INXX

[Opal]

Gradient of desire? What's that? Any other action, do you mean doing things other than what you should be doing?

Heh, I mean I'll sort through my priorities to choose the most appealing real-world path when the obstacle is removed. Sorry for the poor phrasing.

 

[valaki]

Heh, I mean I'll sort through my priorities to choose the most appealing real-world path when the obstacle is removed. Sorry for the poor phrasing.

It's okay. How do you set priorities? What are they like?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Are they not able to consciously tell which details changed?

Anyone can consciously tell whether things have changed or not, it's just that Si doms can do it 300 times faster than other people. They immediately sense that something is off about the present situation because their unconscious is observing the environment and comparing it to memories, juxtaposing the non-Si dom who has to do that consciously by looking back through memories. (Si and Ni are actually very alike despite what others might say)

??? I don't understand why it matters what your learning style is, in terms of what grades you get in high school.

Btw where is that thread about the visuospatial learning? I would like to see it

There isn't a thread on it really here, but it was mentioned in one of the "wtf is Ni" threads.

I'm going to post the chart thing and let you guess who has the upper hand in the classroom.

AUDITORY-SEQUENTIAL / VISUAL-SPATIAL
Thinks primarily in words / Thinks primarily in pictures
Has auditory strengths / Has visual strengths
Relates well to time / Relates well to space
Is a step-by-step learner / Is a whole-part learner
Learns by trial and error / Learns concepts all at once
Progresses sequentially from easy to difficult material / Learns complex concepts easily; struggles with easy skills
Is an analytical thinker / Is a good synthesizer
Attends well to details / Sees the big picture; may miss details
Follows oral directions well / Reads maps well
Does well at arithmetic / Is better at math reasoning than computation
Learns phonics easily / Learns whole words easily
Can sound out spelling words / Must visualize words to spell them
Can write quickly and neatly / Prefers keyboarding to writing
Is well-organized / Creates unique methods of organization
Can show steps of work easily / Arrives at correct solutions intuitively
Excels at rote memorization / Learns best by seeing relationships
Has good auditory short-term memory / Has good long-term visual memory
May need some repetition to reinforce learning/ Learns concepts permanently; is turned off by drill and repetition
Learns well from instruction / Develops own methods of problem solving
Learns in spite of emotional reactions / Is very sensitive to teachers’ attitudes
Is comfortable with one right answer / Generates unusual solutions to problems
Develops fairly evenly / Develops quite asynchronously
Usually maintains high grades / May have very uneven grades
Enjoys algebra and chemistry / Enjoys geometry and physics
Learns languages in class / Masters other languages through immersion
Is academically talented / Is creatively, mechanically, emotionally, or technologically gifted
Is an early bloomer / Is a late bloomer

 

[valaki]

Anyone can consciously tell whether things have changed or not, it's just that Si doms can do it 300 times faster than other people. They immediately sense that something is off about the present situation because their unconscious is observing the environment and comparing it to memories, juxtaposing the non-Si dom who has to do that consciously by looking back through memories. (Si and Ni are actually very alike despite what others might say)

Ahh okay.

There isn't a thread on it really here, but it was mentioned in one of the "wtf is Ni" threads.

I'm going to post the chart thing and let you guess who has the upper hand in the classroom.

I still don't believe that you're doomed if you have the "wrong" learning style. Me, I never paid attention in class, I studied at home, I had the best grades.

Not that I can 100% identify with any of the learning styles here. I'm a bit of mix of the two it seems... still I think clearly visual-spatial more. Unless you disagree, let me know (see spoiler)

