Introverted functions are more ________ than their extroverted counterparts

[yvonne]

It's the only point of view I got!

sorta...

believe me, i know...

 

[Zarathustra]

You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?

You always like to move the spotlight away from your blindspots and onto others', don't you?

 

[Zarathustra]

^ p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...

 

[sculpting]

You're awfully unaware of the limitations on Ni, aren't you?

+1

 

[uumlau]

^ 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...

I didn't say that Te is what Ti is.

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...

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! )

 

[Zarathustra]

+1

Same goes to you:

p.s. if you feel like something I said was inaccurate, please, point it out...

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...

 

[Zarathustra]

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...

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

"More powerful" really is the least accurate descriptor of the six or so words I've used to describe what it is that Xi is more of than Xe.

I do, however, hold the bias that, all other things being equal, introverts are generally more of the other five words than extroverts.

However, all other things are usually not equal, and, thus, this need not at all be the case...

As you said in your Te-laced post earlier, if one were able to and tried to objectively measure this quality of "depth" (or robustness, thoroughness, focus, or substantiveness), one would find that some extroverts have extremely well developed auxiliary functions, perhaps even more well-developed than some introverts' dominant functions, and, as such, would actually have more of this "depth" than some introverts.

In fact, I would expect this to be the case in a reasonably high number of circumstances.

It all comes down to individuals' own level of personal development.

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 ...

This was all very beautiful.

 

[simulatedworld]

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...

No one's upset; you're correct that Xi is deeper/more narrowly focused than Xe. It's just kind of ironic how impressed with yourself you are every time you make these subtle implications about Ni's superiority and add that jew face emoticon as if you think you're being subtly clever.

You're not. 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:

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.

It's this kind of thing that best highlights your errors in understanding NeTi and unconscious overvaluing of Ni. 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.


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! )

 

[Cimarron]

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...

Okay, you are fascinated by a certain "aspect" of introverted functions, and are trying to find the right angle that the aspect covers.

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."

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

Ah, yes. I do remember that encounter.

And I believe I remember you saying that while I may be joking, that I probably half believe it.

And then I think I essentially admitted as much...

So, yes, the truth is: I do believe it is superior.

I believe Ni is superior to Ne, in the same way that I believe that Ti is superior to Te: in that they're both more rigorous, thorough, substantive, robust, and deep.

You continually assert your proficiency in all four NT functions and yet you continually fumble through NeTi cognition.

I'm not sure the last time I made such a claim, but I believe it was about, what, two weeks ago? And that might have been the first or second time I'd ever done so... You seem to be quite obsessed with my willingness to make this claim, and certainly overstate the extent to which I actually assert it.

Furthermore, I never claimed any extreme proficiency in Ne and Ti, but merely stated that I use them (as uumlau claims, too). Actually, if you go back and read what I said, I claimed that, while I can get into that mode (my shadow) and use those functions, it is not at all as natural as my dom and aux and is essentially energy-draining relative to my default mode of thought (NiTe).

Regardless, and this is the more important point, as you and I have discussed and agreed to before: logic is logic.

One does not need to be using Ti to follow logic, nor does one need to be using Ne to see a connection between two objects.

As such, regardless of whether I am capable of using or am actively using NeTi at the time when I claim to see the point that you are making: I am capable of seeing your point regardless. I likely do so via my NiTe, as that is my dominant mode of thought, but anybody could see the connection and the logic that your NeTi comes up with, whether they're a NeTi user or an FiSe user. It's logic.

You like to tell yourself that I'm not seeing the point, and, perhaps this is the case sometimes, but, the one time you've really claimed with utmost urgency that this was the case (our argument last week in the astrology thread), this certainly was not the case.

If your NeTi were that solid, you wouldn't make so many clear mistakes in those languages:

When you claim that I have made a clear mistake, would you mind actually showing what mistake has been made, rather than merely quoting what I have said and offering no substantive analysis whatsoever to support said claim?

Your Ti should know better than this...

It's this kind of thing that best highlights your errors in understanding NeTi and unconscious overvaluing of Ni.

Once again, you provided no analysis.

Simply a claim.

How does what I said about Ne and Ni represent an error in my thinking?

Your lady friend has essentially repped me as much herself:

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.

You know, it's interesting, because you always seems to be accusing me of overconfidence whenever it is that I'm having an argument against you... hmm... that's interesting... kinda reminds me of this quote I heard over the weekend:

"The interesting thing about religion is that it's supposed dictates always seem to align with that of the dictator's self-interest."

