INTP - i think you make some really excellent conclusions and have some great insights in that post, but if you broke it up into maybe titled sections or some smaller paragraphs a little more, i think it would get read by more people
INTP said:
This results INTJ to be bad at explaining how he came to conclusion about something and will see the deduction process as something simple, like of course it is like this and his conscious reasoning is based on the external facts, and not so much deduction about why these facts are this together. [...]
INTP on the other hand uses Ne, so he notices the big picture in the external world better than INTJ, but is unable to explain the external world well without explaining why something is what it is. because for INTP the external world is viewed through unconscious and when things are internalized from this unconscious realm, they come on a realm of detailed deduction, due to Ti Si.
actually that makes a lot of sense and i think it works for the other types, too. ENFJs are kind of shitty at explaining NiTi (no offense ENFJs), and ENFPs are shitty at explaining FiSi. or at least, we rely on the Ti and Si, respectively, because they allow Fe and Ne to function, but we can't tell you why things have to be that way. it's an unconscious grounding in our inferior process.
INTP said:
about that "Ne goes for breadth, Ni goes for depth" thing [...]
yeah. i always feel like i go straight to the "heart" of things, but in truth i suppose what i'm doing in pulling Ne universals and going deep with Fi. god damn it, more sexual language
but seriously, it's interesting. i see it like this:
(((♥))) {{{♣}}} |||♥||| [[[[♦]]]]]
Fi goes after the "hearts", and Ne sees that some of them are either the same or at least parallel, even though the external constructions are different.
yes they're all supposed to look like vaginas
Sorry, man. Guild rules require that if ENFP Si conservatism blocks INTJ Se gormlessness, the entire discussion must end in pouts and foot stamping.
the same idea that INTP has gotten at! look how they are connected... [says Ne]
you and your word games though, lol.
it's difficult to let go of "facts" and substitute moment-to-moment observations, it feels like the bottom of my whole cognition system is falling out! it's fascinating to try thinking this way. it's actually quite hard.
just like Fi in the morning.
i don't understand though, if you don't have connection, what makes everything be coherent? the Ni universal patterns? or... you don't need coherence... because you're not seeking everything to be connected... and Se provides stable reality... and instead you're seeking to find the singular relationship that explains everything? errr
Ah, ok.
The Si looks like a testicle. The testicle is the male reproductive organ. The need fulfilled by the Si function is security and permanence of the individual's psyche. The need fulfilled by the testicle is the reproduction and permanence of the individual's DNA. Si can only use the sensory data the individual previously acquired within the psyche to fulfill this end of security and permanence. The testicle can only use the DNA previously acquired from the individual's parents to fulfill this end of reproduction and permanence of DNA. As such, a testicle is a fitting metaphor for the Si function. The question remains, however, whether it is the optimal metaphor for the Si function.
that's still Ne, you know
though maybe you know this and are just playing, lol
If you did, would that be shifting contexts?
I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.
I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.
yeah actually, as far as i'm seeing it, it's not the
context that changes at all. i mean, if oro is right with her examples, then you keep the relationships and switch the contents. it looks like context shifting on yall's part because you make so many jumps that we don't get to see. it looks like going from "the sun makes pavement hot" to "the bulb makes the light switch hot", which appears to place the same roles in a different context, but you've run through a whole lot of other substitutions to get there. and that's not even really Ni, that last statement, is it? that's the Se statement, but with the application of the invisible Ni rule.
funny how that statement actually looks more like Ne, because it's a parallel to the first statement, even though paralleling is not not the thought process behind it. Ne can do the same thing, actually, like onemoretime did. if you run Ne around enough, you'll end up at something that appears to be a Ni substitution.