Ne in Academia

[RobinSkye]

Oh trust me, I do teach everyone lessons. It's trivial things that I miss out on. I'm not concerned, just making observations.

Why do you say Ni is any more dominant than Ne, or even Ti?

 

[andresimon]

- - - Updated - - -

Oh trust me, I do teach everyone lessons. It's trivial things that I miss out on. I'm not concerned, just making observations.

Why do you say Ni is any more dominant than Ne, or even Ti?

You know what's funny. At the root of ENTP is a fear that they are not ST enough. So your question is extra interesting.

 

[nonsequitur]

And what I am telling you is a generalization here won't work.

If you however, reframe it from the stand point of "when Ne struggles in academia, what might be reasons for it, and how could it be worked on?", that is completely fair.

This. I've met some ENTPs who were competent..

but my PhD supervisor was horrendous. He was excited by every shiny new idea that came along, sank tonnes of money at the start of grants into ideas that he hadn't sufficiently thought through, tried to make his students chase every one of the "potential nature/science/cell paper"s (he had new ones weekly and to date still has no publications in these journals) in his head and always ran out of money before the end of the grant period so we couldn't even get basic cloning kits by the end and had to beg other labs for reagents. With the freezers filled with thousands of dollars worth of expired chemicals like inhibitors because he hated doing reading to find out if other people had tried it before going ahead to order stuff.

It really depends on the individual. But after my experiences with him I am very suspicious of Ne-dominants as bosses in my academic field. Don't particularly care if they're running their own lab but I sure as hell don't want one leading me.

 

[andresimon]

This. I've met some ENTPs who were competent..

but my PhD supervisor was horrendous. He was excited by every shiny new idea that came along, sank tonnes of money at the start of grants into ideas that he hadn't sufficiently thought through, tried to make his students chase every one of the "potential nature/science/cell paper"s (he had new ones weekly and to date still has no publications in these journals) in his head and always ran out of money before the end of the grant period so we couldn't even get basic cloning kits by the end and had to beg other labs for reagents. With the freezers filled with thousands of dollars worth of expired chemicals like inhibitors because he hated doing reading to find out if other people had tried it before going ahead to order stuff.

It really depends on the individual. But after my experiences with him I am very suspicious of Ne-dominants as bosses in my academic field. Don't particularly care if they're running their own lab but I sure as hell don't want one leading me.

Looks like I need to be your boss. Ne + Fi. Good Game!

 

[nonsequitur]

Looks like I need to be your boss. Ne + Fi. Good Game!

I think I would go crazy.

 

[Bush]

SI + TE + Ni dominated world friends.

How do two introverted perceiving functions both dominate the world? Their worldviews are diametrically opposed.

 

[andresimon]

I think I would go crazy.

No no, INTJ's love ENFP's. Relax I'm your paradoxitype. Deep down inside it's who you secretly want to be.

 

[RobinSkye]

Actually as of today I'm pretty convinced I'm more likely INTP and not ENTP. But that doesn't change the fact that I use Ne constantly. I don't know what you think makes Ni any more capable than Ne. Ne actually addresses the external world and expands upon it. Ni could literally just be held onto without ever being revealed or acter upon in a lifetime. It's basically a database, just like Ti is. They are not so different. You're speaking as though a person is defined solely through their dominant function, when in reality it depends on how their functions work together as a whole.

 

[andresimon]

This type of switch tells me you don't understand MBTI. What is your primary function? What is your secondary function? That's all you need to know. In fact if you are a Ne DOM you are either ENFP and ENTP. If you are a Ti dom you are either INTP or ISTP.

 

[RobinSkye]

This type of switch tells me you don't understand MBTI. What is your primary function? What is your secondary function? That's all you need to know. In fact if you are a Ne DOM you are either ENFP and ENTP. If you are a Ti dom you are either INTP or ISTP.

