Ni is not percieving. Ti is not judging.

[Words]

Too many answers, not enough criticisms.

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

compartmentalize? what's that suppose to mean?

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.

What does figuring if they're different apples or the same apples have to with reasoning? Isn't reasoning a=b, b=c, therefore a=c? Isn't figuring out if something is an apple or not the same as figuring out if you call it a or b? What does that have to do with reason? That's not reasoning. That's just figuring out the premise. plain categorization.

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.

How can that behavior in animals not be proven wrong or right? If it is empirically evident that a group of animals(a), executes a set of actions(b), under certain conditions(c), then it must be through reason that a does b under c. That's the same as the law of gravity.

Ni might then later notice when these things are occurring and "predict" what transpires next.

What is a prediction if not a "judgement" about the future? How do you predict without deciding that x is going to happen in the future?

To Ni, the animals are seen as weak;

What do you think "see" means? How can you "see" and not judge at the same time? When you look at something, you necessarily see it from your point of view. How is that not "judging?"

Okay?

No. You're full of shit.

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.

It's not just because they have an attachment to their models that they come across as "judgmental", it's because Pi(Ni or Si) is sort of judgmental. It's not just limited to "speculation." For them, they have a valid vision of reality. They like to create "models", yes? What exactly does it mean to create a "model"? What if you apply this to people? You know, you have a "model"/explanation for every person? Doesn't that make you judgmental?

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

I don't like those names, but I agree with your overall direction. I mean Si is not at all "speculative." I also don't see the connection to Se and Ne. How is Ne and Se about "Model-building"? Pi is model-building. "Model-changing" for Judging functions seems ok, but I think it's morelike "model-supporting" or "model-criticizing."

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.

I think the best approach is the most critical one. I find Socionics to be really presumptuous.

 

[Proletar]

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

I see what you did there. :-]

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.

Reasoning through the alphabet really isn't judgment if you ask me. Or at least the least judgmental judgment out there, since it neither jumps to conclusion or is sure about itself. Internal reasoning reasons itself, and isn't that perception? Or is that just the Ne?

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 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.

Take the functions of the IP;

Introverted thinking/feeling - Internal reasoning, tossing information from...
Extraverted intuition/sensing - External data viewed on the spot
Introverted intuition/sensing - Saved data, fitted into either system subjectively
Extraverted thinking/feeling - Actual external judgment

Or the EP, with B A B A formula instead of A B A B. Not much judgment in that bowl, given that the internal reasoning follows the criteria I gave it earlier. Given that's a controversial statement, of course. IJ (Or should I say IP? ) on the other hand:

Introverted intuition/sensing - Saved data, fitted into either system
Extraverted feeling/thinking - External judgment, chosen from the library of Ni/Si
Introverted thinking/feeling - Internal reasing
Extraverted intuition/sensing - External data viewed on the spot

IJs build up a memory-bank of useful information over their lifes, not coincidentally information that they can then act on. If Ni/Si alone cannot be seen as judging functions, they sure as hell are along with Fe/Te.

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.

The terminology is obviously broken, and honestly I think it's up to people like ourselves to define a better one. Nothing so far has been right on the spot, but the alternatives in this thread are getting progressively better, and the reasoning overall really ascends. I'm fairly certain that I know what the different functions are, but I'm not 100% clear, which I feel that I need to be. Great post by the way.

 

[scorpiomover]

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.

I agree that MBTI can seem confusing when compared to Jungian typology. An INTJ on another forum, who likes to be up-to-date on all the scholarly work on the topic, pointed out that many scholars of Jung's original works, think that Jung would classify INTPs as TiNi. All this bothered me, because it all seemed to connect and not connect. I tried to make sense of it. But it seemed quite a mess. Then it hit me: Everyone agrees that all the variants are Ti-N, of some kind. MBTI says the second function is the opposite of the first (Ti-Ne). Jungian scholars say the second function is like the first (Ti-Ni). Jung himself, only said that the person would have a general attitude of an Introvert, with a dominant function of Thinking, and an auxiliary function of iNtution, I-TN. As long as you specify Ti-Nx, and leave the x to be define by the theorist, it all agrees with INTP.

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

According to the MBTI system, yes. But then if you expand this to the more general system of Ti-Nx, Ti-Nx is not a Perceiver because Ne is extraverted and Perceiving. Ti-Nx is a Perceiver because the dominant function is both judging and introverted.

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?

Yes and no. Jung was mainly only interested in the dominant function, as to him, that was the main characteristic that determined what was the correct diagnosis for a mentally ill patient. Myers-Briggs was more interested in other factors, what jobs you'd be good at, how you got on with others, etc. There, whether you are a P or a J, makes a huge difference in your interactive style.

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.

Depends on whether you're one of those annoying ISTJ types, that say stuff like "Jung said it this way. So everyone else is wrong", or you're a bit more flexible N or P, who says what's wrong with another perspective? The more perspectives, the more we can learn! MBTI isn't perfection. But then, who cares? Even Jung wasn't 100% perfect on this. So anything that adds a little more to our understanding of others, has to be giving us something useful.

 

[scorpiomover]

What exactly does it mean to create a "model"?

By "model", I mean some kind of 3-D sphere, that encompasses your vision of the known universe, in space, time, and all factors. You can play it forwards or backwards, because it's in your head. You can look at any part of it, that is in your head. You can do anything with it. It's like a sim, but much more advanced. Like a continuous simulation of the entire universe, for all time. If you want to put a multiverse in there, you can. It's your head, your imagination, You decide what to put in it, and what to do with it.

I used to consider these internal models, simulations. But over time, it's become apparent to me, that INTJs construct them as if they are adding building blocks, like the way you can add a house or a car to a sim, and also the way you can add new functionality to a sim, that then opens new options for many of the existing components of the sim. So it's a bit like Age of Empires, or a civilisation-building game, only you can do it about anything.

What if you apply this to people? You know, you have a "model"/explanation for every person?

It's the Private Language Problem. You can't really get in someone else's head. You can't understand exactly what they see, or what they mean by words, because you aren't in their head. So your mind has to guess. But they could mean ANYTHING! So, your mind has to build up an imagined person in their mind, and then tries to see what things the sim would say. Whatever was said, that was closest, is what you normally conclude is what they say. A proof, is that the better you know a friend, the more you are accurate to their meaning, even to the extent of very good friends often knowing exactly what the other means by a single look. Or, when in "Serenity", the captain knows that because his ex-girlfriend doesn't argue with him, that means he's heading for a trap. You can't do that unless you can get in someone's head, and you can't do that literally, and so the only other way is to design a sim of them in your own head, like Geordie did with the designer of the Enterprise in ST:TNG. The difference between fantasy and reality, is that your mind can already do what Star Trek supposes could be done in the future.

