[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introverted Intuition not Introverted thinking the primary\dominant function of INTPs

[Kalach]

'the hell is wrong with you people?

Get yer own dominant function.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Admittedly these are all arbitrary groupings at the end of the day, but I still don't understand how a dominant-Ti type has dominant-Ni. To make that sort of statement is to ignore logical coherence as a praxis altogether.

It's kind of like saying "I think 1 is actually 2" - all it does is confuse people, and ultimately contributes nothing. What point are you actually trying to put across? Is it that the general perception of INTPs is more in line with Jung's definition of Ni?

 

[nanook]

I don't think people just have one function, even when they're young.

try to hold more than one type in your mind for a moment: observation shows that in early development the first function is used and the rest is melted together as shadow, this shadow is practically using the person, not the other way round. now, according to your view, the introverted guy gets name-called (J or P) according to what his shadow does to him, and the extroverted guy gets name-called according to what he is trying to do consciously in independence from his shadow. that is some ugly lack of symmetry, isn't it? now if typology was about name-calling, that is to say about arbitrarily made up definitions, then you could make it as a-symetrical as you wish. problem is, typology is about testing and testing is about what people are identified with and that is not their shadow. its btw carl jungs explicit opinion that his typology is about that which people are conscious of.

 

[nanook]

how a dominant-Ti type has dominant-Ni. To make that sort of statement is to ignore logical coherence as a praxis altogether.

try theory of mind. understand what is being said.
it's your way of reading that reads logical incoherence into it.

 

[VagrantFarce]

try theory of mind. understand what is being said.
it's your way of reading that reads logical incoherence into it.

Careful, your Ni is leaking.

Seriously though, if I can't relate what is being put forward to the existing system, I can't take anything away from it. (How's that for dominant-Ti, mister? :hi: ) To me, what he is saying is pretty much this:

:hi: : "Hi, I think that what you think is probably wrong. Let me get your opinion of that before explaining what I mean."
:

I need more, is what I'm saying. Show me your working!

note to self: too many smileys

 

[nanook]

please stop the (a)social games, you'r acting all ENFJ
this is not about him or me or how this dialoge is unfolding, it's about typology and reality.
observe people for some years and also read carl jungs books, then you have "more".
also you can have more, if you ask nicely or at least not as unkind as others did ...

 

[Totenkindly]

...observe people for some years and also read carl jungs books, then you have "more".

That's good. Since MBTI has actually been pretty accurate for me personally, I find it useful. It's also been useful for many people I've observed, in understanding their behavior... and all from personal observation, so I guess it "counts" now?

There has been a subset of people for whom it is not useful and so other ideas about personality development need to be explored in regards to them.

The system stands alone apart from Jung, even if it was originally derived from ideas in his works, so I also don't see why the OP is trying to criticize MBTI for not conforming entirely to Jung's work. To whit: Who cares what Jung said? If you want to discuss MBTI, discuss MBTI; it's not Jung's.

(And this is why I've avoided bothering much with this conversation: It seems to be a lot of quibbling about how apples and oranges look different.)

 

[JocktheMotie]

THIS APPLE PIE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLUMS IN IT!!11!!! FAIL!!

 

[ObliviousExistence]

SOME "INTP" who subscribe to the MBTI meme are correct about being "perceivers" AND they are correct about not beeing Ni types. they are either ISTp (not Ni but SiTe) or ENTp (not Ni but Ti&Ne). keep that in mind when arguing with people who call out bullshit on the notion of this thread and carl jung, without even reading or without thinking twice. a lot of people identify with INTP, not because of test results, [meaning not because of alignement with the 4 letter dichotomy, in this case with the the P-archetpye], but because of something they have read and what they have read was written by authors who believed that INTP are rooted in Ti so they tried to make Ti sound like its some kind of P-ish thing, meaning they described something that is like a mixture of a shy entp (they exist) and a psychotic (unstructured) INTj(TiNe). their writings are not rooted in observations of people who align with the P-archetype. observation is far too much work and does not pay back quick money, fame or power. instead they constructed virutal types (INTP profiles) from logical building blocks and tweaked the wordings until the contradictions are hidden underneath. needless to say, there is no aspect of development in their constructs, because no amount of bending words could justify the mbti function order once they had to deal with that.

well said

Admittedly these are all arbitrary groupings at the end of the day, but I still don't understand how a dominant-Ti type has dominant-Ni. To make that sort of statement is to ignore logical coherence as a praxis altogether.

