Ne/Ni Conflicts

[Kalach]

i dont really understand what you mean by shifting context. what do you mean with it?

I don't know either. Let's pretend it never happened.

The next question I had was more of an observation than a question, namely, it's so cool that my most conscious function is so unconscious. So...

How much conscious production is involved in "doing" extroverted intuition? Do you make the connections happen or do they appear by themselves?

 

[onemoretime]

Hmmm....

but you said Si words, "reminds me of." (and introverted perception is supposed to be shifty context-land).

And now you're talking meanings. (Which is supposed to be mere POV-land.)



We're gonna need a bigger testicle.


See, now that apparently is "shifting contexts", keeping the word, moving it to Jaws-land, and using the quote to blur the line between something serious, such as expanding theoretical resources, and something less serious, such as large testicles. Which does also remind me, I wanted to know why the Si testicle is so big.

Two things -

First, when I say "reminds me of," it's to describe a process that's seemingly unfamiliar to many people I talk to. There's no sense of "this came to mind because it unconsciously felt connected to whatever you just said or did" that doesn't make me sound completely bonkers to other people. So I use the word "remind," because it's something most people can relate to, and even though it's not a perfect fit, it's close enough for them to get the gist of it.

Second, anyone who's listened to AC/DC knows why big balls are important.

I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.

I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.

They just don't tap into unconscious paradigms the same way you do. They are also baffled that these paradigms are just as ineffable to you as they are to them... it's just that you can somehow understand what they mean.

 

[INTP]

I don't know either. Let's pretend it never happened.

The next question I had was more of an observation than a question, namely, it's so cool that my most conscious function is so unconscious. So...

How much conscious production is involved in "doing" extroverted intuition? Do you make the connections happen or do they appear by themselves?

Ne could pretty much be viewed as unconscious seeing of Se and telling the conscious what he sees in a vague explanations about the whole thing thats going on and leaving the details off.

connections are formed mostly in the unconscious and told to conscious. at times Ti might notice something and create new connection that didnt come purely from Ne, but its bit different, Ti induces connection is more like logical connection between the things and is formed due deduction, while Ne connection is something that you can just see in front of you. think about heavy Se user making an connection from the details, he sees some spots and follows the dots consciously, after following the dots for a while he will notice that these dots formed an square. for Ne users this following of the dots happens unconsciously, so the spots might not even come to his unconscious, but he will just see a square and might notice later that oh look the square is formed from dots. seeing the big picture that N is about, is about seeing the connections automatically and missing the details. because you see the connections and dont see the details, you see the big picture. Ti can also see connections naturally, but its more about logical connections and explanation of why those two things are connected, and that explanation comes from Ti deduction about the connection, not so much about the facts.

For N doms, its not that you are more conscious about your N, its just that stuff formed in the unconscious comes to conscious better and most likely that the unconscious on N dom is more skilled at seeing the connections to form an big picture.

why are you asking this?

 

[Kalach]

I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.

 

[entropie]

In my book there is no culture medium for a Ne/Ni conflict at all. And that because there are no oposing parties.

Let's try to make a list of what parties could be involved in a Ne/Ni fight from the entp perspective:

The contra - Ne party:

INTJ - Smoldering rains of fire run out of his hands when challenged in Ni matters

ENTJ - Doesnt care about things that doesnt earn him money, therefore generally does what the INTJ does then

INTP - Has Ne but doesnt admit it, would rather be an INTJ and have Ni but doesnt feel "ready" yet

INFJ / ISFJ - Feels as a misfit in society and thinks noone understands him, preaches morality tho in every free minute (has a similiar problem like entps: who like to fuck with everyone yet still want to be friends with everyone)

INFP - Tho they should be a strong companion in the fight, there position remains unclear. They either dont talk with entps or dont talk with entps. I am sceptic of their motives, generally I am convinced tho they'ld run with the stronger gang that's why their place is here

ESTJ - Despises Ne T people, Ne F people are ok (if they are woman they need to be protected). Have secret masterplans to rot out all entp's from the face of the planet and want to create a mankind ruled by female superiority

The uninvolved party:

ESTP - whatever you say bro, whatever you say...

ISTP - You could see it this side or that side and forever that will be all you get from me, my strong rationality. If I'ld ever admit that I actually like you as a friend, we prolly would need to marry !

ESFP / ISFP - *need more data* One of the last great mysteries that remain on Earth

ESFJ / ENFJ - I like you, you are funny, but be fair !

