User Tag List

View Poll Results: As an NT, if you had to choose a different NT dominant function, which would it be?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTJ: Ne

    10 12.99%
  • INTJ: Ti

    3 3.90%
  • INTJ: Te

    4 5.19%
  • ENTP: Ni

    11 14.29%
  • ENTP: Ti

    7 9.09%
  • ENTP: Te

    5 6.49%
  • ENTJ: Ni

    5 6.49%
  • ENTJ: Ti

    2 2.60%
  • ENTJ: Ne

    4 5.19%
  • INTP: Ni

    9 11.69%
  • INTP: Te

    6 7.79%
  • INTP: Ne

    11 14.29%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 88

  1. #31
    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 Qre:us View Post
    I was giving as poorly as I got. lol @ thusly missing that point.
    There are lots of good arguments for this, which you could find in my posts and plenty of others' if you really wanted to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    lol @ thinking this applies universally.
    You sound like the Fi doms who think they're too special to fit in a type category.

    Ni is tough for Ne doms because it requires an uncomfortable break from our normal way of seeing things. It will occasionally happen, but not nearly as often as most of these "omg I use every function equally every day lol" people seem to believe.

    Personally, I suspect that, since most NPs pride themselves on abstract creativity, any cognitive perspective involving seeing new abstract perspectives strikes them as something they should obviously be able to do well, so it's kind of a blow to their ego to consider that there's such a perspective that they're not naturally inclined to see.

    That's why half the xNxP n00bs who show up on the forum always think Ni is one of their top functions. They just don't understand well enough what Ni is to separate it from what they know as "creative abstraction"--that being, of course, Ne. They read some poorly written description of it and figure they're probably good at it just because it involves an unusual and abstract perspective, of which they usually [erroneously] consider themselves masters.

    There's a reason most NPs, when asked to describe their own Ni use, just describe Ne. Ni is so alien that they don't even get the difference yet.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #32
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    There are lots of good arguments for this, which you could find in my posts and plenty of others' if you really wanted to.
    Not that interested to do my own search for something you're challenging.

    You sound like the Fi doms who think they're too special to fit in a type category.
    I'm ENTP, I'm not archetypical ENTP. Neither are you, I'd guess. Therein lies the difference. I fit, but, I don't fit perfectly. C'mon now, use that Ne to curb that short-sighted interpretation thing you're doing.

    Ni is tough for Ne doms because it requires an uncomfortable break from our normal way of seeing things. It will occasionally happen, but not nearly as often as most of these "omg I use every function equally every day lol" people seem to believe.
    Did I say I was one of those? You're assigning interpretations to my "good handle"...thus, losing the grip on the handle.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Personally, I suspect that, since most NPs pride themselves on abstract creativity, any cognitive perspective involving seeing new abstract perspectives strikes them as something they should obviously be able to do well, so it's kind of a blow to their ego to consider that there's such a perspective that they're not naturally inclined to see.
    Doesn't resonate with me, and I'd tell you truthfully if it did. I actually don't covet Ni. As a functions that I would over, it'd most likely be Se. Se isn't a choice here.

    That's why half the xNxP n00bs who show up on the forum always think Ni is one of their top functions. They just don't understand well enough what Ni is to separate it from what they know as "creative abstraction"--that being, of course, Ne. They read some poorly written description of it and figure they're probably good at it just because it involves an unusual and abstract perspective, of which they usually [erroneously] consider themselves masters.
    Still doesn't resonate.

    There's a reason most NPs, when asked to describe their own Ni use, just describe Ne. Ni is so alien that they don't even get the difference yet.
    What's your reason for thinking that a particular ENTP can't have a good handle on Ni? However way you're describing "good handle".

  3. #33
    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 Qre:us View Post
    Not that interested to do my own search for something you're challenging.
    Ok, don't then. You were suggesting that no argument against strong use of shadow functions has been offered by implying that the only reason I would suggest it is to support my girlfriend--if you don't feel like reading the posts that prove this wrong, don't make such a silly accusation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I'm ENTP, I'm not archetypical ENTP. Neither are you, I'd guess. Therein lies the difference. I fit, but, I don't fit perfectly. C'mon now, use that Ne to curb that short-sighted interpretation thing you're doing.
    There's not really any such thing as a perfect type fit because the type categories are designed to be broad enough to include everyone. The label "ENTP" is in itself vague and widely inclusive enough that fitting it "perfectly" is kind of a meaningless distinction in the first place.

