Asperger's Syndrome and MBTI type.

[Himeko009]

Researcher, I understand best the Ni/Se and Ne/Si differences now, and I conclude I'm a INTP, but sometimes I think I have good shadow Ni use, but poor Se... lol

 

[robowolf]

You simply haven't heard of the shadow effect if you say something like that. (It's my duty to tell you, because it improves the world)

....Would you cry hard if I told you that your buddies at function 3&4 were merely shadows that don't actually exist?

THE PROFOUND THING IS:
It is physically impossible to do a Ti act without AT THE SAME TIME also do an Fe act. (This is deep philosophical Tao stuff!)

This is actually very interesting and no, I'd never heard of the shadow effect before (well, yes, but it wasn't the same one: according to wikipedia the shadow functions are the 5th-8th),

BUT

When I said that they're still human what I meant was that they must have an F function along with S, N and T functions to function properly. They work together like the gears in a clock. An individual that doesn't have an S function is completely disconnected from reality and their surroundings, an individual without a T function is incapable of thinking rationally or making logical decisions/evaluations, etc.. Ti users don't only show Fe, they use it, certainly not as much and as well as Ti, but they still use it.

It's not much about what functions exist in your stack, but what functions you use/prefer to use and, consequently, develop, and you *need* an N, an S, a T and an F.

 

[Researcher]

This is actually very interesting and no, I'd never heard of the shadow effect before (well, yes, but it wasn't the same one: according to wikipedia the shadow functions are the 5th-8th),

BUT

When I said that they're still human what I meant was that they must have an F function along with S, N and T functions to function properly. They work together like the gears in a clock. An individual that doesn't have an S function is completely disconnected from reality and their surroundings, an individual without a T function is incapable of thinking rationally or making logical decisions/evaluations, etc.. Ti users don't only show Fe, they use it, certainly not as much and as well as Ti, but they still use it.

It's not much about what functions exist in your stack, but what functions you use/prefer to use and, consequently, develop, and you *need* an N, an S, a T and an F.

Thanks for the respect It is interesting, and very profound, thats why I cant shut up about it...

BUT...

Why do you say every human MUST have all functions? You think just having 1 or 2 functions (=being close to 1 or 2 functions, and far from the rest) is politically incorrect or something? Afraid the forum gods will punish you for it?

Or afraid you are going to crush the modern narcissistic "I am god with all functions" illusion? Does that illusion make you feel better, is that why you want to keep it up?

Just to shock you a bit more: The 8 functions are not 8 machines, or 8 weapons of which the more you have the better.
The 8 functions are just 8 theoretical points on the spectrum of all human personalities.
And actually some of these functions cancel each other out by definition of the way Jung designed this model. (so you can at max have 4, which cancel out the other 4).

Ti-Ne just means you are somewhere in the middle of Ti & Ne, but a bit closer to Ti, thats why you say it first.

You could actually be exactly at Ti. It doesnt happen often, but you would be alive and well. And very human. (Just weirdly extreme in Ti)


Someone who is in the middle position of north-pole-function and London-function and New-York-function, thus having 3 functions, is just standing somewhere (or swimming ). Just like somebody who is only exactly on the north-pole-function, even though this last guy has only 1 function, he can stil stand (or swim) there just like the other guy. (Although it's probably fucking cold overthere).

We can actually change the theoretical postitions of north pole, London, New York.... They are just chosen.

The nice part about Jung's function's though, is that they are uniformly spread over the spectrum. (Not just at weird locations with weird random distances like cities).

 

[Mal12345]

It has nothing to do with being human or not. Even a robot cannot be only Ti without showing Fe! (or Ne without showing Si)

You simply haven't heard of the shadow effect if you say something like that. (It's my duty to tell you, because it improves the world)

....Would you cry hard if I told you that your buddies at function 3&4 were merely shadows that don't actually exist?

THE PROFOUND THING IS:
It is physically impossible to do a Ti act without AT THE SAME TIME also do an Fe act. (This is deep philosophical Tao stuff!)

