Sim, you must admit that what he says about you here is true, I've heard you state it over and over, how much you can't stand Fi.
I'm starting to think that Fi and Ni are kinda similar.
That's just a working hypothesis, though, as I just came up with it a couple of hours ago.
Well, true. See my above response to Tater regarding my relationship with Fi.
And Fi and Ni are similar in that they are both very subjective and very personal, but other than that they don't have too much in common.
Sim, I actually think your last post was pretty good.
Thank you.
I still think you're letting your relationships with Jaguar, your dad and/or your brother taint your entire perspective on NTJs, and that you harbor an obsession with pointing towards the 2% (Orobas' figure) of the time when Ni-doms are not actually bringing to the table an accurate, largely-encompassing view of the matter at hand, due to your issues with one or more of these relationships.
Anyone who's only wrong 2% of the time would be profoundly brilliant, far moreso than any real person existing in the world today.
Anyway, my father and brother are actually far less inclined toward the problems I have with NTJs. I have very good relationships with both of them; the resentment you speak of comes entirely from NTJs to whom I am not related biologically.
Jaguar is certainly one of them. Talk about spoiled rich kid who had never had to grow up because Daddy's Money handed him everything from day one. I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of horribly unbalanced Te+Se loop, tbh.
Frankly I think his Ni sucks and that he spends a lot of time spouting Te+Se rhetoric--he just needs to believe he has brilliant Ni and thus never shuts up about how deep and brilliant and perceptive he is (and how everyone is totally shallow, durrrr), when in reality he has some of the worst Ni of any NTJ I've ever met.
But I digress.
I don't know if it's that your dad and/or brother and/or Jaguar "look down on you" for what it is that you are doing with your life, but I suspect this is the source (particularly with your family) of much of your obsession with pointing out that Ni doms don't really see the "whole picture" (i.e., in your case, that material gain, etc. is not that important).
Haha it's actually not my dad or my brother at all. Like I said I get along really well with them. I think both of them are exceptionally insightful and neither strikes me as exceedingly arrogant; I think they're both smart enough to recognize the limitations on their own perception and it keeps their egos in check. I really love them both deeply and we rarely have any serious disagreements.
But I can't say the same for a lot of the other NTJs I know. Even the ones I consider very intelligent often fall into the same traps I've mentioned but are too arrogant about their supreme perception skills to admit it to themselves.
Yes, their values make them desire for you to do something that they see as "productive" with your life -- and these desires are undoubtedly biased by their Te -- but to constantly obsess over pointing out a particular type's "blind spots", which, invariably, do exist, seems to be driven more by your personal experiences than a drive for accuracy or truth, and thus pushes you towards behavior that you wouldn't otherwise be engaging in.
I don't know. Maybe I'm completely off base. I don't know you that well.
But it just always seems like you have a personal axe to grind with NTJs.
You're right; some NTJs really do consistently piss me off. It's not that they have a preset way of assigning value to things; everyone has that, it's that coupled with the way many of them assume that their value system is The Correct Value Systemâ„¢, end of story, because everyone else is too stupid to understand the REAL truth the way only NTJs do.
When you introduce typology to these types, their response tends to be not, "Oh, I see now that there are lots of different value systems and none is any better than any other", but rather, "Oh, now I get it--NTJs are the
smart people! Now I can explain why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total ingrate moron!" (*cough* Lex Tali-tard *cough*)
Rather than use it as a way to recognize the subjectivity of their own perspectives, as it's intended, they just use it to bolster their own delusional arrogance and reinforce the idea that their value system is objectively better than everyone's. It's pretty sickening.
Example: A certain ENTJ who shall go unnamed once said she "didn't have any values." Think about the sheer arrogance contained in that statement. She's literally saying, "Everything I believe clearly constitutes totally objective truth. I am so immune to bias of any kind that nothing I believe contains any degree of subjectivity whatsoever; I simply see the absolute, perfect objective truth as it is and no personal bias ever comes into play."
