No, I never said they did. But some things I think are connected.
And I'm saying you are seeing connections that aren't there.
I understand this, but I think it does have to do with socializing.
It doesn't in a strict Jungian sense.
Any of the functions can make use of the abilities of any of the other functions, but they'll each have their own specialization. And analysis is not Fi's. Is there a point to you relativizing MBTI? Because we're still on a typology website. You can't coherently pretend the types and functions aren't distinct and don't mean anything.
Functions do not specialize. That is not how they operate. Functions are a specific way of taking in information and understanding said information about the world and that's as specialized as you will get. Being a concrete and "hands on" learner doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Se, for example, or even Si but more to do with whether a person is most likely a kinaesthetic learner or not which is very different to how they actually perceive the world around them. A person can be a kinaesthetic learner and be an intuitive.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
It's a Jungian way of looking at it.
I think everyone can be typed, but that's just my opinion. With varying degrees of accuracy.
Yes, but the question then becomes, is it accurate to try to apply a model that operates on that people's cognition is in fact "normal" and expect that model to explain these people as well? Logically speaking, no, it's not. It leads to the logical fallacy that the phenomena in both cases are in fact the same or have the same cause which is not necessarily true. It could be that autistic people evaluate and perceive the world just like the "rest" of us do, but due to their different neurological make-up we cannot be sure of this.
Certain kinds of humor such as sarcasm and irony play on intuitive ideas, for instance the fact that Dexter's boat in the TV series is called
Slice of Life. In order to understand the humor behind the name, you must also realize the intuitive connection between the character Dexter being a serial killer and what he does to understand that "slice of life" is a word pun where "slice of life" does not indicate what we usually think it indicates, i.e. it's kind of caught in the moment (which in itself is also an intuitive expression since we don't mean it in a literal sense but it describes an idea).
A person with autism might not understand this because autistic people tend to interpret things literary. Does it mean autistic people cannot be intuitives? I don't think so, but it's a perfect example to illustrate how the cognition of an autistic person does not operate like it does for a "normal" person where even a healthy inferior N type would understand that "slice of life" is ironic word punnery. I have no doubt in my mind that my ESTP cousin being inferior Ni would understand it for example.
I was apologizing for my mistake being annoying or offensive, not for making the mistake itself. I don't appreciate the unsolicited evaluation of my thinking.
And I'm pointing out that if you had taken the time to logically consider where to put the thread before you made the thread, this would not have happened. It's thus an example of weak use of thinking. The reason why I'm pointing it out is that you excuse your behavior due to weak Fe, but that's simply not correct. Your behavior was not caused by weak Fe but weak T. You need to realize the differences between F and T as functions because I don't think the way you understand them is how they are actually defined in a Jungian sense.
According to this:
http://http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html for INTP. I was just guessing for being oblivious. That wasn't meant to be a scientifically based opinion. It's an intuitive perception.
That's hardly a very good source. They don't even describe the functions as much as they describe a generic and stereotype personality even those that aren't INTPs themselves in terms of function make-up but happened to have the personality they describe can relate to. Enneatype 5s, for example.
Yeah, like I say, a lot of these things overlap. "Highly sensitive" I think means some people haven't cut themselves off from nature and instinct as much as some others. I don't believe it's an actual disorder, no matter what the psychologists think. They want to label everything as some kind of condition.
Psychologists have never claimed that HSP is a "disorder" but what they describe is that HSP is a
temperament that is most likely result of genetics because HSP children are more neurologically active when reacting to stimuli.
I for example cannot stand certain sounds such as screeching noises and need to cover my ears because it hurts in my body listening to it, and this includes sounds that others may not find as uncomfortable. I'm also incredibly sensitive to smells which can cause physical displeasure such as cigarette smoking giving me a headache, other foul-smelling smells or strong perfumes making me nauseous and finding it difficult to breathe and so on. You just learn to get around with these things. I never considered myself abnormal for being HSP although it's a nuisance being out in public because others don't consider that you are and thus expose you to stimuli that you'd rather avoid being exposed to.
It's not so much labeling it as a condition as much as it is recognizing that people
are different and trying to understand the cause of this.
What does this even mean?
It was not your quote so your accusation was misguided to begin with since I never claimed that you wrote or believed such a thing.