Doesn't that make you judgmental?

Since everyone does it, it makes everyone judgemental, to an extent. But not everyone expresses that the other person is an idiot.

It's not just because they have an attachment to their models that they come across as "judgmental", it's because Pi(Ni or Si) is sort of judgmental. It's not just limited to "speculation." For them, they have a valid vision of reality.

Yes and no. I've been spending a lot of time posting with INTJs, to understand them better. What I've eventually figured out, is that they build idealistic models in their heads, and then try to implement them. The models in their heads, are clearly based on reality. But they are laid out entirely differently, with their goal as the focal point. It's as if you took a house apart, and then put it back together, but around your favourite chair. Then when a guest comes around, you do the same thing, but all over again, so everything is made easy for the guest. Then when you have a party, you do the same all over again, so everything is laid out for the party.

That's what an Ni-dom can do in their head. Then, they can look all around their house, and move the furniture and buy food to match their home to their idealised models. The result is a home that is vey well suited to the task at hand.

Ni-doms frequently have the problem that they simply cannot make reality like their cognitive ideals, often because of technical barriers. This is very annoying to them. They call this a difference "an inefficient system".

They also do this with people. But people are much harder to understand, and much harder to change. They often don't understand why people won't do as they are told is best for them. They then tend to say that such people are "irrational".

I've been spending a lot of time posting with INTJs, to understand them better. What I've eventually figured out, is that they build idealistic models in their heads, and then try to implement them.

At first, it seemed quite alien to me. But after a while, I started to see that INTPs were doing that as well, me, but also a lot of INTPs here, just that they were starting with an existing model that they were familiar with, using Ti to criticise the model, and then changing the model to fit their Ti conclusions. Although, in the case of INTPs, they seemed to see a lot more models than the Ni-doms would see, but they wouldn't have anywhere near the level of familiarity with their models to just fire off answers about their models at will like INTJs seem to be able to, and to do so effortlessly.

I don't like those names, but I agree with your overall direction. I mean Si is not at all "speculative."

I have an Si-dom in my family. At first, she was impossible to type. She's got all the classic conventionality and sticking to the familiar of a classic Sensor. But she's so creative, she beats INTJs hands down. Eventually, I came to realise that Si-doms can be just as creative as Ni-doms, but in an entirely different way. When an Ni-dom constructs a model in their mind, the way they talk, suggests they are looking at reality from a very different way than the way things exist physically, as if they selected the parts in a different order. But their way seems more efficient, almost as if they had a very clever guy handing them the parts in a very special order, because he knew that adding things in that order, would lead to a much more efficient design. I assume, since intuition comes from the subconscious, and scientists have recently found that the majority of the brain's work is subconscious, that the subconscious is a super-genius compared to us, and it's the guy handing the Ni-dom the parts, and it's deciding on the order, and what bits go in and get left out.

Si-doms don't have that. They are just grabbing stuff exactly as they see it in reality, or as they recall it from memory. So what's in their heads, does sound remarkably like reality at first glance. But what I've noticed, is that when I argued with an Si-dom, they often have a mind like a steel trap. They've covered every answer. You can't do that with just a memory of a wall. You have to have a seriously consistent model, to do that. So they must be building a model too. Plus, their models are more flexible and seem to be oriented even better for practical use, than the Ni-doms are. They're just less able to come up with a whole new model. So it's almost like Ne is operating in the background, the subconscious changing things here and there, when they need changing, without having to ask the concious what needs doing.

I also don't see the connection to Se and Ne. How is Ne and Se about "Model-building"? Pi is model-building. "Model-changing" for Judging functions seems ok, but I think it's morelike "model-supporting" or "model-criticizing."

Ti does criticise when a model is wrong. But what are you going to do with a broken model? How can you figure out what to do, if the only vision you have of reality, is in your head, because you can't "see" the electrical signals coming from your optic nerves and have to have them translated into a 3-D model inside your mind, when you've just said that's bollocks? You have to have some kind of visual reality, to know where to put your feet. If Ti doesn't help you to know where to put your feet, it's worse than useless. So Ti may say "If you put your foot there, you'll get dog-shit all over it", but to be useful, it also has to say "But if you put your foot to the left or the right, it's OK.", because you need to know somewhere to put your feet. You can't just float in mid-air, you know. So Ti HAS to give you some approval on an alternative to the criticism.

An alternative way of seeing it, is that Ti and Fi are model-approving functions, saying if a model works or not, and Ne and Se are model-changing functions, and changing the models until Ti and Fi give approval to the new possibilities.

But still, Ni, Si, Ne, and Se are still all new proposals for what might work in reality. So they are speculations about what could happen. I know that makes INTJs seem weak. But really, after having spoken to them a lot, I found out they only seem sure on the outside. On the inside, they are in a huge amount of doubt.

 

[scorpiomover]

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

I see what you did there. :-]

Just an accident. I creased up when I read that you thought I was actually meaning something by ending in J.

Reasoning through the alphabet really isn't judgment if you ask me.

That's because they are just variables for any logical statements that connect that you care to place there.

Internal reasoning reasons itself, and isn't that perception? Or is that just the Ne?

Neither. Ti-doms usually ask questions that relate to internal consistency, checking if every detail that is of the topic fits with the rules of the topic, including checking if, for every rule that applies to 2 details of the topic, if there are any 2 details that the rule fails for. That is nothing at all like perception.

IJs build up a memory-bank of useful information over their lifes, not coincidentally information that they can then act on.

INTPs do that too. It's why they study things that seem irrelevant to the task at hand. They know that it will probably be useful to figure out how to do that, for the future.

If Ni/Si alone cannot be seen as judging functions, they sure as hell are along with Fe/Te.

Te and Fe give the judgement. But Ni and Si produce some very speculative ideas.

The terminology is obviously broken, and honestly I think it's up to people like ourselves to define a better one.

I think Jung was a Ti-N, and so he had a brilliant idea in his mind, but was not able to articulate it as clearly as we would want, as is common with Ti-Ns. An INTJ who has read a lot of his work, said that he found his work was explorative, and wasn't a finished product, and I tend to agree. So I think there is room to develop it.

I'm fairly certain that I know what the different functions are, but I'm not 100% clear, which I feel that I need to be.

Intuitively, you know what your internal cognitive processes are, because they are how your mind works. But to know how to operate them with maximum efficiency, you'd need to make them clear, like writing them down in an operating manual for the mind.

Great post by the way.

Thanks. It's a work in progress. But it's getting more and more accurate, the more I pay attention to what people do, and try to develop the ideas to match what people do.

Nothing so far has been right on the spot, but the alternatives in this thread are getting progressively better, and the reasoning overall really ascends.