    Aside from that, though, not fitting every single quality listed in every ENTP profile doesn't magically grant you special proficiency in shadow function perspectives.

    Short-sighted interpretation...right. It's archetypal, btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Did I say I was one of those? You're assigning interpretations to my "good handle"...thus, losing the grip on the handle.
    No, but you implied overconfidence in your shadow functions. I took "a good handle" to mean that you have a better handle on it than most people, which is probably not the case since eight types (all xNxJ and xSxP) are natural Ni users without turning to shadows.

    The shadows are difficult because they require us to temporarily shut off the opposing perspectives (Ne/Si) in our typically preferred functional makeup. I'm not saying you never do this, just that you probably overestimate your proficiency with it if you think you have "a good handle" on it.

    Relative to whom? I guess if you mean relative to other ENTPs you might have a point, but you're probably still well behind the majority of people who use that function naturally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What's your reason for thinking that a particular ENTP can't have a good handle on Ni? However way you're describing "good handle".
    My argument is that Ni constitutes a way of interpreting meaning that requires temporarily breaking from Ne/Si, which is very difficult for an Ne/Si type to do. You could practice and get better at shifting your perspective to think that way, but you're never really going to rival someone who naturally sees that way in the first place.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #34
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    While we're on the topic (sort of) can someone succintly break down Ni vs Ne? Or at least throw in a link? THANKS!

    I have started threads even asking the question outright of defining Ni but I still don't understand what it is supposed to be. Particularly being Ne dom myself, I try to 'flip' Ne and imagine it being an...introverted...function? But I realize that thinking of Ni as inside out Ne (or vice versa) is probably not analogous and not the way to go and I have no idea what inverted Ne would look like anyway.

    Defining 'Ni' here might also help explain why Ni is 'mistakenly identified' (or not) in members.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  5. #35
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ok, don't then. You were suggesting that no argument against strong use of shadow functions has been offered by implying that the only reason I would suggest it is to support my girlfriend--if you don't feel like reading the posts that prove this wrong, don't make such a silly accusation.
    Way off. Read our exchange again. Your silly "argument" just summed up that my post was arrogant, without support. So I made an equally silly accusation without support - i.e., just subjective interpretation of your post. Tit for tat.

    There's not really any such thing as a perfect type fit because the type categories are designed to be broad enough to include everyone. The label "ENTP" is in itself vague and widely inclusive enough that fitting it "perfectly" is kind of a meaningless distinction in the first place.
    Okay

    Aside from that, though, not fitting every single quality listed in every ENTP profile doesn't magically grant you special proficiency in shadow function perspectives.
    Again, way off. Not what I meant. I'm not talking qualities of ENTP, fitting them or not. I'm talking function use, cognitive processing.

    No, but you implied overconfidence in your shadow functions. I took "a good handle" to mean that you have a better handle on it than most people, which is probably not the case since eight types (all xNxJ and xSxP) are natural Ni users without turning to shadows.
    Again, not what I meant.

    Theoretically, I can utilize Ni better than a particular INJ, say, even if it is their dominant function, as it would depend on the INJ, that I'm compared to. An ESFP can utilize Ne better than me, as it would depend on that specific ESFP. Even if that ESFP leads with Se.

    But, ^, that's all bullshit, is what I'm getting at.

    My point to tesla was that, such comparisons are essentially meaningless, hence why I think you felt that "arrogant" undertone, when it was actually dismissal of that whole idea/concept.

    The strength of my functions is relative to my own other functions, not relative to other people's functions. Within versus between. Within is relevant, between is not, was my point to tesla.

    What you can compare, in terms of relative between people, would be manifestations of behaviours/ideas. And, I'd say a whole lot more goes into that, like comparative intelligence levels, etc., than mere function comparison.

