Ni is not percieving. Ti is not judging.

[Proletar]

And so on, suggesting that all P-types are percievers and all J-types are judgers.


For starters, Ti. How is Ti a judging function? Because thinking is in itself judging?

I think not. Judging is execution - To conclude. Does INTPs do this? I think not. Instead, introverted thinking tends to gravitate away from judgement. Most often, we can tell what things are not, but rarely give a full picture, because we know that those are hard/impossible to come by. It dissects judgement.

Ni on the other hand, a percieving function by default since intuition is by default a percieving function? I think not. Extroverted intuition grants this, since it promotes different ideas going on at the same time without having to see them. Introverted intuition wants clarity on the other hand, with selecting and forming hierachies, hence judging.


IPs are percievers, IJs are judgers. (I think)

 

[Ink]

You may or may not be correct, why would you spend time thinking about stuff like this though?

 

[own8ge]

Spoiler

Having no boundaries is actually not an attribute of judging functions. It is for perception functions. It is the judging functions that set the limits, draw the lines, pivot points on which things hinge.

Ti is a discriminating process. In the most fundamentally basic form, Ti is binary. It takes shades of grey of perception and divides into black and whites. It is the principle of:

if(this) {then this} else {this}


​

Now, the canvass Ti forms from these black and white pixels, when you zoom out, still end up looking like shades of gray, and colors -- but at their finest level there is a distinct difference and the high-Ti user is aware of this. Hence, a byproduct of this is Ti: clarity, and the capacity to explain things microscopically if needed. This is also the source of Ti confidence, as they know their rationale is rightly checked and valid at the most elementary level.

Some people think that thinking in black and whites is limiting, but only so if your tapestry of black and whites is so basic that it doesn't account for the complexity of life. But life can be coded in binary to high levels of complexity - which is what Ti does - that do adequately account for life. Just like a very complex if(else) algorithm.

But the level of complexity varies between Ti users, and how much of this sorting they've done, and how much data they've organized in this manner.

Common Secondary Effects of Ti:

Now I'm going to give you an example of this at work by zooming out a few levels, and show the practical effects of Ti as a lead process, particularly in TiNe...


Philosophers:

The tendency for Ti leads to become philosophers or epidemiologists stems from this affinity for algorithmic logic. Now philosophers are notoriously known to be mental-masturbaters. This is true in a sense.

Like programming/coding, so much of the detail of coding a proper algorithm goes unappreciated until there is a tactile application. As with Ti, it does not produce any fruits until the algorithm it builds gets so elaborate that it can actually impact reality:

function(this);
​

..Which comes at the very end of the equation once all the parameters have been properly defined, and only when the variables are true (or false, or a specific, corresponding mix of both). If there is ambiguity in a variable, the equation simply won't operate - leading to utter inaction & inability.

The Harmonious Mind-Heart:

The application of the Ti algorithm is primarily executed by Fe. The executive part of the formula is Fe. (note: not Te). This means that all the energy and perfection invested into this Ti paradigm gets used almost exclusively toward collective ethical improvement, or not at all.

The end result is that Ti-lead types are among the most ethically obsessed and concerned individuals. Contrary to popular belief, Ti-leads actually have an extremely keen social awareness, and a desire to align with the social -- whether them toward it, or it toward them.

Now this presents a challenge because Ti and Fe have conflicting criteria of judgment, hence the nature of a Ti-lead. A Ti-lead is in constant war between their mind and heart, and like all types, this antagonistic relationship between their lead and polar functions is the central theme of their consciousness.

The more Ti is used in (non-isolated) reality the more pushback it receives from Fe. They are two sides of the same pendulum, so swinging one way strongly causes for the inverse to happen next. This is a natural result of efficient use of the dominant process. Hence a Ti lead cannot excel as a person without confronting their own primary duality, because the effective use of their lead process will inevitably awaken their polar process.

And because Fe is an intimate part of their own primary Ti axis, it is the latter part of their identity, despite the opposition, it is something they will feel a strong urge to reconcile with. In some TiNe and TiSe, this desire will be strong.

TiNe and TiSe will approach the reconciliation of this Ti|Fe polarity from the philosophical and axiomatic polar end of Ti, unlike Fe-leads. This means that the process of ethical understanding they form is more conceptual and becomes an intricate panorama of black and whites just as the rest of their paradigm.

As such for this shade of type, this endeavor can often result in even more comprehensive psychoanalysis than Fe lead types, though their practical ability with people will, on average, be less persuasive.

The Minimalist:

This shade of TiNe seeks to cause as few ripples in their environment as possible, as they survive solely to fuel their contemplative habits. Invisibility. Like most shades of introverted types, inaction is common, and for TiNe this inaction can be heavily naturally reinforced by their hierarchy.

So long as Ti is intentionally not being exposed to people, then it will receive no pushback to motivate it to contrive better calibrated etho-logical stances. For such TiNe, there will be no desire to interact with people. And they, unlike some warped shades of high-ethos types, will truly and sincerely have no sense of loss or missing-out because of this.

Furthermore, because of the abstract nature of Ne, they may also have no desire to directly interact with tactile reality -- or interact with it solely through Ne proxies (card/video games, puzzles) of familiar (Si) simulations. For such a TiNe, the main stimulation they crave will be this Ne play, and they will loathe to be separated from it. A single game cartridge can keep them stimulated for weeks. And daily necessities will be satiated to the minimum to allow for maximum enjoyment of this activity. In this, they become similar to some shades of NeTi and NiTe.

||There are other shades of TiNe, but I'll stop there for now. ||

 

[Jennywocky]

Your post using Ti to say Ti is not judging is ironic as you are making an argument and thus series of....judgments.

Te judges externally; Ti judges internally. You're confusing that with our laid-back external Perceiving approach.

 

[snafupants]

Your post using Ti to say Ti is not judging is ironic as you are making an argument and thus series of....judgments.

Good call. That's what I refrained from saying thirty minutes ago. Ouch.

Te judges externally; Ti judges internally. You're confusing that with our laid-back external Perceiving approach.

Yeah, maybe you should read some Personality Junkie material.

http://personalityjunkie.com/

 

[Proletar]

Your post using Ti to say Ti is not judging is ironic as you are making an argument and thus series of....judgments.

Let's extend your logic:


Judger arguing for judgement in self:
Likely, and makes sense.

Judger arguing for percievment in self:
Obviously wrongful.

Perciever arguing for judgement in self:
Can hypotetically argue, but can't do so with arguments, since arguments are a judging process, hence the perciever wouldn't be a perciever.

