User Tag List

First 192728293031 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #281
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They are still looking for the Higgs boson, after all...

    It's not that it's theoretical, it's that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence that they built the theory on in the first place
    Oh dear, we aren't getting into a global 5 discussion are we? The sad truth is that measuring things with a ruler is not the optimum scheme for something as complex as the human brain. I believe you have mispoke regarding what is measurable and what is empirical.

    Yes, there is no measurable evidence for N or S; because the brain is more complex, but there is empirical experience of these phenomona when considering the activities and cognitive reasoning of many individuals - sure analytical psychology is not an absolute fit to the brian, but that's okay. That's as empirical as it possible within a reasonable and acceptable margin of error. I don't need to 'touch' N or S or T or F to see and gauge their effects.

    Its seems simple to me; there are empirical cognitive modes which people relate to. That is all that is neccessary. Sure, you can't track them back to neurons, but people do behave along cognitive style modes.

    And yes, it's quite appropriate to think and expand into this depth because it opens us up to avenues that might help us to find better ways to evolve and manage these systems.

    I respect your right to a different opinion; I just can't agree with what you have said when relating it to my own experience and understanding. I think this is my Te clashing with your Ti and how I'm happy to see the demarcation and accept the margin of error where you see an unacceptable error to approve of the system.

  2. #282
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Originally Posted by onemoretime
    >Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation.


    So you say we should throw out all N/S and T/F and change to just talk about Ji-Pe and Je-Pi pairs? Also that you can access all 8 functions when there are 4 functions with attitudes.
    There was a time when I thought something like this (especially from reading Berens and Nardi and those influenced by them), and it looks like a more simple notation of a type by its defining two preferences. But then after seeing Lenore Thomson's take on things, I saw the standalone values of the original four dichotomies (and the general four functions).
    If opposite functions in the same orientation seem so similar, then that is the common J/P distinction (J in the case of subjective perception) you are seeing.
    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

  3. #283
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Oh dear, we aren't getting into a global 5 discussion are we? The sad truth is that measuring things with a ruler is not the optimum scheme for something as complex as the human brain. I believe you have mispoke regarding what is measurable and what is empirical.

    Yes, there is no measurable evidence for N or S; because the brain is more complex, but there is empirical experience of these phenomona when considering the activities and cognitive reasoning of many individuals - sure analytical psychology is not an absolute fit to the brian, but that's okay. That's as empirical as it possible within a reasonable and acceptable margin of error. I don't need to 'touch' N or S or T or F to see and gauge their effects.

    Its seems simple to me; there are empirical cognitive modes which people relate to. That is all that is neccessary. Sure, you can't track them back to neurons, but people do behave along cognitive style modes.

    And yes, it's quite appropriate to think and expand into this depth because it opens us up to avenues that might help us to find better ways to evolve and manage these systems.

    I respect your right to a different opinion; I just can't agree with what you have said when relating it to my own experience and understanding. I think this is my Te clashing with your Ti and how I'm happy to see the demarcation and accept the margin of error where you see an unacceptable error to approve of the system.
    I get what you're saying here, and appreciate it, but I'm not quite sure you're getting what I am saying. It's simply because there is no objective, verifiable standard by which we can compare any of our hypotheses, that none of us have the authority to say someone's right, someone's wrong, etc. Thus, it betrays a bit of arrogance (of which I have been guilty at times) to even disagree on these points. Instead, it's much better to simply accept the other person's perspective, and rather than judge whether it is right or wrong, true or false, determine whether it is useful to your understanding of the mind or not.

    That's all I'm saying.

  4. #284
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I get what you're saying here, and appreciate it, but I'm not quite sure you're getting what I am saying. It's simply because there is no objective, verifiable standard by which we can compare any of our hypotheses, that none of us have the authority to say someone's right, someone's wrong, etc. Thus, it betrays a bit of arrogance (of which I have been guilty at times) to even disagree on these points. Instead, it's much better to simply accept the other person's perspective, and rather than judge whether it is right or wrong, true or false, determine whether it is useful to your understanding of the mind or not.