I think that's what everyone is trying to do at the moment, including perceptual scientists, psychologists, psychotherapists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and scientists of the Theory of Mind. We're all really just trying to understand ourselves and others. It's a worthy goal. Just not an easy one. Hopefully, the more effort we all put into it, the more we will understand.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I agree that MBTI can seem confusing when compared to Jungian typology. An INTJ on another forum, who likes to be up-to-date on all the scholarly work on the topic, pointed out that many scholars of Jung's original works, think that Jung would classify INTPs as TiNi. All this bothered me, because it all seemed to connect and not connect. I tried to make sense of it. But it seemed quite a mess. Then it hit me: Everyone agrees that all the variants are Ti-N, of some kind. MBTI says the second function is the opposite of the first (Ti-Ne). Jungian scholars say the second function is like the first (Ti-Ni). Jung himself, only said that the person would have a general attitude of an Introvert, with a dominant function of Thinking, and an auxiliary function of iNtution, I-TN. As long as you specify Ti-Nx, and leave the x to be define by the theorist, it all agrees with INTP.

His type is enough material for a whole different thread; I'd like to not get into it(unless you want to make a new thread, or go here). But I will say any of the four types with Ti or Ni base is most likely.

According to the MBTI system, yes. But then if you expand this to the more general system of Ti-Nx, Ti-Nx is not a Perceiver because Ne is extraverted and Perceiving. Ti-Nx is a Perceiver because the dominant function is both judging and introverted.

Yes and no. Jung was mainly only interested in the dominant function, as to him, that was the main characteristic that determined what was the correct diagnosis for a mentally ill patient. Myers-Briggs was more interested in other factors, what jobs you'd be good at, how you got on with others, etc. There, whether you are a P or a J, makes a huge difference in your interactive style.

I can clearly see this is on a fast track to misunderstanding(it always is).


Myers-Briggs decided that Je/Pe was the determinant of a Judging or Perceiving psychology and behavior, agreed?

Okay, and while you have that criteria in your mind, the judging or perceiving properties of the dominant functions are also in effect.

Do you not see the problem with this? Two sets of judging-perceiving operating at once?


It comes down to this: Myers-Briggs did not mean that Pe/Je determined a general Judging or Perceiving attitude, but that it determined the appearance of a Judging/Perceiving attitude. The second interpretation is unproblematic, but many people assume the first interpretation.

They assume Myers-Briggs meant that all JiPe types are dominantly psychological and behavioral perceivers; and that all PiJe types are dominantly psychological and behavioral judgers. However, this is inaccurate to all extents, they only appear as such.

It is a problem because people come to the theory to understand themselves, but as you have noted, MBTI was not intended for psychological self-understanding but externally fitting yourself into reality.

It's also a problem because with two different sets of judging and perceiving operating at once, the typological character implied by the functions do not match the typological character implied by the letters. Somebody could type and test INTP and identify with a general Perceiving attitude, but not identify with functional descriptions of TiNe, etc.

Depends on whether you're one of those annoying ISTJ types, that say stuff like "Jung said it this way. So everyone else is wrong", or you're a bit more flexible N or P, who says what's wrong with another perspective? The more perspectives, the more we can learn! MBTI isn't perfection. But then, who cares? Even Jung wasn't 100% perfect on this. So anything that adds a little more to our understanding of others, has to be giving us something useful.

Again, I think you're missing the(/my) point here. It seems like I want to appeal to original authority(of course logically that's true), but it's more of a want to correct errors.

Because there's a difference between bringing an alternative valid perspective to the table, and misunderstanding the whole theory in the first place while bringing a slop of mess to the table.

In other words, I don't agree that MBTI adds a little more to the understanding of others, at least not to the extent that it makes up for its regressions and confusions of Jungian theory.

 

[snafupants]

This LIE Socionics description is freakishly like me, whereas I only felt passing camaraderie with the MBTI counterpart. The functions are different, especially for introverts, and staggered, basically for everyone, between Socionics and MBTI but I'm sure other members (e.g., ESC) could speak more to those differences. Quite pleased with this description though. I feel like the third and fourth functions for LIE really pinpoint my shortcomings and idiosyncrasies, whereas MBTI was lacking in that department. I'm not this flashy guy, thanks to tertiary Se, as MBTI would suggest. Anyway, hopefully this illustrates in some small way that different interpretations and hybrids of Jungian theory affect future systems and descriptions.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LIE-ENTj/#Description-of-LIEs-Model-A

 

[scorpiomover]

His type is enough material for a whole different thread; I'd like to not get into it(unless you want to make a new thread, or go here). But I will say any of the four types with Ti or Ni base is most likely.

Jung is like Sherlock Holmes. In any discussions of the type of Sherlock Holmes, invariably, many of the posters say he is the type that they happen to be. I've seen it happen with Sherlock Holmes, Jung, Newton, and several others, and seen an INTJ claim that Einstein couldn't be an INTP, but an INFJ, which would make him an Ni-dom, like the INTJ proposing it. So, while I was perhaps presumptuous to assume that you also thought that Jung was an INTP, I certainly see no advantage in getting into a discussion of it, because such discussions are usually just endless ego-based debates, that never go anywhere.

I can clearly see this is on a fast track to misunderstanding(it always is).

Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

Myers-Briggs decided that Je/Pe was the determinant of a Judging or Perceiving psychology and behavior, agreed?

Okay, and while you have that criteria in your mind, the judging or perceiving properties of the dominant functions are also in effect.

Do you not see the problem with this? Two sets of judging-perceiving operating at once?

Yes. But only if they can exist in mutually exclusive conditions, such as Ni AND Ti. Jung already wrote regarding the auxiliary function, that you can't have an auxiliary function and a dominant function that are both judging or both perceiving, because each would give the same type of result, but conflicting, either 2 different judgements that conflict, or 2 different perceptions that conflict, and then all you would have is a war in your mind, with no answers. You'd have a similar problem with Ni & Ti, because both are trying to draw results from the introverted perspective, but in different ways. Like an Ni-dom trainee doctor and a Ti-dom trainee doctor, who are both trying to diagnose the same patient, based off the same medical history. They'll probably always argue, and never come to any agreement on anything. You're better off sticking with 1 doctor, than 2 that will never agree, and each one will countermand the suggestions of the other, because with that scenario, you'll never get anything done, and the patient will die before too long, because they can't even agree if the patient should be given food and water or not.

It comes down to this: Myers-Briggs did not mean that Pe/Je determined a general Judging or Perceiving attitude, but that it determined the appearance of a Judging/Perceiving attitude. The second interpretation is unproblematic, but many people assume the first interpretation.

They assume Myers-Briggs meant that all JiPe types are dominantly psychological and behavioral perceivers; and that all PiJe types are dominantly psychological and behavioral judgers. However, this is inaccurate to all extents, they only appear as such.