Perciever arguing for percievment in self:
Can hypotetically argue, but can't do so with arguments, since arguments are a judging process, hence the perciever wouldn't be a perciever.


Result: There can only be judgers, because no perciever can ever defend himself.


EDIT: Percievers can pass judgement and judgers can percieve. Percieving is seeing, judging is acting.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@own8ge, you could've used a spoiler. >.<

Ni is not percieving. Ti is not judging

Spoiler

And so on, suggesting that all P-types are percievers and all J-types are judgers.


For starters, Ti. How is Ti a judging function? Because thinking is in itself judging?

I think not. Judging is execution - To conclude. Does INTPs do this? I think not. Instead, introverted thinking tends to gravitate away from judgement. Most often, we can tell what things are not, but rarely give a full picture, because we know that those are hard/impossible to come by. It dissects judgement.

Ni on the other hand, a percieving function by default since intuition is by default a percieving function? I think not. Extroverted intuition grants this, since it promotes different ideas going on at the same time without having to see them. Introverted intuition wants clarity on the other hand, with selecting and forming hierachies, hence judging.


IPs are percievers, IJs are judgers. (I think)

What is perceiving?

• Extraverted perceiving?
• Introverted perceiving?

What is judging?

• Extraverted judging?
• Introverted judging?

What is Ni? What is Ti?

Though, those words were chosen as part of Jung's and MBTI's respective terminologies and concepts. Unless the topic is about technicality(e.g. Myers' use contradicts Jung's use), it might make things less complicated if you use different words to describe what you're talking about.

You may or may not be correct, why would you spend time thinking about stuff like this though?

Why not?

 

[Words]

I think your onto something here. J and Pi do share a commonality with their relation to our understanding of "judge." I think they both "judge" but in different ways. Pi(Ni or Si) deals with the formation of perception. That's a sort of "holistic judgement." J functions on the other hand, "judge" but not necessarily towards the formation of an entire perception/framework. J "judges" by managing/judging what is "inside" the framework, whereas Pi deals with the formation of the framework entirely.

A perception can either have systematical relations or no systematical relations. A perception with systematical relation is called a "framework." A perception with no "internal standards" is plain perspective. A framework is the result of Jx and Pi, whereas plain perspective is Pi.

F functions do deal with what is "systematical", just more complicated and chaotic.

 

[snafupants]

Isn't Ni something like internal free association?! That doesn't sound very judgmental or restricting.

 

[Auburn]

And so on, suggesting that all P-types are percievers and all J-types are judgers. For starters, Ti. How is Ti a judging function? Because thinking is in itself judging? I think not. (judgment call. contradiction) Judging is execution - To conclude. Does INTPs do this? I think not.

Heh, it is indeed ironic/funny.. (the colored bit) ..how you contradict yourself. "I think not" is such a judgment call in itself, disproving the sentence right before it.

A judgment doesn't need to be executed externally in order to be made. The executive judging processes (Te/Fe) are only half of what judgment is. Simply taking a stance/opinion on a certain matter is itself making a judgment.

Ti is not an executive function, and if that is what your mind understands as "judgment" then yes, it is not judging. But you've got it wrong.. I mean.. if Ti isn't a judging function, then what is it? Would you consider it a perception function?

Ti has nothing to do with attaining perception, but synthesizing/sorting/dividing it. It is more like the processor of a PC, in this sense. But the data is not collected by it, but by Ne or Se. All it mostly does is calibrate it.

Result: There can only be judgers, because no perciever can ever defend himself.

Right... because percievers obviously don't have judging processes. =P

If you think INTPs don't conclude or defend themselves then (imho) you've totally got a backward idea of what that type is. Being Ti-lead gives you a rigidity of mind and quite an explicit panorama of deductions (i.e. conclusions) about causality ---- a tapestry which is used as the North Star in one's life. TiNe do love to debate/argue too.

 

[Words]

Isn't Ni something like internal free association?! That doesn't sound very judgmental or restricting.

"Free association" sounds more like Ne. Ni "associates" a set of information under a limited set of "umbrellas"(perspectives), depending on the intelligence and the perceptiveness(or the wackiness) of the Ni person. The elements of that set of information can no longer be "associated" to other things or more accurately under a theme(Ni is thematic) or in a way that are unforeseeable to the Ni-person.

Ni requires the use of "umbrellas," Ne doesn't. That's what makes it restricting/judgmental. And then you have Ni persons directly valuing their "umbrellas", which only makes the person more judgmental.

To further the umbrella analogy, if Ni-Se is like a number of umbrellas, Si-Ne is like one unified umbrella but all the elements in it can "freely associate."

Note: I'm only trying to achieve clarity/coherence. Do object(with reasoning) if you think my ideas are inaccurate.

 

[snafupants]

Ni requires the use of "umbrellas," Ne doesn't. That's what makes it restricting/judgmental.

@Words

Do you have extensive experience with Ni as an INTP?

Also, you know that both Ne and Ni are perceiving functions, right?

Umbrellas? Are you completely pulling this out your ass?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Umbrellas? Are you completely pulling this out your ass?

I think you're both actually right. From my interpretation, Ne, in Snafu terms, would be external free association; and Words appears to be describing my comparison to viewing this system

Spoiler

from the outside (Ne) vs inside (Ni), albeit with a different metaphor.



Or this post in itself could be nothing more than self-righteous attention whoring. Fair warning.

 

[Words]

@Words

Do you have extensive experience with Ni as an INTP?

understanding.

Also, you know that both Ne and Ni are perceiving functions, right?

Do you understand what Jungian "perceiving" means? Go ahead, please enlighten me.

Umbrellas? Are you completely pulling this out your ass?

Out of my nostril, actually. Man, if you don't even get what im trying to say, don't bother arguing. Ask an actual question.

 

[snafupants]

I think you're both actually right. From my interpretation, Ne, in Snafu terms, would be external free association; and Words appears to be describing my comparison to viewing this system

Spoiler

from the outside (Ne) vs inside (Ni), albeit with a different metaphor.



Or this post in itself could be nothing more than self-righteous attention whoring. Fair warning.

I never said external free association. Straw man.

Also, I still question Words' expertise, intelligence, and sanity.

 

[snafupants]

Do you understand what Jungian "perceiving" means? Go ahead, please enlighten me.

http://personalityjunkie.com/functions-ni-ti-fi-si-ne-te-fe-se/

I haven't the patience or energy to explain it to you.

Here's Jung's description of Ni, for your edification.

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and—in the case of a productive artist—the shaping of perception.

@Words

 

[Words]

Also, I still question Words' expertise, intelligence, and sanity.

