Fe and Te?

[The WhimWham]

the way i look at it is that ENTPs do less deductive work -- they spend way MORE time on inductive jumps than INTPs. they'll connect two things (extroverted intuition), send that to Ti to analyze, and then before they're even done, they've moved on to the next connection.

Ti doms make way fewer connections than Ne doms, they just analyze those connections to death.

(someone else back me up on this?)

We're really getting into semantic territory here, and I apologise for that.

Undoubtedly, part of the process of correctly formulating precise explanatory principles is a test against the real-world data, and yes, that is deductive, but (speaking for myself here) it's hardly the primary concern. That, to me, is properly assigned to Te, which INTPs seem to regard more as a necessary evil than anything else.

So I essentially agree with you, but the sticking point is that I still think the bulk of the analysis of those connections is inductive.

plus, seeing the specific in terms of a larger picture cannot be thought of as either introverted or extroverted, as it's the primary purpose of both Ni and Ne. the difference between introversion and extroversion here is that Ni sees the present specifics in the context of an abstract picture of the past, and Ne is less concerned with an encompassing abstract picture of the world -- it just cares about making as many connections with the things it sees as possible, even if they go against any kind of overall picture.

This is where I'm going to sound like a complete nutjob, so bear with me...

The common line of thought is that, yes, S = concrete and N = abstract, and in one sense that's correct, but in another sense I tend to disagree.

Take any ENTJ, for example. ESTJs tend to be a lot more literal-minded, but both are very "concrete" in that they're both results-oriented -- this is the Te at work. Meanwhile, even Si is "abstract" in the sense that it unifies sensory experience, linking the present to the past (hence the orientation towards stability and permanence).

You've now piqued my curiosity, because your description of Ni sounds like my idea of Si. It's the first time I've ever heard "Ni" and "past" in the same sentence. (This may be better in another thread.)

 

[redacted]

We're really getting into semantic territory here, and I apologise for that.

Undoubtedly, part of the process of correctly formulating precise explanatory principles is a test against the real-world data, and yes, that is deductive, but (speaking for myself here) it's hardly the primary concern. That, to me, is properly assigned to Te, which INTPs seem to regard more as a necessary evil than anything else.

i dunno, to me it seems like inductive reasoning is almost all deductive, except for the first step. i'd assign the first step to an N function and the latter steps to any judgment function. f for truth about values, t just for truth.

This is where I'm going to sound like a complete nutjob, so bear with me...

The common line of thought is that, yes, S = concrete and N = abstract, and in one sense that's correct, but in another sense I tend to disagree.

Take any ENTJ, for example. ESTJs tend to be a lot more literal-minded, but both are very "concrete" in that they're both results-oriented -- this is the Te at work. Meanwhile, even Si is "abstract" in the sense that it unifies sensory experience, linking the present to the past (hence the orientation towards stability and permanence).

You've now piqued my curiosity, because your description of Ni sounds like my idea of Si. It's the first time I've ever heard "Ni" and "past" in the same sentence. (This may be better in another thread.)

i agree that Te is going to be concrete no matter what. any judging function is essentially concrete. it starts with premises, and analyzes them. there can't be any mystery or abstraction or else the judging function wont know what to do. judging functions get information in the form of premises from perceiving functions.

anyways, my idea of Si and Ni is this: they're both about experience, Ni is about abstract ideas, Si is about concrete information.

Ni, from my understanding, is like a giant multi-demensional web of concepts with pointers stuck all over the place. the entire web can be thought of as an Ni users view of the world. when Ni takes in new information, it sees it in the context of where it fits in that giant web.

Si is more like a list of experiences, with similar experiences linked to each other. a new piece of information is fit in with past experiences that are linked together, and becomes a new part of the linked list.

Si isn't concerned with a hierarchy of concepts and Ni isn't concerned with a list of experiences.

 

[The WhimWham]

i dunno, to me it seems like inductive reasoning is almost all deductive, except for the first step. i'd assign the first step to an N function and the latter steps to any judgment function. f for truth about values, t just for truth.

Doesn't the statement that "inductive reasoning is almost all deductive" strike you as being at least slightly contradictory?

i agree that Te is going to be concrete no matter what. any judging function is essentially concrete. it starts with premises, and analyzes them. there can't be any mystery or abstraction or else the judging function wont know what to do. judging functions get information in the form of premises from perceiving functions.

Let me give you a slightly silly example of how I see Te vs. Ti:

When using a computer, some people have a real "need-to-know basis" mentality. They'll either memorise or write down the precise steps to achieve each individual task. This is how Te works, IMHO: sequential and contextual in its creation of rules.

