Intuitive vs. Sensing

[opllars]

I thought I have finally understood the functions and found it simple to type, but now I am in doubt if a family member of mine is a Se or Ne. And THAT ought be an easy one.
But to me it seems as he uses Se and Ne equally and both with success.
N: He is very restless, always has new ideas that he implements before having checked the details, also major details! He jumps to conclusions all the time, because he very fast see patterns, and find it annoying when I object with my Ti. He has always read a new book, with wild perspectives about the future of the world. He lives very much in the future.
S: He likes to be in nature, like so use his hands, are good at it. He must out every day to see, hear, touch....use his senses. Are very good to handle material things (although not very accurate, when he does his carpenter work), often talks about "strong experiences", are occupied with aesthetics, furniture, design. Are very "solid"... are 'in his body'. Can always find his way when driving. Has a lot of stamina and are not easily frightened.

Some years ago I thought he was a Se, and have become fascinated with his inferior function and therefore are into a lot of alternative stuff and wild ideas.
Later I became convinced that being so occupied with possibilities all the time, he MUST be a Ne.
Jung describes how hard it can be to decide between two opposite functions, and that one must find out which one is 'conscious' and which one is showing itself in a primitive fashion. Well, his intuition brings him into a lot of trouble...but thats is characteristic for Ne, isnt it...

Furthermore - One of them should be expressed in an introverted way, but he is using both N and S extroverted! It doesnt make sense....or MBTI doesnt make sense....

 

[flow]

We already have a thread like this, and this particular thread has no business being in the INTP section.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=1427

 

[spockguy]

ISTP/ISFP (or possibly ESTP or ESFP, but less likely) developing Ni? "He has always read a new book, with wild perspectives about the future of the world. He lives very much in the future." Sounds extraordinarily Ni opposed to Ne to me...

 

[Decaf]

I thought I have finally understood the functions and found it simple to type, but now I am in doubt ...

That doubt tells you that you really are catching on. Most experts find it very difficult to type people without their own input. That's why most of them don't do it.

 

[opllars]

Yes, of course its impossible to type a person from a describtion. It´s not so much about him, but understanding N and S. I have been doubting the validity of typing from the start, the claim that everybody can be put into the system. Maybe some of us are in the 'grey zone´and maybe some of us are jumping between two opposites and maybe some are NeSeTiFe, sometimes falling into NiSiTiFi. After all there has never been any research that has validated the claims in MBTI. Its like in the enneagram system, were it is claimed that being a type 7, you´re ´wing´is always either 6 or 8, because the other ones would not be compatible with 7. Interestingly, type 7 is similar to Ne and type 8 is similar to Se, so these goes well together in the enneagram but cant be united in MBTI. And also the intuitive type 7 dont combine with any of the feeling types in the enneagram, you cant have a type 7, that sometimes show type 2,3 or 4 traits. And that is because this would go beyond the theory of the system. But maybe the system is wrong?.....

 

[Decaf]

Yes, of course its impossible to type a person from a describtion.

I wasn't asserting that its impossible to type someone from a description. I'm saying its impossible to assign someone one letter of a dichotomy because you don't know what's going on in their head, but that doesn't make the theory invalid. The dichotomies are a simplification for mass application of a theory that from its inception was much more complex.

It´s not so much about him, but understanding N and S. I have been doubting the validity of typing from the start, the claim that everybody can be put into the system. Maybe some of us are in the 'grey zone´and maybe some of us are jumping between two opposites and maybe some are NeSeTiFe, sometimes falling into NiSiTiFi.

Simple rules, complex consequences.

Simple rules:
The brain is built on the scar tissue that is created by electrical impulses traveling between neurons. The new tissue is easy to travel along, thus a memory can leave an indelible impression on the mind in the same way that a particular thought process can.