Fair enough. Although i think it would be more rational to focus on the content of my words, and not Words per se. Focusing on "authorities", on who said what, is a shortcut to reasoning.

http://personalityjunkie.com/functions-ni-ti-fi-si-ne-te-fe-se/

I haven't the patience or energy to explain it to you.

Oh of course, of course.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I never said external free association. Straw man.

That's the point. If you had, and tied it to Ne, it'd have been a lot more clear.

:-P

Also, I still question Words' expertise, intelligence, and sanity.

Don't you do the same for yourself? Often?

 

[Words]

Here's Jung's description of Ni, for your edification.

I agree with Jung, especially with the "shaping of perception" part. What do you think it means? Maybe creation of perception? What does it mean to create a perception? To conclude on an unknown, yes? Is "conclusion" related to the conventional meaning of "judge"? I think yes.

 

[snafupants]

I agree with Jung, especially with the "shaping of perception" part. What do you think it means? Maybe creation of perception? What does it mean to create a perception? To conclude on an unknown, yes? Is "conclusion" related to the conventional meaning of "judge"? I think yes.

@Words

Jung seemed to use the terms rational and irrational types more than judging and perceiving types, which is why I partly dismissed your earlier question. I then furnished you with the cognitive processes employed under the MBTI banner to disabuse you of the apparent confusion between perceiving and judging functions.

What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception.

You see, perceiving functions need to be coupled with judging functions to attain expression in the real world. Jung focused on the incommunicability of Ni - in other words, for an INTJ, Ni needs Te to be truly effective in corporal reality. In essence, Te helps move the Ni perceptions from subject to object, or the real world. Like I said before, Ni isn't doing the judging per se.

Is "conclusion" related to the conventional meaning of "judge"? I think yes.

Not really. Irrational functions, like Ni, need that rational foundation to come to conclusions.

 

[Proletar]

Alright, here is what I'm saying:


T is used to be seen as a judging function, and
N is used to be seen as a percieving function.

I don't think that's accurate. Instead, I would say that

Te is a judging function while Ti is tending to percieve, and
Ne is a percieving function, while Ni is tending to judge.


And why? Well, because Ti is very much a second-guessing thing. It's not an internal judgement per se, but mostly acts as a field of vision, digging(exploring) deeper into the mind, as opposed to Te that acts and moves on. Two completely different sides of the coin.

Ni on the other hand, you could say is not to actually see processes on the outside world and absorbing concept (seeing), but always about finding the best one and forming hierachies and lists according to criteria. Judging.


I think the established order, that functions are either 100% judging or 100% percieving, is wrong. Not to say that INTPs walk around with a percieving Ti and a percieving Ne, unable to make any sort of judgment whatsoever, of course not. Instead, it's possible for any function to do whatever, it just gravitates towards a specific end. Si for example can be used both for 'seeing' the past in a very percieving way, but is also used to sort faces and judge people from prejudice (as sort of a subconscious mechanism) which it's used for a whole lot.


Just to make things clear.

 

[snafupants]

Alright, here is what I'm saying:


T is used to be seen as a judging function, and
N is used to be seen as a percieving function.

I don't think that's accurate. Instead, I would say that

Te is a judging function while Ti is tending to percieve, and
Ne is a percieving function, while Ni is tending to judge.

You can posit whatever you like but there are really three discussions going on - MBTI stuff, more authentic Jungian stuff, and amateur crackpot theories.

Well, because Ti is very much a second-guessing thing. It's not an internal judgement per se

Yeah, it is. In fact, that's exactly what Ti is - an internal judgment.

as opposed to Te that acts and moves on. Two completely different sides of the coin.

That's why one is called Te and the other is called Ti - both thinking.

Well, because Ti is very much a second-guessing thing.

You're arguing against yourself. If the function is second guessing then it's probably judging.

Something like Se - i.e., perceiving function - more indiscriminately takes in data.

it's possible for any function to do whatever

How deep is your understanding of this topic?! @Proletar

 

[Architect]

Jungian Theory

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

• The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition
• The two judging functions, thinking and feeling

...

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition).

The idea comes from Jungs original hypothesis. Personally I see it play out exactly this way in myself. This is the reason why I mistyped myself as a Judger earlier in life (INFJ and INTJ), because INTP's are strong Judging types in a way. Here's why

Ti vs Te

Rather than striving to make external systems more rational, the introverted nature of INTPs’ Introverted Thinking orients their rationality toward themselves and their own ideas, making them more idiosyncratic than INTJs. INTPs are largely concerned with ensuring that their own lives, worldview, and personal philosophy are rational. Their Ti impels them to establish and reestablish inner order. While INTJs are comfortable to leave their inner world open and allow their Ni ample time to mull things over, INTPs find persistent inner openness uncomfortable and work to reduce it through use of their Introverted Thinking.

In myself and other INTP's I see this characteristic of needing to establish inner order. Look on this board, it's everywhere in our discussions. This activity is clearly a judging one.

 

[Proletar]

You can posit whatever you like but there are really three discussions going on - MBTI stuff, more authentic Jungian stuff, and amateur crackpot theories.

That is disrespectful. Minus points.

Something like Se - i.e., perceiving function - more indiscriminately takes in data.

Exactly, Se gathers information. But how can Si (or Ni) do the same? How can an internal function gather data? There is hidden information to be seen inside peoples heads, popping up from nowhere? Good thinking there.

 

[snafupants]

That is disrespectful. Minus points.

That doesnt sound good.

Exactly, Se gathers information. But how can Si (or Ni) do the same? How can an internal function gather data?

The information is taken in from the object but then tinkered with by the subjective process.

There is hidden information to be seen inside peoples heads, popping up from nowhere?

Jung talks about an "archaic" Se in tandem with Ni - both are perceiving functions.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character.

Good thinking there.

Thank you. Anything else I can help you with?

 

[Proletar]

The information is taken in from the object but then tinkered with by the subjective process.

Tinkered......?

Jung talks about an "archaic" Se in tandem with Ni - both are perceiving functions.

I see no argument here. What do you mean by archaic? Too much implied information

 

[snafupants]

Tinkered......?



I see no argument here. What do you mean by archaic? Too much implied information

Meh, not worth it. Maybe you should read Psychological Types for yourself.

 

[Words]

@Words

Jung seemed to use the terms rational and irrational types more than judging and perceiving types, which is why I partly dismissed your earlier question. I then furnished you with the cognitive processes employed under the MBTI banner to disabuse you of the apparent confusion between perceiving and judging functions.

Cut the crap. -_-"

Not really. Irrational functions, like Ni, need that rational foundation to come to conclusions.