Physically, mentally. What's the difference? I had noticed this myself. But I don't care to publish papers about these things.

 

[Researcher]

Physically, mentally. What's the difference? I had noticed this myself. But I don't care to publish papers about these things.

The difference is that reality is not the same as the brain's view-of-reality. (the map is not the territory)
Objects don't exist in reality. But the brain divides reality in objects, nested in objects, nested in objects... And if you move objects you move them from object1 to object2. So in object1 you see function1 (substraction) happening, and in object2 you see function2 (addition) happening.
Adding to an object requires subtracting from another object and vice versa.
They look like 2 actions per object to the brain, but it is just one action.

So the reason that there is a shadow is because the brain divides reality in objects, each object registering a reverse-effect of the other object (of the single action between these 2 objects). The reason the brain does not see the double (the shadow) is because it is limited to a certain number of objects. It does not see the double/shadow in the objects currently out of focus.

 

[Mal12345]

The difference is that reality is not the same as the brain's view-of-reality. (the map is not the territory)
Objects don't exist in reality. But the brain divides reality in objects, nested in objects, nested in objects... And if you move objects you move them from object1 to object2. So in object1 you see function1 (substraction) happening, and in object2 you see function2 (addition) happening.
Adding to an object requires subtracting from another object and vice versa.
They look like 2 actions per object to the brain, but it is just one action.

So the reason that there is a shadow is because the brain divides reality in objects, each object registering a reverse-effect of the other object (of the single action between these 2 objects). The reason the brain does not see the double (the shadow) is because it is limited to a certain number of objects. It does not see the double/shadow in the objects currently out of focus.

Epistemology 101. I prefer Kantian Space and Time.

 

[robowolf]

Why do you say every human MUST have all functions? You think just having 1 or 2 functions (=being close to 1 or 2 functions, and far from the rest) is politically incorrect or something?

No, but I've always seen the functions as some sort of basic components that constitute the underlying structure of every personality. I wouldn't say they're 8 machines, more like the elements inside a machine's engine, and if you remove one the system collapses.

The 8 functions are just 8 theoretical points on the spectrum of all human personalities.
And actually some of these functions cancel each other out by definition of the way Jung designed this model. (so you can at max have 4, which cancel out the other 4).

Uhm. I thought this was the definition of the I/E N/S T/F J/P dichotomies.

Question: if Ti is the opposite of Fe and the distance on the spectrum between the two is ten (zero is the middle, the perfect balance, -5 is Ti, +5 is Fe), it's possible that someone is -4 = 90% Ti, but that would mean he's also 10% Fe, and if like you said it's possible to be 100% Ti then it could also be possible to be 50% Ti an 50% Fe. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something but what?

The nice part about Jung's function's though, is that they are uniformly spread over the spectrum. (Not just at weird locations with weird random distances like cities).

I was trying to imagine something like a cube where every vertex corresponds to one function but it made no sense; so I thought maybe there are two spectra, one for the p functions and one for the j functions (two planes), and they intersect in a line whose coordinates determine one's type, but I don't think it would work. How would you represent this spectrum graphically?

 

[Researcher]

Question: if Ti is the opposite of Fe and the distance on the spectrum between the two is ten (zero is the middle, the perfect balance, -5 is Ti, +5 is Fe), it's possible that someone is -4 = 90% Ti, but that would mean he's also 10% Fe, and if like you said it's possible to be 100% Ti then it could also be possible to be 50% Ti an 50% Fe. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something but what?

It's a zero sum game for the opposites.
You make the mistake that Fe+Ti=100%, but Fe+Ti=0, so 90% Ti = -90% Fe.

However, you could do 90% Ti + 10% Fi =100%, because these are not opposites (which is similar to -90% Fe -10% Te = -100%)

 

[Nicodemus]

Even a robot cannot be only Ti without showing Fe! (or Ne without showing Si)

A robot can certainly correct someone's arguments without any intention whatsoever to help them. A robot can certainly do one calculation without implying the mythical opposite of that calcuation. Likewise could a Vulcan... if he were so written.

