AphroditeGoneAwry
failure to thrive
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,585
- MBTI Type
- INfj
- Enneagram
- 451
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
I don't think that is what Jung expressed in his writing about typology.
Why would SPs, who prefer Se, utilize Ni at all? They are diametrically opposed functions. Where do you get this?
The accurate one I've been making all along: that SPs tend not to understand the source of their Se's interpretations all that well; they just go with it (it being, whether they realize it or not [and, naturally, not usually being versed in Jungian psychology, they usually don't], what their subconscious Ni tells them it means), which is essentially the same thing you've said yourself.
please see the bolded...Well, that, and its specific and proper application to your flawed assumption that I don't think Se and Ni can play nice together.
Yes, in the tertiary, your suppression of it isn't as high.
But it usually is still there, and you'll tend to naturally "use" Se more easily.
If you succumb to tertiary temptation/your dominant loop, then this will be less the case.
Even then, though, you'll often be one quick flip away from embracing Se and suppressing Ni.
Again that still comes across as Dominant Se. Holy crap we are gonna continue down this circle.This is like you argueing "THIS IS WHITE" and me saying no "THIS IS GREY"...well "essentially" grey has white in it.
please see the bolded...
Zarathustra said:Even then, though, you'll often be one quick flip away from embracing Se and suppressing Ni.
ok...let me "rephrase" it...why does embracing Se mean that we have to supress Ni. To me when one has to supress another those 2 things dont play nice together, they operate in solitare from each other.
Most of the time for me my Ti balances between Se and Ni. Sometimes it chooses sides, sometimes it makes them work together, and sometimes it makes them face each other.
My Ni sees that you just trusted whatever connections subconscious Ni came up with to explain the otherwise meaningless sensory data.
I wonder what separates meaningless Se gathered data from what you would seem to deem meaningfull Te gathered facts.
If you ask me (though I'm not too well versed in Jungian Typology, just started reading Nardi a few weeks back), the 2 seem rather similar as in they look for external validification.
But then again, I could just be another stupid ISP who is trusting initial gut instincts without further inquiry into their validity, which is the difference right, that Te is more skeptical?
Sorry, I almost responded this way to your earlier post, but decided not to:
Yes, I agree with this point. It's essentially implied by what I said in post #392. It is certainly more true of ESPs, as their "taking up of" Se and suppression of Ni is higher than ISPs, who "take up" Se and suppress Ni less, and will tend to reconcile the two earlier in life.
My point was, that's not the implication of my statement.
My statement implies that that is one relationship between Se and Ni; it does not imply it's the exclusive one.
Yeah, I got the same thing going my Te and Fi, but, if I'm completely honest with myself, compared to an EFP, I naturally fall back on the Te usage (it's almost automatic -- just so default) way more than they do, and they call back on their Fi usage way more than I do. Their Fi usage is simply more-developed than mine. And my Te usage is simply more developed than theirs. I use my Fi as an ITJ who's developed it pretty well would. But EFPs are still so much better at wielding that tool than I am. Just as I tend to be better at wielding Te than almost any one of them (although, admittedly, some of them can be quite impressive with it, as some INTJs can be quite impressive with their Fi).
So answer me this...why would I dumb down my thought back to white when I see grey...and why would I want to allow inaccurate generalities to become whats accepted.
That was the implication from your statement in regard to SPs.
How you view SPs is what I continue to argue. When you group things together in the manner that has been done you cannot have "definitive" rules, everything has to be based on a sliding scale.
For example, you can group together ESTP/ISTP/INFJ/ENFJ and we are alot alike, YET the scales of how things work will continue to slide as you move from one type to another. ESTP is CLOSER to ENFJ in regard to reverting to there external world, ISTP is closer to INFJ in regard to reverting to our internal world. What that means is that when you create function usage generalities in regard to SP you are gonna be wrong most of the time. The closest you can come is that we have the same functions and what each function is individually. To go any further requires seperation of each group into sub groups. At that point you have Dom/Aux/Tert defined and only then can you start to group together by how each function reacts in regard to one another.
Honestly I see EFPs reverting to Te way more then ITJs. A healthy ITJ will fall back on Te more then an unhealthy version. But common nature is to fall back on our tertiary as its the most comfortable. Healthy in this regard is in reference to growing, instead of being stagnant. Look how much EFPs will raise up Te, move towards it and embrace it.
We think that our auxilary is some god function because it protects our Auxilary, but just like an over protective mother, all it does is hold back our auxilary.
None of this really matches your explanation of SPs very good and what I "attempted" to do was to show how your vision of SP was short sighted and incomplete, its like you are taking the most extroverted part and running with it as if it were all encompasing of SPs. If you prefer the innacuracy of your vision thats your call, I dont. Its like putting someone in a box they dont really fit in and then explaining that box as if was part of everyone in it.
And you judge me based on "my" assumptions...LMAO The funny part is that you agree that its not accurate, yet you continue to argue as if it is. I understand GREY is not WHITE...but grey IS white.
Also, Eric, part of me just thinks you're Ti'ing the shit out of this stuff. You're looking for a logically complete system to explain God, and, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Your wife and counselor, on the other hand, don't demand the same level of logical coherence.
I think what both of you are picking up as this "system" I'm trying to "build" is me just spitting back at them the "systems" they "officially" hold, as expounded by evangelical leaders or "historic Christianity" in general.Part of what you're missing, here, is that you're trying to build a "system" out of worldviews that are essentially "archetypes." It's as if you're trying to disprove thermodynamics by following the implications of heat beyond the point at which matter becomes plasma, and plasma physics works rather differently than thermodynamics at more normal temperatures. An engineer would say that you're jumping the gun, and being too literal or "black and white", to insist that his car engine take plasma physics into account. That is to say, your logic may be entirely correct, but also entirely inapplicable to the case at hand.
Yeah, that's known as the problem of evil, or "theodicy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy). Everyone has a problem with it, and it's a central issue of the Christian religion particularly because it espouses a single, all-powerful God that is inherently good, but if there's evil in the world, then He can't be that powerful or He cannot be that good, can he? It's self-contradictory. But it is not ignored by the Bible, and is a central theme of one of the most controversial books of the Bible, the Book of Job.
That said, it's not an easy question of religion, and it's a bit unfair to treat laymen as expert theologians to be debated. I'm not going to bother trying to answer the issue myself, since I believe you brought it up as an example; I'm just trying to point out that you have a lot of company when you ask these questions. They are not easy questions, and how you end up answering them ends up saying a lot about you and what you believe (and doesn't say that much about God and why He lets evil things happen).
Thanks![MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] you with that terribly detailed, precise, logical, categorical, and well defined explanation have definitively proven to me once and for all what an INTP really is and how their systems of reasonings contrast greatly with that of Ni types like ISTP and INTJ meaning I as well as the poster above me are not the same type as you for sure!
I take it you mean "introverted, [COMMA] thinking". INTJ is not "introverted Thinking [Ti].Now how do we tell the difference between ISTP and INTJ which are both introverted thinking types that specialize in the use of Ni?
I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.
It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!
/feels inadequate.
it is god itself.