I'll bold what I relate to
Comments in italics

AUDITORY-SEQUENTIAL / VISUAL-SPATIAL
Thinks primarily in words / Thinks primarily in pictures (Neither much. Logic can be visual though.)
Has auditory strengths / Has visual strengths
Relates well to time / Relates well to space
Is a step-by-step learner / Is a whole-part learner
Learns by trial and error / Learns concepts all at once (I hate trial and error but can learn from that too, I didn't understand what it means "learn concepts all at once" unless you mean logical picture clicking together, then yes!)
Progresses sequentially from easy to difficult material / Learns complex concepts easily; struggles with easy skills
Is an analytical thinker / Is a good synthesizer (I guess I can do both.)
Attends well to details / Sees the big picture; may miss details
Follows oral directions well / Reads maps well
Does well at arithmetic / Is better at math reasoning than computation (Yep, I do both well. Enjoy math reasoning more though. I do like numbers so it's not too bad with arithmetic)
Learns phonics easily / Learns whole words easily (I'm actually crap at remembering stuff word by word so I bolded neither)
Can sound out spelling words / Must visualize words to spell them (I always visualize them, goddamnit)
Can write quickly and neatly / Prefers keyboarding to writing (My writing looks cool but isn't neat, it's unique instead. I can like writing but used to keyboarding )
Is well-organized / Creates unique methods of organization
Can show steps of work easily / Arrives at correct solutions intuitively (I first arrive at it intuitively then flesh out steps.)
Excels at rote memorization / Learns best by seeing relationships (I prefer the latter but am good at creating lists of categories and then remembering those so that's a bit of rote memorizing)
Has good auditory short-term memory / Has good long-term visual memory (Neither, I only have a long term memory for meaning and concepts. Unless you mean recalling events, that's visual snapshots yes)
May need some repetition to reinforce learning/ Learns concepts permanently; is turned off by drill and repetition
Learns well from instruction / Develops own methods of problem solving
Learns in spite of emotional reactions / Is very sensitive to teachers’ attitudes (I didn't have emotional reactions... as simple as that.)
Is comfortable with one right answer / Generates unusual solutions to problems
Develops fairly evenly / Develops quite asynchronously (No idea?)
Usually maintains high grades / May have very uneven grades
Enjoys algebra and chemistry / Enjoys geometry and physics (Actually, I enjoyed most of mathematics but not these two listed here. Geometry though was worse than algebra, for sure. Physics was interesting but terrible education so I'm not so good at it, just interested in it)
Learns languages in class / Masters other languages through immersion
Is academically talented / Is creatively, mechanically, emotionally, or technologically gifted (I'm gifted in stuff not listed here)
Is an early bloomer / Is a late bloomer

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I still don't believe that you're doomed if you have the "wrong" learning style. Me, I never paid attention in class, I studied at home, I had the best grades.

Not that I can 100% identify with any of the learning styles here. I'm a bit of mix of the two it seems... still I think clearly visual-spatial more. Unless you disagree, let me know (see spoiler)

I'll bold what I relate to
Comments in italics

AUDITORY-SEQUENTIAL / VISUAL-SPATIAL
Thinks primarily in words / Thinks primarily in pictures (Neither much. Logic can be visual though.)
Has auditory strengths / Has visual strengths
Relates well to time / Relates well to space
Is a step-by-step learner / Is a whole-part learner
Learns by trial and error / Learns concepts all at once (I hate trial and error but can learn from that too, I didn't understand what it means "learn concepts all at once" unless you mean logical picture clicking together, then yes!)
Progresses sequentially from easy to difficult material / Learns complex concepts easily; struggles with easy skills
Is an analytical thinker / Is a good synthesizer (I guess I can do both.)
Attends well to details / Sees the big picture; may miss details
Follows oral directions well / Reads maps well
Does well at arithmetic / Is better at math reasoning than computation (Yep, I do both well. Enjoy math reasoning more though. I do like numbers so it's not too bad with arithmetic)
Learns phonics easily / Learns whole words easily (I'm actually crap at remembering stuff word by word so I bolded neither)
Can sound out spelling words / Must visualize words to spell them (I always visualize them, goddamnit)
Can write quickly and neatly / Prefers keyboarding to writing (My writing looks cool but isn't neat, it's unique instead. I can like writing but used to keyboarding )
Is well-organized / Creates unique methods of organization
Can show steps of work easily / Arrives at correct solutions intuitively (I first arrive at it intuitively then flesh out steps.)
Excels at rote memorization / Learns best by seeing relationships (I prefer the latter but am good at creating lists of categories and then remembering those so that's a bit of rote memorizing)
Has good auditory short-term memory / Has good long-term visual memory (Neither, I only have a long term memory for meaning and concepts. Unless you mean recalling events, that's visual snapshots yes)
May need some repetition to reinforce learning/ Learns concepts permanently; is turned off by drill and repetition
Learns well from instruction / Develops own methods of problem solving
Learns in spite of emotional reactions / Is very sensitive to teachers’ attitudes (I didn't have emotional reactions... as simple as that.)
Is comfortable with one right answer / Generates unusual solutions to problems
Develops fairly evenly / Develops quite asynchronously (No idea?)
Usually maintains high grades / May have very uneven grades
Enjoys algebra and chemistry / Enjoys geometry and physics (Actually, I enjoyed most of mathematics but not these two listed here. Geometry though was worse than algebra, for sure. Physics was interesting but terrible education so I'm not so good at it, just interested in it)
Learns languages in class / Masters other languages through immersion
Is academically talented / Is creatively, mechanically, emotionally, or technologically gifted (I'm gifted in stuff not listed here)
Is an early bloomer / Is a late bloomer