    Relative to whom? I guess if you mean relative to other ENTPs you might have a point, but you're probably still well behind the majority of people who use that function naturally.
    Relative to myself. I already hinted that to tesla - calling my "good handle", highly subjective. To be more clear: I dismiss the context of relativity you're bringing in, as did tesla with her comment about INJs, as rationally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You could practice and get better at shifting your perspective to think that way, but you're never really going to rival someone who naturally sees that way in the first place.
    And, once more, to hit the point home, I find such above comparison illogical.

    How the heck do you go about comparing the strength of cognitive functions between people in any practical way? I'd love to hear this.

    You can compare the manifestations of things, and assign likely cognitive functions you think are at work, but, again, that individual's own skills, intelligence, etc., confounds the matter beyond any legitimate comparison of cognitive functions in isolation. You can say, X seems to be leading with Ne, while Y is leading with Si, thus, X has more strength in Ne than Si, and Y has more strength in Si than Ne, but, you cannot make any leaps from that to comparing X's strength of Si to Y's, or Y's strength of Ne to X's (illogical leap).

    This kind of thinking leads to the slippery slope of SJs can't be creative, NFs are emos, NTs are smart, and other such nonsense.

  6. #36
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    I'd like a stronger Te, but a dominant one?
    I can't imagine myself being a Judger... I'd rather be an Introvert. The only choice is Ti.
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

  7. #37
    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 CzeCze View Post
    While we're on the topic (sort of) can someone succintly break down Ni vs Ne? Or at least throw in a link? THANKS!

    I have started threads even asking the question outright of defining Ni but I still don't understand what it is supposed to be. Particularly being Ne dom myself, I try to 'flip' Ne and imagine it being an...introverted...function? But I realize that thinking of Ni as inside out Ne (or vice versa) is probably not analogous and not the way to go and I have no idea what inverted Ne would look like anyway.

    Defining 'Ni' here might also help explain why Ni is 'mistakenly identified' (or not) in members.
    Naturally, it's hard to understand Ni in Ne terms. Unfortunately, this creates a bit of a catch-22 since NPs understand most things in Ne/Ji terms.

    This includes me too, of course, and so, while I'm certain that I don't have an extensive firsthand perspective on what experiencing Ni is like, I've read enough of the literature on this topic to approximate a definition for it in Ne terms. Here you go:

    Ne is the attitude that every new piece of information we gather can be related meaningfully to a larger, unseen external pattern that will ultimately change the meaning of the original information as more is revealed. In practice this translates into constantly trying new approaches to things largely just for the sake of finding out what happens when we push this button (or elaborate combination of buttons.)

    Ne constantly seeks change for the sake of finding something novel, new, and interesting, even if the current approach is already working. Its approach to perception works by diverging and connecting the current context to as many other "unrelated" contexts as possible, in hopes of finding some meaningful connection between them. From the Ne perspective, everything is related to everything else in terms of some pattern out there in the real world waiting to be found--in many cases we just don't know it yet because we haven't expanded the context enough to see all the possible associations.

    Ne: "X reminds me of Y which reminds me of Z which is kind of like F but also operates similarly to D. Which, come to think of it, is rather like C, isn't it? Of course, once we realize that C is really just D+E-F, it hardly seems worth discussing at all! Now where was I...?"

    Quote Originally Posted by LTEW
    Ne: "If I can't broaden the context to see how it relates to something else and thereby gains a new meaning, then I refuse to relate to it. I'll just go do something else and then we'll see how important your little thing is."

    Ni, rather than spreading out into as many new paths as possible, works by converging many different conceptual standpoints into one total perspective that (ideally) encompasses all possible perspectives and thus avoids any unconscious interpretive bias by seeing the whole issue from a completely independent outside standpoint. Contrary to Se, which thrives on immediate surface impressions, Ni separates itself from the bias created by sensory experience, prompting us to question the process of perception itself and wonder: What is it about the assumptions I (often unconsciously) bring to this situation that limits my ability to understand it fully?

    "What's really going on here?" Ni solutions to problems often bring a totally new angle to the table by pointing out some sort of erroneous assumption that others, because they were only looking at the problem from one angle, didn't even realize they were making. While Ti might point out a mistake in the connection between your premises and your conclusion, Ni would question the soundness of your conclusion on the basis that your premises are open to interpretation and don't necessarily constitute "the truth."

