RaptorWizard
Permabanned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,895
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Intuition is for nerds who like to think about things rather than to be doing things like us epically awsome sensors!
You're gonna have to explain this a bit more because if you don't, it's just not something I buy. Ne users are Si users, but that does not mean that they're always used together. Just because we use Si also does not mean that it's based on something objective. There are certainly many instances of unrestrained Ne which have next to no bases in reality. Flights of fancy that are created through almost random cross-contextual thinking.
my research says differently.
there are two dichotomous dimensions for evaluation.
the first includes Introversion and Extroversion.
indicated by your OP, it appears you understand these elements.
where Introversion is to focus on the subject, Extroversion focuses on the object.
the second differentiates Judgement and Perception.
this dimension is a bit more complicated, as it contains two more dichotomous dimensions.
Judgement functions are rational [conscious] and, by contrast, Perception represents irrational [unconscious] processes.
Judgement includes Feeling and Thinking. both rational, both conscious.
Perception includes iNtuition and Sensing. both irrational, both unconscious.
i won't get into the valuation of these just yet.
if we say a Perception "becomes" conscious, what we actually mean is that it is being dealt with by the conscious Judgement.
i don't like to say that Perception parcels information to be dealt with by Judgement, because it can be confusing, since what Judgement does can also be described as parceling.
but unfortunately, that's basically what's happening. Perception happens unconsciously. the information is brought to consciousness [or not] and then we make a Judgement over it using Thinking or Feeling.
Sensing is necessarily concrete, unconscious perception.
iNtuition must then necessarily be non-concrete, unconscious perception. this is known as abstraction.
where Sensation makes us aware of our physical environment and/or self, iNtuition makes us aware of the abstractions present in our environment/selves. most commonly, [especially pertaining to Ne] these are "links" between two or more items or ideas. but the links are abstract i.e. not physically present in either our environment or memory.
contemplation doesent require N, but ofc N can guide contemplation to certain directions actively(meaning during it), like it does guide our thinking and feeling more often than people realize
Hence the auxiliary function is possible only in so far as it serves the dominant function, without making any claim to the autonomy of it's own principal.
she is INFJ, INFJs doesent use neither Ne or Si. also, claiming that its Ne and Si to recognize belonging on predetermined mold is just lol
no theory here is mine. i'm using precisely the wording jung used himself.the words abstractions, concrete etc have so many possible meaning that its impossible to tell what you are trying to say with them, since you clearly arent using the same definitions as jung used.
well, i tried.
no theory here is mine. i'm using precisely the wording jung used himself.
advise read more jung.
Well yes, especially in the case of dominant intuitives because in the words of jung:
In other words everything less dominant than the dominant is also subject to to it, so for example, Fe would be altered through Ni in an INFJ. The same also goes for those 'lesser' functions as well.
Well, if you haven't caught on yet I'm saying she is mistyped and secondly why does that not make sense?
You described Si and Ne as: "how things have been before and what seems plausible according to the things that have been before."
If she is relating and agreeing with the description and that functions definition has always been so she is comparing to how things have been before.
While Ni-Se is a personalized description based on symbols that the user interprets themselves. So, yes, she could have the same view as another on how Ni works, but that to me shows Si since it goes back to agreeing on a description that is "objectively" interpreted.
i dont understand how the thing you say "in other words" is related to that quote from jung
without making any claim to the autonomy of it's own principal.
well, i didn't, actually, but i don't see any use in arguing with such a shitty attitude.you clearly added the [conscious] and [unconscious] next to rational and irrational, otherwise it seemed to be from jung.
Well, if you haven't caught on yet I'm saying she is mistyped and secondly why does that not make sense?
You described Si and Ne as: "how things have been before and what seems plausible according to the things that have been before."
If she is relating and agreeing with the description and that functions definition has always been so she is comparing to how things have been before.
While Ni-Se is a personalized description based on symbols that the user interprets themselves. So, yes, she could have the same view as another on how Ni works, but that to me shows Si since it goes back to agreeing on a description that is "objectively" interpreted.
You're gonna have to explain this a bit more because if you don't, it's just not something I buy. Ne users are Si users, but that does not mean that they're always used together. Just because we use Si also does not mean that it's based on something objective. There are certainly many instances of unrestrained Ne which have next to no bases in reality. Flights of fancy that are created through almost random cross-contextual thinking.
N is the neural road, while S is the end of the road. but N combines these different ends to form a one big scale picture and thats how N is pretty much dependent on S.[...]
when it comes to Ne having no basis on reality, it does have(like you mentioned, its just almost no basis), but its just not consciously perceived and might be so twisted and facts so abstracted from the thing in external world that evoked them, thats its impossible to recognize them anymore.
well, i didn't, actually, but i don't see any use in arguing with such a shitty attitude.
how's the weather up there, high-horse?
Really? Oh well nevermind im sure it is just my flawed intepretation.
Basically it was merely that what people recognise as Fe or Ti or Se in an INFJ would be different to Ti in a Ti-dom or Se in a Se-dom or Fe in a Fe-dom.
Does that make more sense? I could of course be making leaps of thinking here to get to this point, but if you read into it, it can help explain one of the difficulties in people self-typing....among many others.
You are the one with the "advice reading more jung" attitude. Which is pretty annoying when it seems like you have only read type descriptions from psychological types and not really understood it properly. Now gimme a source where jung says that S is an unconscious process
in that quote jung is basically just saying that aux cant be as differentiated as dominant one and that aux function serves dominant functions, not overrule it.