Other people won't be satisfied with a list of "if-then" cases -- they want to get to the heart of it in order to liberate themselves from particular contexts. In other words, they want to figure out the underlying principles apart from any specific cases in order to be able to act outside of such a restrictive framework. This is Ti.

So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)".

Like I said, it's a silly example, but it kind of paints a picture: Te is tied to specifics in its creation of rules, whereas Ti generalises principles free from any specifics.

I'll have to ponder your Ni/Si ideas further. Ni, to me, is a kind of tapping into the underlying archetypes in a very focused way. (David Lynch has a very interesting way of describing this, actually.) But this is all for another thread.

 

[SillySapienne]

No.

Ti prefers to analyze/dissect information whereas Te prefers to apply/connect information.

Ti exhibits depth in details, and Te exhibits depth in scope.

 

[redacted]

Doesn't the statement that "inductive reasoning is almost all deductive" strike you as being at least slightly contradictory?

heh, yeah. but i thought you'd know what i meant. i mean that what you've been labeling inductive reasoning isn't really all inductive.

the induction is coming up with the premises. the rest is deduction.

Let me give you a slightly silly example of how I see Te vs. Ti:

When using a computer, some people have a real "need-to-know basis" mentality. They'll either memorise or write down the precise steps to achieve each individual task. This is how Te works, IMHO: sequential and contextual in its creation of rules.

Other people won't be satisfied with a list of "if-then" cases -- they want to get to the heart of it in order to liberate themselves from particular contexts. In other words, they want to figure out the underlying principles apart from any specific cases in order to be able to act outside of such a restrictive framework. This is Ti.

So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)".

Like I said, it's a silly example, but it kind of paints a picture: Te is tied to specifics in its creation of rules, whereas Ti generalises principles free from any specifics.

I'll have to ponder your Ni/Si ideas further. Ni, to me, is a kind of tapping into the underlying archetypes in a very focused way. (David Lynch has a very interesting way of describing this, actually.) But this is all for another thread.

coming up with underlying principles takes an N function as well as a T function. i just don't think Ti can do that alone. it takes an intuitive leap to guess how something works. Ti then checks that work.

and i agree with your description of Ni. Ni is a giant conceptual structure, so new data isn't just what it is...it's but an example of a long-term pattern.

anyways, yeah, maybe this stuff belongs in another thread. i think you get what i'm claiming already, though.

 

[The WhimWham]

No.

Ti prefers to analyze/dissect information whereas Te prefers to apply/connect information.

Ti exhibits depth in details, and Te exhibits depth in scope.

I kind of get what you're saying here, but I really don't see how it disagrees with my points above. The question I'd ask is, to what end does Ti analyse/dissect information? IMHO, the answer is, "to derive general explanatory principles".

 

[The WhimWham]

coming up with underlying principles takes an N function as well as a T function. i just don't think Ti can do that alone. it takes an intuitive leap to guess how something works. Ti then checks that work.

I just want to address this point by asking, Where do ISTPs fit into this? They're also excellent at figuring systems out.

(P.S. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, so I hope I haven't given that impression.)

 

[SillySapienne]

So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)"..

What you fail to understand/recognize is that regarding information processing, Te focuses on a more broader understanding, i.e., lateral thinking and Ti focuses on a more detailed understanding, i.e., vertical thinking.

Someone who prefers to study life at the molecular level is no deeper or more intelligent than someone who prefers to study life at the ethological/ecological level.

 

[The WhimWham]

What you fail to understand/recognize is that regarding information processing, Te focuses on a more broader understanding, i.e., lateral thinking and Ti focuses on a more detailed understanding, i.e., vertical thinking.

Someone who prefers to study life at the molecular level is no deeper or more intelligent than someone who prefers to study life at the ethological/ecological level.

You're right, and I should have put "deeper" in inverted commas. I don't think Te is more superficial than Ti, but I certainly think that's how it appears to I_TPs. It's really a pretty old cliche that extraversion seems "shallow" and "superficial" to introverts (and, by the same token, introversion looks myopic and limited to extraverts).

 

[alcea rosea]

I have been reading some of the things said on this forum, and that has raised some doubts and question in my mind.
I am getting confused about Fe.
People were saying, its mostly 'fake', a lie. Its just to accommodate the other person/group by playing chameleon. This is making me paranoid! Its making me feel Fe is insincere! How do I believe a person who is Fe? Is it what they're actually feeling, or is it just some big show?

Also, how does the Te work?
Thank you

Fe in my opinion is very warm and considerate function. Well balanced Fe is no fake in any way.

