violet_crown
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,959
- MBTI Type
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 853
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I think Coriolis is ISTJ.
That's a hard sell, son. What you got?
I think Coriolis is ISTJ.
I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .That's a hard sell, son. What you got?
I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .
I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .
That's a hard sell, son. What you got?
I have to act like one far more often than I would like. I hope it isn't rubbing off . . .
Your interactions on the forum seem more Te-dom to me.
To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.
Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.
To write out a very simple dichotomy:
Ni - Philosopher
Si - Scientist
I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.
I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.
This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.
I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.
I'm also curious what your assessment of me is, if you wouldn't mind, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION].
Yeah, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], type me too.
[MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] your analysis of me would be greatly appreciated .
I might have agreed with most of this some years ago, before I learned as much as I did about MBTI and functional analysis. The observations that I demonstrate strong Te here have the most validity. As an introverted type, it will be my aux function that is most readily apparent. As for the comments from Jung, they seem to be dealing with Ni in a vacuum, but no one uses it like that. Someone operating on pure Ni would be a very unhealthy extreme, and unlikely to succeed as either a philosopher or a scientist.Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.
To write out a very simple dichotomy:
Ni - Philosopher
Si - Scientist
I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.
I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.
This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.
Ni and Si are differently rigid. Si understands things in terms of rigid categories. Ni understands things in terms of rigid functionalities.To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.
In the MBTI Step II, it is noted that a lot of INTJs tend to type rather close the the N/S border. If you look at it, though, it's the Se aspects of things, not the Si. INTJs know that they need hard evidence to distinguish whether theory A or theory B is true. They don't focus on the Se points (that's kind of the how inferior functions work, you know), but once they've seen a few different possible answers, the single Se data point is all it takes to decide which theory is best.Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.
Actually, I usually see several answers, but I choose only one (due to Te).[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.
To write out a very simple dichotomy:
Ni - Philosopher
Si - Scientist
I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.
I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.
This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.
I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.
To start, Ni isn't theoretically (explicitly or otherwise, so far as I can tell) ascribed any favor in comparison to Si for terms of rigidity, as is commonly 'known' throughout the MBTI community. For example, in Socionics, Se in a more Jungian sense is applied to ISTj's while Si is applied to ISTp's, respectively for their intuiting counterparts. Jung views Se as the irrational function with greatest propensity for fresh rationalization of circumstance, the type with greatest bias to the actuality of a situation, the type that 'idealizes' information with the lowest frequency of intent - perceptions many scientists might take up.
Furthermore, it is stated by Jung that the unconscious attitude of Si is Se of a fair magnitude; while the unconscious attitude of Ni is Se of a primitive, lowly order. I take this to equate that Ni is highly 'entrenched' to its understanding that the introverted intuitor's 'a priori' perception is the end-all be-all of objective nature. For clarification, here is an except from the wiki article on a priori knowledge, something Jung equates to Ni - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." You can see how this approach to reality runs completely countercurrent to Se and Si ideals, and seems to be something to a fair degree easy to spot when in the dominant position of an individual. I don't see it in you.
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] once mentioned he knows he is an intuitor because he frequently sees the answer - I wish to correct him with the phrasing and say he is an intuitor because he frequently sees an answer. Introverted intuition is the instinctual bridging of gaps in perception, scaffolds erecting highly contingent on the feelings evoked by stimulus, manifesting as a habitual inability to separate perception from the current crowd of thought seized by the mind. Si is not so defined by its intuitive perception; it allows (and prefers) the establishment of constructs as complex and as accurate as need be without sacrificing objectivity in nature. But while the perception of Se is seized on the object alone (say, the fusion of atoms in a star), Si is the arrest of the object's influence of a system (the necessity of stars to harbor life), but still bound by the factoids of objective reality.
To write out a very simple dichotomy:
Ni - Philosopher
Si - Scientist
I think you fall into the realm of the latter, Coriolis. It really has nothing to do with being a stick-in-the-mud uncompromising-appeal-to-authoritative-establishment SJ.
I mean, on top of that, there must be more SJ's among the ranks. I think you're a fine candidate.
This was actually my conclusion the other day, talking about Coriolis' relationship with her 'employers' (or whoever they are). I think she is introverted in a classical sense, favoring the ITJ format over ETJ for the platform of MBTI. In a Jungian sense, yeah, probably a shoo-in Te type.
I can be skipped, was only seeking to respond publicly to the inquiry.
Mod request for a possible thread split, pending Jon's willingness to indulge us, of course.
INTJs are highly represented in the sciences, and it's not cuz they're all actually ISTJs.