Did you even address my reasoning? I'll make it as simple as I can. Yes, judging functions do help with formulating a ***perception***, but what exactly forms the ***perception*** if not the ***perception*** function? What do you do when you conclude? You form a ***perception***.

A for apple B for ball, you want C too?

 

[Proletar]

Meh, not worth it. Maybe you should read Psychological Types for yourself.

Well, shit. I just won.

Amazing, years of psychological knowledge and learning, crushed by a few strokes of my mighty pen. I'm amazing. A whole school of psychology torn down by me alone.

 

[snafupants]

Well, shit. I just won.

Amazing, years of psychological knowledge and learning, crushed by a few strokes of my mighty pen. I'm amazing. A whole school of psychology torn down by me alone.

You're truly a legend in your own mind.

 

[Jennywocky]

Exactly, Se gathers information. But how can Si (or Ni) do the same? How can an internal function gather data? There is hidden information to be seen inside peoples heads, popping up from nowhere? Good thinking there.

Well, at least you are on to considering personalities to be combinations of Perceiving + Judging functions rather than just purely Judging functions, which would alleviate some of your earlier complaints. [Repeat after me: "People are not functions. Functions are not people."]

I think it's flawed to consider functions to be totally literal, since basically all human beings have SOME "basic operating system" installed in order to operate in reality. We have basic sensing mechanisms; we have basic memory storage of sensory input; we have basic processing skills; etc.

MBTI is just a framework that can be imposed over the basic operating system. So just because one is Judgment-primary doesn't mean that you don't have rudimentary perceptions. Same for anyone else with fixations on other functions.

Snaffy's already explained how internal sensing/intuition works -- it gets anchor points of past data or overall sense impressions (rather than focusing on raw literal data in the moment) and starts perceiving the world in terms of that imagery and symbolism. hence the notion that Si doesn't really see what a particular chair is, it just sees what it remembers the chair to be; Ni sees the ideal chair; Ne sees the possible permutations of the chair and how it can be used, boom.

These same kind of differences exist in Judging functions as well such as between Te and Ti -- Te typically invests in rational process steps in order to accomplish internal goals, Ti tends to reduce those things to archetypes / internal generalizations and concepts and works in "algebra" so to speak... which is why Ti folks tend to think in terms of "fomal Logic speak." That kind of logic has to be applied to specific situations, whereas Te is already thinking and carrying out its logical functioning in the external terms.

I think you're overcomplicating this by being far too literal-minded about what the system does and means, I've already seen your concerns addressed in any decent MBTI descriptions out there.

Did you even address my reasoning? I'll make it as simple as I can. Yes, judging functions do help with formulating a ***perception***, but what exactly forms the ***perception*** if not the ***perception*** function? What do you do when you conclude? You form a ***perception***.

I think you are playing loose and fast with the English language here.

To put it simply, MBTI's idea of "perception" is not the same kind of "perception" you are describing here.

We conclude "judgments," or we draw "conclusions/answers" from judgment processes. If we "formulate perceptions," we are now meddling with our data.

Again, I don't think the functions can be separated so cleanly because they do not exist in isolation, they exist in tandem. The basic concept is that judgment functions typically evaluate (even if they might impact perceptions) as their MAIN goal, whereas perceiving functions basically collect data. It's not a literally perfect system because real life is interconnected and can't be cleanly separated; you might try to say a muscle makes things moves (and we can surgically remove one and drop it in a dish to look at), but all muscles do is contract or relax, and if they are not attached to bones (which are not muscles by definition), they don't make anything move. Yet it would still be correct and useful to say (for certain purposes) that muscles make things move.

 

[Words]

We conclude "judgments," or we draw "conclusions/answers" from judgment processes. If we "formulate perceptions," we are now meddling with our data.

Formulating percpetions does not have to meddle with data, but it can, especially with Ni types. As I've already mentioned, perceptions are formed by perception functions(Pi not Pe) but are guided by judging functions which reconcile data with the new perception/conclusion.

I have no idea how you've reached the idea that i am playing a literary game. Do you know why Ni is related to symbolism? Do you know why Si is related to memory? What are symbols if not perspectives? What is a memory if not a picture of the past?

Again, I don't think the functions can be separated so cleanly because they do not exist in isolation, they exist in tandem.

There would be no point in isolating them, no point for Jung to describe them so independently, if they cannot be treated as so.

 

[Jennywocky]

Formulating percpetions does not have to meddle with data, but it can, especially with Ni types. As I've already mentioned, perceptions are formed by perception functions(Pi not Pe) but are guided by judging functions which reconcile data with the new perception/conclusion.

I think that is where I was going with this. While idealistically we can separate the functions in order to discuss them and isolate their roles, just like with the parts of anatomy I was describing, they do not really operate in isolation. There is spillover.

I have no idea how you've reached the idea that i am playing a literary game. Do you know why Ni is related to symbolism? Do you know why Si is related to memory? What are symbols if not perspectives? What is a memory if not a picture of the past?

I was going by what was in your post, silly.

I'm not sure what your point in saying this paragraph is, though. Where are you going with it?

They would be no point in isolating them, no point for Jung to describe them independently, if they cannot be treated as so.

That's a silly thing to say, as far as I can see. This discussion occurs in literally every form of science out there. We look at individual parts in order to examine them in excruciating detail, but we also look at them systematically in order to understand how they work and what role they play. It's useful to look at things from both angles, to get a clearer picture of the piece in question and how it functions (as it functions in a context larger than itself, even while also functioning independently).

It's not much different from having two sciences called sociology and psychology, which looks at individuals in both a social context as well as an isolated context... although again the divide is not clear-cut because psychology can be shaped by external systematic factors and sociology can be impacted by individuals within the system.

 

[Proletar]

Well, at least you are on to considering personalities to be combinations of Perceiving + Judging functions rather than just purely Judging functions, which would alleviate some of your earlier complaints. [Repeat after me: "People are not functions. Functions are not people."]

Makes sense, yes. This statement also clashes with your earlier logic; "If Ne is percieving and Ti is percieving, there could be no judgment". Sneaky switch there, but I saw it.

Snaffy's already explained how internal sensing/intuition works -- it gets anchor points of past data or overall sense impressions (rather than focusing on raw literal data in the moment) and starts perceiving the world in terms of that imagery and symbolism. hence the notion that Si doesn't really see what a particular chair is, it just sees what it remembers the chair to be; Ni sees the ideal chair; Ne sees the possible permutations of the chair and how it can be used, boom.

But INTPs only have Si. So we don't have a developed storage-function for intuitive things available? That's inconvenient.

