User Tag List

First 162425262728 Last

Results 251 to 260 of 346

  1. #251
    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
    If INTJs were secretive and held things back, do you think they would tell you?
    No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)

    They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.

    Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.

    This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!

    As far as I can tell, giving away way too much information when it's not strategically useful seems to be one of the biggest INTJ criticisms of ENTPs...am I right, Z?


    Quote Originally Posted by Oakysage View Post
    Sim's definition is mostly fine. I don't find much wrong in it. There, however, may be a number of missed points that may be added to it.
    I'd enjoy hearing more elaboration on this from Ni doms. Please feel free to share your thoughts.


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    I'm chillin' so don't you worry bout me.


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Hmm, my mother is all Fe with a marginal amount of Si.

    Her mind is never still, she is constantly worried or thinking about something she needs to do, someone she needs to take care of, something she needs to take care of.

    :sad:

    My mother's genetic makeup and the way she was raised, well, she has no self, no identity, she can't be alone. She's never been alone, she can't even be "alone" with someone in the house, she needs to have company all the time, it's so sad. :sad:

    But, if depth entails or encompasses having a focus, my uber-extroverted mom certainly has one, and it's called her family, I cannot tell you how many times she has told me that her daughters are her life, that that is all she cares about, us, and our well-being, and she ain't lyin', nope.
    Both breadth and depth have foci; one is just more localized/specific (I), while the other is more generalized/global (E.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    On the contrary, I don't think you know, a.) my deeply ingrained predilection for introverts, both male and female, I'm patient as fuck when it comes to someone I care about, even in the moment, (no, the irony does not escape me), and I have always had a knack to open even the most introverted people up, hell, some took me years, but they opened up, others, well, yes, they were introverted, but no, they at least for me, had absolutely nothing to bring to the table, and listen, I did not and would not come at them with this notion, I would be like, hmm, that person seems cool, wait it out, get in a convo, and, wow, major disappointment.
    There is no such thing as someone with absolutely nothing to bring to the table. You may have been majorly disappointed by the conversation with that person but the fact that you didn't enjoy their contributions doesn't mean they didn't have any.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    The quiet, mysterious, shy, introverted guy is sometimes only that.

    Sim are you trying to imply that all introverts have depth?
    No, you are still misreading context here. The idea is that introverts prefer to focus on depth over breadth, not that they are all inherently deep people. Some of them prefer to focus on depth but still don't do a very good job of attaining it.

    As Jaguar always says, preference =/= skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Listen, I've got a pretty good intuition regarding introverts, as in, I seek the attention of those who usually end up being smart and lovely, but I have erred in the past, or not even erred, there have been many times in uni when an introvert felt comfortable enough to open up to me of their own volition and I was, well, unimpressed.

    You need to also realize that I am truly an Idealist, and that I want to see the good in people, but some people are not worth, what I've come to relatively recently realize, waste your precious time.
    That's true, but the criteria you use to evaluate those people are still ultimately relative. A person who seems a waste of time to you might not seem that way to someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    You need to have at least one of the following qualities in order for me to willingly choose to expend energy on you.

    1.) Be genuinely kind and sweet

    2.) Be funny

    3.) Be highly intelligent

    If you don't meet any of the above criteria, sorry, but I got better things to do, like hang out on the interwebs with the likes of you people.
    Okay? I don't understand the relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Regardless, Sim, I know you don't know me personally, but I have always preferred the company of introverts, and I can't ever recall one not opening up to me, irl, and I am telling the fucking truth.

    We see a young guy or girl wearing glasses and we automatically assume that he or she is a nerd/bookworm/smart. :rolli:

    I think the same thing happens with introverts, oh, he's quiet, he must be pensive and deep, not always the case m'dear.
    I don't think you're lying; I think you're just being presumptuous about certain introverts having no worthwhile contributions to anything, simply because you personally didn't find their contributions interesting.

    I don't think all introverts are deep people; I do, however, think all introverts prefer to focus on depth over breadth. Whether or not they're actually good at it is another thing entirely.


