• 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?

G

Ginkgo

Guest
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?


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?

Precisely.


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!

Typological solipsism. Sad. If this is true, then how could I know it to be true? And if listeners cannot know it to be true then nothing you say about typology or otherwise can be proven in an objective sense. In which case, how is it more appealing or applicable than anything else you could talk about?

I'll hopefully get back to this thread in a day or two, but I need to get some sleep for a long car ride.

Night.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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?

The only things that are 100% certain are tautologies. In order to accept that 2+2=4, we first must accept a common definition of the terms "2", "+", "=", and "4" which defines 2+2 as 4 in the first place.

So yes, if we accept the rules of mathematics as defined by human culture, then it's objectively true that 2+2=4. But that's a meaningless tautology--"If we accept a system that necessitates two plus two being four, then it's absolutely true that two plus two is four." Do you see why this is a meaningless distinction? Any "absolute truth" requires some sort of arbitrary assumption to build from.

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?

Sure. What's your point?

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?

Yes, it's precisely the same. Introversion chooses quality; extroversion chooses quantity. Now I want you to ask yourself why quality is inherently better than quantity. :newwink:

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?

From the extroverted perspective, quantity is preferable to quality because if we focus too much on quality we never actually apply our ideas to anything. We become obsessed with making them perfect and lose any and all realistic application in the process.

What you've just asked effectively reduces to: "But isn't introversion clearly better than extroversion?"

And that's just the sort of bias we're studying here. Nice post.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Typological solipsism. Sad. If this is true, then how could I know it to be true? And if listeners cannot know it to be true then nothing you say about typology or otherwise can be proven in an objective sense. In which case, how is it more appealing or applicable than anything else you could talk about?

I'll hopefully get back to this thread in a day or two, but I need to get some sleep for a long car ride.

Night.

Um, actually it's the polar opposite of solipsism. It's the idea that no perspective is inherently better than any other--how do you figure this to be solipsistic? Typological solipsism would be the assumption that one's own perspective is inherently better or more important...you seem confused about the definition of solipsism here.

Anyway, you're correct that nothing can ever be proven in a purely objective sense, because there is always the minute chance that our senses are being deceived by some unknown force. That's basically Decartes' "Evil Genius" argument.

I like the way Nietzsche approaches it--he says the only thing we can ever really be 100% certain of is that something exists. We can't even be certain we exist, just that something does. Beyond that, we can never know anything for certain.

So here you've actually stumbled upon the reason we need extroverted perspectives--pure introversion refuses to settle for anything less than perfect precision. Without some influence from extroversion, we wouldn't be able to do anything in life at all because we'd never be absolutely certain of anything, which would invalidate all inductive reasoning and make life awfully difficult. Extroverted perspectives allow us to accept a margin of error in the name of practicality.

Obviously in practice, real people have both extroverted and introverted influences, but you've just provided an excellent example of why pure introversion on its own is totally impractical.

All depth and no breadth and we never interact with the outside world or get anything done, because information is never perfectly deep or complete enough.

All breadth and no depth and we never fully understand anything, instead just skimming the surface of a million different ideas without ever completely grasping the significance of any of them.

Here's an example:

Ti users seem to enjoy solving purely hypothetical problems just for the sake of completing the system and understanding exactly what would happen in some bizarre set of circumstances that will probably never come up in real life. The Ti user wants to prove to himself that his understanding of the system is complete enough, deep enough and precise enough that he could theoretically solve any problem, no matter how unlikely it is to happen in real life.

Te users tend to avoid this sort of problem if they can't see any real application for it. If the problem would virtually never occur in real life and solving it does not contribute to any tangible external goal, there's simply no reason to bother. Te doesn't want or need the depth of understanding required to solve any situation imaginable; it only wants enough to garner a set of rules that can be widely applied to many realistically useful external contexts.