You aren't doomed necessarily, it's just that you are put at a disadvantage in a public education system that insists on Audio-sequential traits. Several Visuospatials do well or better than their Audio-sequential counterparts, but the public education system and curriculum are primarily tailored to the Audio-sequentials.

 

[valaki]

You aren't doomed necessarily, it's just that you are put at a disadvantage in a public education system that insists on Audio-sequential traits. Several Visuospatials do well or better than their Audio-sequential counterparts, but the public education system and curriculum are primarily tailored to the Audio-sequentials.

Maybe. I never felt the disadvantage with not paying attention to the teachers in class. I did adjust well in my own way.

 

[Opal]

School has always been so frustrating... if only teachers/professors would organize information in models and flow charts instead of orally guiding you through the tunnel. I always wanted to see the catacombs from above, but I digress.

I just took a (questionable) Socionics test and scored ILI, which is what I originally pegged myself as based solely on my INTJ typing. I was surprised, though, as many of the traits I selected during the test indicated indecision and flexibility, definitely not descriptors I associate with TJs.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I just took a (questionable) Socionics test and scored INI

Did you mean ILI?

 

[Opal]

Did you mean ILI?

Ha! Yes.

 

[valaki]

School has always been so frustrating... if only teachers/professors would organize information in models and flow charts instead of orally guiding you through the tunnel. I always wanted to see the catacombs from above, but I digress.

That's your preference. Mine is simply this, give me the textbook and I will figure it out on my own. Charts, nah, I will build them for myself in my own head.

Catacombs from above lol sure (funny idea)

I just took a (questionable) Socionics test and scored ILI, which is what I originally pegged myself as based solely on my INTJ typing. I was surprised, though, as many of the traits I selected during the test indicated indecision and flexibility, definitely not descriptors I associate with TJs.

Well ILI in socionics is very indecisive because of weak Se suggestive function. Though the quadra itself is a decisive one. (Se/Ni = decisive, and not TJ). ILI is flexible additionally because they are an irrational-lead type (Ni base function), that's how the argument goes. It is INTp in socionics, not J.

Basically forget MBTI when dealing with socionics. There's no such thing as INTJ in socionics.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Basically forget MBTI when dealing with socionics. There's no such thing as INTJ in socionics.

I second this. If you want to truly see the difference, here's an article on PerC that describes the stereotypical ILI which appears much more human than the MBTI stereotypical INTJ. I resonate the most with this description followed closely behind by ILE, but descriptions aren't always reliable sources for type-discernment.(though it doesn't go into detail for ILI-Ni and ILI-Te, which wikisocion has I think).
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/12771-socionics-description-best-intp-ili-guide-ever-written.html

 

[Opal]

That's your preference. Mine is simply this, give me the textbook and I will figure it out on my own. Charts, nah, I will build them for myself in my own head.

Catacombs from above lol sure (funny idea)




Well ILI in socionics is very indecisive because of weak Se suggestive function. Though the quadra itself is a decisive one. (Se/Ni = decisive, and not TJ). ILI is flexible additionally because they are an irrational-lead type (Ni base function), that's how the argument goes. It is INTp in socionics, not J.

Basically forget MBTI when dealing with socionics. There's no such thing as INTJ in socionics.

Haha, catacommmbs... flooded with dye and surrounded by transparent dirt... from above.

INTp was listed parallel to INTJ, which is why I was surprised. I've read others insisting there are no true parallels, but I know very little about socionics. I just thought the type profile might help me rule out certain MBTI types.

 

[Opal]

I second this. If you want to truly see the difference, here's an article on PerC that describes the stereotypical ILI which appears much more human than the MBTI stereotypical INTJ. I resonate the most with this description followed closely behind by ILE, but descriptions aren't always reliable sources for type-discernment.(though it doesn't go into detail for ILI-Ni and ILI-Te, which wikisocion has I think).
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/12771-socionics-description-best-intp-ili-guide-ever-written.html

Thanks for the link. I read through the description and it feels much truer to my personality than some INTJ characteristics.

