Ne/Ni Conflicts

[INTP]

Only if you do the same.

deal. edit your post now?

 

[rav3n]

Don't know if anyone enjoys or has enjoyed the Star Trek, NextGen series but the episode entitled "Darmok" reminded me of Ne and its metaphorical manner of communication.

 

[onemoretime]

deal. edit your post now?

Why would I have any reason to believe you'd do likewise?

Besides, last time I checked, your opinion wasn't anywhere near authoritative.

 

[INTP]

Why would I have any reason to believe you'd do likewise?

Besides, last time I checked, your opinion wasn't anywhere near authoritative.

the difference with what you said and what i said, is that you speculate what the functions might do and im speculating why the function works the way its told to work.

if you start making up what the function does, you are creating new typology. if you are trying to figure out why the existing functions work as they do, you are just trying to figure out the existing typology.

 

[onemoretime]

the difference with what you said and what i said, is that you speculate what the functions might do and im speculating why the function works the way its told to work.

if you start making up what the function does, you are creating new typology. if you are trying to figure out why the existing functions work as they do, you are just trying to figure out the existing typology.

There's no real distinction between those categorizations. I could spit straight Jung all I wanted to, but the information is already there. If that's insufficient to understand how all of this works, then ruminating over the existing material will only get you so far. If I'm speculating on anything, it's what Jung, et al. meant in a way that makes sense to me. Since we don't think in the same way, it may not make sense to you. However, it could very well make sense to others.

Either way, there's no means of proving either of our assertions. It's just all interpretation at this point.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Another way of stating the difference:

Ni concerns itself about essence. What is the true nature of something? it asks. Once it answers that question (and K is right, the answer doesn't necessarily need to have to do with anything objective), it's finished its role. So when U's talking about "working models," he's using a determination of the essential relationships between things, and applying them to the situation at hand (Te at work). There's no need to prove the relationship, because it simply is - the proving is with the new data, and the determination is whether the model is the correct one for the situation (because the model is correct, just not here). Conflicts may arise because Ni tolerates questioning of the details, even welcoming it, but absolutely does not tolerate questioning of the model/archetype itself. You can see this on the board; examples include Peguy relishing debate over whether a person has acted in a dogmatically consistent fashion, but never about the validity of the dogma itself, or the tendency of many of those with Ni to dismiss potential models of the function that do not coincide with their own personal understanding of it.

Ne concerns itself about status. Why is something the way it is right now? it asks. Once it answers this question, the job is not finished, because that answer raises further questions to be addressed. This is why Ne can be seen as flightiness or hyperactivity - it's just constantly moving, based on the incoming data. However, it's constantly seeking unity, depending on a person's judgmental preference. This unification becomes the archetypes or working models of the future. That being said, the models are not static, and always subject to refinement with new data. Ne chafes against dogma, of any form. Likewise, Ne loves when new information changes the person's model of a situation, but cannot stand when someone criticizes an already-existing model based on accusations of misperception or misjudgment. Examples include the Fe/Fi "selfishness wars", and how semantic differences can spell the difference between pleasant discussion and all-out war.

Of course, these are linked with their sensory counterparts - Se quickly takes in all the detail necessary for Ni to function as precisely as possible, while the "hunches" that guide so much of Ne's path are manifestations of Si.

I'm sorry, but I view these descriptions as cognitive interaction of Ni-(with) or Ne-(with) more than distinct Ni and Ne descriptions.

 

[onemoretime]

I'm sorry, but I view these descriptions as cognitive interaction of Ni-(with) or Ne-(with) more than distinct Ni and Ne descriptions.

You can't separate the two categories. The brain operates cognitively in a holistic fashion. Everything's going at the same time, with different levels of prioritization.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You can't separate the two categories. The brain operates cognitively in a holistic fashion. Everything's going at the same time, with different levels of prioritization.

Then you can never know if perception is intuitive or sensory.

I'm not saying it doesn't create issues with peoples general understanding of cognitive processes. But I disagree with your statement.

There are clear demarcated N/S/T/F 'specific' cognitive functions regardless of attitude. Yes we use them as pairs with a Jx-Px, but my difficulty is you are attesting that cannot demark N from S, and as a consequence T from F.