Te sacrifices depth in favor of breadth. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Um, actually it's the polar opposite of solipsism. It's the idea that no perspective is inherently better than any other--how do you figure this to be solipsistic? Typological solipsism would be the assumption that one's own perspective is inherently better or more important...you seem confused about the definition of solipsism here.

No. Solipsism is the belief that all one knows is that they exist. It seems as though you claim that there is no objective truth to be had, and this is why I called you out on that. We aren't talking about the quality of perspective by using words like "better". We're talking about the truth to be had in those perspectives. "Better" may refer to any number of things other than truth. There are certainly a lot of "good" lies and untruths out there. And there are also many "bad" truths.

In an attempt to escape this kind of "singularity" of perspective, you have chosen to use typology as a means to understand other perspectives, or at least you advocate that sort of practice. However, you cannot truly understand a perspective without actually having it - that is the essence of perspective itself. You cannot read about Ni and claim that you know how an Ni oriented person thinks because you have never experienced the function itself to that degree, or under the same constraints as that person.

Even so, you may also attempt to understand and predict behavior rather than perspective. Unfortunately, personality has been shown not to be a clear forecaster of behavior because behavior operates on a variety of constraints that are situational and not merely confined by personality.

Anyway, you're correct that nothing can ever be proven in a purely objective sense, because there is always the minute chance that our senses are being deceived by some unknown force. That's basically Decartes' "Evil Genius" argument.

I like the way Nietzsche approaches it--he says the only thing we can ever really be 100% certain of is that something exists. We can't even be certain we exist, just that something does. Beyond that, we can never know anything for certain.

Huh??? You tell me I'm incorrect, then you go on to expound upon why I'm correct.

I'm rejecting your "I don't know anything statement" by exposing it as a paradox.

So here you've actually stumbled upon the reason we need extroverted perspectives--pure introversion refuses to settle for anything less than perfect precision. Without some influence from extroversion, we wouldn't be able to do anything in life at all because we'd never be absolutely certain of anything, which would invalidate all inductive reasoning and make life awfully difficult. Extroverted perspectives allow us to accept a margin of error in the name of practicality.

Introversion has nothing to do with precision. I think you're attributing some aspect of your own preference for Ti onto the whole of introversion. I'm really not sure what you're rambling about other than yourself, to be honest. Inductive reasoning can be had using both introverted and extraverted functions. In fact, I'd hazard to say that reasoning itself is a separate entity all together from any particular function and is probably the result of multiple functions working en tandem.

Obviously in practice, real people have both extroverted and introverted influences, but you've just provided an excellent example of why pure introversion on its own is totally impractical.

All depth and no breadth and we never interact with the outside world or get anything done, because information is never perfectly deep or complete enough.

Luckily, no one has to worry about pure introversion or extraversion because no one operates in that manner, even if they are deaf, blind and mute. And even if they are in what you call a "Dominant-Tertiary Loop", this does not mean they are imbalanced as individuals. Rather, it means they are imbalanced according to the MBTI system, which is not a clear indicator of what healthy behavior is.

All breadth and no depth and we never fully understand anything, instead just skimming the surface of a million different ideas without ever completely grasping the significance of any of them.

Yes but this is irrelevent if neither introversion or extraversion entail either one of these things, respectively.

Here's an example:

Ti users seem to enjoy solving purely hypothetical problems just for the sake of completing the system and understanding exactly what would happen in some bizarre set of circumstances that will probably never come up in real life. The Ti user wants to prove to himself that his understanding of the system is complete enough, deep enough and precise enough that he could theoretically solve any problem, no matter how unlikely it is to happen in real life.

Te users tend to avoid this sort of problem if they can't see any real application for it. If the problem would virtually never occur in real life and solving it does not contribute to any tangible external goal, there's simply no reason to bother. Te doesn't want or need the depth of understanding required to solve any situation imaginable; it only wants enough to garner a set of rules that can be widely applied to many realistically useful external contexts.

