User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 258

  1. #121
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You already ate it.
    Yum. It's ever better when I can wash it down with your pissant drivel.

  2. #122
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    So it seems to me like you're more interested in how the functions interact with each other to result in functional categories that are separate and distinct from the original broader function terms. You seem to think that Ne and Ni alone are no different but rather are just made different by their complementary judging functions, right?
    I am interested in determining distinct "entities" for lack of a better word. N vs S seems to be more of a "scalar" entity, without an i/e direction, while Te/Fi/Fe/Ti seems to be more of a "vector."

    I believe socionics is more geared at examining functional interplay and gives more definitive merit to how the functions interact when making its categories, but that's just what I've heard through the grapevine. I don't really know much about socionics (it seems rather messy and convoluted to me), truth be told, but you might find that it's worth looking into.
    From what little I've read, I'm not very interested in socionics, and quite highly distrustful.


    I think I'm understanding you, but correct me if I'm wrong. The premise behind your pet theory is that there are no discernible differences between Ne/Ni and Se/Si, but rather, the differences we see in cognition among SJ/SP and NJ/NP types come from the judging functions that affect the perceiving function in question. You believe this because 1) you think you personally use both N functions, and 2) the characteristics of the ENxP/INxJ dynamic point to shared cognitive values. According to your pet theory, 1 and 2 imply that Ne = Ni (and your theory says the same about Se = Si).

    According to this categorization, that would mean that Pi paired with x judging function would cause the same cognitive values and attitudes that Pe paired with x judging function does (ie, PeTi = PiTi because Pi = Pe), right? If that's the case, then I'm going to have to disagree with your pet theory for now, lest you provide further support to back up your claim (though the part about implying that the examination of Ne, Se, Si, and Ni necessitates a complementary judging function for thorough understanding is interesting, and I'm inclined to agree). But in regards to Ni = Ne and Si = Se, I don't think that's the case (but I'm open to new ideas ).
    You break an assumption of mine here, by imposing one of your own. You believe there is such a thing as PiTi. I've seen no evidence of that. Perhaps you have evidence of it. I suspect this is the core of our disagreement.

    INJs and ENPs have completely different cognitive attitudes, even when they share judging functions, so this implies that there's something else going on that distinguishes these two types cognitively. The only reasons this could be the case, categorically speaking, would be function order and different perceiving functions (Ne vs Ni and/or Se vs. Si) that the two types possess.

    Since your theory completely undermines the Pe/Pi dichotomies, this would mean that your theory has to support that the difference between INJs and their ENP complements is due solely to a discrepancy in Je/Ji order. How can your theory use this discrepancy, without also incorporating opposing N functions, to justify the cognitive differences between INJs and ENPs?
    The rest of your argument is using circular reasoning: namely that Ne and Ni are different and distinct, thus cannot be the same thing. My pet theory is that there is a single entity, N, and that Ne vs Ni are different ways of channeling the same thing. In practice, Ne and Ni will appear different, but it's different usages of the same entity.

    I was originally tempted to make the same assertion about the judging functions, but I see compelling evidence that Ti and Te are distinct, and that Fi and Fe are distinct, especially because I see Te/Fi and Fe/Ti as distinct sets of behaviors/attitudes, regardless of whether T or F is preferred. Insomuch as T and F are distinct ways of judging things, the direction of that judging is as big a deal as the whether it's mostly T or F.

    There are a lot of people on this forum, myself included, that do not believe Ne/Ni can be healthily juxtaposed, as the two are definitively in opposition with each other. Why exactly do you think you "use" both?
    Because I can follow SillySapienne's randomness of expression, Ne, on the fly, and can evoke the same should I wish. At the same time, I undeniably use Ni, in a much more focused way, with great accuracy.

    For me, Ne is essentially "uncontrolled Ni." More precisely, it's just intuition. The less I focus it, and let my thoughts go on their own, it "becomes Ne." The more I focus it, and focus my thoughts on a particular track, it "becomes Ni."

    I detect no "juxtaposition" because there is no dichotomy to be juxtaposed, in my own experience.

    To be very clear, I didn't start out as an MBTI aficionado. I was very skeptical, especially having been mistyped, originally. MBTI had to prove itself to me. The basics of MBTI have proven themselves to me, with the 16 types. The underlying Jungian functions have mostly proven themselves to me. I'd noticed the N/S difference decades ago, and the Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti differences almost as long, and MBTI put a name to all of that. MBTI describes real things and real interactions, and even if some of it is complete BS, it gives us a language with which to communicate and share ideas about personality traits and cognitive issues.