We can certainly see that many people do take this approach. However, psychologists pointed out to me, that this is "black-and-white thinking", a viewpoint of extremes, and is extremely unrealistic.

The way I see it, the problem is that most people from our countries are taught in our educational systems to express things in terms of generalisations rather than categorisations, and to interact in terms of competition instead of co-operation.

Accordingly, if an INTP says that INTJs are Judgers, what he tends to express, is that INTPs are judgers in a generalising way, that he judges everything. Then, having said that, this is then perceived in a competitive way, as if the INTP is saying that the INTJ is somehow less able than than the INTP, and the INTP should be competitively at a generalised, and permanent, advantage over the INTJ. This is then expressed in a defensive manner, and the INTP then tries to defend his view, that in his mind, he has done nothing wrong, and the INTJ is at fault, for disagreeing with his analysis.

The same is true of when INTJs say that INTPs are unproductive. The INTJ says it in a generalising way, as if to say that the INTP is always unproductive. This is then perceived in a competitive way, as if the INTJ is saying that the INTP is somehow less able than than the INTJ, and the INTJ should be competitively at a generalised, and permanent, advantage over the INTP. This is then expressed in a defensive manner, and the INTJ then tries to defend his view, that in his mind, he has done nothing wrong, and the INTP is at fault, for disagreeing with his analysis.

Both see the other as trying to compete and gain an advantage over the other, when that would not be to mutual benefit, and both see the other's comments as being universal, and hence totally unrealistic.

But that is not a fault of typology. That is a fault of how they were raised to think, and how they were raised to interact with others, and that they have not recognised that they were educated in a manner that is ultimately putting them at a serious disadvantage in life, and is ultimately self-destructive for their society in general.

It is a problem because people come to the theory to understand themselves, but as you have noted, MBTI was not intended for psychological self-understanding but externally fitting yourself into reality.

MBTI was developed to understand how one thinks, and to learn how to better get on with other people. The fault, is that they were educated to do the reverse, to generalise so universally as to never be able to have a realistic view of themselves, and to compete with others, and so never get on with others. MBTI cannot get over one's internal biases. One has to acknowledge those biases, and be prepared to discard them, before gaining from new methods to do any of that.

It's also a problem because with two different sets of judging and perceiving operating at once, the typological character implied by the functions do not match the typological character implied by the letters. Somebody could type and test INTP and identify with a general Perceiving attitude, but not identify with functional descriptions of TiNe, etc.

That would be a fault of poor onine testing, of trusting too much in online tests, and trying to expect universal generalised perfection of online descriptions of different personality groupings.

Again, I think you're missing the(/my) point here. It seems like I want to appeal to original authority(of course logically that's true), but it's more of a want to correct errors.

Because there's a difference between bringing an alternative valid perspective to the table, and misunderstanding the whole theory in the first place while bringing a slop of mess to the table.

In other words, I don't agree that MBTI adds a little more to the understanding of others, at least not to the extent that it makes up for its regressions and confusions of Jungian theory.

You can't correct errors, without diagnosing the source of those errors correctly. You'll always find something to disagree with about MBTI, and any theory that isn't the theory you currently agree with, until you learn to accept that nothing has to be perfect, nothing is universally true, and there are almost always some things that you agree with in theories that you disagree with. Then when you accept that, you'll take a more pluralistic viewpoint, taking from everything, what you can learn from it, and then almost everything enhances your understanding greatly.

 

[Words]

By "model", I mean some kind of 3-D sphere, that encompasses your vision of the known universe, in space, time, and all factors. You can play it forwards or backwards, because it's in your head. You can look at any part of it, that is in your head. You can do anything with it. It's like a sim, but much more advanced. Like a continuous simulation of the entire universe, for all time. If you want to put a multiverse in there, you can. It's your head, your imagination, You decide what to put in it, and what to do with it.

I used to consider these internal models, simulations. But over time, it's become apparent to me, that INTJs construct them as if they are adding building blocks, like the way you can add a house or a car to a sim, and also the way you can add new functionality to a sim, that then opens new options for many of the existing components of the sim. So it's a bit like Age of Empires, or a civilisation-building game, only you can do it about anything.

Is Ni or Pi limited to this? You talk of it as having some sort of internal system. "Building block", "simulation." Can't Ni or Pi be simply a single picture of one moment?

It's difficult for me to discuss honestly when I think its obvious, so I'll lay down my cards. I think you're talking about Pi-Jx. You call it "model", I call it "framework." It's simply a perspective but with an internal structure, whether its a sequential order(like in a simulation) or a stacking relationship(like with building blocks.) These structures are indicators of Jx. It doesn't have to be about the universe. It can be on anything. I think Ni or Pi, isolated, is something else. Ni or Pi, alone, is without all these structures.

Since everyone does it, it makes everyone judgemental, to an extent. But not everyone expresses that the other person is an idiot.

Do people judge in different ways? Are there people who make models quicker? Are there people who make more rigid models? Does having a model-creating preference make a difference?

Ni-doms frequently have the problem that they simply cannot make reality like their cognitive ideals, often because of technical barriers. This is very annoying to them. They call this a difference "an inefficient system".

What if they're simply wrong? What if they're ideals are simply impossible? What if they're actually ineffective? How would they appear to other people?

At first, it seemed quite alien to me. But after a while, I started to see that INTPs were doing that as well, me, but also a lot of INTPs here, just that they were starting with an existing model that they were familiar with, using Ti to criticise the model, and then changing the model to fit their Ti conclusions. Although, in the case of INTPs, they seemed to see a lot more models than the Ni-doms would see, but they wouldn't have anywhere near the level of familiarity with their models to just fire off answers about their models at will like INTJs seem to be able to, and to do so effortlessly.

When you say "INTPs see models", do you mean they create more models?

But what I've noticed, is that when I argued with an Si-dom, they often have a mind like a steel trap. They've covered every answer. You can't do that with just a memory of a wall. You have to have a seriously consistent model, to do that. So they must be building a model too. Plus, their models are more flexible and seem to be oriented even better for practical use, than the Ni-doms are. They're just less able to come up with a whole new model. So it's almost like Ne is operating in the background, the subconscious changing things here and there, when they need changing, without having to ask the concious what needs doing.

Then you're talking about Ne, not Si. If Ne is the one responsible for that flexibility and that being able to "cover every answer", then your looking at the wrong function. Ne is the speculative one.

Also, the function is not the person. Si is not necessarily represented by Si dominant.