Honestly dude you are way smarter than most NTJs I've come across--it's just that no type group is ever as consistently arrogant about its intelligence and perceptive abilities as NTJs, which drives me up the fucking wall because so many of you are simultaneously mired in perceptual bias yet arrogantly obsessed with the fantasy that you're immune to it.
It's infuriating.
You just told me that what I said was true, meaning that breadth can be found in introversion and depth can be found in extraversion. Yet you persist in your previous stance prior to that because you hold my statement captive as though you can't accept it.
Uh, no...I said your statement was true
from an introverted perspective. I can't believe I mistook you for an Ni dom before--you're far too attached to the idea that there's one universally, objectively correct perspective or that truth exists outside human interpretation for that to be the case.
"JUST JUDGE ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE TRUE LOL" doesn't really work here because different perspectives have different ideas of what truth is. It may seem obvious to you what's true and what's false, but that's just a function of interpretation. There is no universal truth.
The fact is that having depth means that you plunge the innards or deepness of a thing, which is quite possible in referring to external input (which is what extraversion is). Having breadth means that you can examine a broader range of input, which is also quite possible when you are referring to a more intrinsic or internal input.
I don't understand your point. Obviously every real person has both introverted and extroverted functional attitudes, so yes, we are all capable of both breadth and depth. The point here is that those dominant in introverted perspectives tend to favor depth, while those dominant in extroverted perspectives tend to favor breadth. I did not intend to imply that either type is incapable of valuing the opposing perspective.
What a crock of shit.
The accuracy of a statement is entirely contingent upon reasoning, whether you're referring to internal or external data.
Unfortunately for you, different functions reason in different terms and there's no universal standard making any one more right than any other. That's what I'm getting at when I point out the functional perspectives motivating people's opinions--that we can't really ever completely agree because we conceptualize reality and ourselves according to fundamentally different axioms.
What do you mean by "precision"? Certainly, one can formulate an idea in one's head until it is pristine and then communicate it with perfect clarity. The subjective bounds of another's' interpretation is what prevents that clarity from having an identical effect in their own psyche.
No, the idea can never be communicated to others with perfect clarity because others do not share your consciousness. When you move an idea outside your own head into the realm of dealing with others and the outer world, you are inherently decreasing its precision/accuracy in order to increase its external applicability. This is the crux of shifting from introversion to extroversion.
Note that undervaluing a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.
Correct? What does "correct" even mean? Consistent with your FiTe idea of correctness, you mean?
Correctness (just like truth) is in the eye of the beholder. That's the whole point of typology.
I try
I've already addressed the reasoning you have here. All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.
You're misinterpreting my functional observations as evaluations of people's ideas.
I'm not evaluating the ideas themselves; I'm evaluating the functional motivation for them. The point I'm getting at is that no idea is universally correct or incorrect, that everyone is subject to personal bias generated by his functional perspectives.
So when I say something to the effect of, "Wow your opinion is so Te", I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm simply pointing out that continuing to argue further has become a moot point since our disagreement is based on differences in fundamental worldview that are very unlikely to change.
Note that this doesn't make either of us right or wrong; on the contrary, it's intended to show that neither of us can ever truly be right or wrong in a purely objective sense!
So it's not, "This guy's opinion is wrong because it's obviously motivated by Ni" so much as, "Ni is the reason this guy holds this opinion, so he won't be able to come to an agreement with anyone who doesn't agree with that initial Ni premise in the first place."
Most disagreements occur when someone tries to evaluate an idea rooted in one function according to the standards of a different function. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else; it's impossible to avoid. What I intend to point out with such comments is that we cannot evaluate an idea until we understand the basic axioms of the worldview that supports it--if we try to judge Ni ideas in Ti terms, we're bound to fail.
You can't actually think this perspective is a reflection of the broader reality - do you? Listen to yourself.
Do you actually think we view this as perfect or without flaws? Do you think we aren't well aware of the limitations in knowledge?
I think you may be overly influenced by your personal reaction to the manner with which the NTJs communicate.
Unfortunately I am quite serious about this, and if you've managed to avoid meeting any such NTJs in your time on this planet then you should count yourself as very lucky.