Inferior Extraverted Sensing

[Kalach]

No, they are not tools. They are perspectives that we view the world through and they help to define our ego structure since it is through the lens of the dominant that we understand the world.

There it is again, a thing behind the thing--functions as perspectives that we sit behind. What's the "we"? The ego?

Why must they be different?

Because Jesus died for your sins.

Oh yes, it does.

next you'll be telling me there are gaps in Ni for Se to fill.

You don't understand it does because I highly doubt you are an actual INTJ cognitively.

I shall live with the shame.

Perhaps I wouldn't come across that way if you actually attempted to seriously consider what I am trying to convey to you and you fully understood this.

Oh, I don't know. You might be mean even if I tried really hard. If it turned out I was really dumb, it's better not to know.

 

[Entropic]

There it is again, a thing behind the thing--functions as perspectives that we sit behind. What's the "we"? The ego?

"We" obviously refers to the collective sense of humanity as in every individual who is capable of performing some kind of cognitive action. By action I mean thinking itself, and possess some kind of conscious awareness that one is indeed thinking. I honestly fail to see what is so difficult for you to understand about this subject. You are nitpicky about the choice of words, but you fail to understand and grasp the concepts being presented behind these words. Doesn't speak strongly for you being an intuitive type.

Because Jesus died for your sins.

Because that is a perfectly valid and legit way of refuting my points.

next you'll be telling me there are gaps in Ni for Se to fill.

No, I won't, since they are complementary functions that provide exactly the same kind of perspective within the ego but with a slightly different focus on the content of content depending on if Se is egoic or if Ni is egoic.

I shall live with the shame.

Go ahead, won't stop you.

Oh, I don't know. You might be mean even if I tried really hard. If it turned out I was really dumb, it's better not to know.

I think this conversation says all there is to know about this subject.

 

[Kalach]

"We" obviously refers to the collective sense of humanity as in every individual who is capable of performing some kind of cognitive action. By action I mean thinking itself, and possess some kind of conscious awareness that one is indeed thinking. I honestly fail to see what is so difficult for you to understand about this subject. You are nitpicky about the choice of words, but you fail to understand and grasp the concepts being presented behind these words. Doesn't speak strongly for you being an intuitive type.

Help a poor S out, this "we", is a person or an appearance of a person? When "we" "choose" "a perspective", it's not a person at work in there, right? No ghost in the machine? There's some mechanism, some "ego defense" construction, that turns the wheels and cognition rolls onward. "We" essentially have things done for us but it appears to "us" that we did it. Right?

Because that is a perfectly valid and legit way of refuting my points.

Hey man! I'm the dum guy and I have to answer the philosophical questions too? I wouldn't expect good answers if I were me.

No, I won't, since they are complementary functions that provide exactly the same kind of perspective within the ego but with a slightly different focus on the content of content depending on if Se is egoic or if Ni is egoic.

Well now see if I were trying to corner, you know, someone, I'd have to wonder aloud how complementary perspectives end up repressing one another, especially when their focus is only slightly different. But first I would have been flummoxed by what "egoic" might mean.

This "ego" seems to play some central role... in something.

 

[Kalach]

yeah, the we, the us, the consciousness of cognition, you can model the hell out of it--egos, complexes, structures of all sorts, mechanisms like defenses, relationships between functions, type order, repression, regression--none of it describes where the quality of conscious cognition comes from.

Conscious cognition alone seems unlikely to be the key to anything. It's too individual, too personal. It does not show how cognition in general comes to exist. But, whether a by-product or a driver, conscious cognition shares something with unconscious cognition. An interface of some kind exists. And without a description of that interface, pretty much anything anyone says about "cognition" is a lie of some kind.

Particularly for some stupid subject like "inferior extroverted sensing". There, knowing about that interface is... vital?

 

[Entropic]

Help a poor S out, this "we", is a person or an appearance of a person? When "we" "choose" "a perspective", it's not a person at work in there, right? No ghost in the machine? There's some mechanism, some "ego defense" construction, that turns the wheels and cognition rolls onward. "We" essentially have things done for us but it appears to "us" that we did it. Right?

You still don't get it after I explained it several times to you. Still getting hung up on the use of the word "we", not seeing the idea I am trying to convey that goes beyond the use of the word "we". I even explained to you what I meant here by "we", which is a reference to humanity as a whole in a collective sense, all those people capable of performing cognitive thought and actions. That is "we". It is ironic that you keep interpreting this in a literal sense as if "we" refer to actual people or things. You're not seeing your own cognition for what it is. I never intended to refer to actual people with word choice "we", but this seems impossible for you to understand.

Hey man! I'm the dum guy and I have to answer the philosophical questions too? I wouldn't expect good answers if I were me.

How do you expect to have a meaningful philosophical discussion when you can't even grasp the fundamentals of what I am saying?

Well now see if I were trying to corner, you know, someone, I'd have to wonder aloud how complementary perspectives end up repressing one another, especially when their focus is only slightly different. But first I would have been flummoxed by what "egoic" might mean.

Of, pertaining to the ego, obviously.

This "ego" seems to play some central role... in something.

Yes. It is your sense of self. If you read and understood Jung you would know this.

 

[Kalach]

You still don't get it after I explained it several times to you. Still getting hung up on the use of the word "we", not seeing the idea I am trying to convey that goes beyond the use of the word "we". I even explained to you what I meant here by "we", which is a reference to humanity as a whole in a collective sense, all those people capable of performing cognitive thought and actions. That is "we". It is ironic that you keep interpreting this in a literal sense as if "we" refer to actual people or things. You're not seeing your own cognition for what it is. I never intended to refer to actual people with word choice "we", but this seems impossible for you to understand.

So that's a "yes"? The mechanisms you're talking about are impersonal and universal? Good to know.

How do you expect to have a meaningful philosophical discussion when you can't even grasp the fundamentals of what I am saying?

It does seem difficult.

Of, pertaining to the ego, obviously.

Yes. It is your sense of self. If you read and understood Jung you would know this.

Oh, I don't know. I've heard that INTJs synthesize concepts a lot. They abstract existing ideas and recombine them in novel ways, sometimes bringing in otherwise quite unrelated imagery to gain a new perspective, but in the end zeroing in on what hadn't been seen before. Like you, for instance. You're using "ego" and "ego defense" in what looks like a novel way. It behooves the pitiful not-N to ask the genius where her ideas may differ from l'originale, or even to wonder, albeit ineffectively, to what it is she really refers.

Not that reactive judgment games can't be fun. But, like, everyone does those.

 

[Entropic]

So that's a "yes"? The mechanisms you're talking about are impersonal and universal? Good to know.

No? They are clearly very personal mechanisms since it is the individual who gives rise to them, nor are they universal since it only again, applies to those capable of cognitive thought as I clearly expressed in my previous post. I don't necessarily share Jung's idea of collective unconsciousness.

Oh, I don't know. I've heard that INTJs synthesize concepts a lot. They abstract existing ideas and recombine them in novel ways, sometimes bringing in otherwise quite unrelated imagery to gain a new perspective, but in the end zeroing in on what hadn't been seen before. Like you, for instance. You're using "ego" and "ego defense" in what looks like a novel way. It behooves the pitiful not-N to ask the genius where her ideas may differ from l'originale, or even to wonder, albeit ineffectively, to what it is she really refers.

I keep explaining to you what I mean. There is only so much explanation that can be done. If one does not understand after that point, then it is perhaps so that one is not capable of understanding.

Not that reactive judgment games can't be fun. But, like, everyone does those.

Also, if you and I actually genuinely shared cognition, we wouldn't be sitting here and not getting anywhere. Case in point, I can communicate with uumlau just fine and we can make sense to each other but I cannot, seemingly, ever seem to make sense to you. It says a lot about your cognition.

 

[Kalach]

No? They are clearly very personal mechanisms since it is the individual who gives rise to them[...]

OH MY GOD! WILL YOU STOP DOING THAT!

I keep explaining to you what I mean. There is only so much explanation that can be done. If one does not understand after that point, then it is perhaps so that one is not capable of understanding.

This could be true.

Also, if you and I actually genuinely shared cognition, we wouldn't be sitting here and not getting anywhere. Case in point, I can communicate with uumlau just fine and we can make sense to each other but I cannot, seemingly, ever seem to make sense to you. It says a lot about your cognition.

Well, yeah, but he knows the love languages. He's like a savant whisperer.

 

[Kalach]

For as long as the unconscious exists, all conscious determination is a lie, except for when it isn't. The rule then is not to describe will, because by default the unconscious controls will and not the other way around. The rule is, describe how, when, and why will is what it says it is. Which seems to me likely almost never. Inferior sensing then isn't some one function that doesn't work very well. It's something else.

I call it, "your mother".

 

[highlander]

The only reason you don't think my point of view is informative is because you do not share my type of cognition and this is why this discussion is going nowhere.

I think you two are talking past each other and I'm not sure it has to do with types of cognition you share.

I am curious [MENTION=5731]Kalach[/MENTION], how well-developed do you think your Te auxiliary is? Is it something you intentionally choose not to apply when you express yourself here?

 

[Kalach]

I wouldn't know how to measure how functional my functions might be. It's a tiny bit bizarre even thinking what such a measure might be. But as for my form of expression, it would seem to be less "Te" than some of the gloomier INTJs.

It would seem I make a public virtue out of being somewhat cryptic. Surprisingly perhaps, I think of this as being clear and rational. Or more exactly, as creative of clarity and rationality. The process of blurting out my various imagistic concerns tends to lend structure to them and make them more real. They are tested and forged. That other people have trouble with them is an issue, but perhaps not a big one. Ultimately, ideally--and granted, this is only an ideal, but--ideally, if there's a person you defend your ideas against, it's yourself.

