Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

[Poki]

This thread is getting really strange.

Yeah, I am kinda zooming out to the big picture. I tend to do this

 

[simulatedworld]

Am I the only one who finds it a little ridiculous that a self-described STP is lecturing a thread full of N-dominant types on "seeing the big picture"?

Hint for you, Poki: The INTJs have already been through everything you've brought up in their heads and decided after due consideration to dismiss it. Your tertiary (or inferior?) Ni is not blowing their minds, and you're not telling them anything they haven't heard before.

 

[Poki]

Am I the only one who finds it a little ridiculous that a self-described STP is lecturing a thread full of N-dominant types on "seeing the big picture"?

Hint for you, Poki: The INTJs have already been through everything you've brought up in their heads and decided after due consideration to dismiss it. Your tertiary (or inferior?) Ni is not blowing their minds, and you're not telling them anything they haven't heard before.

I am not trying to blow anyones mind here. The way my thought pattern works of Solipsism it allows me to go back and piece things together. Half the time when I respond or continue with a thought pattern my mind is tying together things creating a web outside of what it is I am actually saying.

 

[Jaguar]

Am I the only one who finds it a little ridiculous that a self-described STP is lecturing a thread full of N-dominant types on "seeing the big picture"?

I find it ridiculous that you presume to know his abilities, and you've never even met the guy.
Here, use your MBTI crystal ball. IT KNOWS ALL.

 

[Poki]

Am I the only one who finds it a little ridiculous that a self-described STP is lecturing a thread full of N-dominant types on "seeing the big picture"?

Hint for you, Poki: The INTJs have already been through everything you've brought up in their heads and decided after due consideration to dismiss it. Your tertiary (or inferior?) Ni is not blowing their minds, and you're not telling them anything they haven't heard before.

Also the reason it cant be dismissed within me is because I have recently had someone fear and hide something because of this exact pattern I went down just a second ago and because of this they didnt want to open up to anyone because they would be construed in a negative way. Some people really do fear who they are because of objectivity being taken as truth and being confused with right vs wrong when all it really does is stem from others subjectivity.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It looks like you guys had a fun night. I'll start with Z first, since you are the op. However, I'd like to assert that even as op, you don't own the thread. Yes, you should respond appropriately and regularly to comments, but a thread will weave and wind around. That's what "threads" do. To try and control forcefully that direction is, well, a bit controlling. You seem to think you only need to learn about "x" and that is all you want to hear about. I understand that. But others think differently and tangents come in; and interesting diversions happen. It's what makes Type c what it is. Besides, what would Jag do otherwise?

To answer your question, I have another thread where I've been talking about typology, mainly in a Jungian context. Have you read much Jung? I didn't intend to go back to the master in the beginning; but that's where I've ended up in my quest for the pure beginnings of typology, because so much has gotten mixed in along the way: Meyers-Briggs, Thompson, Beebe, Keirsey, and others, so that it's confusing to know why we've ended up with the current function theories. I was disgruntled with the 8 function model and that is why I started thinking about other options, like you are apparently doing, when I ended up going back to Jung.

So far, everything I've been doing or asserting is what I feel Jung says in his writings in Psychological Types, which is translated from German. Sim likes to say I'm making up my own typology, but I'm truly only restating what Jung has already asserted in his great work. Not that Jung is right, but it's a beginning. How can one change a theory without knowing and understanding where it began? If you do that, you just take your ignorant limited understanding and leap off from there, possibly creating a worse theory in the end, like we have now (with the 8 function model), and like others seem to have done without even citing where or why they diverged from Jung.

So, if you read the other thread, you would see that I believe (and a few other prominent Type C members have corroborated me on this, so it's not just my own interpretation) that Jung stated that the tertiary, along with all the other unconscious functions (as Jung calls them) are normally aligned opposite the dominant. If you disagree with that, and go with current theory, great! But it's not I coming out of the blue with this notion, it is Jung. So, if there is criticism to be had with anyone's interpretation, you and others like you, who follow uncited current theories 'just because' they are the popular theories you happen to learn about, are the ones deserving of criticism for your unfounded, at least in terms of the classic reference, loyalty to popular theory.

