe
    5. Te
    6. Ti
    7. Si
    8. Se

    Altogether, we often see this type naturally engaging in what Neo-Bebeans call Fe activity. Altogether it is conceivable that they were genuinely stimulating Feeling-wise by the external world often rather than in the way that is the most natural to them (Fi). However, since Fi predominates, the Fe way will always be less natural for this type and shall always be met with far greater internal opposition than in the case of an Fe type.
    I agree with most of this, except your function order for the ENFP. If, as we have agreed, functions do not necessarily line up with particular surface actions, the phrase "Fe activity" should be all but meaningless in reference to a person who does not use Fe as his preferred method of Extroverting Judgment.

    It is a common misconception that one who is behaving in a manner common to Fe users is "using Fe", but since functions represent not surface behaviors themselves but cognitive tendencies, one would not actually be "using Fe" unless he were making an extroverted judgment via Feeling for its own inherent value, and not because imitating the behavior of Fe users on the surface satisfies another more important function's values.

    For instance, consider a Te dominant person who really wants to be included in his rich Fe dominant father's will. Since Te has defined, "Get the inheritance" as a goal that must be completed, the person may recognize that displaying an overt appearance of adhering to Fe values will increase his chances of getting what Te really wants--but does this constitute legitimate "Fe use"? I posit that it does not.

    The only time such a person would be legitimately "using Fe" would be if he feels naturally motivated, purely for its own sake, to place inherent value in some external ethical standard--which is difficult and unusual for a person who normally prefers Te+Fi. I won't say it's impossible, but it's certainly not something that happens routinely. The way he prefers to extrovert judgment is in the form of Te, and only when Te's values have been temporarily set aside can Fe have any legitimate influence.

    So I would suggest the following functional order for ENFP:

    1) Ne
    2) Fi
    3) Te
    4) Si
    5-7) Some combination of Ni, Fe, and Ti that varies in priority order depending on the individual.
    8) Se


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The principle is that people have many functions that are opposed to one another and aren't committed to any one of them entirely.
    Now this I would agree wholeheartedly with; however, I do believe through my own observations of others that each person shows a clear preference for how to perform each of the four cognitive tasks (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe) and that it takes an unusual amount of energy brought on by difficult circumstance for him to go against these preferences.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I'd modify the Jungian claim and maintain that those naturally exhibit introversion can't also exhibit extroversion just as naturally without any experience or training. However, with experience and training, they could become more comfortable exhibiting the extroverted attitude, however, rarely, if at all will it be more natural than their main attitude.
    I'd agree with this too.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In principle you can discuss relations between functions in the regard of how they describe the cognitive constitution alone. However, some appeal to empirical experience is necessary to attain a basic understanding of how the human mind works. An appeal to behavior is minor and was reduced to the very minimum; it served the sole purpose of understanding the human cognitive tendencies rather than predicting and explaining their behavior.
    Which makes it all the more confusing for me when you discuss such things as "Fe behavior." Fe behavior, it seems, can only refer to behaviors which Fe types are commonly predisposed to--but this doesn't seem to necessitate that anyone behaving this way must be motivated by Fe.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    A solidified habit of cognition, in the Jungian sense it is one of the four habits that in a very broad sense define the basic elements of all human thought.
    This seems consistent with what I've just written above.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    A type can entail multiple value systems and methods of doing things. The common practices of INTPs in China in the year of 1500 are different from those of the U.S today. A type is simply a solidified tendency for people to respond to cognitive stimuli. This way of responding will create one value system and metods of operation in one environment and a wholly different one in the other. The nurture aspect is crucial to a person's identity as culture builds the core of an individual's character far more than his psychology or inner constitution. Surely your personality would be radically different had you grown up in China, although your type would have been the same.
    Of course, but there must be some common thread in terms of cognitive tendency that relates all Ti users, or the term Ti would have no meaning. When I say that all Ti users share a certain value system, all I mean is that they share a similar preference in terms of the way they make introverted judgments. This, in concert with the enormous influence of nurture/upbringing, could lead to a virtually infinite number of different moral/social/political values. I've made no claim that all Ti users must share any characteristic other than what I've just described. You are still hung up on your misinterpretation of my use of the terms "value system" and "worldview."


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That's not what Ti is, you've been infected with the germ of Neo-Bebbean typology that you've been severely criticizing. You ascribed too many illegitimate behavioral tendencies to type. Ti is just a tendency to be stimulated to think or perceive structure in the world by inner mental content more so than the external world. In principle, its possible for a person with this firm cognitive habit to behave in a way we expect a conventional Te type American behaves.
    This is precisely what I mean when I say all Ti types share a certain type of worldview. As I've shown above, use of the term "worldview" does not necessitate conscious moral decision.

    And yes, it's quite possible for a Ti person to behave in ways that are common for Te types--but one of my main points here is that doing this doesn't necessitate use of Te (and indeed, rarely constitutes genuine use of Te.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You could call Ti as a 'value system' of activating thinking in response to cognitive stimuli that are internal more than external, yet I still think that the term value is misleading in this context. First of all, its far too broad, as the conventional dictionary has 18 disparate definitions for this term, most of which refer to some kind of conscious cognition. Its manifest ambiguity would compel me to resist using the word as much as possible, let alone in a discussion of an abstruse philosophy of mind topic.
    Well, I suppose we'll have to disagree regarding use of the term "value" in this instance. Use "worldview" instead if that makes you more comfortable--the dictionary definition I've quoted above should make it quite clear that this term in no way necessitates conscious moral decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    What textual support can you provide for this inference?
    All I mean by "Ti represents the value system that Thinking is best done internally" is that Ti users all show a cognitive tendency to use Thinking in an introverted way (which I am sure we agree on.) It sounds like you're still taking issue with my use of the term "value system" and insisting that it must refer only to conscious moral decision, but I've already explained that it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Yes, it is the most supressed of all cognitive faculties in the Ti dominated mental constitution.
    I can agree that the absolute weakest function is probably the other method of the same cognitive task that the dominant performs--in most cases, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Not in all cases, I'd argue that in the case of an INTP, Te is stronger than Si and Se than Fe. Generally, if a certain function is strong, say Thinking for example, I see no reason why it would be by far more easily stimulated from within than from without. Otherwise, as I've mentioned, the human mind would be by far more disorganized and grotesque than it truly is. Functioning in an environment that requires competence with skills associated with all functions would be extremely difficult, if not impossible altogether.
    I'm sure this is the case for some individuals, but I think that since use of shadow functions depends largely on training and conditioning, the INTP's relative emphasis on Se, Ni and Te probably varies significantly from person to person.

