yvonne
A passer by
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 534
- MBTI Type
- INfP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
It's the only point of view I got!
sorta...
![]()
believe me, i know...
![Smile :smile: :smile:](/data/vbsmilies/happy-smiley-8464.gif)
It's the only point of view I got!
sorta...
![]()
You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
I didn't say that Te is what Ti is.^ i agree with your post, but not uumlau's. i don't think that Te is what Ti is. i think they're two different ways to think, not just appear to be different...
You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?
^ p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...
zarathustra said:p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...
A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose!)
you know Z for some reason this topic bugs me. In a personal way, so please forgive the potential deviation from logic. You are using very positive words above to describe Xi relative to Xe.
It almost points towards dom Xi as always being more powerful than dom Xe-your original wording I might add. (Aux Te doesnt throw things out willy-nilly, I kinda think you really meant powerful.)
But then the counter suggestion was made that aux Xi gives depth. But aux will never have the depth that a dom will have. No ENFP will ever have the refinement in use of Fi that an INFP will have. Thus an extrovert will always be inferior to an introvert it terms of power? You kinda see the oddness here? You dont say it directly...but yeah. In spite of the logical arguments, the tone conveys the implication.
For me Ne is Everything. When I think of where my personality is seated, I sit on the very edge of Ne, an endless vista looking out onto everything. It endlessly connects. Ne is self defining for me. I claim it as my soul.
When I took my mbti certification class the instructor made us draw a room decsribing out personality. I drew a massive window looking out upon an ocean, covered in vines. The picture began at the window itself, teetering on the edge of falling out.
I "think/feel" with Ne. I suppose Fi has a set of core truths-as of late far more developed than I originally thought, albeit quite odd core truths. Te has a set of objective, external observables, a whole library of them stored away for comparison.
By being "seated" in Ne, I can step away from Fi/Te and observe, compare, contrast, see every side of an argument, then try to perceive a perspective very different from my own base, dare I say meta cognition of some sort? I dunno...
yeah Ne is my soul ...
Same goes to you:
I must say how surprised I am that two Ne doms are upset that I've claimed that Ni is deeper, more robust, more substantive, more thorough, and more focused than Ne...
![]()
As an Ni dom, I find it problematic, because, relative to Ne, Ni doesn't lose the forest for the trees.
Ne is running around looking at all the different trees, while Ni is sitting back, focusing from whatever level of distance it chooses to.
A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose!)
Okay, you are fascinated by a certain "aspect" of introverted functions, and are trying to find the right angle that the aspect covers.It's more robust, more substantive, and more powerful, all in some particular sense of those words.
...
The Xi functions all seem to be more deep, substantive, robust, powerful, thorough, and focused than their Xe counterparts...
I noticed the first time I talked to you that you still genuinely believe Ni to be the superior perspective. When I first pointed that out you wriggled out of it by implying that it was a joke, but after talking to you enough I'm fairly convinced you actually believe it.
You continually assert your proficiency in all four NT functions and yet you continually fumble through NeTi cognition.
If your NeTi were that solid, you wouldn't make so many clear mistakes in those languages:
It's this kind of thing that best highlights your errors in understanding NeTi and unconscious overvaluing of Ni.
Sim's lady friend said:Agreed. I'm the queen of this. I see many many the possibilities but can't pick one.
Not that that's a bad thing...every type unconsciously overvalues his own perspectives. It's just that for Ni doms, who are naturally good at acknowledging different conceptual standpoints, this sometimes translates into naive overconfidence in their own ability to do this and a refusal to accept that their perspectives are not all-encompassing.
Susan B. Anthony said:"The interesting thing about religion is that it's supposed dictates always seem to align with that of the dictator's self-interest."
Many situations in which you assume NeTi to be "missing the forest for the trees" are actually just your own inability to follow Ne connections. You think "Gosh that came out of left field" but it didn't; you just don't see the similarity yet.
Ni is deeper and narrowly focused, but it is not more substantive. Your definition of substantive is based on a personal preference for the value of introverted cognition, not any real qualitative difference in the value of the information at hand.
This happens to you a lot. It doesn't happen as much to uumlau:
A significant limitation of Ni is that Ni chooses its perspective, thus it can easily be as narrow as any other introverted function. If one chooses a bad perspective, the results can be quite confusing. The remedy is to run four or five perspectives in parallel, and see which ones click. Others' Ne is very useful in that regard, because it can jar Ni into a new, heretofore unknown perspective. (Caveat: not necessarily a perspective that the Ne person would choose!)
I wouldn't say that the choosing is its weakness, so much as when it sticks too rigidly to one or a number of perspectives that it has chosen, without opening up for a new, potentially insightful perspective.
Admittedly, this does happen from time to time...
AND Ne is good at creating that opening...
You always like to move the spotlight away from your blindspots and onto others', don't you?
The real difference is that Xe is shared, while Xi is kept to oneself. The "depth" is something of an illusion. The truth is that Xi is unexpressed, and it requires effort to perceive it in others. What will happen is that Ni doms appear remarkably insightful, because they don't show how they figured something out, and will quickly change their answer if they learn they're wrong, often without you knowing. Fi doms will appear remarkably wise, because you don't know how much foolishness they kept hidden. Si doms will remember a remarkable amount of detail, but often misremember things and you will be none the wiser. Ti doms can be brilliantly logical, but you'll often not know how many completely stupid ideas they also believe, because they don't express them clearly enough to be evaluated.
I agree that Extroverted functions are broad (Te, Se, Ne, Fe), whereas Introverted functions are deep (Fi, Ti, Ni, Si).
Thus an extrovert will always be inferior to an introvert it terms of power? You kinda see the oddness here? You dont say it directly...but yeah. In spite of the logical arguments, the tone conveys the implication.
Not that that's a bad thing...every type unconsciously overvalues his own perspectives. It's just that for Ni doms, who are naturally good at acknowledging different conceptual standpoints, this sometimes translates into naive overconfidence in their own ability to do this and a refusal to accept that their perspectives are not all-encompassing.
Many situations in which you assume NeTi to be "missing the forest for the trees" are actually just your own inability to follow Ne connections. You think "Gosh that came out of left field" but it didn't; you just don't see the similarity yet. Ni is deeper and narrowly focused, but it is not more substantive. Your definition of substantive is based on a personal preference for the value of introverted cognition, not any real qualitative difference in the value of the information at hand.
Maybe "independent?" Introverted functions handle their whole work more "independently?" But that is actually "independence from outside information," which is expected of an introverted function. It's why some people have chosen the adjective "narrow."
How would you counter this Z, or balance it in the equation you're trying to create? I am curious to see what you would say here ...
Very well-expressed.
I responded to her post here.
The first bolded part: yes.
The second (and much of the rest of it): not so much...
See my response to Sim above...
I did read that - but no, I wanted you to try to answer her without reasserting your position. I wanted you to bring balance to the equation, where you're not just saying you think the introverted function is superior.
Well, let's stop to consider for a second: no function can claim to be another, can it? Let's try a corollary - Fi is not Fe; there's a whole separate set of skills and rules involved in effective use of Fe. In fact, Fi can be downright dense trying to understand Fe. How then can Ni just be a stronger Ne? It's an invalid comparison. Ne uses a set of rules that you don't.
No, I am not saying everyone is the same, but they are equal.![]()
I want you to be able to assert your position but not do it on the backs or at the expense of other types.