Which brings me back to the tertiary argument. I agree with, and believe that Jung asserted (often), the fact that if the unconscious functions become too dominant in a person, neurosis or even psychosis will result. What does not seem to follow in your, or current prominent authors on the subject, argument, is that if the tertiary is aligned with the dominant, you claim two things simultaneously which makes no logical sense. First, you (collective 'you') claim that the tertiary aligned with the dominant is needed to provide balance for the oppositely aligned auxiliary function, and that means, if it provided some balance, that it will therefore promote a healthy functioning. Fine. However, we know and generally all agree that unhealthy or neurosis occurs when a 'loop' happens when the tertiary aligns similarly to the dominant in orientation. So which is it? It cannot be both ways. Either it is healthy, normal, functioning, or it is unhealthy. That is, in my opinion, a major flaw in the tertiary-aligned-with-the-dominant theory.

To my mind, the tertiary aligned opposite the dominant allows for balanced, no nonsense, no drama, functioning. Sometimes the dom/aux work together and sometimes the dom/tert work together (less often), and it keeps one basically balanced, although still skewed to whatever the dominant's orientation is (i or e). Neurosis happens when the tert gets pulled in to the dominant's orientation (and I've scratched the surface a bit here and there with explaining how and why this happens in the other thread). In this model you have an explanantion for normal and an explanation for abnormal. In the current model, you have one model for both, which just makes no sense.

So, Ni/Te/Fe in healthy, no nonsense functioning

But, Ni/Te/Fi in 'other' functioning. Stress, commitment to one's idea, personal problems, etc.

Jung also asserted, which most of you seem to disagree with, that seeing what functions we use in ourselves is very, very difficult. It's difficult for 'trained' people to see functions at use in others as well.

Which brings me to my final point to Uumlau and others. You constantly refuse to address my statements about the tertiary's manifestations being colored by their position and frequency of usage. In this, you are missing a major point about how functions manifest, appear, and even work. Jung did not speak to this, so *disclaimer* this is my own idea. Your explanation of Fi vs Fe still does not hold water with me because I doubt an NT who ever uses Fe is going to feel a lot of warm fuzzies. You're a T. Tertiary Fe in a T type, is going to look very different on the inside from an F type. yes, the F type might feel Fe warm fuzzies. But a T type? Doubtful. That doesn't mean they don't use Fe! It just means you can't compare their Fe, regarding motivations and intent and subjective feeling, to an F type. It will be different.

Back to my previous assertion. If you look to an object and consciously identify with the object, and express yourself in terms of relating to the object (in this case the object is person or people) you are extraverting your function. That is textbook definition of extraversion vs introversion regarding functions. There is no room for one's subjective feeling in the expression of extraverted feeling. This is why I had the problem with Jung's definition, because his bias with being NT enters in very obviously here. But it is a great study to regard how similarly your assertion of how you 'think' Fe to be coincides with how Jung defines Fe!

In precisely the same way extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has to undergo a process of differentiation before it is finally denuded of every subjective trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or accord with traditional or generally accepted standards.

Therefore you are clapping even when you don't feel inside like clapping. The mere fact that you are clapping is Fe. The mere fact that you are considerate on a consistent basis is Fe. The mere fact that you follow basic rules of society for interacting regularly is Fe. You may not see this in yourself(yourselves), because you recognize more Te, but from an outside perspective, it is there. If it started out as Te, okay. When it manifests, it's still, by definition, Fe. Te and Fe work together all the time. Teaching is a perfect example. Learning with others is a perfect example.

In extraverted irrationals, the Fi is obvious. There is less consideration for others' feelings, and more consideration for exactitude (Ti), but Fe is not readily apparent; there is more emotion to one's ideas, and emotion is F, not T, even Ti. I can see this objectively in them, on here and irl.

