simulatedworld
Freshman Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,552
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 7w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Well, I totally agree with the first two of those sentences.
But the thing about the Te description, and descriptions of any functions as sole and independent things, is that it completely leaves out how those functions interact with other functions, and the counterbalancing effects of those interactions.
I am by no means rigid in my plans; I like to make them, and then improvise and change them around like crazy.
Why? Because my Ni brings flexibility to my Te rigidity.
It's really impossible, or, more accurately, absurd to think of the functions independently and in isolation. It's a vacuum that doesn't exist.
Yeah, and we do so for the sake of accuracy...
Which is more important: the Ti user's model, or the truth?
What was that you were saying about describing your dislike for the way users of each function interact with you rather than the function itself?
The problems with my understanding of Ni are matched only by yours of Ti.
I find it awfully ironic that an Ni dom is preaching about "the truth", though, as if such a thing actually exists independently of human perception.
P.S.,
Te is really, really, really imprecise and inaccurate. NTJs constantly make sloppy errors in logic. Remember, everything you find annoying about Ne overgeneralizing and sacrificing depth for the sake of broader applicability applies equally well to the way Ti users feel about Te.
Course, you don't need to listen to me, cause Ti is inferior anyway. (But I'm sure you know that, since you rock so hard at all four NT functions.)
The piece would have been better titled not "a description of Ni", but a description of Ni from an Ne-dom's perspective, or, better yet, a description of Ni from simulatedworld.
Indeed, judging from how terrible your general understanding of Ne/Ti is, I can only imagine how annoying hearing a non-Ni type describe your dominant function must be.
This fits. Everything after that is a non sequitur that describes how Ni might manifest in behaviors, rather than what Ni actually is. He's still anthropomorphizing the functions as if they are people, which is a strong indication that he's characterizing his experiences of those who predominately use Ni rather than talking about the functions themselves. In other words, he's stereotyping and not archetyping, which is a consequence of applied typology, and a cause of what SolitaryWalker calls "folk typology".
Unfortunately for SolitaryWalker, well-versed in Jungian typology though he may be, he lives in a giant Ti+Si loop and displays almost no Ne whatsoever.
He's actually quite similar to functianalyst from personalitycafe, an ISTP very heavily mired in Ti+Ni.
My use of such examples is a manifestation of Ne: I sacrifice precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others.
That's the crux of an extroverted perspective: Breadth over depth. Choosing a perspective with a wide range of external applications necessitates that we give up some degree of perfect accuracy. When you're stuck in an I+I loop, you can't do that because you don't understand how breadth could ever be preferable to depth.
And yet, sometimes it is. "Folk typology" as defined by SolitaryWalker is basically, "Applying typology to anything real or useful or meaningful in the real external world outside one's own head."
Because doing so requires us to sacrifice some degree of depth and precision, to an ultra-introvert with no discernible E perspective, it's the cardinal sin.
And by that definition, I am very much a folk typologist. I actually like to relate my ideas to things outside my own head.
I wish there were more extroverts interested in this stuff, cause I get kinda tired of hearing the same tired introverted criticisms again and again. "BUT ZOMG WE DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT 100% IMPECCABLE COMPLETE CERTAINTY!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN THIS BE USEFUL IN ANY WAY EVER AT ALL??????????" sigh.