User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 214

  1. #161
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think we are born with all cognitive functions (and who knows, there might be more than 8). It's just that some would be dominant and some recessive, just like everything else we inherent from our parents.
    I'll note too that the eight cog functions are a theoretical construct. They don't really "exist," they're just a way of categorizing behavior. There is no proof whatsoever that they correlate directly as separate entities to definable pieces of the genetic code/biology.

    This makes it even harder to "look for" them in the genetic code. What we call the eight cog functions might be scattered through zillions of combinations of genes and brain structures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    She's about as innovative in her thinking, as Minnie Pearl.
    Perhaps Minnie is an ENTP, like Sim.
    Sigh. It's lunchtime and now I really want to eat fried chicken!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #162
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    General comment:


    Everyone thinks they can escape preference.

    And it looks like a lot of times it is a function of their preferences that they think they can escape preference.

    But if as the MBTI people say, MBTI type is the underlying pattern to the personality, changing your preferences--as opposed to exercising a developed skill in a non-preferred area--would mean changing the underlying pattern of your personality.


    Hands up, who thinks the underlying structure of their personality varies enough over a lifetime that they ultimately end up not just typing differently, but having a personality with a new and genuinely different underlying pattern?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #163
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    For those who are still wondering, here is a relatively concise but still very accurate description of Introverted Intuition.

    I could relate to almost everything here, and it confirms that I really am an Ni-dom:

    INTJ INFJ Personality Type | The 16 MBTI Personality Types


    I was surprised when I found this because I am usually dissatisfied with the vague, arm-waving descriptions of cognitive functions.
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

  4. #164
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Sim: I mostly agree with everything you say.

    It just bothers me that, for me, not enough legitimacy is given to the expression of the non-preferred functions as it regards perceiving and judging. I understand that Lenore and others say you can use all functions when needed, but that is not really good enough. There is a subtle, yet real, difference in saying, "Yeah, sure, an Ni dom uses Si sometimes; not often, because he would naturally default to his primary comfort zone using Ni, but, sure, as often as any other INTJ, give or take life circumstances, or stressors." While I am saying this: "An Ni dom might have inherited quite an inclination for S and N from both parents, and while Ni is dom, S (I think it gets converted into the dom attitude, so in this case Si vs. Se) shares some of Ni's dedication for perceiving; not just using Si occasionally, but perhaps quite often, as a part of his overall mind cognition." Or what if someone's parents were both strong N? Wouldn't the child of those two be more likely to have better usage of Ni and Ne? What would this person look like? How would he be different? Why?
    So it's really the shadow functions that are the biggest issue. I agree that they are rather poorly explained by the prominent authors and that nobody really seems to have a cohesive theory on them.

    So an INTJ could use Si very rarely or rather often depending on how much he needs to, but I find it intuitively improbable that Si would ever come close to Ni's level of use if the person actually is INTJ. Ni and Si conflict with each other on how to interpret meaning. A person whose use of Ni and Si is that close would experience a lot of cognitive dissonance and have difficulty attaching any real meaning to anything.

    Lenore writes that Si leads us to relate all new information to something we already know, to find its relationship to the self on an internal map of past experience and information. Si wants to find stable meanings and interpretations for things.

    But Ni contradicts this prerogative by encouraging us to question the process of perception itself and consider as many different possible meanings and interpretations as we can. A person with balanced or nearly balanced use of both functions seems highly improbable, as he would be constantly conflicted about which voice to pay attention to: "Do I look for a stable meaning, or do I look at all possible meanings and try avoid attachment to any particular one?"

    Each set of attitudes contradicts its other form in a similar way: Te vs. Fe, Ne vs. Se and Ti vs. Fi. This is where the whole idea that only stressful circumstances bring out the repressed form of each type of cognitive task comes in. If an INTJ's natural response is to interpret all possible meanings and avoid committing to one, he would need to feel very insecure or scared about something in order to break out of this tendency and interpret just one stable meaning--using Si requires him to ignore the most valued part of his cognition, which is quite difficult.

