User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 105

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Actually, Socionics gives INTjs a big fat Ti at the front...

    MBTI's INTP = Socionics' INTj
    Correct, I meant in the first two functions then didn't translate properly. The third and fourth functions are Fi and Se, interestingly it isn't a straight swapsies.

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Correct, I meant in the first two functions then didn't translate properly. The third and fourth functions are Fi and Se, interestingly it isn't a straight swapsies.
    Yeah, that's cuz of the way they define their four "blocks".

    The 5th function in Socionics is still consistently the inferior function (4th) in MBTI, though...

    And I believe the 6th function in Socionics is consistently the tertiary function (3rd) in MBTI...

    (I put stuff in parentheses not for you, but in case any nooblets are reading...)

  3. #43
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Let me rephrase:

    The following quality is often attributed to Ne:

    spontaneously seeing/making/understanding connections (puns, metaphors, similes, etc.) between various objects in the real world right in front of your face

    So, if an Ni-dom/aux is very good at seeing/making/understanding connections (puns, metaphors, similes, etc.) between various objects in the real world right in front of their face, do you believe this behavior more likely shows usage of Ni, or something else (Se+Ni? Ni+Te?)?
    Oh. That.

    Well...

    Beats me.

    But Ni, and any introverted function, has to do something, or have something done for it, to get the basic information inside there in the introverted space. If, perhaps, just making this up as I type, functions are not unlike filters or perspectives and they properly describe only how one categorises and begins to handle the splendid flood of raw, uncategorised information that we are daily assailed by, then how would one immediately and obviously distinguish between the direct step of Ne connection-making and the indirect step of Ni connection-making? If one goes kablam and the connection is made and it's objective and it's apprehended directly, how distinct is that from sucking in information, turning your back on the world to speculate alone, albeit briefly, and creating the connection for yourself, perhaps using some thinking step to give oneself a leg up on legitimacy? The same kind of connection could be made, the same kind of content could be appreciated, but the process that gives the person that appreciation is formally different.

    The reason for insisting it's not a flip-flopping function but rather the same old function doing slightly more athletic things than usual is just the idea that personalities surely become psychically unstable if the person genuinely can switch the orientation of their cognition. How do they control the switching? What does the switching? If it is the person making some choice, then doesn't that mean the core personality resides somewhere other than in the functions, and "functions" is just another name for a more complex behaviorial product of some other entity? If it is the environment doing the switching, the person responding as circumstances dictate, doesn't that mean no one is genuinely an introvert?

    If type is a mold we all impose on the vastness of the raw information that comes from being biological with a nervous system, and we do as literally the only option available for being conscious, then.... *cough* *gargle* *me me me meee*



    THEN WE MUST HAVE ORDER!
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Ni can't deduce. It can compound.

    The primary difference I find in communication between Ne and Ni is, literally, the objective/subjective divide. I know (intuitively--booyah) that when I articulate some vision, or make some joke, I'm delving into an inner world. It is, prima facie, an alternate vision of reality. And I know Ne people have trouble with it for exactly that reason. It's not real, they think, it's just a possibility. Which ignores all the compounding that's been going on for years. That alternate vision of reality is a compound vision, built up from years of perceiving inner worlds (and sometimes relating them to outer worlds).

    I believe that in general to switch from Ni to Ne is to halt that compounding process. One cares less for collecting visions together and more for spotting what's actually going on right now. Compounding is over, ecstatic immediate insight is begun.

    So, yeah, I think you're wrong about switching direction. I think you're probably describing some more sophisticated behavioral use of Ni resources rather than some change in basic cognitive functioning.



    Why do Ne users never conclude? They have a judgment function. Why do they maintain an earnest innocence? A kind of seeming guilelessness. It's that openness crap. The openness to new information. So how do they actual learn anything? Ni does this compounding thing, it seems to me. But where do Ne users store their insights? Or do they store them? They must have something for Ne to work with. It does not come new and freshly formed to every new environment. They do grow in Ne ability. Where's it kept?

    I think in some sense it's kept "out there". As they grow increasingly aware of the patterns that exist in the world, they recognise them more often (and move on to more sophisticated versions or to wholly different environments). They don't compound insights into new items so much as they map what's there. (And there'll be some Si library of some kind, but that's another story.) Or so I imagine.

    With that kind of discussion in mind, I'd be saying that Ni and Ne, behaviourally speaking, can perform the tasks of one another. Cognitively speaking though, they're formed in different directions and seemingly by different processes, and it seems to me ultimately do end up with different content. But behaviorally.......



