superunknown on the functions

[violet_crown]

I think Coriolis is ISTJ.

That's a hard sell, son. What you got?

 

[Coriolis]

That's a hard sell, son. What you got?

I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .

 

[violet_crown]

I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .

I'm just curious what his reasoning is. [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] generally thinks about typology in a way that's refreshingly unorthodox, so his thought process typically interests me as much as his conclusions do.

In this case, though, the sort of spontaneous massive parallelism I consider to be the hallmark of Ni/Se is so apparent in the way that you think that it's hard to think of you as not NTJ. Dominant Si just has a very different vibe to it imo.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .

Your interactions on the forum seem more Te-dom to me.

 

[WALMART]

That's a hard sell, son. What you got?

I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .

To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.

Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.

To write out a very simple dichotomy:

Ni - Philosopher

Si - Scientist

I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.

I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.

Your interactions on the forum seem more Te-dom to me.

This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.

I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.

 

[violet_crown]

To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.

Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.

To write out a very simple dichotomy:

Ni - Philosopher

Si - Scientist

I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.

I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.



This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.

I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.

Gonna have to unpack this a little more before I make a decision about it. Will have to overcome knee jerk desire to buy you a beer right now.

 

[violet_crown]

I'm also curious what your assessment of me is, if you wouldn't mind, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION].

 

[011235813]

Yeah, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], type me too.

Raptor, INTP. I feel like you should have a positive outlook type somewhere in your tritype but I don't know what it would be other than 7w6 but that conflicts with 5w6 as a core enneatype, so idk.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

[MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] your analysis of me would be greatly appreciated .

 

[violet_crown]

I'm also curious what your assessment of me is, if you wouldn't mind, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION].

Yeah, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], type me too.

[MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] your analysis of me would be greatly appreciated .

Mod request for a possible thread split, pending Jon's willingness to indulge us, of course.

 

[Coriolis]

Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.

To write out a very simple dichotomy:

Ni - Philosopher

Si - Scientist

I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.

I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.



This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.

I might have agreed with most of this some years ago, before I learned as much as I did about MBTI and functional analysis. The observations that I demonstrate strong Te here have the most validity. As an introverted type, it will be my aux function that is most readily apparent. As for the comments from Jung, they seem to be dealing with Ni in a vacuum, but no one uses it like that. Someone operating on pure Ni would be a very unhealthy extreme, and unlikely to succeed as either a philosopher or a scientist.

I do work with some ISTJs, though they tend to be in management. The differences are apparent when I interact with them vs. my NT colleagues. I also know that I am much better with Se than Si. Situations strongly flavored by Si or requiring Si can feel almost sickening to me, in a way that I only understood after learning about functions, and how Si is at the absolute least of my preferences, at least according to theories like Beebe's.

I do appreciate the analysis, though. This is the first time someone has made anywhere near a reasonable case for me being something other than NTJ (I am occasionally mistaken for ENTJ, understandably). I am no expert on any of this, and like to see other people's interpretations.

As for Momental, NTP seems right; cannot vouch for I/E. (Sorry I can't furnish an analysis like Superunknown.)

Mods: feel free to move these posts on my type to a new thread if you split this.

 

[uumlau]

To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.

Ni and Si are differently rigid. Si understands things in terms of rigid categories. Ni understands things in terms of rigid functionalities.

Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.

In the MBTI Step II, it is noted that a lot of INTJs tend to type rather close the the N/S border. If you look at it, though, it's the Se aspects of things, not the Si. INTJs know that they need hard evidence to distinguish whether theory A or theory B is true. They don't focus on the Se points (that's kind of the how inferior functions work, you know), but once they've seen a few different possible answers, the single Se data point is all it takes to decide which theory is best.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.

Actually, I usually see several answers, but I choose only one (due to Te).

There's an old story of a question on a physics test: "Describe how you might measure the height of a building with a barometer."

The expected answer is that one measures the air pressure at the ground level, and at the top of the building, takes the difference, multiplies by a constant, and then one has the height of the building.

Now, here's Ni in action:

• Drop the barometer from the top of the building. Time its fall. Solve for the height of the building.
• Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground from the top of the building. Measure the string.
• Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground. Swing it gently back and forth. Measure the period of the swing. Calculate the height from the duration of the period.
• Go find the owner of the building. Say, "Hi. I'll give you this very nice barometer if you'll tell me how tall your building is."

To write out a very simple dichotomy:

Ni - Philosopher

Si - Scientist

I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.

I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.

Interesting. INTJs are the ones usually described as scientists. But yes, plenty of philosophers have been typed thus.

The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ, is that INTJs tend to thing in terms of "meta". Of overall planning, of overall perspective. Si understands "this is how we're going to do this, step by step." Ni understands "This is why we're doing this. If the why changes, we're gonna do it differently."

This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.

I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.

I can be skipped, too.