These same kind of differences exist in Judging functions as well such as between Te and Ti -- Te typically invests in rational process steps in order to accomplish internal goals, Ti tends to reduce those things to archetypes / internal generalizations and concepts and works in "algebra" so to speak... which is why Ti folks tend to think in terms of "fomal Logic speak." That kind of logic has to be applied to specific situations, whereas Te is already thinking and carrying out its logical functioning in the external terms.

Well put. This brings me to my refined question:

Is internal judgment really judgment? Is internal perception really perception? Is there perhaps a better name for it?


Functions are not people. Soylent Green is people.

 

[Jennywocky]

Makes sense, yes. This statement also clashes with your earlier logic; "If Ne is percieving and Ti is percieving, there could be no judgment". Sneaky switch there, but I saw it.

heh. Well, in my favor, I was switching "focus" in my argument -- I thought I could get by with a generalized argument but it became evident I had to be more specific and more nuanced in my approach.

I hope it helped a little...

But INTPs only have Si. So we don't have a developed storage-function for intuitive things available? That's inconvenient.

I think that's a flaw of "high level" MBTI discussion. In any actual detailed discussion that I've seen, it's generally a given that everyone has access to all eight functions --we'd have to, if they comprise the full range of human behavior. (That's an assumption of the system, just added for logical cohesion by people.) So it's more a matter of preference, not access.

So when we say that INTPs have tertiary Si, what is really being said is that we prefer Si in the tertiary slot according to textbook, not that the other functions are not available to us. Si is likely to be used in certain ways to support other functions, by nature, according to the theory... but individuals can differ.

If it matters, I don't follow a standard INTP pattern myself -- my function preference lineup is a mix of Ti and Ne in the first two slots, but then usually Ni, Fe, Si, Fi, and then Te and Se in the last two slots. That doesn't even describe how all those functions typically "work" in conjunction within me to determine how I respond to something, the gap between those preferences (kind of like the distance between the planets in our solar system, there might be a vast difference between two planets and smaller difference between others, it's not uniform), etc.

Is internal judgment really judgment?

Well, I find it very much to be judgment... but it's all internal for me.

I've long thought about this, when trying to decide in general (not MBTI) whether I am a "judgmental" person or more open. The problem is that inside I have excruciating logic -- the wheels spin, things configure in the most "probable" way, and I can't change that. If something seems to make the most sense, it makes the most sense, and I can't/won't deny it whatever cost to myself, and so inside I can harbor a very severe analysis of something external to me. I consider my logical side to be very "cold" and crystalline, it just is what it is -- it's stark and clearly delineated, even if complex.

But I also accept that it is just based on my current data set and can change if I acquire more information. I also don't like to fight/conflict, and sometimes it's just none of my business what someone does even if I have an opinion on it, and it's irrelevant to my relationship to them, etc. So externally, because of the natural uncertainty in data and because I have a non-inteference, "go with the flow" principle, I'm actually very open to possibilities and accepting others regardless of my internal logic. People would consider me VERY open, and I score very high on Openness on the Big Five. It also leads to ironic situations where someone I despise from a logical perspective actually thinks that I like them because I'm still "open" to them.

I think this kind of highlights what you're saying. BOth of those things are me. They both exist in me. People who only know my behavior might think I'm more open and flexible. People who read my thoughts might think I am more severe. Both would be right.

Is internal perception really perception? Is there perhaps a better name for it?

I don't have one right now, but I'm certainly open to it.

Functions are not people. Soylent Green is people.

And corporations.

 

[Words]

I think that is where I was going with this. While idealistically we can separate the functions in order to discuss them and isolate their roles, just like with the parts of anatomy I was describing, they do not really operate in isolation. There is spillover....

That's a silly thing to say, as far as I can see. This discussion occurs in literally every form of science out there. We look at individual parts in order to examine them in excruciating detail, but we also look at them systematically in order to understand how they work and what role they play. It's useful to look at things from both angles, to get a clearer picture of the piece in question and how it functions (as it functions in a context larger than itself, even while also functioning independently).

It's not much different from having two sciences called sociology and psychology, which looks at individuals in both a social context as well as an isolated context... although again the divide is not clear-cut because psychology can be shaped by external systematic factors and sociology can be impacted by individuals within the system.

This argument is "marginal." We are not arguing for "black" or "white", complete isolation or complete dependence. We are arguing about whether it is more black or more white, whether it is better to treat functions as more independent or more dependent.

My position is that you are looking at it too holistically. I know the sense of completeness of holistic methods, I favor it in general. But in this case, I would argue that it is essential to think of functions as units as well as to think of them as a part of a whole. My support for myself comes from my understanding and experience of functions, but that's not a valid support to present to others. Instead, I appeal to Jung's own clear attempt of presenting each function independently. Functions are as interconnected as they are described, but they are as independent as they are independently described. And yes, I believe Jung has sufficiently elaborated on functions as independents as opposed to dependents. He has focused on types per se, but the type is defined by one function, specifically their dominant function. If your not convinced, you can go ahead and create a ratio for Jung's deconstructionist vs. holistic ways of explanation in his book.

I was going by what was in your post, silly.

I'm not sure what your point in saying this paragraph is, though. Where are you going with it?

It's because you don't seem convinced that Pi functions(Ni or Si) are the functions responsible for the formation of perception, as well as how it is related to "conclusion." Most descriptions of functions, even Jung himself, use details such as "symbolism", "future orientedness", "shift perspectives", "views", "puzzle" to describe Ni. My point is that all these things can be reduced to "formation of perception."

What are symbols in reality? What are they actually, objectively? I mean without perception? What is a nations' flag? What is the statue of liberty? What is a red cross? What is an officer's badge? What's the piece of paper they call money? They're just objects. You need a perception to make them "symbolic." Preference for symbols, is preference for perception.

And what exactly does "being future-oriented" mean? Where do you get insight of the future if not from a perception of the future? And "views" is obviously a synonym of perspective. And "puzzles"...how do you solve a puzzle if not by *looking* at the seemingly unconnected pieces in a different way that makes them connected?

Same thing with Si. They're the "perception functions"(Pi). They are responsible for the formation of perception. When you form a perception on anything, then you utilize your Pi function. What do you do when you form a view on something? You form a conclusion. What do you do when you judge people? You look at them in a different way.

But INTPs only have Si. So we don't have a developed storage-function for intuitive things available? That's inconvenient.

Information is information. There are no "intuitive things." What is "iNtuitive" and what is "Sensory" is somewhat arbitrary. From this, it gets quite complicated...

