User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 346

  1. #141
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    A man can devote his entire life to studying a rare species of moss, he eats, he drinks, perhaps he even has a wife and friends, but his obsession is to fully grasp, from every angle, and level the history, impact, and features specific to this rare species of moss, from macro-ecology to coevolotion, to its physiology, chemistry and even to the bryophyte's physics.

    This man's not only a hardcore botanist, but he specializes in mosses and he is an expert, in fact the only expert on this one rare species of moss.

    He writes scientific articles, conducts various studies all for the better and fuller understanding of this rare species of moss.

    Now, the question is...

    Is this hypothetical man deep?

    Um, define deep please?

    Does he deeply know and understand the moss in which he devoted his life to study, most likely, hell yes.

    But is he deep?

    I, for one, think that one can find a universal thread woven into each delineated "thing" within the the universe, in other words, study mice, study pens, study studying, study projectal geometry, study fine art, doesn't matter, one can find meaning, and through whatever subject one studies one can see the pattern of life and nature woven into it.

    I digress.

    My point is this.

    Generalist, specialist, heterarchy, hierarchy, there is no better or worse, a specialist is NOT deeper than a generalist, nope, they just focus their energy more or less on one thing whereas a generalist will have multiple focuses, and who's to say that the generalist's focuses don't actually have a meta-focus under which all his/her focuses lie.

    The setting of your lens is unimportant, if you prefer things at a more microscopic scale, then so be it, but don't hate on those who prefer to view things in a more macroscopic way. The only thing to judge is how accurate you perceive the things you see with your lens.

    And by accuracy I mean how objectively true your observations can be.

    /end rant

    `
    '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

  2. #142
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    onemoretime are you seeing Te and assuming it is absolute? It appears to be an utter assertion where in reality it is a statement that requests correction? (Granted somewhat grumpily at times) I also see INTJ to need reprocessing time when you correct their idea.
    It's not really function-based behavior at all, I don't think. I mean, you see plenty of so-called "Ti-users" doing the exact same thing on this site all the time (guilty myself of it at points). However, take the following:

    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. Us introverts do have you beat in terms of independence. But don't fret, you have us beat in terms of relevance. As per freaking usual however, it won't hurt to see which of the same terms we are all using differently.
    The problem here is the ranking behavior. He's implying "I'm good at something, so I'm right." Let's take his assertion "Introverts are better at independence than extroverts". Notice (and now here's the Ti talking), that he never bothered to define what "independence" was. If he meant cognitive independence (which I'm guessing he did), how far is that going to go if you don't have any material support? Unless you're living entirely self-sufficiently on a farm hundreds of miles from civilization, you're going to require assistance from other people, which means you're going to need to use "extroverted" skills. So, outside of a very rare scenario, introverts are just as dependent as extroverts are. There's no need for ranking.

    However, the attitude comes across as "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right." You know that pisses xNTPs off to no end (which is why Jag takes such delight at drowning SW with that attitude, even though he tones it back with most other members on the site), and always ends up in conflict, because everyone's then in a bad mood.

  3. #143
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

    I think the best way to identify Ni, instead of with big terms such as "meta-perspectives" or "different angles" is simply by referencing of archetypal templates.
    An archetype is a model of a person, thing or event that can be used to guage a likely outcome of a situation. (The particular sort we use in cognitive dynamics, is just one kind of archetype).

    Here's a new way I just thought of to describe it. Basically, types and temperaments themselves are archetypes. We make profiles of them, which are descriptions of a hypothetical model person of the type or temperament.
    So when we discover a person is a particular type, we can reference those get an idea of how he might react in a situation. We can look at temperament needs and functional preferences. While it's not a definite "prediction", it does point to a likely pattern.

    This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

    And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
    So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
    I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

    This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
    Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #144
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

    I think the best way to identify Ni, instead of with big terms such as "meta-perspectives" or "different angles" is simply by referencing of archetypal templates.
    An archetype is a model of a person, thing or event that can be used to guage a likely outcome of a situation. (The particular sort we use in cognitive dynamics, is just one kind of archetype).

    Here's a new way I just thought of to describe it. Basically, types and temperaments themselves are archetypes. We make profiles of them, which are descriptions of a hypothetical model person of the type or temperament.
    So when we discover a person is a particular type, we can reference those get an idea of how he might react in a situation. We can look at temperament needs and functional preferences. While it's not a definite "prediction", it does point to a likely pattern.