ENTP / ENFP - having dirty sex on the toilet of a huge party with important political guests answering the Ne/Ni debate with: huh ?

The pro - Ne party:

ISTJ - Forgot to take a side when it was necessary.


------

So you see there is no real conflict, if you are the only assailiant .

 

[skylights]

INTP - i think you make some really excellent conclusions and have some great insights in that post, but if you broke it up into maybe titled sections or some smaller paragraphs a little more, i think it would get read by more people

This results INTJ to be bad at explaining how he came to conclusion about something and will see the deduction process as something simple, like of course it is like this and his conscious reasoning is based on the external facts, and not so much deduction about why these facts are this together. [...]

INTP on the other hand uses Ne, so he notices the big picture in the external world better than INTJ, but is unable to explain the external world well without explaining why something is what it is. because for INTP the external world is viewed through unconscious and when things are internalized from this unconscious realm, they come on a realm of detailed deduction, due to Ti Si.

actually that makes a lot of sense and i think it works for the other types, too. ENFJs are kind of shitty at explaining NiTi (no offense ENFJs), and ENFPs are shitty at explaining FiSi. or at least, we rely on the Ti and Si, respectively, because they allow Fe and Ne to function, but we can't tell you why things have to be that way. it's an unconscious grounding in our inferior process.

about that "Ne goes for breadth, Ni goes for depth" thing [...]

yeah. i always feel like i go straight to the "heart" of things, but in truth i suppose what i'm doing in pulling Ne universals and going deep with Fi. god damn it, more sexual language



but seriously, it's interesting. i see it like this:

(((♥))) {{{♣}}} |||♥||| [[[[♦]]]]]

Fi goes after the "hearts", and Ne sees that some of them are either the same or at least parallel, even though the external constructions are different.

yes they're all supposed to look like vaginas

Sorry, man. Guild rules require that if ENFP Si conservatism blocks INTJ Se gormlessness, the entire discussion must end in pouts and foot stamping.

the same idea that INTP has gotten at! look how they are connected... [says Ne]

you and your word games though, lol.

it's difficult to let go of "facts" and substitute moment-to-moment observations, it feels like the bottom of my whole cognition system is falling out! it's fascinating to try thinking this way. it's actually quite hard.

just like Fi in the morning.

i don't understand though, if you don't have connection, what makes everything be coherent? the Ni universal patterns? or... you don't need coherence... because you're not seeking everything to be connected... and Se provides stable reality... and instead you're seeking to find the singular relationship that explains everything? errr

Ah, ok.

The Si looks like a testicle. The testicle is the male reproductive organ. The need fulfilled by the Si function is security and permanence of the individual's psyche. The need fulfilled by the testicle is the reproduction and permanence of the individual's DNA. Si can only use the sensory data the individual previously acquired within the psyche to fulfill this end of security and permanence. The testicle can only use the DNA previously acquired from the individual's parents to fulfill this end of reproduction and permanence of DNA. As such, a testicle is a fitting metaphor for the Si function. The question remains, however, whether it is the optimal metaphor for the Si function.

that's still Ne, you know though maybe you know this and are just playing, lol

If you did, would that be shifting contexts?

I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.

I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.

yeah actually, as far as i'm seeing it, it's not the context that changes at all. i mean, if oro is right with her examples, then you keep the relationships and switch the contents. it looks like context shifting on yall's part because you make so many jumps that we don't get to see. it looks like going from "the sun makes pavement hot" to "the bulb makes the light switch hot", which appears to place the same roles in a different context, but you've run through a whole lot of other substitutions to get there. and that's not even really Ni, that last statement, is it? that's the Se statement, but with the application of the invisible Ni rule.

funny how that statement actually looks more like Ne, because it's a parallel to the first statement, even though paralleling is not not the thought process behind it. Ne can do the same thing, actually, like onemoretime did. if you run Ne around enough, you'll end up at something that appears to be a Ni substitution.

 

[onemoretime]

I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.

I do think it is the Jungian concept of unconscious. Ni accesses deep, primeval archetypes, universal to all humans but not easily recognized by most of them, to determine the true nature of things perceived. That's why it seems mystical - the exemplary archetype is already there within the psyche, but Ni handles it holistically, and within the unconscious. It is only the result of the unconscious process that is made aware to the conscious mind.