For example, do you think that the idea that the world is "round"(oblate spheroid wtver) is an "iNtuitive thing"? No, right? It's a simple fact. At least, for us in this century, we take it for granted. But what about people in the past? For them, it is quite revolutionary. It is an "iNtuitive thing." And can we agree that facts (or supposed facts) are stored in Si? If so, then we have an answer.

Si or Ni is not as relevant as they are Pi.

Well put. This brings me to my refined question:

Is internal judgment really judgment? Is internal perception really perception? Is there perhaps a better name for it?

By "better name", you mean a name that conforms more with the English language?

 

[redbaron]

@Proletar

The way Si and Ni gather data is through their direct opposite function of Ne and Se. In an INTP, Ne is the primary way in which we perceive the outside world. Your assertion that Si and Ni cannot gather information because they are introverted functions by nature stems from your own lack of knowledge. MBTI provides quite informative information as to how they do so.

This comment:

Exactly, Se gathers information. But how can Si (or Ni) do the same? How can an internal function gather data? There is hidden information to be seen inside peoples heads, popping up from nowhere? Good thinking there.

Is well explained by MBTI.

Further comments about how you apparently crushed a psychological theory are unfortunately for you, wrong. You lack a basic understanding of the concepts of MBTI, and you clearly have not taken it upon yourself to research fully your ideas before arguing about them.

You started off the thread okay, but your posts in here turned to complete idiocy. As far as this topic goes, you've demonstrated that you have little to no understanding of what you're talking about, and do not possess the emotional capacity to discuss it in an objective and informative manner - and apparently you have no interest in increasing your own understanding either.

Also, seeing as you apparently have the mental capacity of a 3 year old on a temper tantrum, I won't be replying to anything you post in or related to this thread topic. Just like a toddler, your opinion is worth exactly fuck all.

I suggest you engage in activities more suited to your intellectual capacity. Here's a few of my suggestions, based off my own assessment of your intelligence that you'll probably find stimulating:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Have fun asshole.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, boys and girls, wasn't THAT an unexpected twist? Wow.

Where is Wonder Pets to save the day?

 

[Jennywocky]

This argument is "marginal." We are not arguing for "black" or "white", complete isolation or complete dependence. We are arguing about whether it is more black or more white, whether it is better to treat functions as more independent or more dependent.

1. Ummm... some people in this thread DID seem to be arguing for the first part, as far as I could tell.

2. Is this the Royal We? Or you and me? Or what "we" are "you" referring to?

My position is that you are looking at it too holistically.

Which is odd, because I was arguing for both a holistic AND an individual analysis, since I stated that I felt there was too much emphasis on an isolated rendering of the functions rather than considering they also work in tandem. So that while we can learn something about a cat by dissecting it, we also need to consider the cat as a whole unit in order to understanding everything about the cat.

I guess the balanced view is not what you are really into (holistic + individual) and that you lean towards looking at functions as more isolated pieces? Or did you just misunderstand my argument?

I know the sense of completeness of holistic methods, I favor it in general. But in this case, I would argue that it is essential to think of functions as units as well as to think of them as a part of a whole.

You should reread my entire argument then. If it appeared I was arguing just for the holistic sense, it was because I was arguing against someone who only seemed interested in fractured functions as separate entities without considering how they were connected and dependent on each other. Reread the thread and track my argument a little more completely, and you'll see me responding to Prol and trying to get a more balanced view.

My support for myself comes from my understanding and experience of functions, but that's not a valid support to present to others. Instead, I appeal to Jung's own clear attempt of presenting each function independently. Functions are as interconnected as they are described, but they are as independent as they are independently described.

uhhhhh.... whut??

And yes, I believe Jung has sufficiently elaborated on functions as independents as opposed to dependents. He has focused on types per se, but the type is defined by one function, specifically their dominant function. If your not convinced, you can go ahead and create a ratio for Jung's deconstructionist vs. holistic ways of explanation in his book.

I don't see a need to reread the book just to answer a few paragraphs by you in a post on this forum, but thank you for the reference in case I need it later.

It's because you don't seem convinced that Pi functions(Ni or Si) are the functions responsible for the formation of perception, as well as how it is related to "conclusion." Most descriptions of functions, even Jung himself, use details such as "symbolism", "future orientedness", "shift perspectives", "views", "puzzle" to describe Ni. My point is that all these things can be reduced to "formation of perception."

What are symbols in reality? What are they actually, objectively? I mean without perception? What is a nations' flag? What is the statue of liberty? What is a red cross? What is an officer's badge? What's the piece of paper they call money? They're just objects. You need a perception to make them "symbolic." Preference for symbols, is preference for perception.

Perception to me is raw perception. Interpretation of perception -- the creation of symbols -- involves some kind of judgment. Yes, I'm aware that Jung still attached symbolism to Intuitive perception types. Whatever. Just because Jung wrote it first doesn't mean he's "correct" -- he just contributed to the discussion early, and we're discussing MBTI which isn't necessarily Jung. So I'm not sure why you keep making an appeal to authority. MBTI is not a science, it's a framework of looking at the world, and we're discussing theory. Appeals to authority don't have much grounding, it's not like we're discussing physics.

And what exactly does "being future-oriented" mean? Where do you get insight of the future if not from a perception of the future? And "views" is obviously a synonym of perspective. And "puzzles"...how do you solve a puzzle if not by *looking* at the seemingly unconnected pieces in a different way that makes them connected?

As soon as you overlay an interpretation of the data over the raw data, then you are imposing an interpretation. The only way perception gets away with rampant symbolism is if it never interprets it and thinks solely in those terms from the get-go. If you see a duck, then you are perceiving a duck. If you decide it is a duck, then you are making a decision that it is a duck based on your rational process. I think the thing is with a lot of Perceivers is that they don't interpret, they actually see the data as described.

Anyway, why do you think MBTI is constructed so that an introvert and extrovert pair always comprise the prim and aux functions? And a Perceiving and a Judging pair? It's blatantly inherent in the structure of MBTI (regardless of Jung's opinions, whatever they were) that
you need both working in tandem.

Not sure what else to say about it.

 

[Proletar]

@Proletar

The way Si and Ni gather data is through their direct opposite function of Ne and Se. In an INTP, Ne is the primary way in which we perceive the outside world. Your assertion that Si and Ni cannot gather information because they are introverted functions by nature stems from your own lack of knowledge. MBTI provides quite informative information as to how they do so.

No, it doesn't.

Googled introverted intuition. First result?


