• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
simulatedworld, I propose a challenge:

You must go an entire week without appealing to another person's supposed function order as an argument. You must also refrain from using "your model" to reinterpret criticism of you, no matter how "logical" it may seem to do otherwise.

Please, for your own good, give it a shot.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't suppose you think such an exercise would grant any reason to take Jaguar seriously?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
You understand that it's not about allegiance right? For sim especially not, but for you especially so it seems. There's nothing I read in that that constitutes a personal attack.

You're committing the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") And as subject matter, typology / MBTI cannot tolerate "black and white thinking" either. So you have to let yourself be comfortable with a lot of grey; a lot of opposing ideas.

I think you misread what I said, or mistook me for being completely serious when I was mostly joking.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
If I've perceived the motivation for this behavior incorrectly, it would be more helpful for you to explain why that is.

It's actually that you perceived the behavior incorrectly -- at least for myself.

I don't act that way...

I realized while driving for the last hour that it might be a dom vs. aux difference, though.

So, if you were referring only to Jag, then maybe you're accurate.

If you were referring to all NTJs or any group of which I am a member, it would not be accurate.

My point was that I had just defended you from Jag's criticism that you are always boxing people into their supposed typological boxes, and then you went and did just that...

I don't know, exactly. I guess I would expect the non-shadow function to get a lot more emphasis. What do you think Ni+Ti or Ne+Te together looks like when developed well? And can these two work well together without a comparably strong balancing influence from a function of opposite orientation?

Ni+Ti looks like hardcore spiritual and philosophical thinking. Very abstract. Very Ni. But, at the same time, very structured. Not practical in the commonly thought Te way.

Ne+Te, as I said, would be hard for me to distringuish from Se+Te. When I get going in one of these modes, I become super extraverted, very "on the ball", and, well, I generally get a lot of attention from the ladies. I get into a kinda wheelin-and-dealin mode that is not my normal personality, but that is definitely back their latent and ready to come out, when the right opportunity presents itself.

Oh, I see. I am not really sure how the strengths of shadow functions compare to the tertiary/inferior. I suspect that we tend to unconsciously vent negativity via the tertiary and inferior, but that we can build some sort of comparatively small competence in the shadow functions through deliberate training and repetition. Most people don't force themselves into this sort of situation though, because it's uncomfortable. I think use of the tert/inf is probably more comfortable than any shadow because that seems to be most people's preferred method of venting frustration--it comes out without any real effort, even if frequently in a negative way. The shadows seem to require a much deliberate shift of focus.

See, my theory is that the more balanced J and P are, the more adeptly someone will be able to use their shadow functions.

Furthermore, I believe one's dominant and auxiliary function types will determine which shadow functions are most readily accessible: hence, an INTJ will be able to access Ne and Ti more readily than Fe and Si.

The theory goes further into the effect of I/E balance on which shadow functions are most readily accessible, as well as S/N and T/F balance.

I doubt that we can sustain use of shadow functions for very long periods of time.

I would actually probably agree with you here. I think it is an energy drain.

However, I do think we can use them.

I think it's really hard to distinguish the use of the tert/inf shadows from the primary functions figuring out how to expand their skill sets, though.

In fact, my thesis is that it's impossible.

People on this forum are always talking about how it's so difficult to reflect on what functions one is actually using.

I call bullshit to that sentiment.

I'm not saying certain people don't have difficulty doing so, and I'm not saying there isn't inherent uncertainty in essentially all attempts to do so, but what I am saying is that people who are more apt at self-reflection, self-awareness, and, for whatever reason, are just more capable of doing this kind of stuff -- and I do think various levels of capability exist in this regard -- can actually come to a good enough understanding of themselves, and, in some circumstances, others, to accurately understand what functions are playing out in which ways in their own and other people's minds.

That being said, this question of "am I using my shadow functions or have my dominant and auxiliary function simply learned to 'mimic' my shadow functions?" is absolutely the single most difficult issue to get beyond when it comes to self-reflecting on one's own functional usage.