And... how exactly are you applying this knowledge other than lambasting Te users? Most of your posts in this thread are devoted to somehow expose Te users for "the greedy utilitarians" they are without actually understanding that perspective. And you want to know why? Because you're not those people, regardless of what type they are.

Te sacrifices depth in favor of breadth. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need.

You seem to have not picked up on my earlier comment about the concepts of "depth" and "breadth". Really, the only thing to distinguish the thinking functions from each other is their preference of reference, one being introverted and one being extraverted.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No. Solipsism is the belief that all one knows is that they exist. It seems as though you claim that there is no objective truth to be had, and this is why I called you out on that. We aren't talking about the quality of perspective by using words like "better". We're talking about the truth to be had in those perspectives. "Better" may refer to any number of things other than truth. There are certainly a lot of "good" lies and untruths out there. And there are also many "bad" truths.

Solipsism has different meanings depending on whether you mean it in a philosophical or colloquial context, but point taken.

I am definitely claiming that there is no objective truth to be had. If you want to show that there is such a thing, you need to provide an argument for it other than simply contradicting my claim that there isn't.

In an attempt to escape this kind of "singularity" of perspective, you have chosen to use typology as a means to understand other perspectives, or at least you advocate that sort of practice. However, you cannot truly understand a perspective without actually having it - that is the essence of perspective itself. You cannot read about Ni and claim that you know how an Ni oriented person thinks because you have never experienced the function itself to that degree, or under the same constraints as that person.

That's true; typology is a way of approximating an understanding of a perspective that we cannot ever truly understand firsthand.

So no, we cannot know for certain--but we can approximate using induction...hence the value of extroverted perspectives.

Even so, you may also attempt to understand and predict behavior rather than perspective. Unfortunately, personality has been shown not to be a clear forecaster of behavior because behavior operates on a variety of constraints that are situational and not merely confined by personality.

Except when we introduce extroverted perspectives, we use induction and allow a margin of error for the sake of broader applicability. You are literally acting out the introversion bias that I'm working on explaining here! You're complaining that using typology to predict behavior is invalid because it requires induction and a margin of error. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're undervaluing the extroverted perspective. Extroversion chooses quantity over quality--some precision is sacrificed in the name of expediency.

So far the only point you're making is, "But introversion is the best because it's more precise, so the extroverted approach is invalid"...and I can't say it surprises me that that's the position you're taking. I guess you don't feel like doing brain stretches right now.

Huh??? You tell me I'm incorrect, then you go on to expound upon why I'm correct.

I'm rejecting your "I don't know anything statement" by exposing it as a paradox.

I have no idea what you're talking about.


Introversion has nothing to do with precision. I think you're attributing some aspect of your own preference for Ti onto the whole of introversion. I'm really not sure what you're rambling about other than yourself, to be honest. Inductive reasoning can be had using both introverted and extraverted functions. In fact, I'd hazard to say that reasoning itself is a separate entity all together from any particular function and is probably the result of multiple functions working en tandem.

You have a lot to learn about intro/extroversion and the values those perspectives represent.

Luckily, no one has to worry about pure introversion or extraversion because no one operates in that manner, even if they are deaf, blind and mute. And even if they are in what you call a "Dominant-Tertiary Loop", this does not mean they are imbalanced as individuals. Rather, it means they are imbalanced according to the MBTI system, which is not a clear indicator of what healthy behavior is.

For the 9848975479547905407th time, I use Jungian functions, NOT MBTI.

I've explained any number of times why excessive introversion or extroversion creates personality imbalance, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with MBTI.

Yes but this is irrelevent if neither introversion or extraversion entail either one of these things, respectively.

However, if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that these concepts are central to the ideas of intro and extroversion, so your response above is, in fact, the irrelevant part.

And... how exactly are you applying this knowledge other than lambasting Te users? Most of your posts in this thread are devoted to somehow expose Te users for "the greedy utilitarians" they are without actually understanding that perspective. And you want to know why? Because you're not those people, regardless of what type they are.

