[Ni] Ni doms facts

[Turi]

You make no sense, it doesn't matter how many books you've read.

I won't make sense to people that don't know what they're talking about, no.

 

[Lib]

I won't make sense to people that don't know what they're talking about, no.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing like a broken record? Either say something new or su.

 

[Pionart]

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that Jung never claimed the auxiliary functions attitude would be in the opposite direction to the dominant, following his theories on the general attitude of consciousness, I believe the stronger argument supports it being in the same direction which would further discredit the forced Te/Fe following Ni in the Granton or Myersian stack, which would then of course, further remove any such organizing or planning nonsense from the irrational functions.

It doesn't really matter what function stack Jung pointed to, because he didn't know everything about type. He got the ball rolling, he didn't get it to the goal.

Instead of analysing Jung's writing to determine whether the auxiliary has the same or opposite attitude as the dominant, it would be wise to look directly at people, including yourself, to determine it.

 

[Jaguar]

I read PT and it was easily the longest, boring read of my life. Getting from point A to point B is not relevant. Understanding what you just read is. And if you understood that book which can double as a doorstop, you would know that you are reading about extreme situations, his patients who are so extreme they come across as caricatures. As well they should, if they are mentally unbalanced. Now, if you want to type people using a framework for mentally unbalanced people, that's your choice. Frankly, I think everyone took his work out of context.

Katharine felt that Chief was different from the rest of the family, and turned to her study of personality types in an attempt to quantify what that difference might be.

A person so screwed in the head she actually found it "problematic" that her daughter's lover wasn't like her family. Why on earth would he be expected to be like her family? To this day, I think that woman is a nut.

 

[Turi]

It doesn't really matter what function stack Jung pointed to, because he didn't know everything about type. He got the ball rolling, he didn't get it to the goal.

Which goal exactly was that, by the way?
It's not so much that Jung didn't know everything about type - it's that type isn't all there is to know about a person.

Instead of analysing Jung's writing to determine whether the auxiliary has the same or opposite attitude as the dominant, it would be wise to look directly at people, including yourself, to determine it.

Which of course I have, and I've found by and large most people tend to relate (from my subjective perspective) to having both of their top two functions in the same attitude.
I'm yet to actually meet someone that I've sat down and analysed the type of, that actually fits having an introverted dominant function and an extraverted auxiliary, and vica versa - my experience is that basically everybody matches both in the same attitude.

 

[Turi]

I read PT and it was easily the longest, boring read of my life. Getting from point A to point B is not relevant. Understanding what you just read is. And if you understood that book which can double as a doorstop, you would know that you are reading about extreme situations, his patients who are so extreme they come across as caricatures. As well they should, if they are mentally unbalanced. Now, if you want to type people using a framework for mentally unbalanced people, that's your choice. Frankly, I think everyone took his work out of context.

Well, I for one enjoy reading PT and have read it multiple times. I agree that the information in Chapter X at least, is based off of caricatures of a type - people that are too far their "type" that it causes the disconnects etc that are basically required to even have a type in the first place (most people are far more balanced than the descriptors there and people - not yourself, apparently - tend to neglect the fact that Jung even noted those descriptors were galtonesque portraits of a type, caricatures - not reflections of real people.

I think many people took his work out of context as well - it wasn't supposed to turn into these boxes people are forced into, where people argue with each other about what type they are etc etc - that kind of crap defeats the purpose and he predicted such nonsense himself.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, I for one enjoy reading PT and have read it multiple times. I agree that the information in Chapter X at least, is based off of caricatures of a type - people that are too far their "type" that it causes the disconnects etc that are basically required to even have a type in the first place (most people are far more balanced than the descriptors there and people - not yourself, apparently - tend to neglect the fact that Jung even noted those descriptors were galtonesque portraits of a type, caricatures - not reflections of real people.

I think many people took his work out of context as well - it wasn't supposed to turn into these boxes people are forced into, where people argue with each other about what type they are etc etc - that kind of crap defeats the purpose and he predicted such nonsense himself.

Okay, so what is your end goal?

 

[Pionart]

Which goal exactly was that, by the way?

An account of type that is accurate to how it manifests in people.

Which of course I have, and I've found by and large most people tend to relate (from my subjective perspective) to having both of their top two functions in the same attitude.
I'm yet to actually meet someone that I've sat down and analysed the type of, that actually fits having an introverted dominant function and an extraverted auxiliary, and vica versa - my experience is that basically everybody matches both in the same attitude.

Well, I've observed my cognition and found that I have dominant Ni with auxiliary Fe. I've yet to see someone who has both of their first two functions having the same attitude. While it's possible to operate in this manner, it is not the norm.