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

[ObliviousExistence]

We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.



Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.

But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.





It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.




You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?



My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.

This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.

You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.




Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.




Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.

This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal. Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.

Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.





Only with people that:
A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).

If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.

But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.

It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)



Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.

Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"




There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.



Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.

Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.

bla bla bla bla bla:zzz:

 

[Jaguar]

bla bla bla bla bla:zzz:

No shit!

 

[LeafAndSky]

Actually I am looking on this more like a Rebels/light (P) vs. Empire/dark(J)



But since you are interested here is why I am using Star Wars and why I agree with your statements and how I see it .

Thank you.

[Regarding the current Thread Wars and similar conflicts, I think your short phrase "how I see it," when offered with respect and an interest in the parallel offering from the Other Side, ends or preempts Wars and gives rise to productive conversations.

Not to say that conversational conflict can't be productive and be a learning experience -- but what the participants learn will be unrelated to the subject they're discussing.

End editorial comments.]

(Hey, I'm the Fire Starter. I mean, Thread Starter. I'm allowed to comment.)

The Empire was building the Deathstar in order to insure long turn domination and status quo. While rebels found a quick way to counter the Empire's ultimate weapon. Also it is interesting that they attacked when it actually started destroying planets.


Also if you take a look at the villain "The Emperor" you will see he has quite a number of J traits. The best example proably is how he became an emperor in the first place. Which is my something that you can apsolutly call a masterplan.


While on he other hand you have people like Han Solo and Jar-Jar which even don't know what they will be doing 3 hours from now. On the other hand Imperials are seting traps well in advance.


Also Ps are much more comfortable with making choices or theories that don't really makes sense. For example Obi-Wans surrender in a fight against Darth Vader is the obvious example.


If you watch carefully rebels are much more adventourus and they don't think that much on the long run. So they use alot of improvising.
While if you look at the Empire you will find very little improvisation.

Yes, as I remember, you're right about the lack of improvisation. The rest of your analysis is interesting/fun as well.

Now I'm wondering, are Js more likely to be politically conservative and Ps more likely to be politically liberal?

Also Luke has a one trait that is typical for Ps. Which is that he has a spirtual path in order to figure himselfs out.

Ps are more likely to have a spiritual path to figure themselves out? That's a possibility I hadn't thought of. What would spiritually-inclined Js be doing? Upholding the pillars of religion? Creating religious systems? Tearing them down?

Basicly even trems "Rebellion" and "Empire" have a obvious P/J divide between them.


Etc.




So basicly it is

SP vs SJ = Advanture and improvising vs. Strict social order

and

NP vs NJ = Speculation and creativity vs. Strategic planning


I hope that this will explain my point to you.

Yes, thanks.

 

[simulatedworld]

Let me summarize and be done.

You do not define Fe's characteristics sufficiently for me.

Apparently no prominent typology authors do either. You're interested in inventing a new model and I'm interested in using the existing one for new applications. I'll be glad to discuss your new model with you if you simply stop using terms from the existing model incorrectly.

I perceive you to do the bolded, at least often on Type C, and not just with me.

What you are perceiving as Fi is classic Ti. Ti is protective of impersonal ideas and concepts in the same way that Fi is protective of feelings and values. I do the former a lot. I'm very protective of theories and my idea of logical consistency. This is prototypical Ti, not Fi.

I have demonstrated decent use of Jungian definitions and ideas in recent history here. Good enough to at least dialogue with others. Yet you consistently refuse to validate my knowledge, which leads me to suspect an ad hominem motivation of some sort.

Sure, you're doing fine, except that you still have Fi and Ti confused, don't understand why INTJs being nice to people does not constitute Fe use, etc.

Dialoguing with others doesn't mean very much if they don't know what they're talking about either.

As usual your assessment of my motivations and functional usage is wrong. My only motivation here is Ti sticking rigidly to the definitions in the model it's already learned. If only you'd stop claiming that you're using that model when your definitions of its terms are clearly different, we could proceed.

I find, from an Fe stance, your behavior in this discussion to be not only be nonfacilitative, but derogatory in nature, which lends an aire of negativity to fruitful discussion.