It's impossible to really know on this one.

So you basically just have to resign to the fact that there are two schools of thought...

Or, on the other hand, perhaps we just haven't fleshed out these ideas well enough, and thus haven't had the right conversations to be able to make these unconscious process conscious yet.

A la Jag's signature.

:cheese:

I don't have a complete answer for the dynamics of shadow functions at this time. You may be right.

This debate will continue.

Perhaps I will convert you yet...

Jaguar's advice is simple: Don't be an NTP.

Yeah. Seriously, Jag. You confuse me in this regard.

I mean, I find NTP thinking ridiculous a lot of the time, but you really seem to hate it.

I actually find it useful in ways: particularly when it's properly weilded and/or and NTJ can hold the reins of the conversation and keep it focused. :D
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
:unsure:

This thread makes me think a lot of you are crackpots.

That Z and sim should touch tips. :p

And, worse yet, that I might be in love with a crackpot who's high on typology! :eek:uch:

Z, you're smarter than this.

You are far from being the prototypical INTJ, though you definitely exhibit Ni.

And,

AND!!!

For all you religious crackpots, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO AND ABOUT HUMAN NATURE AND BEHAVIOR THAN TYPOLOGY ALONE EXPLAINS!!!!!


Gahhhhh!!!!!

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

And, aphrodite, I apologize for Z's behavior, he might not care, but I do.

Minus uumlau and Jaguar, I guess, most people posting in this thread are fanatics, and are spouting *their own* opinions/theories regarding this, well, stuff.

I feel like an atheist in mass (I think that's what it's called), right now.

It's your thing, not mine, sooooo, carry on.

:cheers:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
To Z, as you know, I am a hardcore P.

So, according to your theory, I either am an exception, or an example that proves it to be wrong.

extraverted Sensing (Se) **************************** (28.2)
average use
introverted Sensing (Si) ********* (9.6)
unused
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************* (45.1)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************************* (31.2)
good use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ********** (10.7)
unused
introverted Thinking (Ti) ******************************* (31.4)
good use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ********************************* (33.1)
good use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************************** (50.9)
excellent use
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Actually, uumlau was spouting his stuff way long ago in the thread.

And Jag, well, Jag's religious fanaticism seems to be either only to say punchy little zingers, or to simply be against whatever Sim says.

:jew:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
To Z, as you know, I am a hardcore P.

So, according to your theory, I either am an exception, or an example that proves it to be wrong.

Well, yes, and you and I have already discussed that.

But, honestly, looking at these numbers for the first time; it's really not all that off what I'm saying.

The relevance of the J/P balance becomes a bit of an issue, but perhaps my dom and aux shadow functions are far closer to my normal dom and aux functions than yours.

For example, the ratio of your Ni/Ne is 2:3; same holds for your Fe/Fi.

I haven't taken that test, but the one functional usage test I did take actually showed my Ti being ever so slightly higher than my Te (both were nearly max), and my Ne being about 90% of my Ni.

So... looking at it that way... my theory seems to still hold some water, now doesn't it?

:tongue10:

Other than that, the only thing that throws a wrench into my theory (in development) is the fact that your Ti is strong.

However, as I told you last weekend: I think that can be explained by the fact that you have been inculcated with logical reasoning during your education (as most anyone with a good education is), and thus you identify with Ti, which is all about logical reasoning. You essentially said as much yourself when you claimed to be the top student in your logic class in college...

:cool:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
:unsure:

This thread makes me think a lot of you are crackpots.

That Z and sim should touch tips. :p

And, worse yet, that I might be in love with a crackpot who's high on typology! :eek:uch:

Z, you're smarter than this.

You are far from being the prototypical INTJ, though you definitely exhibit Ni.

And,

AND!!!

For all you religious crackpots, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO AND ABOUT HUMAN NATURE AND BEHAVIOR THAN TYPOLOGY ALONE EXPLAINS!!!!!


Gahhhhh!!!!!

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

And, aphrodite, I apologize for Z's behavior, he might not care, but I do.