    However, I remain very skeptical of those things I haven't observed. I've not observed NiTi, or NeTe, online or in real life. So my pet theory is for me. I'm not trying to push it on anyone else, just throwing it out there for evaluation. If you want to prove to me that Ne and Ni are "really different," to me, I'm happy to listen, but circular reasoning will get you nowhere. I need to see/hear examples/anecdotes where NeTe or NiTi is evident, for example, in such a way that it is clearly not NeTi or NiTe, but something very different.

    (more circular reasoning)

    So, again, why do you view this as evidence in support of your pet theory (rather than as evidence in support of Ne/Ni being different)?
    Because I started from the point of view that MBTI had to prove itself to me. I am not trying to take MBTI and disprove it.

    Te/Ti/Fe/Fi have proven themselves to me. N and S have proven themselves to me. I experience Ne and Ni as shades/foci of N. I cannot speak to Se/Si directly, but I see no evidence that it would be different. Ne is N in "real time", Ni is focused N, evaluating the patterns more carefully. Se is S in "real time", Si is focused S, evaluating the experiences more carefully.


    PS - Tesla, I share Z's opinion of your posts and arguments. We may disagree, but you state your case very clearly.

  3. #123
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Yum. It's ever better when I can wash it down with your pissant drivel.
    Aw, I hurt your little Fe eeeeeeelings.
    Want to send me another rep comment?

  4. #124
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    @ uumalu: If you think my post is wrought with circular reasoning, then I'm pretty certain that you've misunderstood me.

    I'm not backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because Ne/Ni are different (). That would be utter foolishness.

    I'm backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because as functional categories, the two have completely different definitions that cannot be intertwined, and we can see these two opposing definitions in practice by Js and Ps.

    It's analogous to saying that fruits and vegetables are different because we define fruits to be products of plants that specifically come from a flower while we define vegetables to be products of plants that do not come from a flower. This characteristic of fruit vs. vegetable necessitates that, according to our labels, fruit and vegetable are different, and unless we can show that flowers (fruits), leaves/roots (vegetables) are all one in the same, then we can't completely belittle the differences between what we label as fruits and what we label as vegetables, thus the notable differences still hold.

    Pe and Pi are different because we have defined them to be different, and we can justify these different definitions by witnessing them in what we define to be Js and what we define to be Ps. Considering that Pe/Pi are nothing but abstract concepts, unless you can show that the definitions of Se/Si and Ne/Ni actually mean the same thing conceptually, then your theory is loose and unfounded.

    I'm at work right now and have to write this stupid paper on the bioethics of animal testing, so I can't respond in full to your post, but please reevaluate where you think you're seeing circular reasoning, because I assure you, there isn't any.

    I was just asking you to elaborate on why you think Ne/Ni are the same (ie, why you believe the definitions of Ne/Ni have no notable differences and/or why you believe that NPs and NJs are different solely due to their judging function orientations).


    And:

    PS - Tesla, I share Z's opinion of your posts and arguments. We may disagree, but you state your case very clearly.
    Thank you.

    And I'm not trying to completely invalidate your pet theory and belittle your ideas. I'm just asking for elaboration, as I'm pretty skeptical at this point. But at the same time, I'm not completely up to speed with why you believe what you believe, thus the inquiry.

  5. #125
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Aw, I hurt your little Fe eeeeeeelings.
    Want to send me another rep comment?


    Phew! What a cruel Temper you've got there. It was really hard to see through all my tears enough to accommodate your request, but as you can see, I went above and beyond. *sniffle*

  6. #126
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This is exactly what Jung says about Ne.
    Yes, you're right, and that's the weaker part of the analysis. I wanted some description of where Ni acquires its seed concepts, but it seems I made Ni users sound Ne-capable. I guess it is more likely to be that Ni users are attracted less to the environment as a source of abstractions, and more to places where abstractions already begin to exist--books, intellectual discussion, stories. And they add to this using the very occasional rip of information from immediate Se.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    I wonder if the Ne/Si and Se/Ni combinations have some importance to this discussion as well.
    When I use Si it's often applied to information received originally through Ne. This will alter how Si is working. I am very detail oriented when dealing with past events but those "details" will be very specific connections/thoughts/impressions rather than what most would consider details of the event. So while I can very easily see how Si was working others won't see it very clearly. I think this problem could exist for both Si and Ni to some extent.
    That is interesting. This is memory of the thought or memory of having had the thought?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #127
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    @ uumalu: If you think my post is wrought with circular reasoning, then I'm pretty certain that you've misunderstood me.

    I'm not backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because Ne/Ni are different (). That would be utter foolishness.

    I'm backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because as functional categories, the two have completely different definitions that cannot be intertwined, and we can see these two opposing definitions in practice by Js and Ps.