    I don't agree with your statement about disorganized grotesqueness for reasons I've outlined in my descriptions of functional definitions above.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    To have a strong function means to be comfortable using it without making a conscious effort to. Generally, it takes a great deal of practice for a person to awaken the natural tendency to use the most supressed function without great discomfort. Most people do not achieve this feat until they are well past their middle age.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Implausible conclusion for reasons mentioned above.
    Fair enough; I will concede this point and admit that shadow functions are occasionally used.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    As far as Se for the ENTP is concerned or the most supressed function, yes, yet as far as Ni and Te are concerned, most likely not.
    I don't understand where you get the conclusion that the shadow forms of the tertiary and inferior functions are in fact stronger than the tertiary and inferior themselves. I think the ENTP's preferred method of extroverting judgment is Fe, and his preferred method of introverting perception is Si, so he'd have a harder time using Te or Ni as they contradict his natural preferences for each type of cognitive task.

    By saying that he would have the hardest time with Se, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with my supposition about the preferred method of each type of cognitive task Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, and yet for some reason you've placed the non-preferred methods of the tertiary and inferior tasks above the traditionally preferred ones. Why?

    I also don't understand your assertion that just because is Ti relatively strong, Te must be also. It seems to me that Ti is more similar to Fi than it is to Te, given that Ti and Fi both perform the same cognitive task (introverted judgment.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Its in principle impossible because a creature that does not feel at all cannot have any desire conscious or unconscious to continue its own existence. It would be altogether devoid of motivation and therefore it will be impossible for this thing to be alive in the first place.
    Fair enough.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #125
    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 SolitaryWalker View Post
    Military and a fast paced busy city office work. Someone who has Te as the naturally supressed function could simply be forced to realize that operating in the Te way or receiving stimulation is simply the easiest way to prevail. Even animals have been known to unconsciously adjust even their most firmly grounded habits to embrace new, more conducive to their own survival dispositions. Over a great deal of experience one could be forced to tap into their least preferred function automatically, regardless of how unnatural that may seem. Similarly to how if an NTP was to join a skateboarding team, sooner or later he'd tap into Se or the tendency to be stimulated directly in response to the environment rather than through internal impressions. Though, in most cases, great stress is a prerequisite for such cognitive functioning.
    Or, as I suspect is a more accurate description, he might realize through a combination of Ti and his other functions that imitating the behaviors of apparent Te types will prolong his own survival and well-being in this situation. This doesn't mean he necessarily values Te over Fe, just that he has an ulterior motive for imitating the behaviors of those who do. This is an important distinction.

    I believe your NTP skateboarder would learn to deal with/respond instinctively to his environment more through Ne than through Se--as that is his preferred method of extroverting perception. If he actually conditioned himself to respond more naturally with Se than with Ne, he would effectively change himself into an STP. I agree that great stress would be the most likely primary motivator for this kind of permanent change.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Oh, but that's just folk typology. Its far too shallow and confused to even be bothered with.
    I'm glad you agree that performing an action commonly performed by people proficient in a given function doesn't necessitate use of that function.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #126
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    You could just as well describe them that way, sure, but I don't think your choice of terminology is superior or more precise..
    A word is rendered ambiguous by the many mutually inconsistent definitions ascribed to it. Value is certainly one of those words, yet none of my key words had nearly as high of a number of conventional definitions.





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's interesting, as it seems to contradict what you've said below about how, for instance, being in the military might motivate one to "behave in a Te way." How is it possible to behave in a Te way if Te is only a description of human thought and not human behavior?
    I don't recall using the phrase 'behave in a Te-way', though I do recall using the phrase of exhibiting behaviors typically associated with the Te function. There is a significant difference between the two remarks. Its not possible to behave in a Te way, only in a way that people expect persons of the Te type to behave.

    There is no contradiction in claiming that Jung was concerned with describing human thought tendencies rather than actions and that its possible for people to behave in a way that Te people are expected to. There would be a contradiction if I embraced the Jungian view that cognitive functions merely describe thought-tendencies, yet there also is a Te way of behaving which would imply that cognitive functions are not only cognitive, but also behavioral. However, I made no such claim.





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Sure, from a Ti standpoint it has conceptual integrity. I know plenty of Te people, however, who find Jung utterly ridiculous and irrelevant due to the lack of empirical support for his theories.
    Perspective is irrelevant. What matters is whether Jung's theory is plausible, whether they refuse to believe that it truly is cogent has no bearing upon the conceptual merit of Jung's work.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Good luck convincing them to look at it from a Ti perspective instead..
    Why bother?





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Isn't the insistence that they pay attention to internal logical consistency a Ti-biased request on your part?..
    Its just basic scholarship that all serious researchers are compelled to follow, whether someone is refusing to do so due to a certain biases of their is evidence of their shortcomings rather than that of the request.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This seems to imply that you have some a priori knowledge of what constitutes internal logical consistency, but others might not agree with your definition, or even agree that internal logical consistency is an important value.?..
    Whether they agree or don't agree, there are objectively testable ways to discover what internal logical consistency is. If that wasn't so, no enterprise that relies heavily on logical reasoning could have succeeded, it would have been as arbitrary as a message expressed in poetry and paintings. Since we cannot say that about mathematics, logic and the natural sciences; we are compelled to conclude that there indeed is a way to objectively establish the nature of logical consistency.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    How can one directly observe so-called "features of the mind".
    Neuroscience is the most reliable path to take. Today, we have some behavioral testing which, if not terribly simplistic could shed light on how the mind works. For example, examine someone's behavior of pattern recognition by asking them to describe the objects they see in a fuzzy painting or what themes they can superimpose upon a classical work of art my Michaelangelo.

    The main difference between my typological work and the folk pespective is not that they derive their insights from behaviors, but I don't. It is that I rely on cognitive behaviors, I observe how a person's mind works. Jung's approach was also similar and that is why he spent the first 330 pages seeking out cognitive tendencies in the works of literature, art and science.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The minds of others are not real physical things that can be directly observed; we can only observe their effects second-hand via their behavior and our (subjective) attempts to interpret it.
    That's not a problem and will be even less of a one where neuroscience allows us to establish a more precise link between the neural patterns we see in the brain and mind-states we connect them to.