    That's all I'm saying.
    It doesn't display arrogance if you are weighing your own experiences against another's point of view and more than that finding a fully explainable logical flaw which they don't seem to realise is there: that's just rational common sense.

    I'm not saying you are 100% wrong; I am saying I disagree with the axioms/methodology you've applied to reach your conclusions. I'm not going to default to agree if I disagree; and therefore yes, I do reserve the right to have an opinion on what is 'mostly right' versus 'mostly wrong'; whether you have enough confidence in your own model is your right also and I respect it.

    I expect people to challenge me when I post, I'm more disappointed when they don't.

    We have reached a contextual impasse. I'll return when there is new information to discuss.

  5. #285
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    It doesn't display arrogance if you are weighing your own experiences against another's point of view and more than that finding a fully explainable logical flaw which they don't seem to realise is there: that's just rational common sense.
    Nope. At that point, you're essentially saying that your subjective experiences were more valid, and your logical process more correct, than the other person. Without any objective evidence to back that assertion up, that's entirely irrational. It's the height of arrogance.

    I'm not saying you are 100% wrong; I am saying I disagree with the axioms/methodology you've applied to reach your conclusions. I'm not going to default to agree if I disagree; and therefore yes, I do reserve the right to have an opinion on what is 'mostly right' versus 'mostly wrong'; whether you have enough confidence in your own model is your right also and I respect it.
    Then talk about the methodology - don't just say it's wrong! Point out, "I see this logical flaw there, because this should lead to that." That at least affords me the respect of permitting me to defend my logic in that situation. "Mostly right" vs. "mostly wrong" doesn't matter, because all it takes is one piece of evidence to shift "mostly right" to "entirely wrong." Until that evidence surfaces, the best we can come up with is "explains things best to me" vs. "doesn't explain things well to me."

    I expect people to challenge me when I post, I'm more disappointed when they don't.

    We have reached a contextual impasse. I'll return when there is new information to discuss.
    Sorry, man. I think both of us can have valid perceptions of this material. I'd rather discuss the differences in those perceptions, and come to a better mutual understanding through that working process, than try to disprove something that's unfalsifiable.

  6. #286
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    time-

    the next time you are in a discussion with a Te dom, watch for something. When they state an assertion, watch what they do with the vocal tone ...and then watch their face really closely. The vocal tone should be "This is THAT". Even written it sounds like "This is THAT". However watch their eyes-they seem to be then looking up, making eye contact for a second before moving on. They are looking to the other person and hesitating just for a second-like they seek disagreement-an unspoken, nonvocalized "right? Does that sound right to you?". They ask a question with their eyes by lifting them up and looking at you. It is kinda a cool Te thing I noticed the other day but I still need more data to see if it is widespread.

    In general I support what you are saying though...(I hear you saying that) Our own innate cognitive modes will screw up our analysis of a highly subjective area of study. (Right?) Your NeTi is such a delight however. I can totally see where you are going, but you can find all the broken stuff linkages that I miss with Ti. Like we are walking on the same path but you look left and I look right and we can then share what we see, even if we can never actually see it ourselves.

    From observations I have made, most NiTe folks seem to recognize the term "context shift" even if it is a simplification as being a valid descriptor. The more developed their Te, perhaps the easier it is to isolate the "contexts"? I really have no idea. INFJs seem to be resistant to the concept of isolated contexts and instead describe a "swirl" or "constant shifting". This is just a compilation of observations of what I have seen ni doms say, just a pattern, so I leave the issue to the Ni doms. Perhaps the more Te you have, the easier it is to internally structure the contexts? I dunno.

  7. #287
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Oh you extroverts..

    still with the subjective must be objective line, huh? You can get over it if you try. You can even get over it using your own ideas! Namely, if Ni trades in archetypes, what use is objective data? No, really, what use?

    Oh yeah, objective data sets a context in which archetypes can be deployed to uncover truths. A framework, if you will. A scene that is available for reinterpretation. Just like with extroverted perception. Can you understand it now? Huh? Can ya? Or were you still thinking that objective data is logically and perceptually prior to introverted anythings?


    Faak.