I'm not sure I understand the 7th and 8th functions' descriptions as "strong and lacking." Why exactly does the typical INTp loathe extraverted intuition? What I gathered from the description is that its pattern recognition can steer users into stagnant, traditional lifestyles--is that accurate? And is it unavoidable? I may have a weak understanding of Ne, because I definitely don't loathe it (though I do generally loathe tradition). The description of Ti seems to be loathed for the opposite reason; it renders the old obsolete and ushers in the new? Or is Ti considered the old in this case?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Thanks for the link. I read through the description and it feels much truer to my personality than some INTJ characteristics.

I'm not sure I understand the 7th and 8th functions' descriptions as "strong and lacking." Why exactly does the typical INTp loathe extraverted intuition? What I gathered from the description is that its pattern recognition can steer users into stagnant, traditional lifestyles--is that accurate? And is it unavoidable? I may have a weak understanding of Ne, because I definitely don't loathe it (though I do generally loathe tradition). The description of Ti seems to be loathed for the opposite reason; it renders the old obsolete and ushers in the new? Or is Ti considered the old in this case? Something possibly arbitrary and less malleable than it should be?

Loathe is a bad word choice. It should say unpreferred. The concept is that you don't develop Te separate from Ti or vice versa, but you develop the thinking function as a whole. The person can utilize Ti or Te just as effectively as the other, it's just you trust one more than the other. This is harder to illustrate with judging functions, but with perceiving functions, it's highly noticeable. To an Ni user, doing things that require Ne will be easy, but it will seem very chaotic, unfocused, and inefficient. To an Ne user, unconscious visions presented by Ni will seem to come out of nowhere and be too in-depth; the Ne user thinks that the unconscious vision from Ni is highly unreliable and doesn't account for everything (when it can) because it seems to have come out of nowhere. The same applies with Te and Ti, except Te is the embodiment of pragmatism while Ti is the embodiment of understanding. Te wants to finish something as quickly as possible and make changes in the external environment. Ti wants to pile-drive a concept into the ground with incredible depth and understand everything about it. To a Te user, Ti will seem very subjective and highly inefficient. To a Ti user, Te will seem very structured and broad, not honing in on any particularities or understandings.

 

[Opal]

Loathe is a bad word choice. It should say unpreferred. The concept is that you don't develop Te separate from Ti or vice versa, but you develop the thinking function as a whole. The person can utilize Ti or Te just as effectively as the other, it's just you trust one more than the other. This is harder to illustrate with judging functions, but with perceiving functions, it's highly noticeable. To an Ni user, doing things that require Ne will be easy, but it will seem very chaotic, unfocused, and inefficient. To an Ne user, unconscious visions presented by Ni will seem to come out of nowhere and be too in-depth; the Ne user thinks that the unconscious vision from Ni is highly unreliable and doesn't account for everything (when it can) because it seems to have come out of nowhere. The same applies with Te and Ti, except Te is the embodiment of pragmatism while Ti is the embodiment of understanding. Te wants to finish something as quickly as possible and make changes in the external environment. Ti wants to pile-drive a concept into the ground with incredible depth and understand everything about it. To a Te user, Ti will seem very subjective and highly inefficient. To a Ti user, Te will seem very structured and broad, not honing in on any particularities or understandings.

This is the most helpful description of both N and T I've read, thank you. Is this true of MBTI as well as socionics, if thinking and intuition even differ between the two? Based on this I can say with fair certainty I'm NiTe.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

This is the most helpful description of both N and T I've read, thank you. Is this true of MBTI as well as socionics, if thinking and intuition even differ between the two? Based on this I can say with fair certainty I'm NiTe.

Glad this description is good.

Actually this description was posed more toward Jungian Cognitive Functions, which are the basis of MBTI (non dichotomy) and Socionics. Though the functions are a little different from each other in both systems, it's the same premise.