Ne works in an inverse fashion. Rather than discerning truth from universal human archetypes, it understands the world by actively discovering new archetypal relationships in the outside world. Ne discovers truth through insatiable curiosity and conscious recognition of the potential universality inherent in the connections it discovers. It is always theorizing (i.e. creating new archetypes), and always has to, because it does not have access to this universal store of genetic/instinctive memory.

Both Se and Ni are about trusting one's instincts as an accurate judge of a set of data. Both Si and Ne require outside data for comparison before an accurate judgment of a set of data can be made.

 

[INTP]

I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.

im sure you will win a nobels price if you are able to give full definition for unconscious and find where it is . there are many many definition about what unconscious is and you are even able to view unconscious processes with different brain scanning techniques, but it only shows where the activity happens, not whats going on in the unconscious, so brain scanning isnt able to define what unconscious is and it pretty much seems to be same kind of brain functioning as any conscious brain functioning.

this is what our professor said about freuds definition of different levels of consciousness in short:

conscious - everything we are aware of at given moment
preconscious - thoughts, feelings, memories that can be easily brought to the conscious level
unconscious - thoughts, feelings, memories and wishes that are extremely difficult to bring awareness; may appear in disguished form in dreams

what is the unconscious?
- that portions of the mind inaccessible to usual, conscious thoughts

clinical evidence for postulating the unconscious:
- dreams
- slips of the tongue
- post hypnotic suggestion
- material derived from free association
- material derived from projective techniques
- symbolic content of psychotic symptoms

"consciousness is only a thin slice of the total mind"

Jungs definition on the unconscious differ from freuds. jung saw the unconscious more as another self in you that is only able to communicate with the conscious through symbols etc. jung stated that N function is perceiving through the unconscious and since according to him the unconscious is only able to communicate with the conscious with symbolic nature, because of that what N types perceive is highly symbolic and big picture oriented.

heres two videos worth watching if you want to understand jungs views on pretty much everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Novd6AXnggw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJsiQ4h3fY

"Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting?" i think you should look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

 

[INTP]

INTP - i think you make some really excellent conclusions and have some great insights in that post, but if you broke it up into maybe titled sections or some smaller paragraphs a little more, i think it would get read by more people

people who wont read it because its not in a neat form, arent worthy of reading it

 

[Craft]

people who wont read it because its not in a neat form, arent worthy of reading it

I'm just looking at the philosophy here.

Direct incentive(activity for itself) is efficient in activities that involve higher mental process. The content may be good but if you create a "higher wall", then you only encumber your audience. If you encumber you audience, you lessen the benefits of "direct incentive." Who wants to read a novel of a a million words but one meaning? "My cat is ugly."

 

[Kalach]

While waiting on the VPN to get through to Youtube....

"Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting?" i think you should look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

So... that's a yes?

Pffft, whatever. I'm assuming the cognitive function called sensing is different from the biological activity of using your senses. (If it isn't, Si is one weird, weird object.)

 

[Kalach]

Meanwhile... Der Kollektif Unkoncious...

iz not shared.

We all have it, said Jung. But, said he further, not by virtue of it being one thing we are all plugged into, but by virtue of us all being remarkably similar in physical and (eventually therefore) mental construction. We all end up having very similar unconscious structures.

Ergo, whether Ni is the collective unconscious, whether it is the closest approximation to the a priori, or whether it is the gateway to hell, in any given person it is still something they make for themselves. Ni is still rightly called a process. The people wielding it are still rightly called the originators of their own thought.

Except that... aw crap, any amount of stuff could be preprogrammed. Genetics, evolution, built in responses... all of it can be archetyped and elevated to the status of a form, a freaking symbolic "truth".

Nutz.




Perhaps a cool thing about Ni is granted some seed of doubt about these "forms", whatever Ni is it's going to go looking for what's more real. More realer than real. And that's how you get the a priori, boppers.

 

[INTP]

I'm assuming the cognitive function called sensing is different from the biological activity of using your senses. (If it isn't, Si is one weird, weird object.)

ofc it is, when these jungian mental functions were invented, there wasnt real knownledge about physical cognitive functioning, since there werent any brain scanning techniques. Funny thing about the jungian functions and types is that same types seem to be using real cognitive functions in same ways. but its more like jungian functions are sets of real cognitive functions and some things added. naturally they dont cover the whole brain since there are like 30+(i dont remember but might be even 50+) areas in brain with different functions.