Please stop attaching hostility to my words when none exists. My point was quite obviously that in some situations Te is vastly preferable to Ti, because sometimes breadth is more important than depth. It's all context-dependent.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you haven't done this bad a job interpreting my posts in the entire time I've been interacting with you.

My ongoing point throughout the whole thread has been that no function is fundamentally superior to any other, and that both introversion and extroversion are important aspects of a healthy individual. EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.


So any time you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth/inventing nonsensical bullshit about my ideas on functions and their relationships to each other, I'd be much obliged. No one is "lambasting" anything; try reading.

You seem to have not picked up on my earlier comment about the concepts of "depth" and "breadth". Really, the only thing to distinguish the thinking functions from each other is their preference of reference, one being introverted and one being extraverted.

Yes, that's correct, and the introverted Thinking function, like all introverted functions, focuses on depth, while the extroverted Thinking function, like all extroverted functions, focuses on breadth.

It's like you're just going out of your way to find nefarious intent/attacks on your feelings and personal individuality here. It's hysterical to me that I'm making posts extolling the virtues of appreciating the value in both kinds of perspectives and you're twisting them into some kind of attack. I don't even know what to say to that.

Calm down and try again tomorrow. You've grossly misinterpreted about 90% of what you've read here.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
So far the only point you're making is, "But introversion is the best because it's more precise, so the extroverted approach is invalid"...and I can't say it surprises me that that's the position you're taking. I guess you don't feel like doing brain stretches right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


So any time you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth/inventing nonsensical bullshit about my ideas on functions and their relationships to each other, I'd be much obliged. No one is "lambasting" anything; try reading.

lol. Are you talking to yourself?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You're smarter than this, Tater. Dial down the "get offended" instinct and think critically about what I'm saying.

Your position is that I am misusing typology because:

A) It has not been proven with absolute certainty to predict behavior, and
B) I do not have perfect knowledge of the perspectives of others since I do not share their consciousness.

Both of these criticisms are clearly introversion-oriented. You've declared my approach invalid because it chooses breadth over depth. You don't seem to grasp the relative value in the extroverted perspective.

Having perfect knowledge or being right about 100% of type guesses isn't the point. If we can guess accurately more often than not, we have a useful tool, whether or not we have 100% certainty.

I'll use an example that I posted on personalitycafe:

How is it that some people are able to consistently make a living playing poker? In poker we never have absolute certainty about our opponents' cards, and yet some people can consistently guess their opponents' cards more accurately than their opponents can guess theirs.

Of course, even the best poker player is wrong sometimes. That goes with the territory whenever we use inductive reasoning--but the point is that incomplete information is not automatically invalid simply because it lacks completeness. If making educated guesses about behavior based on inductive reasoning and pattern recognition were an invalid approach, there would not be any professional poker players.

How do you suppose such people manage to consistently win over time, despite never sharing their opponents' consciousness or having complete/definite information about their opponents' hands?



lol. Are you talking to yourself?

Evidently you're invested enough in our conversation to be editing posts for further effect, so my words must be reaching someone other than myself. :)
 

ragashree

Reason vs Being
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,770
MBTI Type
Mine
Enneagram
1w9
You're smarter than this, Tater. Dial down the "get offended" instinct and think critically about what I'm saying.

Your position is that I am misusing typology because:

A) It has not been proven with absolute certainty to predict behavior, and
B) I do not have perfect knowledge of the perspectives of others since I do not share their consciousness.

Both of these criticisms are clearly introversion-oriented. You've declared my approach invalid because it chooses breadth over depth. You don't seem to grasp the relative value in the extroverted perspective.

I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?

:party2::party2::crazy::thumbup::thumbup: :drummerboy:

:static::static::bananallama::17425:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?

Honestly it doesn't really make a difference to me if you and Tater don't believe me when I say that typology can be used to predict people's behaviors and viewpoints.

It works extraordinarily well for me, so if you'd prefer to miss out on the wealth of valuable information it provides, knock yourselves out.

