User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 66

  1. #21
    Senior Member Thunderbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post
    The idea that we're actually accessing all the functions will certainly be a problem for the "I hate, loathe and despise Fe - it is a vile piece of slime on the face of the universe" squad!
    There's only one douchebag I can think of that constantly says this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nales View Post
    See, it takes a strong Fi to make such a powerful statement. Proof that both functions aren't used equally!
    However there are also other factors that can make you "seem" to use a function more than you should. Insecure and fearful people might appear to use Fe, but that could be only because they'd rather accomodate with other people than risk harm to themselves.
    Not necessarily. As an Fi-dom, I have pretty good Fe. I find that in most situations, my personal beliefs and ethics aren't called into play so I just go along with the group because there's no need to act like a douchebag and start trying to be as "individualistic" as possible. In the cases that are really personal, however, I won't back down with my Fi and can seem selfish to to others but that doesn't really happen a lot.
    We cast away priceless time in dreams, born of imagination, fed upon illusion, and put to death by reality. - Judy Garland

  2. #22
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    God, yes; thank you. I have always identified with descriptions for both Ne and Ni. Whether or not I am actually reaally attuned to Ni in the way that Ni users are said to be is a different matter, but I would just go back to my principle of 'walks like a duck.' It's true that Ne and Ni are conceptually different; one is divergent and the other is convergent, so on and so forth. But the truth is that many of us identify with both, and we may as well reconcile reality with our theory. (On the other hand, it should be noted that some Ne-dominants do not identify with Ni at all.)

    I can say that I 'synthesize' Ni through Ne and Ti, or.. whatever, but why not just call it Ni? In general, why not call it being oriented to intuition? Why not call it something along the lines of openness? Socionics realizes that 'Ne users' can 'be attuned to Ni,' so why can't we as adherents of MBTI embrace that concept as well?

    Ni may not be an Ne user's default, primary way of navigating the world, but to claim that the so-called shadow functions are completely out of reach is ridiculous. To claim that they're out of conscious reach is less ridiculous, but still kinda ridiculous.

    This also indicates that the types ought to be defined by their default, primary ways of navigating the world, that they ought to strive for reaching beyond these primary ways, but that they should not be limited to these primary ways. For example, hardcore Ne-dominants may neglect thinking and feeling, and may very well repress sensing. (This means that, say, they may start enterprises without reaping their benefits or seeing them through.) Jung himself says as such. To me, they ought to recognize this and work on it.

    Same applies for all of the functions and types, of course.
    if we are right, then a better desrcirption system would be more like this: make one direction the zero and determine where the function stands between zero and a 100.. let's say, introversion being zero, thus calculate the percentage of how extraverted a function is.

    so instead of giving a value for each function's direction, it would be more like:
    N% (E%)
    T% (E%)
    F% (E%)
    S% (E%)

  3. #23
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    My point is that they'd be working against each other. It's one thing to say the two types can follow and understand the other, but a different thing to prefer both at the same time. Ne doms don't seem to get tied down to a specific perception or meaning. They keep pursuing and indulge in possibilities. NJs are more focused.. and once they are focused, they'll take a dump on other possibilities. In their minds, they've already gone through them.
    I think so.

    As much as I like her book, I don't really believe in Lenore Thompson's view of the shadow functions. ITJs - they prefer Fi. That's what they "use". Fe is a really big stretch for them. IFJs prefer Fe. ENFPs prefer Ne and Te. That's what they use. So yeah, I don't think we use the shadow functions very much at all if we're operating in a healthy state.

    If we do use them, I think the lower down the stack you go, the more difficult it is to access them or it's increasingly disfunctional to use them.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  4. #24
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    My point is that they'd be working against each other. It's one thing to say the two types can follow and understand the other, but a different thing to prefer both at the same time. Ne doms don't seem to get tied down to a specific perception or meaning. They keep pursuing and indulge in possibilities. NJs are more focused.. and once they are focused, they'll take a dump on other possibilities. In their minds, they've already gone through them.
    people with extremely introverted intuitions (no Ne) might get tied down to the speciic meaning and underlining principles, but that's not because of their Ni - all the Ni did was figure out those meanings and underlining principles - it was their lack of Ne that brought them to not think of other possibilities. not all Ni doms are like that - plenty have a very well developed Ne on the side.

  5. #25
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    i test high in both ne and ni and sort of fi and fe...so...does that mean that i'm basically just a major intuitive feeling person...or...do the test questions just suck?
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  6. #26
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    i test high in both ne and ni and sort of fi and fe...so...does that mean that i'm basically just a major intuitive feeling person...or...do the test questions just suck?
    Test questions suck.

    You're ENFP.

  7. #27
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    i test high in both ne and ni and sort of fi and fe...so...does that mean that i'm basically just a major intuitive feeling person...or...do the test questions just suck?
    False dichotomy. A third option is that the theory sucks.

    We conflate 'skills' and 'preferences' way, way too much. I'm sure that you can be skilled at all four of those functions.