 

[Researcher]

A robot can certainly correct someone's arguments without any intention whatsoever to help them. A robot can certainly do one calculation without implying the mythical opposite of that calcuation. Likewise could a Vulcan... if he were so written.

You still don't understand....

Yes, the intent is always one-sided (for example, just Ti).

But, the effect in reality is always two-sided (for example, showing both Ti & Fe at the same time, even though the intent was just Ti).

 

[Nicodemus]

You still don't understand....

Yes, the intent is always one-sided (for example, just Ti).

But, the effect in reality is always two-sided (for example, showing both Ti & Fe at the same time, even though the intent was just Ti).

No, the intent is usally multi-causal. Except in robots! But there is a difference between what it is and what you interpret it to be in the effect. Your fart can make me laugh, but that does not make it a joke.

 

[Researcher]

No, the intent is usally multi-causal. Except in robots! But there is a difference between what it is and what you interpret it to be in the effect. Your fart can make me laugh, but that does not make it a joke.

Why is multi-causal intent something magical that cannot be split into separated single intents? I say, if its multi, it can be made from parts. And a robot could also be built like that, why not?

About multi-causal intent, in the abstract meaning of "intent is roughly equal to Jungian functions":
Yes, you can mix any non-(polar-)opposites (such as Fi with Ti), in the same intent.
But you can't mix polar-opposites like Fe & Ti in the same intent. Because adding them equals zero/cancellation/void.

Even if you would have the magical ability to "change your type at will", to have Fe-intent in minute1 and Ti-intent in minute2, then you still cannot have both at the same moment in time, you could only alternate them in that case.

 

[Nicodemus]

Why is multi-causal intent something magical that cannot be split into separated single intents?

Because in our experiment, where I show you that robots can be single-minded if they are so programmed, one intent is one intent.

Yes, you can mix any non-(polar-)opposites (such as Fi with Ti), in the same intent.
But you can't mix polar-opposites like Fe & Ti in the same intent.

According to an unproven theory derived from 19th century thinking about the human mind.

 

[Researcher]

Because in our experiment, where I show you that robots can be single-minded if they are so programmed, one intent is one intent.

I didn't refute that. What is your point?

According to an unproven theory derived from 19th century thinking about the human mind.

The theory of opposites is more like "forgotten ancient knowledge", its not from the last 3 centuries.

I don't know your type, I could just be talking too much "Ti logical crap" to you if you are not a Ti-user, but all I am saying is that you can't "+1" and "-1" at the same time, because the effect is 0. And (+1)+(-1)=0 is not a theory but inborn (for me at least).

If you can agree with me on that last one, then the question is just if you believe that the Jungian model is a model based on opposites or not. (Hint: Jung was a pretty big fan of opposites)

 

[Nicodemus]

I didn't refute that. What is your point?

Still the initial one, that one can use Ti without showing Fe. Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.

 

[Researcher]

Still the initial one, that one can use Ti without showing Fe. Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.

Ok, I will do a last try to explain the idea. I will skip Jungian stuff, and just stay with the +1/-1 example:

If you +1 with container-object-1, it has to come from some other container-object-2 at which it goes -1.

Lets say you walk out of house1 and enter street1.
then you check-out of house1 (-1). And you check-in on street1 (+1). You basically do both at the same time.

However, in our limited mind: It is possible to do only one of both, since you can "ignore" the other half. However, reality or an "all-seeing mind of multiple different observers with multiple perspectives" would not ignore the other half.

So back to the fact that you go out of the house, there is 2 intents you could have had:
- leave house1 (and enter street1 by coincidence)
- enter street1 (and leave house1 by coincidence)

Now back to the robot, instead of you:
Let say your robot only has the intent of doing +1, e.g. enter street1, which will leave the shadow trail of -1 "leave house1".
Then in reality you could observe it as the robot really having that intent of +1: "enter street1". But you could also observe it differently and see its shadow trail as the true intent: Maybe you think that the robot didnt care about house1, so you could interpret it wrongly as -1:"The robot really wanted to leave house1".