    /thesis.
    Basically to understand Ne dont pull in these Ni things and form them into something more. You had it right when you said that these things are "out there" for Ne users. They are always there in the world, Ne spots them and runs with them, over and over again. Repetition is the key to building things, not internalizing. It becomes instinct, it makes its way in, but not conciously. Its not pulled in, but somehow it finds its way through the cracks into the mind and when it stops it begins to seep out. Its like a river, cut off the running water and it begins to disappear, turn it back on and it fills right back up really quick. What we pull in is like a lake. It builds, compounds, and grows. With enough running water a river will grow wider. A lake will grow deeper.
    Im out, its been fun

  5. #45
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    These two functional attitudes to interpersonal interaction are directly opposed which can lead to communication confusion between Ni and Ne users.

    As a result it is very important to find some kind of type interaction balance between Ne and Ni users and an understanding of how the other shows affection is the flip side of what may be naturally expected.
    Other than the question as to whether or not one person can flip back and forth between Ne and Ni or there is some sort of emulation going on, I think the core of the OP is about 1) communication gaps 2) conflict and 3) affection or appreciation - that is between types that prefer Ne vs Ni.

    Is that correct or are those the right words?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #46
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    These two functional attitudes to interpersonal interaction are directly opposed which can lead to communication confusion between Ni and Ne users.

    As a result it is very important to find some kind of type interaction balance between Ne and Ni users and an understanding of how the other shows affection is the flip side of what may be naturally expected.
    Other than the question as to whether or not one person can flip back and forth between Ne and Ni or there is some sort of emulation going on, I think the core of the OP is about 1) communication gaps 2) conflict and 3) affection or appreciation - that is between types that prefer Ne vs Ni.

    Is that correct or are those the right words?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  7. #47
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Highlander: what are you doing trying to be bring this conversation back to the original topic!?!

  8. #48
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,371

    Default FWIW

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    Regarding the OP:

    Seems like a really good analysis, except for this:



    I have no idea where you got that. It sounds absurd.


    Also, I may be mistaken, but it seems like you're overestimating the Ne user's need/desire for stimulation from the particular person they are interacting with at a given time.

    It's particularly hilarious that you seem to think Ne users find Ni users to be so engaging that they can't bear when the Ni user withdraws! (HUGE hardy-har on THAT one! ) Frankly, you guys tend to put me to sleep more often than not.

    To an Ne user, particularly a dominant Ne user, the attention does NOT generally rest for long on one thing. On the contrary, it tends to wander pretty easily and fluidly.

    So, as incredibly stimulating as a conversation with an Ni user might be, the Ne user will have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER turning her/his attention elsewhere, should the amazingly engaging (:rolli: ) Ni user decide to withdraw in contemplation.

    I realize I may be reading the wrong tone in your statements, but I'm just telling you what it sounds like to me.

    And I'm sure if I am wrong, you'll be more than happy to tell me. :rolli:
    *hands over Fi chill pill prescription*

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I don't know, maybe I misunderstood Jim's post, but I interpreted what he was saying as, because WE appreciate and require space to sift through things, our natural response might be to assume the other person would need it in the same way. Of course, knowing about mbti stuff and how everyone's different, you might learn not to do this and you will learn the other person might not want/need the space, but we might initially, gut-reaction, give them the 'gift' of space because that's what we like to have. (You know, that whole projection concept.. having a hard time stepping out of our own selves and realizing that, hey, other people don't operate the way we do! Wow, what a concept! haha.)

    So, if I'm 'giving space' to someone I like, and am in a relationship with them or something, it's as simple as, after hanging out or having a discussion, I'll let them have down time for a day or so and won't bother them. But, if they'd immediately want to chat or whatever, or discuss, or would want to meet up the next day, I'd be quite all right with that. I sort of put the ball in their court - or, at least, that's what I see it as, although they might see it differently of course.

    Giving the gift of space to someone I LIKE means I'm already involved with them and they have an active part in my life - that's clear.

    If I didn't like someone or was avoiding someone, they wouldn't really be in my life to begin with.
    What resonates with me here, wuold be, how the Ne user would know the content of all the internal post-it's that advert to the status of things. Usually, interpesonal and social cues are derived from behavior external behavior, NOT mental notes. Unless one learns how to mind read.

    On a more pratical approach, I identify an obstacle in measuring when the attention requests are desired or just being granted out of politeness, which, for me personally, the later would not be desired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Why do Ne users never conclude? They have a judgment function. Why do they maintain an earnest innocence? A kind of seeming guilelessness. It's that openness crap. The openness to new information. So how do they actual learn anything? Ni does this compounding thing, it seems to me. But where do Ne users store their insights? Or do they store them? They must have something for Ne to work with. It does not come new and freshly formed to every new environment. They do grow in Ne ability. Where's it kept?

