• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Highlander!

You started this!!!

:cheese:

Yeah - I thought it might result in some healthy discussion/conflict. A hopelessly flawed Ni fueled perspective no doubt. :)

Have been busy at church, going out to brunch, and then the Chicago meet up.

^ I've witnessed this firsthand. :/

Sorry, NTJs, but this is perhaps your Achilles heel.

Interesting perspective.

For INTJs, I think the arrogance of perspective relates to specific things that they have thought about a great deal. Since they cannot always articulate the reasoning or rationale as well as they like, the view is considered arbitrary or wrong by others.

Yeah, I mean, most people tend to think that way regardless of type; it's just NTJs who are especially arrogant about assuming they understand everything that goes into every other type's perspective enough to declare everyone else a total moron.

You can tell from the way the first thing they jump to every time they want to belittle someone is "YOU CLEARLY DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL INFLUENCE LOL", as if anyone who doesn't place that as Primary Life Goal #1 is a complete ingrate. /vomit

You can't actually think this perspective is a reflection of the broader reality - do you? Listen to yourself.

It's just some of you that delude yourselves into believing Ni somehow magically encompasses all other functions and gives you a complete view of everything. (Your poor comprehension of Ne/Ti reveals otherwise, though.)

See, a good Ni user (not a crackpot, bottom-of-the-barrel conspiracy theorist) has good reason for making a claim, a lesser claim, but a claim nonetheless, that resembles what you have written.

There is a reason for it.

It is what Ni does.

It looks at the underlying assumptions of different perspectives, so that it understands why those perspective see things the way they do.

Then it looks at another perspective on the same topic, and does the same thing to it.

And another.

And another.

And another.

It then synthesizes these disparate perspectives to come to a more global, encompassing view.

Now that view is not necessarily ALL encompassing, as new information can always be presented to the Ni-user, which he/she will listen to, consider, come to understand its underlying assumptions, and, after having accomplished these tasks, incorporate into the framework.

As such, there is a reason why Ni doms, the people whose primary and continuous process is doing exactly the above, who are making the claim that others are not seeing the issue at hand from all the necessary, important perspectives, and are thus missing out on a significant amount of the material required to properly understand the subject at hand, are perfectly sensible in saying so: more than any other function, the purpose of Ni is to look at a subject from as many possible perspectives in order to most accurately comprehend its essence.

Exactly.

If only Ni types (actually just NTJs, once again, NFJs aren't half as arrogant) would accept that Ni is still just one perspective, not the meta-perspective synthesizing all other perspectives that you want it to be. I understand that that's what you're trying to do; the problem is that you vastly overestimate your own success rate with it.

Every type overestimates its ability with its dominant function; for Ni, this translates into exaggerated belief in one's ability to "read between the lines" to "see the real truth" or whatever it is that gets you guys off.

To be fair, a lot of the time you do use this perspective to great effect and come up with something really insightful. But you need to remember that Ni represents only a value system that leads you to desire this sort of meta-understanding--by no means does it guarantee any real ability to see it.

Do you actually think we view this as perfect or without flaws? Do you think we aren't well aware of the limitations in knowledge?

I think you may be overly influenced by your personal reaction to the manner with which the NTJs communicate.

I suspect this "humility" you see is actually a developed persona for interacting with others. Unlike my raw, axe-like Te that brutally pummels others, or Z's Te which is blunt, older INTJs have had a long time to learn that Te pisses people off...thus learn to Fe like mannerisms to convey messages....

:newwink:
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sim INTJs do something weird as they age. The first 20 years or so seem silent. They say very little. But they constantly absorb social mannerisms as a Te ruleset. They plan very carefully how to best convey the message to convince the other of what they wish. To the point they plan out convos in advance so much in their heads that they sometimes forget they never actually had the convo with the other person....