    This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

    And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
    So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
    I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

    This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
    Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
    That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

  5. #145
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
    Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
    And, like, "DAMN!". That's how it's done. Clean, simple, to the point, comparative, and without bias in language use.


  6. #146
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    ^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).
    hehehe, I dunno....that sort of diagram is how I picture everything in my mind honestly...it all gets abstracted. I sense extreme precision from INFPs. Si gives me a strong sense of conservative behavior...thus in tertiary in an INFP, I think FiSi is a very conservative but precise combination...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    Fi and Fe seem to be able to see many layers on top of simple patterns...

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    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?
    Hmmm....well maybe because I do use Te...I find it pretty easy to dissect and analyze my own mind..it is really easy to see the functions play out in myself and in others in a fairly straightforward way....that is all the evidence I need for my own purposes. If you had put INTJ under your avi I would have thought it odd as you dont follow the linguistic patterns of an INTJ, so I would have been left sort of inconclusive...You are an Ni dom, note the "density" of the language you use, but you dont have the Te blunt edge or cohesion of Te user. You sound like ragashree a touch, but closer to fidelia, except more pointed. It is very easy to see ragashree using Ti.

    Jung did kinda leave most of the strict typology behind and talked in terms of more holistic things like ego, complex, shadow and so on. Now we are working sort in between the simple functions and the more complex term personality...and end up a little lost at times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Think about advances in medicine, for example. To really help heal the human body, you need to see how all the parts function together, but you also need to understand how things work on a very minute and specific level.

    Put another way, to write a book, you need to use words and know how words fit together on a very minute detailed level. Books are built out of specific words, spliced into good sentences, spliced into good paragraphs. Yet if you focus on the specifics too much and lose sight of the forest, all the dissected details don't lead to anything. To be truly transcedent, the author has to have a holistic sense as well.
    How do you handle the gaps as you go from detailed to holistic? Are guesses sufficient if they still allow you to complete the task?

  7. #147
    Senior Member Noon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

    And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
    So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
    I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

    This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
    Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
    Great! This is very helpful.

  8. #148
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

    Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...

  9. #149
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Breadth and depth...

    An objective perspective takes the world as a given. In a sense the perspective hammers up against the world as it is, and splatters out sideways, collecting accuracies--mapping--as it goes.... breadth. A subjective perspective accumulates content over and again in the same spot, altering and varying without restriction to the object itself, making maps from subject to idiosyncratic subject... depth.

    Neither of these can be said to reflect any personality if neither of them has some way of stepping back from their perspective. Breadth without something idiosyncratic is mere mirror. And depth without some accuracy is empty. So... the compensatory attitudes needed, are they automatically acquired by involving some other function? An e function contains no depth because there's some i function standing by, and likewise an i has no wider outreach than what can be provided by some e hanging around? The e will mirror and the i will tunnel into a hole? You HAVE to have more than one function to be a person? Or is there some accidental depth to every e and some incidental breadth to every i? A little bit of Fi in every Fe, a smidge of Ne in every Ni, a dollop of Xe leavening every Xi and some stain of Xi in the Xe? Or what?
    Makes total sense for Ni, Si and Te, Fe. It breaks for the other functions.

    The mirror/hole descriptions need to be swapped for an Ne dom. These are only suited to an Ni dom. Ne is a Funnel, an amplifying, modulating funnel....but a funnel that brings info outwards to inwards, much of that a connected meshwork. Ti or Fi is the mirror....the oversoul I have heard it called.

    We "judge" by looking inward at the mirror....to see the outer world reflected...then compare to our inner Si world.

    so Ni "depth" isnt really the same thing as Fi "depth"....Ni depth implies looking ever inward and around a particular focal point. Fi "depth"-at least FiSi-seems to be more wrinkles and resolution in our FiSi, thus we have more ways (WTF is a way? ) to process/judge. Ne breadth implies connecting everything to everything to allow internal mirroring by Ji...we dont smash against it like Te....we reshape it or see through it....Te breadth means collecting accuracies by trying to force something to change and it not changing?

    The words are not meaning the same thing....(Hey was that Ti? Bwahahahahahaha!)

  10. #150
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

    Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...
    Yeah, when I read it, I was like..uh.....

    But, if others gain something from it and are able to grasp Ni better, I guess that's good? haha.
    "...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
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] intjs how good is your vizualitation skills
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 12:55 PM
  2. How important is a good teacher?
    By yama in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2015, 07:08 PM
  3. I just remembered how good Animal Collective is
    By gmanyo in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 09:27 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 04:34 PM
  5. [NT] How good is your sensing?
    By BrokenSword in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 12:08 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