Your statement tells me that you're too ignorant to consider that someone might favor their secondary function nearly as much as their primary function, and therefore have trouble differentiating which is which. I have considered multiple times that my primary function may be Ti or Ne. I used to believe it was Fi, when I knew less about MBTI. I'm practically an ambivert. The fact that I can spend a bunch of time alone and be fully content interacting with media could be indicative of an introverted, analytical nature(INTP), or of a mentally-stimulated, explorative nature(ENTP). Everything about my tendencies could point to either INTP or ENTP cognitive prefecences. However, there are small parts of either stereotyped INTP or ENTP which does not accurately fit me. I also have an affinity toward creative arts/performance and focus on individuality(INFP), but this can also closely fit an ENTP who is often stereotyped as innovative and confident. The thing is, my preferences aren't as easily fit into one of the 16 types as many others. I may think about right and wrong, morals, etc. but this is my Ti working, I believe. I don't make decisions based on feelings at all. If anything, it would only happen when I use Fe to comply with a group, which is also a bit tough for me to do sometimes since I have more of a "don't back down, and stand for what you believe" attitude. Therefore, although I once considered them, I don't think INFP/ENFP are possibilities, and I am certainly to be typed as INTP or ENTP. The thing is, my preference for Ti and Ne are so close that there is nothing left for me to base my decision on. I guess I could further evaluate my enmeagram type and them match that up with the liklihood between INTP/ENTP, but that's probably too much room for error.

 

[andresimon]

Your statement tells me that you're too ignorant to consider that someone might favor their secondary function nearly as much as their primary function, and therefore have trouble differentiating which is which. I have considered multiple times that my primary function may be Ti or Ne. I used to believe it was Fi, when I knew less about MBTI. I'm practically an ambivert. The fact that I can spend a bunch of time alone and be fully content interacting with media could be indicative of an introverted, analytical nature(INTP), or of a mentally-stimulated, explorative nature(ENTP). Everything about my tendencies could point to either INTP or ENTP cognitive prefecences. However, there are small parts of either stereotyped INTP or ENTP which does not accurately fit me. I also have an affinity toward creative arts/performance and focus on individuality(INFP), but this can also closely fit an ENTP who is often stereotyped as innovative and confident. The thing is, my preferences aren't as easily fit into one of the 16 types as many others. I may think about right and wrong, morals, etc. but this is my Ti working, I believe. I don't make decisions based on feelings at all. If anything, it would only happen when I use Fe to comply with a group, which is also a bit tough for me to do sometimes since I have more of a "don't back down, and stand for what you believe" attitude. Therefore, although I once considered them, I don't think INFP/ENFP are possibilities, and I am certainly to be typed as INTP or ENTP. The thing is, my preference for Ti and Ne are so close that there is nothing left for me to base my decision on. I guess I could further evaluate my enmeagram type and them match that up with the liklihood between INTP/ENTP, but that's probably too much room for error.

NONE of what you wrote is MBTI. You might as well be speaking Chinese. You don't understand the fundamental nature of what you are talking about yet you are calling someone else ignorant. I'm all for a debate. But in this instance you would be better of synthesizing with what I'm saying because it would serve you to do so, and dig a little further. You have yet to mention TYPES OF INFORMATION. You keep mentioning FUNCTIONS (N,S,F,T).

The functions are only 50% of the equation. The other half is the types of information. You also don't understand cognitive order and how your mind processes information. If you understand cognition you would never list - Ne[95%] > Ti[90%] > Fi[85%] > Ni[70%] > Si[65%] > Te[55%] > Fe [40%] > Se [35%] in your profile because you would know that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You keep mentioning extrovert/introvert and how you spend your time. No test you take will give you an accurate measure of MBTI. Unless you are the POSTER BOY for a specific type the tests themselves as well as the personality traits that they are addressing are highly HIGHLY flawed. They are ATTEMPTS to measure cognition but any and all types can act a variety of different ways. Patterns and correlations do exist but you are going about the process backwards. The more you develop and the smarter you get the more your range will widen and the less certain you will be. You will start testing 6-7 type functions, develop still further and experience environmental and life cycle changes and still you will doubt your type further.