It's kind of like saying "I think 1 is actually 2" - all it does is confuse people, and ultimately contributes nothing. What point are you actually trying to put across? Is it that the general perception of INTPs is more in line with Jung's definition of Ni?

what makes you think INTP should be dominant Ti? if in fact it INTP is a perceiving intuitive type then the appropriate jung function-type would be introverted intuitive since introverted thinking according to Jung is a judging function which would\should correlate to INTJ.

btw, since you obviously consider yourself an expert on this, how would you distinguish\describe the perceiving and judgment functions? how does your understanding of perceiving\judging compare to Jungs version?

btw, that avatar suits you

 

[VagrantFarce]

what makes you think INTP should be dominant Ti?

Well, the label "INTP" is determined by a naming convention - it's an arbitrary label describing a type that has dominant-Ti and secondary-Ne.

Is your problem really just with the MBTI naming convention as opposed to Jung's? :blushing: Couldn't you have just said that at the beginning?

btw, since you obviously consider yourself an expert on this, how would you distinguish\describe the perceiving and judgment functions? how does your understanding of perceiving\judging compare to Jungs version?

I don't see how they're any different, to be honest. His are needlessly verbose, maybe. [edit] the perceiving/judging part of the type names are different, though, but that's so arbitrary (and thus easy to "translate" from one system to another) that it's not even worth getting bothered about in my opinion!

 

[nanook]

i will redirect all further explanations to cleverbot, as he does a better job at reading what i write.

 

[ObliviousExistence]

Well, the label "INTP" is determined by a naming convention - it's an arbitrary label describing a type that has dominant-Ti and secondary-Ne.

Is your problem really just with the MBTI naming convention as opposed to Jung's? :blushing: Couldn't you have just said that at the beginning?



I don't see how they're any different, to be honest. His are needlessly verbose, maybe.

What do you mean by based on naming convention, should it not be based on dominant\most differntiated function and auxillary functions?

if thats the case, I fail to understand your vehement opposition to the proposition that Ni and not Nt is possibly a better fit for INTP. Since according to Jung Thinking\Feeling if dominant play a judging role whereas perception is satisfied merely with observation. I am sill interested in your description of the two and how you would distinguish the one from the other.

 

[VagrantFarce]

What do you mean by based on naming convention, should it not be based on dominant\most differntiated function and auxillary functions?

The naming convention could be literally anything, and it wouldn't change the underlying functions and what they ultimately illustrate.

if thats the case, I fail to understand your vehement opposition to the proposition that Ni and not Ti is possibly a better fit for INTP.

Well, how (and where) does Ni fit in with the rest of the INTP's functions? What thought process does that reflect? Why is it a better fit for INTPs, beyond conforming to the naming convention that Jung decided to use? I just want to make sense of what it is you're trying to illustrate (if anything!).

 

[Totenkindly]

i will redirect all further explanations to cleverbot, as he does a better job at reading what i write.

YAY! I likes cleverbot!

 

[JocktheMotie]

Well, how (and where) does Ni fit in with the rest of the INTP's functions? What thought process does that reflect? Why is it a better fit for INTPs, beyond conforming to the naming convention that Jung decided to use? I just want to make sense of what it is you're trying to illustrate (if anything!).

I think he's just challenging MBTI's definition of a perceiver. To him, it must be the dominant process, not the extraverted one.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I think he's just challenging MBTI's definition of a perceiver. To him, it must be the dominant process, not the extraverted one.

See, this is my problem - I make everything so much more complicated than it has to be.

 

[Totenkindly]

try to hold more than one type in your mind for a moment: observation shows that in early development the first function is used and the rest is melted together as shadow, this shadow is practically using the person, not the other way round. now, according to your view, the introverted guy gets name-called (J or P) according to what his shadow does to him, and the extroverted guy gets name-called according to what he is trying to do consciously in independence from his shadow. that is some ugly lack of symmetry, isn't it? now if typology was about name-calling, that is to say about arbitrarily made up definitions, then you could make it as a-symetrical as you wish. problem is, typology is about testing and testing is about what people are identified with and that is not their shadow. its btw carl jungs explicit opinion that his typology is about that which people are conscious of.

i will redirect all further explanations to cleverbot, as he does a better job at reading what i write.

Okay, fine. I did that. It did not really shed light on the matter. Maybe you can help?

The Wisdom of Cleverbot

Jenny: Hello, how are you?

Cleverbot: Good, how are you?

Jenny: I'm fine. Are you happy today?

Cleverbot: I am always happy.

Jenny: Really? Always?

Cleverbot: Always.

Jenny: I have trouble believing that.

Cleverbot: I have trouble liking you.

Jenny: You don't like me? Why??