Ti does criticise when a model is wrong. But what are you going to do with a broken model? How can you figure out what to do, if the only vision you have of reality, is in your head, because you can't "see" the electrical signals coming from your optic nerves and have to have them translated into a 3-D model inside your mind, when you've just said that's bollocks? You have to have some kind of visual reality, to know where to put your feet. If Ti doesn't help you to know where to put your feet, it's worse than useless. So Ti may say "If you put your foot there, you'll get dog-shit all over it", but to be useful, it also has to say "But if you put your foot to the left or the right, it's OK.", because you need to know somewhere to put your feet. You can't just float in mid-air, you know. So Ti HAS to give you some approval on an alternative to the criticism.

Nope, Ti doesn't have to give approval. That's what you have nihilism for.

 

[Words]

But still, Ni, Si, Ne, and Se are still all new proposals for what might work in reality. So they are speculations about what could happen. I know that makes INTJs seem weak. But really, after having spoken to them a lot, I found out they only seem sure on the outside. On the inside, they are in a huge amount of doubt.

What happens if it is no longer a proposal? How do you create or store a self-agreed certainty if not through Ni or Si?

 

[Words]

I agree that MBTI can seem confusing when compared to Jungian typology. An INTJ on another forum, who likes to be up-to-date on all the scholarly work on the topic, pointed out that many scholars of Jung's original works, think that Jung would classify INTPs as TiNi. All this bothered me, because it all seemed to connect and not connect. I tried to make sense of it. But it seemed quite a mess. Then it hit me: Everyone agrees that all the variants are Ti-N, of some kind. MBTI says the second function is the opposite of the first (Ti-Ne). Jungian scholars say the second function is like the first (Ti-Ni). Jung himself, only said that the person would have a general attitude of an Introvert, with a dominant function of Thinking, and an auxiliary function of iNtution, I-TN. As long as you specify Ti-Nx, and leave the x to be define by the theorist, it all agrees with INTP.

I don't think TiNi makes sense. I've observed people like these but Se is always there ready to surface, making TiSeNi.. a better model. But NiTi though...yeah it makes more sense. I've observed too many NiTi types who are clearly not Aux Fe.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's difficult for me to discuss honestly when I think its obvious, so I'll lay down my cards. I think you're talking about Pi-Jx. You call it "model", I call it "framework." It's simply a perspective but with an internal structure, whether its a sequential order(like in a simulation) or a stacking relationship(like with building blocks.) These structures are indicators of Jx. It doesn't have to be about the universe. It can be on anything. I think Ni or Pi, isolated, is something else. Ni or Pi, alone, is without all these structures.

Well, I view Jung's and Myers-Briggs' theories of personality typology, as primarily theories intended to describe human behaviour and cognition. So my primary criteria for understanding the theory, is if they match what people of certain types do and think. As such, to describe Te, I looked at the behaviour and descriptions of thinking of those who would use Te extensively, ENTJs, ESTJs, INTJs and ISTJs, with the consideration that in ENTJs and ESTJs, these behaviours and types of thinking would be dominant, and in INTJs and ISTJs, they would be auxiliary. To describe Ni, I looked at the behaviour and descriptions of thinking of those who would use Ni extensively, INTJs, INFJs, ENTJs, and ENFJs, with the consideration that in INTJs and INFJs, these behaviours and types of thinking would be dominant, and in ENTJs and ESTJs, they would be auxiliary. My statements were based on observing and listening to such people intently and carefully, and talking to them about how they think and work out what to do, and how to do it.

Is Ni or Pi limited to this? You talk of it as having some sort of internal system. "Building block", "simulation." Can't Ni or Pi be simply a single picture of one moment?

I suppose that it could, if INTJs and INFJs and ISTJs, and probably ISFJs, were to express that they do take a single picture of one moment. But they actually admitted often, that they really struggle to do that at all. It's a big problem for many INTJs at work, because when their bosses ask them where they are up to at the moment, they can't usually say until after the project is finished, becuase they are too much in their own flow. They also admit to love studying flows, and is their chosen method of observation of patterns.

IMHO, INTPs seem to be extremely different in this. INTPs seem to love studying a single picture of one moment, but generally seem to miss out on understanding the "flow of things". Are you sure that you aren't talking about your own way of thinking, that INTJs, and other types, may not all use?

Do people judge in different ways?

Of course. IME, a lot of people are apt to consider INTPs very judgemental. But they don't make those comments that are considered judgemental, in the same ways, as, say INTJs, or ISTJs.

Are there people who make models quicker?

Yes. Some INTPs are very slow to construct models. Some construct them much faster. It seems to differ from person to person. I've also obsrved a general difference between INTJs and INTPs, in that INTPs seem to take a lot longer to form their models. I also believe that Jung described the process of Ti-doms developing concepts as being of a much slower method than his description of Ni-doms.

Are there people who make more rigid models?

Yes. IME, Sensors' models tend to appear as quite rigid to Intuitives, and INTJs' models appear rigid to INTPs. Mind you, INTJs also seem to find INTP's models as rigid as well.

Does having a model-creating preference make a difference?

In that according to personality theories, INTPs generally think differently to INTJs, yes.

What if they're simply wrong? What if they're ideals are simply impossible? What if they're actually ineffective?

From their perspective, it doesn't matter. They aren't constructing models just to understand things. They construct idealised models, to understand what would be a much more optimal version of reality, so that by trying to make reality match their ideals, reality can be improved. The process of implementation reveals for them, the limitations of the differences between their idealised systems and the constraints of reality, which allows them to improve their idealised systems, so that they can then implement their idealised systems without problems. It's an endless system of always making things better. Theorise, test by implementation, theorise a better theory, test by implementation, and so on.

How would they appear to other people?

Depends. To those who intuitively understand the value of what they are doing, as they see it, and how they are intending to adjust things as they go along, it's an extremely useful way to improve things. To those who don't quite understand that, it often appears to be dictatorship, or even dictatorship for no purpose, depending on the level of understanding of what the INTJ is up to.

When you say "INTPs see models", do you mean they create more models?

I mean, that from my reading of many INTPs, INTPs also construct abstract models in their heads. But their models tend to be naturally static models that can move, if the INTP chooses to mentally play the models in his/her head. INTJs tend to make "movies" in their heads, as if their models are naturally flowing, and are naturally dynamic.

Then you're talking about Ne, not Si. If Ne is the one responsible for that flexibility and that being able to "cover every answer", then your looking at the wrong function. Ne is the speculative one.

IME, there are certain things that Si-doms do, that Ne-doms and Ne-aux do not. For instance, ISTJs show a remarkable ability to recall what happened in a prior event in the past, in a completely different way to what happened, like they are recalling an entirely different memory to one that everyone else who was present recalls, and yet, their recall of the event is incredibly consistent, and is described exactly as if it was a recalled memory. I have never come across any INTPs here or on other forums, who recall history as if certain physical events happened differently.