My Ti feels justified in calling out your errors because you're incorrect. Note that incorrectness is offensive to Ti in the same way evil/unethical behavior is to Fi. (This is why INTPs will argue definitions to death.) There are a lot of similarities between the two--in fact, Ti is more similar to Fi than it is to Te--but in this case you still have them confused.

I find your inability to consistently see other's viewpoints as valid or valuable in some way, destructive for the acquisition of knowledge and increasing understanding.

When it comes to models that have already been defined a certain way, some opinions are flat out wrong. If it's my opinion that 2+2=5 in mathematics, I can't very well complain that mathematicians who say I'm wrong are "not being open to my special unique perspective." I can complain that "you have not adequately defined 2 and 5 for me", but the fact remains that those terms already have specific meanings which do adequately describe the ideas in question, regardless of what I happen to think about it.

Once again I'll state that the only time I'm going to see your perspective as invalid is when you're trying to change the definitions of terms that are already clearly defined. Am I open to new ideas about mathematics involving new terminology? Sure. Am I open to the idea that 2+2=5? No, because "2", "+", "=" and "5" already have set meanings, whether I like them or not. (This is pure Ti+Si on my part, btw.)

If you want to make up your own typology system and call the functions X8, Qr, Kw, and 781r, you can make up whatever definitions your heart desires for those terms, and I won't say a word. I'll even be glad to discuss this new typology system with you at length, if you want.

But the problem with what you're doing now is there are already defined meanings for the terms "Fi", "Ti", "Fe", etc...and your made up definitions don't match them. When corrected, you repeatedly respond with "WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT Fe MEANS, IN MY OPINION!" Well, great--if it's my opinion that the sky is green I'm still wrong.

If you want to show that my definition of Fe is wrong, cite some prominent authors on typology. Offer more evidence than your arbitrary personal opinion.


P.S.,

You may not realize it but you're showing the same Ti defensiveness of your own impersonal ideas that I am. Your Fe gets more emphasis--e.g., you repeatedly point out how rude I'm being and that violates your idea of the generally accepted standards for how people should treat each other in discussions. But the more annoyed with me you get, the more your tertiary Ti shows. You find it insulting that I'm attacking your ideas, not your feelings. That's Ti for you.

 

[Thalassa]

But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te.

No. Not necessarily.

and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."

I'm going to have to disagree. INTJs aren't the only ones who do this. Other TJs...and even ExFPs with our tert Te...can recognize with Te that a certain behavior "works" or is more "efficient" (for example, to get someone to shut up and leave me alone) than going with my own feelings or deeply held core values, thereby creating a pseudo-Fe with Te/Fi.

I know I do it, so I'm pretty sure INTJs probably do it even more often than I would.

That's not to say that they aren't genuinely kind - Fi is capable of being genuinely kind and getting along with people...Fe doesn't have ownership on that capacity, it just does it for different reasons.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm going to have to disagree. INTJs aren't the only ones who do this. Other TJs...and even ExFPs with our tert Te...can recognize with Te that a certain behavior "works" or is more "efficient" (for example, to get someone to shut up and leave me alone) than going with my own feelings or deeply held core values, thereby creating a pseudo-Fe with Te/Fi.

I know I do it, so I'm pretty sure INTJs probably do it even more often than I would.

That's not to say that they aren't genuinely kind - Fi is capable of being genuinely kind and getting along with people...Fe doesn't have ownership on that capacity, it just does it for different reasons.

BUT OMG OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!!!!!!!11111

anyway, good post, marm.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

But the problem with what you're doing now is there are already defined meanings for the terms "Fi", "Ti", "Fe", etc...and your made up definitions don't match them. When corrected, you repeatedly respond with "WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT Fe MEANS, IN MY OPINION!" Well, great--if it's my opinion that the sky is green I'm still wrong.

When I read Jung and his defintions of functions, or how he describes functions, I basicially agree with his gist of things. I think he's brilliant to have been able to observe and identify all that he did. But there are places that I disagree. And I think looking back through the filter of time can lend a huge distortion to what he meant as well, just as looking back through time on any document or work, especially with prose, can be.

So when I read his work, I can't help but naturally 'tweak' the ideas and definitions to fit. It's just what I do. I don't really ever take anything I read at face value, even with contemplation. I like to combine it with what I've observed and mix it with what I already know and understand (Ni) to see if it makes sense.

