User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 115

  1. #61
    A passer by yvonne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It's the only point of view I got!

    sorta...

    believe me, i know...
    Enneagram 5w4.

  2. #62
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
    You always like to move the spotlight away from your blindspots and onto others', don't you?

  3. #63
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    ^ p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...

  4. #64
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
    +1

  5. #65
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvonne View Post
    ^ i agree with your post, but not uumlau's. i don't think that Te is what Ti is. i think they're two different ways to think, not just appear to be different...
    I didn't say that Te is what Ti is.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    ^ p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...
    A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose! )

  6. #66
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    +1
    Same goes to you:

    Quote Originally Posted by zarathustra
    p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...
    I must say how surprised I am that two Ne doms are upset that I've claimed that Ni is deeper, more robust, more substantive, more thorough, and more focused than Ne...


  7. #67
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose! )
    I wouldn't say that the choosing is its weakness, so much as when it sticks too rigidly to one or a number of perspectives that it has chosen, without opening up for a new, potentially insightful perspective.

    Admittedly, this does happen from time to time...

    AND Ne is good at creating that opening...

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    you know Z for some reason this topic bugs me. In a personal way, so please forgive the potential deviation from logic. You are using very positive words above to describe Xi relative to Xe.

    It almost points towards dom Xi as always being more powerful than dom Xe-your original wording I might add. (Aux Te doesnt throw things out willy-nilly, I kinda think you really meant powerful.)

    But then the counter suggestion was made that aux Xi gives depth. But aux will never have the depth that a dom will have. No ENFP will ever have the refinement in use of Fi that an INFP will have. Thus an extrovert will always be inferior to an introvert it terms of power? You kinda see the oddness here? You dont say it directly...but yeah. In spite of the logical arguments, the tone conveys the implication.
    "More powerful" really is the least accurate descriptor of the six or so words I've used to describe what it is that Xi is more of than Xe.

    I do, however, hold the bias that, all other things being equal, introverts are generally more of the other five words than extroverts.

    However, all other things are usually not equal, and, thus, this need not at all be the case...

    As you said in your Te-laced post earlier, if one were able to and tried to objectively measure this quality of "depth" (or robustness, thoroughness, focus, or substantiveness), one would find that some extroverts have extremely well developed auxiliary functions, perhaps even more well-developed than some introverts' dominant functions, and, as such, would actually have more of this "depth" than some introverts.

    In fact, I would expect this to be the case in a reasonably high number of circumstances.

    It all comes down to individuals' own level of personal development.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    For me Ne is Everything. When I think of where my personality is seated, I sit on the very edge of Ne, an endless vista looking out onto everything. It endlessly connects. Ne is self defining for me. I claim it as my soul.

    When I took my mbti certification class the instructor made us draw a room decsribing out personality. I drew a massive window looking out upon an ocean, covered in vines. The picture began at the window itself, teetering on the edge of falling out.

    I "think/feel" with Ne. I suppose Fi has a set of core truths-as of late far more developed than I originally thought, albeit quite odd core truths. Te has a set of objective, external observables, a whole library of them stored away for comparison.

    By being "seated" in Ne, I can step away from Fi/Te and observe, compare, contrast, see every side of an argument, then try to perceive a perspective very different from my own base, dare I say meta cognition of some sort? I dunno...

    yeah Ne is my soul ...
    This was all very beautiful.

  9. #69
    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 Zarathustra View Post
    Same goes to you:



    I must say how surprised I am that two Ne doms are upset that I've claimed that Ni is deeper, more robust, more substantive, more thorough, and more focused than Ne...

    No one's upset; you're correct that Xi is deeper/more narrowly focused than Xe. It's just kind of ironic how impressed with yourself you are every time you make these subtle implications about Ni's superiority and add that jew face emoticon as if you think you're being subtly clever.

    You're not. I noticed the first time I talked to you that you still genuinely believe Ni to be the superior perspective. When I first pointed that out you wriggled out of it by implying that it was a joke, but after talking to you enough I'm fairly convinced you actually believe it.

    You continually assert your proficiency in all four NT functions and yet you continually fumble through NeTi cognition. If your NeTi were that solid, you wouldn't make so many clear mistakes in those languages:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As an Ni dom, I find it problematic, because, relative to Ne, Ni doesn't lose the forest for the trees.

    Ne is running around looking at all the different trees, while Ni is sitting back, focusing from whatever level of distance it chooses to.
    It's this kind of thing that best highlights your errors in understanding NeTi and unconscious overvaluing of Ni. Not that that's a bad thing...every type unconsciously overvalues his own perspectives. It's just that for Ni doms, who are naturally good at acknowledging different conceptual standpoints, this sometimes translates into naive overconfidence in their own ability to do this and a refusal to accept that their perspectives are not all-encompassing.

    Many situations in which you assume NeTi to be "missing the forest for the trees" are actually just your own inability to follow Ne connections. You think "Gosh that came out of left field" but it didn't; you just don't see the similarity yet. Ni is deeper and narrowly focused, but it is not more substantive. Your definition of substantive is based on a personal preference for the value of introverted cognition, not any real qualitative difference in the value of the information at hand.


    This happens to you a lot. It doesn't happen as much to uumlau:

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose! )
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #70
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It's more robust, more substantive, and more powerful, all in some particular sense of those words.

    ...

    The Xi functions all seem to be more deep, substantive, robust, powerful, thorough, and focused than their Xe counterparts...
    Okay, you are fascinated by a certain "aspect" of introverted functions, and are trying to find the right angle that the aspect covers.

    Maybe "independent?" Introverted functions handle their whole work more "independently?" But that is actually "independence from outside information," which is expected of an introverted function. It's why some people have chosen the adjective "narrow."
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

Similar Threads

  1. Socionics questionnaire (since people are more reliable than quizzes)
    By sardonic delight in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 10:43 PM
  2. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-11-2016, 02:07 AM
  3. Intuitors are more grounded than sensors.
    By Vilku in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 10:50 AM
  4. Values are more important than things, possibly even people.
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 10:03 PM
  5. Are Extroverts more Creative than Introvert?
    By Not_Me in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 07:20 PM

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