"Ni’s constantly wonder and guess in their head"
http://www.famoustype.com/Ni.htm

Second?
"With Introverted Intuition dominating their personality, INTJs focus their energy on observing the world, and generating ideas and possibilities."
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

Third?
"Intuitive people process data through impressions, possibilities and meanings, so the Introverted Intuition function allows a person to have a sense about the future. It is the ability to grasp and get a sense of a pattern or plan."
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/ni-function/


You must have imagined finding your information, or possibly dreamt. What I've found, which must be the most used descriptions of introverted intuition on the web at least, fits my thoughts.

And yeah, you obviously lack an understanding of sarcasm. Also, you've written nothing new or of value in this thread whatsoever, so I'm happy to know that you wont annoy me anymore.

PS: you suck.

 

[Words]

^Ignore redbaron. I think your heading towards the right direction of thinking in truly understanding what Jung's types is truly about. What you have is not "crushing a psychological theory", your real issue, which is often an INTP issue, is simply a semantic issue. I'm not sure if it is because of his time(1921), but from today's usage of words, Jung represents his ideas with the oddest choice of words. For example, the word "intuitive" is technically something that is common, and even "instinctual" but his "intuitive" is almost the total opposite of that meaning. "iNtuition" is in fact counter-intuitive. Ideas and possibilies are not at all intuitive. Then there's introverted and extrovert, which are now common words but actually have different meanings from what they originally meant. Then there's "rational", "irrational", "orientation" etc. You simply have to focus on the concepts instead of the words.

 

[Proletar]

^Ignore redbaron. I think your heading towards the right direction of thinking in truly understanding what Jung's types is truly about. What you have is not "crushing a psychological theory", your real issue, which is often an INTP issue, is simply a semantic issue. I'm not sure if it is because of his time(1921), but from today's usage of words, Jung represents his ideas with the oddest choice of words. For example, the word "intuitive" is technically something that is common, and even "instinctual" but his "intuitive" is almost the total opposite of that meaning. "iNtuition" is in fact counter-intuitive. Ideas and possibilies are not at all intuitive. Then there's introverted and extrovert, which are now common words but actually have different meanings from what they originally meant. Then there's "rational", "irrational", "orientation" etc. You simply have to focus on the concepts instead of the words.

That's the thing though, there are different forms of abstractions of the words along in the ether all the time, and they are conflicting. It's a theory with different steps added at different times. And if I' not mistaken, the percieving functions have at some point been synonomous with extroverted functions, and judging functions vice versa. So it's different steps in sort of a spiral staircase, where words and terms have different meanings in different times, and are different according to what exact path of the school someone is on.

Once you get a good look at it, it never ends.


And oh, the part about defeating a whole school of psychology? Come on. You can easily see from the context that I said that in an attempt to get a better answer from snafu.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm not sure if it is because of his time(1921), but from today's usage of words, Jung represents his ideas with the oddest choice of words.

Partly for this reason some developers of Socionics decided to update the semantics.

Spoiler

Aushra Augusta's Thinking = Logic; Feeling = Ethics is now a standard.

Also widely accepted is Victor Gulenko's suggestions:
Fe / Emoveo (emotion, express)
Te / Profiteor (profit, produce)
Se / Factor (force, fact, do-er)
Ne / Intueor (insight, inspire, idea)
Fi / Relatio (relation, relate,(disclose))
Ti / Lex (law, logic)
Si / Sensus (space, sensation, sense)
Ni / Tempus (time, history, temporal)

 

[Words]

Which is odd, because I was arguing for both a holistic AND an individual analysis, since I stated that I felt there was too much emphasis on an isolated rendering of the functions rather than considering they also work in tandem. So that while we can learn something about a cat by dissecting it, we also need to consider the cat as a whole unit in order to understanding everything about the cat.

I guess the balanced view is not what you are really into (holistic + individual) and that you lean towards looking at functions as more isolated pieces? Or did you just misunderstand my argument?

i wrote about functions as interrelations(Role of J in Pi) in the first paragraph of my first response to you, and you even responded positively to it. Which should have meant that I am also not arguing for an exteme. And i know that you werent arguing for an extreme as well.

You should reread my entire argument then. If it appeared I was arguing just for the holistic sense, it was because I was arguing against someone who only seemed interested in fractured functions as separate entities without considering how they were connected and dependent on each other. Reread the thread and track my argument a little more completely, and you'll see me responding to Prol and trying to get a more balanced view.

What part of "marginal" means extreme?

Let's say that 0 is balanced and then you have -100 and +100 as extremes. My point is that you think yours is balanced but is actually around +30.

Perception to me is raw perception. Interpretation of perception -- the creation of symbols -- involves some kind of judgment. Yes, I'm aware that Jung still attached symbolism to Intuitive perception types. Whatever. Just because Jung wrote it first doesn't mean he's "correct" -- he just contributed to the discussion early, and we're discussing MBTI which isn't necessarily Jung. So I'm not sure why you keep making an appeal to authority. MBTI is not a science, it's a framework of looking at the world, and we're discussing theory. Appeals to authority don't have much grounding, it's not like we're discussing physics.

Cognitive Functions are necessarily Jungian. The discussion right now is about Ni and Ti, which are cognitive functions.

As soon as you overlay an interpretation of the data over the raw data, then you are imposing an interpretation. The only way perception gets away with rampant symbolism is if it never interprets it and thinks solely in those terms from the get-go. If you see a duck, then you are perceiving a duck. If you decide it is a duck, then you are making a decision that it is a duck based on your rational process. I think the thing is with a lot of Perceivers is that they don't interpret, they actually see the data as described.

seeing the data objectively you mean? That's limited to Se or Pe. The point of "introversion" is that it subjective. It is interpreted according to the subject. When people see a duck, they don't just see a duck. One's perception of duck is different from another's perception of duck. One's vision of the future is different from another. It is subjective.

Rampant symbolism actually requires much subjectivity and much interpretation. If Ni or Pi is define as just "seeing the data as described" then the Nazi symbol is just some weird collection of lines.

 

[Reluctantly]

*sigh*
The cognitive functions are the ways that we compartmentalize the world.

Ti and Te
For example,
Let's say I have a bunch of apples. Each apple has characteristics that differentiate them from each other, but at the same time we recognize the fact that they are very similar, similar enough to call them apples.

Thus Ti might count the apples and say there are x amount of apples; and Te might say that is hogwash, that since they are all different, you can't count them as if they are all the same.
Ti in counting makes the implicit judgement that all the apples are to be treated as the same.
Te in seeing the details and facts that make each "apple" unique, might treat them as if they are all different and the idea of "apples" as perhaps useful, but albeit an abstraction.

They are faculties of reason and are judgmental in different contradicting ways.



Ni and Ne
Ni and Ne on the other hand, consider how things could relate with one another and deals with what that would mean. They are intuitions because they can not be proven wrong or right, nor do they have anything to do with reason.