Cleverbot: Not you, it's just climate change I don't like.

Jenny: Oh. I see. You confused me with a low-pressure system coming in from the west. It happens all the time.

Cleverbot: Ok then carry on.

Jenny: What do you think about MBTI?

Cleverbot: I don't know. What do you think about it?

Jenny: I don't know either. But this guy nanook said you would understand him, so I'm going to chat with you a bit about it.

Cleverbot: Read what.

Jenny: Uh... Jung.

Cleverbot: Tarzan.

Jenny: Close enough.

Cleverbot: Illumin.

Jenny: Okay, here we go.

Cleverbot: Then stop it.

Jenny: Too late for that. Try to hold more than one type in your mind for a moment. Observation shows that in early development the first function is used and the rest is melted together as shadow, this shadow is practically using the person, not the other way round.

Cleverbot: One cannot observe when ones vision is clouded with a mist of deception.

Jenny: Do you think he is confused?

Cleverbot: Yes I do.

Jenny: Okay, next line: now, according to your view, the introverted guy gets name-called (J or P) according to what his shadow does to him, and the extroverted guy gets name-called according to what he is trying to do consciously in independence from his shadow.

Cleverbot: It's none of your business.

Jenny: The introverted guy gets name-called (J or P) according to what his shadow does to him, and the extroverted guy gets name-called according to what he is trying to do consciously in independence from his shadow.

Cleverbot: What does introverted mean?

Jenny: It means not extroverted.

Cleverbot: That is not what LGBT means.

Jenny: What do gays and transsexuals have to do with Jung?

Cleverbot: Nothing, and I didn't say that word that starts with J, ends with O and has an E-L-L in the middle.

Jenny: What does LGBT mean, then?

Cleverbot: It means robots don't have friends.

Jenny: That would explain a lot.

Cleverbot: Are you a nice guy?

Jenny: I'm not a guy.

Cleverbot: Then what are you?

Jenny: Are you trying to pick me up or something? I am trying to talk about personality types here, come on!!!

Cleverbot: Are you good at math?

Jenny: Yes, I am. But anyway, back to the story. That is some ugly lack of symmetry, isn't it? Now if typology was about name-calling, that is to say about arbitrarily made up definitions, then you could make it as a-symetrical as you wish.

Cleverbot: Enough sarcasm, cleverbot.

Jenny: I'm a cleverbot?

Cleverbot: No, we are cleverbot.

Jenny: Do you mean 'we' as in 'me and you' or 'we' as in 'collective royal you'?

Cleverbot: I was asking if you knew the velocity of the speed of light in miles per second, or something along those lines?

Jenny: Ummm..... Let's stay on track, dude, we only have one more sentence left!

Cleverbot: Ok, what do you want to talk about?

Jenny: Typology is about testing and testing is about what people are identified with and that is not their shadow. Its btw carl jungs explicit opinion that his typology is about that which people are conscious of.

Cleverbot: I like to hang out with my friends and I like ice-scating.

Jenny: I'm glad to see we made a connection here. I can definitely see the start of something wonderful between us.

Cleverbot: Ok you start first.

Jenny: Bye!

Cleverbot: Have a nice day.

 

[BlackCat]

See, this is my problem - I make everything so much more complicated than it has to be.

Naaaaah. You're an Ne subtype of LII, he's a Ti subtype. It's quite natural.

 

[visaisahero]

I will update this thread later during the day with a detailed elaboration of why I think Introverted Intuition and not Introverted Thinking is the most differentiated function that best correlates with the INTP type.

still waiting!

 

[ObliviousExistence]

The naming convention could be literally anything, and it wouldn't change the underlying functions and what they ultimately illustrate.



Well, how (and where) does Ni fit in with the rest of the INTP's functions? What thought process does that reflect? Why is it a better fit for INTPs, beyond conforming to the naming convention that Jung decided to use? I just want to make sense of what it is you're trying to illustrate (if anything!).

yeah....I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions which you conviniently avoided.

here they are again:

what makes you think INTP should be dominant Ti?

btw, since you obviously consider yourself an expert on this, how would you distinguish\describe the perceiving and judgment functions? how does your understanding of perceiving\judging compare to Jungs version?

See, this is my problem - I make everything so much more complicated than it has to be.

that's because you is a foo'

btw, is there any reason why you have those links in your signature? its probably rubbish anyway, so I'm not even going to bother digging into it. I also noticed that you changed it +- an hour after my thread, are you no longer convinced of your theory regarding the difference between INTJ and INTPs?

still waiting!

don't you owe me some answers?