You are obliged to know where your thinking is subjective, where it is contingent, where it is weak. The idiosyncrasy you bring to speculation is vital if you are to speculate at all, but the substance of your speculation must eventually find some demonstration. So, y'know, blurt it out, see what happens. Personally I think of that as a Te/Se process but who knows, people are idiots, it could be anything.

 

[wolfy]

I wouldn't know how to measure how functional my functions might be. It's a tiny bit bizarre even thinking what such a measure might be. But as for my form of expression, it would seem to be less "Te" than some of the gloomier INTJs.

That is an interesting point. I don't really know how you'd really go about it either...

 

[Cellmold]

Your poor attempts to corner me are quite amusing. The only reason you don't think my point of view is informative is because you do not share my type of cognition and this is why this discussion is going nowhere.

Is there any reason to believe that two individuals of the same type of cognition would necessarily agree?

 

[wolfy]

I haven't followed this thread but seeing the old "different cognition" card being pulled brings back memories.

 

[Kalach]

if different people can use the same function in different ways... OH. My. GOD>

Actually, that's probably some kind of automatic contradiction. But it seems like a commonplace to say people could use the same function to different ends. In which case... oh good lord, what have I done? There might be principles of operation for each function but the different content of different psyches will lead to... what kind of variation? Or are the different contents the product of a variation, say enneagram variation?

WHERE DOES IT ALL COME FROM?!

 

[Entropic]

I think you two are talking past each other and I'm not sure it has to do with types of cognition you share.

People disagreeing often tends to have to do with differences in cognition because we see reality too differently.

Is there any reason to believe that two individuals of the same type of cognition would necessarily agree?

You don't have to agree with each other's conclusions (although I find that it is rare for this to happen, as a whole), but you will still understand the reasoning process as to why they arrived at that conclusion and as a whole, discussion will feel so much more meaningful because you understand where the other person is coming from and how they arrive at the conclusions they arrived at.

I can thus easily tell whether someone is an Ni type or not based on how good they are at getting where I am coming from. If they don't, probably not an Ni type.

 

[highlander]

People disagreeing often tends to have to do with differences in cognition because we see reality too differently.

Of course. I have used this to understand conflicts between individuals for years. There are many other reasons that people disagree though.

I can thus easily tell whether someone is an Ni type or not based on how good they are at getting where I am coming from. If they don't, probably not an Ni type.

This on the other hand is not a very good method for you to use to assess whether someone is an Ni type. It might provide a data point or clue but that is all. Ni doms misunderstand each other all the time because they are always jumping to conclusions and are not always the best at explaining themselves and can close off input or information from others judging it as wrong. You do a pretty good job at explaining yourself and have a command of the subject matter. I think demonstrating a little bit of humility can also go a long way towards encouraging others to listen to what you have to say and have a desire to respond.

I generally try and assess a person's type by how they communicate vs. whether or not we seem to be on a similar wavelength. However, one thing I have learned is that some communicate in a manner that is inconsistent with their type, which may be based on learned behavior, their profession, personal experience or maybe a desire to be different. Their type is obscured through this atypical or generic communication style.

Ni in general is the most difficult of the function attitudes to discern. It isn't very visible.

 

[Kalach]

I have no objection to Kamishi being president for a while. She might say something more about this ego thing.

Does it have structure of its own or is it meaningful only in relation to those two other whatsits? Because that structural model of Freud's seems like it has the serious disadvantage of being basically just made up.

 

[Entropic]

Of course. I have used this to understand conflicts between individuals for years. There are many other reasons that people disagree though.

I never said it was the one singular explanation.

This on the other hand is not a very good method for you to use to assess whether someone is an Ni type. It might provide a data point or clue but that is all. Ni doms misunderstand each other all the time because they are always jumping to conclusions and are not always the best at explaining themselves and can close off input or information from others judging it as wrong. You do a pretty good job at explaining yourself and have a command of the subject matter. I think demonstrating a little bit of humility can also go a long way towards encouraging others to listen to what you have to say and have a desire to respond.

Disagreed. If one is engaging others solely with Ni, there is often a lot of clicking involved when it comes to cognition that doesn't occur with other types.

I generally try and assess a person's type by how they communicate vs. whether or not we seem to be on a similar wavelength. However, one thing I have learned is that some communicate in a manner that is inconsistent with their type, which may be based on learned behavior, their profession, personal experience or maybe a desire to be different. Their type is obscured through this atypical or generic communication style.

Or maybe they simply aren't the type they think they are?

Ni in general is the most difficult of the function attitudes to discern. It isn't very visible.

Disagree. It probably isn't to those who either a) aren't Ni types or b) have yet to discern what Ni is. Once I became what Ni is, I have no troubles seeing Ni in others.

I have no objection to Kamishi being president for a while. She might say something more about this ego thing.

It's he, not she. Why assume a poster's gender if you can't tell by visual cues e.g. there is a gender icon under my username? I've also written about my gender elsewhere and those posts clearly state that it's "he".

 

[Kalach]

In that case I formally object to your nomination. This sorority can't have a dude as a president. It would make a mockery of everything INTJ.