I think that you are extremely rigid in your understanding of functions as regards their manifestation. Even if a person were to apply intense thinking to how a function works and manifests itself, there is still so much room for error, or bias! I am open to exploring pertinent, modern definitions of functions (based on Jung or whoever has proposed helpful definitions, like Thompson), and how they manifest themselves. However, it sounds like you want to stick to Jung's definitions word for word, which is fine, but we know more now, we understand more (because of him), and we have each other (he only had himself) to bounce ideas off of and brainstorm with.

Because of this apparent rigidity, it makes working with you difficult. If you already know you are Right in everything, and know more than most everyone, then how can someone propose something and have it be taken in good faith. You obviously don't need us (or my ideas anyway), so why this long, drawn out debate with me?

Furthermore, Ti might be rigid when it comes to definitions and understanding the way things work, I get that. But I also feel an almost desperate emotional clinging to your ideas that is NOT Ti like, which I perceive as Fi like. Again, Jung said himself that we do not necessarily know the functions (beyond our dominant) that are at play in ourselves. This in itself is ironic of him to say, because it seems like the most difficult function to understand in ourselves IS our dominant. Yet he might be very right in this, because understanding our tert is obviously very hard to see.

Do you have any ideas or goals for function theory you'd care to share with me? Are you happy with the status quo, or do you just like to study prominent authors on the subject and learn what you can from them, applying it here and irl?

I guess I see Jung and others as a framework. I mean he was the first to tap in to and discover how we think, and label it. In the process he made a sort of new philosophy. That's huge. From my vantage point in 2010, I can identify gaps and shortcomings in function theory, just from studying on it a year. Most authors contribute something interesting, if not valuable. I guess I'd like to, in my INFJ sort of way, bring it all together in a more cohesive whole, whereby it can be utilized by all.


This is why we have a hard time communicating. Your Ti and my Ni just have a hard time meshing, I guess. To my way of thinking, if we stick dogmatically to a definition that is perhaps substandard in our times, we anchor ourselves and cannot go anywhere. I want to go somewhere. Do you?

P.S.,

You may not realize it but you're showing the same Ti defensiveness of your own impersonal ideas that I am. Your Fe gets more emphasis--e.g., you repeatedly point out how rude I'm being and that violates your idea of the generally accepted standards for how people should treat each other in discussions. But the more annoyed with me you get, the more your tertiary Ti shows. You find it insulting that I'm attacking your ideas, not your feelings. That's Ti for you.

I really don't think I use Ti, as much as I'd like to claim I do. If you research it a bit, and remain as open-minded as you could to learning something new, and consider that some of your ideas about functions might be fallible, you would see that I use more of a Te approach to this stuff. No, I'm not going to divulge more about that. I expect a person, especially an Ne dom, to be able to intuit some things like that. After all, I've written a lot to you, and most of it is flavored with Te. If you cannot see this, or understand it, or access it, then I really don't see that we can go any further. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm going to have to disagree. INTJs aren't the only ones who do this. Other TJs...and even ExFPs with our tert Te...can recognize with Te that a certain behavior "works" or is more "efficient" (for example, to get someone to shut up and leave me alone) than going with my own feelings or deeply held core values, thereby creating a pseudo-Fe with Te/Fi.

I know I do it, so I'm pretty sure INTJs probably do it even more often than I would.

That's not to say that they aren't genuinely kind - Fi is capable of being genuinely kind and getting along with people...Fe doesn't have ownership on that capacity, it just does it for different reasons.

What I am asserting is that the tert is aligned opposite the dominant. That means you, and any other EFP, are using different attitudes of F than an INTJ would be using. You are using aux Fi and they are using tert Fe.

Aux Fi can very well appear warm as you said yourself in the bolded. That still doesn't mean an INTJ is using Fi over Fe.

 

[Jaguar]

Furthermore, Ti might be rigid when it comes to definitions and understanding the way things work, I get that. But I also feel an almost desperate emotional clinging to your ideas that is NOT Ti like, which I perceive as Fi like.

Let me paraphrase one of my fav INTJ members in another forum.
He basically said, Ti will do anything to keep a theory intact -even if it's wrong.

Food for thought.

 

[yenom]

^Lol, Lord Jaguar, thats insight from Heaven!

 

[Jaguar]

^Lol, Lord Jaguar, thats insight from Heaven!