I don't need anyone to type me right now.

 

[Zarathustra]

To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.

Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.

To write out a very simple dichotomy:

Ni - Philosopher

Si - Scientist

I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.

I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.



This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.

I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.

Not that it wasn't a somewhat interesting read, but that was a whole lotta words to say, "I think of ISTJs as scientists and INTJs as philosophers, and I put Coriolis in the former box."

I also think, considering that was really the crux of your argument, it's pretty precarious territory to be basing a typing from.

INTJs are highly represented in the sciences, and it's not cuz they're all actually ISTJs.

Your notions about Ni, Se, Si, and the connection to reality are skewed.

That's what's causing the issue.

You need to remove some of the biases that are fogging your lenses.

I give you an A for effort, tho.

Just continue trying to strip away the biases.

 

[WALMART]

Mod request for a possible thread split, pending Jon's willingness to indulge us, of course.

I'm in. I've already begun work, provided a mod will do this for us.

INTJs are highly represented in the sciences, and it's not cuz they're all actually ISTJs.

Your notions about Ni, Se, Si, and the connection to reality are skewed.

I willingly admit (I actually stated it would be my tenure on this site, many moons ago) that there is a conscious drive behind my authorship. I read the Jungian functions today and relate back to my favorite pieces of study regarding the cognitive functions all those days ago, even back when I thought myself ENTP.

I memorized the fence-building problem that held the number one spot when 'MBTI eight functions' was googled, wanna know what it had to say about the three functions in question?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make it look appealing

Si - I want to take care of all the details building the fence

Ni - What's the deal with fences? Why do we need fences, anyway?

I am absolutely puzzled how the works of Jung have been condensed into these principles, and it's no wonder I had such a difficult time relating to Se conceptually. I feel bad for anyone searching out legitimate information on Fi and Fe as well, because it too has been grouped into an abstract concept of inferiority in relation to the alternatives, much as the sensing functions have grown.

I simply seek to perpetuate some proper analysis, is all. Ni may be perceived to be a slight causality to my cause, but in time, I'll get around to giving it the fair shake it deserves.

Thanks for taking my potential jab in stride, [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]. I will respond asap, because I do have something particular I would like to engage regarding your response.

 

[Coriolis]

Ni and Si are differently rigid. Si understands things in terms of rigid categories. Ni understands things in terms of rigid functionalities.

In the MBTI Step II, it is noted that a lot of INTJs tend to type rather close the the N/S border. If you look at it, though, it's the Se aspects of things, not the Si. INTJs know that they need hard evidence to distinguish whether theory A or theory B is true. They don't focus on the Se points (that's kind of the how inferior functions work, you know), but once they've seen a few different possible answers, the single Se data point is all it takes to decide which theory is best.

Interesting. INTJs are the ones usually described as scientists. But yes, plenty of philosophers have been typed thus.

The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ, is that INTJs tend to thing in terms of "meta". Of overall planning, of overall perspective. Si understands "this is how we're going to do this, step by step." Ni understands "This is why we're doing this. If the why changes, we're gonna do it differently."

Nice explanation, Uumlau, and one of my favorite stories from undergrad physics to boot. The highlighted is at the heart of the scientific method, though the theory aspect is often slighted in how this is taught in K-12 education. The underlined is a common shortcoming of inexperienced research (not collecting enough data), but when it is a matter of practical decision rather than a journal submission, this is often enough.

I know some ISTJ scientists, but far more ISTJ engineers. They are meticulous and thorough in applying established processes and relations to the design and construction of practical devices.

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make it look appealing

Si - I want to take care of all the details building the fence

Ni - What's the deal with fences? Why do we need fences, anyway?

This made me chuckle. I am known for asking questions of the third form in most settings. Half the group will stutter in consternation, "well, we've always had a fence . . . of course we need it . . . ", while the other half will express relief at the prospect of not having to worry about it. Then I show them what we should be worrying about. When I do agree we need a fence, I want form to follow function (assumes we understand the real function - all of it!) as simply as possible.

I will read whatever else you post on this topic with great interest.

 

[WALMART]

Actually, I usually see several answers, but I choose only one (due to Te).

The problem therein lies that the precluding statement to the one I quoted you on had read "I don't make any calculations in my head, I see the answer." The former part of the sentence is now of dire importance, because the context no longer applies, and it no longer sounds like a leading function of introverted intuition.

There's an old story of a question on a physics test: "Describe how you might measure the height of a building with a barometer."

The expected answer is that one measures the air pressure at the ground level, and at the top of the building, takes the difference, multiplies by a constant, and then one has the height of the building.

Now, here's Ni in action:

• Drop the barometer from the top of the building. Time its fall. Solve for the height of the building.
• Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground from the top of the building. Measure the string.
• Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground. Swing it gently back and forth. Measure the period of the swing. Calculate the height from the duration of the period.
• Go find the owner of the building. Say, "Hi. I'll give you this very nice barometer if you'll tell me how tall your building is."

