I basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about and how you got all this from my post.Just responding to your "part and parcel" comment about EP types.
You've mostly just ignored the numerous challenges people have offered. Agreed that we don't know that much about cognition in general from a biological standpoint, though.
Oy vey. Ne doms are among the most interested in the unknown. Being more concerned with facts and what's already established has nothing to do with Ne at all.
The focus on what's already known is just the launchpad from which we blast off into the unknown. If NT is repeatedly correcting you on known, basic facts, it just means s/he thinks you haven't even built the launchpad yet, not that s/he is uninterested in exploring the unknown!
Indeed, exploring the unknown is the whole point; we just generally consider it necessary to possess basic competence before drifting out into space. If we don't, we tend to waste a lot of time "solving" problems that have already been solved instead of just listening to what other, more experienced people have already figured out and then trying to build on it.
There's no sense in reinventing the wheel when you could be using that wheel to build better cars.
That's a pretty good definition. It just flies in the face of some other statements you've made, such as, "I know I use Ne frequently because I can see patterns in the way people post." You sometimes just focus a little too much on what is happening instead of why when you define and observe functions.
So, rather than think of Ne as "the processes of seeing external patterns", you could try thinking of it as "an attitude that encourages us to connect new information to larger external patterns that will ultimately change the original meaning once viewed in a larger context."
Just because you can see patterns between things doesn't mean Ne is the attitude that caused you to do it. To assess functions you need to understand someone's value system and what beliefs/attitudes led to the way s/he is behaving...not just observe what s/he is doing.
Your mistake (from the perspective of the Jungian model!) is that you think you're observing people "changing between all the functions all the time" because you seem to think every time a person performs an action that people strong in function x tend to be good at, that person is necessarily "using" function x. Like when you told me, "I know I use Ne because I observe patterns in the way people post." You can observe patterns without the "use" of any particular function. It's not what you're doing that implies Ne use; it's why you did it, that is, what part of your overall attitude and orientation toward life motivated you to approach considering information this way.
But frequently they're not using function x, because "using function x" implies subscribing to a much broader and more inclusive set of values and tendencies in a variety of situations--not just performing one single action that people who orient by that function are usually proficient in.
Doesn't this directly contradict the Jung quote you provided?
I'm just confused because the Jungian model (combined with some more recent authors) already has a pretty clear and consistent definition of what functions are. If you don't like the Jungian model that's fine, but it seems curious that you would use Jung's terms and then try to twist the definitions into something they're not.
If you want to invent your own typology system, have at it, but why bother starting with already defined pieces of another one and then force the terms to mean something other than what they've already been designated as? Just invent your own terms and your own system and go from there.
NTs are not trying to cut down your knowledge base. You don't seem to read our motivations very well (which is in itself the crux of functional analysis.) We're trying to correct your misapplications of the already existing model. If you don't like the already existing model, that's fine, but what are you doing on a forum dedicated to studying from the perspective of that model?
Isn't this kind of like going to a physics message board to argue that the particles inside atoms shouldn't be called protons/neutrons/electrons? I mean, if that's your opinion, we can't really say that you're wrong; it's just that if you're going to reject the current model and invent your own, it would seem to make more sense to invent your own terminology so as to avoid confusion.
I don't have any idea why you've taken this personally. By "move you past A" I meant try to help you get a grasp on the basic ideas of the Jungian model so that you can apply it to more things.
Of course, if you choose to reject the Jungian model and try to develop your own, go for it...but using Jung's terms to describe your new and totally different model seems awfully strange.
No, when I say you don't understand the functions, I mean you're missing the basic point of the definition of a function. For instance, when you say something like, "I observe my daughter using Si"--in order to observe your daughter using Si, you would need to recognize a certain type of fundamental belief system in your daughter representative of the Si worldview.
You cannot "observe her using Si" simply because you saw her do something that Si people are commonly good at.
That's like saying, "I observe my son using Catholicism when he drinks the Communion wine." Well, he may be doing something that Catholics do often, but you don't really "use" Catholicism unless you subscribe to the belief system it entails and apply it to all areas of your life.
The boy can't be described as "using Catholicism" based on one isolated instance of doing something that Catholics commonly do. Calling him Catholic implies an entire set of beliefs and tendencies that cover a lot more ground than this one instance of drinking Communion wine.
So if your daughter frequently behaves, speaks and thinks in ways that are representative of the Si value system, maybe she's using Si...but observing one isolated instance of remembering something from the past doesn't make her an Si user because it's not enough to establish that she adheres to the Si orientation to cognition.
If you have a completely different, non-Jungian viewpoint on how we should view cognition, I would be glad to hear that. The reason NTs are taking issue with you is that you're taking the terms from an already existing model and insisting that they mean something else, which creates a lot of confusion.
I'm afraid your opinion on the intended meaning of my words is less significant than mine, given that I wrote the words in the first place.
I don't disagree with that at all. But that's not at all how the OP presented it. If she had just said, "Everybody look at this picture and tell me your first reaction because I'm curious how people will respond", there'd be no issue whatsoever.
And I've been trying very hard to communicate with you, but you still just dismiss everything I say as trivial nitpicking for the sake of pedantry.
If I didn't truly believe these distinctions were meaningful in the framework of Jungian typology I wouldn't continue trying to explain them so many times.
The problem that many NTs run into is with people who claim to be operating within a given model, then break the basic definition of that model. This is what you're doing. If you don't want to operate within the Jungian model, then fine, don't--but it doesn't make sense to continue using Jung's terms for your own ideas if you reject his model.
I have never attacked your intelligence. In fact I've made a point of complimenting it several times. All I have attacked is your understanding of this particular model.
Jaguar isn't bothering with you because NTJs usually don't bother entertaining the ideas of people who haven't shown enough understanding of the ideas they're interested in to warrant the effort.
I think your ideas would meet with a much more welcome reception if you'd drop the pretense that you're operating within the Jungian model and just tell everyone you're inventing an entirely new approach to conceptualizing cognition, and stop using Jungian terms to designate non-Jungian concepts.
And I have no idea why you have twisted my post up and make me out to be some Jungian model rejector. It's really, really quite amazing to me. I wouldn't quote Jung if I didn't respect and buy into his work! That doesn't mean I take everything he believed and internalize it. I rarely take everything everyone writes or hypothesizes for granted, or as my truth.
Look, the fact is you are unusually difficult to communicate with. I'm not really sure why. You seem to not really want to meet in the middle, based on your tone and actions, which is totally fine. This stuff is really not worth being so hostile over. I really just don't work that way, or think that way.
Furthermore, I disagree (again) with our fundamental differences about how functions work. I'm (again) not sure why you get so aggravated about it all, when I'm obviously pretty open to exploring new concepts. But when you come at it all with such a negative and hostile vibe, it just kills all desire for me to want to learn, or share, anything with you.
Til me meet again!