Dominant judging types and their perceptions

[EyeSeeCold]

There is something about the dominant judging types Ti/Fi/Te/Fe that isn't really covered by MBTI material. How does perception work and what does perceiving mean in the second position? According to Jung judging functions make Rational interpretations about the things they see.


JiSe: Enters reality as discrete situations and notices that some situations call for certain actions and that others have an overarching atmosphere. They observe the actions people take as well as their own and see what works and who does what, through this they develop instinct and responsiveness. But with this they also sense what people are thinking and what people will do because the situation calls for it or speaks for itself as to how people are feeling. The Se/Ni dynamic opens a door into vast connections driving one towards the truth or 'higher powers' to seek meaning, guidance, and the importance of life beneath the surface away from the banal and desperate reality.

JiNe: Reality to them is a mishmash of various objects and concepts as if life is burgeoning from primordial chaos. They see associative connections between multiple objects and perceive alternate existences that sit on top of reality. The Ne/Si dynamic may cause them to seek out familiar things to anchor them down from chaos or to help navigate uncharted areas in their life.

JeSi: Having experienced various situations in life, each numerous times, a sort of 'best path' can be etched out. These types focus on learning from their experiences as well as the experiences of others. They reject or accept wisdom based on how closely it resembles their understandings and can closely watch the movements in demonstrations or comprehend the intentions of instructions. The Si/Ne dynamic compels the type to long for appreciating reality in a different way(e.g. different cultures, technology) or to return to a state of naiveté otherwise it becomes stuck in its ways and tradition which may not always be accepted by their extraverted society.

JeNi: Through raw situation experience they collect data about the world that ultimately allows them to intuit such information such as the story behind an appearance(past), the potential development of situations(future), or symbols(present). They may seem to be prophets, pioneers, or psychics because they only accept coherent and reliable information. The Ni/Se dynamic may drive them to seek risky and novel situations lest they become absorbed in their visions which go against their extraversion.

Another way to present this idea:
T= analytical / things
F = social / people

JiSe: situation as holistic and current
JeNi: situation as moving or symbolic
JeSi: reality as recurrent and characteristic/regular
JiNe: reality as anomalous and intricate

e.g. FeNi focuses on its intuitions about people, emphasizing participation, caution, and appropriateness in situations, with a liking for analogies and metaphors.



I had a bit trouble writing the JiNe part, I'm not really sure of it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You're overdoing it. Ne prefers novel tuff over traditional stuff, Se prefers tangible stuff over abstract stuff.

Precision isn't obtained by adding "primordoal chaos" and "overarching atmosphere". It's just more mystificaton.

What is the problem you're trying to solve? Why is there a problem about auxiliary perception?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You're overdoing it.

I find this to be a generally quite horrible thing to say to someone.

Discouraging someone from putting in effort? AND putting effort in towards something which this forum is based on in the first place? Errm...

(I forsee a possible counterargument, that what this forum is based on is Ti, whereas "mystification" is Ni... am I hearing you correctly here?)

 

[Architect]

The important concept is inner judging/perceiving versus outer.

Consider an INFJ - dominant inner/introverted perceiver (Ni), but outer/extroverted judger. Meeting one you'd think they have it all wrapped up - they display judgement all over (e.g. telling you their opinion constantly), but in reality they're a mash of ideas, perceptions and little direction. That's the inner perceiving.

Compare to the INTP - dominant inner judger and outer perceiver. On the surface laid back and non judgemental, but engage their reason and you see the decisiveness.

You see? It doesn't matter as much that one's dominant and the other auxiliary in a way, the important bit is that one goes in and the other out. This fact is more explanatory of behavior and motivations. What makes IN types unusual is that their dominant preference (judging Ti for the INTP) is opposite their outward preference (perceiving Ne). This is why the IN's (and probably a few others, have to check the charts) are a bit of a paradox. Seeming to be one thing and being another, as it were.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I find this to be a generally quite horrible thing to say to someone.

Discouraging someone from putting in effort? AND putting effort in towards something which this forum is based on in the first place? Errm...

(I forsee a possible counterargument, that what this forum is based on is Ti, whereas "mystification" is Ni... am I hearing you correctly here?)

What if it's true? I've overdone plenty of things myself and i know how hard it is to confront that realization, having to kill darlings. I also know that people tend to shy away from delivering criticism that's too harsh and reflects poorly on themselves. This results in the persistence of major basic flaws and constitutes a false favor.