    I think in some sense it's kept "out there". As they grow increasingly aware of the patterns that exist in the world, they recognise them more often (and move on to more sophisticated versions or to wholly different environments). They don't compound insights into new items so much as they map what's there. (And there'll be some Si library of some kind, but that's another story.) Or so I imagine.

    With that kind of discussion in mind, I'd be saying that Ni and Ne, behaviourally speaking, can perform the tasks of one another. Cognitively speaking though, they're formed in different directions and seemingly by different processes, and it seems to me ultimately do end up with different content. But behaviorally.......

    /thesis.
    Ne looks into everything, simultaneously, and then, depending on the aux function, processes it to what's relevant. For Ti aux, if something isn't immediately understood, then Ti will try to break it down into smaller tangible obects that can be linked to the existing Ne network of knowledge. As new insights are realised, any related existing objects of whole network, and it's associated connections, can be updated, to try and adapt to the new data.

    If something does not fit with the existing network, it can still be stored, in a fictional network of possibilities, that can still be built up like the main one, but doesn't have necessarily to reflect reality. In practice, it's all the same network, but some items just happen to have a particular label on them and at any point, they may become integrated in the "real object" category. Likewise, if something can't be immediately broken-down into intelligible peaces, it will be atempted to integrated it into a a contextual location, with an understanding of it's role or purpose, just to allow the continuity of the structure, as later on the contents can be learnt and understood and then reintegrated normally.

  9. #49
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Highlander: what are you doing trying to be bring this conversation back to the original topic!?!
    Force of habit. Sometimes, I feel like I do this all day long.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  10. #50
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Uumlau, when you switch from Ni to Ne use, do you also flip the attitude of your T function (to Ti), or do you continue using Te? Or do you sometimes go with one, and sometimes the other?
    I believe that I switch between Ti and Te. Sometimes I'm absorbing information, bouncing around and factually understanding things (Ne<->Ti), sometimes I'm juggling puzzles pieces that are outside of me, using their properties to determine how they fit together (Ni<->Te). The Ne/Ti mode is noticeably more difficult, but I can easily keep up with the xNTPs when I do it. The Ni/Te mode is entirely natural, and I can just look at something and "solve it" in a split second. It's possible that I am "using Ni or Te to 'emulate' Ti", though that begs the question of what Ti and Te "really are" and what constitutes emulation. I suspect that it is more likely a trained, deliberate expression of the Beebe shadow (by which theory NeTi is the shadow of INTJ), which introduces the possibility that the more negative version of that shadow is simply the untrained, inexperienced use of those "shadow functions".

    Check out these wonderful videos of Feynman giving the Messenger Lectures from MS's Project Tuva.

    I've posted this link before. If I hadn't read his autobiographies, and only had seen these videos, I'd swear he's INTJ. But he's ENTP, and you can sense the Fe vibes as he slowly starts his lecture and cracks a couple of jokes.

    But when he gets down into the material, he's examining it both ways, Te and Ti (or Ne and Ni). He even has a section in there about "Babylonian" vs "Greek" mathematics. The Babylonian picture is very trial and error: they notice certain "empirical" mathematical truths and try to work them out and build a library of understanding. The Greek picture is the system we are more familiar with, starting with axioms and building the entire system of mathematics based on those few rules, building outward from a logical center.

    In other words, he just described Te (Babylonian) and Ti (Greek) thought! And then he goes on to say that science, the study of physical laws, is necessarily in the Babylonian style - the Te style, and he's the archetypal ENTP scientist! - because it's putting together the puzzles pieces and trying to figure out what the rules are, while modern math "already knows the rules."

    I stand by my statement that one needs to be able to think in both modes (Ti and Te) as usually characterized here and elsewhere. One needs to be able to look at evidence and deduce physical laws, and one needs to be able to take a formulation of physical law and derive other possible implications that may or may not contradict empirical experiments.

    Perhaps it's this need to have both Te and Ti that makes scientific fields a rare occupation? Or perhaps the training in scientific fields necessitates developing (or at least emulating) whichever thinking function one doesn't prefer?

Similar Threads

  1. A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-02-2012, 12:04 PM
  2. F versus T: From a Jungian Cognitive Functions Perspective
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 06:10 PM
  3. Cat parasites trump Jungian cognitive functions :)
    By sculpting in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 07:15 PM
  4. What is your dominant Jungian cognitive function?
    By highlander in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 02:06 AM
  5. Alternating Jungian Cognitive Functions
    By bechimo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-29-2010, 02:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO