[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Explain Stuff to Jeffster!

[StephMC]

You're on to something here. Someone who leads with Ni and then uses Se is going to approach life differently than someone who uses Se to get info and then Ni to extrapolate from there. NJs seem to start with a goal in mind, and once they've decided what they want, they look around them (tertiary Se) to get the lay of the land and see what has to change. I start with the present in mind and see where all the options might lead me and which ones I like or should avoid.

When Ni follows from Se, it feels like I'm receiving an alert about the current situation, like hearing a traffic report of a tie up on the bridge ahead. Better take an alternate route! But when Ni is unattached to anything it feels spooky and spectral. It feels like a dark premonition that is too vague to do anything about. It's that shiver I get up my back sometimes.

Interesting... I experience Se + Ni like that too... Probably my #1 save-my-own-ass tactic. I take in my environment, sense something wrong, then extrapolate it to what it means and how I should respond, then act on it. It's almost instantaneous. But you're right... Ni not paired with my Ti or Se is very spooky. Those random "Aha!" moments come out of no where and being a strong Se user I'm like... "Wait... but where'd I gather the information for that idea?" I use it very unconsciously.

 

[Jeffster]

The downside of Ni summed up in two words: wrong assumptions.

Yeah, that's my concern, and I have so far seen very little upside that can't be accomplished better without the assumptions.

Someone tells you a long story. However, the part where they talked about what they did after the club sticks out as 'odd'. You know with certainty there is a problem with this part of the story, but are not sure what it is. So you start picking at it with questions to try and either pull the lie out or make everything properly fit together again.

So, let me see if I'm understanding this, are you saying rather than incorrect details of a story sticking out, you simply have a feeling it doesn't sound right, and ask yourself questions to determine the incorrect details?

A good use of Se and Ni together is in driving a manual transmission car (so many IsxPs drive stick for that reason). The Se helps you with the co-ordination and clutch feel and quickly getting to the catch point on a hill, for example). But then Ni helps you look ahead to road conditions to see what gear you should be in. I might look ahead to see if the next light is red or not. If it's red and has obviously been that way for a while (a few cars stacked up) then I may not gear to 4th. I might stay in 2nd and be light on the gas and I'll be in the right gear just as the light has turned to green and the cars ahead are starting up. Se and Ni are also great together in art, cooking, flirting with girls!

Yeah, again, here's another case where I think you are taking actions and calling them Ni without real consideration. You consider possibilities of the road based on your past experience with the road. You learn by experience and noticing the details of your environment and recalling the relevant things when you need them again. Still seems like Sensing to me. It's experience-based, not some sort of vision of the future.

And I don't understand what you mean by "so many IsxPs drive stick for that reason." What reason? And what how many "IsxPs" have you polled on their driving preferences?

You gotta admit psych powers can be positive, even if it is just simulated psychic powers.

Obviously, Ni users don't have real clairvoyance or mind-reading abilities. But their processing of experience makes it so they have amazing predictive powers.

I know an infj that can understand the giberish of the most inarticulate of pepole...and an amazing ability to predict where people he knows are and why they are there...as well as what is going on in people lives without being told.

This can also be bad, because even when they don't have the experience to predict well, they will still attempt to do so. But it is amzing how often it actually works.

Yeah, again I'm skeptical. Anyone can get lucky. I am still not convinced there is truly any psychic powers. It still sounds like Jung or Myers or somebody made something up to make people feel like every "type" had something special about them, so we could all join hands and sing in harmony and all that mess.

Here you go Jeffster...

I hope it's understandable. I know science and chemistry isn't really your thing... but I think it's an illustrative example of Ni in action.

Nightning describes Ni with snakes and benzene rings (large mp3 file)

I love hearing you, nightning. But yeah the subject was about as exciting as paint drying. Next time read the phonebook. So, the guy had visions of rings and so made a scientific discovery based on that? Hmm..maybe "Ni" is actually divine intervention. It would follow my theory that God likes to mess with people.