Meanwhile... Der Kollektif Unkoncious...

iz not shared.

We all have it, said Jung. But, said he further, not by virtue of it being one thing we are all plugged into, but by virtue of us all being remarkably similar in physical and (eventually therefore) mental construction. We all end up having very similar unconscious structures.

Ergo, whether Ni is the collective unconscious, whether it is the closest approximation to the a priori, or whether it is the gateway to hell, in any given person it is still something they make for themselves. Ni is still rightly called a process. The people wielding it are still rightly called the originators of their own thought.

Except that... aw crap, any amount of stuff could be preprogrammed. Genetics, evolution, built in responses... all of it can be archetyped and elevated to the status of a form, a freaking symbolic "truth".

Nutz.




Perhaps a cool thing about Ni is granted some seed of doubt about these "forms", whatever Ni is it's going to go looking for what's more real. More realer than real. And that's how you get the a priori, boppers.

Ni is not the same as collective unconscious, it has nothing to do with it. collective unconscious is shared, its just a part of the unconscious mind, not the whole unconscious mind.

shadow archetype is a good example of the collective unconscious. jung said that there is a personal shadow and an shadow archetype.

personal shadow is about the persons own weaknesses and something that we can be conscious of if we are true to ourselves(but we most the times prefer not to, since it can be painful), greed for money, laziness etc. but in criminals(who are violent and greedy by nature) the shadow might be noble in the nature, the personal shadow is just your weak spots.

now the personal shadow is the door to the archetype of the shadow, once you go too deep in your personal shadow, you are in the danger of slipping in the archetype of the shadow. one good example that some jungs close friend used in some interview was the nazism as a emergence of the archetype of the shadow in german people. first their personal shadow was brought in by greed of money because their shops were threatened if they would show some pro jew qualities, then they started slipping more into their personal shadow because of their greed for money and as the whole nation changed anti jew and the people were in their personal shadow, they were more ready to do even more horrifying things like killing the jews. now if they would have been true to themselves from the beginning and noticed that its wrong to discriminate jews for ones own greed for money, it would have stopped them from slipping in the archetypal shadow.

while the personal shadow is the weak point of self, the shadow archetype is the shadow of archetype of god, in christianity it might be called satan. it has the same inhuman qualities to it as satan or some other pure form of evil.

one of the most important things(imo) about jungs thoughts was that the unconscious mind talks with the conscious through symbolic language. that concept is the same for N(as it is perception through unconscious), dreams, archetypes, anything else thats coming from the unconscious(like repressed thoughts, memories etc) and the collective unconscious.

"The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif - representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern ... They are indeed an instinctive trend"

i wouldnt say that genetics or evolution can be archetyped, since its about psychology.

archetypes would be something like tendency to have a god image, image of the ultimate evil, animus=male tendencies in woman, anima=female tendencies in man, persona=showing acceptable side of self to others and pleasing people, mother = generativity, fertility etc etc

 

[Eric B]

I notice that some define Ni, or even sometimes iNtuition in general as dealing with the "unconscious", and I have just seen where Myers' Gifts Differing goes as far to link all introverted functions with "the unconscious".

Basically, the way the concept of the unconscious works, is that you have the collective unconscious, which is where archetypes lie. Archetypes are models of people and situations. The collective unconscious is wherein lies many universal themes, such as our concepts of good and evil, love, etc. which shape archetypes. Abbot and Costello are a Senex and Puer, (serious grumpy man and a little boy figure) for instance.

When we have experiences in which these archetypes come into play, they enter the personal unconscious, and then become complexes. So when we talk about the roles our third and sixth functions play, then we see a personal manifestation of the Puer and Senex.

"The Shadow" was originally a single archetype, that was about the evil we project onto others, but ignore within ourselves. In eight-process theory, it has become divided into four archetypes (including the Senex).

Nazi Germany, and other similar regimes, were obviously full of evil they ignored in themselves. They were the ones who wanted world-domination, but instead of owning this in themselves, they projected it onto the Jews. Hence, the stereotype of Jews being "greedy", and draining the money, and thus being to blame for their economic ills (we still have stuff like this here in the US, with many conservatives still blaming minorities on welfare for their high taxes as well as all the economic problems. The code word becomes "big govt spending"). And then somewhere in there came the Jewish "international" conspiracy theories.
So once they have identified the "enemy"; with themselves as the "victims" (though they don't use the word), this then becomes the justification for the persecuted to become the persecutors--under the premise of honest self-defense. And there we have it.