It might not be so obvious right away, but there is a totally different motive for the action in each intent I just described.

So what I am trying to say is:
The actor really has only 1 intent (like the robot you described), but this is a perspective from one side. There is always a second unintended side. And the reason for this is because we humans split reality up in objects. Any action on an object has to have an opposite effect on some other object. (Which object you focus on depends on your perspective.)

 

[FemMecha]

I work with someone I think is an ENFP who has been diagnosed with Aspbergers. It's an interesting combination of traits because he has a great deal of insight into educational strategies and can think in terms of internal empathy. He struggled with certain subjects in school and has a hard time with certain types of follow through. He has hyper-focus in artistic areas and can be oblivious in others.

 

[Nicodemus]

Ok, I will do a last try to explain the idea. I will skip Jungian stuff, and just stay with the +1/-1 example:

If you +1 with container-object-1, it has to come from some other container-object-2 at which it goes -1.

Lets say you walk out of house1 and enter street1.
then you check-out of house1 (-1). And you check-in on street1 (+1). You basically do both at the same time.

However, in our limited mind: It is possible to do only one of both, since you can "ignore" the other half. However, reality or an "all-seeing mind of multiple different observers with multiple perspectives" would not ignore the other half.

So back to the fact that you go out of the house, there is 2 intents you could have had:
- leave house1 (and enter street1 by coincidence)
- enter street1 (and leave house1 by coincidence)

Now back to the robot, instead of you:
Let say your robot only has the intent of doing +1, e.g. enter street1, which will leave the shadow trail of -1 "leave house1".
Then in reality you could observe it as the robot really having that intent of +1: "enter street1". But you could also observe it differently and see its shadow trail as the true intent: Maybe you think that the robot didnt care about house1, so you could interpret it wrongly as -1:"The robot really wanted to leave house1".

It might not be so obvious right away, but there is a totally different motive for the action in each intent I just described.

I understood the idea the first time. What I am say is that it is wrong. To test a theory, it makes sense to try to falsify it. Your example of leaving the house/entering the street seems to confirm it because it was chosen to do just that; but once you try to falsify it using a less favorable example, you will see how easily that can be done. What, for instance, is the 'shadow trail' to saying 'Hello' in an empty room or to developing a chess problem?

So what I am trying to say is:
The actor really has only 1 intent (like the robot you described), but this is a perspective from one side. There is always a second unintended side. And the reason for this is because we humans split reality up in objects. Any action on an object has to have an opposite effect on some other object. (Which object you focus on depends on your perspective.)

What you describe here sounds almost like causality. Naturally, the key word is 'opposite effect', which is not causality. Indeed, you said it is impossible to do Ti without showing Fe as well. Showing has a peculiar nature, because it pretends to depict what was intended, although we already established that one can do Ti without intending Fe; what you are really saying is that someone inclined to see Fe can see Fe where there is intended Ti, that is, can interpret Ti as having a shadow trail of Fe. Well, interpretations, being the subjective guess work they are, can be pretty much anything. I bet Ti can just as easily 'show' Te or Se or noodles if the interpreter is so inclined. As I said: Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.

 

[Researcher]

we already established that one can do Ti without intending Fe

We? Who is we?

P.S. You obviously are trying to oppose. But its kind of funny, because by mistake, you actually did not oppose me. Because, it fits my theory perfectly that "one can do Ti and intend Ti", and obviously, "intend Ti" = "without intending Fe". So maybe WE can actually establish that

 

[Nicodemus]

We? Who is we?

P.S. You obviously are trying to oppose. But its kind of funny, because by mistake, you actually did not oppose me. Because, it fits my theory perfectly that "one can do Ti and intend Ti", and obviously, "intend Ti" = "without intending Fe". So maybe WE can actually establish that

If you look back on our discussion, you will see that I never questioned what now in the above you pretend to be the whole of your argument. The point of contention is whether intending Ti inevitably shows Fe. You know, the big part of my last post you intentionally ignored. The wrong part.

I take it this retreat means you acknowledge your error.