Inferior Extraverted Sensing

[Kalach]

Point of order too: if this fabled N2N trainspotting is to work, that'll be some magically slick mind reading, seeing as how the content of an introverted perception function is guaranteed to be idiosyncratic. Personalized, even. So I guess you're claiming that style rather than substance is recognisable. And that is likely to be true. But it sure as shit begs the question where do you witness that style? Inside the other person's head? You have ur xray specs?

Surprisingly perhaps, what INTJs ask other people to be first and foremost is literal*. Consider, you girls have trouble understanding me and supposedly this is because of underdeveloped Te, yes? Well guess again, sisters! This ossified concept you have of extroverted thinking as logic is wrong. Te is mechanism expressed. And there are a great many more mechanisms than reason.

Made that up. Might be wrong. Vote 1 Kalach.



*Relatively literal anyway. You want people to be straightforward. Straightforward with what, eh?

 

[Entropic]

Inside the other person's head? You have ur xray specs?

Of course, it's called Ni.

 

[highlander]

Disagreed. If one is engaging others solely with Ni, there is often a lot of clicking involved when it comes to cognition that doesn't occur with other types.

One doesn't engage others solely with Ni because it is an introverted function attitude. Extraverted function attitudes will be much easier to recognize in general because that is how one engages with the external world. I find Si somewhat evident as I get to know someone. Ti seems relatively easy to recognize. Fi is harder. Ni to me is the hardest. I'm glad it's easy for you but I have seen enough people who are poor at recognizing Ni dominance, even though in some cases they perceive themselves to be good at it, that I tend to think it's one of the more difficult ones to recognize.

I challenge you to find an example - let's say a video on youtube where you can see someone who is clearly demonstrating Ni. You can see some of the results or outcomes of it but it is not that easy to discern.

Or maybe they simply aren't the type they think they are?

Could be but my statement didn't imply that they know anything about their type. It relates to assessing another person's type from an outside perspective.

Disagree. It probably isn't to those who either a) aren't Ni types or b) have yet to discern what Ni is. Once I became what Ni is, I have no troubles seeing Ni in others.

Apparently you are more fortunate than I in your ability to ascertain this - or at least you think you are good at it .

P
I can thus easily tell whether someone is an Ni type or not based on how good they are at getting where I am coming from. If they don't, probably not an Ni type.

By the way, ENFPs are pretty good at understanding where INTJs are coming from.

 

[Kalach]

Of course, it's called Ni.

D'awww! DO OLD LADIES PINCH YOUR CHEEKS?!

 

[Kalach]

I think, if we're going to find out what inferior extroverted sensing is, then finding out why and how Extroverted Thinking is some balance to Ni is needed. Extroverted Thinking as an individual function is, who the hell knows what. But where it is "used" in conjunction with Ni, it surely must function to fulfill some cognitive (as opposed to conscious) need. Now, perception needs structure and intuition needs substance, so there's some clue.

Somewhere along the way, Te is supposed to inject Ni with Se. Now of course that sentence is nonsense because if Se is inferior, it's largely undifferentiated, so no one is "using" it. But whatever is being picked up as "Te" is serving that injection role anyway. Te is the reality function--which isn't true because "reality" is concrete. Te is the debate function--which isn't true because debate is an activity. Te is the coordination function--which isn't true because coordination is an activity. Te "notices" when something is missing in a list or a plan--which is true because that's a question of structure, but structure of what?

What I'm getting at, in a fairly peculiar way, is Se as an inferior function shapes what Te as an auxiliary can be. A large amount of what "Te" is supposed to be is in fact unconscious Se.

The intuition here--visible to all, natch, because you haz the using of the N-eye--is that any narrative, where real, is Te. Not Te has held by magical mystics with uniquely operating independent functions, but Te as run by an INTJ. And this caveat "where real" is the key. Ask where a narrative is true is... just weird. That's just too pure a question for something so clunky as "Te". But asking where a narrative is real... that at base is the truly hard question. And it's the one you want, isn't it INTJs. Right alongside being the one you fear.