If you can divide up the ways to accomplish something successfully into a few patterns of behavior you should be able to trace back their original concept. If the neural network is constructed using simple rules, simple concepts should guide them. That's where the dichotomies come into play. There are two ways of approaching a thought: focusing subjectively towards your memories or focusing objectively toward your senses. There are two ways of analyzing new data: looking for detail or looking for correlations. Etc...

With those simple rules the brain with its 100 billion neurons, each of which is capable of thousands of connections, those simple rules evolve into complex patterns of behavior. Deviations that go against those rules are fixed by natural selection. They are generally ineffective, and so the brain purges them.

Complex consequences:
This is the part we refer to as the human mind. Theres no need for complex rules when you can achieve complexity through mass. In fact, complex rules are unfavorable because they would tend to break down more often and be harder for the body to fix. If a brain developed that functioned on complex rules it probably didn't last long.

I don't think even those who don't support personality theory would suggest that there aren't some genetic differences that result in different behavior in individuals. The only conclusion you need to come to in order to accept type theory as viable is that those genetic differences are systematic and that diversity in that regard is beneficial. If you don't believe that, then you should stop bothering with the theory entirely.

It should also be fairly clear at this point that the theory was never intended to make things simple. It was designed in the hopes of being correct, with all the complexity that entails. I would recommend reading some books on the subject if you want to get beyond a basic internet knowledge.

After all there has never been any research that has validated the claims in MBTI.

You seem awfully certain about something you clearly haven't done any research of your own on.

http://www.amazon.com/Portraits-type-MBTI-research-compendium/dp/0935652515

Then again you might be making the oft recited claim that those studies were not subjected to suitable scrutiny, but if you haven't looked at the studies themselves, I think that's a cop out.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Simple rules, complex consequences.

Simple rules:
The brain is built on the scar tissue that is created by electrical impulses traveling between neurons. The new tissue is easy to travel along, thus a memory can leave an indelible impression on the mind in the same way that a particular thought process can.

If you can divide up the ways to accomplish something successfully into a few patterns of behavior you should be able to trace back their original concept. If the neural network is constructed using simple rules, simple concepts should guide them. That's where the dichotomies come into play. There are two ways of approaching a thought: focusing subjectively towards your memories or focusing objectively toward your senses. There are two ways of analyzing new data: looking for detail or looking for correlations. Etc...

With those simple rules the brain with its 100 billion neurons, each of which is capable of thousands of connections, those simple rules evolve into complex patterns of behavior. Deviations that go against those rules are fixed by natural selection. They are generally ineffective, and so the brain purges them.

Well, I just acquired some knowledge I was previously unaware of! Thanks.

This... "The brain is built on the scar tissue that is created by electrical impulses traveling between neurons." ... espaecially 'blew my mind'.
Would you have a link for an elaboration of this or perhaps a book which wouldn't be too technical which you could recommend?

 

[opllars]

Thanks Flow, I can see that this thread does not belong in this section, however I dont know how to move it to another - maybe the moderator could help?.......

Decaf. when you write: 'I would recommend reading some books on the subject if you want to get beyond a basic internet knowledge' I find it a bit arrogant.

And when you write: "You seem awfully certain about something you clearly haven't done any research of your own on.... if you haven't looked at the studies themselves, I think that's a cop out ". I will remind you that studies have long time ago showed that indicator score distributions were not bimodal, which is a big problem to a theory that speaks about people being either N or S, either T or F.

Whether or not you regard me as someone who ought to read some books, I shall come up with another example that shows my point: Jung himself did not mention that the secondary function had to be E if the main function was I. He considered himself an introvert, and a mixture of T and N. I suppose that he would have answered that both functions were introvert in his case, had anybody asked. Anyhow it seems obvious that both his Ti and Ni was rather well developed.
I think that given some time, I would be able to come up with examples of well known persons who who show extraversion on both N and S (or introversion on both). Maybe it is a seldom phenomena, and then its not a flaw in the theory. But if it is rather common there is a problem......