 

[Athenian200]

I wish you had never started this thread. You wasted our time for nothing. You absolutely refuse to listen to anything that's said, reject all examples of Ni that are offered, and show ways that they could be something other than Ni, and keep repeating your mantra of "Ni is not positive, does only things that other functions could do but in an inferior way, and consists of nothing but hidden assumptions." Well, guess what? You can take ANY action or concrete example, and find a way to construe it so that it aligns with more than one function. So if you're dead set on not acknowledging anything positive being associated with Ni, you could easily rationalize that all you want.

You've clearly already made up your mind about what Ni is, and nothing anyone says matters, does it? I mean, I might get that you wouldn't buy anything us NJs said because we're too "out there," but you won't even listen to the experiences of people in your own temperament. That's just stubbornness and arrogance.

I'm sorry I sound so frustrated, Jeffster. I mean, I do like you as a person and everything, but this has been exasperating and ridiculous. Trying to get someone to acknowledge that they've misinterpreted a theoretical pattern, when they're doing everything in their power to defend their present understanding of it against any new ideas or information, is near impossible.

Please, for goodness sake, stick to using dichotomies and temperament. You understand them well, and it's apparent to me that they work better for you than functions. So please, use them, and leave the functions ALONE. They'll only mess up your fairly good understanding of MBTI. They help some people, but I believe they'll only mess things up for you.

So, you've won. You have a stronger will than the entire rest of the forum. Are you pleased?

 

[Jeffster]

Wait, is that for real or are you trying to demonstrate Ni again by jumping to conclusions?

Because if I refused to listen, I wouldn't have started the thread. I am reading everything and considering it. I told you I would challenge things. Nothing has worth unless it holds up to scrutiny. I pick at things because I am trying to get beyond the "This is so because I kinda feel like it might be so" attitudes and encourage people to challenge their own notions as I am inviting people to do the same for mine. I'm sorry if you have given up on it, because I have enjoyed reading your responses.

 

[Jeffster]

You're welcome to post anything we've exchanged in our PMs, where I have learned first-hand just how much of a stand-up guy The Jeffster really is. We're pretty much BFF now.

Thanks, babe.


So, here's part of what U said in her PM:

SP coworkers are ten bajillion times better mechanics than I am, they are quicker at selling bikes, but I can with near perfect accuracy see a few minutes ahead of time when they’re eventually going to piss off a customer or predict when the customer will walk away because I’m looking for the undertones of the customer’s experience. I can call “buy or sell” really well simply by observing nuances, and I had the highest sales of anyone for several months because of it. There’s no other Ni users at my shop.

I don’t think Ni causes conflicts any more than SP causes conflicts. Rather, my POV is that Ni forsees conflicts, and because Ni users are J types, they head it off before it causes a problem. But then the non-Ni users don’t experience the end result because the Ni user cut it off at the pass, and this happens ad infinitum until the Ni user volcanoes all their pent-up feelings.

I thought that was a really good point, as it seems that there is a different way of "picking up cues" from people. It's hard for me to perceive it, because I don't know that I've done it. But I suppose I have. It might be that "leap in the dark" type of gamble that SPs can do, that might be our version of Ni right there. But I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there. Still pondering on it for sure. Hey, I had to do something since mlb.tv won't let me watch the archived all-star game! :steam:

Anyway, thanks Usehername for your contribution.

 

[nightning]

Hah Jeffster... divine interventions indeed... you know how they say prophet hear the messages from god... perhaps it's not Ni but actually the voice from god for real.

What ygolo mentioned about INFJ understanding inarticulate rambling is likely a function of Ni though. Of course an INTJ likely can explain each iteration loop for you better but that's essentially what you go through in trying to understand something. A complex game of mastermind. You test to see whether something works, is there a red anywhere in the pattern? If there is, you keep it and test something else. So you're refining your guesses in every turn. Until eventually you come up with the most likely solution.

Too abstract?

 

[Quinlan]

Positive Ni

 

[Athenian200]

Wait, is that for real or are you trying to demonstrate Ni again by jumping to conclusions?

Unfortunately, it's real.

I am reading everything and considering it.

You're reading everything. I don't think that's the same as considering everything, because you're not actually being open-minded enough to do anything except scrutinize/dismiss it. You don't even reach the point of entertaining the idea.

I told you I would challenge things. Nothing has worth unless it holds up to scrutiny.

Yes, but I thought you would be reasonable. You're just challenging things in a defensive way that doesn't make any sense, assuming that your starting point is correct and dismissing anything that tries to move you from it unless it hits you REALLY hard. It's like you're an inflatable punching bag-thing, and you're demanding that everyone hit you until someone actually hits you hard enough that your base is knocked over a certain line you've drawn, before you'll change your mind. That's what talking to you feels like, mentally.

Basically, you're scrutinizing things, but only by your own standards. You won't consider logic because it sounds like "abstract intellectual nonsense," and you won't consider experiences because they're "contrived" or "coincidental." There's really only a very narrow field of things you're even looking at, and they're the HARDEST ones to use for the illustration of MBTI.

You're basically demanding to see everyday, practical choice or activity unquestionably reduced to functional terms, and the truth is, that kind of thing doesn't have anything to do with functions, and certainly can't be made unquestionable. It's just something people do. Functions are designed to describe behavior on a more abstract level than what you're trying to consider here. You're trying to use them to do something they weren't intended to do. In other words, they don't WORK at the level you're trying use them on. They just don't. It's the same reason cooking directions change as you get past certain altitudes, or in space. Because things are different, and work differently up there, than they do down here.

I pick at things because I am trying to get beyond the "This is so because I kinda feel like it might be so" attitudes and encourage people to challenge their own notions as I am inviting people to do the same for mine.

Okay, let me be more candid, then. I don't think your idea (or any particular idea) of what the functions are holds up to scrutiny, either. So I think that until you can see something positive in all the functions, you just shouldn't look at things in terms of them.

I mean, I do get where you're coming from. If you don't believe me, look up a post called "Confusing Functions" that I made when I first got here.

I'm sorry if you have given up on it, because I have enjoyed reading your responses.

Me too. But the problem is that you're not spelling out or outlining your argument/current beliefs, or the parameters the solution or argument you finally accept will have to fall with in, so I can't see what I'm up against. Throwing punches in the dark, at an enemy you can't see, is not fun.

So, to sum it up, the situation it feels like you've put me in trying to respond, is one of trying to knock an inflatable punching bag over a line with repeated punches... while blindfolded and unable to see the punching bag.

I'm sorry that these metaphors probably don't make much sense, but it's hard to articulate my internal state in any other way.

You know what? You're right, I haven't tried hard enough. I'm not giving up that easily, I was just really tired earlier because some other guy acted like he knew what Ni was all about, and I had very little patience left after dealing with him and his dismissal. But I've had a nap since then, and I feel like I'm up to more.

 

[Jeffster]

You're reading everything. I don't think that's the same as considering everything, because you're not actually being open-minded enough to do anything except scrutinize/dismiss it. You don't even reach the point of entertaining the idea.

Once again you're making untrue assumptions. I am entertaining every idea that isn't directly telling me something that I know is false, such as "You don't even reach the point of entertaining the idea."

Yes, but I thought you would be reasonable. You're just challenging things in a defensive way that doesn't make any sense, assuming that your starting point is correct and dismissing anything that tries to move you from it unless it hits you REALLY hard. It's like you're an inflatable punching bag-thing, and you're demanding that everyone hit you until someone actually hits you hard enough that your base is knocked over a certain line you've drawn, before you'll change your mind. That's what talking to you feels like, mentally.

Okay, partially right, but not entirely. I am NOT assuming my starting point is correct. I am taking each individual "punch" and responding to that with the ideas I get about that. I'd love to be knocked out, yes, but I am not expecting it, and not defensive any more than it takes to not just swallow what is thrown at me without examining it further and seeing if I think it has merit. You are making it more difficult on yourself by thinking of me as a target you have to knock out. YOU have created that scenario, not me.

Basically, you're scrutinizing things, but only by your own standards.

Well, of course. Who else's standards would I use?

You're basically demanding to see everyday, practical choice or activity unquestionably reduced to functional terms, and the truth is, that kind of thing doesn't have anything to do with functions, and certainly can't be made unquestionable. It's just something people do. Functions are designed to describe behavior on a more abstract level than what you're trying to consider here. You're trying to use them to do something they weren't intended to do. In other words, they don't WORK at the level you're trying use them on. They just don't. It's the same reason cooking directions change as you get past certain altitudes, or in space. Because things are different, and work differently up there, than they do down here.

No, I am not demanding that, in FACT, I don't think it can be done, which to the extent that I have a point, is the whole one! I agree with almost your whole paragraph here, and that is why I am challenging the set-in-stone function order that people keep spouting as if they KNOW these things when there's no real way they can without making "confirmation bias" type assumptions. If I followed the prevailing attitude around here, I would say something like "I'm ISFP, so my tertiary function is Ni, so these things I do here must be Ni, since I must use that for something." I believe that is like deciding where the end zone is on a football field by how far the running back ran - in other words, cart before the horse, backwards.

So, thank you for helping continue to prove my viewpoint that brain function is not as simple as people are making it out to be, and that when people say stuff like "that was my Se-Ni at work", they are making a giant guess that really isn't provable in any way and just comes off as a cute way to label something.

Me too. But the problem is that you're not spelling out or outlining your argument/current beliefs, or the parameters the solution or argument you finally accept will have to fall with in, so I can't see what I'm up against. Throwing punches in the dark, at an enemy you can't see, is not fun.

So, to sum it up, the situation it feels like you've put me in trying to respond, is one of trying to knock an inflatable punching bag over a line with repeated punches... while blindfolded and unable to see the punching bag.

Well, then I suggest you re-orient, because you have put yourself in that situation not me. I am simply information gathering, and I'm doing so in an interactive way, that allows me to challenge and question ideas and actually get response, rather than just reading a website somebody wrote and having a ton of questions but no one to ask. I'm not spelling out or outlining my current beliefs because they aren't substantial enough on this topic yet to even have a coherent outline. I think I have made my basic view clear as to why I started this topic. I read several descriptions of what "Ni" is supposed to be, and found almost all of what I read to be negative attributes. So I was looking for people to tell me what the positive ones are. I am slowly starting to learn the possibilities of this. Of course I remain skeptical, and if you are expecting me, a hardcore SP if ever there was one, to at one point just say "Okay, I totally buy into this!" then you are expecting the impossible. The only things I totally buy into are what I can see demonstrated before me and perceive with my own senses.

But you're the one who's seeing me as the enemy. I don't see anyone here as my enemy, nor do I see "Ni", an abstract concept, as an enemy. I am simply trying to understand better what these things mean, and determine for myself if they have value to me. Well, that and get attention from people, which is my primary motivation for most things. I am a sensation-seeker, and have found the best way to get responses on this forum is to challenge people to explain things, hence the topic.

You know what? You're right, I haven't tried hard enough. I'm not giving up that easily, I was just really tired earlier because some other guy acted like he knew what Ni was all about, and I had very little patience left after dealing with him and his dismissal. But I've had a nap since then, and I feel like I'm up to more.

That's the spirit! I think if you stop thinking of me as your enemy and more as your student, you should be a lot more relaxed.

 

[Jeffster]

It was bad of me to stir, using your post as an example of Ni.

Nah, it wasn't bad. This whole topic is pretty much stirring on my part.

Thanks for the article. And I am not ignoring the earlier posts by Ath and Quin that came right before wolfy's, but I don't have time to respond to them now. Hopefully later today I will, thanks everybody for the responses, I am enjoying them.

 

[Sidewinder]

Yeah, again, here's another case where I think you are taking actions and calling them Ni without real consideration. You consider possibilities of the road based on your past experience with the road. You learn by experience and noticing the details of your environment and recalling the relevant things when you need them again. Still seems like Sensing to me. It's experience-based, not some sort of vision of the future.

And I don't understand what you mean by "so many IsxPs drive stick for that reason." What reason? And what how many "IsxPs" have you polled on their driving preferences?

Well, it's quite possible to get to the same place by different approaches. Yes, there are both Si and Se inputs to this (and Ti). I experience this as an Se to Ni troubleshooting process. There are more variables than I mentioned -- grade, road conditions, heaviness of traffic, type of vehicles around. But I don't approach this in Si terms ... "this is like the time I was at another intersection last May". You might get to the same way via other processes. It was too simplistic of an example anyway.

Think of cooking -- if you're doing an existing recipe from memory, that's more Si based. But if you're trying something new and it's not quite working, then it's more Se when tasting. But if you want to fix what you've done, you might have to brainstorm with Ni to think of all the spices or ingredients you have and which ones might give the desired effect. You may have to completely alter the dish you're cooking You can't experience the new result and you can't rely on memory, you have to project.

One thing that I agree with you on ... I don't think everyone of a certain type uses the same processes in the same order and same way. There's a feeling that the processes are deterministic based on type, but some of that might be confirmation bias. I relate to your confusion with Ni as I have some of the same problems with Ne (not understanding it, not thinking I'm using it).

Oh ... the source for that data was an old car magazine where they talked about personality and vehicle choice. I have no idea where that magazine is or if I still have it. So unattributed source is unattributed. But it's in line with my own experiences.

 

[Athenian200]

in FACT, I don't think it can be done, which to the extent that I have a point, is the whole one! I agree with almost your whole paragraph here, and that is why I am challenging the set-in-stone function order that people keep spouting as if they KNOW these things when there's no real way they can without making "confirmation bias" type assumptions. If I followed the prevailing attitude around here, I would say something like "I'm ISFP, so my tertiary function is Ni, so these things I do here must be Ni, since I must use that for something." I believe that is like deciding where the end zone is on a football field by how far the running back ran - in other words, cart before the horse, backwards.

So, thank you for helping continue to prove my viewpoint that brain function is not as simple as people are making it out to be, and that when people say stuff like "that was my Se-Ni at work", they are making a giant guess that really isn't provable in any way and just comes off as a cute way to label something.

Oh, so you already know that. Well, then, that makes my job a lot easier.

Function notation is nothing more than a complex system of interlacing metaphors.

It isn't real, at least not in terms of action. That's the whole REASON I like it. If people had these functions in a real, measurable sense, I probably wouldn't be that interested in them. If you're looking for something real, you're looking at the wrong part of the system. This is the edge of it, where it borders into fantasy. This is quite literally an attempt to figure out what dreams are made of.

Function notation itself is very Ni. It's an attempt to describe a perspective, not an action. Perspectives are useless by themselves, I'll grant you that, but when you begin to figure out what actions a person associates with a particular perspective (and accept that people are inherently aware of certain kinds of perspectives that interact in a particular way), they become meaningful within the mind.

This will be my last attempt to describe Ni. It's absolutely not about reality. If you look to reality for an explanation of Ni, you've already rejected it. It's about the mind that understands language, symbolism, and associations. In other words, it's about what the world symbolizes to people because of the inherent nature of our minds, not the world itself. Everything we know about the world itself... is everything that Ni is NOT. It's actually much easier to express what Ni isn't, than what it is. Because once you express it or understand it, it's not Ni anymore.