Minus uumlau and Jaguar, I guess, most people posting in this thread are fanatics, and are spouting *their own* opinions/theories regarding this, well, stuff.

I feel like an atheist in mass (I think that's what it's called), right now.

It's your thing, not mine, sooooo, carry on.

:cheers:

And with regards to this whole sentiment, I attribute it to you being an NF, not an NT.

The thinking aspect is too draining on your tertiary for it to be enjoyable for you.

:jew:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
And Jag, well, Jag's religious fanaticism seems to be either only to say punchy little zingers, or to simply be against whatever Sim says.

:jew:

He's downright anti-Simitic! (Thought I'd jump on the racist bandwagon while it's still in town...) :jew:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
oy vey!

And regarding your hypothesis for my "learning" Ti.

Bullshit.

I've shown an aptitude for mathematics since age three.

In fourth grade, I bought my first logic puzzles book, and enjoyed them thoroughly, no one told me about them, I found one, and bought it, then loved it.

In eighth grade I taught myself chess on the computer and played it till I beat the computer, admittedly on novice level, but still.

In ninth grade I pwned geometry like a muthafucka, without ever doing homework.

I took and passed AP calc in 11th grade, when I was 15/16.

And, I got an A+ in my Logic class in college.

Sooooo, Ti wasn't instilled in me, nor was/is my ability to logically deduce information.

Just because I *prefer* to use Fi as my guiding force in life does not mean that I am necessarily logically inferior to Ti users.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^ None of the things you've listed constitute Ti use or require strong Ti to be done well.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
AHAA!!!

That's why I rock at Ti, I am half :jew: after all, and my father was an INTP jewbag. :p
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
And you don't think having an INTP father resulted in any Ti values being instilled in you? Not at all?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
^ None of the things you've listed constitute Ti use or require strong Ti to be done well.
Math always came intuitively to me, so you might be right.

:cheers:

I like solving puzzles, they're fun.

And, I was big into set theory before I even knew what it was.

Hahahaha, people at my elementary school thought I was crazy. I wonder why? :newwink:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Math always came intuitively to me, so you might be right.

:cheers:

I like solving puzzles, they're fun.

And, I was big into set theory before I even knew what it was.

Hahahaha, people at my elementary school thought I was crazy. I wonder why? :newwink:

I'm inclined to associate affinity for mathematics more with iNtuiting than with Thinking.

An Ne-dominant mindset seems quite well-suited for puzzle-solving and theories that interrelate diverse concepts.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
And you don't think having an INTP father resulted in any Ti values being instilled in you? Not at all?
Genetically speaking, sure.

But, environmentally speaking, not at all.

He was never around, and he was an assface, though a brilliant one, at that.

Though, my ISTP ex probably did instill Ti "values" in me, but that was post 18.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I definitely think there's an element of just being able to logically reason that goes beyond MBTI, to merely having a mind that needs to be able to understand logical progressions, at least to some degree, in order to survive and reproduce.

Those who use Ti just happen to be obsessed with logical reasoning and everything else that Ti does.

If ESFPs weren't capable of understanding any logic whatsoever, they wouldn't realize that they should put food in their mouth when they're hungry, or that they need to chew it once they've put it in their mouth.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I definitely think there's an element of just being able to logically reason that goes beyond MBTI, and goes to merely having a mind that needs to be able to understand logical progressions, to some degree, in order to survive and reproduce.

Those who use Ti just happen to be obsessed with logical reasoning and everything else that Ti does.

Agreed. Ti use isn't necessary for proficiency in mathematics or puzzle solving or pattern recognition or any of the aforementioned skills.

People strong in Ti are often good at those things, but that doesn't mean everyone is "using Ti" every time he does them. Other functional perspectives can be just as good or better at the same kinds of tasks.


If ESFPs weren't capable of understanding any logic whatsoever, they wouldn't realize that they should put food in their mouth when they're hungry, or to chew it once they've put it in their mouth.

Indeed--Ti clearly does not have a monopoly on logic.
 
Top