User Tag List

Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 346

Thread: How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

  1. #121


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Ne vs. Se

    Ne sees and finds patterns and connections within and between information processed it tends to see "everything in every thing".

    Te cares not for precision, it cares for efficiency, time is of the essence, it cuts through what it perceives as bullshit, it's about the bottom line, getting shit done, executing action.

    Si collects and archives salient information, it holds on to its past experiences and memories to understand why the world is the way it is, and why things are the way they are, patterns emerge, correlations and causations are noted, new experiences make sense when you analyze past similar situations, what happened then? Why did it happen, how did you respond? Did your response yield positive gains? Si, the past foretells the future, history repeats itself, remember the lessons past experiences have taught you, never forget, your past defined you, your future will benefit from what you've stored and remembered, Si finds solace in engaging in experiences that are comfortable and pleasing. It will do everything in its power to avoid or overcome unwanted and uncomfortable experiences, it seeks comfort, it desires to only deal with comfortable situations, where it feels familiar, and at ease with its surroundings.
    Hmmm, I wonder how Si gives Te/Fe doms stability? Could that same mechanism carry over into older ENFPs? They detach from Fi and balance with Si.

    Anyways the above defines me. TeSi together LOVES boxes-aka organizing the ideas I have about Fi stuff!!! Things must be placed neatly upon the shelf! But only things that present problems that are sufficiently complex that Fi can mirror-map them-like people and other complicated stuff too.

  2. #122
    `~~Philosoflying~~` Array SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Silly, I will take a poke here, but if the convo gets much longer we should diverge to the enfp common issues thread as to not divert the topic too much.

    With very, very careful as it is exceptionally individualistic in nature. I have yet to hear anyone try to give a good account of how Fi matures. I suspect Fi is an amazingly complex mirroring function. You feed it external data, it mirrors that data, thus prompting the Fi user to physiologicaly mimic what they see. If that stimuli is painful, then the response is one of pain and the stimuli becomes associated with "bad". A stimuli that is pleasent brings internal happiness, thus gets labeled as good. Ne allows us to connect and amplify these incoming stimuli or perceive more than what we actually see. Everyday of our lives we are sorting and cataloging these stimuli sensations into an Si library of "good" and "bad" that we use to judge incoming new stimuli against. (I utterly loved your Si description btw. Totally awesome.)

    Eventually we have cataloged enough data that we start using the FiSi library to make choices/judgments. The INFPs and even some enfps will describe a sensation of actually measuring their own internal Fi against an external object-like it can be compared fairly objectively? Many of us, just have gut feelings-like a pinch in the gut or almost a stomach cramp or internal angst.

    But be very very careful about saying who does or does not use Fi as, due to the endless individuality, it can come in very diverse flavors. Since it is internal, you may see very little of it externally but that does not mean that deep seated values do not guide the ship.

    NeTe is for play - just in isolation, it is like solving a puzzle. Sometimes however their is a very real Fi need to solve a puzzle...thus Fi determines the orientation of the ship-but then to be able to step away from certain aspects of Fi as they will prevent an objective evaluation of the problem. (Fe does the same thing...note Sim attacking the INTJs in the thread. They offend him morally and this offense introduces flaws in his logical analysis)

    Fi is exceptionally complicated so it is almost like taking certain aspects and turning them off, while still tuning into other aspects. Solving a technical problem for me is like flying at 30,000 feet over the problem and finding a "lump". I turn off the values part of Fi that would make me offended, (or rather dismiss the offense as soon as I note it), but I maintain that ability to mirror the problem. Once I find the lump I tend to hand it off to an NT to resolve, but sometimes it is a very complicated people-hardware-software lump. But the lumps always stick out at me as being terribly obvious. In the same way people systems are terrible obvious to structure and understand. They are just flow charts of functions. Sim is right, in that you really can predict behaviors based upon type and function. Honestly it kinda bores me after awhile, so I have to remember to look at Fi as well to make people interesting again, otherwise I already know what they are going to do, before they do it.