I occasionally toss around the idea (seriously, mind you) that I have arrived at an F approach through logic/rationalization, and in fact am not naturally of that disposition. I have 80+ pages of writing from my mid-20's where I went through this entire process and came out the other end...which is why I muse on occasion. Anyway, I say this because I was exactly as you describe in my first 20 years, minus perhaps the motivation of convincing others of what I wish. I however don't think I have that Te drive needed to be an INTJ, in comparison to, well, actual INTJ's. I've always viewed myself as a bit of a hybrid.

To your point re. older INTJ's, though... I tend to agree. An INTJ I'm beginning to know well is actually extremely polite, tactful, pleasant, amiable, and whatnot in public. He's learned all of it very well, and actually quite surpasses me. lol. (But, I think he comes across as more generally *Pleasant*/good-natured... not warm)
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And, because of that, I really want to understand what we're all actually trying to do in these discussions. Share or spread our own views? Come to a better understanding of typology systems? Share information in a meaningful way? Popcorn-level discussion? Nothing in particular (which, well, is also fine)?

If we're looking to develop a good, solid foundation for all of this typology stuff, I think we'd all be well-served to try to figure out where exactly it is that we as individuals are coming from. I think that, sort of ironically, we'd also fare better if we left others' individual types out of the discussion, because they're majorly clouding things up. Everyone is completely responsible for evaluating their own perspective.

I think some of us are trying to learn and we are entertained by the discussion.

Also, bringing things out into the open and confronting issues can be healthy.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Maybe; I'm not sure. I'll let you be the judge of that. I just know the description resonated.

(I'm really not a big fan, at all, of breaking things down into functions though; I find the process tedious and often-times counterproductive in the end, for various reasons I don't want to derail about in here. Sorry. :)]

In contrast, I find these sorts of definitions of Ni retarded. No offense. I mean, I don't know if the creator of said definition is trying to isolate Ni and only Ni (presumably so? And failing to really get at what it IS.. or perhaps it as an Ni definition is more applicable/pertinent as a tertiary function or beyond?), but it's not like I utilize Ni is some sort of vacuum where I'm just going off of hunches 24/7.

------------
In the end, though, this is why mbti theory is rather nebulous as a system - certain descriptions resonate with some, others not at all.

:) I can make no certain idea regarding how anothers mind works, only tentative suggestions, that may be of some value to the receiver. To do anything else, such as insist upon a fact, is terribly presumptious as I cannot see or judge the world the way others, even other enfps, do. So the Ti thing was just a suggestion...

I have seen several INFJs share your concern regarding the dissection of the functions and how it lacks in true understanding. I think the attempt at function dissection derives from Te/Ti desires for systemic understanding..but once you add Fi and Fe back into the picture, the Te/Ti models appear very incomplete-2D when people are in reality 3D.

I almost feel as though Fi and Fe are evolutions on top of Te and Ti to cope with the utter complexity seen in human behavior. They are much more complex in their analytical capabilities and much better at coping with very "fuzzy" problems-people problems and other problems as well.

For ENFPs, as we get older we start to use NeTe in combo together so love to play with models and play at dissection of the functions...but sorta know it is incomplete the whole time. We look at large numbers of patterns over large numbers of people.

For INFJs, I kinda wondered if you guys dont do the total opposite-NiTi-and look at one person, but that person is an isolated system which you strive to understand in all of their individual complexity-but then fill in the gaps with Fe. But I dont know this, it was just an Ne-ism, for what it's worth...just playing with thoughts....

I occasionally toss around the idea (seriously, mind you) that I have arrived at an F approach through logic/rationalization, and in fact am not naturally of that disposition. I could post the 80+ pages of writing from my mid-20's where I went through this entire process, but of course that would be boring. :smile: Anyway, I say this because I was exactly as you describe in my first 20 years, minus perhaps the motivation of convincing others of what I wish. I however don't think I have that Te drive needed to be an INTJ, in comparison to, well, actual INTJ's. I've always viewed myself as a bit of a hybrid.