 

[valaki]

Loathe is a bad word choice. It should say unpreferred. The concept is that you don't develop Te separate from Ti or vice versa, but you develop the thinking function as a whole. The person can utilize Ti or Te just as effectively as the other, it's just you trust one more than the other. This is harder to illustrate with judging functions, but with perceiving functions, it's highly noticeable. To an Ni user, doing things that require Ne will be easy, but it will seem very chaotic, unfocused, and inefficient. To an Ne user, unconscious visions presented by Ni will seem to come out of nowhere and be too in-depth; the Ne user thinks that the unconscious vision from Ni is highly unreliable and doesn't account for everything (when it can) because it seems to have come out of nowhere. The same applies with Te and Ti, except Te is the embodiment of pragmatism while Ti is the embodiment of understanding. Te wants to finish something as quickly as possible and make changes in the external environment. Ti wants to pile-drive a concept into the ground with incredible depth and understand everything about it. To a Te user, Ti will seem very subjective and highly inefficient. To a Ti user, Te will seem very structured and broad, not honing in on any particularities or understandings.

Nice sum up. To me, Te sometimes does feel a bit unsatisfying. I can drive some people mad with my interest in depth. At the same time, I can totally see why Ti may seem inefficient. Sometimes it is. Then sometimes it is quite the opposite because it gives you an understanding that allows you more power in practice than just simply using Te would. (This sometimes would only be really true if the Te user isn't that strong in Te, I think. But in special cases I do feel Ti gives more power to do something than Te.) Overall, preference in my case boils down to it simply being more enjoyable doing the task from the deep understanding. I say "task" because I have a practical bent affecting my Ti use most of the time (not always). I hope that makes sense.

Ni is okay, as long as I can support the Ni insight with something actual. Ni-doms don't need that to feel satisfied with the insight, do they?

How about you with Ni? Why do you not like Ti that much, from your own viewpoint? Talk more about what you see as too subjective about it. As I said I can see where the notion of inefficiency comes from, regarding Ti, but I don't see the issue with subjectivity.

This is the most helpful description of both N and T I've read, thank you. Is this true of MBTI as well as socionics, if thinking and intuition even differ between the two? Based on this I can say with fair certainty I'm NiTe.

So do you feel Ti is inefficient and uninteresting?

 

[Opal]

So do you feel Ti is inefficient and uninteresting?

Quite the opposite. In conjunction with Ni Te is useful for application of insight, but I view Ti as a vital part of my thought process (as I do Ne). In fact, my Ti is probably stronger than my Te. This is why I've flip-flopped so many times. Narrowing down my dominant function to Ni helped, and examining what I do with my Ni insights led me to Te (largely thanks to Alea_iacta_est's distinction). I observe, query, and am met with an answer. I look to act on or execute this answer in a logical way ("pragmatic" is a keyword here).

I can still imagine instances where I may fall back on NeTi or NeFi if my confidence in Ni is shaken or a change is called on by circumstance. So I wouldn't consider the INTJ label absolute, but it is the dominant/most common function hierarchy for me.

 

[valaki]

Quite the opposite. In conjunction with Ni Te is useful for application of insight, but I view Ti as a vital part of my thought process (as I do Ne). In fact, my Ti is probably stronger than my Te. This is why I've flip-flopped so many times. Narrowing down my dominant function to Ni helped, and examining what I do with my Ni insights led me to Te (largely thanks to Alea_iacta_est's distinction). I observe, query, and am met with an answer. I look to act on or execute this answer in a logical way ("pragmatic" is a keyword here).

I can still imagine instances where I may fall back on NeTi or NeFi if my confidence in Ni is shaken or a change is called on by circumstance. So I wouldn't consider the INTJ label absolute, but it is the dominant/most common function hierarchy for me.

Hmm okay... I guess Te can stand out for me too so it's vital in that sense but, what I was really asking about is whether you *like* "using" Ti much

 

[Opal]

Hmm okay... I guess Te can stand out for me too so it's vital in that sense but, what I was really asking about is whether you *like* "using" Ti much

I do... I think I'll be a little freakish for whatever I type as, because throughout my life I've consciously avoided committing to one type of thought/action for too long; my mother is a therapist/dance & yoga instructor, and my father is an investment banker/author, so I tried to embody very polarized ideals throughout my childhood. Though it doesn't add up to one type, I trust my cognitive functions percentages (roughly): my Ni, Ti and Fi are all strong, but the combination of NiTe best describes my thought patterns when isolated from social influence. So in response, I do like to use, and in fact rely on, Ti, but Ti alone is directionless and ultimately very frustrating in conversation. My Ti operates best within a pragmatic frame built by Te... as I understand Ti and Te. If I say something that seems obviously off I hope you'll tell me.