Anyway it's just my opinion and i gave nothing like a proof.

Ti vs. Ni sure relates to this. If anything we could agree that what i and probably some others here would consider "overthinking" might in fact be welcomed elsewhere as an inspirational, intriguing and vivid illustration. However, it's somehow implied that insofar as typology is discussed here, it will be in attempts at combinatorial refinement and logical explication rather than intriguing presentation, seeing as we're all familiar with basic Jung and unite in the values of Ti+Ne. In this light, what does an almost romantic phrasing like "primordial chaos" serve to mean? It sure sounds cool to some people who haven't heard of typology and perhaps rings a bell with the ineffable configurations of some Ni instances, but it doesn't serve a theoretical purpose.

I hope ESC takes less offense than he would take from a puppy drooling at his carpet, horrible as my comment may be.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

What if it's true? I've overdone plenty of things myself and i know how hard it is to confront that realization, having to kill darlings. I also know that people tend to shy away from delivering criticism that's too harsh and reflects poorly on themselves. This results in the persistence of major basic flaws and constitutes a false favor.

Anyway it's just my opinion and i gave nothing like a proof.

Ti vs. Ni sure relates to this. If anything we could agree that what i and probably some others here would consider "overthinking" might in fact be welcomed elsewhere as an inspirational, intriguing and vivid illustration. However, it's somehow implied that insofar as typology is discussed here, it will be in attempts at combinatorial refinement and logical explication rather than intriguing presentation, seeing as we're all familiar with basic Jung and unite in the values of Ti+Ne. In this light, what does an almost romantic phrasing like "primordial chaos" serve to mean? It sure sounds cool to some people who haven't heard of typology and perhaps rings a bell with the ineffable configurations of some Ni instances, but it doesn't serve a theoretical purpose.

I hope ESC takes less offense than he would take from a puppy drooling at his carpet, horrible as my comment may be.

You're probably right.

I probably only personally took offense to it, since I get sick of people saying I "overthink" all the time, since I find it to be a generally non-helpful thing to say.

I like to think that I welcome criticism, but maybe only in theory - I tend to get quite defensive from it, in particular if I fail to see the merit of the criticism, or how exactly to apply it. Others are probably better at dealing with it.

To me, the phrase "primordial chaos" brings to mind the idea of contents of the psyche being in basic disarray - primordial referring to the way that the ideas are coming from the genetic past of the individual - and so come up in ways lacking in overarching principles.

That's also a quite vague, perhaps misguided, way of explaining it, however I still find the term to have merit.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You're overdoing it. Ne prefers novel tuff over traditional stuff, Se prefers tangible stuff over abstract stuff.

Precision isn't obtained by adding "primordoal chaos" and "overarching atmosphere". It's just more mystificaton.

What is the problem you're trying to solve? Why is there a problem about auxiliary perception?

Yes in the JiNe part I erred and went against my own concepts of Si. It should be that they seek experiences like JeNi, but instead of wanting to be in new objective situations(e.g. skydiving, hunting, snowboarding, etc ) it's more that they want to be grounded in their own realities which means experiencing some things for the first time. Sensual pleasures, mind-altering substances, new ways of living, that kind of personal experience is what feeds the Ne.

I'm not sure what Se preferring tangibles over abstracts refers to though. I don't mean to say Ni overrides them but that there's a subconscious drive to experience something bigger than their present reality which they know all too well, making religion and desire for mystical experiences background motivations.

Perhaps I am overthinking. Still it seems the role and purpose of secondary perception is unexplored, not that there's an urgent problem.


Re: precision. Indeed! I guess I'm more attempting to convey an ambiguous idea than agree on lucid definitions, and didn't really think how empty a term like "primordial chaos" might be to others.

How about: JiNe sees reality for the bizarre arrangements of shapes and figures that it is rather than the words and meanings we ascribe to them. For example this feeling could be felt if one traveled to other planets, a world with its own reality apart from ours would have strange yet universal characteristics(I recall the scenes near the end of the film 2001).

The important concept is inner judging/perceiving versus outer.

Consider an INFJ - dominant inner/introverted perceiver (Ni), but outer/extroverted judger. Meeting one you'd think they have it all wrapped up - they display judgement all over (e.g. telling you their opinion constantly), but in reality they're a mash of ideas, perceptions and little direction. That's the inner perceiving.

