OK, so to get the thread back to its original purpose:
So, given all this discussion, do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Ni and Si are in the dom or aux of all Judgers.
I mean, I understand that it's just like that according to the framework, but, assuming that the framework is actually representative of reality (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying let's assume), then it would seem that Ni and Si are just as correlated to whether one is a Judger as having Te or Fe as one's dom or aux.
Assuming the framework is representationally true, do you think it's merely a case of correlation but not causation that Ni and Si are 100% correlated with Jness, or do you think the underlying relationship is just as causal as the Fe and Te correlation?
Isn't it at least interesting that all NJs have Ni, and all SJs have Si?
I'm sorry, Z, but this sounds like, "isn't it the least bit interesting that an antiparticle has the opposite charge of its corresponding particle?" It's definitional.
It is part of the whole "Ji goes with Pe and Je goes with Pi" architecture of MBTI. It's like being amazed that not only does one plus one equal 2, but 2 minus one equals one!
Unless there's some core empirical kind of observation that you'd like to make that might reach new conclusions, I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at.
An understandable response, but not really a valuable one. I mean, I already lead with this exact notion in my post.
The nugget I was trying to get at, which Tesla got but both you and Sim missed, is the potential relevance, importance, and causes of Pi/Je aux/dom and Pe/Ji aux/dom correlation
if MBTI theory is
representationally true vs being simply
internally consistently true.
You and Sim chose the cynical route; Tesla kept her mind open to the potentially deeper truth, and wrote a perfect response enumerating the details of what I was trying to point to.
Z, I'm sure you understand that definitively speaking, according to the labeling system, Pi goes with Je, and Ji goes with Pe. You're just looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why the two are correlated, beyond the labeling system. Why the labeling system is the way it is, so to speak.
Exactly.
Judgers internalize the information that they gather externally to fit some kind of impersonal construct, and the construct itself has no judgments attached to it (Pi). However, judgers use this construct made from information in the external environment to make judgments of value/worth (Je). Without the construct, no reasonable judgments about reality could be made, but since the construct aids in judgment about reality, Pi-ers are labeled as judgers.
For judgers, judgment is founded and aided by perception.
Perceivers, on the other hand, react more immediately to the information they gather externally (Pe). What allows them to do that is the existence of a priorly formed internal construct based on values that are derived internally according to the self (Ji). Without this construct, Pe-ers would have no long-established structure to aid them in their on-the-fly reactions to their environment. Since Ji serves to aid in perception, Pe/Ji-ers are called perceivers.
For perceivers, perception is founded and aided by judgment.
All brilliant.
Both Ps and Js have perceiving and judging functions. One is just extroverted while the other introverted, and the one that is extroverted is the one that contributes most to their outward personality that's observable by others, so we label them according to the one that's extroverted.
So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?
I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.
What do you think? Which makes more sense?
Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?
If you're wondering why Je-ers can't also be Pe-ers and why Ji-ers can't also be Pi-ers, I'd say it's due to a cognitive inconsistency between Pi/Ji and Pe/Je that just doesn't compute well. It doesn't make any sense for someone to simultaneously see the environment as something to empirically evaluate before garnering an impression (Je) while also responding immediately to it, according to momentary sense impressions, before understanding it empirically (Pe). Likewise, it doesn't make sense to build an internal construct that's derived subjectively (Ji) while also building an internal construct that's made from external information (Pi).
Now here's the controversial part, which uumlau points to in his next question (and which Sim provides a good answer to in his post).
Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.
In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...
The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.
I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.
And with regards to the latter two sentences: don't we rather regularly talk about PeJe and PiJi loops?
(Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)
So according to this logic, the only way for one to have both a perceiving and judging function juxtaposed in the primary two functions, one would need Je/Pi or Pe/Ji.
And now we're back to mere internal consistency.
Honestly, though, great post.
How would you address people talking about NiFi or NeTe or any such variation? Are you saying that if Ni is involved, then it has to use Te or Fe, no exceptions?
As mentioned above, great question.
Honestly, yes.
And I didn't even do so alone; it was while talking with SS about it.
Furthermore, I didn't even make the connection that it extended beyond just Ni to Si (and thus Pi as a whole) for another day or two, and then later that day I finally made the last connection that Pi aux/dom inherently meant Je dom/aux.
I've never really read a book on MBTI, I've only been participating on the forum regularly for a month or so, and the whole J/P logic was really the last piece of the puzzle that I hadn't yet figured out.
Until I had this realization, I'd been spending most my MBTI thinking time on a whole nother issue (although, J/P balance was a significant part of that other issue, which is what eventually led to the conversation that led to this realization).
In addition, all TPs are Ti dom/aux, TJs are Te dom/aux, FPs are Fi dom/aux and FJs are Fe dom/aux.
Also, TPs are Fe tert/inf, TJs are Fi tert/inf, FPs are Te tert/inf, FJs are Ti tert/inf, NPs are Si tert/inf, NJs are Se tert/inf, SPs are Ni tert/inf, and SJs are Ne tert/inf.
Yeah, most all of these one's I'd realized.
It was the
broader categorization of Je/Ji and Pe/Pi that I hadn't yet come to understand.
This is the kind of structural pattern NeTi thinks about all the time!
Yes, yes it is.
Which is why I started this thread: to benefit from that thinking.
I'd been spending all my time creating my own theory relating quantum theory and probability to functional balance and type theory.
(
And working 60 hours a week...)
NiFi is usually described as an INTJ with poor command of Te...so he turns to tertiary Fi for judgment because it's more comfortable, being oriented in the same direction as the dominant. Poor command of aux seems to correlate with extreme introversion/extroversion and the associated problems.
Exactly.
The even messier answer is when you get into issues like an INTJ who (and I know you take objection to these kinds of claims, Sim, but this is what my above-mentioned theory-in-development is all about) claims to use Ne and Ti and how his Ni and Te might work in tandem with these other functions.
THAT is the really high level shit that I haven't even really gotten to working on yet (and to which uumlau's question referred).
If anyone already has or wants to take up that ball, I plan on getting into it over the next three months or so and would appreciate a summary of any smart person's already-trodden thought-paths...
Ne+Te is an ENFP with ineffective Fi leading to difficulty with subjective self-reflection, etc.
Read: Happy Puppy.
Except I'm not sure, at least with her, it has so much to do with difficulty with subjective self-reflection so much as suppression of Fi due to traumatic emotional experiences in the past.
Orobas: thoughts? feelings?
+a lot
I am really tired of people asking for proof that a made up labeling system's method is "proven."
Meh.
As I said above: you and uumlau seem to be comfortable resigning to cynicism and settling with MBTI theory as being merely internally consistently true.
Maybe you've already gone through the battles I'm going through, and I'll eventually end up in the same spot... or maybe Tesla and I are just a little less cynical and a little more open-minded...