• 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.

Is Ni like Fi?

R

RDF

Guest
Well, but you are talking about a consciousness about the process. That doesn't mean that the dominant perceiver's dominant perception is not judging....it's just doing it at a deeper level that isn't as obvious. Locking onto songs for an album is quite a judgmental process. Hell, anything that gets done involves judgment. And you can't tell me it's all attributed to aux functions in dom perceivers!

People tend to confuse their personal “internal” experience of their judging and perception functions for the following reason: Everyone’s dominant function tends to be carried out more or less unconsciously, whereas everyone’s auxiliary function tends to be a conscious function.

So your Ni tends to take place unconsciously. So when you experience your Fe and feel that it is doing something important (judging), you tend to assume that your conscious function (your judging) is the dominant function.

But in reality, your dominant function is operating pretty much out of your sight.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Well, but you are talking about a consciousness about the process. That doesn't mean that the dominant perceiver's dominant perception is not judging....it's just doing it at a deeper level that isn't as obvious. Locking onto songs for an album is quite a judgmental process. Hell, anything that gets done involves judgment. And you can't tell me it's all attributed to aux functions in dom perceivers!

Yeah, tell John Frusciante that. Most of his ideas are perceptual. Of course everyone uses some judgement, but we're talking about dominance. John flows in perception, so I think it's his dominant way of approach. He's a little less weird than he used to be than this vid though. He's fairly normal here.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9E8livzmRM&feature=related].[/youtube]
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
People tend to confuse their personal “internal” experience of their judging and perception functions for the following reason: Everyone’s dominant function tends to be carried out more or less unconsciously, whereas everyone’s auxiliary function tends to be a concscious function.

So your Ni tends to take place unconsciously. So when you experience your Fe and feel that it is doing something important (judging), you tend to assume that the conscious function is the dominant function.

But in reality, your dominant function is operating pretty much out of your sight.

Yeah, I've heard all that too.

That doesn't really describe how Fe works in me either.

And I've had enough experience thinking consciously about my cognitive functions that Ni isn't so invisible to me anymore.



There comes a time when theory development goes deeper and expands. That is just the way knowledge works; you get deeper and deeper, and more enlightened. It is inevitable if one is thoughtful. To stay at the same place or level as Jung was when he discovered cognitive functions would be counter, or even resistant, to this inevitable process.
 
R

RDF

Guest
Yeah, I've heard all that too.

That doesn't really describe how Fe works in me either.

And I've had enough experience thinking consciously about my cognitive functions that Ni isn't so invisible to me anymore.



There comes a time when theory development goes deeper and expands. That is just the way knowledge works; you get deeper and deeper, and more enlightened. It is inevitable if one is thoughtful. To stay at the same place or level as Jung was when he discovered cognitive functions would be counter, or even resistant, to this inevitable process.

Fair enough. It just makes it tough to discuss this stuff when everyone decides that they want to rewrite the rules based on self-observation. :)
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah, tell John Frusciante that. Most of his ideas are perceptual. Of course everyone uses some judgement, but we're talking about dominance. John flows in perception, so I think it's his dominant way of approach. He's a little less weird than he used to be than this vid though. He's fairly normal here.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9E8livzmRM&feature=related].[/youtube]

Yeah, he's very dominant perceiver. :)

But he still locks quickly on to an idea (instantaneously) immediately after he perceives it. I don't see how you can attribute that to Fi or whatever.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Fair enough. It just makes it tough to discuss this stuff when everyone decides that they want to rewrite the rules based on self-observation. :)

I don't want to rewrite the rules, as much as talk about other realities and possibilities.

Do you always jump so far ahead? For me, it's the process of discovery, not the destination. ;)
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Good Point. Then I found this:




And I'm like, even further confused. That the earth has a moon seems like quite a rational thought to me. At least in our present time. Perhaps in Jung's day it was irrational (i did not double-check to see that that was a direct quote of his, or the author's creation).

I just think his whole rational/irrational categories are more confusing than clarifying.

Irrational.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Yeah, he's very dominant perceiver. :)

But he still locks quickly on to an idea (instantaneously) immediately after he perceives it. I don't see how you can attribute that to Fi or whatever.

I'm not attributing it to Fi. I think he's INFJ. He's pretty lively there, but I think he's too secluded to be enfp.. like many of his song lyrics are seriously cut off. He also quit a big rock band twice, and was one of the only rockstars who called himself a celibate.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I don't want to rewrite the rules, as much as talk about other realities and possibilities.