Also, the function is not the person. Si is not necessarily represented by Si dominant.

True. That's why I try to look at commonalities between different people.

Nope, Ti doesn't have to give approval. That's what you have nihilism for.

The word "approval" is often used to "approve" documents, because the word refers to a judgement that a certain thing has passed the criteria set up to decide if the document is valid, as in, "the stamp of approval", because one stamps the word "APPROVED" on documents that have passed.

Humans also often look for approval from their parental units, or their peer group. This refers to a similar process. In humans who seek approval, this means that the human has a desire to do certain actions, or a belief that certain actions will accomplish certain goals, but is unsure whether they meet the criteria that would be standard for humans in his local area, and seeks the parental units to confirm if their actions pass the criteria.

It's best seen in small children, who has recently been potty-trained. When they need to go to the toilet, the child will often tell his/her parents, that he/she needs to go. Then the parent will tell the child to go to the toilet. Then the child will go and do his/her business. Then the child will often come back and say that he/she went to the toilet. These behaviours are common for a child, because the child knows what to do, but is still not confident that he/she knows what he/she is doing. So the child goes to the parent, to seek approval, that his/her feeling of needing to go to the toilet, is one that he/she is capable of going on his/her own, and, having done his/her business, again seeks approval that he/she went to the toilet correctly. After a while of this, when the parent expresses words that indicate that the child is acting correctly, to go to the toilet on his own, and that having gone, he does not need to be checked on, the child naturally concludes that he has consistently been approved enough times that he realises that he is capable and going to the toilet competently.

Sometimes, humans also look for what is called "meaning" in their lives. This is often a perception, that there is a "correct" way of doing things, rather like at school, where one is often told how to behave, and when one is a kid in one's home, where one's parental units often instruct one that there is a "correct" way to behave, and to not behave this way, is to face "parental disapproval", i.e. that one's actions have not passed the parental units' criteria for valid behaviour in their home. This can often be misconstrued as a valid perception of how to live life, that one's life has a "purpose", that "needs" approval, from other authority units, that act in loco parentiis, in place of the parental units.

Nihilism, is a concept that life "has no meaning", meaning, that is, that humans have no purpose, per se, and that thus, anything is possible. For such human units as think that they need approval of adult equivalents of their parental units for their purpose, that frees them from the bondage of being always told what to do.

However, this is completely unnecessary. Even if they have meaning, the human units still do not have to seek approval from their parents for their meaning, and never did. The purpose of validation of their actions while in their parents' guardianship, is because their parents were legally responsible for their actions, until they reached adulthood, and thus, it was their parents' responsibility, to ensure that their child was habituated to not do what behaviours would not be validly approved by his society, such as murder, rape and paedophilia. Once the human reaches adulthood, he is considered capable of validating his own actions, and deciding if his own actions are so unapproved by his society, as to be completely unacceptable, such as murder, rape and paedophilia. He is then under his own recognisance, to validate and approve of his own actions. This is the nature of all humans that are allowed to reach the status of an adult who is responsible to make his own choices, excluding those who are always considered children, due to a brain deformity that disables this ability.

In context, what we call "judgement", the validation if a certain possible choice of action would be a valid choice or not, is the approval process of the action. If the judgement is that the action is a valid choice, then the action is "approved". If not, then it is "not approved".

What happens if it is no longer a proposal? How do you create or store a self-agreed certainty if not through Ni or Si?

Ni creates is the theorising function. But it doesn't store them. They get stored in Se. Si can build functions, but then stores them in itself, which limits its capacity for synthesis. The other ways of building theories, are by a combination of functions, like using Ti with Ne, or Ti with Se, or other combinations.

I don't think TiNi makes sense. I've observed people like these but Se is always there ready to surface, making TiSeNi.. a better model. But NiTi though...yeah it makes more sense. I've observed too many NiTi types who are clearly not Aux Fe.

The older diagrams of MBTI types, show that introversion and extroversion are in levels. Jung wrote that the the subconscious, is complementary, and opposite in attitude, to the conscious. So it is quite plausible, to say that the most conscious function is the most introverted, according to how introverted one is, and that then decreases in introversion and increases in extroversion, across the functions, until one gets to the same level in extroversion, in the most unconscious function.

 

[Words]

@scorpiomover It's been a while since I've had a civil discussion. Most of them have been infuriating lately.

Well, I view Jung's and Myers-Briggs' theories of personality typology, as primarily theories intended to describe human behaviour and cognition. So my primary criteria for understanding the theory, is if they match what people of certain types do and think. As such, to describe Te, I looked at the behaviour and descriptions of thinking of those who would use Te extensively, ENTJs, ESTJs, INTJs and ISTJs, with the consideration that in ENTJs and ESTJs, these behaviours and types of thinking would be dominant, and in INTJs and ISTJs, they would be auxiliary. To describe Ni, I looked at the behaviour and descriptions of thinking of those who would use Ni extensively, INTJs, INFJs, ENTJs, and ENFJs, with the consideration that in INTJs and INFJs, these behaviours and types of thinking would be dominant, and in ENTJs and ESTJs, they would be auxiliary. My statements were based on observing and listening to such people intently and carefully, and talking to them about how they think and work out what to do, and how to do it.

A problem that I see with your method is the fact that it does not entertain the idea that Te or Ni is also present(as inferiors or ters) in ISFPs and ESFPs. The fact that you listen to direct statements means you listen to a lot of subjective information. The "Ni" or the "Te" that you're hearing could be something else. I think it's best to listen to all Te-types or all Ni-types(SFPs) and to question, "what exactly makes them all Te or Ni?" And then "What makes non-Te or non-Ni types non-Te or non-Ni?" That way, you could focus on the function and not the type. This is of course assuming that you would find a common idea of "Te" or "Ni." (which i think you would)

I think the more empirical(not necessarily scientific) the method is, the more it produces "sensible ideas." By "sensible", I'm referring to logic and/or coherence. I place high emphasis on coherence and coherence is more than the order between theory and theory; it is also about the coherence of theory and data/observation. This is why I wouldn't place high importance on what people think they're thought processes are. I don't think it's a good thing if they think about it thoroughly. It's prone to too much subjectivity. Their direct statements are still somewhat valuable of course, especially if you can find a way to really confirm their type. Unless... you have numbers. The importance of direct statements depends on the number of (possible)Te-doms you've heard from.

Currently, I prioritize "observational manifestations." I think the key factor in distinguishing what I mean by "direct statements" and "observational manifestation" is whether they're fully conscious of the behavior or not.

In reality, I am not fully conscious of these criteria myself. I simply keep interacting with more and more random people of any type on a daily basis, and my conclusions/ideas sort of just naturally surface. This method of random initiation of conversation is an irregular, non-conforming activity, but there are many benefits to this eccentric method: social experience, connections, breadth of data and test of theory.

