simulatedworld
Freshman Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,552
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 7w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Umm yeah, it was obvious. My point still stands. Current function theory does explain the things you mentioned--you just haven't found it yet.
I agree that you are textbook Ni. I don't believe I implied otherwise. The point was that Ni doms sometimes have this problem but never realize it about themselves.
Beebe's model is essentially identical because his 8 functions are subdivided into sixteen when you factor in orientations. It's very close to Jung's model.
Lenore is by far the best modern author on the subject. She didn't actually write the Wiki; that was mostly written by Ben Kovitz, an INTP fan of hers.
I think Lenore's book will clear up a great deal of misconceptions for you. It certainly did for me. You might find her writing style more palatable and easier to understand as well, since she self-identifies as an Ni dom.
I'm not questioning your observations; I'm questioning your categorization of them. I occasionally use Fi, but not very often. You don't seem to understand the fervor with which Ti defends ideas. Ti is to thoughts what Fi is to feelings and neither is very keen on giving up much ground in those areas.
All four functions bleed over into each other routinely. Each of the pairs (Fe/Te, Fi/Ti, Ne/Se and Ni/Si) shows the most similarity to each other, but each is different in subtle ways that contradict the preferred mode of operation of the other.
ITPs are markedly less animated and less overtly emotional than ETPs. Note also that Ne and Se tend to enjoy exaggeration and dramatic argumentation for the purpose of making a scene, especially on the internet. Extroverted Perceivers, especially, are far more concerned with entertaining a potential audience than they might let on.
Since you can't hear tone of voice or get any body language or other physical cues over the internet, it's easy to mistake the aggressive style and colorful language for excessive emotional involvement, but really that's just part of the game. Look at the arguments ENTPs have with each other, especially--they like to see who can burn the other more creatively.
Hell, my girlfriend is ENTP and if you read some of our light-hearted conversations in pure text form you'd probably think we despise each other. You miss a lot (and end up making wrong inferences) when dealing with people over the internet.
Ne+Ti's line of reasoning is basically: "This person is clearly incorrect, so I'm justified in being blunt and over the top in pointing it out. Hahaha isn't this fun?" Te+Ni and Se+Ti can do the same thing.
People frequently accuse Jaguar of being angry or emotional too, but he's not. He's no more emotionally invested in forum arguments than you are--but people like to pretend he is so they can justify his aggressive personality to themselves. That's how E_T_ types are commonly perceived by others, especially Fs. "This guy sure is being a dick--I'll just assume he has serious emotional issues because that makes me feel better about it."
Of course, Thinkers obviously have emotions. Nobody is claiming that we don't. But it does get sort of old when Feelers constantly try to dictate our own feelings to us. We simply are not paying as much attention to them as you are and when you repeatedly insist that you know how we feel better than we do, you're going to tend to get rude responses.
There's a time and a place when operating on feelings is appropriate, but most of the time we're not really even thinking about that. Some of us are awfully competitive; we'll even shout at each other during arguments sometimes and then go right back to getting along normally. This doesn't make any sense to a lot of Feelers because they inherently associate this sort of behavior with strong emotion and don't understand how or why anyone would be so aggressive if not for emotional reasons, but often E_T_ types are just using argument as a form of sport or competition, and what you perceive as "emotional defense" of their ideas is little more than a competitive attempt to win a game. (In many cases, ability to stand one's ground via aggressive argumentation actually earns respect points from Thinkers. We're just not operating from the same priorities you are.)
If you didn't know what boxing was and you saw two guys standing in a ring hitting each other, you'd probably assume they hate each other and are fighting for very emotional reasons. Many Fs simply don't realize what Ts are doing in this kind of argument or why, and so in an effort to rationalize what they see as totally inappropriate behavior, they attach the only motivation they understand to it: out of control feelings.
The more we try to explain, the more you insist that our denial is "evidence" that your theory is right. It becomes utterly impossible to explain our real motivations to you, at which point we get irritated and tell you to piss off (which further cements your "out of control emotions" theory for why we were arguing in the first place.)
ITPs usually express Fe by forming little cliques with other ITPs that are based around being elitist toward "outsiders" who aren't cool enough to ITPs. Go and have a look around INTP central and you'll see exactly what I mean. The hilariously ironic part is that, since Ti is dominant, they view themselves as purely logical and independent thinkers who don't need that silly social group thing, but they don't even realize that in the process of asserting this image they end up unconsciously banding together to express inferior Fe.
Another potential problem with your "tertiary is opposite the dominant" theory is that it gives types that share the last three letters (which are most often seen as very similar to each other) different functional makeups. Suddenly terms like "STPs" don't make sense anymore because ESTPs and ISTPs have different functions. In practice, the two are extremely similar and tend to get along very well for just that reason. I went through my phone recently and tallied up the types of all my contacts and found that I socialize with more INTPs than any other type--because we have the same functions and get along well. Your theory would suggest that I use Fi vs. their Fe, and that they use Se vs. my Si...but anyone who's ever spent a few hours with an INTP can tell their Se is, in most cases, practically nonexistent.
It's easy to see Si in them when they get stuck in their anti-social thought loops about how trying new things in terms of interacting with others is guaranteed to fail because it's always failed before. Check out the stuff about dom+tert loops in Lenore's book and I think you'll see what I mean.
OR maybe it's confusing because of all the missing pieces. Like looking at a painting only half finished. What's more confusing? Looking at an unfinished Escher or looking at a finished Escher?
I suppose cognition will be easier to understand if/when the day comes that we understand it completely, but I don't think that will make it more simplistic.
Ne doesn't judge anything. Jung coined all of the functional terms. Using Jung's terms implies that you are working within a Jungian framework. If I go around talking about amphibians and marsupials I shouldn't be surprised when people assume I'm talking about biology.
Then you have yet another erroneous perception of Ne. Memorizing details is the exact opposite of Ne; it's an Si thing. If anything Ne is negligent of minor details. I can't remember everything any of the authors I've read said about typology. If I'm correcting you it's because you've missed huge, broad conceptual ideas, not trivial minor details.
Like that one, for instance. Memorizing every detail is not only not something Ne doms are in the habit of doing, it's one of the things they dislike most and are typically the absolute worst at. This is what leads me to question your understanding...you're not just slightly off here, your statement about Ne is the absolute antithesis of its real tendency.
If you make your own framework, it's very confusing when you use the terms from a different framework but assign them your own definitions.
k
