superunknown on the functions

[violet_crown]

I meant to give some kind of assessment of your analysis, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], but that would now require reading through all the stuff the INTJs have said to make sure I wasn't being redundant and I'm just not that invested.

I will say that I found it funny that they piled on in the way that they did. The possibility of Coriolis being ISTJ evidently threw all their shit into question. Protect the hive!!! Save the queen!!! Ect.

Anyways, I'm back to request your assessment of my type, or alternatives to consider. It'd be fitting if you were to come up with something more suitable than ENTJ given that I was the one who first put ISTP bug in your ear.

What does Si vibe to you?

Snips, snails, puppy dog tails.

 

[Society]

@superunknown - while it is quite possible you are right about jung's original definitions, many of the tests & descriptions developed since tend to bring about the current notions of Se - the same one you dismiss early on as being Se-related... and people usually type themselves according to the later.

so the question comes up: do you see a relationship between them? any relationship between the current "physical embodiment"/ "in the now" / "situational awareness" / "i have jock hiding inside of me" notions of Se and your interpretation of jung's view of Se as the most realistic fact-based perception mechanism?

 

[uumlau]

I meant to give some kind of assessment of your analysis, [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION], but that would now require reading through all the stuff the INTJs have said to make sure I wasn't being redundant and I'm just not that invested.

I will say that I found it funny that they piled on in the way that they did. The possibility of Coriolis being ISTJ evidently threw all their shit into question. Protect the hive!!! Save the queen!!! Ect.

Anyways, I'm back to request your assessment of my type, or alternatives to consider. It'd be fitting if you were to come up with something more suitable than ENTJ given that I was the one who first put ISTP bug in your ear.

I recently encountered this link on another site: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-identified-newton-as-an-s-type/ The author of that article argues that Jung considered Newton to be an S type. More specifically, he described Newton as "concretistic".

It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him. And since he was something of a genius, it turned out to make sense to most of the rest of the world, too, and became the foundation of modern physics.

What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".

 

[violet_crown]

What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".

Your points are well taken, and I'll beg your pardon for being glib about something you deemed worthy of deeper consideration.

I will point out though that, if my understanding of superunknown's rationale for typing Coriolis ISTJ was accurate, then the issue isn't actually shared framework or lack thereof. Super's entire perceived cognitive model for Coriolis was at odds with any definition I've ever heard for an INTJ, and if there was anything to what he said, then she probably isn't INTJ. It wasn't just that he and I had diverging nomenclature for the same phenomena; there was a divergence in the perception of reality itself.

That's a little bit different than what you were pointing to, and is what I found to be so intriguing about what he had to say. Whether his fundamental perceptions differed from my own were actually a function of his misappropriations of archaic definitions is a deeper question, but beyond the scope of my point. In any case, your use of the word "synthesis" stuck out to me, because it's the one I most closely associate with Ni. What I was trying to get at (in my own flowery way) when I said that massive parallelism is a hallmark of introverted intuition was that very ability to pull information from multiple sources and process it virtually simultaneously to arrive at an unique insight. I think that in a discussion of Ni, the "a priori"/"a posteriori" distinction that Super alluded to is kind of mooted in light of the fact that the process by which intuition derives its insights is neither unidirectional, unidimensional nor linear. Not to say there's not a logic to it, but it's not so clear cut, in other words, as saying that Ni is "top-down" or Si is "bottom-up" in its reasoning. My own experience of Ni is that it's fairly promiscuous in it's research as long as the results are accurate.

In any case, my interest in Super is same that it is in anyone who has a consistent but perhaps idiosyncratic point of view--to understand it. There's something that he's picking up on that I don't. While it may not be The Truth, some element of it is derived from something real and worth exploring. If for no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity about how it works.

 

[WALMART]

[MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION]

I'm sorry for the delayed response. I've had the bulk of my assessment typed since the night you first requested, but I wanted to study the rational functions more in-depth to give you the shake you deserve. Though I haven't done this half as well as I'd like (I'm honestly having trouble generating interest), I cannot break from the thought that you are a leading T function (the notion of further study mostly stemmed from my consideration of senza's sake, having identified the most with Fi. Without a doubt, this is my least understood function).

I should first put the notion of Te/Ni under the microscope. Once I had a manager who could project a lesson to you regarding anything that happened - right or wrong, good or bad. It was almost like being in boot camp (and perhaps by extension, militaristic operations in general), where the objective is not to be fair to the circumstance, or reason beyond the immediate perception - the objective is to serve the end product; to extrapolate towards a shared interest within the psyche. I would like to say he lives in a world of strict duality - things that serve, and things that do not. Things that do not are of the smallest importance to him, such that they may as well be non-existent to his purpose. This man is ENTJ, as true as I've ever reasoned, currently on his way into his forties. His character does not preclude you from the status, but it does casts rays of curiosity into the nature of both my personal understanding as well as my perception of others' understanding of typology.