    As for an INTJ with N parents, why would this necessitate stronger Ne use? You said the strong S use would convert to the dominant attitude, as in Se to Si, so...why wouldn't Ne convert to Ni?

    If his parents conditioned him heavily to work on Ne-related skills a lot, then he could probably end up with better Ne than most INTJs, but it's unlikely that it would ever compete with his Ni ability as this would actually change his type entirely.

    As far as I can tell, use of the shadow functions is basically a learned skill that depends on how many situations in a person's life have forced him to use them. Sometimes you meet people that have honed them to exceptional levels, but this is fairly uncommon in my experience because most people are just really afraid of leaving the comfort zones of the preferred attitudes, at least until much later in life.

    It seems more likely to me that the shadows of the tert/inferior would be accessed more easily than the shadows of the dom/aux. Lenore argues that the shadows of the dom/aux (the "crow's nest functions") are the first ones we turn to the dom/aux have failed to solve a situation, but I don't really see this happening much in practice and thus can't really agree with it. I think most people are really attached to using their dom/aux in those particular ways and will probably work on the shadows of their tert/inf as learned skills that are so different from the preferred methods of cognition that they don't come across as threatening to the dom/aux.

    For instance, one possible interpretation is that our INTJ in question might actively focus on developing conscious use of Ti (shadow of tert) or Ne (shadow of inf) instead of Si (shadow of dom) or Fe (shadow of aux), since these are "further away from" and thus less threatening to his preferred Ni/Te way of doing things. I still doubt that he'd tend toward using any of the shadows in higher proportion than his four primary functions, though, unless he spent a lot of time and effort actively improving these skills for some particular reason dictated by his circumstances. One of the popular theories holds that the functions go like this:

    1) dominant
    2) auxiliary
    3) tertiary
    4) inferior
    5) shadow inferior
    6) shadow tertiary
    7) shadow auxiliary
    8) shadow dominant

    This model seems most probable to me, but again I wouldn't assume anything past the dominant is set in stone. I think this model describes more people that I've met than any other, but it doesn't cover everyone because the order of shadows can change around a lot depending on personal experiences. They may even become stronger than the tert/inf if practiced enough, but it's hard to tell. It also seems like it'd be uncommon as this would require him to neglect one of the four types of cognitive tasks...why would he place a lot of emphasis on learning a secondary method of introverted perception, for instance, before he has a strong method of introverted judgment at all? You can see why this is likely to produce personality imbalances.

    Unfortunately, though, I don't think any one single consistent theory will explain shadow functions because they vary dramatically from person to person.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    You spoke about being balanced, and using the typical order to be a balanced person. I agree with that. But I would stop at calling out specific functions that would apply to, and just go with a person needing to balance out the attitudes of those functions. It's obvious a person needs introversion to be balanced with extraversion, and perceiving to be balanced with judging, etc. Until a person knows their predeliction for their own personal amounts of N/S and T/F, there can't really be a formula put to it, imo.
    Well, if we know that someone is dominant Ni, it's obvious which type of skill will most effectively balance that in the auxiliary role: Te or Fe. Since Ni is introverted perception, having an extroverted judgment function as the secondary attitude offers the most effective balance. Not everybody does this in practice, but those who do seem to have the best results and the most well-rounded approaches to life. Introversion/extroversion and perception/judgment don't exist independently as functions themselves; they are only descriptions of how N/S/F/T are applied...so you can't really balance I/E or P/J without working on the middle letters.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase 'all or nothing.' If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us.
    I really have no idea what the biological components of any of this are. I don't think it's been well researched.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #165
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    When it comes to ENTPs like Sim, no, he does not display original thought.
    He is parroting Lenore Thomson.

    Actually, he's stealing her thoughts and passing them off as his own.
    How do I know? I recognize her comments coming out of his mouth.
    It's like watching Provoker rip off Ren Descartes, in a different thread.