Compare to the INTP - dominant inner judger and outer perceiver. On the surface laid back and non judgemental, but engage their reason and you see the decisiveness.

You see? It doesn't matter as much that one's dominant and the other auxiliary in a way, the important bit is that one goes in and the other out. This fact is more explanatory of behavior and motivations. What makes IN types unusual is that their dominant preference (judging Ti for the INTP) is opposite their outward preference (perceiving Ne). This is why the IN's (and probably a few others, have to check the charts) are a bit of a paradox. Seeming to be one thing and being another, as it were.

This is on a similar note but not entirely relevant, in that more discussion of this would lead to the same topic of the OP. However I do thank PersonalityJunkie for finally bringing the "inner vs outer" idea to mainstream mbti.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not sure what Se preferring tangibles over abstracts refers to though. I don't mean to say Ni overrides them but that there's a subconscious drive to experience something bigger than their present reality which they know all too well, making religion and desire for mystical experiences background motivations.

reality is what reality is

I remember at age 7/seven being in the desert and looking at the sky when it was raining, I had no thoughts in my head visual or auditory, I was just there, in nature. Nature has a spirit, you can hear it in the wind, smell it in the air, see it as the leafs shimmer in the sun. This is how it was with my toys. Every toy I had was special, I would look at them and keep them in their special place next to each other.

I don't know too well what to call abstractions and what to call tangibility. I don't understand what a mathematical proof is. I think it has to do with creating an equation that is symmetrical meaning a balance happens on both sides of the equal sign. If the numbers / axioms line up then geometrically you know what should be on the other side given symmetrical alignment and rotation.

Input these axioms output those axioms.
These geometries complete those geometries.

I understood what a cellular automata was and the fourth dimension when I was 12 all by myself, but math was too hard to understand. No one told me what math was supposed to do. I only understand something if I know what it does. I now know trigonometry rotates triangles inside circles. I remember that in the book you could rotate cubes in the 4D sphere but I did not understand how to make it do so in my head.

Spoiler

I now understand how math works, I now understand how symbols work. I now understand how a Turing Machine works almost because computability is an automata. I don't understand Java because Java requires building systems and I don't build systems, I build models and a model is not a system. Systems interact with each other in a hierarchy. I understand what a hierarchy is but I just cannot figure out the Java Hierarchy because I have no ideas / models that require a hierarchy. That is why I never completed college. They did not tell you what to do. In the government class they said pick out a book from the library and write and essay on it. I did not know what to do. In history class I got a D+ because I could only remember half my notes. I never completed my basic courses to go on to the computer classes. And in high school, I did not know that computer languages require hierarchies. And in the library, none of the books told me what to do. All I knew was that videogames were cool and I wanted to do something cool. I knew what a neural net was but that was it. I suck at photoshop.

Time to finish rambling.
Am I ESFP or not?
PizzaBeak thinks I am Se.

 

[OmoInisa]

reality is what reality is

I remember at age 7/seven being in the desert and looking at the sky when it was raining, I had no thoughts in my head visual or auditory, I was just there, in nature. Nature has a spirit, you can hear it in the wind, smell it in the air, see it as the leafs shimmer in the sun. This is how it was with my toys. Every toy I had was special, I would look at them and keep them in their special place next to each other.

I don't know too well what to call abstractions and what to call tangibility. I don't understand what a mathematical proof is. I think it has to do with creating an equation that is symmetrical meaning a balance happens on both sides of the equal sign. If the numbers / axioms line up then geometrically you know what should be on the other side given symmetrical alignment and rotation.

Input these axioms output those axioms.
These geometries complete those geometries.

I understood what a cellular automata was and the fourth dimension when I was 12 all by myself, but math was too hard to understand. No one told me what math was supposed to do. I only understand something if I know what it does. I now know trigonometry rotates triangles inside circles. I remember that in the book you could rotate cubes in the 4D sphere but I did not understand how to make it do so in my head.

Spoiler

I now understand how math works, I now understand how symbols work. I now understand how a Turing Machine works almost because computability is an automata. I don't understand Java because Java requires building systems and I don't build systems, I build models and a model is not a system. Systems interact with each other in a hierarchy. I understand what a hierarchy is but I just cannot figure out the Java Hierarchy because I have no ideas / models that require a hierarchy. That is why I never completed college. They did not tell you what to do. In the government class they said pick out a book from the library and write and essay on it. I did not know what to do. In history class I got a D+ because I could only remember half my notes. I never completed my basic courses to go on to the computer classes. And in high school, I did not know that computer languages require hierarchies. And in the library, none of the books told me what to do. All I knew was that videogames were cool and I wanted to do something cool. I knew what a neural net was but that was it. I suck at photoshop.