Oh, look! It's Cloud, the ENTJ hater. Hi, little buddy! :hi:

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Let me paraphrase one of my fav INTJ members in another forum.
He basically said, Ti will do anything to keep a theory intact -even if it's wrong.

Food for thought.

Thanks

But we really must keep this in context. I can totally relate. By the time an Ni dom has a theory (which is huge, not talking just a hypothesis or an idea), he has put a LOT of work and time into it. Especially an INTJ who needs facts (not just Fe fluff ) to support it.

What sim is doing is sticking to his definitions, not theories, which is textbook Ti, I agree. But, again, I will assert that he does it with an emotional flavor. Indeed, he almost seems more emotional about it than me, an Fe aux!

 

[Jaguar]

Thanks

But we really must keep this in context. I can totally relate. By the time an Ni dom has a theory (which is huge, not talking just a hypothesis or an idea), he has put a LOT of work and time into it. Especially an INTJ who needs facts (not just Fe fluff ) to support it.

What sim is doing is sticking to his definitions, not theories, which is textbook Ti, I agree. But, again, I will assert that he does it with an emotional flavor. Indeed, he almost seems more emotional about it than me, an Fe aux!

Nothing like missing the forest for the trees. The both of you actually deserve each other and you don't even see why.
It doesn't matter if it's a theory or a definition, Ti will doggedly adhere to it since it's part of their overall MODEL.

God help you if you embarrass yourself again claiming the word "model" is out of context.
Your incessant pedantry impedes progress.

Poorly developed Ti can manifest as rigid thinking and pedantry.
That doesn't exclude Sim.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Nothing like missing the forest for the trees. The both of you actually deserve each other and you don't even see why.
It doesn't matter if it's a theory or a definition, Ti will doggedly adhere to it since it's part of their overall MODEL.

God help you if you embarrass yourself again claiming the word "model" is out of context.
Your incessant pedantry impedes progress.

Poorly developed Ti can manifest as rigid thinking and pedantry.
That doesn't exclude Sim.

I was pointing out that an INTJs dogmatic attachment to a theory is different in nature than a Ti's adherence to a definition. I saw the forest, I was simply pointing out the variation in the trees.

Pedantry? You give me far more credit than I give myself.

I never claimed Ti in myself either. Thanks for supporting me in that>

 

[simulatedworld]

Let me paraphrase one of my fav INTJ members in another forum.
He basically said, Ti will do anything to keep a theory intact -even if it's wrong.

Food for thought.

This is unfortunately true.

(If only we could be like the ENTJs, with no weaknesses of any sort whatsoever.)

 

[Thalassa]

What I am asserting is that the tert is aligned opposite the dominant. That means you, and any other EFP, are using different attitudes of F than an INTJ would be using. You are using aux Fi and they are using tert Fe.

Aux Fi can very well appear warm as you said yourself in the bolded. That still doesn't mean an INTJ is using Fi over Fe.

What? ETPs have tert Fe. ITJs have tert Fi. It's pretty obvious. It makes perfect sense because FPs and TJs seem to have some sort of mutual understanding, while FJs and TPs share this...it's Te/Fi vs. Ti/Fe.

Not only that, but the serious problems that young ITJs often have with social adjustment reflects Fi much more than Fe.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

What? ETPs have tert Fe. ITJs have tert Fi. It's pretty obvious.

That's what I've been posting about, Marm! I think it's very much the opposite; to me the opposite is obvious. Although more mature (as in living experience) individuals can exhibit both which muddies the waters.

 

[Thalassa]

That's what I've been posting about, Marm! I think it's very much the opposite; to me the opposite is obvious. Although more mature (as in living experience) individuals can exhibit both which muddies the waters.

Read my edit. It isn't obvious at all. Fe generally has much more social finesse, as well as caring much more about what other people think. I'm not sure how you came to associate this with ITJs unless you're using socionics. I'm baffled, actually.

 

[Jaguar]

This is unfortunately true.

(If only we could be like the ENTJs, with no weaknesses of any sort whatsoever.)

Aw, aren't you cute.

 

[yenom]

Oh, look! It's Cloud, the ENTJ hater. Hi, little buddy! :hi:

Hate is such a strong word. How bout lack of synergy?