 

[highlander]

I think, if we're going to find out what inferior extroverted sensing is, then finding out why and how Extroverted Thinking is some balance to Ni is needed. Extroverted Thinking as an individual function is, who the hell knows what. But where it is "used" in conjunction with Ni, it surely must function to fulfill some cognitive (as opposed to conscious) need. Now, perception needs structure and intuition needs substance, so there's some clue.

Somewhere along the way, Te is supposed to inject Ni with Se. Now of course that sentence is nonsense because if Se is inferior, it's largely undifferentiated, so no one is "using" it. But whatever is being picked up as "Te" is serving that injection role anyway. Te is the reality function--which isn't true because "reality" is concrete. Te is the debate function--which isn't true because debate is an activity. Te is the coordination function--which isn't true because coordination is an activity. Te "notices" when something is missing in a list or a plan--which is true because that's a question of structure, but structure of what?

What I'm getting at, in a fairly peculiar way, is Se as an inferior function shapes what Te as an auxiliary can be. A large amount of what "Te" is supposed to be is in fact unconscious Se.

The intuition here--visible to all, natch, because you haz the using of the N-eye--is that any narrative, where real, is Te. Not Te has held by magical mystics with uniquely operating independent functions, but Te as run by an INTJ. And this caveat "where real" is the key. Ask where a narrative is true is... just weird. That's just too pure a question for something so clunky as "Te". But asking where a narrative is real... that at base is the truly hard question. And it's the one you want, isn't it INTJs. Right alongside being the one you fear.

I have always thought Ni and Se to be the functions that are paired.

 

[Kalach]

I have always thought Ni and Se to be the functions that are paired.

Except that undifferentiated Se hardly exists at all as a conscious concern. The pairing, whatever it is, doesn't seem like it can be some 1+1 arrangement. This is especially true if "functions" as we know them are kinds of cognition as they approach consciousness. That is, if cognition only assumes the more "functional" character as it approaches consciousness. Which seems plausible. After all, how would an undifferentiated function have some individual character and still be undifferentiated?

So, the pairing is something other than a pairing.

 

[highlander]

Except that undifferentiated Se hardly exists at all as a conscious concern. The pairing, whatever it is, doesn't seem like it can be some 1+1 arrangement. This is especially true if "functions" as we know them are kinds of cognition as they approach consciousness. That is, if cognition only assumes the more "functional" character as it approaches consciousness. Which seems plausible. After all, how would an undifferentiated function have some individual character and still be undifferentiated?

So, the pairing is something other than a pairing.

In 8 Keys To Self Leadership, Nardi describes these as Tandem processes. He uses the example of a tandem bicycle with two riders - "The front rider pedals and steers. The back rider just pedals. Without the back rider, pedaling is harder work. We could simply ride a one person bicycle by ourselves, but then we miss out on doing something greater than ourselves."

 

[Kalach]

In 8 Keys To Self Leadership, Nardi describes these as Tandem processes. He uses the example of a tandem bicycle with two riders - "The front rider pedals and steers. The back rider just pedals. Without the back rider, pedaling is harder work. We could simply ride a one person bicycle by ourselves, but then we miss out on doing something greater than ourselves."

The back rider probably has Tourettes too. And you can never see him directly. He's like a shade or a dwarfish basement ghoul. He sits back there, jumping on the pedals and yelling at chicks, and you have to keep apologizing for him. "Goddamnit, Se! I'm sorry, ladies, that's my inferior sensing, I deny him like he's Jesus."

 

[highlander]

The back rider probably has Tourettes too. And you can never see him directly. He's like a shade or a dwarfish basement ghoul. He sits back there, jumping on the pedals and yelling at chicks, and you have to keep apologizing for him. "Goddamnit, Se! I'm sorry, ladies, that's my inferior sensing, I deny him like he's Jesus."

Yeah maybe

 

[Entropic]

One doesn't engage others solely with Ni because it is an introverted function attitude.

Of course you can. You don't need to rely on or utilize an auxiliary function during cognitive thought.