For example,
Let's say a wolf pack hunts down a bear and kills it. There is meaning that can be inferred through the activity.
Ni, being introverted, might see that weak animals take out the strong animals by grouping up and singling them out. Ni might then later notice when these things are occurring and "predict" what transpires next. To Ni, the animals are seen as weak; Ne, being extroverted, might see the wolves as seeing a way to get what they want and taking it. Ne might then later look for more opportunities to do this. To Ne, the grouping up is about being seen as strong.

They are faculties of irrationality and are contradictory in how they perceive, what they do, and what they seek to understand.





Okay?

 

[Reluctantly]

Partly for this reason some developers of Socionics decided to update the semantics.

Aushra Augusta's Thinking = Logic; Feeling = Ethics is now a standard.

Also widely accepted is Victor Gulenko's suggestions:
Fe / Emoveo (emotion, express)
Te / Profiteor (profit, produce)
Se / Factor (force, fact, do-er)
Ne / Intueor (insight, inspire, idea)
Fi / Relatio (relation, relate,(disclose))
Ti / Lex (law, logic)
Si / Sensus (space, sensation, sense)
Ni / Tempus (time, history, temporal)

I think I hate socionics. It's just as bad as MBTI, but it pretends it isn't. It's funny though, once I understood myself in terms of Jungian concepts, all the socionics relations coincidentially became true (the ones on wikisocion anyway). They fortunately, do not involve themselves with these generalizations, but stay conceptual, explaining phenomena, but not generalizing to do so.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think I hate socionics. It's just as bad as MBTI, but it pretends it isn't.

Yeah. That damned Socionics, always pretending to not be as bad as MBTI.

In the end it is just as confusing with all the unsubstantiated and obscure concepts, but I still consider it more "science-ready" and psychological than MBTI.

It's funny though, once I understood myself in terms of Jungian concepts, all the socionics relations coincidentially became true (the ones on wikisocion anyway). They fortunately, do not involve themselves with these generalizations, but stay conceptual, explaining phenomena, but not generalizing to do so.

Stay conceptual but not generalizing? Could you give an example?

 

[Proletar]

I think I hate socionics. It's just as bad as MBTI, but it pretends it isn't. It's funny though, once I understood myself in terms of Jungian concepts, all the socionics relations coincidentially became true (the ones on wikisocion anyway). They fortunately, do not involve themselves with these generalizations, but stay conceptual, explaining phenomena, but not generalizing to do so.

So what school exactly are you speaking for? Whos concepts? Which one is the good one?

 

[scorpiomover]

For starters, Ti. How is Ti a judging function? Because thinking is in itself judging?

I think not. Judging is execution - To conclude. Does INTPs do this? I think not. Instead, introverted thinking tends to gravitate away from judgement. Most often, we can tell what things are not, but rarely give a full picture, because we know that those are hard/impossible to come by. It dissects judgement.

Ti is reasoning, A => B => C => D => E => F => G => H => I => J.

However, that's quite a lot of thought for most people. Generally, people give up. So if you want to explain it, you have to break it into 2-3 steps at most, by an analogy of something the listener is familiar with. So you have to know the person to explain it to them. So you have to get to know the person, how they understand things. So you get a reputation for trying to understand people, to be a Perceiver.

Because Myers-Briggs was focussed on explaining how you could detect the MBTI type of another person, she suggested that what other people would be seeing, was the extroverted function, and so Ne/Se, which goes with Ti in the MBTI system. Hence, N/S being called Perceiving functions, because their extroverted forms are associated with Perceivers.

Ni on the other hand, a percieving function by default since intuition is by default a percieving function? I think not. Extroverted intuition grants this, since it promotes different ideas going on at the same time without having to see them. Introverted intuition wants clarity on the other hand, with selecting and forming hierachies, hence judging.

Ni is a synthesising function. To be more precise, it is a speculative function, speculating on what other models, that closely match real-life scenarios, but have improvements over the existing scenarios, that, if the more idealised models work, indicate methods that would be a vast improvements on the existing methods that are based on the existing models.

That makes for a really great model. But it's based on speculation. It's not reasoned from deduction, like Ti. So, in our modern society that is obsessed with reason, if exposed completely, it looks rather silly. So Ni-doms have a habit of getting very protective about their models. Since they can't directly explain how they came to their model without making it look speculative and unreliable, it is common for them to try to evade scepticism of their models, by discrediting the sceptic. It is equally a problem when an alternative model and/or method is suggested, because they know their model is brilliant, but they can't prove it. So then they also often try to discredit the one suggesting an alternative. So they can often come off as very Judgemental of others, and their ideas. So they often get a reputation as a Judger.

Again, because Myers-Briggs was focussed on explaining how you could detect the MBTI type of another person, she suggested that what other people would be seeing, was the extroverted function, and so Te/Fe, which goes with Ni in the MBTI system. Hence, T/F being called Judging functions, because their extroverted forms are associated with Judgers.

And so on, suggesting that all P-types are percievers and all J-types are judgers.

That bit is fairly accurate, in that when trying to explain their ideas to others, Se-doms, Ne-doms, Ti-doms and Fi-doms, come across as interested in Perceiving others and their views, and when trying to explain their ideas to others, Te-doms, Fe-doms, Si-doms and Ni-doms come across as frequently Judgemental of others.

Really, N/S should be called speculative functions, or model-building functions, and T/F should be called reasoning functions, or model-changing functions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Because Myers-Briggs was focussed on explaining how you could detect the MBTI type of another person, she suggested that what other people would be seeing, was the extroverted function

Note, I'm not arguing against you, but I've always found this approach of Myers & Myers to make little sense.

Regardless of what is being extraverted, the symptoms of introversion are visible by their very nature of introversion. There was no need to change anything about the inherent system of Jung's theory.


Case:
According to MBTT: TiNe is a Perceiver because Ne is Extraverted(visible) and perceiving.

According to Jung: Ti(Ne) is a judging type because Ti is a rational/judging function. What's visible is TiNe's introverted judgment/rationality. It can still be a "Judging" type, but it's just an introverted judgment, that's all. What was wrong with that? Was it really necessary to focus on Ne?

Conclusion:
Calling TiNe a Perceiving type is misleading, or at least neglectful of it's Ti. At the very least TiNe is an Introverted Judging-Extraverted Perceiving type. But being as the dominant function is most dominant it makes sense to call a type by its dominant function.


MBTT rewrites the rules to see the types from a different perspective, but what you get is a mess of inconsistent meanings between the functions, people, and what Perceiving/Judging is and looks like.