• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Most likely to generalise?

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Now why would I make such a cliche, ironic and probably posted before topic?

Because I was wondering about the nature of intuitive functions and the way in which they build for themselves an idea or perception based upon one factor.

Of course this becomes more complex when it is split into Ne and Ni.

But at face value sensing functions seem to be the least likely to generalise because both Si and Se build a picture based upon many details at once.

Se tends to take it as it comes, whatever is in the external environment arrests the attention and becomes the immediate sensation.

Si tends to relate through a complex set of previously experienced sense impressions, although this can be extremely individual from Si user to Si user. So they might not remember a certain fact from a history lesson because it did not leave and impression, but another one might be remembered because it did.

Of course all 4 perpectionary functions are based around and subject to context, perhaps more so than the judging ones.

In any case im not trying to say something stupid like Intuitive types are generalisers and Sensing types are not.

More that generalisations in general could be more a product of Intuition than Sensing.

I will also mention that this might be a product of weaker Intuition than stronger, but since that implies Sensing types will generalise more I cant put that forth completely since it would clash with my own understanding of individuals and also make this a very ironic topic, besides I can't believe that unless I saw evidence for it.

More than anything else it might just be Intuition in combination with a negative usage of a judging function.

Thoughts?
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think N types are more apt to generalize. S types are more likely to note the specific instance while N types are more likely to find general principles.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
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?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
S types will frequently generalize about "the way things are."

STJ types you mean. And I think half of the time, it's because of Fi. If you asked, Ti would try to explain how they came to their understanding.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
STJ types you mean. And I think half of the time, it's because of Fi. If you asked, Ti would try to explain how they came to their understanding.

My dad is an ISTP, and nothing ticks him off faster than if I challenge his take on "reality" i.e. "the way things are." His Ti will engage to a short point, but if you are arguing with what his TiSe sees as general mechanical reality he gets angsty fast.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
My dad is an ISTP, and nothing ticks him off faster than if I challenge his take on "reality" or "the way things are." His Ti will engage to a short point, but if you are arguing with what TiSe sees as general mechanical reality he gets angsty fast.

Hmm.. I could only be like that if I'm preoccupied with getting something done and... it's unnecessary to explain how something works. Sometimes it's frustrating, depending on the person. Some people get stressed out and need a bunch of details to calm themselves about an issue, so I just want to say.. "Just go away. I'll do it." I'd rather keep some things to a "Yes" or "No". There are types of people who can't trust that enough, and need to know everything. And yeah, it pisses me off.

I never say "That's just the way it is" when it comes to a philosophical view though. Or at least, I can't recall. My point about Ti types is that they're Extroverted Percievers as well - often they will point to things (that you can see as well) that made them draw their conclusions, along with walking you through how they reason a bit. I think Ni and Si are more individualistic and nuanced - couple that with Fi, and their philosophical views aren't easily explained, and revolve around convictions. Further couple that with Te and it takes on a more commanding expression.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think in comparison to NPs every other group could seem prone to generalizing. :thinking:
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I think in comparison to NPs every other group could seem prone to generalizing. :thinking:
Are you crazy? Ask an ENP to be specific and watch them become paralyzed as though they cannot comprehend what you're saying.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Are you crazy? Ask an ENP to be specific and watch them become paralyzed as though they cannot comprehend what you're saying.
That doesn't mean they are generalizing. Thing is they love brainstorming, but the degree of trust they have in those countless random ideas won't be significant.
Try asking the ENP the same question 1 day later.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
I think in comparison to NPs every other group could seem prone to generalizing. :thinking:

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.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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 :ninja: (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 :tongue:
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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).
 
Top