User Tag List

First 7151617181927 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 346

  1. #161
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    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?
    WHY DO YOU DRIVE ME BONKERS?!!?!?!?

    We are human beings, and moreso, we are human beings who are frequenting a site on Typology, OF COURSE EVERY EXTROVERT WHO FREQUENTS THIS SITE HAS SOME DEPTH, (well, maybe not all, but certainly most), also, this site is dominated by Ns.

    NPs and INJs to be exact, of course there are others, but I believe we make up the majority here, hence most of the posters will be Ne+T/Fi, or Ni+ T/Fe, T/Fi + Ne, or T/Fe + Ni

    I will say this, many of the frequent posters display depth, although, "breadth" the way I think you are defining it, errrr, I fear that many of the frequenters here are, um, hmm, lacking in this department.

    Which is okay, I like freaks.

    Also, I agree with what Orobas said, Ne is not a depthless function, GIVE ME A BREAK!

    Ne inevitably leads to...

    New Neural Networks

    Nebulous nectars offer kernels of truth.

    Infinitrees abound with branches up and down connecting everything.

    Not to seek, but to see beneath the surface, to find patterns, and commonalities, to find something hidden yet so apparent.

    Ne will always want more information, will always get excited by the concept of finding something NeW!
    `
    '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. #162
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Whoooeee!!!! Posts with content!

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    [Responding to a quote of Lenore's description of Ni.

    In contrast, I find these sorts of definitions of Ni retarded. No offense. I mean, I don't know if the creator of said definition is trying to isolate Ni and only Ni (presumably so? And failing to really get at what it IS.. or perhaps it as an Ni definition is more applicable/pertinent as a tertiary function or beyond?), but it's not like I utilize Ni is some sort of vacuum where I'm just going off of hunches 24/7. That's dumb.
    Indeed, it is essentially impossible to describe "Ni" ideas without context.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    ... all your perspective are belong to us.

    But, to be honest, all your perspectives are and will always be found to be lacking because in merely collecting perspectives there isn't the synthesis step. And Ni is introverted, so there will be a synthesis step, the part where I introvert to discover my perspective.
    Let me illustrate this with a rather famous analogy. There are several blind men, standing around an elephant, and each is asked to describe what it is.

    One says it's like a rope.
    Another says it's like a snake.
    Another says it's like a sail.
    Another says it's like a tree.
    Another says it's like a wall.

    For one adept with Ni, this is what many other people seem like: each has a particular perspective, and made totally valid observations. But then we notice that each person is describing the same thing, not different things, but it seems totally impossible that these five observations could all describe the same thing.

    Ni takes these contradictions and concludes, "It's an elephant!" Then comes the hard part: explaining to everyone that it's an elephant. Some people understandably tend to cling to their personal observations, and reject the elephant possibility. They will not only dismiss the Ni observation, but argue with each other how "everyone else is wrong," because a tree is nothing like a sail, therefore others are spouting nonsense.

    There is a tendency on this board to distinguish Ne from Ni a bit too much. I believe that they are very closely related, N-types generally understand each other much better than they understand S-types. So let me say this: when I point out that "it's really an elephant" to other N-types, Ne or Ni, both types will usually pick up on my reasoning quickly, and say "Oh, yeah, that makes total sense!" With the S-types, it's generally slower, because any abstractions are generally distrusted - not because the abstractions aren't understood by the S-types in the first place.

    To me, the Sherlock Holmes description of making a deduction, that after eliminating everything possible, that what remains, however improbable, is the truth: this describes Ni to me.

    [DISCLAIMER: Yes, it's possible that our hypothetical Ni user doesn't conclude "elephant" and instead says "it's a fire hydrant" because they're aware of some other piece of data that a dog peed on it, and they don't let go of that point of view. However, most misunderstandings are because the valid Ni conclusion contradicts "common sense," not because the Ni user is a quack.]

    Ne does something very similar, but it's differently directed. Ni can take several contradictory perspectives and glean a single real "truth", while Ne is inspired to consider new perspectives based on observations. Elsewhere on this forum, I described how waves in water can be intuitively Ne-related to sound waves and light waves or slinky waves, that the observation of one leads to understanding of the others. Feynman discovered new dynamics of quantum mechanics by watching a plate wobble on the floor after it had dropped, doing the math for its precession, and realizing that the math had application with his other work.

    So both Ni and Ne approaches understand each other fairly readily, we dominant intuitives just happen to prefer one or the other to the degree that we do it without thought.


    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.

    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.
    There is something to this, but the summary description is a bit poor.

