J/P difference, long-range/short-range thinking?

[simulatedworld]

Wanker. HA!

LOL I GET IT IT'S ALMOST LIKE HIS NAME EXCEPT SHE CHANGED THE L TO AN N

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Jaguar]

Reduce your intake by half.

 

[simulatedworld]

Reduce your intake by half.

Reduce your bullshit by full.

 

[Jaguar]

Reduce your bullshit by full.

Take another bong hit. It's the only thing you're good at.

 

[Thalassa]

Take another bong hit. It's the only thing you're good at.

Hey - it's Pancake Man's birthday.

So I'm gonna take his side, just this once.

 

[Jaguar]

it's Pancake Man's birthday.

It's a moderated forum, or I'd say what I really think.

 

[simulatedworld]

Take another bong hit. It's the only thing you're good at.

This is just trite. Usually you're at least funny.

 

[garbage]

LOL I GET IT IT'S ALMOST LIKE HIS NAME EXCEPT SHE CHANGED THE L TO AN N

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh now I get it, geez

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

For INTJs, you may imagine you see Fe because of the bolded statement :

First of all, this:

As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.

was on Lenore Thompson's wiki, so I'm not sure if it was actually her that wrote it, or someone else.

Secondly, how was this viewpoint obtained? In the very first sentence it assumes Fi as a tert function of ITJs, so I know right off that whatever is proposed about Fi and it's characteristics in ITJs could be clouded by confirmation bias.

Thirdly, if you exclude this first reference putting the context of "Fi as a tert function of ITJs," it really sounds more like Fe again, than Fi. "...refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something...." sounds very Fe to me, not Fi, because someone using a weak, Fe tert function would not rock the boat, but would step back and observe the rules of society. So it makes me think the person writing it, instead of just observing how ITJs are, and explaining it, then figuring out if it was Fi or Fe, is trying to adhere to some prescribed hierarchy of functions as proposed by someone since Jung's time.

So, in effect, all of us who have used the current model of the tert aligned along with the dominant, might be so biased that how could we see the glaringly obvious even if it stares us in the face. Because we've convinced our minds, and convoluted our thinking to fit the model for so long, that we can't even see Fi when it's Fe, and vice versa. Such is the power of the human mind in its need to make things fit.

Jung himself describes all the time in his P.T. book, that all the functions, especially the undifferentiated ones, are very difficult to see and understand, in ourselves and others. He was not specific regarding a function model, so why stick so dogmatically to a model, that for everyone, or many, or most, might be wrong?

 

[BlueScreen]

Being anally simplistic and pointing out the obvious, the difference between P and J is where the perceiving and judging are directed. Ps are objective in their perception and subjective in their judgement. Js are objective in their judgement and subjective in their perception. The strength of the objective approach is that it is directly tied to reality and the scene. The strength of the subjective approach is the inclusion of subtleties which are not present in the objective view (it goes beyond the scene).

Ps tend to be quite theoretical in their judgements. Generally open and happy to be undecided as the subjective is rarely complete or conclusive. They will be fast to have confidence in what they perceive though.

Js on the other hand will have confidence in their judgements and make them quickly and with certainty. They will question their perception though, and see things like symbolism/history as well as what's there.

One questions and explores the perception, one questions and explores the judgement. The source of conflict is often when the other tries to explore their area of certainty, because the objective view doesn't change easily like the subjective one. What is there is simply there.

 

[the state i am in]

js grasp the world thru singularity. they see the one map that shows the information relevant to the question as an overarching, generalized abstraction (njs).

ps see the world thru the lens of difference. rather than being formed out of identity, seeing something as generalizable and the same (enough) as something else, they focus on particularity. meaning is based on possibilities moving forward (nps), the difference between possibilities constitues the meaning of the move. ps are multi-threaded, they can keep open more possibilities, and backtrack a few (inps vs enps sway the balance between some backtracking and ALL forward). it's like you scan the possibliities, and move in a direction, and then from that moment you kind of merge with the moment and scan for new possibilities.

js need to see the end goal in sight. they need to have a sense of direction that is not so in the moment. or access to the overmap to know why they are doing what they are doing. a generalized over-arching center/gravitational force to hold their actions together (whereas ps make decisions based on their own inner compass, based on particularity, in the moment instead, trusting their Ji). being in the moment is stressful for me, if i have to be and am not prepared. my enp friends, contrasting, hate not being in the moment enough to really explore possibilities. the sense of "we must go this direction" is limiting bc they don't get a chance to really explore, check out options, keep things open-ended, etc.

i see it as multiplicity (p) vs singularity (j). i need to see the way in which to see everything, the BLENDED best vantage point. i'm thinking js blend into one map, and ps maintain that difference is what makes the disparate forms of information relevant to them, keeping open access to a wide variety of mini-maps/simulations based on individual, particular possibilities.

(this is probably a dominant perceiver Ni-Ne bias, because for other types their judgment function could be a higher priority than perceiving in their overall make-up, or because they could be Si-Se and i really don't understand those very well yet).

 

[Thalassa]

because someone using a weak, Fe tert function would not rock the boat, but would step back and observe the rules of society.

I don't think this is a characteristic of INTJs, generally speaking. Even the ones who aren't planning to take over the world take great delight in things like abortion jokes, or at the very least (in the older, "healthier" ones) disregard the opinions of others to seek to fulfill their own visions.

