User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 45

  1. #31
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.

    I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.

    Jungs definition for functions are:
    S tells you that something is.
    T tells you what it is.
    F tells you what it is worth.
    N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

    I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.
    Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.

    S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. If something "is", then in a universe of time, it must also be "heading" somewhere as well. If its heading somewhere, then it must first be something that "is". And if something "is", and is determined to be such by rational creatures, then it must also have some sort of "worth" (even if lack thereof). And again, if something has "worth", then it must be something that "is".
    It's our ego consciousness that divides all of this into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one of these perpsectives and orientations or the other.

    So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. In the football example that was cited, an emergent "what is" is the primary, conscious perspective. "where it's going" is in the background. So it was primarily an "Se" perspective. Ni-preferring types are not as focused on a physical perspective like that, until they have really matured and developed their tertiary or inferior.
    On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people on this stuff, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way. He had even changed some of his concepts, so he is not so absolute).
    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

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thealchemist View Post
    "perhaps"
    This is perhaps my favorite word. I mean, I wouldn't know for sure, I have yet to evaluate all the words I know in terms of favorability...and think of all the words I don't even know yet..

  3. #33
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.

    S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. If something "is", then in a universe of time, it must also be "heading" somewhere as well. If its heading somewhere, then it must first be something that "is". And if something "is", and is determined to be such by rational creatures, then it must also have some sort of "worth" (even if lack thereof). And again, if something has "worth", then it must be something that "is".
    It's our ego consciousness that divides all of this into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one of these perpsectives and orientations or the other.

    So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. In the football example that was cited, an emergent "what is" is the primary, conscious perspective. "where it's going" is in the background. So it was primarily an "Se" perspective. Ni-preferring types are not as focused on a physical perspective like that, until they have really matured and developed their tertiary or inferior.
    On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people on this stuff, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way. He had even changed some of his concepts, so he is not so absolute).
    Its not Se that sees the possibilities, its Ni, using the analogy of different side of the same coin doesent change this, its still different sides. Also these two things in neurological level are two different operations, jung was able to differentiate the two, by seeing the difference in S and N.

    S and N perception is combined into one, which comes to consciousness. Like i told already, S only sees 'what is', N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

    So you could say that N detects motion, combines those separate images of 'what is' into fluid perception.

    Dont believe that they are separate systems? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia

    Every type of single perception or thought are implicit unless they are combined with other stuff on other brain regions.

    Its stupid to even argue about this, because this is so basic things and i cba to explain how brains operate. Ill give you one tip tho, move away from those stupid wanna be jung theories, they are simply misleading and you clearly have been misled big time, but i have already told you that multiple times. And dont just read about typology, read about current stuff in field of psychology if you really want to see how this stuff goes. And im not saying that jungs concepts are absolutes, im just saying that if you read jung instead of berens, thompson etc and look at what jung says in the framework of current knowledge about psychology, you will see how close jung actually got with his stuff and how far off those modern day (mis)interprations about jungs stuff are.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #34
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Its not Se that sees the possibilities, its Ni, using the analogy of different side of the same coin doesent change this, its still different sides.
    I didn't say Se saw possibilities in that last post. I was granting you that Ni saw the possibilities, but the primary perspective was Se "emergent data", and that thus the two functions work together. The way you're taking it, the athlete (which is a field good for Se types) would have to in effect "switch gears" when he "uses Se" to see "what is" before him, and then "use" Ni in recognizing where it's going. That's actually the way the "folk typologists" (remember that term?) who are misled use the concepts. But that's not what it's about.

    Also these two things in neurological level are two different operations, jung was able to differentiate the two, by seeing the difference in S and N.

    S and N perception is combined into one, which comes to consciousness. Like i told already, S only sees 'what is', N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

    So you could say that N detects motion, combines those separate images of 'what is' into fluid perception.

    Dont believe that they are separate systems? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia
    That's talking about physical motion, not the type of "motion" Jungian iNtuition deals with (i.e. conceptual). Are you suggesting that each person "uses S" when seeing something, and then "uses N" when he sees its position in physical space change (physical motion)?
    Is that really what Jung meant, or is that your or someone else's idea?

    Just seeing something move is neither S nor N. This is the common mistake many make, leading one to wonder how N's could "see", since they have to "use" an unconscious or less conscious function; and in order to see as good as an S, they would have to "develop" their "Sensing". That's just like F="emotions", T is "thinking" meaning "thoughts", Si="remembering", Fe="considering others". (The worst definitions of those experts you criticize!)

    S, as we are discussing it as a type preference, means that though we all see "what is" equally, I prefer to pay more attention to that which is; and where it came from or is going is less relevant to ego's preference. N means that I see what is, but prefer to pay more attention to where it came from or is going, than just focusing on it for its own sake.

    And "where it came from/where it's going is NOT spatial as that article is talking about. At least, not necessarily. If I see something already moving, and then try to figure the trajectory or possible places it can end up (momentarily taking my focus off of the physical object and particular locations in the process and conceptualizing about them instead), that is iNtuition. But just seeing it move from one place to the other is not iNtuition!