I'd say Te is all about organizing and categorizing.

 

[redacted]

I just want to address this point by asking, Where do ISTPs fit into this? They're also excellent at figuring systems out.

(P.S. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, so I hope I haven't given that impression.)

i'd say they have to use Ni to some extent to generate some possible connections that Ti can analyze.

it seems like any complex processing has to use 3-4 functions all sending information among eachother.

 

[The WhimWham]

i'd say they have to use Ni to some extent to generate some possible connections that Ti can analyze.

it seems like any complex processing has to use 3-4 functions all sending information among eachother.

Perhaps, but again, this is the problem with using a "cognitive processes" approach to type, IMHO. At best, I think the functions are more about tendencies towards certain processes, assumptions, attitudes, etc. than processes themselves (or parts thereof).

But putting that aside for a moment, I just can't see how Ni could substitute for Ne here, particularly given that it's an ISTP's tertiary function. Ni and Ne are very different functions and can't play the same role in similar processes.

 

[Kiddo]

But putting that aside for a moment, I just can't see how Ni could substitute for Ne here, particularly given that it's an ISTP's tertiary function. Ni and Ne are very different functions and can't play the same role in similar processes.

I've been having an issue with dissonance's definition of Ni. He keeps describing Ni as a "giant web of connections" which seems much more Ne to me, especially when he emphasizes absorbing "external data into the web" when Ni is about insight, or the feeling of understanding coming from a deep perception of each situation.

Ne - extraverted iNtuiting
Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change "what is" for "what could possibly be"; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

Ni - introverted iNtuiting
Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing "what will be"; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols.

When it comes to discussing intuition, extroverted usually translates into a broad, indirect, and not very specific perception whereas introverted translates into a deep, astute, and generally specific perception. Not to mention that Ne is focused on taking patterns, interpreting them, and translating them into a new ways of looking at things, whereas Ni makes use of its deep perception to predict what the outcomes of various patterns will be.

 

[redacted]

Perhaps, but again, this is the problem with using a "cognitive processes" approach to type, IMHO. At best, I think the functions are more about tendencies towards certain processes, assumptions, attitudes, etc. than processes themselves (or parts thereof).

i think TYPE is about tendencies. functions should be rigidly defined -- it would be a pretty flimsy system if both type and functions were amorphous.

But putting that aside for a moment, I just can't see how Ni could substitute for Ne here, particularly given that it's an ISTP's tertiary function. Ni and Ne are very different functions and can't play the same role in similar processes.

well Ne and Ni are both about making connections. they therefore play a similar role.

I've been having an issue with dissonance's definition of Ni. He keeps describing Ni as a "giant web of connections" which seems much more Ne to me, especially when he emphasizes absorbing "external data into the web" when Ni is about insight, or the feeling of understanding coming from a deep perception of each situation.

When it comes to discussing intuition, extroverted usually translates into a broad, indirect, and not very specific perception whereas introverted translates into a deep, astute, and generally specific perception. Not to mention that Ne is focused on taking patterns, interpreting them, and translating them into a new ways of looking at things, whereas Ni makes use of its deep perception to predict what the outcomes of various patterns will be.

Ni is all about finding new data's position in the "web" i was talking about. the "insight", or "feeling of understanding" is when you've found the position. Ni can predict the future by using the web as a template for how the strings of the past all connect together. if you get how one moment in the past caused the next, you can use the same logic to figure out how the present will cause the future.

but i think you're ascribing too much to Ne. Ne doesn't realy interpret, i think that's more a task for judging functions. Ne just makes connections without paying attention to how things have fit together in the past. in that sense, Ne is more creative than Ni, because it's not bounded by experience.

and Ne is obviously much more reactive to new data because it doesn't have nearly as much work to do. when Ni sees new data, it has to sift through every past concept to place the data, whereas Ne just makes something up.

but of course Ni can take in data, it must've at some point...

 

[Kiddo]

Ni is all about finding new data's position in the "web" i was talking about. the "insight", or "feeling of understanding" is when you've found the position. Ni can predict the future by using the web as a template for how the strings of the past all connect together. if you get how one moment in the past caused the next, you can use the same logic to figure out how the present will cause the future.

but i think you're ascribing too much to Ne. Ne doesn't realy interpret, i think that's more a task for judging functions. Ne just makes connections without paying attention to how things have fit together in the past. in that sense, Ne is more creative than Ni, because it's not bounded by experience.

and Ne is obviously much more reactive to new data because it doesn't have nearly as much work to do. when Ni sees new data, it has to sift through every past concept to place the data, whereas Ne just makes something up.

but of course Ni can take in data, it must've at some point...