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Would one's cognitive tendencies not comprise the core of his character? By what other means would one assess a person's character.
    Yes, though not the essence of their character or the character in entirety. The contemporary folk typologists wanted to write a profile that will cause their respective readers to respond with 'wow, that is me in a nutshell!'. Jung was not in this business.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I think your ideas here are based on overly rigid interpretation of what constitutes "use" of each function. You claim that an SJ type would be incapable of internal abstract reasoning without Ni; however, I don't think this is the case as I consider Si+Ne fully capable of performing internal abstract reasoning on its own.
    You're missing the point. Intuition is necessary for abstract reasoning whether introverted or extroverted, yet a person working in isolation usually does not have sufficient access to Extroverted faculties as they by definition must be stimulated from the outside.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You seem to have connected functions directly to specific actions, which is exactly what we seem to agree is the greatest mistake of so-called "folk typology.
    Yes, I connected functions to specific cognitive activity, that doesn't constitute folk typology. For example, intuition with abstract reasoning. There is no problem in connecting functions with specific actions as long as they are cognitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I posit that reasoning abstractly doesn't necessitate "using intuition" any more than looking around and taking in sensory information necessitates "using sensing.
    Missing my point. Any cognitive activity requires intuition, any use of the senses requires sensing. Looking around isn't just sensing as when you do that, you're performing some cognitive activity, that is making mental observations and using your senses. Inevitably, both sensing and intuition are in an intimate interplay even in an activity as mundane and common-place as looking around. Ultimately, intuition underlies all cognitive activity, whether it be thinking, feeling or sensing related as that in itself is the essence of conceptualization. Low-level thinking does require conceptualization, though much less of it than the kind of reasoning that is typically known as abstract.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    One cannot "use" any function in isolation from his others; each function is merely an arbitrary description of one aspect of his total worldview..
    You've got to stop using the word arbitrary this carelessly. I never even came close to mentioning that a function can be used in isolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If one is an Si type, then part of his worldview involves the unconscious tendency to perform introverted perception in a concrete manner..
    No, if one is a sensing type, their most dominant tendency is to focus on sensations as they have made impressions upon his mind first and foremost rather on entities that can easily be sensed in the external world. Instead of 'concrete manner' merely using the senses should be used to describe the activity of sensation. Sensation alone does not exist in a human organism as it is inevitably accompanied by at least an unconscious hunch or a perceptual conception of what it is that needs to be sensed and how the new sensations are received. If a person is a dominant sensing type, all of his other faculties including the inferior intuition serve the purpose of better enabling him to focus on what can be sensed. Sensation alone does not even allow him to engage in the activity of sensing.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    --he seeks to associate signs and symbols with stable, consistent and predictable meanings...
    Folk typological twaddle.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    --I believe Ni would directly contradict this preference by seeking all possible meanings simultaneously instead of searching for the stability of interpretation that Si does, and so an Si user would rarely make any of use Ni unless forced to do so by unusual circumstances....

    Ni would be heavily supressed, though not to the point of non-existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The Si user's abstract reasoning via Ne can still be used in private thought without communicating directly with the outside world....
    Extroverted functions require stimulation from the external world as that is the definition of extroversion; the tendency to be stimulated from without rather than from within. The person with an Si dominant type would not be able to use Extroverted Intuition adequately unless he managed to interact with the environment to a satisfactory degree. This does not mean talking to people or doing something loud, but nonetheless, it means doing something far more engaging than merely sitting alone at a desk.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    you say that he must be "sufficiently connected to the external world" in order to use Ne, which is true, but being "sufficiently connected to the external world" doesn't necessitate that he be talking to or interacting with others.....
    Certainly does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So long as his private abstraction involves concepts of a nature that can be communicated and verified through external means, he is still "using Ne."
    The trouble is that most Si people sitting at an office job don't have that, yet they somehow manage to think at least on the lowest level of abstraction with insufficient stimulation from the outside.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Similarly, the INTJ would still have access to rigorous logical thinking via Te.
    Only if he'd find the sufficient stimulation for Te in the external world.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    After discussing this with you and others, I would agree that all functions exist in each individual, but that use of the shadow functions is quite unusual as it implies adherence to worldviews that are in direct opposition with the way in which we prefer to perform each type of cognitive task..
    The bottom line is that the shadow functions are supressed as a result, not eliminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If, as we have agreed, functions do not necessarily line up with particular surface actions, the phrase "Fe activity" should be all but meaningless in reference to a person who does not use Fe as his preferred method of Extroverting Judgment...
    On what grounds? The fact that it hasn't been listed by Jung and the folk typologists as a prominent cognitive faculty is no evidence of its non-existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It is a common misconception that one who is behaving in a manner common to Fe users is "using Fe",...
    It certainly is, however, this shows that in principle it shouldn't be too hard for them to use Fe granted that they are behaving naturally. Ne-Fi is an altogether different cognitive habit that yields results similar to that of Fe. If the person in question is comfortable becoming stimulated by Ne-Fi route, it shouldn't be hard for him or her to learn to be stimulated the Fe route as well. A function's prominence in a person's psyche is defined by its low degree of opposition by other functions. Since cognition akin to Fe is not severely opposed, there is no reason why Fe should be opposed on the contrary. Since it is not opposed stringently, it follows that its not one of the shadow functions or faculties that are more supressed than most cognitive functions in the mind of the person in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    but since functions represent not surface behaviors themselves but cognitive tendencies, one would not actually be "using Fe" unless he were making an extroverted judgment via Feeling for its own inherent value, ",...
    One is not using Fe unless he is becoming inspired to emote by stimuli outside of him than within him.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    For instance, consider a Te dominant person who really wants to be included in his rich Fe dominant father's will. Since Te has defined, "Get the inheritance" as a goal that must be completed, the person may recognize that displaying an overt appearance of adhering to Fe values will increase his chances of getting what Te really wants--but does this constitute legitimate "Fe use"?",...
    That's not the same concept as my ENFP example. In this case the person is not behaving in a natural way, therefore there is no reason to believe that he could learn to use Fe easily. Furthermore, in my example I did not say that an ENFP who naturally displays qualities we associate with Fe is actually using Fe, but that they should have a very easy time actually starting to use Fe as cognitive actions similar to Fe are very natural to them.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So I would suggest the following functional order for ENFP:

    1) Ne
    2) Fi
    3) Te
    4) Si
    5-7) Some combination of Ni, Fe, and Ti that varies in priority order depending on the individual.
    8) Se
    "?",...
    Jung used the word function to describe Intuition, Sensation, Thinking and Feeling for a compelling reason. Functions by definition describe the cognitive tendencies themselves, as the word function simply denotes an entity that works, operates or makes an impact. To function and to operate mean the same thing. So the word cognitive function almost by definition refers to all entities that make the mind work. Extroversion and Introversion are not functions, but mere attitudes. They simply denote how a person's mind is most easily stimulated, from within or from without.