I introduced you to my best friend (the Nigerian lawyer) specifically because I knew both of your personalities had a similar 'flavor' - I knew something interesting would happen bringing you both within my perception, and I wasn't wrong. You are both incredibly similar in character - easy going, personable, selfless, nimble... you have this aura I can feel, that there are a trillion charged spikes across your surface waiting to arc against something worthwhile. I have trouble discerning what this is relative to, regarding typology. It was and still is difficult concluding him (my friend) a P type or a J type, an S type or an N type... you both have this very playful carefree demeanor stacked in front of a powerhouse full of reasonable opinion and determination. I likely would not deviate far from your leading function of Te, but again, I wonder if that does not undermine the true attitude to your character...

I think of [MENTION=16405]Kamishi[/MENTION] once typing you ESFP. I wonder the scenario leading to this assessment? One done of spite, or legitimate interest, perception, and application of knowledge?

 

[Azure Flame]

I recently encountered this link on another site: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-identified-newton-as-an-s-type/ The author of that article argues that Jung considered Newton to be an S type. More specifically, he described Newton as "concretistic".

It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him. And since he was something of a genius, it turned out to make sense to most of the rest of the world, too, and became the foundation of modern physics.

What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".

Maybe newton was an ISTP.

ISTP's are probably the most underrated intellectuals there are. Well, more specifically, LSI's.

Those INFJ's who have an "Se Fetish"?

ISTP's.

Those INFJ's who are cold and calculating?

ISTP's.

Those INTJ's who are actually really decisive instead of "pondering all manners of truth"?

ISTP's.

Those ESTJ lookalikes who aren't fucking retarded? (Dr Phil and Vladmir Putin)

ISTP's.

Those ISTJ's who are tall, scary, monumental looking, and don't give a shit if their feet are bleeding because they just walked 20 miles in flip flops?

ISTP's.

More specifically, socionics LSI's. Cyber hacking tango dancing muai tai kickboxing sexual badasses. Especially the women. I'd put on on a pedestal any day of the week.

 

[HongDou]

ISTP's are probably the most underrated intellectuals there are. Well, more specifically, LSI's.

Those INFJ's who have an "Se Fetish"?

ISTP's.

Those INFJ's who are cold and calculating?

ISTP's.

Those INTJ's who are actually really decisive instead of "pondering all manners of truth"?

ISTP's.

Those ESTJ lookalikes who aren't fucking retarded? (Dr Phil and Vladmir Putin)

ISTP's.

Those ISTJ's who are tall, scary, monumental looking, and don't give a shit if their feet are bleeding because they just walked 20 miles in flip flops?

ISTP's.

More specifically, socionics LSI's. Cyber hacking tango dancing muai tai kickboxing sexual badasses. Especially the women. I'd put on on a pedestal any day of the week.

I bet a lot of them would make good gamblers too.

 

[Azure Flame]

I bet a lot of them would make good gamblers too.

My ISTP friend is a daytrader

 

[HongDou]

My ISTP friend is a daytrader

Hah! I was thinking more like poker but I can definitely see that too. Actually I think there's an ISTP gambler who seems like a cold and calculating INFJ in Dangan Ronpa (I just finished reading the translation of it a few weeks ago so I love referencing it whenever I can).

*flees before I get too off topic*

 

[Evo]

It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him.

Yea this is a very good way to explain Ni. The taking things apart and puting them back together the way it makes sense to me is what i am doing all the time

 

[Society]

Yea this is a very good way to explain Ni. The taking things apart and puting them back together the way it makes sense to me is what i am doing all the time

that's pretty much my interpretation of Ni as well - i imagine the Ni lense to be very similar to this sort of visual analysis

taking the variables, putting them as patterns within patterns, breaking them apart and putting them together into larger patterns. the "future thinking" of most Ni users seems to follow a common pattern - that is finding a set of interacting variables resulting in a curve and predicting that they will maintain trajectory (ray'z kursweil, an INTJ in every sense of the word that i know [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] knows about is a great example - since he exposes his lines of thinking in a very naive "why doesn't everyone else think in the same ways" sort of way). while Ne is very much like a DNA algorithm mixing & meshing the variables together into various forms - Ni functions like an neural network algorithm keeping the variables boxed apart and examining the inner connecting lines & relations.