    For instance, I was talking to mystic tater (who I believe to be INFJ) and he said (paraphrased):

    "Here's this study that says oranges cause cancer. But what unconscious assumptions are we making when we believe this conclusion based on the statistics provided? Don't people realize statistics can be manipulated in order to misrepresent one of many possible interpretations as 'the truth'?"

    The unconscious assumption that Ni saw through here was: "Published statistics can always be trusted to provide accurate conclusions." Ni saw through to what was really going on by questioning the process of perception itself in terms of how we interpret those statistics.

    Ni: "X, Y and Z are different ways of interpreting the meaning here, but sticking to just one of them limits our understanding in ways we can't even recognize until we get outside them and combine elements of each one (and ideally, every other possible interpretation) in order to understand this from the most complete perspective possible."

    Quote Originally Posted by LTEW
    Ni: "Until I can separate myself from its built-in interpretations and see it from the outside, in terms of a framework that is independent of everything about it, I refuse to relate to it. You can't make me look--at least, not your way."

    A more Ne response to the oranges/cancer data might have been: "Who cares? Doesn't everything cause cancer these days? You know, this reminds me of another thing that's supposed to cause cancer..." Rather than converge numerous perspectives into one all-encompassing explanation, Ne makes no attempt to discredit the conclusion itself--it just expands the context in order to render the conclusion meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

    That was awfully long and possibly too esoteric. If it didn't help, maybe this site, from which I culled the above quotes, will help. Good luck.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #38
    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 Qre:us View Post
    Way off. Read our exchange again. Your silly "argument" just summed up that my post was arrogant, without support. So I made an equally silly accusation without support - i.e., just subjective interpretation of your post. Tit for tat.
    So your point is that the phrase "a good handle" is purely up to subjective interpretation and that I was wrong to assume it has any particular standardized meaning?

    lol @ pseudo-Ni. (I'd tell you that this kind of nonsense should add support to my claim that you don't have a good handle on Ni, but then again, I wouldn't want to make the "mistake" of assuming that the phrase "a good handle" actually has any typically accepted meaning, now would I?)

    Since standardized, typical meanings of phrases don't seem even remotely relevant to you, I choose to subjectively interpret this section of your post as, "Congratulations, Sim, you were absolutely correct in calling me arrogant."

    Why thank you, Q; in fact I was absolutely correct in that regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Again, way off. Not what I meant. I'm not talking qualities of ENTP, fitting them or not. I'm talking function use, cognitive processing.
    Ummm, then why on earth did you bother mentioning that you "aren't an archetypical [sic] ENTP"? What would be the point of making this distinction if not to imply that non-archetypal ENTPs (as opposed to archetypal ones) are capable of having a good handle on Ni?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Again, not what I meant.

    Theoretically, I can utilize Ni better than a particular INJ, say, even if it is their dominant function, as it would depend on the INJ, that I'm compared to. An ESFP can utilize Ne better than me, as it would depend on that specific ESFP. Even if that ESFP leads with Se.
    Theoretically, but generally not. It should be intuitively obvious that most people who naturally see from the Ni perspective are more proficient with it than most people who don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    But, ^, that's all bullshit, is what I'm getting at.

    My point to tesla was that, such comparisons are essentially meaningless, hence why I think you felt that "arrogant" undertone, when it was actually dismissal of that whole idea/concept.

    The strength of my functions is relative to my own other functions, not relative to other people's functions. Within versus between. Within is relevant, between is not, was my point to tesla.
    So "a good handle" on Ni just means that it's better than most of your other functions? Does that mean I have "a good handle" on Ti if I'm a retard with an IQ of 25, but happen to be even worse at every other function? :zzz:

    Even if that weren't a specious and misleading use of the phrase "a good handle", which it is, you'd still be wrong according to most function models because shadows are, by definition, weaker and less accessible than preferred orientations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What you can compare, in terms of relative between people, would be manifestations of behaviours/ideas. And, I'd say a whole lot more goes into that, like comparative intelligence levels, etc., than mere function comparison.
    Uh huh, and certain behaviors and ideas tend to suggest varying levels of strength of each cognitive function. Some people are clearly more proficient in any given cognitive process than other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Relative to myself. I already hinted that to tesla - calling my "good handle", highly subjective. To be more clear: I dismiss the context of relativity you're bringing in, as did tesla with her comment about INJs, as rationally irrelevant.
    Great. I dismiss your attempt to nullify any and all comparisons of cognitive ability between different people just to support your overconfident assessment of your Ni abilities, as both rationally irrelevant and really grasping at straws. (It's also classic Ne--rather than attempt to invalidate my point on its own terms, you've just tried to broaden the context so as to render it irrelevant so that you can avoid addressing it meaningfully. Clever, but not really sound.)