I suppose that it could, if INTJs and INFJs and ISTJs, and probably ISFJs, were to express that they do take a single picture of one moment. But they actually admitted often, that they really struggle to do that at all. It's a big problem for many INTJs at work, because when their bosses ask them where they are up to at the moment, they can't usually say until after the project is finished, becuase they are too much in their own flow. They also admit to love studying flows, and is their chosen method of observation of patterns.

Noted.

IMHO, INTPs seem to be extremely different in this. INTPs seem to love studying a single picture of one moment, but generally seem to miss out on understanding the "flow of things". Are you sure that you aren't talking about your own way of thinking, that INTJs, and other types, may not all use?

No. I'm horrible at forming an idea of where I am, and what I am suppose to be doing. My mind wanders off too much.

Your observation on INTPs loving single picture of moments is noted. Reminds me of photography. It sounds like Si.

Of course. IME, a lot of people are apt to consider INTPs very judgemental. But they don't make those comments that are considered judgemental, in the same ways, as, say INTJs, or ISTJs.

yeah.

Yes. Some INTPs are very slow to construct models. Some construct them much faster. It seems to differ from person to person. I've also obsrved a general difference between INTJs and INTPs, in that INTPs seem to take a lot longer to form their models. I also believe that Jung described the process of Ti-doms developing concepts as being of a much slower method than his description of Ni-doms.

Exactly.

Yes. IME, Sensors' models tend to appear as quite rigid to Intuitives, and INTJs' models appear rigid to INTPs. Mind you, INTJs also seem to find INTP's models as rigid as well.

If ever I form a model, it is the most rigid model. But I rarely form models, so that rigidity doesn't really get to show itself much.

From their perspective, it doesn't matter. They aren't constructing models just to understand things. They construct idealised models, to understand what would be a much more optimal version of reality, so that by trying to make reality match their ideals, reality can be improved. The process of implementation reveals for them, the limitations of the differences between their idealised systems and the constraints of reality, which allows them to improve their idealised systems, so that they can then implement their idealised systems without problems. It's an endless system of always making things better. Theorise, test by implementation, theorise a better theory, test by implementation, and so on.

yeah, that makes sense considering NiTeFiSe. I guess I asked that question from the perspective of an TiNeSiFe too much, which is truth-centric. Then again, INTJs don't necessarily construct models just to improve reality muchlike how INTPs don't necessarily focus on truth or clarity. Under the context of understanding/clarity as the goal, the INTJ would still utilize Ni in the same manner. do you concur?

I mean, that from my reading of many INTPs, INTPs also construct abstract models in their heads. But their models tend to be naturally static models that can move, if the INTP chooses to mentally play the models in his/her head. INTJs tend to make "movies" in their heads, as if their models are naturally flowing, and are naturally dynamic.

hmm...this is confusing. I think it makes more sense that in coherence with the fact that INTPs are truth/clarity-centric and the fact that there being only one truth to things, INTPs focus on creating the most accurate model ever. That coheres with your idea of INTP "playing with the model", but playing with several models contradicts this idea.

I'm guessing what you mean by "movies" and "dynamic" is that the models of the INTJ is not as "set" as the INTP.

IME, there are certain things that Si-doms do, that Ne-doms and Ne-aux do not. For instance, ISTJs show a remarkable ability to recall what happened in a prior event in the past, in a completely different way to what happened, like they are recalling an entirely different memory to one that everyone else who was present recalls, and yet, their recall of the event is incredibly consistent, and is described exactly as if it was a recalled memory. I have never come across any INTPs here or on other forums, who recall history as if certain physical events happened differently.

How can you have a different memory and yet be consistent? Si types are label-centric, generic-centric. What you're describing here seems more like Ni. Ni focuses on different interpretations opposing the generic interpretation.

The word "approval" is often used to "approve" documents, because the word refers to a judgement that a certain thing has passed the criteria set up to decide if the document is valid, as in, "the stamp of approval", because one stamps the word "APPROVED" on documents that have passed.

Humans also often look for approval from their parental units, or their peer group. This refers to a similar process. In humans who seek approval, this means that the human has a desire to do certain actions, or a belief that certain actions will accomplish certain goals, but is unsure whether they meet the criteria that would be standard for humans in his local area, and seeks the parental units to confirm if their actions pass the criteria.

It's best seen in small children, who has recently been potty-trained. When they need to go to the toilet, the child will often tell his/her parents, that he/she needs to go. Then the parent will tell the child to go to the toilet. Then the child will go and do his/her business. Then the child will often come back and say that he/she went to the toilet. These behaviours are common for a child, because the child knows what to do, but is still not confident that he/she knows what he/she is doing. So the child goes to the parent, to seek approval, that his/her feeling of needing to go to the toilet, is one that he/she is capable of going on his/her own, and, having done his/her business, again seeks approval that he/she went to the toilet correctly. After a while of this, when the parent expresses words that indicate that the child is acting correctly, to go to the toilet on his own, and that having gone, he does not need to be checked on, the child naturally concludes that he has consistently been approved enough times that he realises that he is capable and going to the toilet competently.

Sometimes, humans also look for what is called "meaning" in their lives. This is often a perception, that there is a "correct" way of doing things, rather like at school, where one is often told how to behave, and when one is a kid in one's home, where one's parental units often instruct one that there is a "correct" way to behave, and to not behave this way, is to face "parental disapproval", i.e. that one's actions have not passed the parental units' criteria for valid behaviour in their home. This can often be misconstrued as a valid perception of how to live life, that one's life has a "purpose", that "needs" approval, from other authority units, that act in loco parentiis, in place of the parental units.

Alright, but I don't see the connection of this to my question. I'm not necessarily talking about Ti children.

Nihilism, is a concept that life "has no meaning", meaning, that is, that humans have no purpose, per se, and that thus, anything is possible. For such human units as think that they need approval of adult equivalents of their parental units for their purpose, that frees them from the bondage of being always told what to do.

I was mainly thinking about epistemological nihilism, because the INTP is usually more concerned about things that are related to knowledge, knowledge-rejecting, and knowledge-approving.

However, this is completely unnecessary. Even if they have meaning, the human units still do not have to seek approval from their parents for their meaning, and never did. The purpose of validation of their actions while in their parents' guardianship, is because their parents were legally responsible for their actions, until they reached adulthood, and thus, it was their parents' responsibility, to ensure that their child was habituated to not do what behaviours would not be validly approved by his society, such as murder, rape and paedophilia. Once the human reaches adulthood, he is considered capable of validating his own actions, and deciding if his own actions are so unapproved by his society, as to be completely unacceptable, such as murder, rape and paedophilia. He is then under his own recognisance, to validate and approve of his own actions. This is the nature of all humans that are allowed to reach the status of an adult who is responsible to make his own choices, excluding those who are always considered children, due to a brain deformity that disables this ability.