To your point re. older INTJ's, though... I tend to agree. An INTJ I'm beginning to know well is actually extremely polite, tactful, pleasant, amiable, and whatnot in public. He's learned all of it very well, and actually quite surpasses me. lol. (But, I think he comes across as more generally *Pleasant*/good-natured... not warm)

yes...just to clarify..I think the INTJs are very real in this developed social skill set, not fake at all...but I dont know enough real life INFJs to really say I have observed the same trend at all.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
For INTJs, I think the arrogance of perspective relates to specific things that they have thought about a great deal. Since they cannot always articulate the reasoning or rationale as well as they like, the view is considered arbitrary or wrong by others.

The arrogance doesn't come from a sense of arbitrariness, caprice, rectitude or wrongness, but rather the invalidation of other perspectives that comes along with the presentation, from time to time.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
By the definition in the OP.
I use Ni for just about everything.. My emotional breakdowns occur when I cannot shift perspective.
Very interesting.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The arrogance doesn't come from a sense of arbitrariness, caprice, rectitude or wrongness, but rather the invalidation of other perspectives that comes along with the presentation, from time to time.

So, in other words, you are saying it's the presentation and that they are essentially telling others they are wrong.

Is that right?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
And, because of that, I really want to understand what we're all actually trying to do in these discussions. Share or spread our own views? Come to a better understanding of typology systems? Share information in a meaningful way? Popcorn-level discussion? Nothing in particular (which, well, is also fine)?

If we're looking to develop a good, solid foundation for all of this typology stuff, I think we'd all be well-served to try to figure out where exactly it is that we as individuals are coming from. I think that, sort of ironically, we'd also fare better if we left others' individual types out of the discussion, because they're majorly clouding things up. Everyone is completely responsible for evaluating their own perspective.

Nice crescendo on both accounts. :yes:
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
So, in other words, you are saying it's the presentation and that they are essentially telling others they are wrong.

Is that right?

Maybe not as much as they're wrong as much as it is there's no possible way they could be right. You can prove the former, while you can't prove the latter without access to the exact same information the other person has.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Maybe not as much as they're wrong as much as it is there's no possible way they could be right. You can prove the former, while you can't prove the latter without access to the exact same information the other person has.

So, I think what you might be saying is that one is based on facts and the other isn't. I don't think a person who is dominant Ni really places facts in a position of supremacy in making decisions. I also don't think that it would ever be possible to have the same information since Ni is an unconscious thing. Therefore, it is impossible to prove.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Is this going to be a repeat of the "Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms" thread?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Introverted intuition will, and does, work anywhere, anytime. Like any introverted function, it snatches information away from the outer world and sets to work on it in whatever way is suitable to the function. Its value as a variation on the function Intuition lies in the creation, or perhaps discovery, of formally unprompted connections.

Naturally I trust my intuition implicitly and will make outrageous claims as to the efficacy of the function: the insight it produces is unparalleled, and all your perspective are belong to us. But, to be honest, all your perspectives are and will always be found to be lacking because in merely collecting perspectives there isn't the synthesis step. And Ni is introverted, so there will be a synthesis step, the part where I introvert to discover my perspective.

It's one of the interesting things about being an introvert, this independence. And there is some big long thing to be said or written about how that independence is possible. And whether or not it is meaningful.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Introverted intuition uncovers, while extraverted intuition discovers. If Ni motivates us to uncover something, then that something must be previously covered. By what, you ask? Immediate sense impression, otherwise known as Se. This is why Se is inferior to Ni and vice versa.

I thought it's an irrational function, which implies it comes suddenly and randomly?


The "irrational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental and perceptual activity that predominantly (and, for the most part, unconsciously) operates with opportunities, i.e. various possible outcomes and sensations result from some premises and sensations, mostly driven by unconscious processes. People with predominantly "irrational" thinking see the world as a structure that can take various forms and outcomes. (otherwise known as perceiving)

Personality Type
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I thought it's an irrational function, which implies it comes suddenly and randomly?