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Only in THEORY do I understand and accept what you are saying, but for the most part, IRL, especially with Ns, our dom and aux functions are so integrally entwined that I just don't see how an extroverted NP, (ENJs don't hate me. ) could possibly be lacking in depth.
    This happens to Ne doms (and any extrovert) when their introverted functions suck. Likewise, any introvert with poor command of his extroverted functions will be lacking in breadth.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    But, I am not a dumbtard, you are saying Ne left to its own devices would consume a vast breadth of knowledge/information. That is very true.
    Yes, and without the aid of an accompanying introverted perspective, it would be all breadth and no depth. Since you (apparently) have very strong Fi, you probably have a good balance between breadth and depth (though as an extrovert you are inherently more attuned to breadth, even if only slightly.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Hahahaha, I wrote my previous point without reading this, and what I was going to add was this, all of my bookmarks, well, some are just odd, (I likey theoretical mathematics), have a flavor, a focus, an umbrella you can put them under, I just started bookmarking on this computer but I would say that 20 % are wiki articles about cool theoretical mathematics/abstract geometry and that the rest are about human beings,

    I can't post an image of all of them so I will hyperlink a few on the list.

    Complex number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)

    SENG: Articles & Resources - Counseling Gifted Adults - A Case Study

    Psychological mindedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ^ When I came across this article I was astounded that such a thing was labeled/categorized, let's just say my therapists in the past have often told me how great a therapist I would be. :P
    Man I think I get why Z is always complaining about Ne doms wandering off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Oy vey, what is it with Ti and analysis, i.e. dissection, I'm all about synthesis, I tend to see things in large nebulous chunks, and regarding typology, and granted this is my Fi talking, why wouldn't we be discussing things regarding complete people, I think we analyze aspects of behavior and pieces of ourselves with the intent to understand the whole, amiwrong?

    Sweetheart, do you realize you are projecting your own experiences with introverts onto me.

    Do you?
    No, but the assumption on your part that any given introvert has no depth and nothing to contribute is implausible if that introvert hasn't really opened up and shared him or herself with you. You don't know what's going on in there unless the person has made an effort to show you.

    Are there introverts with very little depth? Sure, but they still have a preference for focusing on depth, even if they suck at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    IRL I have had nothing but success with introverts, my best friend in high school, an INTJ, A HARDCORE INTROVERT, though she would spend her free time with me, and listen to me, and chime in once in a while, it wasn't until senior year and we were on MDMA that she expressed how she felt about me.
    Hahah I've had MDMA interventions with I_T_ friends and hearing them finally express emotions for the first time in their lives is really a lot of fun. (I have a close INTP friend who did exactly the same thing!)

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Honestly, thinking back on that moment is gonna make me cry, she, to this day was the hardest introvert to "crack", I was constantly insecure that she thought I was some idiot, but she liked me, no, loved me and admired me, who knew, I didn't. :blushing:
    I agree it's awesome when they finally open up. I take it as a big sign of respect and trust if an introvert is willing to be very open with you.


    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    I agree with you on the Te, mayhaps, but with your description of Fe, this horse emphatically says NAY?!!?!?

    The bolded part is where I REALLY disagree with you.

    Fe dom users do whatever they can at the moment, i.e. modify their behavior, make some sacrifice for the sake of harmony, to make you happy for the moment, period. When an Fe user is in the company of people, s/he will do whatever it takes to bring harmony to the people. The end.
    That's kind of half right; however, they don't really care about helping you or making you happy if they don't feel some sort of familial or cultural connection to you. Fe will do anything for you--as long as you're part of "the group." If you're not, sorry--Fe has no responsibility toward you.

    Some Fe users (especially NFJs) consider the entirety of humanity to be part of "the group" and thus will pretty much do anything to help anybody, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

    Anyway though, I'm talking about the way Fe users derive morality, not their habits regarding helping others. They look for a moral standard that can apply to everybody equally and uniformly in any context--Fi takes issue with this, as it feels that generalizing moral standards circumvents individuality and freedom of expression, freedom to do what feels right to you, no matter what "the group" thinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post

    Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.

    Your first statement is true, your second statement is partially true.

    Many dom/aux Fe users ime have been religious, so you are right in that they will adopt a code that their community seems to adopt to too, but how is this showing breadth?

    Also, um, pffft, once you get an Fe user alone, or in a small group, all religious bets are off, they will do what feels good/right right now instead of having to deal with temporary negative emotions, they want harmony first and foremost, period. (Once again how does this display breadth?)
    This displays breadth because doing whatever promotes group harmony depends on everybody agreeing upon and behaving according to one collective moral standard. Fe reasons, "If your moral idea only applies to you and can't work for everybody collectively, then you need to set it aside in favor of something we can all agree to be bound by."

    Fi doesn't like that because it squelches the personal freedom that goes into deciding what feels right to each person individually. Since Fe considers morality in terms of an externalized standard, though, giving up this individualized depth is fine because it allows to agree upon a universal standard by which everyone can be judged consistently.