This is really all the meat behind the functions. If you go much beyond this, you're speculating. Almost everything that we say or theorize about a function is speculation based on these cores:

Te - Efficiency, goal-driven
Fe - Consideration, service-driven
Ti - Analysis, logic-driven
Fi - Integrity, value-driven

Si - Standards, security-oriented
Ni - Visions, future-oriented
Ne - Ideas, process-oriented
Se - Experiences, present-oriented

You'll notice that these are things everyone is aware of on a basic level. We essentially use them as a metaphor system unconnected to type. They're sort of like Tarot cards, except that you decide which one is most relevant to the situation and best describes the situation via a hunch rather than leaving it up to luck.

Well, then I suggest you re-orient, because you have put yourself in that situation not me. I am simply information gathering, and I'm doing so in an interactive way, that allows me to challenge and question ideas and actually get response, rather than just reading a website somebody wrote and having a ton of questions but no one to ask. I'm not spelling out or outlining my current beliefs because they aren't substantial enough on this topic yet to even have a coherent outline. I think I have made my basic view clear as to why I started this topic. I read several descriptions of what "Ni" is supposed to be, and found almost all of what I read to be negative attributes. So I was looking for people to tell me what the positive ones are. I am slowly starting to learn the possibilities of this. Of course I remain skeptical, and if you are expecting me, a hardcore SP if ever there was one, to at one point just say "Okay, I totally buy into this!" then you are expecting the impossible. The only things I totally buy into are what I can see demonstrated before me and perceive with my own senses.

Okay, then. Well, I have to be honest with you. If you read a lot of descriptions of Ni, and see it as mostly negative attributes, then that's what you think of Ni. There's no point in trying to make you see it as something positive, because the interpretation is subjective. All it means is that whatever you associate with the Ni perspective and archetype is something that's highly uncomfortable, and antagonistic to your preferred worldview, whether you realize it or not.

If it's any consolation, I can't see anything positive in Fi, either, because it seems to be rooted in a lot of uncompromising, stiff, ethical nonsense that doesn't really accomplish anything. Si is almost as bad, but I can see a certain value in it despite seeing it as mostly negative.

That's actually the nature of functions. You're going to look at some of them and go, "Yes, yes, that's it, that's what I find meaningful," and you're going to look at others and think "Oh, my god. That's what all those people who make my life miserable are doing. This way of looking at things is horrible, no wonder they're so screwed up, they value THIS."

You're supposed to be able to find value in all the functions, but that's like saying that you're supposed to love everyone. In reality, we don't love everyone, we love people who we can relate to on some level, and end up just tolerating and/or disliking the ones we can't relate to at all. That's just human nature.

In other words, I really don't want to sell you the function system as something that can be measured in terms of real actions and consistent behaviors, because it just plain ISN'T that, and anyone who tells you that it is either:

1. Doesn't know what they're talking about.
2. Trying to trick you into believing something false.
3. Deluded because they can't separate the validity of their subjective experiences from observable fact.

However, I would invite you to look at it as something else. A kind of poetry, a kind of language. Words are not reality, but we use them to represent aspects of reality. Functions just regularly try to do this with much larger chunks of reality and the typical human experience than most words you're used to.

Take a word like "infinity," or "universe." It's so expansive that you can't wrap your mind around it, right? Well, functions are kind of like someone trying to understand infinity by trying to look at it from as many known angles as possible, and then making inferences about what the possible angles we're aware of, imply about the nature and limitations of our minds. Yes, it's quite a leap, but it stirs something, makes you really think about what life means. It's the ultimate attempt to look at ourselves from the outside.

All in all, you might be better off sticking to what works. Because honestly, even I wouldn't use functions over dichotomies when typing someone initially. I only use them as a way of helping them decide if they feel conflicted, and they don't feel that dichotomies and temperament are giving them enough. They're not practical, they're just an open-ended theory with no apparent application to reality that we like to play around with and speculate on how it MIGHT be related to reality if it were.