    If I'm better at salsa dancing than I am at most other things, but 99% of people can salsa dance better than I can, that means I have a good handle on salsa dancing? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, once more, to hit the point home, I find such above comparison illogical.

    How the heck do you go about comparing the strength of cognitive functions between people in any practical way? I'd love to hear this.

    You can compare the manifestations of things, and assign likely cognitive functions you think are at work, but, again, that individual's own skills, intelligence, etc., confounds the matter beyond any legitimate comparison of cognitive functions in isolation. You can say, X seems to be leading with Ne, while Y is leading with Si, thus, X has more strength in Ne than Si, and Y has more strength in Si than Ne, but, you cannot make any leaps from that to comparing X's strength of Si to Y's, or Y's strength of Ne to X's (illogical leap).
    Sure you can, because you can associate certain cognitive strengths with certain abilities in related tasks. If a sociopathic serial killer explains that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong because morality doesn't exist and the only thing that matters is his own self-gratification, we can probably infer that his Fi isn't so hot.

    No, we can't prove it deductively, but let's just save the trouble of spending another page and a half going over why deductive proof is a meaningless concept in such a nebulous and purely conjectural subject as Jungian typology and recounting Critical Thinking 101 definitions of...what do they call it?--oh yeah, inductive reasoning.

    So no, being ESFP doesn't guarantee 100% that you understand the Se perspective better than any given INTP, but it makes it awfully probable. The INTP's overall intelligence would have to vastly outclass the ESFP's in order for this not to be true.

    Are there extraordinarily brilliant ENTPs with a better handle on Ni than the average INTJ? Probably. Is it at all likely that you're one of them? Probably not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    This kind of thinking leads to the slippery slope of SJs can't be creative, NFs are emos, NTs are smart, and other such nonsense.
    No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking just leads us to recognize that we can infer relative cognitive strengths between individuals on the basis of outwardly displayed abilities and demonstrations of competence and understanding. My ESFJ mom sucks at Ti. My INTP friend is great at it. That much is obvious, no matter how much you want to take the "omg but it's all subjective and unprovable!!!" defense because you've been backed into a corner.

    Bottom line, if you want to deny the possibility of comparing relative cognitive strengths between individuals just so you can bend over backwards inventing your own subjective, non-standard definitions for phrases with clearly defined meanings like "a good handle" in order to pretend you didn't overestimate the strength of your shadow functions, knock yourself out, but you're not fooling anyone.

    I'm going to bed.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #39
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    I'm obviously fine with my dominant function as it is, but if I -had- to pick, then Ne is the second best thing.

    INTP: Ne.


    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    EDIT: For the INTPs picking Ne, that's just the Si talking! If you actually wanted a Ne outlook, just go outside you fools.
    I am going outside and I like what I see, thus my answer is perfectly fine, thank you. Ne is nice. Te doesn't fit in my life.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  10. #40
    Pumpernickel
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Te. I'd expect if I went Ni I'd have extreme buyer's remorse, as it seems unpredictable, tumultuous, and useless unless I wanted my life's work to be the creation of demotivational posters on 4chan.
    A respectable life, really...

Similar Threads

  1. If you had to be triple something what would you pick.
    By Cat Brainz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 07:19 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 01:58 PM
  3. If You Had to Pick, What Are Your Top Two Needs Out of This List?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 04:41 PM
  4. [MBTItm] If you had to be an NT . . .
    By Night in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 02-14-2010, 12:16 PM
  5. [MBTItm] If you had to be an NF, which type would you be
    By Evan in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 191
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 07:46 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