    If I used only Lenore Thomson as a single source of information, I am not ENTJ.
    What she claims is true of ENTJs in her book is frequently 180 degrees from how, and what, I think.

    She's about as innovative in her thinking, as Minnie Pearl.
    Perhaps Minnie is an ENTP, like Sim.


    True to an extent; ENTP's, or at least all that I've known, including myself, tend to be very adaptive, and generally well recieving of things they like, adding such into their many forms of expression.

    If I see a quote I like, I tend to start using it, whether I remember the original source or not. If I see something I find amusing, I'll generally use that as well.

    The main difference between such and a mere parrot, however, is the capacity to link togeather these newly gained information into something greater than the original construct, and better than the whole.

    There was an interesting commercial I saw for some company awhile ago, but I have no clue which one anymore... however it had a perfect logo for an ENTP:

    "We don't make alot of the products yeu use. We make alot of the products yeu use better."

    I will be the first to admit that my capacity to create something from absolute total scratch is... virtually nil. Give me the slightest pretense of the inkling of an idea to work from though and I can grow it into something magnificent, I just have such problems finding a starting point.

    I wouldn't be terribly surprised if most other ENTP's have similar issues... I think the biggest problem would therefore be those who grab up everything like a katamari ball as per normal for us, but fails to reconstruct it into something more interesting.

    We absorb ideas. Lots of them. And then reform them into something better. Some of us may just be stalling on the latter part of that process...

  6. #166
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    The main difference between such and a mere parrot, however, is the capacity to link togeather these newly gained information into something greater than the original construct, and better than the whole.

    There was an interesting commercial I saw for some company awhile ago, but I have no clue which one anymore... however it had a perfect logo for an ENTP:

    "We don't make alot of the products yeu use. We make alot of the products yeu use better."

    I will be the first to admit that my capacity to create something from absolute total scratch is... virtually nil. Give me the slightest pretense of the inkling of an idea to work from though and I can grow it into something magnificent, I just have such problems finding a starting point.

    I wouldn't be terribly surprised if most other ENTP's have similar issues... I think the biggest problem would therefore be those who grab up everything like a katamari ball as per normal for us, but fails to reconstruct it into something more interesting.
    Right, Ne needs external input to operate. It's better at refining ideas that already exist/synthesizing them into one broader system than it is at inventing something totally unheard of previously.

    Of course, moronic ENTJs don't even remotely understand the value in this, but I've learned not to expect them to. You can only hear "omg NTPs are so stupid for not being NTJs" so many times before you stop taking it seriously.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #167
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So it's really the shadow functions that are the biggest issue. I agree that they are rather poorly explained by the prominent authors and that nobody really seems to have a cohesive theory on them.

    So an INTJ could use Si very rarely or rather often depending on how much he needs to, but I find it intuitively improbable that Si would ever come close to Ni's level of use if the person actually is INTJ. Ni and Si conflict with each other on how to interpret meaning. A person whose use of Ni and Si is that close would experience a lot of cognitive dissonance and have difficulty attaching any real meaning to anything.

    Lenore writes that Si leads us to relate all new information to something we already know, to find its relationship to the self on an internal map of past experience and information. Si wants to find stable meanings and interpretations for things.

    But Ni contradicts this prerogative by encouraging us to question the process of perception itself and consider as many different possible meanings and interpretations as we can. A person with balanced or nearly balanced use of both functions seems highly improbable, as he would be constantly conflicted about which voice to pay attention to: "Do I look for a stable meaning, or do I look at all possible meanings and try avoid attachment to any particular one?"
    I see that you feel Ni and Si are mutually exclusive functions. But I don't really think it would need to be difficult at all, if the person had some organic proclivity for using both. I could see that perhaps when engaged more with objects or the world, Si might be preferred; and when engaged in an abstract way, Ni might be preferred. I don't think it would be conscious at all, nor difficult.