Time to finish rambling.
Am I ESFP or not?
PizzaBeak thinks I am Se.

Quite likely. Your feeling appears to be higher order than your thinking. Te in you seems weak but valued. You seem disposed towards external and concrete markers of validity in the realm of analysis.
Your feeling, while warm, is rarely cast out intrinsically in dialogue with and about others. It's usually centred on the self.

Your ideation is nebulous and untethered, suggesting Ni. It seems on the face of it more prominent than your Se, but one has to be mindful that this is a context made for the abstract rather than the concrete. Observation of you in the real world may well make Se dom less contestable. The fixation on Anime is certainly very familiar.

So SeFiTeNi, with the order being debatable.

 

[Architect]

This is on a similar note but not entirely relevant, in that more discussion of this would lead to the same topic of the OP. However I do thank PersonalityJunkie for finally bringing the "inner vs outer" idea to mainstream mbti.

OK then try it again, what are you really saying? I'm having trouble getting to your core idea through the examples. What disambiguates the different functions when they're in the aux position?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

OK then try it again, what are you really saying? I'm having trouble getting to your core idea through the examples. What disambiguates the different functions when they're in the aux position?

Alright so I guess my thesis would be:
Dominant judging types otherwise known as Rationals to Jung, have a neurotic relationship to their perceptions which may be stronger and given more focused attention because they are subject to the meddling and agendas of the dominant judgement.

And here is an example on Ni to give context:
Whereas Ni dom would usually be content to let things unfold and react in self-preservation ways, the Je dom instead wishes to take control / take advantage of the situation and become Ni -- i.e. the use of indirect actions that achieve out-of-sight purposes. Movies that glorify this secondary perception I'd say would be Usual Suspects with the Keyser Söze character and Inside Man with the bank heist plan. MBTI attributes this largely to INTJ and calls them chess-masters or masterminds but I'd argue this is secondary perception at work, whether Ni or Ne.

Also this has an effect on the tertiary as well. ENTJ and ENFJ again for example might feel a strong need to get out of their heads and into the world with risky / novel situations or classic exercise, this subdues their obsessive/persistent intuition.

 

[∴∴∴]

1. Does Ji stand for "Judging inferior" as in... the secondary function with respect to the initial judging (Fx/Tx) function? I have tried answering my question by searching for it, but whether because of a failure in my search terms or it being your own jargon, I still don't know.

2. Though I'm still new enough to the theory to not be able to really understand what you're talking about here, what you've written has helped me to think more about functions an INTP wouldn't favor, like Ni or Se, in a way that is beyond a weak extrapolation from my own experience. Also, thinking about "dominant judging types" in a way that includes both introverted judging and extroverted judging in the category alone is an interesting take on things. I'm trying to keep a list of possible ways to slice and dice "type" for the sake of maybe, hopefully, eventually getting to understand a solid neurological basis for "type theory" someday. Would that necessarily be possible, let alone useful? Nah. Is it still a wonderful pipe dream to have? Yeah, I think so. It is fun, at least.

3. On the subject of overthinking or adding new terms (and risking mystification), I do see the risk, but elaborating even for elaboration's sake can have a lot of value, from joy and fun to sudden discoveries and insight. What I've just articulated has already been said here, but, hey, I too enjoy some elaboration in-action.

 

[∴∴∴]

Alright so I guess my thesis would be:
Dominant judging types otherwise known as Rationals to Jung, have a neurotic relationship to their perceptions which may be stronger and given more focused attention because they are subject to the meddling and agendas of the dominant judgement.

That is absolutely in accordance with my experience. I am neurotic as hell about...lots of things, but especially my perceptions. So much (seemingly) random shit incoming all the time, and here I've got to make sense of it. And then there are the limitations of physical perception, and the paradoxes still unresolved. Sometimes, I admit defeat and play (or wallow) around in concepts like chaos, incoherence, absurdity, meaninglessness (nihilism), etc. Surrender has always been temporary, so far.

I am also aware the truth is likely not so black-and-white, pick-one, order or chaos. The cycles in people's minds just seem that way I guess. Mental cycles remind me of the neurotic, balance in nervous motion, way of life, so this jam I've just found myself in may fit your neurotic-perception interpretation as well.