Your cognitive order has not changed. Your cognition has not changed. New advances in neuroscience are showing that the brain can go through dramatic changes, so all this I'm writing maybe not be true. It is a theory but since we are BOTH talking about the same theory and buying into it to some degree, you are clearly wrong.

 

[RobinSkye]

NONE of what you wrote is MBTI. You might as well be speaking Chinese. You don't understand the fundamental nature of what you are talking about yet you are calling someone else ignorant. I'm all for a debate. But in this instance you would be better of synthesizing with what I'm saying because it would serve you to do so, and dig a little further. You have yet to mention TYPES OF INFORMATION. You keep mentioning FUNCTIONS (N,S,F,T).

The functions are only 50% of the equation. The other half is the types of information. You also don't understand cognitive order and how your mind processes information. If you understand cognition you would never list - Ne[95%] > Ti[90%] > Fi[85%] > Ni[70%] > Si[65%] > Te[55%] > Fe [40%] > Se [35%] in your profile because you would know that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You keep mentioning extrovert/introvert and how you spend your time. No test you take will give you an accurate measure of MBTI. Unless you are the POSTER BOY for a specific type the tests themselves as well as the personality traits that they are addressing are highly HIGHLY flawed. They are ATTEMPTS to measure cognition but any and all types can act a variety of different ways. Patterns and correlations do exist but you are going about the process backwards. The more you develop and the smarter you get the more your range will widen and the less certain you will be. You will start testing 6-7 type functions, develop still further and experience environmental and life cycle changes and still you will doubt your type further.

Your cognitive order has not changed. Your cognition has not changed. New advances in neuroscience are showing that the brain can go through dramatic changes, so all this I'm writing maybe not be true. It is a theory but since we are BOTH talking about the same theory and buying into it to some degree, you are clearly wrong.

You haven't explained to me what part of the theory (which I understand is not foolproof) needs to be better understood. All that I really got from that is that the MBTI is inconsistent, which I knew, and that it makes sense that I'm unable to type myself and if anything, it should become harder and harder to type myself as I develop. I guess I just choose which I think best fits me. Based on that, I think I would choose ENTP.

 

[andresimon]

You haven't explained to me what part of the theory (which I understand is not foolproof) needs to be better understood. All that I really got from that is that the MBTI is inconsistent, which I knew, and that it makes sense that I'm unable to type myself and if anything, it should become harder and harder to type myself as I develop. I guess I just choose which I think best fits me. Based on that, I think I would choose ENTP.

You can't choose your type, your type chooses you. The part you are not understanding is the INFORMATION portion rather then the functions portion.

Information
Observation of People
Data
Principles/Worldview
Actions

As an ENTP you are using Si for example for linear actions (your final step in your cognitive chain or step by step concrete experience based actions). An ISTJ uses Si for linear principles (or concrete experience based principles about the world). To view both Si's the same way would be incorrect because they are being used for a very different purpose. Each 4 letter combination within it has a pattern that you can decode. Once you understand the rules you won't see them as just letters you will see them as basically a short cut not for explaining behavior but for explaining cognition. The first mistake that's made is that people move from letters to behaviors and behaviors to letters. We also use the most common understand of the words and from that try and figure out what they mean. I.E. What a "thinker" is vs what a "feeler" is. What judging means and what perceiving means.

So in short you can be using the same function but for a different information use. On top of that the order of operations is important because each step is being used as information in the next step. INTP's and ENTP's use the same functions + informational use just in different orders. But that difference in order is massive. Because each part of the cognitive chain uses the previous.

I mean lets be honest. How humbly did you approach typology? People take a test and think they know something. Personally I don't know as much as I would like to know either. And so I'm looking into it more and more everyday. But when I see someone make an obvious mistake, I think its important to point it out. I have no doubt both your Ne and Ti are well developed. I also have no doubt that its hard to really figure out which comes first because they are such fundamental to the way you think. Its sorta like meta-cognition. Thinking about thinking isn't the easiest thing to do because YOU are the one doing the thinking.