    I believe it is accurate to say that most people are capable of the kind of thinking that Ni-doms do habitually, but they don't "prefer" it, and therefore often don't understand or even distrust it. However, this doesn't really describe what that "kind of thinking" is.

    This is why I try to use analogies and stories to describe how Ni "works," in order to lead others through something resembling the thought process. Most descriptions of Ni pretend that it's "mysterious." It really isn't: it's just well-practiced pattern-matching/spotting. The Ne users pattern match/spot among the things they observe in the external world. The Ni users pattern match/spot within themselves. In most instances, the pattern matching/spotting is utterly trivial and not even worth discussing. In exceptional instances, the Ne extrapolation leads to new truths by understanding how a pattern repeats itself everywhere in unforeseen ways, while the Ni "interpolation" takes all sorts of observations from different perspectives (which don't necessarily make sense together) and synthesizes them into a new truth that explains all of the different perspectives with a singular simple explanation.

  3. #163
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Hmmmm... I feel like I've been beaten over the head with a large 'redundency' stick. Oh, and as for the description of Ni by Sim (the actual question really asked in the first place)... it doesn't seem wrong. I can't really remember it after I stopped 13 pages in, but as I search back through my mind it seemed alright.

  4. #164
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Yeah, when I read it, I was like..uh.....
    OK, just curious; why?
    You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

    (Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?)

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    What gets confusing is that bringing it up from the inside could also be termed "externalizing" it as it begins from within which means it goes to the outside or it "extraverts"(abstract action).

    While bringing it in could be internalizing it even though the initial perception starts from outside.

    This is why perception is important even in understanding perception.
    No, the attitude is really more about where the standard is derived from. We often fall into thinking of "extroverting/introverting" as where the attitude denotes where the function is "used" or "applied". Inasmuch as it might be a bit of both, Jennifer just gave an excellent way of putting it in terms of the data "pinging" back and forth. For introverted functions, it will start from within, and return there.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1277751
    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

  5. #165
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, just curious; why?
    You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

    (Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?)
    I believe I already answered your question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, you see this often with tert-Ni users...

    I would think that tert Ni would be so confusing to the user as it's developing, that they would just hope for a simple explanation to offer them some kind of understanding as to is going on...

    For Ni-doms, who are very facile with their Ni-use, these kinds of descriptions just sound rather shallow, clunky, and vapid.

    Like a layman trying to explain how some aspect of an automobile works: his description might be more understandable to other laymen, but the auto-mechanics would probably find it very rudimentary, at best.
    See this whole thread for better descriptions of what Ni is.

  6. #166
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    There is something to this, but the summary description is a bit poor.

    I believe it is accurate to say that most people are capable of the kind of thinking that Ni-doms do habitually, but they don't "prefer" it, and therefore often don't understand or even distrust it. However, this doesn't really describe what that "kind of thinking" is.

    This is why I try to use analogies and stories to describe how Ni "works," in order to lead others through something resembling the thought process. Most descriptions of Ni pretend that it's "mysterious." It really isn't: it's just well-practiced pattern-matching/spotting. The Ne users pattern match/spot among the things they observe in the external world. The Ni users pattern match/spot within themselves. In most instances, the pattern matching/spotting is utterly trivial and not even worth discussing. In exceptional instances, the Ne extrapolation leads to new truths by understanding how a pattern repeats itself everywhere in unforeseen ways, while the Ni "interpolation" takes all sorts of observations from different perspectives (which don't necessarily make sense together) and synthesizes them into a new truth that explains all of the different perspectives with a singular simple explanation.
    That seems to pretty much match what I'm trying to say, in terms of "archetypes". Analogies and stories are examples of that, and they form these patterns referenced from within ones self.
    (Though sometimes in analogies used to understand Ni, the meanings get lost, and you don't realize you're talking about a simple model of something used as a pattern).

    There is a tendency on this board to distinguish Ne from Ni a bit too much. I believe that they are very closely related, N-types generally understand each other much better than they understand S-types.
    What I've been saying regarding function attitude! They are really two sides of the same coin, and use the same process, just oriented differently based on the location of the preferred standard. That's what I was trying to convey in that summary description I tacked on (If, you were referring to te second paragraph in the quote).
    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

  7. #167
    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 Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    And yet the dominant function will tend to have the strongest influence--hence my assessment that it's responsible for certain types of reasoning in many cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    Nope, you just repeatedly insisted that I believe that, despite the fact that I never made any such claim either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    In a way it kind of does, honestly. It's not a conscious decision to place depth over breadth; it's just part of their fundamental worldview to value things that way. Being introverted doesn't mean you think you're better than extroverts, but it does mean your dominant perspective will unconsciously lead you to prefer depth to breadth more often than not (whenever you are dealing with something handled by your dominant function.)