EDIT: I'm confused now, you say dominant judging types are the equivalent of Rationals, as in NTs? Or is this just to Jung and some category of Rationals he worked with that isn't actually equivalent to the XNTX=The Rationals concept in modern MBTI? Because... if it is supposed to be the same, I'm not seeing it in the graphics I've found showing the types with their function stacks. ENTP leads with Ne, and so is perception-oriented, not judging(?), for example, while it seems ISTP (not an MBTI rational) leads with Ti.

Also this has an effect on the tertiary as well. ENTJ and ENFJ again for example might feel a strong need to get out of their heads and into the world with risky / novel situations or classic exercise, this subdues their obsessive/persistent intuition.

And wow is the consequence of this format you've illustrated as applied to the INTP function stack ever what tertiary Si is to me. The need to get into my head and risk creating a coherent, singular structure. Or a multitude of such structures, with an unfulfilled desire for unity of thought, in a bizarre way that grates against my habit of only trusting the multifaceted, and only feeling safe leaving things unresolved.

 

[Black Rose]

1. Does Ji stand for "Judging inferior" as in... the secondary function with respect to the initial judging (Fx/Tx) function? I have tried answering my question by searching for it, but whether because of a failure in my search terms or it being your own jargon, I still don't know.

Ji - Introverted Judgment (Ti - Fi)
Je - Extraverted Judgment (Te - Fe)
Pi - Introverted Perception (Ni - Si)
Pe - Extraverted Perception (Ne - Se)

 

[∴∴∴]

Ji - Introverted Judgment (Ti - Fi)
Je - Extraverted Judgment (Te - Fe)
Pi - Introverted Perception (Ni - Si)
Pe - Extraverted Perception (Ne - Se)

Useful stuff, thank you!
(ahg, new information, more complexity of terms) & (I do appreciate it a lot)

I suppose these more general terms could also be put to work for someone who liked some of MBTI/Jungian typology, but wanted to make it solely about introversion vs extraversion and judging vs perceiving (where T and F are presumed two flavors of the same basic thing, and same for N and S). Essentially, a "colorblind" MBTI.* JiPePiJe.

*Not sure if colorblind is the metaphor I want, more like how some languages/cultures have additional or fewer colors named and considered distinct than others. Everything is the same as it ever was, but for a few distinctions being considered not that meaningful or relevant. Could be nice for "advanced" or aged-into-wisdom type people who no longer "separate" their thinking and feeling (or sensing and intuition) - it's balanced, but not in an oscillating way. I'm not sure if I can describe this better. When you learn to functionally have high Fe and high Ti, without them conflicting. If that's even a thing. I've read it's a thing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Useful stuff, thank you!
(ahg, new information, more complexity of terms) & (I do appreciate it a lot)

I suppose these more general terms could also be put to work for someone who liked some of MBTI/Jungian typology, but wanted to make it solely about introversion vs extraversion and judging vs perceiving (where T and F are presumed two flavors of the same basic thing, and same for N and S). Essentially, a "colorblind" MBTI.* JiPePiJe.

*Not sure if colorblind is the metaphor I want, more like how some languages/cultures have additional or fewer colors named and considered distinct than others. Everything is the same as it ever was, but for a few distinctions being considered not that meaningful or relevant. Could be nice for "advanced" or aged-into-wisdom type people who no longer "separate" their thinking and feeling (or sensing and intuition) - it's balanced, but not in an oscillating way. I'm not sure if I can describe this better. When you learn to functionally have high Fe and high Ti, without them conflicting. If that's even a thing. I've read it's a thing.

That is a very interesting analogy, it does at least convey the idea of a unified reality from which our perception flows.

There are deeper concepts beyond JiPe/PiJe that haven't been explored by MBTI but for the purpose of this thread I'm not really touching on them just abbreviating the first function while focusing on the second function such as Se in JiSe.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

2. Though I'm still new enough to the theory to not be able to really understand what you're talking about here, what you've written has helped me to think more about functions an INTP wouldn't favor, like Ni or Se, in a way that is beyond a weak extrapolation from my own experience. Also, thinking about "dominant judging types" in a way that includes both introverted judging and extroverted judging in the category alone is an interesting take on things. I'm trying to keep a list of possible ways to slice and dice "type" for the sake of maybe, hopefully, eventually getting to understand a solid neurological basis for "type theory" someday. Would that necessarily be possible, let alone useful? Nah. Is it still a wonderful pipe dream to have? Yeah, I think so. It is fun, at least.