Extraverted function attitudes will be much easier to recognize in general because that is how one engages with the external world.

You can engage with the external world with an introverted function. It's not about engagement, I think this is a somewhat false misunderstanding of what cognition actually means. Introversion-extroversion are two ways of understanding the world, where our focus lies. As a dominant introvert I process all information through my lens of introversion. This is what it means to be introverted. So when I communicate with other people I primarily do so through my lens of introverted understanding. I don't need to engage the world with Se or Te.

I find Si somewhat evident as I get to know someone. Ti seems relatively easy to recognize. Fi is harder. Ni to me is the hardest.

If you're actually an Ni dom, don't you think this is strange?

I'm glad it's easy for you but I have seen enough people who are poor at recognizing Ni dominance, even though in some cases they perceive themselves to be good at it, that I tend to think it's one of the more difficult ones to recognize.

Or maybe they're not Ni types.

I challenge you to find an example - let's say a video on youtube where you can see someone who is clearly demonstrating Ni. You can see some of the results or outcomes of it but it is not that easy to discern.

I'm much better at typing people through text, but let's take Carl Jung for example. All his writing reeks of Ni. It's very easy to discern because all of his cognition comes from this place where he first of all seeks personal symbolic understanding of the world. He seeks meaning and causes. That's one way you can recognize egoic Ni, whether people are interested in looking into what things mean, especially in a symbolic sense.

Could be but my statement didn't imply that they know anything about their type. It relates to assessing another person's type from an outside perspective.

I've been around type forums for over a year now and during this time I have increasingly come to the conclusion that people know shit about themselves and who they are, and the systems to apply it properly on themselves in order to assess their types. Which is why all this means very little to me as a whole. Do you see how this perspective alone is introverted? Probably not.

Apparently you are more fortunate than I in your ability to ascertain this - or at least you think you are good at it .

I don't think I am good at it, I know I am good at it.

By the way, ENFPs are pretty good at understanding where INTJs are coming from.

To a degree, due to shared Fi-Te cognition. It's more that they understand your emotions. Socionics goes into this into greater detail. People of the same type will however be the best at understanding each other, since you actually share cognition.

Did you ever consider yourself to be a dominant Fe type by the way?

 

[highlander]

I don't think I am good at it, I know I am good at it.

Did you ever consider yourself to be a dominant Fe type by the way?

 

[011235813]

The back rider probably has Tourettes too. And you can never see him directly. He's like a shade or a dwarfish basement ghoul. He sits back there, jumping on the pedals and yelling at chicks, and you have to keep apologizing for him. "Goddamnit, Se! I'm sorry, ladies, that's my inferior sensing, I deny him like he's Jesus."

Best post in this whole thread, although that's not saying much because this thread sucks.

 

[Nicodemus]

A discussion of the brain, cognition, epistemology, truth, talking styles and penis size - and the only source quoted is a 19th century mystic? Kyrie eleison! For what it's worth, though, I think Kalach won, because, as much as he plays the game, I doubt he is in it for 'logical, correct or even good interpretations of the original theory', but rather for the ultimate price: truth... or at least truthiness. Personal entertainment too, of course.

 

[RaptorWizard]

This is my kind of authority enforcement! You could, with your epic mod powers, cause destructive programming forces to annihilate the abilities people with their poorly applied accounts can use, but instead, you simply choose to laugh at those who do these funny things (unless it's taken to an extreme degree).

I myself too have personally posted a lot of stupid, offensive, and logically inconsistent stuff to this forum as well, but the mods (like yourself) have never really cracked down on me much and, to this day, still haven't done. Nonetheless, I would like to think that I've had a history of creating high quality posts on here as well, which have gone from insanely deranged humor all the way to the deepest philosophies of everything, so on the whole I believe myself to be a good addition here on this forum (and it's also been said by others that my posting quality has been gradually evolving to new levels, so at least it seems progress is being made).

On a side note, I like how you have often voted in the polls posted in my threads, and even your occasional posts to accompony them, so on the whole, what I'm doing is good I think.