The shadow or evil within ignored and then projected out onto the other then erupts in a violent way.

 

[Kalach]

While we're here and possibly thinking about these things...

how do you tell the difference between metaphors and reality?

I pose this question to Ne people. The whole "X is..." and then "blah blah blah metaphor" bugs me. It strikes me as opaque.


I ask because those lengthy Youtube videos (ok, so I only made it through A Matter of The Heart--after an hour and a half of that, Face To Face was far too irritating to consider) make it plainly plain that (to be as mundane as possible about something so significant) Jung was INTP and to me it was sometimes very difficult to see the content of the claims made. Yeah, I got it about the collective unconscious. The description and presented implications were easy to follow. But...

it strikes me that I may, if I'm not thinking about it, and maybe even if I am thinking about it, render extroverted intuiting invisible. I can follow the presentation. But something happens that makes it seem pointless. What's the something? I don't know. Probably I misrecognise the intuition as something else. In the case of Jung stuff, it becomes a rootless story. A story that's very informative. But rootless. Like a spectacularly good metaphor.


At some point in the past I wrote:

Ne and Ni are "shared N", right? Pfft, no. Especially not when they're in near-dominant positions. And it's because of the other end of your consciousness.

An INTJ has at the other end of his consciousness, Se. It's "weak". By which everyone means something less than what "inferior" really means. An inferior function is barely conscious. It does not come under conscious control, yet without the ability to deploy that inferior function, you don't get to express your full self. Thus, anxiety. Fears and worries that center on not being able to fulfil all requirements. In the case of INTJ, that would be unreasonable distress associated with perhaps even small indications that physical demonstration in the moment will be challenged. Volume of voice, presence of foreign bodies, strangers at arms... people who stand in the way by taking up available physical resources, be it paper to write on, radio waves to command, meeting speaking time, or just plain intellectual garbage mounted and remounted. The interesting and alarming observation to make here is the anxiety is both baseless and real.

It's baseless in that the person is reacting to a perception. To them, the exercise of that inferior function requires a great deal more stability and certainty of condition than is real. If the situation is regularised by outside force or just is stable and untrammeled, then the person will feel better, or perhaps we can just say, they'll more easily be able to contemplate taking that inferior step.

But it's real in that if a person functions at all, they function through functions. To contemplate approaching the world or themselves via some method unrelated to their cognitive preferences is hard enough, well nigh impossible enough, from the perspective of a dominant function. Add in the thoroughgoing lack of control one has over the inferior, and you've got a situation were people will squeal.

(Or have you? Any retards want to suggest that brains don't take positions on how information can come in and how judgments can be made? I'll just answer that now with "Yes", there are lots of such retards. That's the timebomb. More anon.)

Consider now a person leading with Ne. Their inferior is Si.

Si as an inferior for an Ne person is some kind of stamp of validity or authenticity or substance. Extroverted intuitions goes, as we so often hear, wild. Random tangents. Crazy, endless speculation. The ideas fly free and, well, wild. And it's all for shit if there isn't some final tag that signs it all as connected to reality. Inferior anxiety in an Ne dom runs somewhere along the line of: this may never come back to earth and be real. (I guess.)


And that's why Ni and Ne don't share. The crazy, wild, tangential extrapolation of Ne is noise. It takes up space. In physical terms, can you get an Ne dom to shut up once they're on a jag? This feeds straight into INTJ inferior anxiety. Most especially if the intuitions are competing. But it's worse than that. The jag the Ne user is on is to the Ni user fundamentally weak. Whatever key concrete datum that started it, and whatever Si "deliverable" will end it, aren't valuable. They can't and won't resonate. They're mere factoids, useful for describing yesterday, not today. Today is automatically different and what you recorded of the past is formally irrelevant. So sez the INTJ.

And consider too what Ni in future gazing prophecy mode sounds like. In physical terms, that is when the INTJ actually announces the prophecy, what gets heard? In terms of available record, it's just some bizarre speculation, not in the least bit clearly related to actual conditions. How can it possibly be considered anything more than just some other tangent, and a baseless one at that? Why won't the tiresome Ni user just explain what led them to that wild speculation, huh, huh, why? Then we could believe it, maybe.