    Do you feel the same about different attitudes of the same preference? Ni and Ne, for example? Or is that a more comfortable notion for you because it's the same preference? I see people all the time on here who have reported this, admittedly from those crappy functions tests. I use Ni and Ne. I take in patterns (Ne) here on type c. I notice who does what, whose posted where, who's coming, who's going, certain threads where certain people are, who's said what to whom, who's intimated things, who's flirting, etc. All very easily. I can tell I don't do it like an Ne dom does it, nor an Ne aux; but my point is that it doesn't hurt or cause me any confliction. I simply use it because I need to, Ni doesn't work for that stuff. And I've also learned I do it pretty well. Which would belie a simple shadow spot for my Ne.

    I'm sorry. I just don't like the term shadow. Because it's defined as being used under duress, or scantily. And that's just not how I know for our non primary, non aux functions to be used, much of the time. I guess until I come up with a better term, shadow it will be.

    Each set of attitudes contradicts its other form in a similar way: Te vs. Fe, Ne vs. Se and Ti vs. Fi. This is where the whole idea that only stressful circumstances bring out the repressed form of each type of cognitive task comes in. If an INTJ's natural response is to interpret all possible meanings and avoid committing to one, he would need to feel very insecure or scared about something in order to break out of this tendency and interpret just one stable meaning--using Si requires him to ignore the most valued part of his cognition, which is quite difficult.
    I would respond as I did above. Theoretically, using current function theory as a guide, I could see drawing that conclusion. I just really don't see it in practice, honestly. Perhaps if the utilization concept was changed to "if and when it's needed" instead of "in stressful circumstances" it would be a better fit, and jive more with reality.

    Where am I getting this? I've just made mental note of people's cognitive function tests on here, which I know suck, but it's all we really have; and I've noticed that people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference. Perhaps that is test bias. Who knows. I don't think it's necessarily a test foible, because I've seen it occur in people irl, haven't you? But I also have the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers, and I've explored it in depth, testing and retesting, and contemplating people I know. It's got good descriptions of the functions, but the tests are barely comprehensive, with many only having 8 questions.


    As for an INTJ with N parents, why would this necessitate stronger Ne use? You said the strong S use would convert to the dominant attitude, as in Se to Si, so...why wouldn't Ne convert to Ni?
    I am sketchy on this myself. Does a person inherit a preference or a function? I would guess a preference, then that preference would meld to the attitude it needed to acquire to fall into the overall personality make-up. So, if a person had N parents, I would guess that person to have better usage of Ni and Ne, simply because he has more N and less S. If a person inherits N/S, then I would guess they'd both convert to the dominant attitude and share tasks as I stated in the first paragraph. I realize this is far-fetched. It is just my nature to reach, but it also just makes a lot of sense to me, as if it were true. (i don't know if that is a good thing, or bad thing).

    If his parents conditioned him heavily to work on Ne-related skills a lot, then he could probably end up with better Ne than most INTJs, but it's unlikely that it would ever compete with his Ni ability as this would actually change his type entirely.
    Well, I use Ne as I've stated, as do maaannny others, I'm sure; and I doubt it's as apocolyptic as you think.

    As far as I can tell, use of the shadow functions is basically a learned skill that depends on how many situations in a person's life have forced him to use them. Sometimes you meet people that have honed them to exceptional levels, but this is fairly uncommon in my experience because most people are just really afraid of leaving the comfort zones of the preferred attitudes, at least until much later in life.
    I know this is true for me with Te. School, college, more school, homeschooling, mothering, etc., have forced me to become very good with Te. I'm not 'supposed' to be inherently good at Te, according to function theory.

    However, interestingly (for myself), I distinctely remember when I began using Ne and it was in my childhood/teenage years. I've considered that this meant, to fit it into neat function theory, that I'm infp, and that it was the normal development time for my Ne. But I'm no infp. I remember even telling someone about how I loved to look for patterns in things, and see what was missing in patterns in things, and how asymmetry drove me crazy. Eric B told me before this might have been a manifestation of developing Ti. But it sounds an awful lot like Ne to me. I see children I know who do this too. I don't think it's as rare as we think.