    Sometimes this is bad as you know that no amount of coaching or communication can fix a particular combination of types in a combination of positions. Some older ENFPs tend to grow in Te quietly under Fi and will fire people in these circumstances. Its scary as they can seem so very nice, yet pat you on your back as they walk you to your car. They scare the shit out of people. Fi, one last thought on this wall o' text...Fi in enfps isnt meant to be Fi in INFPs. If INFPs externalized every Fi value they have, people would avoid them. But ENFPs are meant to externalize to a certain extent, so our values remain much more flexible, open ended. I note that you and Satine have the most resolution in Fi values of ENFPs on the board. It is beautiful, but it may serve to lock you onto a certain path at times...I dunno...Jung said we have to get to know our shadows and understand they are part of us...

    I dont understand if this meant understand them so we can ignore them or undersatdn so we can develop them and become more whole. So I choose the second, and am trying to reach Fe and learn to really use it....But it means stepping away from up that intense need for authenticity...the trick is that if the reason for working in the Fe "mindspace" is Fi motivated-like love for another...since my Fi values are so simplistic...kinda childlike, yet very is perfectly okay to step away from Fi into Fe since I am still being true to Fi values? Yeah it is really weird but gives me a new way to love others and meet their needs-needs I couldnt meet before...but means letting go of Fi just a bit...

    I dunno. (This is like 4 pages of text...)
    Orobas, I'm about to go beddy bye, so I will thoroughly address your post on the morrow.

    But first I gotta give a lil' kick to the head to Kalach, hope you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Depth and breadth... I say suck it up extroverts, you conform. To find out how to do things, you look at other people and see what they do. To know what to think, you look outside yourself.
    YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN AN ENFP, with strong Fi, have you, HAVE YOU?@@?


    I do not conform, nor have I ever, to my parents, to my authority figures to anyone.

    My mother was/is cognitively deficient and my father was absentee.

    I have been an autodidact since I was a sentient being.


    Reading your ridiculously false assertion makes me laugh and livid all at the same jolly ol' time.

    You are one of the examples of which I alluded to before in that you are 100% Ni, very little Te, No Fi, No Se, none.

    It is so incredibly evident that you have VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE.

    Oy vey, I was raised with bafoons for a family, I had to teach myself right from wrong, I had to seek out intellectual stimulation, I never ever was a conformist, nor will I ever be.

    You know what you described, not an extrovert but rather an incredibly pathetic person who has no sense of self or self-esteem and consequently clings on the masses and what they do, what they believe, in order to fit in.

    Honestly, I want all the ENPs to come up in this thread and read what you wrote.


    Us introverts do have you beat in terms of independence.
    Um, yeah, bravo.

    And, um, duh.


    I'm gonna tell every ENP I know on this site to come read what you wrote.

    Jesus christ, you couldn't be more wrong, and ignorant, and just plain stupid.

    Like, whoah!

    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  3. #123


    Introversion does not necessitate "depth", though it may lead to depth.

    Extravertion does not necessitate "breadth", though it may lead to breadth.

    Reasoning does not equal, nor is it necessarily the product of an "introverted perspective". Rather, reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings, which may stem from any function or number of functions.

    Nowhere did I explicitly state that one perspective is inherently superior or inferior to another. Just because I am of a certain perspective does not mean that I think of myself as superior. Rather, my perspective is subject to a number of variables, some of which are in and out of my control.

    Let it be known that if someone is an introvert, it does not mean they think introversion is superior. Likewise with extraverts, nor any other personality trait. They are only confined by their perspective, even if that perspective is having multiple perspectives.

    I still don't understand how introversion necessitates precision. For Ni users, it is said that they have trouble conveying their abstract perspectives because they are so fundamentally introverted. It is also difficult for Fi users to convey their abstract feelings. Ti, on the other hand, motivates us to create models, systems, and archetypes which are derived from the unconscious. Because of this, I wonder if Ti motivates people to be more precise in their linear thinking and communication (though they still may be misunderstood).

    Fi, for me at least, isn't "precise". It's just woven into the fabric of who I am, and it forms opinions based on worth that are often difficult to vocalize. It's not neat. It's not clean. The only way it is precise is that it's precision is focused on my internal state; and this is why I think that introversion is simply introversion.

    I understand why you would say that introversion is depth and extraversion is breadth, however, this could be grossly misinterpreted. The breadth of extraversion relates to the exterior world and the depth of introversion relates to the internal world. Once again, why I think that breadth and depth are excess to the archetypes of introversion and extraversion.