3. On the subject of overthinking or adding new terms (and risking mystification), I do see the risk, but elaborating even for elaboration's sake can have a lot of value, from joy and fun to sudden discoveries and insight. What I've just articulated has already been said here, but, hey, I too enjoy some elaboration in-action.

That's great. I wish more people would pose questions about mbti/jungian function theory. Of course many forums have worn out the subject matter for several years already, others, more than a decade.

That is absolutely in accordance with my experience. I am neurotic as hell about...lots of things, but especially my perceptions. So much (seemingly) random shit incoming all the time, and here I've got to make sense of it. And then there are the limitations of physical perception, and the paradoxes still unresolved. Sometimes, I admit defeat and play (or wallow) around in concepts like chaos, incoherence, absurdity, meaninglessness (nihilism), etc. Surrender has always been temporary, so far.

I am also aware the truth is likely not so black-and-white, pick-one, order or chaos. The cycles in people's minds just seem that way I guess. Mental cycles remind me of the neurotic, balance in nervous motion, way of life, so this jam I've just found myself in may fit your neurotic-perception interpretation as well.

EDIT: I'm confused now, you say dominant judging types are the equivalent of Rationals, as in NTs? Or is this just to Jung and some category of Rationals he worked with that isn't actually equivalent to the XNTX=The Rationals concept in modern MBTI? Because... if it is supposed to be the same, I'm not seeing it in the graphics I've found showing the types with their function stacks. ENTP leads with Ne, and so is perception-oriented, not judging(?), for example, while it seems ISTP (not an MBTI rational) leads with Ti.


And wow is the consequence of this format you've illustrated as applied to the INTP function stack ever what tertiary Si is to me. The need to get into my head and risk creating a coherent, singular structure. Or a multitude of such structures, with an unfulfilled desire for unity of thought, in a bizarre way that grates against my habit of only trusting the multifaceted, and only feeling safe leaving things unresolved.

Heh your mind sounds fun. I agree with Bronto my terms could use more clarification, it's interesting that you resonate but perhaps it's an unrelated thing.


Dominant judging types are explained in Jung's Types: Rationals . And for the dominant perception types: Irrationals. Nothing to do with NT keirsey rationals.

It is pretty dense material however the basic idea is that Rationals subject their inner/outer reality to reason to the extent there's always a sense of composure about them, even if they seem careless on the outside if you pressed them you'd find they actually have a pretty structured view of the world and themselves that they can't let others impinge on. Irrationals on the other hand are amorphous, they may conform to society's demands but are often found wanting and on the inside wrestling with their feelings and values in a way that mirrors the issues of hedonism, asceticism and existentialism.

 

[OmoInisa]

Rationals subject their inner/outer reality to reason to the extent there's always a sense of composure about them, even if they seem careless on the outside if you pressed them you'd find they actually have a pretty structured view of the world and themselves that they can't let others impinge on. Irrationals on the other hand are amorphous, they may conform to society's demands but are often found wanting and on the inside wrestling with their feelings and values in a way that mirrors the issues of hedonism, asceticism and existentialism.

Interesting. What might the implications be for how rationals and Irrationals interact and relate to each other?

I presume your inner/outer qualifier implicitly suggests that introverted rationals(Ji) subject inner reality to reason(but not so much outer reality). And the converse for extroverted Irrationals(Je).

 

[Architect]

Dominant judging types ... have a neurotic relationship to their perceptions which may be stronger and given more focused attention because they are subject to the meddling and agendas of the dominant judgement.

I'd agree, but wouldn't use the word neurotic which has special connotations. I'd rather say a more tenuous or skeptical view of their perceptions. This would explain why INTP's are so askance of reality - their Judging dominant really doesn't trust the Perceptive information given to it by Ne. It can't, it has to go through the Ti analysis before it can be judged as 'real'. Whereas an INFJ I know who is a perceptive dominant, judging extrovert is the opposite, she trusts her perceptions much more (to a fault in my view). We'll get into spats with her saying something like "well you said X, you did", and I'll be like "well it doesn't matter, either you misperceived or I misspoke, this is what I meant".