    Think of it in Te terms, since you are a Te user--when it comes to impersonal ideas, you want to establish a collective consensus based on externalized evidence; that way we can all get on the same page about what standards of measurement to use when we discuss impersonal ideas. Te doesn't really care if this removes the degree of theoretical precision that Ti prefers, because Te thinks impersonal ideas should be dealt with collectively and according to an objective standard, while personal feelings/morality should be dealt with privately by the individual (Fi.)

    FeTi inverts that. It's doing exactly the same thing, just the other way around--in FeTi's view, morality/ethics is something we should all collectively agree on, while impersonal ideas and logic should be dealt with privately according to a subjective and individualized perspective. Fe shows breadth by giving up the depth and complexity allowed by Fi's personalized treatment of ethics in favor of coming up with a collective, one-size-fits-all moral standard by which everyone in the group can be consistently judged.

    Unfortunately we have to make that moral standard fit everyone in the group for Fe to accomplish this, so the degree of personalized depth that Fi prefers is no longer possible. In Fe terms, morals need to fit everyone, not just you personally.

    It's just like how Te wants impersonal ideas and theories to be externally demonstrable in a way that can make sense to everyone, not just you--and this is why Te users constantly insist that Ti users provide more externally verifiable backing for their ideas. But asking us to do that is like us asking you to provide external evidence that your moral opinions are objectively correct, which completely defeats the purpose!

    You say: "I feel that this is right for me." An Fe user says: "Oh yeah? Well you need to prove objectively that your moral viewpoint is shared by a majority of people!" But that's not the point for Fi! Fi and Ti are both inherently personalized, so they don't understand why Fe and Te constantly want them to use external means to prove their validity. For Ji, externalized proof is completely beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Errrrrr you had me till the last sentence.

    Though you did use the qualifier "tend" I dunno, if by expertise on one subject qualifies as depth, then maybe, maybe I get what you are saying but no.

    I am an extrovert, both by MBTI standards and real life standards, but my extroversion is like I dunno, just a facet of my personality, my extroversion IN NO WAY IS A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO I AM.

    Like, I'd put it on the same level as...

    This took me a while, I'm extroverted, I also am pretty easy going.

    There.

    My being extroverted and easy-going do reveal something about me but in no way do these two traits even scratch the surface of describing who I am.

    I have probably, off the top of my head, four to seven main interests in life and my acquiring knowledge in these interests helps me gain a deeper understanding of what I care about, the human condition, Life.

    Cool, it sounds like you have a pretty solid balance between Ne and Fi. The point, of course, is that you are inherently more attuned to Ne's breadth, even if you also have a relatively strong command of Fi's depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    MAJOR EDIT:



    ^LULZ, I totally didn't see this part of your post, and, I agree wholeheartedly.

    Yeah, again note that preference doesn't equal skill. Preferring introversion means that one prefers a narrower but deeper focus, while preferring extroversion means that one prefers a broader but shallower focus, most of the time.

    As an ENFP, when you look at something from an Ne perspective, you are favoring breadth over depth.

    When you switch it up and look at it more from an Fi perspective, you are then favoring depth over breadth.

    If you are a balanced individual (and it sounds like you are), then you'll be able to use aspects of both at the right times--sometimes breadth is more useful; sometimes depth is.

    The fact that you an extrovert means the Ne breadth focus comes more naturally to you than the Fi depth focus, but it certainly doesn't mean you're incapable of focusing on depth!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #252
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well considering that a PD is generally a negative thing and natural maturity is a positive thing, I would think they'd be pretty easy to distinguish.

    I suspect that what you intended to ask was how I distinguish a PD from natural immaturity, in which case the answer is not very clear cut.

    An "official" diagnosis of a PD just means that a psychological professional felt the symptoms were bad enough that they were significantly interfering with normal functioning. Some people manage to live and cope with PDs; others have symptoms mild enough to avoid diagnosis, but imho most personality disorders are just extreme preferences for certain types of perspectives to the near exclusion of others that might balance them out.

    Aux functions are best developed by putting yourself into situations that require you to use them to succeed. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee that you'll develop them; since we are talking about grasping a new perspective and not just learning a new skill, there is nothing we can do to guarantee development of any function; however, trying to open our minds to the positive aspects of our less developed functions by practicing skills associated with them and by listening to people who are strong in those perspectives is a good start.
    I dont disagree. With respect to the PD theory your proposed on the other thread, The downside to your discussion is that the social stigma of NPD and BPD are particularly severe as there is no known treatment for either. The advice loved ones and associates receive is "run away". Thus I am very, very wary of using those as labels. Things like depression and ADHD are very treatable and more acceptable and less "scary". I realize it defies logic to change labels for the sake of social stigma, but for NPD and BPD, it would be advised.