That too. But the peculiar properties of introversion--the timelessness, the independence of place--were what I was aiming at emphasizing. That an introverted function is formally decoupled from immediate environmental stimuli allows, indeed creates, longer term thought projects, likely often life-long. The actual functioning of the function may be sudden and random, but there's a continuity of focus over time that, presumably, accounts for the layering and "depth", or more exactly, for the insights that other people hadn't seen.

It's interesting then to try and work out how an introverted function doesn't become moribund.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I liked Lex Talionis. He repeatedly pointed out all of the negative aspects of the other types and then used that to define a type, and he didn't afraid of anything. He wad a pretty cool guy, if you ask me.
Huh? -especially the underlined portion-

Most NTJs structure their lives around putting themselves into positions of power and influence. They want to control economic resources because that grants them the highest degree of control over others, the external world and ultimately their own lives. They enjoy feeling powerful and influential.

What the fuck?.

Next time an NTJ you know makes fun of someone he considers to be lesser than himself, listen to the undertones. Listen to what NTJs target when they try to belittle someone--it almost invariably includes:

"He has a low IQ",
"He can't see how limited his perception is, but I can because I have the magic meta-perspective, hahaha", and/or
"He has no money/power/influence over anything",

because these are the things NTJs tend to value. Unfortunately many of them consider anyone who isn't looking for those things to be a complete idiot, and the air of arrogant self-supremacy that accompanies this view can be outright smothering.


Sim, might I suggest a bit o' Ayn Rand? It would give a really interesting insight into what you are seeing. I would, as always for any type, be hesitant to assign motives onto the INTJs, as that would be highly presumptious, however the Se inf function does give a very practical, productive, even slightly materialistic tint to their worldview-always think in terms of function pairs...NeSi or NiSe....otherwise you only have half the picture.

I despise Ayn Rand. I've read The Fountainhead and that was quite enough far rightist NTJ wet dream babble for me, thanks.


Yes, but so is professional psychology. However, if a group of psychologists were discussing psychology, they wouldn't evaluate each others' reasoning based on their psychological states. Imagine if you were diagnosed with depression, mania, or some other sort of disorder; you raised your hand in a psychology class at the local college to state your opinion. Instead of evaluating your opinion based on either the logical consistency or the evidence (against/for) it, he just said, "Oh, well from a depressed persons perspective..."

Unfortunately different functional perspectives have different ideas about what constitutes "truth" and "correctness", so the totally objective standard for evaluation that you're arguing for doesn't really exist in practice.

I know that psychological types aren't disorders. My point is that you're mixing typology as a basic science with typology as an applied science, and in doing so you commit the common fallacy of judging the interocular instead of the argument.

I'm not actually saying those perspectives are wrong; in fact, I'm trying to point out that since no perspective is ultimately better than any other, there's no universally objective standard we can apply to evaluating any sort of argument or position at all...which is the problem.

When I point out function usage in others I'm trying to show that their arguments and positions are predicable based on their functional outlooks. That doesn't make their opinions invalid, but if I judge their arguments directly we're not going to get anywhere because I'm going to use an NeTiFeSi standard to evaluate their points, which will not make sense to them because they approach those ideas from a totally different set of premises.

So I don't judge the interocular to show that he's wrong, but rather to show that there are basic fundamental differences in the way each of us conceptualizes reality that will prevent us from ever agreeing on certain topics. It's not so much that, "Oh well you're an Fi dom, of COURSE you think that!" is intended to imply that said Fi position is wrong, just to illustrate that it's rooted in a basic assumption about the nature of reality that's too different from mine for us to come to a consensus (sometimes.)

This is why most arguments never really get solved--agreement would require abandonment of the axioms of our preferred functional perspectives, which is nigh impossible.

Typology isn't a science at all, by the way, but rather a philosophy.