 

[WALMART]

I recently encountered this link on another site: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-identified-newton-as-an-s-type/ The author of that article argues that Jung considered Newton to be an S type. More specifically, he described Newton as "concretistic".

It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him. And since he was something of a genius, it turned out to make sense to most of the rest of the world, too, and became the foundation of modern physics.

What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".

""This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.""

Newton's sense-fueled rant on why Ni is not his preferred flavor of cognition. Put succinctly, "it comes when it comes". More:

"Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood 'until the time of the end', and that even then 'none of the wicked shall understand'."

More thoughts on preference of sensation over intuition, to wait for apocalyptic scenarios to even make sense of it, rather than relying on conjured information that he rationed could never be truly understood without experiencing it. Did you read this page at all? Now, scholars on why Newton is not an intuitor:

"Newton and Boyle's mechanical philosophy was promoted by rationalist pamphleteers as a viable alternative to the pantheists and enthusiasts..."

More expression of mechanical reality over intution's "a priori" flavor of the day.

"Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism and several biographers and scholars labeled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity."

Jung pegged Se for atheism, and deism was about as close as you came in the 17th century.

Need I go on? He was completely absorbed by the physical world. It's not that intuitors aren't either, they just tend to take a less scientific approach to their generation of knowledge.

 

[Evo]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]

Yea, that's a great way of putting it too: "keeping the variables boxed apart and examining the inner connecting lines & relations."

It's like it's more than just noticing patterns, I think both Ne and Ni notice patterns. But this is what Ni does with those patterns.

 

[WALMART]

Yea this is a very good way to explain Ni. The taking things apart and puting them back together the way it makes sense to me is what i am doing all the time

that's pretty much my interpretation of Ni as well - i imagine the Ni lense to be very similar to this sort of visual analysis

taking the variables, putting them as patterns within patterns, breaking them apart and putting them together into larger patterns. the "future thinking" of most Ni users seems to follow a common pattern - that is finding a set of interacting variables resulting in a curve and predicting that they will maintain trajectory (ray'z kursweil, an INTJ in every sense of the word that i know [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] knows about is a great example - since he exposes his lines of thinking in a very naive "why doesn't everyone else think in the same ways" sort of way). while Ne is very much like a DNA algorithm mixing & meshing the variables together into various forms - Ni functions like an neural network algorithm keeping the variables boxed apart and examining the inner connecting lines & relations.

The bolded is far more indicative of a rational function than an irrational function. Rational functions are directors, they direct information into utility. The irrational functions are victims of circumstance, but still levy an attitude against experience. And yeah, definitely, regarding that statement being indicative of INTJ perceptions.

 

[Society]

The bolded is far more indicative of a rational function than an irrational function.

not necessarily - we're talking about patterns, essentially a game of refitting the perceived silhouette's around the data. in order for them to function independently and interact with one another as patterns - for the data to be reconfigured into them (Ni) or for them to get data from completely different patterns altogether (Ne), they have to be able to exist within the mind independently of the data, essentially rejecting the experience in which they were perceived - pointers to null objects. that irrational rejection of the data doesn't suggest a rational function at all.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Where is my dissection, betch?

 

[Evo]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] when u say "rejecting the experience they percieve" do u mean that Ni is not in the here and now? Cause thats def. What Ni does: ignores and rejects the here n now

 

[WALMART]

not necessarily - we're talking about patterns, essentially a game of refitting the perceived silhouette's around the data. in order for them to function independently and interact with one another as patterns - for the data to be reconfigured into them (Ni) or for them to get data from completely different patterns altogether (Ne), they have to be able to exist within the mind independently of the data, essentially rejecting the experience in which they were perceived - pointers to null objects. that irrational rejection of the data doesn't suggest a rational function at all.

I can see what you mean better with this post.

Revisiting the original material I quoted, it seems to be suggesting Ne and Ni are conscious efforts of the mind, particularly the "taking and breaking apart" statements. The irrational functions are not wholly capable of the aforementioned feat - particularly not extraverted intuition or sensation. In regards to this fact (Jung is speaking of both Se and Ne simultaneously, exclusively):

"Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not."

These two types are not ruled by the process of extrapolation of information like you get with the six other functions (might be giving Te and Fe too much credit). It is when you combine them with, say, introverted thinking... this is where the extrapolation and projection of patterns will stem from. I have an Ne brother that couldn't extrapolate a pattern if it popped out from the data and slapped him across the face. I should say, the talent does manifest in his creative endeavors - he is highly manipulative of variables in given systems, which really shines through in games where creative influence predominates the landscape - LittleBigPlanet, Minecraft, Terraria, etc.