    If these illnesses were continuum based it would be better, but often they are diagnosis of last result and are very poorly understood. Just a label to justify medications or inability to "fix" the person.

    My ENTP from last year was a real NPD at 44. When given a list of jungian functions he selected "Ne, Fe, Ti and Se being an occasional player". Oddly he was not unintelligent...but he Ti ideas had no basis in reality, no ground, no historical testing-thus were totally nuts. Yet he would defend them bitterly, even though they were Te fail and not implementable. I call this an Si fail. He also displayed true Fe caring. He really did care deeply, transiently for others. All ENTPs experience transient Fe, I suppose, but he could had three INFJ girlfriends at one point, one who lived with him for 8 years. It was very interesting to watch him interact with an INFJ...you could see him feeding off of them. His eyes would be filled with adoration as he absorbed their Fe. He was exceptionally prissy and dainty. He never responded to emails unless you were important enough. I initially assumed malice, but later I pondered and I think he used so much Fe, that writing anything required excessive amounts of time to draft "just right", thus he could never answer all of his emails.

    Interestingly his dad was a nasa scientist. NPD has the highest rate of heredity of any PD and more so of almost any mental disorder. However if it really is Ti(Si) not developing fully I would suggest this is amplified by being in an intellectually critical home, where attempts at Ti expression are belittled.

  3. #253
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    "Prison" sounds like an extreme word though..
    I must say, prison is a fitting word for me...although I have grown to temper this over time.

    Ne discovers things that are already there, even if they could not be seen by others.

    The really fun part of to have say, 8 Ne connectivity blobs. They are sitting on a flat plane. You connect at a 90 degree angle on the plane and peel up a layer as you have Ne connected something across the layer-the plane...then all 8 blobs fall ldown a level and become locked into place a dimension below and are now connected to each other-thus are one big Ne connection. Suddenly you have a complete self consistent system. Each blob was tentative, but by nature of the new connections, it actually confirms the blobs orientations to each other.

    It is like building architectures of new worlds.

    Yup, but dont look at the spaces in between the blobs too closely or you start to use Ni...thus are cheating. Ni generates insane ideas.

    This is how I view MBTI for example. It lacks the needed dimensionality, but it seems that across types, the functional symmetry is always present. If an ENTP does X due to Fe, you can bet an ENFP will do the inverse of X due to Te for instance:


  4. #254
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    The ability to get to know my partner, for us to get to know each other, really know each other, to reveal our true selves via peeling all the pleasantries and fear-based facades.

    I've read somewhere that INTJs have a tendency to be very secretive, and to hold back, is this true? Why do you think that is?

    P.S. I don't think he's accustomed to chilling out with intelligent chickas who are sexual freakas.
    I would suggest that perhaps INTJs highly protect as Fi as not only does it not have words, but it also is very raw and gaping. We have Ne and Si and Te to protect our Fi. They seem to have only Se which doesnt really protect Fi quite so well, once exposed-thus the value of touch. My INTJ and I pet each other like puppies. It is sooo funny. But incredibly soothing and calming. Holding, being held, gently running my fingers through his hair....

    (I must note my ENTP says to be careful that I dont pet him so much his skin falls off....)

    Anyways, wow uumlau, looks like silly knows something I dont...Have you been hiding a secret lover from your 1000+ closest friends at Type C? Awwwwww.....so sweeeet!! Alas, hundreds of nfp hearts will broken....

  5. #255
    He who laughs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What do you think of this definition Sim posted on personalitycafe?

    I find it really interesting - especially the examples. It seems to be missing the essence of some things though.

    "Ni, or introverted iNtuition, is dominant for INxJ, secondary for ENxJ, tertiary for ISxP and inferior for ESxP. It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise! Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

    Strong Ni users like being the person behind the scenes who pulls all the strings (even better if most people don't even realize it) and understands the dynamics of everything on a deeper level than everyone else. They are threatened by the idea that there might be any perspective or angle they cannot see, and as such they sometimes overestimate their own ability to fully grasp and work around the attitudes of others.

    As with all introverted functions, Ni doesn't pay attention to external conditions outside the self so it doesn't care if anyone else grasps the ideas the same way the Ni user does. To Ni, I get the significance and that's all that matters. Ni songwriters (e.g. Thom Yorke, INFJ) will often write lyrics that could not possibly make any sense to other people without a direct explanation from the writer, but they don't really care because Ni considers intuition such a personal thing that it can't make its perspective/ideas clear to others very easily at all, and frequently doesn't even bother trying.