So yes I agree with your thesis and see your use of the term neurotic, but be careful using it as in the conventional meaning it's confusing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes Architect that's more the gist of what I meant. Definitely the "trust" part about the INFJ's perception. And yeah I suppose neurotic was also a poor word choice, I think starting with trust/mistrust might have been more ideal. I picked neurotic thinking that it could express the idea that how reality appears or manifests itself becomes a big deal for Rationals/dom judgers in one way or another.

Interesting. What might the implications be for how rationals and Irrationals interact and relate to each other?

I presume your inner/outer qualifier implicitly suggests that introverted rationals(Ji) subject inner reality to reason(but not so much outer reality). And the converse for extroverted Irrationals(Je).

I'd say the implications of rational/irrational are about as equally important as introvert/extravert, there's always a way for two different sides to agree or disagree, and whether specific functions are shared determine if the interaction is likely to be beneficial or unrewarding.

The general theme between rationals and irrationals is one of correction because they're always looking at an issue differently. Between two extraverts or two introverts it's a competitive correction and between extravert rationality and introvert irrationality it's a complementary correction.



To say more would risk attributing normal social differences to typology. It would take me a while though as I'm not completely certain of all the pairings. I'll leave what I have but I'd consider it even more speculative:

Spoiler

Extraverted rationals are in relationship with the external/society in a similar way to extraverted irrationals so to some extent they compete with each other. ERs try to moralize or teach according to their personal beliefs(including enxj but more hands off), this is their rationality. They don't mind naturally interacting with others but always have to put their interactions into a context. While EIs are breaking down barriers and demonstrating others' limited experience or openness, the irrational bit comes in in that they don't put their reality into a context they just interact with it and hone their identities and understandings leaving the environment to shape them to a significant extent.

Between extraverted rationals and introverted irrationals the former is typically better acquainted with external society which puts them in the position of a savior assuming the II is receptive, shared functions only increases this effect. In return ERs can gain specialty insight and cultural knowledge from the II. They're complimentary but find it hard to make a conclusion due to endless correction. They have the potential to crucify each other by basically observing each other's blind spot(e.g. dom Si > aux Si or worse dom Fe > aux Te).

 

[Auburn]

Heya ESC it's been a while! I see you're still into this topic; one of the few left.
I wonder what's kept you engaged?

That's great. I wish more people would pose questions about mbti/jungian function theory. Of course many forums have worn out the subject matter for several years already, others, more than a decade.

Mmhm... Unfortunately, I think there's only so many times a topic like this can be revisited with the same starting information before it becomes a pattern that the refinement of semantics is itself a dead end. Captivating as it may be (especially to Ti) to try and verbalize the fine details between the dichotomies, until *perfection* is reached, it's also a bit uninformative because the most perfect definitions are simultaneously the most abstract and they escape much of the practical application which makes learning about types engaging and translatable into more seamless identification of types.

The reason I ask is that I've found that the few who have stuck with this topic this long, usually have because they gain gratification from the puzzle and mystery itself. The activity of mentally manipulating and revisiting the grammatical objects of the theory to a point of exactitude, is the elusive allure - especially when one knows the subject matter is connected to some actual reality (albeit obscured from common sight). It's like a jigsaw.

Others get tired of this after a while, or entered the fray for different reasons (i.e. gaining insights into how to live their life, what person to partner with) and slowly the mental acrobatics cease to be a sufficient source of inspiration for the trajectory their mind is now navigating through. Hence the lack of further engagement.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hey Auburn. I don't know if my reason for continuing to uphold typology after such time is so grand as you make it sound. For the most part it's a starting point for social interaction for me, considering I'm not too great socializing otherwise. That's pretty much how I've always seen it and I couldn't compare my current or past interest to your practical efforts in physio-typology or Dario Nardi's efforts (btw I saw you've completed your site's type descriptions, I was waiting for that ).


I guess I can see myself in your description, but it would have to be when I first discovered Socionics -- when I saw all the advanced concepts about type that few seemed interested in and the gears in my head turned at the thought of the unearthing the full extent of the theory and the ways it could be applied. However that was a while ago, things are different for me in some ways since then.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

JeNi: Through raw situation experience they collect data about the world that ultimately allows them to intuit such information such as the story behind an appearance(past), the potential development of situations(future), or symbols(present). They may seem to be prophets, pioneers, or psychics because they only accept coherent and reliable information. The Ni/Se dynamic may drive them to seek risky and novel situations lest they become absorbed in their visions which go against their extraversion.

