Zarathustra
Let Go Of Your Team
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 8,110
On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.
Maybe you need to better develop your Ti...
On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.
Any function is haphazard when used haphazardly.
When used properly in conjunction with Te, this is much less the case.
The same could be said of any of the functions:
Is each particular function necessary for the particular act it is more likely to create? No.
Does the presence of that function increase the likelihood that that particular will take place? Yes.
On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.
The box. Learn not to trust it.
Consider the following:
1) The dominant function is the function we use to absorb process information. The auxiliary function is used to organize and communicate said information.
2) Te is the boss function. It emphasizes efficiency and is rather brash about it, and is good at scheduling, organizing, etc. It sounds something like this:
3) Ni, on the other hand, is the strategist function. It solves paradoxes, analyzes possible variables and creates predictions and grand schemes. It sounds something like this:
Although, of course, that's Ni assisted by Fe. Te Ni would sound more like this:
This of course is not how ENTJs function. They don't spot inefficiency and then air it out in a dreamy tone. They come up with grand strategies and then bark at other people to get them done. The problem is that according to Jung's definition of ENTJ, this is how they work. Conclusion: Jung was an idiot, and a better cognitive function theory is needed.
Exactly.
You're a Je dom.
You would.
Why Te?
I disagree. If you took away Se, you have a totally useless person. You take away Ti, you have a totally useless person. There is not sufficient way for any other process to take up the role of those processes. Presumably, this is just as true of Ni as it is of any of the other seven processes, but I don't think for the reason that you posted here. I was wandering more down the path of thought that I had written on your wall in regards to the absolutely necessary function of Ni.
Neither. Neither Ne nor Se encompasses that much. You're probably looking at more than one process there.
I don't even......
Wtf is this....
Perhaps you should start again over here...Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh.. it requires Je dominance to realize that this thread is asking for everyone's individual interpretation and not some sort of objective truth.. thats interesting.
Oh.. it requires Je dominance to realize that this thread is asking for everyone's individual interpretation and not some sort of objective truth.. thats interesting.
Any function is haphazard when used haphazardly.
When used properly in conjunction with Te or Fe, this is much less the case.
Am I the only one who views society as functionally parallel to the individual human psyche, though much more balanced?
First off: wasn't the question more about the usefulness to society of a particular function, and what would happen to society without one of the functions?
But to deal with your approach anyway:
I disagree.
Why would taking away Se make someone a totally useless person? Same for Ti?
You obviously would have to replace it with something else (probably Ne and Fi, respectively, assuming we're talking about the functions being in the dominant position, and we want to keep the other functions relatively similar).
Why wouldn't that something else allow the person to perform just fine?
I'm working on the premise that if something made invidiuals dysfunctional, then a society full of these dysfuncitonal individuals is in trouble.
I'll focus on Se. Without Se you lack a basic capicity to react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you. Without that, what can you? I hate to answer a question with a question, but how would Ne take over for Se?
I dunno, I kinda suck at noticing details (I do love sensory experiences though) and I love improvising.Unless you are aware of the details you can't improvise worth shit, they are inextricably linked, and therefore one, or something like that.
I don't think lacking Se means one can't "react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you".
I don't think lacking Se means one no longer has sensory perceptions.
Rather, I think of Se as a disposition.
It's a way one orients oneself to the world, specifically with regard to how one prefers to perceive incoming data.
On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a loan translation or calque of German Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt, 'world', and Anschauung, 'view' or 'outlook'. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.
^I don't see why it can't be explained with macro and micro (to use your terms) examples. And I'd hesitate to call typology a world view. Because as we approach individuation (hopefully we are on that journey), we utilize different functions and ways of being, so that we are shifting in how we gather and process data; and a world view encompasses so much more than that.
Worldview definition:
I have nothing against that definition of world view... in fact I smiled when they mentioned German epistemology and philosophy (Jung was a big Kant fan ). The problem aphro is that if we go by micro examples, the theory falls on its face. I don't have time right now to give a long winded example, but I will later.