Your notions about Ni, Se, Si, and the connection to reality are skewed.
Nice explanation, Uumlau, and one of my favorite stories from undergrad physics to boot. The highlighted is at the heart of the scientific method, though the theory aspect is often slighted in how this is taught in K-12 education. The underlined is a common shortcoming of inexperienced research (not collecting enough data), but when it is a matter of practical decision rather than a journal submission, this is often enough.Ni and Si are differently rigid. Si understands things in terms of rigid categories. Ni understands things in terms of rigid functionalities.
In the MBTI Step II, it is noted that a lot of INTJs tend to type rather close the the N/S border. If you look at it, though, it's the Se aspects of things, not the Si. INTJs know that they need hard evidence to distinguish whether theory A or theory B is true. They don't focus on the Se points (that's kind of the how inferior functions work, you know), but once they've seen a few different possible answers, the single Se data point is all it takes to decide which theory is best.
Interesting. INTJs are the ones usually described as scientists. But yes, plenty of philosophers have been typed thus.
The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ, is that INTJs tend to thing in terms of "meta". Of overall planning, of overall perspective. Si understands "this is how we're going to do this, step by step." Ni understands "This is why we're doing this. If the why changes, we're gonna do it differently."
This made me chuckle. I am known for asking questions of the third form in most settings. Half the group will stutter in consternation, "well, we've always had a fence . . . of course we need it . . . ", while the other half will express relief at the prospect of not having to worry about it. Then I show them what we should be worrying about. When I do agree we need a fence, I want form to follow function (assumes we understand the real function - all of it!) as simply as possible.Se - I want to decorate the fence and make it look appealing
Si - I want to take care of all the details building the fence
Ni - What's the deal with fences? Why do we need fences, anyway?
Actually, I usually see several answers, but I choose only one (due to Te).
There's an old story of a question on a physics test: "Describe how you might measure the height of a building with a barometer."
The expected answer is that one measures the air pressure at the ground level, and at the top of the building, takes the difference, multiplies by a constant, and then one has the height of the building.
Now, here's Ni in action:
- Drop the barometer from the top of the building. Time its fall. Solve for the height of the building.
- Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground from the top of the building. Measure the string.
- Tie a string to the barometer. Lower it to the ground. Swing it gently back and forth. Measure the period of the swing. Calculate the height from the duration of the period.
- Go find the owner of the building. Say, "Hi. I'll give you this very nice barometer if you'll tell me how tall your building is."
Interesting. INTJs are the ones usually described as scientists. But yes, plenty of philosophers have been typed thus.
The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ, is that INTJs tend to thing in terms of "meta". Of overall planning, of overall perspective. Si understands "this is how we're going to do this, step by step." Ni understands "This is why we're doing this. If the why changes, we're gonna do it differently."
This made me chuckle. I am known for asking questions of the third form in most settings. Half the group will stutter in consternation, "well, we've always had a fence . . . of course we need it . . . ", while the other half will express relief at the prospect of not having to worry about it. Then I show them what we should be worrying about. When I do agree we need a fence, I want form to follow function (assumes we understand the real function - all of it!) as simply as possible.
I will read whatever else you post on this topic with great interest.
The next part of your paragraph should begin with "Because ..."The problem therein lies that the precluding statement to the one I quoted you on had read "I don't make any calculations in my head, I see the answer." The former part of the sentence is now of dire importance, because the context no longer applies, and it no longer sounds like a leading function of introverted intuition.
Jung doesn't provide "objective evidence."None of this is really supported by the objective evidence Jung provides.
Not sure what else to say, except that Ni has been granted the same amnesty God has when playing Rock Paper Scissors. It is apparent that anyone with an intellectual ego will gravitate to the analyses provided post-Jung. All you're doing is reiterating things that someone of fair intelligence is capable of; it has nothing to do with personality.
When reading Jung on Ni and Te, it is a far cry from anything I've ever seen painted as Ni, up to and including these examples of the function.
The next part of your paragraph should begin with "Because ..."
Jung doesn't provide "objective evidence."
No, I just try to keep my analogies simple. If I used advanced physics, you'd be lost. I'm showing patterns. I am pointing at the moon, but you want to talk about my finger.
Food for thought: Jung's functions from his typology are not the "Jungian functions" that are usually discussed these days.
No, I just try to keep my analogies simple. If I used advanced physics, you'd be lost. I'm showing patterns. I am pointing at the moon, but you want to talk about my finger.
In this case, though, the sort of spontaneous massive parallelism I consider to be the hallmark of Ni/Se is so apparent in the way that you think that it's hard to think of you as not NTJ. Dominant Si just has a very different vibe to it imo.