As I've said before, typology is not a science and is thus not falsifiable. It's simply a philosophy, one way of looking at and categorizing the world.

Asking for proof that the types exist is like asking for proof that Led Zeppelin was a rock band. "Rock band" is just an arbitrary label for a given set of characteristics, so there's no "proof" that Led Zeppelin was a rock band any more than there's "proof" that I'm an ENTP.

The only potentially falsifiable assertion being made is that different people have different perspectives and that perspective influences behavior in predictable ways.

Personally, I find these things self-evident. If you don't, then don't use typology. Doesn't bother me--just stop asking for proof of a definition. Typology is philosophy, not science; no testable, measurable or falsifiable claim is being made.

And btw, our types are extremely relevant here because they have a strong influence on the way we interpret the ideas in question. If Tater is introverted enough that the lack of certainty/use of inductive guesswork involved in typing others makes him uncomfortable, then he has every right not to use typology. (I do have to wonder what he's doing on a typology forum if that's the case, though.)


Precisely.

Wow, all the introverts agree that depth > breadth. There's a shocker.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Ne vs. Se

Ne sees and finds patterns and connections within and between information processed it tends to see "everything in every thing".

Se processes information Se sees what it sees, in a literal sense.

Ni vs. Si

Ni takes in input, integrates it, catalogs it, and through some sort of divination receives a highly perceptually-based introspection into the universe, that is not visually seen, per se, but that is Known and strongly believed to be the essence/core of the transcendent, it can channel itself into the universe, perhaps it is a channel, a receptacle, a vessel, it knows the infinite, better yet, it knows the essence within the infinite, and it concerns itself with the eternal Truth, it sees beyond itself, it feels connected to its perceived universe, a part of of the infinite, and this perceived universe is representational of everything that it sees as essentially true and transcendent.

Si collects and archives salient information, it holds on to its past experiences and memories to understand why the world is the way it is, and why things are the way they are, patterns emerge, correlations and causations are noted, new experiences make sense when you analyze past similar situations, what happened then? Why did it happen, how did you respond? Did your response yield positive gains? Si, the past foretells the future, history repeats itself, remember the lessons past experiences have taught you, never forget, your past defined you, your future will benefit from what you've stored and remembered, Si finds solace in engaging in experiences that are comfortable and pleasing. It will do everything in its power to avoid or overcome unwanted and uncomfortable experiences, it seeks comfort, it desires to only deal with comfortable situations, where it feels familiar, and at ease with its surroundings.

Te vs. Fe

Te cares not for precision, it cares for efficiency, time is of the essence, it cuts through what it perceives as bullshit, it's about the bottom line, getting shit done, executing action.

Fe cares for localized harmony, it wants its community to be happy and harmonious, it will do whatever is necessary to maintain this localized harmony, it is innately metamorphic, and self-sacrificing, constantly changing to make things better, to make others happy, Fe is validated, manipulated by, and manipulates the community that it cares so much for, its identity is formed and based by those they care about.

Ti vs. Fi

Ti sees chaos, flagrant errors/holes everywhere, human-based errors, and this motivates it to define and constantly refine a model of thought that, within its own realm, is seamlessly precise, it is a linear way of organizing the chaos, of sifting through information and testing whether or not an idea is ridiculous, difficult, challenging, or retarded. It sifts, finds, defines, and refines, what makes sense and why, what doesn't make sense and why, Ti wants to find some kind of order and inherent logic within the universe.