I recommend Psychological Types as a convenient benchmark.

 

[onemoretime]

Then you can never know if perception is intuitive or sensory.

Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation. That's why it's so unnerving to realize that you see things very differently than most people. How many times have you said to yourself "but isn't that obvious?" It's only through comparison to the results of other people's perception that a distinction could even be made in the first place.

I'm not saying it doesn't create issues with peoples general understanding of cognitive processes. But I disagree with your statement.

There are clear demarcated N/S/T/F 'specific' cognitive functions regardless of attitude. Yes we use them as pairs with a Jx-Px, but my difficulty is you are attesting that cannot demark N from S, and as a consequence T from F.

Yes, you get what I'm saying. Functions are only means of satisfying needs. They are not individual entities, and Jung never intended them to be thought of as such. The psychological and physiological needs are the independent entities, and the functions are merely the proposed ways the brain prefers to deal with them.

So, for example, you feel the sensation of hunger. Your brain manifests the psychological need for food. These steps happen independently of functional operation. At this point, there is a problem that needs solving. That's the point where your functions kick in. Once you've eaten, the functions go back into the cognitive toolbox, until another need arises.

The implication is that the functions only describe a facet of your personality, though the facet it describes is a preeminent one. MBTI developed so employers could determine how potential employees would solve workplace problems, after all. There is so much more that goes into one's personality - life experience, culture, developmental factors, access to information - that to categorize and rationalize personality types with any appreciable accuracy would ultimately lead to a system of such discrete categorizations as to render the system useless.

What this ends up meaning is that all Jungian functions are available to anyone. However, to use them effectively, you must wield them with skill. If it doesn't come naturally to you, you'll need the help of someone with that ability in order to help you become more comfortable and proficient with its use, and will let you fail without judgment as you learn.

So that clear delineation of functions? It's not particularly clear at all. It's just a helpful guidepost that gives you a frame of reference when trying to figure out what exactly it is that's going on inside of your head.

 

[INTP]

Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation. That's why it's so unnerving to realize that you see things very differently than most people. How many times have you said to yourself "but isn't that obvious?" It's only through comparison to the results of other people's perception that a distinction could even be made in the first place.

yes

Yes, you get what I'm saying. Functions are only means of satisfying needs. They are not individual entities, and Jung never intended them to be thought of as such. The psychological and physiological needs are the independent entities, and the functions are merely the proposed ways the brain prefers to deal with them.

So, for example, you feel the sensation of hunger. Your brain manifests the psychological need for food. These steps happen independently of functional operation. At this point, there is a problem that needs solving. That's the point where your functions kick in. Once you've eaten, the functions go back into the cognitive toolbox, until another need arises.

The implication is that the functions only describe a facet of your personality, though the facet it describes is a preeminent one. MBTI developed so employers could determine how potential employees would solve workplace problems, after all. There is so much more that goes into one's personality - life experience, culture, developmental factors, access to information - that to categorize and rationalize personality types with any appreciable accuracy would ultimately lead to a system of such discrete categorizations as to render the system useless.

What this ends up meaning is that all Jungian functions are available to anyone. However, to use them effectively, you must wield them with skill. If it doesn't come naturally to you, you'll need the help of someone with that ability in order to help you become more comfortable and proficient with its use, and will let you fail without judgment as you learn.

So that clear delineation of functions? It's not particularly clear at all. It's just a helpful guidepost that gives you a frame of reference when trying to figure out what exactly it is that's going on inside of your head.

yes to some, but still generally

 

[onemoretime]

yes to some, but still generally

Once again, this response is thoroughly unhelpful. What are the parts you don't agree with, and why?

 

[INTP]

Once again, this response is thoroughly unhelpful. What are the parts you don't agree with, and why?

cba to list and explain them all, just so that you could disagree

 

[onemoretime]

cba to list and explain them all, just so that you could disagree

You don't think you'd learn anything from it? That's a shame.

 

[INTP]

You don't think you'd learn anything from it? That's a shame.

i can see it pretty clearly that, even tho you are partly right in some stuff, most of the stuff are simply wrong. why would i learn something from that? if i would argue that your user name is twomoretimes, would you learn anything from that? other than that there would be something seriously wrong with me..