In comparison of the other two irrational functions, Si and Ni are like living in the shadows of these perceptions. There is an inherent 'darkening' of perception already scribed deep inside the consciousness. This attitude inherently morphs the perceptions the rational functions have access to reason with, which is why that quote I chose by Jung is not applicable to them, and why he does not attribute it to them - all perception serves the psyche at an intrinsic level, opposed to serving the simple act of perception.

 

[WALMART]

Where is my dissection, betch?

These things do not come to me easily! I planned on doing senza next, but since you've so politely inquired, largely ripped from your blog:

I have come to realize that Psychology does not have the boundaries I need. To think that the answer to a question is so polar, that one action has two completely opposite origins is too frustrating.

I do realize that you may not always have the correct origin in diagnosing a patient physically, but once you have the mass etc. you can trust in that proof.

Charles Darwin comes to mind. I wonder of your alignment towards politics, and the act of politicking in general...

I do believe though that my opinions on most matters are irrelevant and as such my character does not come out. If you were to look at the blog previous to this one you would find all my angst piled into thousands of posts.

I am not sure if I have it in me to explain myself anymore as I don't think it is as important. This place is my grounds to spar. I do wish to let everyone know I appreciate their thoughts on the subjects of this forum.

More self-perception of Te? Prior, a mention of brute strength being your 'finesse' was made, an attribute Jung fairly equates to the function...

And I see you have once made an affirmation of your enneagram six-ness, on top of senza's abnormally keen judge of perception. I do believe it is a type reserved for Si/Ni users, moreso the latter - though of course, not explicitly.

This urge to be right needs to be removed and replaced with the desire (and has been) to be competent.

I was entirely to confined and completely absurd to limit myself to being "right".

This shift is quintessential in my growth and the growth of us as a human race.

I wish to become necessary.

Perhaps indicative of Te/Ni-Ni/Te, as opposed to explicitly Te, particularly the desire to be necessary... if you've been keeping up with my thoughts on Ni, I very much believe it to be a 'martyr' function, to project with fair frequency an ego-centric position, constantly working to some form of a personalized end goal. Think Che Guevara, if you've ever read anything of his.

There's also some Se in there. Maybe I will revisit the subject, mind is fried.

As far as interpersonal interactions go, I really do have very limited experience with you. This quote was the first to come to mind when you asked to be assessed, qualities Jung attributes to both Si and Ni:

"The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism."

Also, I can't find the specific quote, but take this, regarding Ni:

"Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'."

I can think of several users of Ni around the site that this may apply to. I don't wholly think it's you. I think you are much more aligned with the rational dominance of a Te user, but I may likely err you to the side of Ni over Si - your blog, the expressions in general - have dabs of that intangible characteristic introverted intuition is known for expressing.

I wonder of your notions on spirituality, particularly as an (I'm presuming) atheist...

Again, all of this is kind of me extrapolating information willy-nilly at whatever I can find. I truly do not 'know' you in any form, and particularly for myself, I rarely feel I 'know' anything...

 

[Society]

"Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not."

this is true to some affect - Ne & Se are inherently incapable of "choice" - which is why P's use their Ji for filtration.

i suppose i can rebuttal jung and say that to some extent they can be shaped willingly over time through diversifying and picking what experiences you get exposed too in order to determine what data/patterns persist within your Se/Ne maps - for example my own description of N functions as null point pointers might not have come if i wasn't studying a subset of software engineering - but of course that's not a natural format for what we normally consider to be "choice".

but i don't know how you can extend this to an incapacity for pattern extrapolation - mind you the irony that we're both Pe users and are extrapolating patterns right now - but i will still make the point that Ne couldn't function without pattern extrapolation at all:

take an Ne child on a boat - as he gets closer to the harbor his brain might conjure that the lighthouse is a dragon spinning on a gigantic lazy susan: his brain extrapolated the behavioral pattern of a spinning source of light, took the very general silhouette's of fire as a source of light, and looked for something which has fire coming sideways from the head - in each of those stages he had to extrapolate the patterns and reject the details. while it might look like he chose a dragon and not a cage full of fireflies - the appearance of selection in the process isn't really a choice - it's a pattern matchmaking game, his brain didn't register the tower so he didn't look for what can be at the top of the tower, thus looking for a pattern to match the elevated position of the light source. the cognitive game of Ne is essentially one of extrapolated patterns interacting - without doing so you would end up with merely solid mental objects that can't quite fit (Se) - you would end up with a lighthouse that is a lighthouse - it can't be a dragon sitting on a lazy susan because duh - it's a lighthouse.