So, through no force of truth or falsity, both brands of N user will find the other brand ultimately untrustworthy no matter how immediately easily interacted with. They undermine each other just as soon as they begin work they are attached to.

 

[INTP]

In the case of Jung stuff, it becomes a rootless story. A story that's very informative. But rootless. Like a spectacularly good metaphor.

this whole psychology stuff is just a metaphor about something that is impossible to fully grasp, so its pretty much impossible for it to have concrete roots.

but then there are some biological measures(eeg, different brain scanning techniques, reaction time, hormonal levels etc) that you can use and get more rooted vision for human psychology. but they have their shortcomings also. with those, you can see the roots, but what you see about the plant, is next to nothing. you can see what brains areas activate, in what situation the person is nervous, how fast the person reacts to certain stimuli etc, but they wont tell you much about the thoughts of the person or where they originate. for that you will need speculation, metaphors and snap shots from all over the psyche.

you said that you get what jung is saying when you listen to his metaphors and all that, but are you sure that you really really get it? one thing that i have noticed about my INTJ friend is that many times he thinks that he understands something, when in fact he just knows it. its like knowing that there is a bike in front of you, but not having a slightest idea what a bike is and what its used for. lets say that some Ne person is trying to explain you something and uses a bike as a metaphor, for you to understand the metaphor fully, you have to know what bike is and what the bike is used for and all the little nuances that make a bike what it is. if you just compare a bike with Te objectivity with what ever the Ne user used it as a metaphor for, you wont understand what the Ne user really meant, you just understand that its like a bike..

have you thought about looking at this whole psychology thing from a cognitive scientists point of view?

 

[Kalach]

Trains in the ocean, bro. Ships on a rail. O, untimely ....

I imagine it's rootless because I don't have experiences to pin it to. It's like the PPT function porn said, in the absence of some suitable experience the overarching narrative is unlinked. And unlinked is a bad thing. But why?

Jung himself had years and years of actual contact with his theory working out in practice, so *he* had a basis for knowing what he was talking about. But then it has to come out as metaphor?

Understanding ends. It gets grasped. We move on. Ni ideology says that the concept can be put together and fully understood. Grasped. Effed.


Sure, that might not be true, but it is.



Ah, I know. Understanding is the basis for action. Thus, adequate understanding must exist. Se, like Ne, attends to the moment, and so actions, hopes, dreams have an all-or-nothing quality to them. If Se and Ni are joined processes, then Ni (or the Fi that judges it) must be complete. Ideological requirement. Possibly also the true character of the functions.



Ne and Si will, one presumes, have a similar relationship. Ne in the moment positively requires some Si constancy, or the person will be uncertain, hesitant, fail.

 

[INTP]

I imagine it's rootless because I don't have experiences to pin it to. It's like the PPT function porn said, in the absence of some suitable experience the overarching narrative is unlinked. And unlinked is a bad thing. But why?

Jung himself had years and years of actual contact with his theory working out in practice, so *he* had a basis for knowing what he was talking about. But then it has to come out as metaphor?

its rootless because its impossible to map out the whole human mind, so you can only explain it by making up words that work as a metaphor for something that you are trying to explain. the roots for this kind of things can only be seen through scientific data, but the science fails to explain the human mind, so you cant have any rooted information about pretty much anything related to psychology. the whole concept of personality as we know it is a metaphor for something that we dont understand fully. it seems that you are trying to view personality psychology as if it was some sort of science, well its not science and first step to understanding personality psychology is that you cant treat it as a science and you need to treat it as something that just is, and try to understand the metaphors that people use to describe it.

 

[Kalach]

I sense a conflict in the force.

 

[onemoretime]

how do you tell the difference between metaphors and reality?

There is no meaningful distinction. Our perception of reality is a metaphor for things that, in reality, did not happen contemporaneously. So, it is possible to simultaneously look at a blade of grass that existed as it was a fraction of a millisecond ago, a moon as it existed approximately a second ago, and a star as it existed millions of years ago. Our brains did not develop to determine what is real; they evolved to handle the threats of reality in a functional manner (even in predators... what is a greater threat than starvation?). That is why it works best to look at functions in terms of the needs they satisfy. Ultimately, our functions exist to assure ourselves that we are safe and secure, so we can comfortably pursue the other aspects of life.

And as far as Ni and archetypes? Ni analogizes present situations to archetypal scenarios to come to a determination of what truly is, and what is to come, about that situation.