Fi first begins as a journey of understanding one's self objectively, it seeks to understand itself, it seeks to acquire self-awareness, Fi seeks and finds one's personal identity, who they are, why they are the way they are and why they do the things they do, then they use the same methodology on other human beings, they seek to understand the essence of human behavior, flawed and all, it puts itself in various human circumstances and puts a value of importance to the circumstance itself, and then judges the action(s) taken in each of these varied circumstances as categorically Wrong or Right, Fi judges itself the same way it judges others, no special treatment, Fi thinks, if I was there, as that person, within the same circumstance, how would I act? If I were being true to my "Self", acting, no *being* authentic, truthful, sincere, and honest to myself and others, in spite of my and other's egos, accepting what's happening and what it's feeling as they truly are, being self-aware and humble, being self-aware and courageous, doing what feels intrinsically and categorically Right despite the fact that often by doing so, friction will ensue. Fi needs to feel and understand what's categorically Right and what's categorically Wrong, universally and independently.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
^ I'm no functional analyst, that was my first stab at trying to define the functions.

Forgive me for my ignorance.

:blushing:

I just thought I should give it a shot. :)
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Sorry, just read up on some previous posts, and I gotta agree with Tater.

In REAL LIFE, whether one is extroverted by nature or introverted by nature does not define whether or not that person will be deep or shallow.

Many people want to believe that extroverts just flit about and have absolutely no ability for self-reflection, introspection, and depth.

This is a false generalization.

For example, I have met many of introverts who are shallow, yes, shallow, as in they don't say much and they don't think much, they kinda just exist, in a bland human ficus kinda way.

I have also met plenty of extroverts, myself included, who despite our predilection to become stimulated by external sources, utilize this stimulation, maximize it so the stimulation is not just simple stimulation, but stimulation that inspires, that facilitates growth, intellectual and personal. There are extroverts who seek what they deem to be *worthy* stimulation.

Also, I know plenty of introverts who are entirely lacking of self-awareness and any type of intellectual depth.

But, if we are gonna talk about typological functions, the only two extroverted functions that are more breadth inclined are Se and Ne, however, both of these ext. functions are anchored by an internal focus.

Fe and Te are not about breadth at all, nor are they about depth, they are just functions that want their respective results/desires as fast and frequently as possible. These extroverted functions are not concerned with breadth, hell no, that takes too much time, they just want what they want/need asap, and hopefully will get at the very least satisfactory results.

Fi is emotionally/psychologically deep, depending on the person who has/uses it.

And, Ti is intellectually/logically deep, depending on the person who has/uses it.

But, and I've witnessed it here PLENTY O' TIMES where someone seems to be all Ne, or all Fe, or all Ni, or all Ti, notice how I say *all* and I consistently find these people to be "soulless", identity-less, without a core, without an anchor, without a purpose, but that can be my Fi talking, who knows.

:D
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
OTOH, some human ficuses still aren't bland.. they just don't articulate things as well.. or right away.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
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.
:cry:

I don't want to be like that when I get older, I do need to develop my Te, as in, I need to learn to buckle down and fucking follow through, but in your description, what happens with the older ENFP and his/her development of Fi.

*scratches head*

I will always indulge and relish intellectual exploration, I love when my head explodes, but that's just for fun.

My Fi is what keeps me centered and focused, compassionate, and patient, understanding and warm, empathetic and thoughtful, I never want this to go away, ever.

Ever!

I would feel dead without my Fi guiding me through the muck, it fuels me with light, truth, hope, goodness, virtue, and most of all... *meaning and depth*

Granted, I am not trying to devalue how important it is for me to develop my Te in order to execute my dreams, to become more reliable and responsible, and that is something I am and am going to need to continue to work on, but what's the point of executing tasks that have and add no meaning to my and other's lives.

Te will serve the purpose of my Fi values, but Ne plus Te, um, I don't get it, nor do I want it, I would hope that a mature ENFP develops her Te in order to actualize her dreams.

So, please, Orobas, explain this to me, what do you mean by your statement that as ENFPs get older we start to use Ne and Te in combo, not only does that not make sense to me, but it seems direction-less.

I read your description of what doing this yields, and as I already mentioned, Ne exploration for the sake of finding and amassing super-structures and systems of the amazing universe in which we live is surely fun, but that's just it, it's fun, as I grow older I want to be more emotionally stable, more connected with myself and others, and more responsible.

