User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 105

  1. #51
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Wow. Phenomenal post uumlau, especially in concert with your first post in the thread...

    As for what you said about a "trained, deliberate expression" of the Beebe shadow vs. a "more negative version" that "is simply untrained [and] inexperienced": I'm right with you...

    I have been thinking about this topic for the last several months now, and we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. (How's that for Te reverse-engineering?)

    It could still just be Ni+Te mimicking Ne+Ti, but that just brings us back to your point as to what, in light of the potential "mimicry/emulation", Te and Ti "really are"...

    I do have a question about one aspect of your diction, though: you say Te looks at evidence and deduces physical laws... but isn't that induction, not deduction?

    (I believe I'm right here, but maybe I'm just missing something...)

    And, in light of that construction, would it be accurate to say that Te thinking is essentially inductive reasoning, while Ti thinking is essentially deductive reasoning?

  2. #52
    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
    Wow. Phenomenal post uumlau, especially in concert with your first post in the thread...

    As for what you said about a "trained, deliberate expression" of the Beebe shadow vs. a "more negative version" that "is simply untrained [and] inexperienced": I'm right with you...

    I have been thinking about this topic for the last several months now, and we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. (How's that for Te reverse-engineering?)

    It could still just be Ni+Te mimicking Ne+Ti, but that just brings us back to your point as to what, in light of the potential "mimicry/emulation", Te and Ti "really are"...

    I do have a question about one aspect of your diction, though: you say Te looks at evidence and deduces physical laws... but isn't that induction, not deduction?

    (I believe I'm right here, but maybe I'm just missing something...)

    And, in light of that construction, would it be accurate to say that Te thinking is essentially inductive reasoning, while Ti thinking is essentially deductive reasoning?
    Yeah, induction vs deduction sounds more accurate than deduction vs derivation. However, when I read the definitions (wikipedia) of inductive and deductive reasoning, it sounds more like Ne vs Ti than Te vs Ti, so I'm still don't think that's the best way to put it.

    The main thing is that one mode is figuring out the rules/events that could have resulted in the currently observed outcome (Te), and the other is using those rules (Ti) to predict outcomes.

  3. #53
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I was thinking about how these two interact with each other. I came up with a way to explain, though I'm not quite sure if I'm on point here. Here it goes:

    The main thing that we must consider is how far Ni and Ne will bend in order to satisfy the others needs (wants). This is how I see a relationship playing out. Ne comes up with an idea and logically explains it. Ni takes the pattern and accepts it (that is the key) and once he accepts to at least try to understand the connection or idea that Ne came up with he uses Te to see if it is actually plausible. I don't view it as a miscommunication between functions, but as a stubborness to cooperate with how each other thinks. This way no one has to look through the others eyes to see how they think, but rather approach the relationship as if you were doing trial and error. Everyone gets to use their functions in their entirity, while communciating as effectively as possible.

    This is all to say that the functions each person used were used in their proper fashion (though that is under scrutiny in this thread as well).

    As for relationships... I have no help there. I do like interaction and I get slightly restless when the other person doesn't feel like bouncing ideas I have been thinking about, but it is their choice to do so, not mine.

  4. #54
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phobik View Post
    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.
    Wild guess: that fictional network of possibilities, might the unwary, or perhaps the insightful, attempt to call that an Ne user's Ni?

    What it sounds like is an evaluation category (and associated categorical structures) created by introverted thinking judgment, but being, I guess, the category "possibly true", could that be where Ne types get their impression of using Ni?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #55
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Wild guess: that fictional network of possibilities, might the unwary, or perhaps the insightful, attempt to call that an Ne user's Ni?

    What it sounds like is an evaluation category (and associated categorical structures) created by introverted thinking judgment, but being, I guess, the category "possibly true", could that be where Ne types get their impression of using Ni?
    For the sake of clarification: would you mind fleshing out how such a process would actually differ from Ni?

  6. #56
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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!
    He did? Every e function is empirical and every i function is formally unlinked from the world and able to work only by asserting, or attempting to formulate, fundamentals.