    For another example, Isaac Newton (INTJ) invented calculus and didn't bother telling anyone about it for 20 years. Ne would have been out showing the idea to others and changing it based on their reactions--but not Ni!

    As a result Ne is typically much better at putting its abstract ideas into terms that others will understand than Ni.

    On a side note: Ni appreciates definitional freedom (and thus is often annoyed by Ti) in the same way Ne appreciates freedom to change its plan of action abruptly (and thus is often annoyed by Te.) Ti users will tend to frame debates by first assigning precise definitions to terms, but Ni often objects to this by wondering: "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid definitions in the first place?" Ni always seeks to escape the unconscious assumptions that limit its understanding of as many different conceptual viewpoints as possible."
    I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.

    An Ni description needs to be described by objective views not something influenced/contaminating the view.

    And as to the question why I dont make a Ni description. I dont think its neccesary since many people have done so brilliantly before me.

    Introverted iNtuiting

  6. #256
    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 slowriot View Post
    I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.

    An Ni description needs to be described by objective views not something influenced/contaminating the view.

    And as to the question why I dont make a Ni description. I dont think its neccesary since many people have done so brilliantly before me.

    Introverted iNtuiting
    You're right...unfortunately as an Ne dominant I have no way of escaping Ne's influence on the way I conceptualize everything.

    So, any input on the nature of Ni/Te/Fi/Se from users of those functions is much appreciated!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #257
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slowriot View Post
    I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.
    Well, I don't know if that is true. (NO value?)

    It's not like people totally always understand themselves or their own ways of seeing. We can't even assume people who think in a framework totally understand it; in fact, often if they've never stepped outside of it, they are vulnerable to their own distortions of perspective even within their natural framework.

    And we typically describe things or understand things in comparison with other things. The more things something is compared to, the more angles you're going to see it from; and hopefully you will have a fuller grasp of what it actually is not and, thus, what it is.
    "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

  8. #258
    He who laughs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    yes agreed jennifer I think that we can use other functions to find new perspectives on ourselves and our functions. But the problem I find with simulatedworld's Ni description here is that he dont use Ne to find the differences between Ne and Ni but only compares them to his already established view of Ne. Hes not as you say using his own functions to find differences he only giving them value according to his own view of himself..

  9. #259
    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 slowriot View Post
    yes agreed jennifer I think that we can use other functions to find new perspectives on ourselves and our functions. But the problem I find with simulatedworld's Ni description here is that he dont use Ne to find the differences between Ne and Ni but only compares them to his already established view of Ne. Hes not as you say using his own functions to find differences he only giving them value according to his own view of himself..
    It's impossible for me to do anything else. I cannot ever understand Ni firsthand; the best I can do is approximate it in Ne terms. I have to translate this foreign language into a language that I can grasp.

    Such is one limitation of being human.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It's not like people totally always understand themselves or their own ways of seeing. We can't even assume people who think in a framework totally understand it; in fact, often if they've never stepped outside of it, they are vulnerable to their own distortions of perspective even within their natural framework.
    so so so true
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #260
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Exactly.

    The one thing I would add just to clarify, as I believe non-dom-Ni users don't quite understand us in this regard: when uumlau says interesting discoveries lie inward, it does not mean merely inward toward ourselves, but deeper within the object itself. In a sense, we become the object, and we then try to better understand the object by better understanding "ourselves".
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...mulacrums.html

    I created the above thread to subjectively capture what FiSi does in ENFPs.

    To Ne the idea along, I assume very similar things may happen in INFPs with FiSi and that the equivalent occurs in TiSi with respect to logical "archetypes" in both NTPs.

    If You guys make the object become part of you....are you using Te inside of your head to study the potentials present once you understand the object? And the object becomes an "archetype" at this point and can represent a whole class of similar objects?

    Do the INFJs somehow do this with people? Or are the objects they incorporate more Fe oriented...thus forming people archetypes?

    once the object is part of you, is it there forever? Do you have emotive attachments to the object/archetype? (Oh.....Hey U-this is why INTJs fall in love with the "idea" of love....while ENFPs just fall in love with imaginary people in our heads )

    If we initially start as small children using our dom or aux introverted function to mirror our world, those mirrors become part of us and are self defining....we become as adults what our introverted functions saw as children....and absorbed from our world around us...

    However we get a second chance to evolve when we start growing in that second introverted function, in our 20s....as it finds very different things to imprint, mirror, and mold....

    thus our internal world, our sense of self is defined by two introveretd functions......at some point I would guess the second introverted function starts to play a larger and larger role over the first....

    yeah Ne babble....sorry...

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