I'm sorry, but I think you are arbitrarily redefining Ni and Ne, possibly to make them fit you. I have not seen a single definition of Ni and Ne that supports your assertions.

 

[redacted]

I'm sorry, but I think you are arbitrarily redefining Ni and Ne, possibly to make them fit you. I have not seen a single definition of Ni and Ne that supports your assertions.

my biggest problem with descriptions of the functions on many websites is that
Se:Si isn't like Ne:Ni

and i don't see how what i'm saying even contradicts any definitions. it still supports insight, predicting the future, seeing things in terms of archetypes, conceptualizing new ways of seeing things, etc.

 

[SillySapienne]

and i don't see how what i'm saying even contradicts any definitions. it still supports insight, predicting the future, seeing things in terms of archetypes, conceptualizing new ways of seeing things, etc.

Uh, Ne doesn't facilitate/induce/exhibit these characteristics?

 

[Kiddo]

my biggest problem with descriptions of the functions on many websites is that
Se:Si isn't like Ne:Ni

Well that is a good thing because Se:Si isn't like Ne:Ni.

and i don't see how what i'm saying even contradicts any definitions. it still supports insight, predicting the future, seeing things in terms of archetypes, conceptualizing new ways of seeing things, etc.

I'll try to point out some contradictions.

Ni is all about finding new data's position in the "web" i was talking about. the "insight", or "feeling of understanding" is when you've found the position. Ni can predict the future by using the web as a template for how the strings of the past all connect together. if you get how one moment in the past caused the next, you can use the same logic to figure out how the present will cause the future.

First you are imposing the idea of "web." If you look at the definitions I posted earlier, the one that mentions "thread" and "connections" isn't Ni, but Ne.

but i think you're ascribing too much to Ne. Ne doesn't realy interpret, i think that's more a task for judging functions. Ne just makes connections without paying attention to how things have fit together in the past. in that sense, Ne is more creative than Ni, because it's not bounded by experience.

If you look at the defintion I posted earlier it says, "Interpreting situations and relationships."

and Ne is obviously much more reactive to new data because it doesn't have nearly as much work to do. when Ni sees new data, it has to sift through every past concept to place the data, whereas Ne just makes something up.

I've never even heard of this concept, so I imagine it is your own personal observation.

but of course Ni can take in data, it must've at some point...

The definition I posted earlier said, "Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data". Every function has to take in data to work, but the type of data that Ni takes in is in no way "external." Other functions take in external data, whereas Ni utilizes "internal" data that has been filtered and derived by other functions. Hence why INTJs and INFJs can sometimes have proof put right in their face and still continue to deny it.

 

[redacted]

Uh, Ne doesn't facilitate/induce/exhibit these characteristics?

yeah, Ne can do that stuff too. although the archetype stuff is more Ni.

again, Ni has to spend a lot of energy fitting data into a hierarchy of concepts, so it's less reactive to the environment.

Ne is much quicker and more all over the place.

 

[redacted]

Well that is a good thing because Se:Si isn't like Ne:Ni.

why shouldn't it be?

First you are imposing the idea of "web." If you look at the definitions I posted earlier, the one that mentions "thread" and "connections" isn't Ni, but Ne.

connections can mean a lot of things. you seem to be deliberately interpreting my words in a way that is contradictory instead of Ni/Fe-ing to find way to see my point of view.

i'm not talking really about connections between two things in the environment. i'm talking about a connection from one concept to another concept.

If you look at the defintion I posted earlier it says, "Interpreting situations and relationships."

okay, sure. it can relate things to eachother, which i guess is technically interpreting. but the definition you quoted is just some guy's simplification of the function. i don't see why you're giving it so much weight.

full interpretation really takes a judging function.

I've never even heard of this concept, so I imagine it is your own personal observation.

of course it is.

you can either try to see what i'm saying or just blindly dismiss it because i'm somehow not credible.

if you think about it, everything we read about type is personal observation.

The definition I posted earlier said, "Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data". Every function has to take in data to work, but the type of data that Ni takes in is in no way "external." Other functions take in external data, whereas Ni utilizes "internal" data that has been filtered and derived by other functions. Hence why INTJs and INFJs can sometimes have proof put right in their face and still continue to deny it.

i'm gonna go find a quote in jung's original book, but honestly, all perceiving functions can take in external data. the introverted ones just see external data as one tiny speck of information in a lifelong series, the extroverted ones see the data as all that matters.

and honestly "foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data" doesn't even make any sense. implications of what? if it's implications of something external, it by definition takes in external data. if it's implications of something internal...well... so what?