 

[Entropic]

It was a serious question. You may laugh at it but I have my reasons why I am asking, one of them being that I am not sure I am seeing Te-Fi in you. You are free to refute it if you want.

 

[Entropic]

A discussion of the brain, cognition, epistemology, truth, talking styles and penis size - and the only source quoted is a 19th century mystic? Kyrie eleison! For what it's worth, though, I think Kalach won, because, as much as he plays the game, I doubt he is in it for 'logical, correct or even good interpretations of the original theory', but rather for the ultimate price: truth... or at least truthiness. Personal entertainment too, of course.

What is truth and what says I am not concerned about truth?

 

[highlander]

It was a serious question. You may laugh at it but I have my reasons why I am asking, one of them being that I am not sure I am seeing Te-Fi in you. You are free to refute it if you want.

I know you were serious and perhaps my response was a bit rude. Maybe I should consider it a compliment. I am quite certain of my type. When I wasn't sure about my enneagram type, I started a thread a while back. It includes some test results and comments from a number of forum members. It might provide a little color. There are also a number of assessment results attached to my profile.

Here is the thing. You are a really smart guy. You seem understand much of the theory well and I like a lot of your posts. They are insightful and good. However, you are overconfident in your knowledge and ability to ascertain function preferences or type and your suggestion that I might be an Fe dom is an example of where you are quite obviously wrong. Confidence is good. Arrogance is not attractive.

 

[violet_crown]

It was a serious question. You may laugh at it but I have my reasons why I am asking, one of them being that I am not sure I am seeing Te-Fi in you. You are free to refute it if you want.

I know you were serious and perhaps my response was a bit rude. Maybe I should consider it a compliment. I am quite certain of my type. When I wasn't sure about my enneagram type, I started a thread a while back. It includes some test results and comments from a number of forum members. It might provide a little color. There are also a number of assessment results attached to my profile.

Here is the thing. You are a really smart guy. You seem understand much of the theory well and I like a lot of your posts. They are insightful and good. However, you are overconfident in your knowledge and ability to ascertain function preferences or type and your suggestion that I might be an Fe dom is an example of where you are quite obviously wrong. Confidence is good. Arrogance is not attractive.

It's interesting how people take being told they're mistyped. Kamishi typed me ESFP, and it bothered the fuck out of me. I wonder if these things get to people because it's like being told, "You know that thing you think you're good at? Yeah, sorry guy, not there." It wouldn't get such reactions if it were just a matter of the information being factually inaccurate, I think. People just don't like when you start fucking with their narratives. Myself included.

FWIW, I don't think tests really mean much as far as typing goes. I think they'll get you in the ballpark, but I don't think they're the end all be all as far as determining type. Moreover, you, highlander, don't behave like other INTJ 6s I've known, which happen to include my own mother. As far as these things go, I can say pretty objectively, that you fall outside that pattern.

I'm not exactly married to a theory of why that is. Maybe you've resolved more of your shit than most, and operate differently as a result. Who knows? Who cares, even.

In other news, I really hate this thread.

 

[highlander]

It's interesting how people take being told they're mistyped. Kamishi typed me ESFP, and it bothered the fuck out of me. I wonder if these things get to people because it's like being told, "You know that thing you think you're good at? Yeah, sorry guy, not there." It wouldn't get such reactions if it were just a matter of the information being factually inaccurate, I think. People just don't like when you start fucking with their narratives. Myself included.

FWIW, I don't think tests really mean much as far as typing goes. I think they'll get you in the ballpark, but I don't think they're the end all be all as far as determining type. Moreover, you, highlander, don't behave like other INTJ 6s I've known, which happen to include my own mother. As far as these things go, I can say pretty objectively, that you fall outside that pattern.

I'm not exactly married to a theory of why that is. Maybe you've resolved more of your shit than most, and operate differently as a result. Who knows? Who cares, even.

In other news, I really hate this thread.

Its not so much the mistyping as the arrogance in the face of being wrong.