I'm referring to this thread. Most of what you said prior to my post in this thread were negative. My point was that as long as you evaluate peoples' opinions according to their type, you're free to either appreciate them or depreciate them. What you should be doing is evaluating peoples' statements based on whether they are true or not.

lol if only "truth" were as clear cut and objective as you want it to be. Unfortunately every functional perspective has a different idea of what "truth" is, so there's no simple universal objective standard for evaluating it.

How about you do neither and make it more sober instead of laminating typology with emotional bias?

Well first of all no one ever, ever, ever escapes emotional bias. It's absolutely unavoidable no matter who you are--we all have deep emotional attachments to the axioms of our preferred functional perspectives.

And secondly, pointing out the common strengths and weaknesses of each perspective (including the mistakes people of each type commonly make) helps to improve our understanding of how to interact more effectively with others and, even if we can't agree with them, understand what motivates them to behave and think the way they do.

No, I am offended. What's your point?

And since Fi, as your dominant function, has the biggest influence on your sense of identity out of any of your functions, it's reasonable to say that your Fi is offended.

My point is that your function attitudes create your identity--you don't have an identity without them.

I've been paying attention to this thread, which is what I'm referring to. Not your long history of posting; but if I recall correctly you even toted a bias against Fi oriented people around in my first thread around 6 months ago.

Well that's true; I have since done a fair bit of learning about Fi. I am not against Fi itself, just especially annoyed with certain selfish Fi-motivated behaviors.

Living with an INFP has been a big challenge, but it's taught me a lot. I like to think I understand the value in that perspective a little more than I did say, 6 months ago.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
That too. But the peculiar properties of introversion--the timelessness, the independence of place--were what I was aiming at emphasizing. That an introverted function is formally decoupled from immediate environmental stimuli allows, indeed creates, longer term thought projects, likely often life-long. The actual functioning of the function may be sudden and random, but there's a continuity of focus over time that, presumably, accounts for the layering and "depth", or more exactly, for the insights that other people hadn't seen.

It's interesting then to try and work out how an introverted function doesn't become moribund.

Now I see your point. In that case I agree with you.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Sim, you must admit that what he says about you here is true, I've heard you state it over and over, how much you can't stand Fi.

I'm starting to think that Fi and Ni are kinda similar.

That's just a working hypothesis, though, as I just came up with it a couple of hours ago. :D

Well, true. See my above response to Tater regarding my relationship with Fi.

And Fi and Ni are similar in that they are both very subjective and very personal, but other than that they don't have too much in common.


Sim, I actually think your last post was pretty good.

Thank you.

I still think you're letting your relationships with Jaguar, your dad and/or your brother taint your entire perspective on NTJs, and that you harbor an obsession with pointing towards the 2% (Orobas' figure) of the time when Ni-doms are not actually bringing to the table an accurate, largely-encompassing view of the matter at hand, due to your issues with one or more of these relationships.

Anyone who's only wrong 2% of the time would be profoundly brilliant, far moreso than any real person existing in the world today.

Anyway, my father and brother are actually far less inclined toward the problems I have with NTJs. I have very good relationships with both of them; the resentment you speak of comes entirely from NTJs to whom I am not related biologically.

Jaguar is certainly one of them. Talk about spoiled rich kid who had never had to grow up because Daddy's Money handed him everything from day one. I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of horribly unbalanced Te+Se loop, tbh.

Frankly I think his Ni sucks and that he spends a lot of time spouting Te+Se rhetoric--he just needs to believe he has brilliant Ni and thus never shuts up about how deep and brilliant and perceptive he is (and how everyone is totally shallow, durrrr), when in reality he has some of the worst Ni of any NTJ I've ever met.

But I digress.

I don't know if it's that your dad and/or brother and/or Jaguar "look down on you" for what it is that you are doing with your life, but I suspect this is the source (particularly with your family) of much of your obsession with pointing out that Ni doms don't really see the "whole picture" (i.e., in your case, that material gain, etc. is not that important).