    Thus, it makes little sense to claim that a cognitive faculty that is directly opposed on a functional basis by the dominant faculty is supressed less than the cognitive faculty that actually shares the same function as the dominant one. In other words, Ne and Si are opposed to one another on a functional basis, yet, Ne and Ni are not. Since functions are more definitive of a person's cognitive constitution than attitudes, it follows that a cognitive faculty that differs from the dominant one only in attitude must be less supressed than the one that differs in function. Thus, since Ni differs from Ne only in attitude, yet Si differs from Ne in its functional essence, it must be the case that Ni is less opposed than Si. Therefore, we must place Ni ahead of Si in the hierarchy of cognitive efficacy.

    Similarly, we must place Fe ahead of Te because it opposes the auxiliary Fi only in attitude rather than functional identity, yet the latter and not the former is the case for Te.





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Of course, but there must be some common thread in terms of cognitive tendency that relates all Ti users, or the term Ti would have no meaning.
    The common link is the pronounced tendency to be stimulated to think or to seek out structure in response to the stimuli detected in the mind rather than the external world.







    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This is precisely what I mean when I say all Ti types share a certain type of worldview. As I've shown above, use of the term "worldview" does not necessitate conscious moral decision.
    Are you prepared to claim that a microbe, a wasp, a fly or any completely unconscious creature has a worldview? If not, you're forced to concede that your term worldview at least includes a component of conscious judgment and therefore smuggles folk theory into your typology. Either that, or you ought to renounce the claim that the word worldview plays any role in the definition of a type.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    And yes, it's quite possible for a Ti person to behave in ways that are common for Te types--but one of my main points here is that doing this doesn't necessitate use of Te.
    Of course it does not.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (and indeed, rarely constitutes genuine use of Te.).
    Learning how to use Te will be an extra step, just like learning how to use Si or Ni, or any function that occupies roughly the middle rank in cognitive efficacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (Well, I suppose we'll have to disagree regarding use of the term "value" in this instance..).
    Please, just look it up in the dictionary and see for yourself how many different conventional definitions and subtle connotations the word carries!


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (Use "worldview" instead if that makes you more comfortable.).
    I don't think it does at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (the dictionary definition I've quoted above should make it quite clear that this term in no way necessitates conscious moral decision..).
    I have two cats, are they conscious enough to have a worldview? If they don't have to be conscious enough, how do I find out what worldviews they endorse? Is there a chance that whatever it is that they espouse can be compared to the ideologies or worldviews of fascists and the communists?






    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (All I mean by "Ti represents the value system that Thinking is best done internally" is that Ti users all show a cognitive tendency to use Thinking in an introverted way (which I am sure we agree on.) ..).
    No, we didn't agree on that. Ti is the tendency to be stimulated to think from within than from without. Its possible for one to learn to think externally or to think outloud while comfortably engaging in the cognitive process above. This isn't at all a peculiar phenomenon, as NTP philosophers, scientists and mathematicians quite comfortably think outloud. Since these habits are met with no natural cognitive existence, we can adduce that such an activity is in no way inconsistent with the cognitive faculty of Introverted Thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (It sounds like you're still taking issue with my use of the term "value system"..).
    I'd have fewer qualms with the word value system than with the world value. Its conceivable that a microbe or a fly has a value system or simply a way in which evolution has programmed it to respond to stimulus, yet I can't imagine anyone outside of madhouse earnestly claiming that insects have worldviews. I don't think you can claim that the word worldview contains no reference to consciously inspired cognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (and insisting that it must refer only to conscious moral decision, but I've already explained that it doesn't."..).
    It does not imply a conscious moral decision, but it certainly does imply a conscious decision of some kind.






    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (I don't agree with your statement about disorganized grotesqueness for reasons I've outlined in my descriptions of functional definitions above.."..).
    I've raised my objections to your descriptions at an earlier point in this post.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (I don't understand where you get the conclusion that the shadow forms of the tertiary and inferior functions are in fact stronger than the tertiary and inferior themselves. .."..).
    See my ENFP example and pay close attention to how it differs from your ENTJ example.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (I think the ENTP's preferred method of extroverting judgment is Fe, and his preferred method of introverting perception is Si, so he'd have a harder time using Te or Ni as they contradict his natural preferences for each type of cognitive task..."..).
    I'll explain again. Using Te and Ni contradict his dominant and auxiliary faculties only with respect to attitude. Si and Fe contradict them with respect to function which is by far more significant and therefore shall incur far greater opposition from the faculties at the helm of his psyche.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    By saying that he would have the hardest time with Se, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with my supposition about the preferred method of each type of cognitive task Je/Ji/Pe/Pi,..."..).
    I don't understand what that formula means. All I claimed with the supposition that the ENTP would have the hardest time using Se is that this faculty is opposed to the dominator both with regard to attitude and function and it is therefore caused to be more supressed than all other cognitive faculties.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    and yet for some reason you've placed the non-preferred methods of the tertiary and inferior tasks above the traditionally preferred ones. Why?
    The traditional theory mistakenly infers that the function that is opposed to the dominator attitude-wise shall be more supressed than the one that is opposed on a purely functional level.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I also don't understand your assertion that just because is Ti relatively strong, Te must be also.?
    It must be because attitudinal opposition is not nearly as significant as the functional, hence Te must be stronger than the faculties that have been functionally countervailed.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It seems to me that Ti is more similar to Fi than it is to Te, given that Ti and Fi both perform the same cognitive task (introverted judgment.).?
    Ti and Fi are fundamentally different on the account of their functional discrepancies, yet Ti and Te are only attitudinally distinct from one another.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #127
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It seems to me that Ti is more similar to Fi than it is to Te, given that Ti and Fi both perform the same cognitive task (introverted judgment.).?
    Ti and Fi are fundamentally different on the account of their functional discrepancies, yet Ti and Te are only attitudinally distinct from one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Or, as I suspect is a more accurate description, he might realize through a combination of Ti and his other functions that imitating the behaviors of apparent Te types will prolong his own survival and well-being in this situation. This doesn't mean he necessarily values Te over Fe, just that he has an ulterior motive for imitating the behaviors of those who do. This is an important distinction..
    Evolution conditions creatures to learn to 'value' ways of functioning that are the most proficient. The INTP in question may not be conditioned significantly to change his type, but nonetheless, he may forced to learn to function altogether differently from how he normally does regardless of how unnatural or excruciating doing so is.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I believe your NTP skateboarder would learn to deal with/respond instinctively to his environment more through Ne than through Se--as that is his preferred method of extroverting perception...
    In order to skateboard proficiently, one must be comfortable using all five senses and that's difficult to do when Sensing is one of your most supressed functions. As a result, the person would be forced to place a greater emphasis on Sensing or simply use S more than N under those circumstances.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If he actually conditioned himself to respond more naturally with Se than with Ne, he would effectively change himself into an STP....
    Only if he conditioned himself to do so in a typical situation of his life. If he conditioned himself to cognitively function that way only in one type of an environment, then he didn't change his type. A change of type occurs only when one's solidified unconscious cognitive dispositions change, merely functioning naturally in a certain scenario does not amount to that. Such an activity is quite similar to that of an actor who when acting in a role of a person who is fundamentally different from himself, finds himself comfortably and quite naturally behaving in a way that the character he is impersonating would. For example, example a good ENFP actor should be able to be temporarily naturally stimulated to act like an ISTP, at least for several moments, yet this does not entail a change of type as this actor did not change his cognitive constitution on the fundamental level. As soon as he exits the role, he returns to the cognitive preferences that he had before taken on the role. Surely he may be profoundly exhausted or even nauseated afterwards as the behavior he engaged in was profoundly unnatural, yet nonetheless, he was able, for a very brief period of time at least, to function in a way that is indistinguishable from the cognitive functioning of people whose temperament profoundly differs from his. The same is the case with many NTPs who manage to succeed in the business world or the military. Surely, they may, as the actor may also, revert to their natural tendencies in the middle of the act, but the fact that they are able to embrace unnatural cognitive tendencies even if only for a moment shows that it is possible for us to condition ourselves to feel natural when engaging in decidedly unnatural cognitive functioning.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #128
    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 SolitaryWalker View Post
    A word is rendered ambiguous by the many mutually inconsistent definitions ascribed to it. Value is certainly one of those words, yet none of my key words had nearly as high of a number of conventional definitions.
    Why don't you trying paying attention to context to discern which meaning was implied instead of assuming that all possible meanings are equally likely? That might make the wording a little clearer.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I don't recall using the phrase 'behave in a Te-way', though I do recall using the phrase of exhibiting behaviors typically associated with the Te function. There is a significant difference between the two remarks. Its not possible to behave in a Te way, only in a way that people expect persons of the Te type to behave.