    I know I am being extremely reductionist in my assessments here. My ultimate goal is to shave off misconceptions by eventually reaching the core of what defines each function. I feel that these definitions have already been stated by Jung and that they are only encumbered by the behavioral aspects of people being tacked onto them.

    I also do not think that cognitive functions can be used to define what a healthy individual is. Therefore, they cannot be interchanged, augmented, or combined to diagnose unhealthy individuals. I know that people may argue against that, saying that one can come closer to individuation; but just because someone is more well rounded in cognitive functions does not mean that they are healthy or that they can operate normally in society. Likewise, someone with functional atrophy may also be able to function, and may not have any mental disorders at all.

    I can certainly imagine a sociopath being well rounded, and being well rounded may help that person carry out their sociopathic behaviors.

    According to function theory, the functions on the same axis, whether it be the introverted or extraverted axis, work en tandem. This means that one's dominant function manifests itself alongside one's tertiary. This may lead many people into believing that they are in a "dysfunctional" loop of cognition and that they may be in danger of having a severe disorder.

    It's easy to look at diagnostics and definitions of disorders on wikipedia or in a mental health booklet, but once you see them occur in a real life setting, I think it would be easy to recognize and differ between someone who is in a "cognitive loop" and someone who is mentally fucked.

    That said, I wonder what sim's motivations for posting that cognitive comparison were, as I have seen him designate himself in being in a "dom-tert loop". Does he actually identify with his Ne Fe mental disorder?

  4. #124
    .~ *aĉa virino* ~. Array Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    549 sx/sp
    LII Ni


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, I totally agree with the first two of those sentences.
    What? It's not useful?

    But the thing about the Te description, and descriptions of any functions as sole and independent things, is that it completely leaves out how those functions interact with other functions, and the counterbalancing effects of those interactions.
    Just because an answer didn't include every permutation of every nuance doesn't the answer itself was wrong; it just means it's not yet complete.

    Post scope and purpose determines if the answer was adequate.

    I am by no means rigid in my plans; I like to make them, and then improvise and change them around like crazy.

    Why? Because my Ni brings flexibility to my Te rigidity.
    That comment is useful too.

    It's really impossible, or, more accurately, absurd to think of the functions independently and in isolation. It's a vacuum that doesn't exist.
    Of course. We merely speak that way in order to isolate things, just as anyone in any sort of discipline will isolate items in order to describe a part of them that can't be gotten at another way. I mean, essentially, you're saying that you can't describe a cat by dissecting it and describing all the isolated parts, and you are right; but we still learn something by looking at the parts of the cat. It's just that the cat is more than the sum of its parts, it is also those parts acting in conjunction with each other.

    Yeah, and we do so for the sake of accuracy... Which is more important: the Ti user's model, or the truth?
    No one has the truth.
    Each has a part of the truth, or can speak on part of the truth, and the interlocking of parts generates even more truth that isolated parts can't get at themselves.

    I hope that better explains my opinion on the matter, since it seems like I wasn't clear.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #125


    Silly, I made crazy pics of FiSi....

    Sorta how our Si gets more complex as we age...notice how each picture is very individual though...?? yeah, I dunno, its all kinda crazy!

  6. #126
    Senior Member Array KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010


    ^You make it look technical

    I figured Fi Si would manifest as... caution, more or less. I think it keeps the INFP indoors slightly more (figuratively or literally) than the ISFP too (but also, more idealistic).

  7. #127


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    Just because an answer didn't include every permutation of every nuance doesn't the answer itself was wrong; it just means it's not yet complete.

    Of course. We merely speak that way in order to isolate things, just as anyone in any sort of discipline will isolate items in order to describe a part of them that can't be gotten at another way. I mean, essentially, you're saying that you can't describe a cat by dissecting it and describing all the isolated parts, and you are right; but we still learn something by looking at the parts of the cat. It's just that the cat is more than the sum of its parts, it is also those parts acting in conjunction with each other.
    Why do you think it's not complete?

    I would say that even when you dissect and give the cat it's model, then the model fails to essentially describe the cat in all it's glory. Hence, why even documenting an archetypal cat does not do it justice. Models can be broken down into more models, and can lead into an infinite spiral of dissection.

    Sometimes it's better just to make the model simple or holistic to save yourself the effort.

  8. #128
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN AN ENFP, with strong Fi, have you, HAVE YOU?@@?
    Do you mean perhaps that if I looked outside of myself I would learn what's real?