    Introverts still prefer breadth when dealing with something handled by their auxiliary function, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    It's very precise compared to Fe! Think of the relationship between the two:

    Fi wants to know precisely what is moral, good, feels right to you. It will accept no compromise in figuring this out and it will block out external influence as much as possible in trying to determine exactly what feels right, on a very personal basis.

    Fe eschews that in favor of widely applicable moral rules that can be used to govern everyone in a wide variety of different contexts. By generalizing morality, Fe removes the deeply personal aspect that Fi so highly values; it constructs morality based on generalized collective standards that we can apply to everyone wholesale, rather than focusing on the individual and what moral standards feel right to him personally.

    Moving from a person-specific to a generalized concept of morality inherently necessitates that we lose a degree of precision: We are taking what Fi views as a highly individualized process unique to the person in question and morphing it so that it fits a much broader and more generalized context that can be applied to everyone.

    This is why Fi doesn't like the idea of collective morality: It neuters the Fi user's individualism. The exact specifics of what he feels are right have to be cut off in order to make the concept of morality fit everyone simultaneously--from Fi's perspective, "We are all different individuals; how can a one-size-fits-all concept of ethics ever make any sense?"

    Fe sacrifices the depth of individualistic ethics in favor of a more broadly applicable ethical standard that we can apply to everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    In other words, you don't like generalizing these ideas in order to apply them to as many different people as possible because you find that blunt and imprecise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    It's not one cognitive function that creates a healthy individual; it's balance between different ones. Too much of one perspective and too little of another creates imbalance; it's really that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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 not hard to see why too much introversion or too much extroversion leads to significant complications. We all need validation both from our internal selves and from the world around us. Too much of one and too little of the other and we become too dependent on personal subjectivity or too dependent on outer world conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.
    Mental disorders exist on a spectrum. I've been diagnosed with "ADHD", but really I think ADHD (as with most mental disorders) is just what we've chosen to term a high dependence on one particular type of mindset (in my case, Ne.)

    Many of those disorders are simply extreme preferences for one or two particular types of cognition. We've termed them disorders simply because they're different from what most people are like, and so people who have them have a much harder time fitting into society.

    So a dom/tert loop might be only slightly problematic and never cause enough of an issue to be diagnosed, or in a more extreme case might manifest itself as full blown psychosis.

    For instance, relying on Fi+Ni doesn't guarantee that one will have severe enough symptoms to be diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder, but in extreme cases the symptoms become pronounced enough that this is often the diagnosis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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?
    Sure, to some degree. I do exhibit symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, especially when I am in Ne+Fe mode. The solution is to develop Ti.

    Again it's not black and white; it's a spectrum. Everyone exhibits some minor form of some personality disorder or another; the question is simply whether it's extreme enough to block out normal life functioning.

    I don't think my NPD symptoms are severe enough to constitute a real NPD diagnosis from a psychological professional, but nonetheless they are there. This leads to my conclusion that most personality disorders are simply extreme preference for one or two types of cognition, to the exclusion of those that would balance them out.





    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Sim, what on earth are you talking about? I was referring to your method of argument, that of dismissing someone's statement with reference to what you presume their types to be, etc. Yer doing it again:

    ^ Like that. I just can't decide whether it's more boring, or funny. It's boring becuase you keep doing it in a very predictable way, no matter what the subject, but it's also funny for precisely the same reason, and because you responding to people in this way is so predictable. I could almost set my watch by it! Anyway, it's a meaningless generalisation.
    Well no, unfortunately for you guys it has a much more profound effect on your outlooks than you've even begun to realize. It's predictable because your responses are predictable according to your function outlooks. (Predictable =/= wrong.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Now, do we associate over-excitability and a tendency to caricature with ENTPs?
    YES, absolutely! The fact that it doesn't apply to every ENTP isn't the point. I'm speaking from an Ne perspective here: If it works more often than not and gives us a good generalized picture of a generalized trend, it's true. Your implied criticism that it's invalid because it's not perfectly correct in every case is yet another example of your preference for introverted reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Do you ever stop making deflective and irrelevant personal assertions based on your typological presumptions? This so far as I can see is what a number of people, including Tater, are objecting to in the first place. Tater's decisions on how he wants to use typology, which are not even the subject under discussion for anyone but yourself, have nothing whatsoever to do with the cohesiveness and applicability of your ideas. You're just trying to make it personal, and about someone else, in order to avoid the issue you're being challenged on.
    Tater can feel free to use typology however he wants to. The cohesiveness of my ideas is dependent upon the interpretation of the person reading them.