Do you always jump so far ahead? For me, it's the process of discovery, not the destination. ;)

Again, the difference between perceiving functions and judging functions is Cognitive Functions 101 material (and also MBTI 101 material). This is typology canon. If we can't agree where we're perceiving vs. judging, there's not much worth in discussing typology at all.

Oh well, I'm done for the morning. I'll leave you to it.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
LOL! But I'm an NF!

I'm sure to an INTP or INTJ or anyone else period, it's quite a rational thought. :laugh:

You disagree?

I'm not talking about NFs. I'm talking in Jungian terms. The point of the article emphasizes seeming, defining it as perception. And no, I'm not talking about what something seems to be. It's the simple process of seeming that is irrational.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm not talking about NFs. I'm talking in Jungian terms. The point of the article emphasizes seeming, defining it as perception. And no, I'm not talking about what something seems to be. It's the simple process of seeming that is irrational.

So, the point is though, that those are irrational examples of thinking, right?

And I'd say they are quite rational to most everyone today. :huh:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
So, the point is though, that those are irrational examples of thinking, right?

And I'd say they are quite rational to most everyone today. :huh:

Those are not Jungian © rational. We can discuss colloquial "rational" if you wish, but the understanding of two definitions doesn't deny one the use of the same term for each. Webster's does the same thing. What's important is the crux of meaning.

And honestly, even by the colloquial "rational", I wouldn't say those are rational forms of cognition. Their categorization is though. Rationality isn't a sensation, it depends on inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, the former being the latter's precursor. A "very rational person" is someone who uses reason with clarity. However, inductive reasoning does depend on sensation.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I'd say it's fairly obvious that Si doms judge. :)

I think they percieve "forms" to things, a shape or way things should be.. not necessarily concepts that they reasoned through, but something more visceral, comfort oriented, and idealistic. You might challenge one and just get brushed aside, and get an answer along the lines that they simply think that's how something should be. I don't think it's as bad as the "tradition" stereotype though, where we can really pinpoint how they see things from a collective view. "This is they we've always done it." Some might think that way, but I think even Si can be unpredictable and peculiar. Especially with day to day things. They might get in the habit of running their house a certain way. Try to come up with something more efficient, and they might get pissed. That isn't reasonable judgement at least.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Those are not Jungian © rational. We can discuss colloquial "rational" if you wish, but the understanding of two definitions doesn't deny one the use of the same term for each. Webster's does the same thing. What's important is the crux of meaning.

And honestly, even by the colloquial "rational", I wouldn't say those are rational forms of cognition. Their categorization is though. Rationality doesn't depend on sensations, it depends on inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, the former being the latter's precursor. A "very rational person" is someone who uses reason with clarity.


If those are irrational, how can Feeling be rational then?

Jungian terms or no, don't definitions sometimes bust out of their own skin, and need new descriptors?


*sigh* I will have to go pull out my book now. And relearn those definitions and try to get in Jung's head. It isn't difficult for modern-day folk to reason that the earth has a moon, for God's sake (is that taking the Lord's name in vain? :unsure: ).
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think they percieve "forms" to things, a shape or way things should be.. not necessarily concepts that they reasoned through, but something more visceral, comfort oriented, and idealistic. You might challenge one and just get brushed aside, and get an answer along the lines that they simply think that's how something should be. I don't think it's as bad as the "tradition" stereotype though, where we can really pinpoint how they see things from a collective view. "This is they we've always done it." Some might think that way, but I think even Si can be unpredictable and peculiar. Especially with day to day things. They might get in the habit of running their house a certain way. Try to come up with something more efficient, and they might get pissed. That isn't reasonable judgement at least.

But my point is, they judge, even when Te or Fe isn't necessarily at play.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
If those are irrational, how can Feeling be rational then?

Jungian terms or no, don't definitions sometimes bust out of their own skin, and need new descriptors?


*sigh* I will have to go pull out my book now. And relearn those definitions and try to get in Jung's head. It isn't difficult for modern-day folk to reason that the earth has a moon, for God's sake (is that taking the Lord's name in vain? :unsure: ).

Feeling isn't colloquial rational, but colloquial rational includes a measure of evaluation. Wow, past the confusion all of this is just dissipating before my mind's eye.

Let the spice flow.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I think Fi and Ti are more subjectively decisive. Means when they spit out analysis or facts they are pretty convinced about them being right and need hard counter facts to be convinced otherwise. Te is more objective and in combination with Ni it has a very detached and objective way to present facts and information. Can be easily convinced of the fact being wrong tho, if not multiple arguements prove them right. In that sense NiTe is more scientific in its approach, while NeTi or NeFi goes deeper, is more subjective and special to the case at hand.

If you could say that FiNe would resemble Ni, well then you wouldnt need 8 functions.
 
Top