    There is no contradiction in claiming that Jung was concerned with describing human thought tendencies rather than actions and that its possible for people to behave in a way that Te people are expected to. There would be a contradiction if I embraced the Jungian view that cognitive functions merely describe thought-tendencies, yet there also is a Te way of behaving which would imply that cognitive functions are not only cognitive, but also behavioral. However, I made no such claim.
    So why isn't it folk typology when you discuss ways in which Te cognitive tendencies manifest themselves in people's behavior?


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Perspective is irrelevant. What matters is whether Jung's theory is plausible, whether they refuse to believe that it truly is cogent has no bearing upon the conceptual merit of Jung's work.
    Right, but my point is that the conceptual merit of Jung's work is relative to one's perspective. Perspective is never irrelevant--you may find his work plausible, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't is automatically wrong. Many people find his theories totally implausible and they're not all definitively wrong simply because you disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Whether they agree or don't agree, there are objectively testable ways to discover what internal logical consistency is. If that wasn't so, no enterprise that relies heavily on logical reasoning could have succeeded, it would have been as arbitrary as a message expressed in poetry and paintings. Since we cannot say that about mathematics, logic and the natural sciences; we are compelled to conclude that there indeed is a way to objectively establish the nature of logical consistency.
    This is littered with Ti bias. The only objective way to establish logical consistency is through empirical evidence, for which Jung has very little (if any.) Your Ti-oriented idea of logical consistency is far more subjective than you seem to think (typical of Ti types.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Neuroscience is the most reliable path to take. Today, we have some behavioral testing which, if not terribly simplistic could shed light on how the mind works. For example, examine someone's behavior of pattern recognition by asking them to describe the objects they see in a fuzzy painting or what themes they can superimpose upon a classical work of art my Michaelangelo.
    That's interesting--why hasn't neuroscience or any other objectively measurable scientific field adopted typology yet? Why is it not taken seriously by the scientific community, if its plausibility can be objectively proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The main difference between my typological work and the folk pespective is not that they derive their insights from behaviors, but I don't. It is that I rely on cognitive behaviors, I observe how a person's mind works. Jung's approach was also similar and that is why he spent the first 330 pages seeking out cognitive tendencies in the works of literature, art and science.
    You cannot directly observe how another person's mind works except through his behaviors and words. This is ridiculous. How exactly do you go about directly observing the inner workings of another's mind without using with behaviors to infer what you think is probably going on?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That's not a problem and will be even less of a one where neuroscience allows us to establish a more precise link between the neural patterns we see in the brain and mind-states we connect them to.
    Yes, unfortunately that hasn't happened yet, so typology remains unscientific and not objectively verifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Yes, though not the essence of their character or the character in entirety. The contemporary folk typologists wanted to write a profile that will cause their respective readers to respond with 'wow, that is me in a nutshell!'. Jung was not in this business.
    Jung was also not in the business of belief that he could directly observe the mental tendencies of others without using their behaviors and speech as windows through which to infer mental tendencies. Your implication that you can simply directly observe the cognitive tendencies of others without observing behavior and attempting to infer the motivation for it is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You're missing the point. Intuition is necessary for abstract reasoning whether introverted or extroverted, yet a person working in isolation usually does not have sufficient access to Extroverted faculties as they by definition must be stimulated from the outside.
    A person working in isolation is still receiving an extraordinary amount of information from the outside all the time. It's impossible not to be. The implication that a person working in isolation is somehow not receiving external stimuli is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Yes, I connected functions to specific cognitive activity, that doesn't constitute folk typology. For example, intuition with abstract reasoning. There is no problem in connecting functions with specific actions as long as they are cognitive.
    I'm still waiting on an explanation for how your typological method is able to directly observe cognitive tendencies without using behavior or speech as a medium of inference of those tendencies. You'll have to share with me where you attained such extraordinary psychic abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You've got to stop using the word arbitrary this carelessly. I never even came close to mentioning that a function can be used in isolation.
    I never suggested that you did; rather, I offered that clarification in order to support my claim that Ni is not required for internal abstract reasoning. This can be done by Ne+Si just as easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, if one is a sensing type, their most dominant tendency is to focus on sensations as they have made impressions upon his mind first and foremost rather on entities that can easily be sensed in the external world. Instead of 'concrete manner' merely using the senses should be used to describe the activity of sensation. Sensation alone does not exist in a human organism as it is inevitably accompanied by at least an unconscious hunch or a perceptual conception of what it is that needs to be sensed and how the new sensations are received. If a person is a dominant sensing type, all of his other faculties including the inferior intuition serve the purpose of better enabling him to focus on what can be sensed. Sensation alone does not even allow him to engage in the activity of sensing.
    ...which can be used to infer what I said about Si depending on past impressions of meaning. Whatever sensations have made an impression upon the Si dominant's mind in the past are likely to be recalled and trusted above other cognitive faculties.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Folk typological twaddle.
    Sorry if I don't buy your pretentious dismissal of any idea you don't like as "folk typology." It's clear that you regularly engage in the practice of inferring typological ideas beyond those which Jung explicitly stated, and yet you conveniently dismiss any such ideas on anyone else's part, when you don't like them, as "folk typology."