 

[Jeffster]

Why do you keep assuming that this is what Ni does?

Because I read descriptions that say that's what it does. That cognitive processes site that everybody loves to link has a decription like that, and several members of this forum in different topics that are "Ni-dom" people have described it similarly.

You're only focusing on ONE aspect of it's process and completely misinterpreting it.

Introverted Intuition

If you read this carefully, you'll see that Ni tries to locate hidden assumptions in order to reject them, not to embrace them.

The goal of Ni is transcend hidden assumptions in your thinking so that you can see the underlying reality more clearly.

Hmm..interesting. I will definitely read that link (I think somebody might have showed it to before, but I'll check it out again) and see if I can understand better.

Haha. Yes, Ni is very good at storytelling. Weaving a fairly realistic, imaginary situation and placing you in it.

For you, it would be a waste of time for you to stop and think this way, yes. But for an Ni type, this process would be instinctive. They wouldn't actually have to think it out in words, this would all just flash in their head instantly, and they'd make a quick choice based on it.

One thing that Ni and Se have in common, is that it's easier to DO and engage the process, experience it, rather than to explain it. If you try to explain or express it, it loses something. It's just not going to make sense to you until you become aware of it in yourself rather than trying to look at it as something external that has to be explained.

Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand it better as it relates to the people I know that, in theory, lead with this process. So much of what they express confuses me, and can be very frustrating to me, just as I'm sure I can be frustrating to them since I am so different.

This is interesting, could you elaborate?

It just seems to me that the more you assume about people's internal processes, the less likely you are to be accurate. It's one thing to define a type by a lead process that is fairly obvious if you observe or get to know that person. That gives you 8 types, which is my understanding of what Jung originally defined. Then if you add the secondary process which may not be as obvious as the first one, but still something you can get to know if you try. That gives you 16 type combinations based on those first two (actually, there's more than that,. but if I accept the part of the theory about combos that can't go together, then there's 16.)

But if you stretch it to a third assumption, then you really have to expand the number of types again, because the further away you go from that dominant process, it seems the more you are guessing, and that's where I think you start to try to fit behavior into the definitions of a process just to be consistent in your theory, rather than observing the real behavior patterns and drawing your own conclusions.

The irritating thing to me is when people say "You are ISFP, so that means your inferior function is Te." But you don't know me. Maybe my inferior function is extraverted lettuce tossing. And if it is, you are going to tell me I'm not ISFP? Well, what type am I then? If everything else in the basic format fits? Point is, everything has a breaking point. Or a credibility limit. And the more assumptions you make and the more you speculate rather than observe, the greater the risk of trying to confirm your own biases and stuff people into a framework, rather than simply letting people be themselves and stating your observations, rather than your speculations.

What do you think of my contingency planning example? You can't use just Se or Fi for that, at some point you have to come up with possibilities out of nowhere.

I don't think you have to come up with anything out of nowhere. A person can contingency plan by remembering their past experiences (likely Si) and using that to base their plans on. If you don't have much experience in whatever it is, it's probably better to seek input from somebody who does, rather than just dreaming of wild possibilities based on nothing.

We all use Ni, but how you interpret and use Ni is going to be very different from the Ni dom's brand own of Ni.

This part I don't entirely buy. I don't think you have any way to know if "we all use Ni", because it isn't something solid you can establish a measuring tool for. You can only speculate, and try to back up your speculations.

Having a preference for your top two functions might give you a head start in their use, but in my opinion there is nothing stopping other types exceeding your abilities in those functions if you're just coasting along comfortably.