    It has nothing to do with visual "motion". It's "where it came from or is going" in concept, not in space.
    Its stupid to even argue about this
    Of course, its as I said...
    because this is so basic things and i cba to explain how brains operate. Ill give you one tip tho, move away from those stupid wanna be jung theories, they are simply misleading and you clearly have been misled big time, but i have already told you that multiple times. And dont just read about typology, read about current stuff in field of psychology if you really want to see how this stuff goes. And im not saying that jungs concepts are absolutes, im just saying that if you read jung instead of berens, thompson etc and look at what jung says in the framework of current knowledge about psychology, you will see how close jung actually got with his stuff and how far off those modern day (mis)interprations about jungs stuff are.
    I don't see how he's "right" and they're "wrong". "Closer" to what? Mainstream psychological knowledge? They don't seem to be embracing him that much. The main problem I can see with the interpreters is not clarifying things enough. (And some of those oversimplified definitions, when they do attempt to clarify). But with Jung, clarifying can be hard.
    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

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huxley3112 View Post
    Yes I do believe J tendencies can be learned, but the preference will always remain. That speaker moves into some training he's developed to aid that, but I have not seen it myself. I know that I organize and plan some aspects of my life (usually work) very well, but it does take tremendous effort - not natural. Not sure if tert Te development has helped this along, or just being pounded over the head for years with the undesireable consequences that come with constant perception, lol.
    Now lemme ask you this: How easy is it for Js to learn the perceiver's ways? Could Js be at a slight disadvantage? Just as it can be hard for perceivers to extrovert their judgements, so can it be hard for judgers to extrovert their perceptions.
    Thinkist: not optimist nor pessimist. I am primarily competent in the enneagram.
    SX 9w1, SP 5w6, SP 3w4 | Split with the first two
    Ti-Se-Si-Ni-Te-Fi-Ne-Fe. I'm always questioning this, particularly the Si.
    Big 5/Global5/SLOAN: RCUEX

  6. #36
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm not sure what types we're even talking about to begin with. The MBTI J/P dichotomy is a mess. Jung had Rationals and Irrationals - and the dom perceivers (be it Extro or Intro) were the Irrationals...the ones full of "maybes", if you will. Here, it's all redefined, and only the extroverts are described correctly when talking about Jungian theory. A mess.

    I'm some Perceiver who doesn't care to fix the mess though. I just see it.

  7. #37
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post
    Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".

    But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.

    But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".
    This is how I tend to think, but it can be difficult to actually have interactions with people that reflect this thinking. People often project a lot of certitude in discussions regardless of type. Even at single type sites that are exclusively "P's" it is rare to see this withholding of judgment. I wonder if there can also be an internal sense of uncertainty that can be overcompensated for in external discussions? Discussions filled with maybe's and exploring the uncertainties are wonderful, but these can be difficult to find. I wonder about that. What do you think?

    Edit: in offline discussions and sometimes online, I have found that others will tend to project certainties into my thinking that aren't there and a significant amount of energy is spent explaining that I don't hold the opinions that they assume. If it is a conflict dynamic the assumption is that it is a very opposite opinion, and if congenial that it is the same opinion. Usually I don't hold either and remember having debates on both sides of topics with people who quickly project a set of opinions onto my thinking. I have family who are strongly "P" who have said that their strength is in their certainty in ideas. It's a complex area to examine - the relationship between doubt and certitude in how people think and relate.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  8. #38
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post
    Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".

    But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.

    But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".

    And this is my working hypothesis as to why we Ps tend to view the world in "maybes" while Js tend to see things more definitively.
    Well, yes.

    J's impose order on chaos and bring closure in alignment with their goals. The self can assert a structure on events and things.

    P's are more apt to see things as "unfolding" in a natural flow of events; some P's will try to game the results, true, while other P's are very much "hands off" and not wanting to impose at all on the order. But in any case, yes, if the event flow is distinct from the person, then everything is a "maybe." The only things known for sure are the things that one directly dictates, everything else follows from the process. Even P's that game the system are taking advantage of their understanding of the natural flow of the system, rather than just looking at the system as something to be overriden.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #39
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Even P's that game the system are taking advantage of their understanding of the natural flow of the system, rather than just looking at the system as something to be overriden.


    it's been my rule when i'm out on the ocean bodyboarding or surfing, too, ever since i was little. even though you might want to go a certain direction or at a certain time, the ocean is a bigger force than you (and it is a force that sustains you), and you are wise to listen to it and let it aid you in where you want to go. it's just easier - you tire yourself out otherwise. if it's pushing against you, question if it has good reason and might not be worth your effort to fight it. if you fight the wind you get drawn out to sea. and perhaps you will wind up somewhere new, perhaps in a way more enjoyable or more enlightening than before. if you're forever asserting yourself on the universe, you're not going to learn its secrets.

    by the same token a J could say that if you neglect asserting yourself, you'll never get where you've always wanted to go, and you'll always be subservient to something else. you'll miss out on opportunity that could have been conquered.

    both are true.

  10. #40
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I'm not sure what types we're even talking about to begin with. The MBTI J/P dichotomy is a mess. Jung had Rationals and Irrationals - and the dom perceivers (be it Extro or Intro) were the Irrationals...the ones full of "maybes", if you will. Here, it's all redefined, and only the extroverts are described correctly when talking about Jungian theory. A mess.

    I'm some Perceiver who doesn't care to fix the mess though. I just see it.
    Jungs rational/orrational concept has nothing to do with these maybes and definition is totally different from MBTI J and P. MBTI P types/jungs E-irrational and I-rational are the ones full of maybes. So simply no to everything that you said.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Seeing the world
    By targobelle in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 05:23 PM
  2. Replies: 110
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 12:49 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Do NFJs tend to be the most private types?
    By Glycerine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 09:19 PM
  4. [ENFP] How ENFPs see the world (maybe?)
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-04-2009, 11:01 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