Introversion does not necessitate "depth", though it may lead to depth.
Extravertion does not necessitate "breadth", though it may lead to breadth.
Reasoning does not equal, nor is it necessarily the product of an "introverted perspective". Rather, reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings, which may stem from any function or number of functions.
And yet the dominant function will tend to have the strongest influence--hence my assessment that it's responsible for certain types of reasoning in many cases.
Nowhere did I explicitly state that one perspective is inherently superior or inferior to another. Just because I am of a certain perspective does not mean that I think of myself as superior. Rather, my perspective is subject to a number of variables, some of which are in and out of my control.
Nope, you just repeatedly insisted that I believe that, despite the fact that I never made any such claim either.
Let it be known that if someone is an introvert, it does not mean they think introversion is superior. Likewise with extraverts, nor any other personality trait. They are only confined by their perspective, even if that perspective is having multiple perspectives.
In a way it kind of does, honestly. It's not a conscious decision to place depth over breadth; it's just part of their fundamental worldview to value things that way. Being introverted doesn't mean you think you're better than extroverts, but it does mean your dominant perspective will unconsciously lead you to prefer depth to breadth more often than not (whenever you are dealing with something handled by your dominant function.)
Introverts still prefer breadth when dealing with something handled by their auxiliary function, though.
I still don't understand how introversion necessitates precision. For Ni users, it is said that they have trouble conveying their abstract perspectives because they are so fundamentally introverted. It is also difficult for Fi users to convey their abstract feelings. Ti, on the other hand, motivates us to create models, systems, and archetypes which are derived from the unconscious. Because of this, I wonder if Ti motivates people to be more precise in their linear thinking and communication (though they still may be misunderstood).
Fi, for me at least, isn't "precise". It's just woven into the fabric of who I am, and it forms opinions based on worth that are often difficult to vocalize. It's not neat. It's not clean. The only way it is precise is that it's precision is focused on my internal state; and this is why I think that introversion is simply introversion.
It's very precise compared to Fe! Think of the relationship between the two:
Fi wants to know precisely what is moral, good, feels right to you. It will accept no compromise in figuring this out and it will block out external influence as much as possible in trying to determine exactly what feels right, on a very personal basis.
Fe eschews that in favor of widely applicable moral rules that can be used to govern everyone in a wide variety of different contexts. By generalizing morality, Fe removes the deeply personal aspect that Fi so highly values; it constructs morality based on generalized collective standards that we can apply to everyone wholesale, rather than focusing on the individual and what moral standards feel right to him personally.
Moving from a person-specific to a generalized concept of morality inherently necessitates that we lose a degree of precision: We are taking what Fi views as a highly individualized process unique to the person in question and morphing it so that it fits a much broader and more generalized context that can be applied to everyone.
This is why Fi doesn't like the idea of collective morality: It neuters the Fi user's individualism. The exact specifics of what he feels are right have to be cut off in order to make the concept of morality fit everyone simultaneously--from Fi's perspective, "We are all different individuals; how can a one-size-fits-all concept of ethics ever make any sense?"
Fe sacrifices the depth of individualistic ethics in favor of a more broadly applicable ethical standard that we can apply to everyone.
I understand why you would say that introversion is depth and extraversion is breadth, however, this could be grossly misinterpreted. The breadth of extraversion relates to the exterior world and the depth of introversion relates to the internal world. Once again, why I think that breadth and depth are excess to the archetypes of introversion and extraversion.
I know I am being extremely reductionist in my assessments here. My ultimate goal is to shave off misconceptions by eventually reaching the core of what defines each function. I feel that these definitions have already been stated by Jung and that they are only encumbered by the behavioral aspects of people being tacked onto them.
In other words, you don't like generalizing these ideas in order to apply them to as many different people as possible because you find that blunt and imprecise.
I also do not think that cognitive functions can be used to define what a healthy individual is. Therefore, they cannot be interchanged, augmented, or combined to diagnose unhealthy individuals. I know that people may argue against that, saying that one can come closer to individuation; but just because someone is more well rounded in cognitive functions does not mean that they are healthy or that they can operate normally in society. Likewise, someone with functional atrophy may also be able to function, and may not have any mental disorders at all.
It's not one cognitive function that creates a healthy individual; it's balance between different ones. Too much of one perspective and too little of another creates imbalance; it's really that simple.
I can certainly imagine a sociopath being well rounded, and being well rounded may help that person carry out their sociopathic behaviors.
According to function theory, the functions on the same axis, whether it be the introverted or extraverted axis, work en tandem. This means that one's dominant function manifests itself alongside one's tertiary. This may lead many people into believing that they are in a "dysfunctional" loop of cognition and that they may be in danger of having a severe disorder.
