User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 45

  1. #11
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alternatum View Post
    I would say it definitely enhanced my understanding, but most interesting was the following statement, talking about both Si/Ni:

    "from an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men"

    Which though merely a point of view (not of Jung himself necessarily), intrigues me because ISxJs are hardly considered "fruitless" in modern society, where they (if anything) tend to be considered very fruitful indeed. I couldn't help but wonder whether the 'ISxJs are all devoted servants' schtick is overdone, and perhaps based on some assumptions that were never even stated by Jung, and I found in this overview nothing that strongly supported such a view.
    ISxJs are viewed as fruitless in a sense.....these unfair assumptions are made on this very messageboard: they are not creative, they don't have imagination, they just go along with tradition & society unquestionably, they resist new ideas, etc. Even the "devoted servant" bit you mention shows the idea that they are viewed as not producing anything new, but just filling the role of a cog in a machine. That is "fruitless" in a way, depending on what standpoint you want to see it from. I agree they are not viewed as useless in the sense that they are often seen as very capable of accomplishing practical things.

    I quote Van Der Hoop a lot, because I have it saved on my computer , so here are some traits he associated with Si types (paraphrased a bit in parts for the sake of brevity), which show that although they are often seen as hard workers, they can also be dismissed as dull, rigid, simple & unoriginal:

    - Little external evidence of their inner satisfaction, even appearing unhappy to others when they are content
    - They tend to under-estimate rather than to over-estimate themselves
    - Often reserved & conservative, caring for duties down to the smallest detail in a routine, customary way
    - Show a passive resistance to anything new, which can only be overcome by absolutely convincing experience
    - Never readily depart from their routine, except in relation to persons and things in their own immediate sphere that they feel a connection to
    - In more abstract matters, they find it difficult to form an opinion of their own - they follow authorities who show a knowledge of facts & give an impression of being thorough
    - Only in rare cases, ie. Si artists, does the distinct and personal quality of their inner emotion come to expression.
    - Tend to create lives with solid comfort, sometimes leading to tedious caution if they become too deeply attached to minor details
    - Difficulty in understanding their own potentialities and worth
    - They prefer to stick to the familiar, and find it difficult to adopt anything new.
    - They do not feel any confidence in abstract matters, and are easily upset if drawn into discussion of them, or if the value of their authorities in these matters is questioned
    - Lack of a comprehensive vision (clear use of intuition) and their introversion stand in the way of adapting to external, new things.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  2. #12
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alternatum View Post
    I have read that some functions cannot co-exist within the same person to any significant degree, of which I am most interested in:

    Si with Ni
    Se with Ne

    This is despite them operating from almost the same part of the brain, and having some key similarities.

    I am however disatisfied with any explanations read thus far as to why co-use of some functions is not possible, as opposed to merely inefficient.

    So if anyone has an opinion about this, I would like to know:

    a) Why they cannot work well together in the same person, just to give some background. If you can individually address Si/Ni or Se/Ne, rather than just say they contradict each other, that would be marvellous

    b) Could they co-exist to a significant degree, and if not why not. Note that citing a) as evidence will not suffice as an explanation, as this is based on the faulty premise that everyone is well-functioning, with no internal conflicts.

    c) Isn't it worth considering the co-existance of incompatible functions as a possible reason why some people are so hard to type as anything? Note that Isabella Briggs-Myers acknowledges that some people do not develop a clear type.
    A good question.

    S and N share one continuum.
    I and E share one continuum.

    Bill and Laura share a bread. It is one bread. Laura cuts the bread in nine parts. Bill eats one part. How many parts can Laura have?
    9 - 1 = 8

    The function order of the eight functions is a nine-play.
    Si is the 1st function. Where is Ne?
    9 - 1 = 8

    Where is Ni?

    Si and Ne is a complementary party.
    Ni and Se is an inverse complementary party.

  3. #13
    Member Alternatum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    Ixxx
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    ISxJs are viewed as fruitless in a sense.....these unfair assumptions are made on this very messageboard: they are not creative, they don't have imagination, they just go along with tradition & society unquestionably, they resist new ideas, etc. Even the "devoted servant" bit you mention shows the idea that they are viewed as not producing anything new, but just filling the role of a cog in a machine. That is "fruitless" in a way, depending on what standpoint you want to see it from. I agree they are not viewed as useless in the sense that they are often seen as very capable of accomplishing practical things.

    I quote Van Der Hoop a lot, because I have it saved on my computer , so here are some traits he associated with Si types (paraphrased a bit in parts for the sake of brevity), which show that although they are often seen as hard workers, they can also be dismissed as dull, rigid, simple & unoriginal:

    - Little external evidence of their inner satisfaction, even appearing unhappy to others when they are content
    - They tend to under-estimate rather than to over-estimate themselves
    - Often reserved & conservative, caring for duties down to the smallest detail in a routine, customary way
    - Show a passive resistance to anything new, which can only be overcome by absolutely convincing experience
    - Never readily depart from their routine, except in relation to persons and things in their own immediate sphere that they feel a connection to
    - In more abstract matters, they find it difficult to form an opinion of their own - they follow authorities who show a knowledge of facts & give an impression of being thorough
    - Only in rare cases, ie. Si artists, does the distinct and personal quality of their inner emotion come to expression.
    - Tend to create lives with solid comfort, sometimes leading to tedious caution if they become too deeply attached to minor details
    - Difficulty in understanding their own potentialities and worth
    - They prefer to stick to the familiar, and find it difficult to adopt anything new.
    - They do not feel any confidence in abstract matters, and are easily upset if drawn into discussion of them, or if the value of their authorities in these matters is questioned
    - Lack of a comprehensive vision (clear use of intuition) and their introversion stand in the way of adapting to external, new things.
    Jung makes Si sound interesting and possibly the source of inspiration and finding personal meaning in life, though SJs in general are discredited with assuming superiority and universal applicability of their world-view/life focus. I don't think that's necessarily true.