Interesting. INTJs are the ones usually described as scientists. But yes, plenty of philosophers have been typed thus.

The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ, is that INTJs tend to thing in terms of "meta". Of overall planning, of overall perspective. Si understands "this is how we're going to do this, step by step." Ni understands "This is why we're doing this. If the why changes, we're gonna do it differently."

None of this is really supported by the objective evidence Jung provides. Not sure what else to say, except that Ni has been granted the same amnesty God has when playing Rock Paper Scissors. It is apparent that anyone with an intellectual ego will gravitate to the analyses provided post-Jung. All you're doing is reiterating things that someone of fair intelligence is capable of; it has nothing to do with personality.

When reading Jung on Ni and Te, it is a far cry from anything I've ever seen painted as Ni, up to and including these examples of the function.

This made me chuckle. I am known for asking questions of the third form in most settings. Half the group will stutter in consternation, "well, we've always had a fence . . . of course we need it . . . ", while the other half will express relief at the prospect of not having to worry about it. Then I show them what we should be worrying about. When I do agree we need a fence, I want form to follow function (assumes we understand the real function - all of it!) as simply as possible.

I will read whatever else you post on this topic with great interest.

I'm running out of steam, quickly. But I hope to tread forth, perhaps after rest.

 

[uumlau]

The problem therein lies that the precluding statement to the one I quoted you on had read "I don't make any calculations in my head, I see the answer." The former part of the sentence is now of dire importance, because the context no longer applies, and it no longer sounds like a leading function of introverted intuition.

The next part of your paragraph should begin with "Because ..."

None of this is really supported by the objective evidence Jung provides.

Jung doesn't provide "objective evidence."

Not sure what else to say, except that Ni has been granted the same amnesty God has when playing Rock Paper Scissors. It is apparent that anyone with an intellectual ego will gravitate to the analyses provided post-Jung. All you're doing is reiterating things that someone of fair intelligence is capable of; it has nothing to do with personality.

No, I just try to keep my analogies simple. If I used advanced physics, you'd be lost. I'm showing patterns. I am pointing at the moon, but you want to talk about my finger.

When reading Jung on Ni and Te, it is a far cry from anything I've ever seen painted as Ni, up to and including these examples of the function.

Food for thought: Jung's functions from his typology are not the "Jungian functions" that are usually discussed these days.

 

[WALMART]

The next part of your paragraph should begin with "Because ..."

Ah - because you mentioned in this thread that you do make calculations in your head, "with Te". I tend to let things speak for themselves; my apologies for not giving proper syntax to the importance of the statement I quoted.

Jung doesn't provide "objective evidence."

Sure he does, in the sense that one of the highest regarded psychologists of all time who counseled hundreds of people therapeutically in the most intimate of settings can be called upon for objective experience. If I've studied the mating habits of swallows for twenty seasons, surely the diary kept would be considered objective evidence for reality to all those who haven't.

It beats the shit out a priori knowledge, to say the least.

No, I just try to keep my analogies simple. If I used advanced physics, you'd be lost. I'm showing patterns. I am pointing at the moon, but you want to talk about my finger.

I was not aware you knew of my qualifications. Ni/Te in action, taking charge of the herd via this fabled a priori perception? I will have to presume you were playing the odds with that comment (which would be fair enough), but it certainly was not conducive to civil discourse.

I don't wish to simply talk about your finger, I want to talk about the irrational functions. Your finger had the convenient circumstance of pointing in the right direction, hence your summoning. If you can't see how the comment you made prior is correlative with introverted intuition...

Beyond this, you are qualifying attributes that are incongruous to introverted intuition. I have shown why the thinking is insubstantial relative to the tenure of the theory. If you wish to continue sounding off qualities you possess and why you feel they are attributable to Ni, feel free. I can see where the system has erred, where the system ran concurrent with perceptions that were easy enough to correlate but not necessarily correlative, and am no longer (maybe slightly) bothered by it.

Food for thought: Jung's functions from his typology are not the "Jungian functions" that are usually discussed these days.

I'm aware. Hence my discourse.

 

[Cellmold]

No, I just try to keep my analogies simple. If I used advanced physics, you'd be lost. I'm showing patterns. I am pointing at the moon, but you want to talk about my finger.

I've often thought on the subject of words and language in general being insufficient to accurately convey Ni perceptions and what it would be like to try and use something as stunted as language for that expression.

Didn't Jung himself have to invent, or at least combine, words to define his perceptions?

 

[Cellmold]

In this case, though, the sort of spontaneous massive parallelism I consider to be the hallmark of Ni/Se is so apparent in the way that you think that it's hard to think of you as not NTJ. Dominant Si just has a very different vibe to it imo.

What does Si vibe to you?