Not Fe.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I don't think this is a characteristic of INTJs, generally speaking. Even the ones who aren't planning to take over the world take great delight in things like abortion jokes, or at the very least (in the older, "healthier" ones) disregard the opinions of others to seek to fulfill their own visions.

Not Fe.

Yeah, it might also be that some utilize Fe and others utilize Fi. Perhaps it depends a lot on age of the INTJ, because it's generally assumed the tert function doesn't develop until somewhere in the 20's to "midlife" range. Also, most definitely other factors, like one's ego state, or genetics, contribute as well. Maybe the ones you are used to use Fi more. I know them to use Fe more.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah, it might also be that some utilize Fe and others utilize Fi. Perhaps it depends a lot on age of the INTJ, because it's generally assumed the tert function doesn't develop until somewhere in the 20's to "midlife" range. Also, most definitely other factors, like one's ego state, or genetics, contribute as well. Maybe the ones you are used to use Fi more. I know them to use Fe more.

Maybe the ones you know are INFJs

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Maybe the ones you know are INFJs

haha. not.

 

[Unkindloving]

js grasp the world thru singularity. they see the one map that shows the information relevant to the question as an overarching, generalized abstraction (njs).

ps see the world thru the lens of difference. rather than being formed out of identity, seeing something as generalizable and the same (enough) as something else, they focus on particularity. meaning is based on possibilities moving forward (nps), the difference between possibilities constitues the meaning of the move. ps are multi-threaded, they can keep open more possibilities, and backtrack a few (inps vs enps sway the balance between some backtracking and ALL forward). it's like you scan the possibliities, and move in a direction, and then from that moment you kind of merge with the moment and scan for new possibilities.

js need to see the end goal in sight. they need to have a sense of direction that is not so in the moment. or access to the overmap to know why they are doing what they are doing. a generalized over-arching center/gravitational force to hold their actions together (whereas ps make decisions based on their own inner compass, based on particularity, in the moment instead, trusting their Ji). being in the moment is stressful for me, if i have to be and am not prepared. my enp friends, contrasting, hate not being in the moment enough to really explore possibilities. the sense of "we must go this direction" is limiting bc they don't get a chance to really explore, check out options, keep things open-ended, etc.

i see it as multiplicity (p) vs singularity (j). i need to see the way in which to see everything, the BLENDED best vantage point. i'm thinking js blend into one map, and ps maintain that difference is what makes the disparate forms of information relevant to them, keeping open access to a wide variety of mini-maps/simulations based on individual, particular possibilities.

(this is probably a dominant perceiver Ni-Ne bias, because for other types their judgment function could be a higher priority than perceiving in their overall make-up, or because they could be Si-Se and i really don't understand those very well yet).

This would make a lot of sense in regard to how i am. I often question my J-ness and always test as a P, even though there's no doubt in my type.
I'm laid back in what i want to obtain and how i obtain it, but it is very specific.
I take what you describe Ps doing here "you kind of merge with the moment and scan for new possibilities" and will keep most things open-ended. The reality is that i do have an ultimate end goal that simply allows for more open-ended options. If i lose sight of that goal, i'm rendered immobile. It can feel like i'm a J in a disguise .

 

[garbage]

So which dichotomy would maintain a philosophy of "don't take any actions that are detrimental to your overreaching goals and what you really want in life"? Because that's pretty much my mantra.

Which leads to me doing things like this, too:

I saved for 5 years to move to another country

So, uh,

 

[the state i am in]

So which dichotomy would maintain a philosophy of "don't take any actions that are detrimental to your overreaching goals and what you really want in life"? Because that's pretty much my mantra.

ummm, a healthy one? is this a trick question? i think the balance component of all typology systems is to balance inner and outer, short term and long-term, away from (pessimism) and toward (optimism). (maybe realistic (think: modality), and idealistic (think: desire for improvement) would also recognize another tension to be skillfully dealt with thru living.

the specific way you model (and merge with) the world is irrelevant if you are somewhat accurate, mostly successful at it, etc, and you can find a way to begin to see how to communicate with and connect to others who do not model the world in the same methodological process as you do. it also effects what situations you feel most comfortable and natural performing/acting in.

what the specific way you model the world does impact, more directly, is how easy it is for you to communicate with others, how much translation must take place to make your thoughts understandable/palatable for others who do not think like you, whose attention is focused on other frequencies of experience, etc.

i also think your question is more directed at an ego-level of problematic than mb, which i find provides pre-conditions for ego, experiential blindspots that create the need for an ego-complex to defend against them, organize motivation and skill development in relatedly connected ways, etc. finding how to use your skills for a purpose that is balanced between the good and bad of you, accepting what you are, without huge distortion, is incredibly difficult.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yeah, it might also be that some utilize Fe and others utilize Fi. Perhaps it depends a lot on age of the INTJ, because it's generally assumed the tert function doesn't develop until somewhere in the 20's to "midlife" range. Also, most definitely other factors, like one's ego state, or genetics, contribute as well. Maybe the ones you are used to use Fi more. I know them to use Fe more.

They all use both; they're just not INTJs if they prefer Fe over Fi.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

They all use both; they're just not INTJs if they prefer Fe over Fi.

Okay, I'll bite.

Who says?