I think this is accurate. I'll attempt to explain this in my own words, though I know I'm limited by subjectivity and semantics.

I spend a lot of time profiling and refining profiles through situational experience. Refining is due to both observation and experimentation. This allows for both speed and accuracy, as only certain circumstances produce certain products and with enough parallel sampling the former predicts the latter and vice versa. With every instance it becomes stronger and more nuanced, and allows you to go further forwards or backwards in prediction. In a sense, if a building's height depends on the width of its foundation, then parallel sampling is the foundation and depth of insight the height; and the more depth, the faster the insight arrives.

 

[Auburn]

Ah, ...yes. Typology's the thematic center which provides these forums a purpose for dialogue to initiate. I think most forumites who engage in typological topics nowadays have a similar motivation; to use it as a starting point for socialization. Tackling the actual beast of empiricism is a whole other matter 0.x ...yes. Quite exhausting but insightful.

Still I've always found your ideas interesting, and am glad you're still around.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

re: using type for socialising/partnering

How do you do this exactly, and how has it supported the socionics model of relationships, as opposed to the more MBTI-ish one? (the MBTI-ish one being that all Ns tend to get on better with each other than say, a random N and S pairing)

Also, which comes first, the smoothness of relations, or the typings? (I recognise, of course, that it could well be done in parallel; nonetheless I believe the question to have meritable responses)

For example, say you are an INTJ, and interacting with an INTP, and it turns into an argument.

Suppose, you can say with fair certainty, that the NiTe vs TiNe differences are a major cause of the concern.

Based on the socionics model, would you presume that there is little that could be done in the way of coming to consensus regarding the argument, and hence not bother? For comparison, suppose on the other hand it was an argument between NiTe and FiSe.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think this is accurate. I'll attempt to explain this in my own words, though I know I'm limited by subjectivity and semantics.

I spend a lot of time profiling and refining profiles through situational experience. Refining is due to both observation and experimentation. This allows for both speed and accuracy, as only certain circumstances produce certain products and with enough parallel sampling the former predicts the latter and vice versa. With every instance it becomes stronger and more nuanced, and allows you to go further forwards or backwards in prediction. In a sense, if a building's height depends on the width of its foundation, then parallel sampling is the foundation and depth of insight the height; and the more depth, the faster the insight arrives.

I'm unfamiliar with the term parallel sampling which messes up the extended metaphor for me, but definitely I'd concur with 'profiling' which has a semantic expectation of acting on the categorized information. How would you differentiate from Ni dom in this case?

Ah, ...yes. Typology's the thematic center which provides these forums a purpose for dialogue to initiate. I think most forumites who engage in typological topics nowadays have a similar motivation; to use it as a starting point for socialization. Tackling the actual beast of empiricism is a whole other matter 0.x ...yes. Quite exhausting but insightful.

Still I've always found your ideas interesting, and am glad you're still around.

Thank you Auburn, I'm grateful for the acknowledgement and also you've been around when I started out myself so it does mean a lot to me to see you continue on as well. And not just that but also breaking new ground.



@Artsu That topic really warrants its own thread but I'd be willing to join if you were intent on making one.

>Based on the socionics model, would you presume that there is little that could be done in the way of coming to consensus regarding the argument, and hence not bother?

I think this comes down to humanity overcoming its own nature. Even though patterns and habits exist, through force of will and shared empathy people can transcend their 'facts', or perhaps not and fail tragically. Still a poem worthy of humanity.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If I were to make a thread on that sort of topic, it would probably be about building cases for which types get on best with which other types, if type compatibility exists at all.

I would generally agree, that even in the case where personalities inherently clash, we have the ability to transcend such matters.

--

It could be argued that there is no reason that personality type should have much at all to do with compatibility.

For example, suppose we designed a schooling system based on whether someone was a visual, verbal, or kinaesthetic learner - outside of the classroom, would their learning style matter, such as in forming friendship? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there isn't an a priori reason to think so.

I remember reading one MBTI relationship study, which seemed to have the most clear result being that romantic relationships with a feeling type were generally rated as being more satisfactory, which goes against the notion of personality type being a factor in compatibility - except maybe in the sense that a feeling type would prefer a feeling type for a relationship, since both are more relationship focused.

I tend to not give all that much credibility to MBTI studies, especially since generally I doubt there'd be much certainty in how the participants are typed, but the point is that the existence of type compatibility at all is debatable.