    There's no smiley that comes up when you type :retardz:?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nope. At that point, you're essentially saying that your subjective experiences were more valid, and your logical process more correct, than the other person. Without any objective evidence to back that assertion up, that's entirely irrational. It's the height of arrogance.

    Then talk about the methodology - don't just say it's wrong! Point out, "I see this logical flaw there, because this should lead to that." That at least affords me the respect of permitting me to defend my logic in that situation. "Mostly right" vs. "mostly wrong" doesn't matter, because all it takes is one piece of evidence to shift "mostly right" to "entirely wrong." Until that evidence surfaces, the best we can come up with is "explains things best to me" vs. "doesn't explain things well to me."

    Sorry, man. I think both of us can have valid perceptions of this material. I'd rather discuss the differences in those perceptions, and come to a better mutual understanding through that working process, than try to disprove something that's unfalsifiable.
    I couldn't disagree more. That's the difference between Te and Ti; Te loves empiricism and I see it as empirical and therefore right. You complained there is no empirical evidence and now have changed your mind to state that it's not objective empirical evidence. In actual fact an extroverted view is always objective by definition it sense checks against external factors. An introverted cognitive process is subjective by definition and doesn't integrate those external factors automatically. Your inconsistent viewpoint is wearing thin and starting to lack any sort of coherent structure; reach outside your fixed internal monologue and seek advancement by integrate more advanced ideas and intuitions.

    The reason I disagree is that I experienced your mode of intuitive alignment months ago. The only way past that was to go right back to psychological types and realise that intuition is a discrete function regardless of it's introverted or extroverted attitude - similar to sensing, thinking or feeling (ethics).

    You'll find that once you integrate this idea into your model that the confusion regarding N and S disappears in a very succinct way; moreover it makes a rather tidy bridge between Jung, MBTI (not the perverted internet typology board flavour) and Socionics and it all falls into place.

    You are complaining regarding arrogance. You should ask yourself, am I perceiving arrogance? Yes you are, but it's not my problem, you should resolve to improve your understanding instead of complaining that everyone who has run farther than you in the marathon should have their hamstrings cut.

    Yes, Ji gets emotional when it is challenged and you are turning your own emotionality into a reason to deny plurality; something that aggrieves my Ji greatly. Yes, I have challenged your Ji, because that's exactly what Je does; but it's not intended to offend - my Te is just saying, are you really sure that 4 + 4 = 8.1 just to improve the body of understanding we have in common.

    You are onto something; but you are barking up the wrong tree because you have misunderstood the fundamentals in your system - go back and reinterpret the starting point and you will have a more complete system than you currently enjoy.

  9. #289
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    I could just as easily interpret that as you being confused as to what you were finding, and retreating back into a safe harbor. Dogma is going to get you nowhere in this discussion.

  10. #290
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    ^ only if introverts are best defined as failed extroverts.


    Everyone is going to have to get over their distaste for subjectivity. Introverts, hear me! Your processing is largely subjective. This is not a flaw. You are good at it. What you produce is real.


    Extroverts, get over yourselves. You use subjective processing too. If you keep insisting on objectivity, you're playing directly into your own biases and harming your future ability. Do you, for instance, wish to say that introverted judgment is failed extroverted judgment? That you might in fact wish to say this does explain a lot of the stupid things you do, but you arrived at some such behavior via bias, not by adequate conceptualisation.

    Now, as is well known to all, people with extroverted intuition in a dominant role are fully capable of performing other people's functions. Why, both ENTPs and ENFPs routinely report spending some part of their youth as INTJs and INFJs respectively. So, extroverts, recall your immature selves, reignite your ability to conceptualise without suffering to be beholden to the world as it happens. Conceptualise what subjectivity really is.

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

    Boy meets Grr

Similar Threads

  1. What's the difference between Ne/Ni doms and Ne/Ni auxiliaries?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 02:10 PM
  2. Pictorial Guide to the Ne/Ni Distinction (the pics in no particular order this time)
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
  3. Se, Si, Ne, Ni ( HOBBIES)
    By liYA in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 09:15 AM
  4. Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction
    By InvisibleJim in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 02:56 AM
  5. Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]
    By Snow Turtle in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 06:37 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