    My major complaint with flip floppers is not truly that they can't be pulling switcheroos. It's that the supposed reason for the existence of "preference" hasn't, it seems to me, been looked at closely enough yet. Function order and orientation, it is supposed, serves a purpose, or exists because of a need. And at least at first glance, flip flopping denies that that need exists.

    Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #57
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Yeah, induction vs deduction sounds more accurate than deduction vs derivation. However, when I read the definitions (wikipedia) of inductive and deductive reasoning, it sounds more like Ne vs Ti than Te vs Ti, so I'm still don't think that's the best way to put it.
    Uumlau, would it make more sense if we called Ni+Te thinking inductive reasoning and Ti+Ne reasoning deductive reasoning?

    Perhaps 'called' is too strong a word; perhaps 'associated with' would be a better term...

    Whatever the nomenclature: might Ni be the driver of induction and Te be the checker of that induction's accuracy, while Ti is the driver of deduction and Ne the presenter of new situations in which comparable deductions (based on certain accepted axioms) can take place?

  8. #58
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    For the sake of clarification: would you mind fleshing out how such a process would actually differ from Ni?
    Ahmmm.... well, as phobik presents it, it's a Ti construct, which as far as I know means it's all about categories and category relationships. The content is ordered and... or, wait... the content is the order? The task is the ordering and re-ordering of stuff in light of new input, and the creation of new, more detailed orderings and categorisations... or something. I know not what the Ti people do, exactly.

    But if there's some ordered network of possibles, this isn't Ni per se, right?

    Jeez, I dunno. All introverted functions will have some similar forms. And they're distinguished by... something else.

    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #59
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?
    Focus can be a result of expertise, or it can be the very impediment to expertise.

    Note that I used Richard Feynman, perhaps the preeminent physicist of the 20th century. (In obscure polls of scientists, he rates higher than Einstein or Hawking, for a variety of reasons.) I would suggest that such versatility, whether one is "emulating" the other functions, or actually using them, is more likely to be evidence of great cognitive skill than a weakness. In general, when reading various interpretations of types and functions by various authors, the "reason" often given for bad or immature behavior of any particular type is the lack of facility with other functions (e.g., one's auxiliary).

    As for why the preference exists, I've observed that as one ages, it tends to vanish, such that typing older individuals becomes problematic. However, it's the positive traits that become confusing, indicating several possible types. The negative traits, however, tend to be consistent for a rather long time, especially the 7th and 8th in the typical ordering (e.g., Fe and Si for INTJ).

  10. #60
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    My major complaint with flip floppers is not truly that they can't be pulling switcheroos. It's that the supposed reason for the existence of "preference" hasn't, it seems to me, been looked at closely enough yet. Function order and orientation, it is supposed, serves a purpose, or exists because of a need. And at least at first glance, flip flopping denies that that need exists.

    Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?
    Kalach, I'm glad you brought up this point (again), cuz I've seen you resort to it often whenever this issue ("flip-flopping" as you've labeled it -- are you calling Uumlau John Kerry?) is raised, but I've never called you on it (yet).

    First off, you teach business, right? So, obviously you know about the law of diminishing returns... Who's to say there's not a point where one uses too much of a function (i.e., is no longer benefiting from economies of scale), and actually starts seeing flat or negative marginal returns from additional functional usage?

    Second, what if one, rather than spend the rest of their life developing a very limited number of functions (let's say only two) to 99 and 98, respectively (on a 1-100 scale; 100 being "perfect" usage), were to spend their time and energy getting their first two functions up to, let's say, just 95 and 94, and, by doing so, free up their surplus time and energy to develop their third and fourth functions (or even their shadow functions), and thus reap the benefit of greater marginal returns in developing these lesser developed functions? Wouldn't this person put themselves in a position to achieve greater total development (as measured by multiplying all 8 functions by their corresponding number on the 1-100 scale, and summing the results), than if they were to focus solely on developing their first two functions?

    And third, who's to say we might not rather quickly (let's say, by 30) hit the "ceiling" for our own personal usage of our first two functions (i.e., flat marginal returns for both), and thus do ourselves much greater good to actually diversify and round out our functional development?
    Last edited by Zarathustra; 09-03-2010 at 06:07 PM.

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