But all of my objectives are Fi-based. :/
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
OTOH, some human ficuses still aren't bland.. they just don't articulate things as well.. or right away.

No, no, nooooo, no, noooooooo.

I love me some introverts, and I love to crack their shells, and I will dig deep as hell, but some introverts, like many people, just are well, mediocre/dull/boring/dare I say stupid.

The same goes for extroverts too. :)

I'm just trying to debunk the preposterous theory that introverts are inherently more deep than extroverts, that's all. :yes:
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
OK, as long as you're cracking shells :D


I know what you mean though..
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Depth and breadth... I say suck it up extroverts, you conform. To find out how to do things, you look at other people and see what they do. To know what to think, you look outside yourself. Us introverts do have you beat in terms of independence. But don't fret, you have us beat in terms of relevance. As per freaking usual however, it won't hurt to see which of the same terms we are all using differently.

Depth in these cases does and can only mean content arrived at independent of the context. Breadth does and can only mean, um,.... I dunno, context dependent accuracy?

There's a difficulty though. It really sounds like people view functions as single-use items. Like enter a situation or think a thought, and that's it. But functions persist. They're not just for Christmas. So what does an educated function look like? What does an increasingly consciously controlled function with a usage history do? It seems a bit silly to say that history or background or continuity comes only from other functions--like driving a car is Se and tasting apple pie is Si and tax returns are Ne/Fe because they're such a party. There's some other story to add to this depth and breadth thing, and it's about what happens as a function matures.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
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.

onemoretime are you seeing Te and assuming it is absolute? It appears to be an utter assertion where in reality it is a statement that requests correction? (Granted somewhat grumpily at times) I also see INTJ to need reprocessing time when you correct their idea.

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.

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 smotherin

In bold in each step you assigning motive/internal thoughts to your opposite MBTI type. Just as you find it obnoxious when an Fi user tells you how you "feel", it is equally obnoxious to imply you understand what motivates someone or what they are thinking.

Recognize that when you do this you are projecting yourself onto them and deducing motives based upon their actions-which are highly likely to be incorrect. To ever really try and understand another type you have to be able to step away from the things you cling very tightly to, and appreciate that perspective even if you find it morally or logically flawed. Until you do so, you are trapped in your own box and your answers will be incomplete.

I suggested any rand as it makes for a very interesting case study-to see what it is like being in the Ni-Se perspective-judging world. But later i realized I dont think you can learn from this as you need Ti data, not Fi data, thus my apologies for the suggestion.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
:cry:

I don't want to be like that when I get older, I do need to develop my Te, as in, I need to learn to buckle down and fucking follow through, but in your description, what happens with the older ENFP and his/her development of Fi.

*scratches head*

I will always indulge and relish intellectual exploration, I love when my head explodes, but that's just for fun.

My Fi is what keeps me centered and focused, compassionate, and patient, understanding and warm, empathetic and thoughtful, I never want this to go away, ever.

Ever!

I would feel dead without my Fi guiding me through the muck, it fuels me with light, truth, hope, goodness, virtue, and most of all... *meaning and depth*

Granted, I am not trying to devalue how important it is for me to develop my Te in order to execute my dreams, to become more reliable and responsible, and that is something I am and am going to need to continue to work on, but what's the point of executing tasks that have and add no meaning to my and other's lives.

Te will serve the purpose of my Fi values, but Ne plus Te, um, I don't get it, nor do I want it, I would hope that a mature ENFP develops her Te in order to actualize her dreams.

So, please, Orobas, explain this to me, what do you mean by your statement that as ENFPs get older we start to use Ne and Te in combo, not only does that not make sense to me, but it seems direction-less.

I read your description of what doing this yields, and as I already mentioned, Ne exploration for the sake of finding and amassing super-structures and systems of the amazing universe in which we live is surely fun, but that's just it, it's fun, as I grow older I want to be more emotionally stable, more connected with myself and others, and more responsible.