    Also, the experiences and impressions of Si should be amenable to forming fantasies, right? Maybe Si-doms are not always as fixated on reality as suggested, if their experiences/impressions inspire interesting possibilities. Yeah I know Si-doms aren't supposed to be interested in possibilities, but what if they are bored/disatisfied with the here and now?

  4. #14
    Member Alternatum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    Ixxx
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Si and Ne is a complementary party.
    Ni and Se is an inverse complementary party.
    Someone could be on both continuums :

  5. #15
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    I strongly believe Jung didn't intend his theory to explain anything archetypal, but rather give an overall impression of how a certain person's behavior is oriented based on the abstraction of unconscious motivations. That said, you can change and you might use other functions well in different scenarios, but for a lot of people there are recurring patterns of behavior that fit into a particular type's functions resulting from willfully pursuing particular ego functions while suppressing other functions into the unconscious. It's very abstract and it's not a provable thing, but it can help recognize certain behaviors in people and prove sometimes helpful in psychoanalysis when a person has a problem.

  6. #16
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alternatum View Post
    Someone could be on both continuums :
    We all are:
    If Si is the 1st function, Ne is the 8th function.
    Se and Ni take on the inverse position: tables turn.
    Se assumes the 4th position, Ni the 5th.

  7. #17
    Member Alternatum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    Ixxx
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    I strongly believe Jung didn't intend his theory to explain anything archetypal, but rather give an overall impression of how a certain person's behavior is oriented based on the abstraction of unconscious motivations.
    I think maybe it's a similar problem to the Enneagram, where you have basic fixations/psychodynamics, which over the years have been translated into observable manifestations by various writers, popularising the system. In the case of Jung functions, it was Myers-Briggs but others have chipped in as well.

    Being aware of the problems of manifestion-mapping concerning the E-gram makes me wonder about MBTI as well.

  8. #18
    Member Alternatum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    Ixxx
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Okay so it's fairly obvious that lots of people don't fit the Myers-Briggs stereotypes (by which I mean pretty much any description of the four-letter types).

    This either means:

    • Jungs functions were interpreted too narrowly in terms of behaviours/type specifications
    • Not everyone has one dominant function/type or there are 'merged' versions of some (similar) functions


    I would also like to add that personality typology is sometimes a unhealthy endeavour for people with trouble functioning/mental problems. I'm just speaking from my own experience but I've heard of this elsewhere - you can become unreasonably pre-occupied with finding a 'type' that will explain why you are mal-functional, unhinged or whatever, or just to define a coherent identity. I'd had more success with the Enneagram but am aware that this is an unhelpful distraction for some (and that's driven me up the wall too), even if the Enneagram caters more for the unhealthy than MBTI does.
    Last edited by Alternatum; 08-13-2011 at 08:14 PM. Reason: Added Paragraph

  9. #19
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alternatum View Post
    I have read that some functions cannot co-exist within the same person to any significant degree, of which I am most interested in:

    Si with Ni
    Se with Ne

    This is despite them operating from almost the same part of the brain, and having some key similarities.

    I am however disatisfied with any explanations read thus far as to why co-use of some functions is not possible, as opposed to merely inefficient.

    So if anyone has an opinion about this, I would like to know:

    a) Why they cannot work well together in the same person, just to give some background. If you can individually address Si/Ni or Se/Ne, rather than just say they contradict each other, that would be marvellous

    b) Could they co-exist to a significant degree, and if not why not. Note that citing a) as evidence will not suffice as an explanation, as this is based on the faulty premise that everyone is well-functioning, with no internal conflicts.

    c) Isn't it worth considering the co-existance of incompatible functions as a possible reason why some people are so hard to type as anything? Note that Isabella Briggs-Myers acknowledges that some people do not develop a clear type.
    Interesting questions. I think you can get a sort of coexistance - though it's more to do with confusion than anything else. The first thing to consider is that functions are about what you want, rather than how you go about doing it. Combining two Pi functions involves having two similar but distinct motivations at the same time.

    Si -certainty of knowledge. To plan ahead, I must be sure of what is true or untrue, what is known to work, fail or is completely unknown. If my knowledge is sound, so will be the decisions I make upon it. This way I can find the most certain path to success.
    Ni - certainty of understanding. To plan ahead, I must be confident in my understanding of what might happen and how I can respond to the various results. I need to know how the various elements are interconnected. This way I can find a path to the best possible result within an acceptable risk and effort.

    This creates a pull in two different directions. Si wants to maximise the chances of success. Ni is more interested in the profit to risk ratio. You can't always do both at the same time. One of these two attitudes has to dominate, otherwise a decision cannot be made. If you can, then you can't tell an ISJ from an INJ, as they both pick the same path.

    In certain individuals who have poor Pi, their often exists a confusion between the two Ji attitudes. Inessence, the person cannot tell the concious and shadow functions apart, which will sometimes result in them following the shadow function, only to find out later that they did not find it very satisfying. Ths is very common when dealing with inferior and opposing functions.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    We all are:
    If Si is the 1st function, Ne is the 8th function.
    Se and Ni take on the inverse position: tables turn.
    Se assumes the 4th position, Ni the 5th.
    Oh, now I get it.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 10:05 AM
  2. gullibility and sweetness, do they go together?
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 03:20 PM
  3. So which function descriptions do you go with?
    By Ilah in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-06-2008, 09:14 AM
  4. Things that make you go "DOH"
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 08:04 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