    Both of you keep insisting that there's some universally objective standard for evaluating ideas and that we all should just use that because it's so obvious, and somehow it escapes you that evaluation of ideas is purely dependent upon perspective and that no such universal standard exists. What really blows me away is that the standard both of you keep insisting is universally/objectively correct is just rooted in an introverted perspective and fails to consider that the opposing extroverted approach might have any validity.

    Once again I'm not saying that either of you is wrong, necessarily, just that I want you to stop presuming that lacking precision invalidates my reasoning method. It's this assumption that's making both of you repeatedly miss the crux of how extroverted perspectives operate.


    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    I only have to repeat myself with minor variations. But perhaps my question was rhetorical in the first place, eh?
    The function attitudes are never, ever irrelevant. Their constant pervasive influence affects everything about the way all of us see everything--all I'm asking you to do is set aside for a moment your assumption that precision is preferable to broader applicability.

    Every response each of you makes boils down to, "BUT THAT'S CLEARLY WRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERFECTLY TRUE IN ALL CASES!!!!", which just proves my point, yet again.

    But neither of you seems to be getting it so this may be my last response to either of you in this thread.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #168
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    What I've been saying regarding function attitude! They are really two sides of the same coin, and use the same process, just oriented differently based on the location of the preferred standard. That's what I was trying to convey in that summary description I tacked on (If, you were referring to te second paragraph in the quote).
    And here's the description of those two different sides:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This topic has been ridiculously well covered in other threads, but a great image to think of the difference between Ne and Ni (and probably even Se and Si) is that of a sphere.

    Ni is like the inner surface area of that sphere, focusing in on the central focal point.

    Ne is like that central focal point, looking out all over the place at the inner surface area of the sphere.
    I personally believe Ne and Ni are highly related -- in one dimension -- but I believe the same could be said of Si and Ni -- in a different dimension.

    Neither dimension: attitude or function should be ignored, imo.

    I know uumlau tends to disagree...

  9. #169
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, just curious; why?
    You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

    (Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?)
    Hmm...should be pretty clear based on my earlier posts that I despise people tying Ni to superpowers/voodoo/mysticism, and I've never jumped on the 'Yay, I'm psychic' bandwagon, as I don't see myself operating in that light.

    Basically - the majority of your post went over my head, and I was confused trying to wrap my head around what in the world you were talking about. Now I may not be the brightest person in the world, but I couldn't immediately identify what you were saying, nor tie it into how I see myself. It may be that you as an outside observer see me or other dom-Ni's / dom-Ne's operating under this archetype concept, and perhaps this is in the end just a semantics issue and you're just using a different name for the exact same thing being described in the OP..I don't know..but, I guess I was just scratching my head after reading your post/description.

    I mean, I kind of said it in my first post in this thread - that the description in the OP really resonated with me. Then you come in - you, not being a dom-Ni - and basically say that the OP and what I, at least, resonate strongly with, is in fact not a great way to describe Ni.

    I mean, again it's fine if other people can grasp these other definitions/descriptions and have a better understanding of Ni as a result, I just find it ironic/fascinating/interesting that me, as a dom-Ni user, find most Ni definitions severely lacking, and find my own descriptions of what I relate to, and how I *actually operate*, dismissed. Not in so many words, and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I suppose the same principle could be applied to all of the other functions, however. Also similar to what Orobas was suggesting earlier -- we all filter our perceptions/ideas of each of the functions through our own lens, and to get away from that and be truly objective is difficult at best. Not impossible, no doubt.
    "...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

  10. #170
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Also similar to what Orobas was suggesting earlier -- we all filter our perceptions/ideas of each of the functions through our own lens, and to get away from that and be truly objective is difficult at best.
    Yeah, Eric, I feel like you were kinda just Ti-ing Ni.

    I mean, just read this hilarious sentence:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    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.


    Instead of big terms like "meta-perspectives" or "different angles", you want to use archetypal templates?!?!

    Basically, what you've done, is say that the words I, an Ni-dom, think are extremely useful and accurate to describe how we function, are indeed not so, or, at least, are less so than "archetypal templates", which is something I would never intuitively use to describe Ni.

    You've brought in this term "archetypal template" because it's something you've probably defined and feel comfortable with, and thus it's palatable to your Ti-dom mind.

    I, however, do not find it palatable. And I feel the other words, and other descriptions, are much more apt.

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