But all of my objectives are Fi-based. :/

Silly, I will take a poke here, but if the convo gets much longer we should diverge to the enfp common issues thread as to not divert the topic too much.

With Fi....be very, very careful as it is exceptionally individualistic in nature. I have yet to hear anyone try to give a good account of how Fi matures. I suspect Fi is an amazingly complex mirroring function. You feed it external data, it mirrors that data, thus prompting the Fi user to physiologicaly mimic what they see. If that stimuli is painful, then the response is one of pain and the stimuli becomes associated with "bad". A stimuli that is pleasent brings internal happiness, thus gets labeled as good. Ne allows us to connect and amplify these incoming stimuli or perceive more than what we actually see. Everyday of our lives we are sorting and cataloging these stimuli sensations into an Si library of "good" and "bad" that we use to judge incoming new stimuli against. (I utterly loved your Si description btw. Totally awesome.)

Eventually we have cataloged enough data that we start using the FiSi library to make choices/judgments. The INFPs and even some enfps will describe a sensation of actually measuring their own internal Fi against an external object-like it can be compared fairly objectively? Many of us, just have gut feelings-like a pinch in the gut or almost a stomach cramp or internal angst.

But be very very careful about saying who does or does not use Fi as, due to the endless individuality, it can come in very diverse flavors. Since it is internal, you may see very little of it externally but that does not mean that deep seated values do not guide the ship.

NeTe is for play - just in isolation, it is like solving a puzzle. Sometimes however their is a very real Fi need to solve a puzzle...thus Fi determines the orientation of the ship-but then to be able to step away from certain aspects of Fi as they will prevent an objective evaluation of the problem. (Fe does the same thing...note Sim attacking the INTJs in the thread. They offend him morally and this offense introduces flaws in his logical analysis)

Fi is exceptionally complicated so it is almost like taking certain aspects and turning them off, while still tuning into other aspects. Solving a technical problem for me is like flying at 30,000 feet over the problem and finding a "lump". I turn off the values part of Fi that would make me offended, (or rather dismiss the offense as soon as I note it), but I maintain that ability to mirror the problem. Once I find the lump I tend to hand it off to an NT to resolve, but sometimes it is a very complicated people-hardware-software lump. But the lumps always stick out at me as being terribly obvious. In the same way people systems are terrible obvious to structure and understand. They are just flow charts of functions. Sim is right, in that you really can predict behaviors based upon type and function. Honestly it kinda bores me after awhile, so I have to remember to look at Fi as well to make people interesting again, otherwise I already know what they are going to do, before they do it.

Sometimes this is bad as you know that no amount of coaching or communication can fix a particular combination of types in a combination of positions. Some older ENFPs tend to grow in Te quietly under Fi and will fire people in these circumstances. Its scary as they can seem so very nice, yet pat you on your back as they walk you to your car. They scare the shit out of people.

Um...so Fi, one last thought on this wall o' text...Fi in enfps isnt meant to be Fi in INFPs. If INFPs externalized every Fi value they have, people would avoid them. But ENFPs are meant to externalize to a certain extent, so our values remain much more flexible, open ended. I note that you and Satine have the most resolution in Fi values of ENFPs on the board. It is beautiful, but it may serve to lock you onto a certain path at times...I dunno...Jung said we have to get to know our shadows and understand they are part of us...

I dont understand if this meant understand them so we can ignore them or undersatdn so we can develop them and become more whole. So I choose the second, and am trying to reach Fe and learn to really use it....But it means stepping away from Fi...giving up that intense need for authenticity...the trick is that if the reason for working in the Fe "mindspace" is Fi motivated-like love for another...since my Fi values are so simplistic...kinda childlike, yet very intense...it is perfectly okay to step away from Fi into Fe since I am still being true to Fi values? Yeah it is really weird but gives me a new way to love others and meet their needs-needs I couldnt meet before...but means letting go of Fi just a bit...

I dunno. (This is like 4 pages of text...) :hug:
 
Top