    It's analogous to saying that fruits and vegetables are different because we define fruits to be products of plants that specifically come from a flower while we define vegetables to be products of plants that do not come from a flower. This characteristic of fruit vs. vegetable necessitates that, according to our labels, fruit and vegetable are different, and unless we can show that flowers (fruits), leaves/roots (vegetables) are all one in the same, then we can't completely belittle the differences between what we label as fruits and what we label as vegetables, thus the notable differences still hold.
    OK, I get what you're saying, and why I would regard it as circular, while you wouldn't.

    You're working from the definitions of the terms a priori. If the definitions say they aren't the same, then they aren't the same.

    I'm looking at it from a more empirical point of view. The definitions, the designations, might be wrong, at least insofar as hiding aspects of the truth.

    I've seen N vs S. When I used to teach physics classes, I'd have to lines of patter, one aimed at "the memorizers" and one at "the thinkers" (an unfortunate name, but it's all I had at the time). For the memorizers, I'd just describe the kind of problem it is, and list the steps on how to solve it, and they'd understand it. For the thinkers, I'd say, "here's how it all works underneath the hood," and they'd just get it, without my having to get really specific. By using both methods, I was able to get everyone up to speed pretty quickly. These days, I know that the memorizers are S, and the thinkers are N, at least insofar as MBTI typing is concerned. It really didn't seem to matter whether it was NT or NF, there was a common understanding of the intuitive picture.

    I've not seen Ne vs Ni except as a degree of control, as I've described in a previous post. The more focused the thoughts (the more "J" the thoughts), the more Ni becomes apparent, while more scattered thoughts ("P") the more Ne. It's still all the same N, as far as I can tell.

    So you can "prove" yourself right based on the Jungian definitions, but I'd rather make observations and actually see whether there is a luminiferous aether through which light propagates: in fact, if it is well-defined enough, then it is fairly easy to demonstrate or disprove through observation/experiment.

    And I'm not trying to completely invalidate your pet theory and belittle your ideas. I'm just asking for elaboration, as I'm pretty skeptical at this point. But at the same time, I'm not completely up to speed with why you believe what you believe, thus the inquiry.
    Hey, I'm not trying to "prove" my ideas to anyone. It's just observations I've made, and skepticism of my own w/r to MBTI. My "pet theory" is just that: it's my best guess for right now. If you can demonstrate what NeTe is like working together, with a good way to differentiate it from NiTe and NeTi, without asserting, e.g., that so-and-so is ENFP, therefore it has to be NeTe, because an ENFP doesn't have Ni, then we have something productive to discuss.

    Otherwise it's six of one and half a dozen of the other: my pet theory isn't that divergent from classical Jungian functions. The main thing it adds is my own personal observation that I feel I understand and can invoke both Ne and Ni, and that others might be able to gain self-understanding from that.

  8. #128
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    As far as there being a clear-cut difference between Ni and Ne, I would say there is, but only based on my own experiences: I absolutely recognise Ne in my myself and my thoughts, whereas I can only appreciate Ni theoretically and from a distance (much like Se, Fi and Te: I understand them theoretically, and can at least recognise them in the behaviour of others, but if I'm honest with myself they're certainly not where my mind dwells).
    Hello

  9. #129
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default thoughts about all attitudes being opposite the dominant function

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Yes, you're right, and that's the weaker part of the analysis. I wanted some description of where Ni acquires its seed concepts, but it seems I made Ni users sound Ne-capable. I guess it is more likely to be that Ni users are attracted less to the environment as a source of abstractions, and more to places where abstractions already begin to exist--books, intellectual discussion, stories. And they add to this using the very occasional rip of information from immediate Se.
    You have spawned a tendril of thought for me. Mustn't we originally perceive with an extraverted function? For example, if we solely perceive with Ni, and only Ni, where would we get anything to think about originally? Ni is, by definition, an introverted function that only needs imagination to work, it doesn't look outside. If we were born as lumps of blind, deaf, and dumb mutes who couldn't feel, and were Ni dom, we would have nothing to think about, except some thoughts of void. No, we must extravert first in some way, then use our preferred perceiving function to contemplate the data, and our preferred judging function to solidify it. What, then, would our original extraverted function be? Well, Ne,Se,Fe,Te, depending on our circumstances at the moment.

    So, if I am hiking and notice the scenery and trees, smells, etc, and am extraverting with S, then I turn inward with my thoughts, I'm not going to think about the scenery at all anymore, nor objects at all. I'm going to begin thinking about my interactions with people. So, truly, for me, my Fe fuels my Ni. I am not going to see a tree and think about another object that it reminds me of and start going through my memory banks about how I feel about that tree and thoughts it spurs in me, as I imagine an Si dom would.