    Yeah, go on, tell all the ENPs.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #129
    4x9 Array cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    4 so/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    I can make no certain idea regarding how anothers mind works, only tentative suggestions, that may be of some value to the receiver. To do anything else, such as insist upon a fact, is terribly presumptious as I cannot see or judge the world the way others, even other enfps, do. So the Ti thing was just a suggestion...
    Oh, to clarify, I wasn't at all bothered by the suggestion, it's more that I have decided one can, with creativity and depending on ones focal point/perspective (haha..goes with the OP, lol), justify/ argue any variety of function orders for oneself. I mean, I like to think I know perfectly well how my mind works; what becomes cumbersome is trying to build preset cognitive functions into the already-existing structure of my mind.

    I will say I identify quite a lot with Ti, even as a tertiary and as the theory goes. However, the reason I said I'd leave it up to you is because *I* have never fully been on board with, or identified with, the INFJ type. There are key aspects I think I diverge from. Neither do I fully identify with INTJ or any other type. In my early 20's I did, however, fully identify with INTJ.

    My other point being... had I all along had 'INTJ' beneath my avatar, would you have interpreted my initial post in here differently? Rather than deciding the reason for my divergence from the views of a few of the INTJ's was due to the supposed Ti-slanted wording of the OP, would you have posed an alternative suggestion?

    I have seen several INFJs share your concern regarding the dissection of the functions and how it lacks in true understanding. I think the attempt at function dissection derives from Te/Ti desires for systemic understanding..but once you add Fi and Fe back into the picture, the Te/Ti models appear very incomplete-2D when people are in reality 3D.
    I just find there are many more components to psychology than 8 functions, and to whittle every motivation/thought pattern/action/reaction into one of the 8, or a combo of a few, seems...odd to me. That's the gist of it. That, combined with what I said above -- that with creativity one can 'justify' several functions/orders/combos for any given behavior, esp. if you bring in shadow concepts, etc.

    I almost feel as though Fi and Fe are evolutions on top of Te and Ti to cope with the utter complexity seen in human behavior. They are much more complex in their analytical capabilities and much better at coping with very "fuzzy" problems-people problems and other problems as well.
    I don't know, I don't really view the functions as unique entities, like genes or something like that.. I mean we're the ones who labeled them and created the categories, to describe already existing patterns/approaches in human cognition. As such, there could be other patterns/connections that aren't being accounted for.

    (I'm afraid I'm not articulating this as well as I could)

    For INFJs, I kinda wondered if you guys dont do the total opposite-NiTi-and look at one person, but that person is an isolated system which you strive to understand in all of their individual complexity-but then fill in the gaps with Fe. But I dont know this, it was just an Ne-ism, for what it's worth...just playing with thoughts....
    I'm not even sure I know what 'filling in the gaps with Fe' would entail, honestly.

    Yes, I see individuals as unique, complex entities, but I also notice patterns in the broader context, and categorize people as such, and started doing the categorizing at a young age. So there are underlying patterns/ 'types' of people, whether you categorize them using mbti, or other psychological/typing systems, or systems you create on your own, but while there may be broad patterns, the particular individual in question might in fact not fit well into any. I view all of it as a bell curve; most fit reasonably well into whatever system you might be using, but there are always outliers who don't fit the trends.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints

  10. #130
    Senior Member Array KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I would say that even when you dissect and give the cat it's model, then the model fails to essentially describe the cat in all it's glory.
    Personally, I would say chillax a bit, and just pick your battles where you need to see something in all it's glory. Some examples are useful "just for the sake of argument".. To drive little points forward. For most listeners, these little points and illustrations about functions accumulate to a better understanding of the "cat" as time goes on. They might not be perfect, but there doesn't really need to be a perfect expression of that cat in every angle of discussion.

    Or maybe it's my fault..maybe I'm not taking the cat seriously enough

Similar Threads

  1. Lacto-Fermentation: Good for the gut, good for the butt
    By Alwar in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 12:54 PM
  2. Why I think Libertarians having a good showing this election year is a good thing
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 01:32 PM
  3. E / I: another definition
    By TickTock in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 10:15 AM
  4. INFJ, by definition ...
    By ArchAngel in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 12:44 AM
  5. Living Without Definition
    By Eldanen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2008, 11:37 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