 

[onemoretime]

i can see it pretty clearly that, even tho you are partly right in some stuff, most of the stuff are simply wrong. why would i learn something from that? if i would argue that your user name is twomoretimes, would you learn anything from that? other than that there would be something seriously wrong with me..

You can prove that my name is "onemoretime". You can't prove that functions don't work this way, just as I can't prove that they do. It's entirely theoretical. No one is right or wrong in this scenario. That's why it's a shame that you're being closed-minded.

 

[INTP]

You can prove that my name is "onemoretime". You can't prove that functions don't work this way, just as I can't prove that they do. It's entirely theoretical. No one is right or wrong in this scenario. That's why it's a shame that you're being closed-minded.

its not about being closed-minded, its just that i dont care enough. i can see where you go off, so even if you say those things again, it wont make any difference to it. but not only that i dont think that you can change my mind since i got pretty clear picture about this all and i can see how those things match with other things in mbti(+ i can see how what you say doesent match with other things), but i dont think i would be able to change your mind. so whats the point?

if you want that i try to change your mind, read the long post that i made and ask questions

 

[InvisibleJim]

Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation. That's why it's so unnerving to realize that you see things very differently than most people. How many times have you said to yourself "but isn't that obvious?" It's only through comparison to the results of other people's perception that a distinction could even be made in the first place.



Yes, you get what I'm saying. Functions are only means of satisfying needs. They are not individual entities, and Jung never intended them to be thought of as such. The psychological and physiological needs are the independent entities, and the functions are merely the proposed ways the brain prefers to deal with them.

So, for example, you feel the sensation of hunger. Your brain manifests the psychological need for food. These steps happen independently of functional operation. At this point, there is a problem that needs solving. That's the point where your functions kick in. Once you've eaten, the functions go back into the cognitive toolbox, until another need arises.

The implication is that the functions only describe a facet of your personality, though the facet it describes is a preeminent one. MBTI developed so employers could determine how potential employees would solve workplace problems, after all. There is so much more that goes into one's personality - life experience, culture, developmental factors, access to information - that to categorize and rationalize personality types with any appreciable accuracy would ultimately lead to a system of such discrete categorizations as to render the system useless.

What this ends up meaning is that all Jungian functions are available to anyone. However, to use them effectively, you must wield them with skill. If it doesn't come naturally to you, you'll need the help of someone with that ability in order to help you become more comfortable and proficient with its use, and will let you fail without judgment as you learn.

So that clear delineation of functions? It's not particularly clear at all. It's just a helpful guidepost that gives you a frame of reference when trying to figure out what exactly it is that's going on inside of your head.

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.

I can't say that I agree in the slightest.

 

[onemoretime]

its not about being closed-minded, its just that i dont care enough. i can see where you go off, so even if you say those things again, it wont make any difference to it. but not only that i dont think that you can change my mind since i got pretty clear picture about this all and i can see how those things match with other things in mbti(+ i can see how what you say doesent match with other things), but i dont think i would be able to change your mind. so whats the point?

if you want that i try to change your mind, read the long post that i made and ask questions

Who said I was talking about MBTI? MBTI doesn't even go into functions. I'm talking about the functions as Jung initially described, and many people later built upon.

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.

I can't say that I agree in the slightest.

Why not? Seems terribly limiting.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Why not? Seems terribly limiting.

I just disagree with you because you arguing you can't understand fundamentals because we don't have a suitable atom smasher. If that's true we miss a whole truncheon of typology and end up with a very simple system; that although I admit it is still useful; I can't feel it plays out into as much detail as given by a more fundamental viewpoint. Even if this is potentially more theoretical it would still be worthy of appropriate development due to the increased utility in such a model.

 

[onemoretime]

I just disagree with you because you arguing you can't understand fundamentals because we don't have a suitable atom smasher. If that's true we miss a whole truncheon of typology and end up with a very simple system; that although I admit it is still useful; I can't feel it plays out into as much detail as given by a more fundamental viewpoint. Even if this is potentially more theoretical it would still be worthy of appropriate development due to the increased utility in such a model.

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