It's not hard to see why too much introversion or too much extroversion leads to significant complications. We all need validation both from our internal selves and from the world around us. Too much of one and too little of the other and we become too dependent on personal subjectivity or too dependent on outer world conditions.
It's easy to look at diagnostics and definitions of disorders on wikipedia or in a mental health booklet, but once you see them occur in a real life setting, I think it would be easy to recognize and differ between someone who is in a "cognitive loop" and someone who is mentally fucked.
Mental disorders exist on a spectrum. I've been diagnosed with "ADHD", but really I think ADHD (as with most mental disorders) is just what we've chosen to term a high dependence on one particular type of mindset (in my case, Ne.)
Many of those disorders are simply extreme preferences for one or two particular types of cognition. We've termed them disorders simply because they're different from what most people are like, and so people who have them have a much harder time fitting into society.
So a dom/tert loop might be only slightly problematic and never cause enough of an issue to be diagnosed, or in a more extreme case might manifest itself as full blown psychosis.
For instance, relying on Fi+Ni doesn't guarantee that one will have severe enough symptoms to be diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder, but in extreme cases the symptoms become pronounced enough that this is often the diagnosis.
That said, I wonder what sim's motivations for posting that cognitive comparison were, as I have seen him designate himself in being in a "dom-tert loop". Does he actually identify with his Ne Fe mental disorder?
Sure, to some degree. I do exhibit symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, especially when I am in Ne+Fe mode. The solution is to develop Ti.
Again it's not black and white; it's a spectrum. Everyone exhibits
some minor form of some personality disorder or another; the question is simply whether it's extreme enough to block out normal life functioning.
I don't think my NPD symptoms are severe enough to constitute a real NPD diagnosis from a psychological professional, but nonetheless they are there. This leads to my conclusion that most personality disorders are simply extreme preference for one or two types of cognition, to the exclusion of those that would balance them out.
Sim, what on earth are you talking about? I was referring to your method of argument, that of dismissing someone's statement with reference to what you presume their types to be, etc. Yer doing it again:
^ Like that. I just can't decide whether it's more boring, or funny. It's boring becuase you keep doing it in a very predictable way, no matter what the subject, but it's also funny for precisely the same reason, and because you responding to people in this way is so predictable. I could almost set my watch by it! Anyway, it's a meaningless generalisation.
Well no, unfortunately for you guys it has a much more profound effect on your outlooks than you've even begun to realize. It's predictable because your responses are predictable according to your function outlooks. (Predictable =/= wrong.)
Now, do we associate over-excitability and a tendency to caricature with ENTPs?
YES, absolutely! The fact that it doesn't apply to
every ENTP isn't the point. I'm speaking from an Ne perspective here: If it works more often than not and gives us a good generalized picture of a generalized trend, it's true.
Your implied criticism that it's invalid because it's not perfectly correct in every case is yet another example of your preference for introverted reasoning.
Do you ever stop making deflective and irrelevant personal assertions based on your typological presumptions? This so far as I can see is what a number of people, including Tater, are objecting to in the first place.
Tater's decisions on how
he wants to use typology, which are not even the subject under discussion for anyone but yourself, have nothing whatsoever to do with the cohesiveness and applicability of
your ideas. You're just trying to make it personal, and about someone else, in order to avoid the issue you're being challenged on.
Tater can feel free to use typology however he wants to.
The cohesiveness of my ideas is dependent upon the interpretation of the person reading them.
Both of you keep insisting that there's some universally objective standard for evaluating ideas and that we all should just use that because it's so obvious, and somehow it escapes you that evaluation of ideas is purely dependent upon perspective and that no such universal standard exists. What really blows me away is that the standard both of you keep insisting is universally/objectively correct is just rooted in an introverted perspective and fails to consider that the opposing extroverted approach might have any validity.
Once again I'm not saying that either of you is
wrong, necessarily, just that I want you to stop presuming that lacking precision invalidates my reasoning method. It's this assumption that's making both of you repeatedly miss the crux of how extroverted perspectives operate.
I only have to repeat myself with minor variations. But perhaps my question was rhetorical in the first place, eh?
The function attitudes are never, ever irrelevant. Their constant pervasive influence affects everything about the way all of us see everything--all I'm asking you to do is set aside for a moment your assumption that precision is preferable to broader applicability.
Every response each of you makes boils down to, "BUT THAT'S CLEARLY WRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERFECTLY TRUE IN ALL CASES!!!!", which just proves my point,
yet again.
But neither of you seems to be getting it so this may be my last response to either of you in this thread.