I agree with this, and actually Keirsey talks about this concept in "Brains And Careers." He doesn't do it in terms of functions but rather "suits" based on temperament. In other words, Rationals, or NTs, would have strategy as their top suit, and Artisans (SPs) tactics as number one. But an NT who constantly practices tactical handling, either as a job or just their own personal choice, can develop just as good, if not better tactical skills than a lazy SP who doesn't really attempt to learn new tactics. It will always be more instinctual to an SP to be skilled tactically, but it is possible to achieve with effort by people of other temperaments.

So, those concepts are quite similar, but the reason I like the "suits" version better is that it describes actions that anyone can observe and there is a standard for measuring it and seeing it demonstrated, it relies a lot less on assumptions and raw speculation. Of course, the assumptions can still be made, but there is a more solid framework to me, and less fuzzy abstract stuff where you just have to swallow an extended theory without really being shown how it fits.

 

[Quinlan]

I agree with most of what you've said there.

It just seems to me that the more you assume about people's internal processes, the less likely you are to be accurate. It's one thing to define a type by a lead process that is fairly obvious if you observe or get to know that person. That gives you 8 types, which is my understanding of what Jung originally defined. Then if you add the secondary process which may not be as obvious as the first one, but still something you can get to know if you try. That gives you 16 type combinations based on those first two (actually, there's more than that,. but if I accept the part of the theory about combos that can't go together, then there's 16.)

That's why we're not really supposed to be assuming anything about others processes, we're only supposed to be figuring our own out but I do agree with you though, the more complex you make the system, while still being vague at the same time. You end up with so many variables that you can fit any person or behaviour into any box you like, not unlike astrology.

Although I do think there is room in the theory for you to be able to say "My best fit type is ISFP but I prefer to use Si over Ni" people will understand what you mean.

I don't think you have to come up with anything out of nowhere. A person can contingency plan by remembering their past experiences (likely Si) and using that to base their plans on. If you don't have much experience in whatever it is, it's probably better to seek input from somebody who does, rather than just dreaming of wild possibilities based on nothing.

What about things that have never been done before? Like going to the moon? Trial and error is a wasteful process without some sort of foresight or vision.

 

[nightning]

That's interesting Jeffster... because "fuzzy" is exactly how I like it. A difference between S and N?

I don't see MBTI types as being absolutes at all, nor ISFP must use Fi Se Ni Te in that order and not of Fe Si Ne Ti. They're more as Quinlan described then... terminologies we can use to help explain what we mean. Kind of like short hands.

What I don't agree with is increasing the number of variables makes it like astrology. Increasing variables is valid as long as all the variables are observable and relate directly to personalities. Astrology doesn't do that... because it's hinged upon planetary movements influences our behaviour, which of course is not true. So the two are not the same.

Also trial and error also takes time... sometimes you just can't afford to leave it to the last minute. What is the use of weather forecasts? Well sure, you can say a little rain can't hurt me, we see the weather when it comes. The forecasts are lousy anyhow, the best weekly forecast are only like 40% accurate... But what about tornadoes or hurricanes, floods and what not? Some foresight is useful even if it's only 40% accurate... that's better than not knowing until the storm is right on top of you right?

 

[Jeffster]

ISSUE TWO

What the heck is a "rendering engine?"

 

[Udog]

As in video games? 3-D effects? Other?

 

[miss fortune]

is it where you change the compositions of fats to change it from straight fat to tallow?

I have no practical knowlege- I ask my istp all of the things I should have been learning while reading about the history of mail trains under London He knows EVERYTHING!

 

[Jeffster]

As in video games? 3-D effects? Other?

In this case, a web browser.

 

[Udog]

Oh!

It takes the HTML/CSS/GOBLDEEGOOK code, which is really just a text file like this:

<html>
<title>This is the page title</title>

<body>This is the internet, so porn goes here.</body>

</html>

And translates it into something that allows you to view porn ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports on your computer. The engine has to decide such details like the default font, precise spacing of the text, etc.

The problem is that different browsers run their own engines, so there is some flex in how the code above gets translated. This is why pages sometimes look differently in Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.