    Did you ever consider that some of these so-called "folk typologists" are doing the same thing as you by trying to identify cognitive tendencies in others? The only real difference seems to be that they are not delusional enough to believe they can directly observe cognitive tendencies without studying behavior and speech as a means of inferring those cognitive tendencies--but you apparently are.

    You don't even have any method of taking in information about other people except through observation of their behaviors and speech patterns. How is it that you are able to study their cognitive tendencies without paying any attention to this?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Ni would be heavily supressed, though not to the point of non-existence.
    Well at least we agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Extroverted functions require stimulation from the external world as that is the definition of extroversion; the tendency to be stimulated from without rather than from within. The person with an Si dominant type would not be able to use Extroverted Intuition adequately unless he managed to interact with the environment to a satisfactory degree. This does not mean talking to people or doing something loud, but nonetheless, it means doing something far more engaging than merely sitting alone at a desk.
    Even sitting alone at a desk involves taking in a constant stream of information from the external world. It's impossible for a conscious person to stop taking in external information; the brain does this all the time with or without his consent.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The trouble is that most Si people sitting at an office job don't have that, yet they somehow manage to think at least on the lowest level of abstraction with insufficient stimulation from the outside.
    What exactly constitutes "insufficient stimulation from the outside"? A person would have to stop taking in external information in order to be insufficiently stimulated from the outside--all he needs to do is look around him and consider possible observable connections between things in order to have fuel for Ne to work. I don't understand why you think sitting alone at a desk causes a person to stop taking in external stimuli to the degree that his extroverted functions cease to function.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Only if he'd find the sufficient stimulation for Te in the external world.
    Sure, but he can do that later. Since the functions all operate together simultaneously, the INTJ might think, "Hmm, maybe there is a correlation between x and y; I will have to go and test for that empirically as soon as I can."

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The bottom line is that the shadow functions are supressed as a result, not eliminated.
    I've agreed with you on that several times now.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    On what grounds? The fact that it hasn't been listed by Jung and the folk typologists as a prominent cognitive faculty is no evidence of its non-existence.
    What exactly constitutes "Fe activity" if, in order to avoid the dreaded "folk typologist" label, we are to study only cognitive tendencies and not surface behaviors?

    How might one engage in "Fe activity"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It certainly is, however, this shows that in principle it shouldn't be too hard for them to use Fe granted that they are behaving naturally. Ne-Fi is an altogether different cognitive habit that yields results similar to that of Fe. If the person in question is comfortable becoming stimulated by Ne-Fi route, it shouldn't be hard for him or her to learn to be stimulated the Fe route as well. A function's prominence in a person's psyche is defined by its low degree of opposition by other functions. Since cognition akin to Fe is not severely opposed, there is no reason why Fe should be opposed on the contrary. Since it is not opposed stringently, it follows that its not one of the shadow functions or faculties that are more supressed than most cognitive functions in the mind of the person in question.
    I would argue that cognition akin to Fe is severely opposed by the tertiary Te process, as that is the ENFP's preferred method of making extroverted judgments. Why have you assumed such similarity between Fi and Fe? Have you not observed in your own experiences with others that the values typically held by Fi dominant vs. Fe dominant people seem to wholly contradict each other regarding which sources of Feeling stimulus are worthwhile?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    One is not using Fe unless he is becoming inspired to emote by stimuli outside of him than within him.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That's not the same concept as my ENFP example. In this case the person is not behaving in a natural way, therefore there is no reason to believe that he could learn to use Fe easily. Furthermore, in my example I did not say that an ENFP who naturally displays qualities we associate with Fe is actually using Fe, but that they should have a very easy time actually starting to use Fe as cognitive actions similar to Fe are very natural to them.
    I would argue that Fi and Fe are far more different than you seem to believe. You can observe in real Fi dominant people that getting used to being stimulated toward emoting by internal means (Fi) builds up a stigma against being stimulated toward emoting by external means--the Fi user comes to believe that genuine feelings only come from the inside, hence the belief common among Fi users that "following your heart" is the most important thing and that the Fe style of emoting is disingenuous and superficial. If you don't really feel it from the inside, Fi users reason, it's not "real" feeling and thus doesn't deserve serious consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Jung used the word function to describe Intuition, Sensation, Thinking and Feeling for a compelling reason. Functions by definition describe the cognitive tendencies themselves, as the word function simply denotes an entity that works, operates or makes an impact. To function and to operate mean the same thing. So the word cognitive function almost by definition refers to all entities that make the mind work. Extroversion and Introversion are not functions, but mere attitudes. They simply denote how a person's mind is most easily stimulated, from within or from without.

    Thus, it makes little sense to claim that a cognitive faculty that is directly opposed on a functional basis by the dominant faculty is supressed less than the cognitive faculty that actually shares the same function as the dominant one. In other words, Ne and Si are opposed to one another on a functional basis, yet, Ne and Ni are not. Since functions are more definitive of a person's cognitive constitution than attitudes, it follows that a cognitive faculty that differs from the dominant one only in attitude must be less supressed than the one that differs in function. Thus, since Ni differs from Ne only in attitude, yet Si differs from Ne in its functional essence, it must be the case that Ni is less opposed than Si. Therefore, we must place Ni ahead of Si in the hierarchy of cognitive efficacy.