I've no doubt that some INTJs use Fi. I know how difficult it is to see ourselves objectively, so asking me to trust your own subjective feelings regarding a weaker tertiary function over my auxiliary objective function of what I observe in you is asking a lot. Just like you are probably a better judge of whether I am using Te or Ti more on any given subject. Also, if someone is stressed, or for any other number of reasons, we know their tertiary will align with the dominant, so, yeah, some of you (z) do seem to be more Fi at times. But I don't think that an INTJs healthy state overall, just as it's not my healthy state to stay in Ti. It's just too introverting over time.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I am not trying to blow anyones mind here. The way my thought pattern works of Solipsism it allows me to go back and piece things together. Half the time when I respond or continue with a thought pattern my mind is tying together things creating a web outside of what it is I am actually saying.

Hint: To Poki. White male NTs tend to be discriminatory to anyone not white, male, and NT.

 

[Poki]

Which brings me back to the tertiary argument. I agree with, and believe that Jung asserted (often), the fact that if the unconscious functions become too dominant in a person, neurosis or even psychosis will result. What does not seem to follow in your, or current prominent authors on the subject, argument, is that if the tertiary is aligned with the dominant, you claim two things simultaneously which makes no logical sense. First, you (collective 'you') claim that the tertiary aligned with the dominant is needed to provide balance for the oppositely aligned auxiliary function, and that means, if it provided some balance, that it will therefore promote a healthy functioning. Fine. However, we know and generally all agree that unhealthy or neurosis occurs when a 'loop' happens when the tertiary aligns similarly to the dominant in orientation. So which is it? It cannot be both ways. Either it is healthy, normal, functioning, or it is unhealthy. That is, in my opinion, a major flaw in the tertiary-aligned-with-the-dominant theory.

This alignment of dominant and tertiary is what I see. It is exactly like you explained. Its confusion and it is truly a loop. I have experienced this loop many times and its only unhealthy when you cannot identify this loop because you get stuck in it or you keep getting pushed into it. When you get stuck in it is when it causes neurosis so its not really unhealthy to reach this loop, but it is unhealthy to get stuck in this loop.

Awhile back I had made a comment on how my ENFJ wife would push me into my head in an unhealthy way and an ENFP would push me their in a healthy manner. This path you are going down provides more of an explanation of this phenomenon then anything else I have heard. Its strange how we fight the same battle with others that we fight in ourselves at times. Its like you can see the internal battle acting externally and vice-versa.

 

[Jaguar]

White male NTs tend to be discriminatory to anyone not white, male, and NT.

Don't include me in your bigoted point of view.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

This alignment of dominant and tertiary is what I see. It is exactly like you explained. Its confusion and it is truly a loop. I have experienced this loop many times and its only unhealthy when you cannot identify this loop because you get stuck in it or you keep getting pushed into it. When you get stuck in it is when it causes neurosis so its not really unhealthy to reach this loop, but it is unhealthy to get stuck in this loop.

Awhile back I had made a comment on how my ENFJ wife would push me into my head in an unhealthy way and an ENFP would push me their in a healthy manner. This path you are going down provides more of an explanation of this phenomenon then anything else I have heard. Its strange how we fight the same battle with others that we fight in ourselves at times. Its like you can see the internal battle acting externally and vice-versa.

To all the non-discriminatory white, male, NTs: Thank you for your highly esteemed behavior to non white male NTs. Unfortunately, discriminatory NT behavior is a real phenomenon on Type C, and I suspect irl as well. I'm just not usually privy to it because I'm not in white male NT circles much.


To Poki: The only thing I'm saying that's really different is that normal functioning involves oppositely orienting the tertiary to the dominant. This would be normal daily positive encounters with others and the world. I'm not sure I like the 'loop' terminology, but okay, I've been stuck in a loop before. A loop for me exists when no answer can be found and you keep going round and round. A loop might be the beginning of a neurosis, such that so long as the loop keeps going round, you're sort-of stagnated in a negative space, instead of the normal positive one. Finally, as the dominant demands solutions the unconscious functions cannot provide, it exerts pressure on the tertiary especially (because it is weaker than the auxiliary, although the auxiliary could be coerced as well, as we see sometimes in extreme neurosis or psychosis) and bends it into a subjective (or objective for extraverts) orientation, ending the 'loop' and beginning the extreme orientation which usually manifests in some outcome, be it additional insight or some newly garnered knowledge, although this will come at a cost to the subject's psyche if this state is sustained.

