User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 22

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I think in comparison to NPs every other group could seem prone to generalizing.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Are you crazy? Ask an ENP to be specific and watch them become paralyzed as though they cannot comprehend what you're saying.
    They are both right. These are two sides to the same coin, because one fuels the other.

    NPs are going for precision in their preferred judgment function. And their Ne churns out endless possibilities and potentially applicable generalities and contexts.

    An NP sees so many possibilities, and the Ji function insists on perfect understanding/precision in its assigned task. The combination sometimes makes for a clusterf*** of endless speculation in the search/name of precision.

  2. #12
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Ti: Shaving off alternative theories, or twisting alternative theories to suite subjective systems of thought, resulting in possible oversimplification of how objects are categorized. Introverted processes depend on universals, covering all objects of particular definition, resulting in generalization.
    Ni: Perceiving patterns of abstract significance in an object or objects that are seen as applicable to all who bear the perceived quality. Once again, introverted processes depend on universals, and given the limited nature of introversion, one is prone to make narrow generalizations.
    Fi: Developing a qualitative judgment on how an object resonates with personal values. Evaluation is felt all across the board to anything that may even be perceived as infringing or appealing values.
    Si: Similar to Ni, though it depends on concrete comparisons rather than developing a symbolic sense of a trend.

    In introverted functions, a little bit of ignorance goes a long way in the precision of how objects are judged or perceived. In theory, developing a generalization that's agreeable with an extraverted dependent consensus solely by means of introversion is like pulling a Robin Hood by shooting one arrow through another. Still, people manage to do it, more or less, though introverts still must account for the wind when aiming. Good thing we possess all the functions.

    And yes, extraverted functions play into generalizing as well. It's funny people leaped to thinking it was all about extraversion and intuition. Maybe one's more extraverted expression is often seen as a broad generalization, but extraversion is more context dependent, meaning it may shift easily, and meaning it's not all-inclusive like the sort of tunnel-vision Introversion can bring along with it.

  3. #13
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Who knows, there are times that generalization is good and being specific is good. From what I've seen, all types tend to generalize, although, differently.

    I mean dear god, people tend to get pissed at me for reading extremely far into a word, but if you don't... there are many ways for people to misunderstand you.

  4. #14
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mia_infp View Post
    They are both right. These are two sides to the same coin, because one fuels the other.

    NPs are going for precision in their preferred judgment function. And their Ne churns out endless possibilities and potentially applicable generalities and contexts.

    An NP sees so many possibilities, and the Ji function insists on perfect understanding/precision in its assigned task. The combination sometimes makes for a clusterf*** of endless speculation in the search/name of precision.
    Yes, it is both.

    But it's almost like for ENPs at least..... we trust our own generalizations but not others. When we make generalizations we know their momentary rough-draftness, but then someone else makes a generalization there's this uncertainty of whether they're doing the same thing or maybe taking it seriously and as fact too soon (:horor, so then there's the mandatory "no but it didn't have to happen that way there's tons of exceptions here!" to make sure any unnecessary limits are destroyed. Always on the lookout for bad generalizations to escape and recreate, always (And yes I assure that this is slightly different from what you said in the first place, somehow....)

    Overgeneralized cop-out answer to the main question: we all generalize in different ways

  5. #15
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    Overgeneralized cop-out answer to the main question: we all generalize in different ways
    pftttttttt

  6. #16
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Si: Similar to Ni, though it depends on concrete comparisons rather than developing a symbolic sense of a trend.
    Actually, a concrete comparison to a specific real object is a Se thing more than a Si thing. Si would compare it to an internal archetype or ideal of what it is.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

    • MBTI? ISTJ
    • Enneagram? 6 with a strong 7 wing
    • Brony? Yes
    • Stereotypes?

  7. #17
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    Actually, a concrete comparison to a specific real object is a Se thing more than a Si thing. Si would compare it to an internal archetype or ideal of what it is.
    Yeah, it's internal, but it's still primarily based on perceptions of the concrete. Ti deals more with archetypal principles, and Fi deals with archetypal ideals. I can see how ones personal sense impressions may be romancized or idealized, but that sounds like it probably involves judgement, at the very least, perhaps coupled with intuition.

  8. #18
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mia_infp View Post
    S types will frequently generalize about "the way things are."

    For example, my ESTJ and myself this morning:

    me: Why?
    him: Because that's the way things are.
    me: Why?
    him: Because it is. Just do it.
    me: Wanna boink instead?
    Hmm interesting observation.

    I suppose my real point was intuition in general because as I said; it could be a product of intuition whether tertiary/inferior/auxiliary or dominant.

    This is all part and parcel of why we need all 4 and to at least understand our lesser ones for a bit of a perspective widener and of course to grow as a person.
    We are all thinkers/feelers/sensors/intuitives it is just to what extent and whether or not those functions are introverted or extroverted that is important.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Yeah, it's internal, but it's still primarily based on perceptions of the concrete. Ti deals more with archetypal principles, and Fi deals with archetypal ideals. I can see how ones personal sense impressions may be romancized or idealized, but that sounds like it probably involves judgement, at the very least, perhaps coupled with intuition.
    Si's actually rather abstract and archetypal. See here. This is a clearer description by a guy on another forum:

    Introverted Sensing is the projection of your own manifestation of an archetype onto an object so that in essence your own personal perception of the object (the fire is inviting - an archetypal reference relating your own manifestation of what inviting is) becomes more important than the intrinsic qualities of the object (the fire is hot or orange). Extraverted Sensing simply sees the object as it is, without projecting anything more into it. So introverted sensing becomes a highly impressionistic perception, wherein how an object comes across to you takes precedence. So for example Ansel Adams would likely be a Se-type capturing the object as is, where Monet or Van Gogh would most certainly be Si-types (in fact Jung uses Van Gogh as a reference for Introverted Sensing).
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

    • MBTI? ISTJ
    • Enneagram? 6 with a strong 7 wing
    • Brony? Yes
    • Stereotypes?

  10. #20
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    Si's actually rather abstract and archetypal. See here. This is a clearer description by a guy on another forum:
    Okay. I get where you're coming from.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] What type is the most likely to make a "What type is the most likely" thread?
    By Mort Belfry in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-28-2008, 01:32 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Are NFs the types most likely to believe...
    By Ilah in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 01:31 AM
  3. What type is most likely to fall in love?
    By Mole in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 12:14 PM
  4. most likely to "stuff" their feelings"
    By INTJMom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 08:55 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