    It seems more likely to me that the shadows of the tert/inferior would be accessed more easily than the shadows of the dom/aux. Lenore argues that the shadows of the dom/aux (the "crow's nest functions") are the first ones we turn to the dom/aux have failed to solve a situation, but I don't really see this happening much in practice and thus can't really agree with it. I think most people are really attached to using their dom/aux in those particular ways and will probably work on the shadows of their tert/inf as learned skills that are so different from the preferred methods of cognition that they don't come across as threatening to the dom/aux.

    For instance, one possible interpretation is that our INTJ in question might actively focus on developing conscious use of Ti (shadow of tert) or Ne (shadow of inf) instead of Si (shadow of dom) or Fe (shadow of aux), since these are "further away from" and thus less threatening to his preferred Ni/Te way of doing things.
    Why do you think that it's better to be less threatening to the dom/aux? I would intuit that it would be better to be closer to his preferred way of doing something. You know what I'm going to say. I'm going to say that it would depend on what he inherently more of, N/N or N/S. If it's the N/N, it would be the former, N/S, the latter, although I don't really like the concept of 'shadow' as you know.

    My specific example is that my INTJ does the latter. He's better at Si and Fe, than Ti and Ne (i think Ne anyway). But I've seen your proposition work too. It's just all a crapshoot.

    I still doubt that he'd tend toward using any of the shadows in higher proportion than his four primary functions, though, unless he spent a lot of time and effort actively improving these skills for some particular reason dictated by his circumstances. One of the popular theories holds that the functions go like this:

    1) dominant
    2) auxiliary
    3) tertiary
    4) inferior
    5) shadow inferior
    6) shadow tertiary
    7) shadow auxiliary
    8) shadow dominant

    This model seems most probable to me, but again I wouldn't assume anything past the dominant is set in stone. I think this model describes more people that I've met than any other, but it doesn't cover everyone because the order of shadows can change around a lot depending on personal experiences. They may even become stronger than the tert/inf if practiced enough, but it's hard to tell. It also seems like it'd be uncommon as this would require him to neglect one of the four types of cognitive tasks...why would he place a lot of emphasis on learning a secondary method of introverted perception, for instance, before he has a strong method of introverted judgment at all? You can see why this is likely to produce personality imbalances.

    Unfortunately, though, I don't think any one single consistent theory will explain shadow functions because they vary dramatically from person to person.
    It would be nice to have some decent tests though, so people can know more what functions they use well, which ones need work, and to correlate it all in to archetypes, possibly refining them.


    I really have no idea what the biological components of any of this are. I don't think it's been well researched.
    Yeah, hard to know. I've gotten to where I like to find out a person's parents' types because I find the inheritence factor fascinating and just really fun. Like you have all these preferences between two people and it really does pan out that kids get a mix of the parents, as well as grandparents, etc., weaker the farther you go back.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  8. #168
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    You're still tho the first infj I met to be able to phrase his Ni, which is the epitome of infjness aswell, the antithesis I mean
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #169
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    You're still tho the first infj I met to be able to phrase his Ni, which is the epitome of infjness aswell, the antithesis I mean
    Ent, i'm not sure what you mean, 'phrase' my Ni/
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #170
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Dont worry, the infj I know doesnt know aswell
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

Similar Threads

  1. [Ni] Do You Think Introverted Intuition Is Focused On The Future
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-04-2016, 10:55 AM
  2. [INFJ] Extraverted feeling and introverted thinking processes in INFJs functional stack
    By Darlene in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 08:45 AM
  3. [JCF] THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTROVERTED THINKING AND INTROVERTED THINKING!
    By Chick24 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2014, 02:09 PM
  4. (Ni) Introverted Intuition and Critical Thinking?
    By Ribonuke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 10:17 PM
  5. Introverted Thinking - The Form of the Inferior - EFJs
    By Cegorach in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 08:52 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