Haha it's actually not my dad or my brother at all. Like I said I get along really well with them. I think both of them are exceptionally insightful and neither strikes me as exceedingly arrogant; I think they're both smart enough to recognize the limitations on their own perception and it keeps their egos in check. I really love them both deeply and we rarely have any serious disagreements.

But I can't say the same for a lot of the other NTJs I know. Even the ones I consider very intelligent often fall into the same traps I've mentioned but are too arrogant about their supreme perception skills to admit it to themselves.

Yes, their values make them desire for you to do something that they see as "productive" with your life -- and these desires are undoubtedly biased by their Te -- but to constantly obsess over pointing out a particular type's "blind spots", which, invariably, do exist, seems to be driven more by your personal experiences than a drive for accuracy or truth, and thus pushes you towards behavior that you wouldn't otherwise be engaging in.

I don't know. Maybe I'm completely off base. I don't know you that well.

But it just always seems like you have a personal axe to grind with NTJs.

You're right; some NTJs really do consistently piss me off. It's not that they have a preset way of assigning value to things; everyone has that, it's that coupled with the way many of them assume that their value system is The Correct Value Systemâ„¢, end of story, because everyone else is too stupid to understand the REAL truth the way only NTJs do.

When you introduce typology to these types, their response tends to be not, "Oh, I see now that there are lots of different value systems and none is any better than any other", but rather, "Oh, now I get it--NTJs are the smart people! Now I can explain why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total ingrate moron!" (*cough* Lex Tali-tard *cough*)

Rather than use it as a way to recognize the subjectivity of their own perspectives, as it's intended, they just use it to bolster their own delusional arrogance and reinforce the idea that their value system is objectively better than everyone's. It's pretty sickening.

Example: A certain ENTJ who shall go unnamed once said she "didn't have any values." Think about the sheer arrogance contained in that statement. She's literally saying, "Everything I believe clearly constitutes totally objective truth. I am so immune to bias of any kind that nothing I believe contains any degree of subjectivity whatsoever; I simply see the absolute, perfect objective truth as it is and no personal bias ever comes into play."

Honestly dude you are way smarter than most NTJs I've come across--it's just that no type group is ever as consistently arrogant about its intelligence and perceptive abilities as NTJs, which drives me up the fucking wall because so many of you are simultaneously mired in perceptual bias yet arrogantly obsessed with the fantasy that you're immune to it.

It's infuriating.


You just told me that what I said was true, meaning that breadth can be found in introversion and depth can be found in extraversion. Yet you persist in your previous stance prior to that because you hold my statement captive as though you can't accept it.

Uh, no...I said your statement was true from an introverted perspective. I can't believe I mistook you for an Ni dom before--you're far too attached to the idea that there's one universally, objectively correct perspective or that truth exists outside human interpretation for that to be the case.

"JUST JUDGE ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE TRUE LOL" doesn't really work here because different perspectives have different ideas of what truth is. It may seem obvious to you what's true and what's false, but that's just a function of interpretation. There is no universal truth.

The fact is that having depth means that you plunge the innards or deepness of a thing, which is quite possible in referring to external input (which is what extraversion is). Having breadth means that you can examine a broader range of input, which is also quite possible when you are referring to a more intrinsic or internal input.

I don't understand your point. Obviously every real person has both introverted and extroverted functional attitudes, so yes, we are all capable of both breadth and depth. The point here is that those dominant in introverted perspectives tend to favor depth, while those dominant in extroverted perspectives tend to favor breadth. I did not intend to imply that either type is incapable of valuing the opposing perspective.

What a crock of shit.

The accuracy of a statement is entirely contingent upon reasoning, whether you're referring to internal or external data.

Unfortunately for you, different functions reason in different terms and there's no universal standard making any one more right than any other. That's what I'm getting at when I point out the functional perspectives motivating people's opinions--that we can't really ever completely agree because we conceptualize reality and ourselves according to fundamentally different axioms.