Good luck.

 

[RobinSkye]

You can't choose your type, your type chooses you. The part you are not understanding is the INFORMATION portion rather then the functions portion.

Information
Observation of People
Data
Principles/Worldview
Actions

As an ENTP you are using Si for example for linear actions (your final step in your cognitive chain or step by step concrete experience based actions). An ISTJ uses Si for linear principles (or concrete experience based principles about the world). To view both Si's the same way would be incorrect because they are being used for a very different purpose. Each 4 letter combination within it has a pattern that you can decode. Once you understand the rules you won't see them as just letters you will see them as basically a short cut not for explaining behavior but for explaining cognition. The first mistake that's made is that people move from letters to behaviors and behaviors to letters. We also use the most common understand of the words and from that try and figure out what they mean. I.E. What a "thinker" is vs what a "feeler" is. What judging means and what perceiving means.

So in short you can be using the same function but for a different information use. On top of that the order of operations is important because each step is being used as information in the next step. INTP's and ENTP's use the same functions + informational use just in different orders. But that difference in order is massive. Because each part of the cognitive chain uses the previous.

I mean lets be honest. How humbly did you approach typology? People take a test and think they know something. Personally I don't know as much as I would like to know either. And so I'm looking into it more and more everyday. But when I see someone make an obvious mistake, I think its important to point it out. I have no doubt both your Ne and Ti are well developed. I also have no doubt that its hard to really figure out which comes first because they are such fundamental to the way you think. Its sorta like meta-cognition. Thinking about thinking isn't the easiest thing to do because YOU are the one doing the thinking.

Good luck.

Yes I appreciate your being straight-forward and sharing what you know about it with me. I guess there aren't a lot of guides that are clear about how the ordering of each function causes the attributes of each type out there. Most every source just suggests preferences but leaves out the other half.

 

[andresimon]

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I appreciate your being straight-forward and sharing what you know about it with me. I guess there aren't a lot of guides that are clear about how the ordering of each function causes the attributes of each type out there. Most every source just suggests preferences but leaves out the other half.

Right. People automatically assume they know what is being said and what it all means. And to be honest because of our natural cognitive biases like status bias we love to create sameness or differences among people or groups of people. And so our most natural instinct is to think of things in that way. I would say overall MBTI as a tool or model whatever you want to call it can be very dangerous and it can also be very eye opening. It just depends how people approach it and how much of a learner they want to be.

 

[RobinSkye]

- - - Updated - - -



Right. People automatically assume they know what is being said and what it all means. And to be honest because of our natural cognitive biases like status bias we love to create sameness or differences among people or groups of people. And so our most natural instinct is to think of things in that way. I would say overall MBTI as a tool or model whatever you want to call it can be very dangerous and it can also be very eye opening. It just depends how people approach it and how much of a learner they want to be.

Yes, it'd just be nice to finally be able to know what to tell people. I've spent about a year still being unsure.

 

[andresimon]

Yes, it'd just be nice to finally be able to know what to tell people. I've spent about a year still being unsure.

Most of your misunderstandings will come for your BELIEFS about what certain things means and who you are. They are blocking the obvious answers. For example, you may find yourself as an extrovert spending days alone. But being alone isn't an extrovert or introvert thing. I would say their is a correlation but if you measure any ones life I would imagine everyone at some stage spent days a lone or habitually did something for a while...Introvert or extrovert are not about being social. They are a directional tag indicating which way your 1st function is pointing. Everyone has 2 of each. But being an E means your dom function is pointed outwards and I means the opposite.

 

[andresimon]

Hard to type someone over the internet.

 

[RobinSkye]

Hard to type someone over the internet.

I should just make vlogs and people can guess at my functions based on real-life sort of interaction. It still wouldn't be extremely obvious, I guess.

 

[andresimon]

I should just make vlogs and people can guess at my functions based on real-life sort of interaction. It still wouldn't be extremely obvious, I guess.

Are you primarily focused on people as a whole (not specific people although this can be true also), world issues through people or groups of people?