 

[Decaf]

Decaf. when you write: 'I would recommend reading some books on the subject if you want to get beyond a basic internet knowledge' I find it a bit arrogant.

I was responding to the certainty with which you wrote your post. I may have read it into what you wrote, so I apologize. I wasn't inferring a lack of competence on your part as much as I was venting my frustration over dealing with peers who discount the theory out of hand due to weak application results.

For me the theory has never hinged on how well the MBTI performs, though I admit if it achieved significant results I would be glad. It just seems to me that tying the plausibility of a theory of brain structure on a multiple-choice test is ass backwards. We should be comparing what the theory predicts with actual structural analysis. That's my chemistry education speaking, but I try to play by the rules and work with evidence based on surveys and written tests like a good little psychologist.

And when you write: "You seem awfully certain about something you clearly haven't done any research of your own on.... if you haven't looked at the studies themselves, I think that's a cop out ". I will remind you that studies have long time ago showed that indicator score distributions were not bimodal, which is a big problem to a theory that speaks about people being either N or S, either T or F.

After reading what you stated a second time, I will certainly agree with you. Personality Type Theory has very little respect from the larger psychology community. Like I said above though, I don't believe a written test is ever going to accomplish that and I'm not waiting for that to happen.

That being said, I don't believe a bimodal distribution would actually prove the type theory case. As every type has access to all four functions, a bimodal distribution would only really occur if the bulk of the group were very poorly developed (maybe we'd see it if we tested elementary school kids).

Whether or not you regard me as someone who ought to read some books, I shall come up with another example that shows my point: Jung himself did not mention that the secondary function had to be E if the main function was I. He considered himself an introvert, and a mixture of T and N. I suppose that he would have answered that both functions were introvert in his case, had anybody asked. Anyhow it seems obvious that both his Ti and Ni was rather well developed.
I think that given some time, I would be able to come up with examples of well known persons who who show extraversion on both N and S (or introversion on both). Maybe it is a seldom phenomena, and then its not a flaw in the theory. But if it is rather common there is a problem......

That sounds fine and I will definitely read what you come up with, but I don't believe typing another individual (especially without personal knowledge) is anything but an enjoyable activity and perhaps a character study to better understand the concepts at work.

The biggest problem with looking at others, and sometimes even ourselves is that half of our processes are unconscious. Whatever they are doesn't really matter at this point because there would always be someone who possessed the opposite set of conscious and unconscious functions. How does one describe or understand fully how an unconscious function feels when it is conscious? How do we define the difference between extraversion and an introverted function expressed through an extraverted function?

I suppose what got me frustrated with your post is that it seemed like you were skipping the step of trying to make sure we were talking about the right functions. I am sorry that I let that sentiment change what I would have liked to have said, but the frustration with events of that nature remain.

 

[Decaf]

Would you have a link for an elaboration of this or perhaps a book which wouldn't be too technical which you could recommend?

I'm quoting the theory from memory mostly because it also blew my mind the first time I heard it. I will track down the author for both our sakes, but as long as you're interested in helping, the original theory was specific to memory being made of the scar tissue between neurons.

The general idea behind the theory is that all the cells in the human body are replaced over a period of time, but memories last even past the point at which every cell in your body is different than it was during the point the the memory refers to. Its possible that there is a process by which the replacement cell becomes an exact duplicate of the original as it replaces it, but the scar tissue argument makes a lot more sense to me. The origin of the tissue makes sense, the implications make sense and moreover, it makes more sense than prevailing theories (which have largely been shown to be ineffective predictors).

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I found this on nervous tissue in searching the net. It's a start. Look under Astrocytes.

 

[Decaf]

Ugh... I have so much more to learn about biology before I can even determine if what I think it true fits with what the scientific community is certain is true. I have the courses I need on DVD, but I just haven't watched 'em yet

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I took a neurobiology course.