As for refusing to accept that my perspective is not all-encompassing: I proclaim, here and for all time, that my perspective is not all-encompassing.

Would you also like me to claim that your is, so that this could all be settled?



(also, was that witty enough to deserve the jew wink?)

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.

Once again, this is the point in the argument where you try to say that I just don't understand your style of thinking, by claiming that you actually understand mine.

Which makes you wrong not only once (i.e., about what I'm trying to pointing out to you: like, in the case of our last long argument in the astrology thread, when I told you from the very beginning that your attempt to compare astrology to MBTI in order to render it verifiable or falsifiable [which is what you were doing], was doomed to failure, which about 100 posts later you went eventually explicitly admitted), but twice (i.e., that you understand my [and NiTe, in general] thinking).

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 is actually a worthwhile point of contention (the diamond in the rough that was your mostly worthless post).

The mere fact that an opinion, claim or argument comes from an introverted function does not mean that it is necessarily more substantive than an opinion, claim, or argument that comes from an extroverted function.

That is absolutely true.

I'm just saying that, all other things being equal, introverted functions tend to be more thorough, deep, robust, substantive and rigorous than their extroverted counterparts.

This I also believe to be true.

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! )

Perhaps you hadn't read it yet, but I provided a response to that quote by uumlau agreeing to much the same thing, albeit with what I believe was an improvement/clarification which, as of yet, he has not chosen to comment on (whether that's out of agreement I don't know, but I do believe my characterization brought the point closer to the truth, and he may very well agree as much):

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...

Anyway, that's enough dismantling...

Oh, but before I go, lest I forget: you still didn't answer my question:

You always like to move the spotlight away from your blindspots and onto others', don't you?

 

[PeaceBaby]

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 like this post. I've always felt being Xi dom enables the processing to take place before the mouth opens or the body acts ... like a helpful filter to keep some unvarnished content from escaping to the outside world. Then again, sometimes that raw content is like the seed that never receives the light of the external world, thus never grows.

I agree that Extroverted functions are broad (Te, Se, Ne, Fe), whereas Introverted functions are deep (Fi, Ti, Ni, Si).

This is effective wording, because breadth and depth do not negate each other. It's affirmative of each perspective.

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.

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 ...

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.

Very well-expressed.

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."

Independent is another nice word ... not exactly right, but again, the wording is important as the nuances carry quite a bit of subjective weight.

Here's my analogy:

Introverted functions are like the empty cup you can always refill from the drink dispenser, as much as you want as often as you like ... extroverted functions are like the all-you-can-eat buffet, with a multitude of choices, and you can sample a bit of everything if you desire.

You can drink deep ... or dine from a wide variety of choices. Both are sustaining. But you must do both in order to be balanced and healthy ... eat and drink.

 

[Zarathustra]

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 ...

I responded to her post here.

Very well-expressed.

The first bolded part: yes.

The second (and much of the rest of it): not so much...

See my response to Sim above...

 

[PeaceBaby]

I responded to her post here.

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.

The first bolded part: yes.

The second (and much of the rest of it): not so much...

See my response to Sim above...

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

So you're trying to force me to say that every function is equal in every and all regards?

This isn't the Mr. Rogers show, babe.

This is reality...

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.

Jesus H. Christ, only an F could actually think this logic would work on a T...

 

[Zarathustra]

PeaceBaby, I hope you realize that, as I have explicitly stated, I also think that Xe functions are superior to Xi functions in other regards.

Why the need for the mirage of equality in all arenas?

This impulse reminds me of a very good book I read: The Closing of the American Mind

The unfortunate side effect of Lockean and Nietzschean thinking having a baby...

 

[PeaceBaby]

No, I am not saying everyone is the same, but they are equal.

I just think you are falling into the same old stereotypes that seem to plague this site.

I want you to be able to assert your position but not do it on the backs or at the expense of other types.

 

[Zarathustra]

No, I am not saying everyone is the same, but they are equal.

That's the Lockean thinking...

I want you to be able to assert your position but not do it on the backs or at the expense of other types.

And there is the Nietzschean-gone-wrong plus Lockean thinking...

 

[Zarathustra]

Peacebaby, there's a place where some things come only at the expense of other things: it's called reality.

I understand that you're a sweetheart and wish it were some other way: but, frankly, it's not.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ are you saying you lack sufficient insight and reflective depth in order to do so? Lack ... a certain cognitive power, perhaps? (ooooooh)

Consider it a personal challenge ... can you define both without negating either?

Edit: and please don't over-edit your posts after I read them; I can't adequately respond. Challenge still stands.