    If, then, my aux function is Fe, what would happen if I could not fuel my Ni with Fe at all? What would happen? I would turn to T because to not be able to think (use Ni) would make me very uncomfortable and bored and maybe depressed. I would have to use my mind on thinking, so I'd turn to Te. I would have to read articles, or forums, or news, to solicit information that could allow Ni to ponder. It's not as interesting for me to use T, as I prefer F thoughts, thoughts of people, so I would probably feel drawn to articles involving the human element, how people interact, even if I were not personally interacting with them.

    So, in this scenario, I really am not using Ti. I really am using Ni, which looks like Ti. I am not trying to really understand how the thing in the article works or why it works or it's intrinsic qualities; I am trying to glean some gem of insight about how it really exists in all its glory; trying to see something that isn't described, trying to understand its essence which isn't visible. That is Ni. Ni perceiving what Te has fed it.

    Uumlau might be right here. The MBTI people might be right (as per edcoaching).

    As introverts we must extrovert to gather fodder to fuel or dominant function, whatever that may be. So, my functions might really look like this: Ni/Fe/Te/Se simple as that. What I thought was Ti I think might really be Te, but it looks like Ti once Ni gets a hold of it.

    However, Se does nothing for me beyond the moment I experience it. I do not take sensory data I've observed in the world and apply it to my Ni, although i might, I suppose, if I began thinking about how weather patterns were affected by wind changes, aka chaos theory type thinking, etc. Or does that become Ne? It might be more Se that converts to Ne, but since Ne is not my preferred intuitive process, it quickly fizzles out into other Ni type thoughts and that train of thought that started with wind dies away, although I do use Ne........So, perhaps Se is not really useful for my thinking at all. Perhaps S is useful for me only in the moment, and Si is not even necessary. Perhaps there is no real attitude for S in an N dom person, because S is so short-lived, and in the moment, it needs no more descriptors.



    But this brings me to a new thought as well. If I've gathered data with Fe or Te, when I contemplate it with Ni processes, does it then become solidified as our introverted feeling or thinking (Fi or Ti)?



    What about a Ti dom of the ISTP? If he must extravert to gain information about what to apply his Ti to, that extraversion must be Ne/Se/Te/Fe. Let's say his aux function is Se. His supposed tert is Ni. Is it really Ne? Does it look like Ni because it's really Ne plied with Ti to arrive at the best and most logically sound answer?

    Ti/Se/Ne/......Fe?

    Would an dominant judger using T feel toward F like I feel toward the other perceiving function? That's tough, but yeah, maybe. Fe motivations can dissipate into what works, what's functional. Fi is practically nonexistent. So, F is used, and used well, but is not any kind of priority and is difficult to sustain, unless there is an Se bonus.

    Thanks, Kalach, for your post. That was fun. I'm tired>time to get some sleep. g'night!

    anyone feel free to respond, of course!
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #130
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    You have spawned a tendril of thought for me. Mustn't we originally perceive with an extraverted function? For example, if we solely perceive with Ni, and only Ni, where would we get anything to think about originally? Ni is, by definition, an introverted function that only needs imagination to work, it doesn't look outside. If we were born as lumps of blind, deaf, and dumb mutes who couldn't feel, and were Ni dom, we would have nothing to think about, except some thoughts of void. No, we must extravert first in some way, then use our preferred perceiving function to contemplate the data, and our preferred judging function to solidify it. What, then, would our original extraverted function be? Well, Ne,Se,Fe,Te, depending on our circumstances at the moment.
    Arguably, no. At any given moment in any given location whichever person were standing there would be bombarded with exactly the same information. Different cognitive makeups would at that very moment be doing different things. Different scraps from that surfeit of information would be selected by different people depending on their preferences, but there'd always be information enough to go around. Just from a developmental point of view, every type in every normal situation will almost always have something to work with. Their central nervous system will deliver information to them and they will select from it according to their interest and preference.

    An interesting question to make here is, once again, what is "preference"? Do we all have more or less the same central nervous systems but differing cognitive makeups, or do we each have slightly different central nervous systems that correspond to different cognitive makeups? One presumes that eventually we will discover that it is the latter. But currently, from a model theoretic point of view, we're supposed to make a strong distinction between, on the one hand, having and using a function and, on the other hand, being a human animal extant in the world. All human animals have the same opportunity, but each human mind differs via "preference".

    Which is a long-winded way of saying, you don't have to extrovert anything to get information. It comes to you whether you like it or not. What personality theory can tell us is stories of how individuals choose to process and interact with this bounty.


    ... one presumes, anyway.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

Similar Threads

  1. Ni vs. Si comparative Ni TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 10:36 AM
  2. Ni vs. Si comparative Si TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
  3. Ni vs Si, and more
    By Cimarron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 11:58 AM
  4. Ni and Si Doms: What does the internal world look like?
    By BlueScreen in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 06:01 PM
  5. Ni and Si
    By run in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 11:42 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