    Similarly, we must place Fe ahead of Te because it opposes the auxiliary Fi only in attitude rather than functional identity, yet the latter and not the former is the case for Te.
    I don't see that this explanation necessitates Fe being stronger than Te. You've made an assumption that one who tends to be stimulated to emote by internal means (an Fi user) must also derive external stimulation from Feeling more easily than he does from Thinking. Why?

    I think if you look at people around you and the way they operate, you'll see that Fi dom/aux people respond with Te much more naturally than they do with Fe. I've outlined the reasons leading with Fi tends to lead to an anti-Fe worldview, but I'm sure you'll start whining about folk typology because I'm using my observations of and interactions with real people instead of sticking strictly to Jung.

    Nonetheless, Te tends to lead to the view that logic comes from external stimuli, which is actually more compatible with Fi than is Fe, for reasons outlined above. Your reasoning seems to go: "Because Te is more different from Fi than is Fe, it must be lower in the cognitive hierarchy for an Fi dom/aux person", but I don't see what necessitates this. You can interact with real Fi dominant people and note that they almost always identify with Te over Fe--to the Fi dom, Fe seems disingenuous and runs counter to the near-ubiquitous Fi value that the only legitimate feelings come from the inside.

    I don't really care if the concept of Fi alone actually implies this value, because I can observe Fi dominant people all around me who have, for whatever reason, all built up this particular value system throughout their lives. If being Fi dom tends to lead to this worldview, then it doesn't matter if Fi itself is or is not equivalent to that worldview, because for all intents and purposes in interacting with others, it may as well be.

    I'm sure you'll dismiss this as "folk typological twaddle" and go on magically observing cognitive tendencies with no regard to behavior or speech, but for those of us who actually make a habit of frequently interacting meaningfully with other people, it becomes quite obvious that those who value Fi are almost ubiquitously against the Fe approach--they do not consider external stimuli toward feeling to be of any worth if these stimuli are not reflected internally.

    On the other hand, they do consider external stimuli toward thinking to be of worth, given that they do not have a strong internal voice telling them that only internal stimuli toward thinking are worthwhile--so Te actually contradicts Fi's directives less than Fe.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The common link is the pronounced tendency to be stimulated to think or to seek out structure in response to the stimuli detected in the mind rather than the external world.
    k, agreed. But through observation we can determine that most Ti users tend to adopt certain types of value systems in regards to logic, most commonly that logic is based on an internal and unwavering standard (as you have shown aptly describes your own value system above.)

    It's amazing how everything becomes "folk typology" to you as soon as it involves heavy interaction with other people. Maybe there's something to this behavioral observation method that you simply don't grasp. Just how introverted are you, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Are you prepared to claim that a microbe, a wasp, a fly or any completely unconscious creature has a worldview? If not, you're forced to concede that your term worldview at least includes a component of conscious judgment and therefore smuggles folk theory into your typology. Either that, or you ought to renounce the claim that the word worldview plays any role in the definition of a type.
    Well, since the dictionary doesn't say anything about "worldview" necessitating a component of conscious judgment, then yes, I am prepared to claim that a microbe has a worldview. Whatever it is that that microbe's biological instincts tell it to do is encapsulated in that microbe's worldview as being important.

    This is the last time I'm going to respond to your complaints about my use of the terms value system/worldview, though. I've made my case and I'm going to continue using those terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Of course it does not.
    Then how can you know that a Ti person is ever truly motivated by Te? Oh, I forgot--you have a magical psychic method of observing the cognitive tendencies of others unbiased by behavioral or speech tendencies. Of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Learning how to use Te will be an extra step, just like learning how to use Si or Ni, or any function that occupies roughly the middle rank in cognitive efficacy.
    Learning to use Te will require the Ti user to admit that logic isn't always dependent upon his own self-contained idea of absolute consistency, which is difficult, though, as I have agreed several times now, not impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Please, just look it up in the dictionary and see for yourself how many different conventional definitions and subtle connotations the word carries!
    I really don't care how many different connotations it's capable of carrying; you should pay attention to context and recognize the one I'm using in this case for what it is. As long as just one of those possible definitions conveys the meaning I want in this case, I can and will continue to effectively use that word.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I have two cats, are they conscious enough to have a worldview? If they don't have to be conscious enough, how do I find out what worldviews they endorse? Is there a chance that whatever it is that they espouse can be compared to the ideologies or worldviews of fascists and the communists?
    If they have "an overall perspective from which they see and interpret the world", then yes, according to the dictionary, they do have a worldview. A cat's worldview is pretty simple, and mostly includes things like "Eat food when hungry" and "Sleep when tired." And no, the cat's worldview cannot be compared to the complex worldviews and ideologies of humans, but that doesn't really matter--again, the dictionary clearly states that any overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world constitutes a worldview.

    So anyone who sees and interprets the world from any perspective, no matter how primitive or simplistic, has a worldview. Case closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, we didn't agree on that. Ti is the tendency to be stimulated to think from within than from without. Its possible for one to learn to think externally or to think outloud while comfortably engaging in the cognitive process above. This isn't at all a peculiar phenomenon, as NTP philosophers, scientists and mathematicians quite comfortably think outloud. Since these habits are met with no natural cognitive existence, we can adduce that such an activity is in no way inconsistent with the cognitive faculty of Introverted Thinking.
    Indeed, so if Te is not necessary for thinking out loud and sharing one's thoughts with others, what makes you think Ti is necessary for rigorous logical thought?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I'd have fewer qualms with the word value system than with the world value. Its conceivable that a microbe or a fly has a value system or simply a way in which evolution has programmed it to respond to stimulus, yet I can't imagine anyone outside of madhouse earnestly claiming that insects have worldviews. I don't think you can claim that the word worldview contains no reference to consciously inspired cognition.
    Don't take my word for it--check the dictionary definition again:

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.com
    worldview (wrld'vy??')
    n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.

    1.

    The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
    2.

    A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It does not imply a conscious moral decision, but it certainly does imply a conscious decision of some kind.
    Why does "overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world" imply conscious decision?



    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    See my ENFP example and pay close attention to how it differs from your ENTJ example.
    What ENTJ example?