So, in effect, you have the exteme behavior which can only be obtained by extreme methods, such as you would have with an extreme orientation. Yet extreme behavior can elicit exciting results as well, tho at a cost to the host. It's the whole ying/yang thing if you will. Suppress part of your psyche, and it will repress and manifest somewhere else. The more you suppress, the stronger the underlying tempation will be.

 

[Jaguar]

Unfortunately, discriminatory NT behavior is a real phenomenon on Type C, and I suspect irl as well.

If it transpires in Type-C then it transpires IRL.
The "logic," is bewitching me.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

If it transpires in Type-C then it transpires IRL.
The "logic," is bewitching me.

You are trolling again. Why don't you say something substantive or nothing at all? hmm?

 

[cascadeco]

I think the bottom line is what you have to go by to avoid definition overlap, is the action. What action does this person display overall? No matter the motivation or feeling behind it.

I haven't had time to review the entire thread, and this may have been answered already, but... .


You place more importance on the action itself rather than the motivation behind it? I tend to think opposite...I find motivation the most telling. Anyone can make any sort of action or behavior.. the motivation behind the doing the action would vary widely, however. Any action/behavior can be faked or utilized for a purpose only known to the doer of the action. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Jaguar]

You are trolling again. Why don't you say something substantive or nothing at all? hmm?

You are trolling with white, NT, bigotry.
Why don't you say something substantive or nothing at all? hmm?

 

[onemoretime]

You are trolling again. Why don't you say something substantive or nothing at all? hmm?

Did anyone really want Charlie Brown to kick the football?

 

[Jaguar]

Did anyone really want Charlie Brown to kick the football?

No, we don't need to see you kick it.

 

[onemoretime]

No, we don't need to see you kick it.

Wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah wah wah

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I haven't had time to review the entire thread, and this may have been answered already, but... .


You place more importance on the action itself rather than the motivation behind it? I tend to think opposite...I find motivation the most telling. Anyone can make any sort of action or behavior.. the motivation behind the doing the action would vary widely, however. Any action/behavior can be faked or utilized for a purpose only known to the doer of the action. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

You know, I think just like with other things, it's the action. It's the expression. But the main variable in that is on a consistent basis. Because people won't continue the innate action or behavior unless it's what's comfortable for them. They will revert eventually into the comfortable way of being. So, it's what someone does over time, consistently, I think. Not just what one wants to be or wants to do.

 

[Jaguar]

Wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah wah wah

I see why Z loves you.

 

[uumlau]

You know, I think just like with other things, it's the action. It's the expression. But the main variable in that is on a consistent basis. Because people won't continue the innate action or behavior unless it's what's comfortable for them. They will revert eventually into the comfortable way of being. So, it's what someone does over time, consistently, I think. Not just what one wants to be or wants to do.

I think this might be the core of the disagreement.

You see, for example, INTJs behaving with what you regard as "Fe" mannerisms. Therefore, that is Fe.

I do not deny that I "act Fe" at times. I was raised to be very polite, to be courteous.

But there is a key difference between those whose types have Fe as their strongest "F" function and those who have Fi as their strongest "F" function, and it's how they process the feelings in the first place. The processing can both lead to similar conclusions and different conclusions. It is by reviewing the different conclusions that one can begin to separate out the actions from the motivations, and discover that the underlying motivations are different.

I really do see the similarity between INFJ and INTJ. My ex-wife is ESFJ, and we had so much in common. I was surprised at how fundamentally different we were, underneath it all. Only by pushing things into the realm of disagreement did the rather stark differences become apparent at all. It was our differing motivations that caused us to drift apart: the apparent similarities had no binding power.