    The test sucks at determining what we're truly attuned to. But I'm not so sure that measuring what we're truly attuned to is useful or even accurate.

    If Ne, Ni, Fi, and Fe all resonate with you, don't let a test or theory hold you back from being attuned to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    My point is that they'd be working against each other. It's one thing to say the two types can follow and understand the other, but a different thing to prefer both at the same time. Ne doms don't seem to get tied down to a specific perception or meaning. They keep pursuing and indulge in possibilities. NJs are more focused.. and once they are focused, they'll take a dump on other possibilities. In their minds, they've already gone through them.
    Now, this is true. But I think what @Mane was calling out as ridiculous was not being able to be strong in both, which is different than preferring both.

    It seems that Ne and Ni would work against each other, for sure. But that doesn't mean that a so-called Ne dominant is an incapable baby when it comes to honing in on a likely possibility or that he is necessarily unskilled in doing so.

    Moreover, to say that an Ne dominant is not necessarily attuned to looking for 'what is really going on,' which is typically regarded as a manifestation of Ni, is severely limiting. (..especially to an Ne-dominant who also happens to be an Enneagram 6..)

  8. #28
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Fair enough. As for tests, I think we'd be better off with the version 1.0 of that cognitive test. I wrote to him about it, but he said people complained about the Ni questions being too odd (can't find an archive atm, so I can't give an example). I think less people would score highly because of that though.

  9. #29
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    False dichotomy. A third option is that the theory sucks.

    If Ne, Ni, Fi, and Fe all resonate with you, don't let a test or theory hold you back from being attuned to them.



    Now, this is true. But I think what @Mane was calling out as ridiculous was not being able to be strong in both, which is different than preferring both.

    It seems that Ne and Ni would work against each other, for sure. But that doesn't mean that a so-called Ne dominant is an incapable baby when it comes to honing in on a likely possibility or that he is necessarily unskilled in doing so.
    no, i actually do mean prefering both... the tests are built around preferance of use, not strength (i remember making a thread questioning that somewhere)...

    but i am saying that the view that Ni and Ne conflict behavioraly only stem from the extremes of people who have one or the other, which can certainly be the case for some.

    imagine if you had a game where you had to run around in a farm and make a list of the livestock in the order of each animal's population. some people would get a rough estimate for each and then run to the next one (extreme E), some would give each a lot of attention and count it but then miss the rest of the livestocks (extreme I), while others would do something in the middle.

    same with intuition - some would get a vague notion of the pattern and run witth the possibilities but miss the underlining meaning and princples (extreme Ne), others would grasp a very deep meaning and underlining patterns within patterns but won't recognize that they have missed other possibilities (extreme Ni), and some would be somewhere in the middle.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    God, yes; thank you. I have always identified with descriptions for both Ne and Ni. Whether or not I am actually reaally attuned to Ni in the way that Ni users are said to be is a different matter, but I would just go back to my principle of 'walks like a duck.' It's true that Ne and Ni are conceptually different; one is divergent and the other is convergent, so on and so forth. But the truth is that many of us identify with both, and we may as well reconcile reality with our theory. (On the other hand, it should be noted that some Ne-dominants do not identify with Ni at all.)

    I can say that I 'synthesize' Ni through Ne and Ti, or.. whatever, but why not just call it Ni? In general, why not call it being oriented to intuition? Why not call it something along the lines of openness? Socionics realizes that 'Ne users' can 'be attuned to Ni,' so why can't we as adherents of MBTI embrace that concept as well?

    Ni may not be an Ne user's default, primary way of navigating the world, but to claim that the so-called shadow functions are completely out of reach is ridiculous. To claim that they're out of conscious reach is less ridiculous, but still kinda ridiculous.

    This also indicates that the types ought to be defined by their default, primary ways of navigating the world, that they ought to strive for reaching beyond these primary ways, but that they should not be limited to these primary ways. For example, hardcore Ne-dominants may neglect thinking and feeling, and may very well repress sensing. (This means that, say, they may start enterprises without reaping their benefits or seeing them through.) Jung himself says as such. To me, they ought to recognize this and work on it.

    Same applies for all of the functions and types, of course.
    Very well said. When I took the cognitive functions test I found the same thing, with excellent (100%) usage of Ne, and good (67%, I think) usage of Ni. Even though I recognize I have a very clear orientation and preference for Ne, I find myself able to coalesce the two intuitions together on a regular basis, and these are often my most strongly held notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    (On the other hand, it should be noted that some Ne-dominants do not identify with Ni at all.)
    This was interesting as well, since as an Fi dom I don't identify with Fe at all. Perhaps I can switch back and forth more easily between the two types of N because it holds the aux position.

Similar Threads

  1. what do you guys think of the theory of shadow functions coming foward during stress?
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 05:26 AM
  2. The Role of Shadow Functions in MBTi Type
    By MerkW in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 11:26 PM
  3. What are the uses of technology?
    By yenom in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 03:39 AM
  4. What's the MBTI of..
    By Alfa Prime in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 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