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I'll explain again. Using Te and Ni contradict his dominant and auxiliary faculties only with respect to attitude. Si and Fe contradict them with respect to function which is by far more significant and therefore shall incur far greater opposition from the faculties at the helm of his psyche.
    Already explained above why Fe is more contradictory to the worldview of most Fi-ers than is Te.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #129
    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 SolitaryWalker View Post
    I don't understand what that formula means. All I claimed with the supposition that the ENTP would have the hardest time using Se is that this faculty is opposed to the dominator both with regard to attitude and function and it is therefore caused to be more supressed than all other cognitive faculties.
    The formula labels each of the four types of cognitive tasks:
    1) Extroverted Judgment (Je)
    2) Extroverted Perception (Pe)
    3) Introverted Judgment (Ji)
    4) Introverted Perception (Pi)

    and posits that each person has a preferred method of performing each type of task. He will not resort to the non-preferred method unless forced to do so by unusual circumstances. Therefore, an ENFP will not use Fe unless circumstances have forced him to abandon his natural preference for Te in making extroverted judgments.

    The fact that Fe is similar in functional identity to Fi does not circumvent the ENFP's preference for Te when extroverting judgment. Look around you and study real live ENFPs and watch what they do when make extroverted judgment decisions--they are rarely using Fe.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The traditional theory mistakenly infers that the function that is opposed to the dominator attitude-wise shall be more supressed than the one that is opposed on a purely functional level.
    Why is this a mistake? You state above that "...functions are more definitive of a person's cognitive constitution...", but why is this necessarily the case? What if the dom/aux attitudes actually tend to lead to value systems that contradict use of the opposite attitudes of those functions?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It must be because attitudinal opposition is not nearly as significant as the functional, hence Te must be stronger than the faculties that have been functionally countervailed.
    I would like to hear why attitudinal opposition is not nearly as significant as the functional.

    If that is the case, why do I as an ENTP behave more similarly to ESTPs than to ENTJs? Why do we take more similar approaches to learning and interacting with others? I'd argue that the fact that ENTP and ESTP are both dominant in Extroverted Perception and auxiliary in Introverted Judgment creates more similarities between us than the fact that ENTP and ENTJ both prefer iNtuition and Thinking as their primary cognitive processes.

    Besides, if this reasoning holds true--that functions which are opposed to the dominant in terms of functional identity as well as attitude must always be weaker than functions which are opposed to the dominant only in terms of attitude--then why isn't every Ti dominant's auxiliary function automatically Te? If the INTP makes most natural use of the Thinking function, why should Ne be his auxiliary function? Ne is different from Ti in terms of both functional identity and attitude, but Te is different from Ti only in terms of attitude, so by your reasoning, shouldn't Ti and Te both be stronger than all non-Thinking functions for every individual with Thinking as a dominant function?


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Ti and Fi are fundamentally different on the account of their functional discrepancies, yet Ti and Te are only attitudinally distinct from one another.
    Ti and Te are more different than you seem to believe. They do not deal with the same type of cognitive task (one is introverted judgment and the other extroverted judgment) and thus do not make the same kinds of decisions in practice.

    You seem focused almost exclusively on Jung's ideas in theory, but if you want typology to accomplish something useful in terms of interaction with others, you need to pay more attention to how cognitive tendencies actually manifest themselves in practice, in terms of the value systems and behavioral tendencies they tend to produce in others.

    Of course I'm sure you'll dismiss such study as the realm of trivial "folk typology", but you're missing out on a lot by deciding that any such study is worthless.

    I have to wonder why you even bother stating your type as "INTP"--Jung never made use of any such four-letter type labels, as these are purely a product of the original "folk typologists", Myers and Briggs. Why would you descend so low as to describe yourself using terminology that is clearly rooted in folk typology?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Evolution conditions creatures to learn to 'value' ways of functioning that are the most proficient. The INTP in question may not be conditioned significantly to change his type, but nonetheless, he may forced to learn to function altogether differently from how he normally does regardless of how unnatural or excruciating doing so is.
    And it's my contention that this might not necessarily constitute use of different functions unless he actually changes his most basic instinct regarding the best way of responding to these conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In order to skateboard proficiently, one must be comfortable using all five senses and that's difficult to do when Sensing is one of your most supressed functions. As a result, the person would be forced to place a greater emphasis on Sensing or simply use S more than N under those circumstances.
    I'm not sure how skateboarding involves much in the use of taste or smell, but okay.

    Other than that I agree the person would be forced to pay more attention to Sensing, but that if he did this long enough that Se became his natural response over Ne in most areas of life, he would have changed himself into an STP.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Only if he conditioned himself to do so in a typical situation of his life. If he conditioned himself to cognitively function that way only in one type of an environment, then he didn't change his type. A change of type occurs only when one's solidified unconscious cognitive dispositions change, merely functioning naturally in a certain scenario does not amount to that. Such an activity is quite similar to that of an actor who when acting in a role of a person who is fundamentally different from himself, finds himself comfortably and quite naturally behaving in a way that the character he is impersonating would. For example, example a good ENFP actor should be able to be temporarily naturally stimulated to act like an ISTP, at least for several moments, yet this does not entail a change of type as this actor did not change his cognitive constitution on the fundamental level. As soon as he exits the role, he returns to the cognitive preferences that he had before taken on the role. Surely he may be profoundly exhausted or even nauseated afterwards as the behavior he engaged in was profoundly unnatural, yet nonetheless, he was able, for a very brief period of time at least, to function in a way that is indistinguishable from the cognitive functioning of people whose temperament profoundly differs from his. The same is the case with many NTPs who manage to succeed in the business world or the military. Surely, they may, as the actor may also, revert to their natural tendencies in the middle of the act, but the fact that they are able to embrace unnatural cognitive tendencies even if only for a moment shows that it is possible for us to condition ourselves to feel natural when engaging in decidedly unnatural cognitive functioning.
    Agreed, unless he actually changed his preferred functions throughout all (or most) areas of his life, in which case he would actually change type.

    I'm sure that an NTP skateboarder could learn to harness Se only during skateboarding and continue to prefer Ne for his extroverted perceptions otherwise. That's fair enough.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #130
    Twerking & Lurking ayoitsStepho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    4,836

    Default


    That sure is a lot of info to read.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    ayoitsStepho is becoming someone else. Actually her true self, a rite of passage.

Similar Threads

  1. Easily Disturbed By Things Going Wrong...is this Fi? or a J trait?
    By Thalassa in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 05:55 AM
  2. [Fi] NTJs: how does Fi manifest in your type?
    By Venom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 05:08 PM
  3. [Fi] Fi building
    By BlueScreen in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 03:09 PM
  4. [Fi] Fi -- Why does it drive you nuts?
    By CzeCze in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 08:47 AM
  5. [Fi] Fi: You only get it if you got it
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 649
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 11:05 AM

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