The parts of your brain that you don't use do die off; the basic rule is "use it or lose it". So the way your brains works is defined by the scar tissue, but in a opposite way.

but I'm also not sure if scar tissue is actually created where the killed neurons are. *shrug* I have a feeling that it's not scar tissue, because scar tissue is tough to regrow things through, and it is possible to regrow the neurons that you weren't using & were lost.

 

[Decaf]

I took a neurobiology course.

The parts of your brain that you don't use do die off; the basic rule is "use it or lose it". So the way your brains works is defined by the scar tissue, but in a opposite way.

but I'm also not sure if scar tissue is actually created where the killed neurons are. *shrug* I have a feeling that it's not scar tissue, because scar tissue is tough to regrow things through, and it is possible to regrow the neurons that you weren't using & were lost.

The proposed idea of scar tissue as memory is not connected to the body's recycling process. On the contrary, its specifically to answer the question of how memory can survive the recycling process. The scar tissue doesn't take the place of the neurons as much as branch between them.

I should note that by the term "scar tissue" I'm really using a place holder that I think encompasses the behavior of whatever performs this process. I hope I can find more literature from the originiator of the idea so I can use his words supported by his much greater background.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Hmm, so how about this Decaf. The neurons are still intact, but the scar tissue is where axons or dendrites (the things connecting neurons to eachother) had been chopped off.

But I'm also not sure, I'll do some snooping.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

The parts of your brain that you don't use do die off; the basic rule is "use it or lose it".

uh-oh



...does that go for other parts of the body, too?

 

[adastrac]

I don't know if these help at all but here you go.


http://www.reeve.uci.edu/romanreed/grants2005.php

Scar Formation Only 10% of brain and spinal cord cells are neurons. The remaining 90% are support cells called glia. One particularly interesting type of glia are astrocytes. Astrocytes make chemicals, or neurotrophic factors, that are like vitamins for neurons and may play an important role in nerve cell communication. However after injury, astrocytes also create scar tissue. They wall off the damaged part of the spinal cord with a scar. This scar is a major problem for regenerating nerve cells, acting as a physical barrier.

http://www.revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/?art=185&bd=1&pg=1&lg=en

In his work with laboratory animals, it has been observed that the neuronal death is accompanied by an intense inflammatory reaction, with the activation of the so-called glial cells. This type of scar tissue, which until recently was considered a simple support for the neurons, plays an active role in the process of the death and regeneration of tissue.

 

[Decaf]

Thanks adastrac, that was exceptionally helpful.

 

[opllars]

Hi Decaf,
Thanks for your reply!
All forgiven,
and I am not trying to skip deeper understaning of the Jungian typology (and MBTI), rather my concern is to REALLY understand the functions, and how they can express themselves.

I still cant come up with a welknown person, as example of what I talked about in my last post, but I know a lot of people who *seem* to be functioning on an extroverted level on both thinking and feeling, and the same with S and N.

You said:

.... I don't believe a bimodal distribution would actually prove the type theory case. As every type has access to all four functions, a bimodal distribution would only really occur if the bulk of the group were very poorly developed

IF people really fell into to seperate groups on a dimension (S,N), then it should show it self as bimodal distribution - EVEN as we all use all our functions. Its like if people are either left-handed or right-handed, it should show up as bimodal distribution, even if they also use their legs...(This is probably not the best example, but I hope you get the point...)

Tonight at a new years party I talked to a girl who was very Te, I thought that this must be her inferior function as it was not very clear expressed. Later when we spoke about feelings and values, she was just as extraverted. Of course - most extraverted people I know are extroverted no matter if they are in there feeling or thinking function.

I have the idea that (if we used a scale from 1-10) that a person can be f.ex. 8 on S, 8 on N, 6 on feeling and 3 on thinking.
One could say then that since S and N was in ballance, F is there main function.
But that would just be disregarding that he actually use both his irrational function much more than his F.

Its frustrating to me, as I would really like the principles in MBTI to be universal rules - I like systems - but I cant find the evidence for it......