What do you mean by "precision"? Certainly, one can formulate an idea in one's head until it is pristine and then communicate it with perfect clarity. The subjective bounds of another's' interpretation is what prevents that clarity from having an identical effect in their own psyche.

No, the idea can never be communicated to others with perfect clarity because others do not share your consciousness. When you move an idea outside your own head into the realm of dealing with others and the outer world, you are inherently decreasing its precision/accuracy in order to increase its external applicability. This is the crux of shifting from introversion to extroversion.

Note that undervaluing a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.

Correct? What does "correct" even mean? Consistent with your FiTe idea of correctness, you mean?

Correctness (just like truth) is in the eye of the beholder. That's the whole point of typology.


I try :)

I've already addressed the reasoning you have here. All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.

You're misinterpreting my functional observations as evaluations of people's ideas.

I'm not evaluating the ideas themselves; I'm evaluating the functional motivation for them. The point I'm getting at is that no idea is universally correct or incorrect, that everyone is subject to personal bias generated by his functional perspectives.

So when I say something to the effect of, "Wow your opinion is so Te", I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm simply pointing out that continuing to argue further has become a moot point since our disagreement is based on differences in fundamental worldview that are very unlikely to change.

Note that this doesn't make either of us right or wrong; on the contrary, it's intended to show that neither of us can ever truly be right or wrong in a purely objective sense!

So it's not, "This guy's opinion is wrong because it's obviously motivated by Ni" so much as, "Ni is the reason this guy holds this opinion, so he won't be able to come to an agreement with anyone who doesn't agree with that initial Ni premise in the first place."

Most disagreements occur when someone tries to evaluate an idea rooted in one function according to the standards of a different function. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else; it's impossible to avoid. What I intend to point out with such comments is that we cannot evaluate an idea until we understand the basic axioms of the worldview that supports it--if we try to judge Ni ideas in Ti terms, we're bound to fail.


You can't actually think this perspective is a reflection of the broader reality - do you? Listen to yourself.

Do you actually think we view this as perfect or without flaws? Do you think we aren't well aware of the limitations in knowledge?

I think you may be overly influenced by your personal reaction to the manner with which the NTJs communicate.

Unfortunately I am quite serious about this, and if you've managed to avoid meeting any such NTJs in your time on this planet then you should count yourself as very lucky.
 

burymecloser

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
516
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Unfortunately different functional perspectives have different ideas about what constitutes "truth" and "correctness", so the totally objective standard for evaluation that you're arguing for doesn't really exist in practice.
...
lol if only "truth" were as clear cut and objective as you want it to be. Unfortunately every functional perspective has a different idea of what "truth" is, so there's no simple universal objective standard for evaluating it.
"JUST JUDGE ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE TRUE LOL" doesn't really work here because different perspectives have different ideas of what truth is. It may seem obvious to you what's true and what's false, but that's just a function of interpretation. There is no universal truth.
I realise the above is applicable to many subjects, but surely you acknowledge that there are some things which are objectively, demonstrably true? And that conversely, some things are objectively, demonstrably untrue?

If I want to prove that Hamlet is better than King Lear, or even that Babe Ruth was a better baseball player than Neifi Perez, maybe I can't do that from a purely objective and inarguable standpoint. But if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Archduke Ferdinand died in 1914, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Ruth hit 714 home runs, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? Aren't many, many things clear cut and objectively true?

Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?

If an idea is not precise, then would this not prevent someone from accessing the truth of it? Forget Ne. This sacrifices the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination. In doing such a thing, you let bad ideas spread like wildfire instead of refining them
I think this is very well-said and an important question that deserves a thoughtful response, and a detailed rebuttal if you feel there's something wrong here.

I realise I'm arguing what you call the introvert's perspective here, and that may not be inherently more valuable than what you'd call an extroverted perspective -- but from a purely literal standpoint, from an objective position, isn't Tater right? Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?

And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
 
Top