In context, what we call "judgement", the validation if a certain possible choice of action would be a valid choice or not, is the approval process of the action. If the judgement is that the action is a valid choice, then the action is "approved". If not, then it is "not approved".

yeah, it's "judgement" in that sense but not "judgement" in the "other sense."

Ni creates is the theorising function. But it doesn't store them. They get stored in Se. Si can build functions, but then stores them in itself, which limits its capacity for synthesis. The other ways of building theories, are by a combination of functions, like using Ti with Ne, or Ti with Se, or other combinations.

I guess this is our primary conflict point. You don't seem to pay attention to the relevance of Pi-Pe-Ji-Je, while I, on the other hand, think its the most important. Si and Ni doms have big similarities, and these similarities are best defined by this idea of Pi. Same with Pe, Ji and Je.

One of the implications of these emphasis on Pi-Pe-Ji-Je is that for Ni-Se types, Ni is their "storing function" not Se. Se is an "experience function" like Ne. It is "extraverted." It occurs in the moment. Ni and Si are "introverted." The idea of "storage" is necessarily internal. It is carried by the subject/person, not defined by the moment. This goes back to the idea of Ni-types frequently having an alternate memory of a past situation. Their memory is more fluid and less generic. They tend to interpret the past differently.

The older diagrams of MBTI types, show that introversion and extroversion are in levels. Jung wrote that the the subconscious, is complementary, and opposite in attitude, to the conscious. So it is quite plausible, to say that the most conscious function is the most introverted, according to how introverted one is, and that then decreases in introversion and increases in extroversion, across the functions, until one gets to the same level in extroversion, in the most unconscious function.

I'm not well read on this, but my experiences somewhat agrees. It's just with certain assumed NiFeTi, specifically male ones, I don't see the usual manifestations of Fe. They're detached. Maybe I've misunderstood Fe or something.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@scorpiomover, I can't respond to most of that. Your response includes points I don't necessarily disagree with but are still far from what I was trying to discuss. All I could say is "yeah I agree, but that's not my point".

I might make another thread on what I mean, but it always fails to be communicated. I think it's something you don't see until you study Socionics.

You can't correct errors, without diagnosing the source of those errors correctly. You'll always find something to disagree with about MBTI, and any theory that isn't the theory you currently agree with, until you learn to accept that nothing has to be perfect, nothing is universally true, and there are almost always some things that you agree with in theories that you disagree with.

1) The source of the error is measuring J-P traits by Je/Pe instead of whether the type is judging or perceiving dominant.

2) This is actually something I don't realize of myself. I didn't mean MBTI has to be perfect, but imo there could be so much more improvement.

 

[scorpiomover]

I might make another thread on what I mean, but it always fails to be communicated. I think it's something you don't see until you study Socionics.

1) The source of the error is measuring J-P traits by Je/Pe instead of whether the type is judging or perceiving dominant.

Well, that would change things a lot. MBTI focusses on people who others find are "judgemental", which highly correlates to having an extroverted judging function and an introverted perceiving function.

Socionics focusses on whether the person's dominant function is a judging function. That's a different sort of judger. A person who is judging-dominant, will always be evaluating things, always drawing conclusions, and only sometimes coming up with perceptual solutions. But that's his internal process. He knows if he's like that. But others can't always tell that easily.

If he's an extrovert, then MBTI and Socionics will agree. If he's an extrovert, his dominant function is extroverted. So how he always thinks, is what he shows to others. So it would be reasonable to say about such a person, that WYSIWYG. So such a person is easy to read anyway.

If he's an introvert, then what you see, is usually not what he himself thinks. The MBTI version of J-ness, is more adapted to others evaluating his personality type. Socionics is more suited to him evaluating his own type, by self-observation. When it comes to self-administered tests, Socionics is likely to be more accurate, because introverts tend to think in terms of how they see themselves, rather than how others see them.

2) This is actually something I don't realize of myself. I didn't mean MBTI has to be perfect, but imo there could be so much more improvement.

I agree. The nature of how MBTI is used nowadays, seems to be mostly people trying to type themselves, to figure out how they can best enchance their lives. The problem with that, is that MBTI has a focus on the extroverted element. So MBTI is primarily designed to teach you how to type others, so that you can figure out how to best communicate with someone else.

The reason that is a problem, is because when Myers started writing back in the 40s, the world was highly focussed on repressing individual behaviour to achieve social coherence, which made society highly focussed on extroversion. Since the late 60s, the West has become very committed to self-expression and individuality, which are both introverted expressions. As s consequence, the West has switched from being very extroverted, to being highly introverted. So MBTI probably lost a lot of its objective use, round about the time it became popular with the general public.

MBTI is still highly useful. It's just that people are no longer that interested in the purposes for which it was designed.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, that would change things a lot. MBTI focusses on people who others find are "judgemental", which highly correlates to having an extroverted judging function and an introverted perceiving function.

Socionics focusses on whether the person's dominant function is a judging function. That's a different sort of judger. A person who is judging-dominant, will always be evaluating things, always drawing conclusions, and only sometimes coming up with perceptual solutions. But that's his internal process. He knows if he's like that. But others can't always tell that easily.

If he's an extrovert, then MBTI and Socionics will agree. If he's an extrovert, his dominant function is extroverted. So how he always thinks, is what he shows to others. So it would be reasonable to say about such a person, that WYSIWYG. So such a person is easy to read anyway.

If he's an introvert, then what you see, is usually not what he himself thinks. The MBTI version of J-ness, is more adapted to others evaluating his personality type. Socionics is more suited to him evaluating his own type, by self-observation. When it comes to self-administered tests, Socionics is likely to be more accurate, because introverts tend to think in terms of how they see themselves, rather than how others see them.

Oh wow, you do already understand.

Given this wouldn't you think MBTI could lead to misunderstandings then? I mean, how a person sees themselves and how they are internally should hold more weight to people's treatment of them, rather than the external impression.

At least though I think the outside view and the inside view could be synthesized.

I agree. The nature of how MBTI is used nowadays, seems to be mostly people trying to type themselves, to figure out how they can best enchance their lives. The problem with that, is that MBTI has a focus on the extroverted element. So MBTI is primarily designed to teach you how to type others, so that you can figure out how to best communicate with someone else.

The reason that is a problem, is because when Myers started writing back in the 40s, the world was highly focussed on repressing individual behaviour to achieve social coherence, which made society highly focussed on extroversion. Since the late 60s, the West has become very committed to self-expression and individuality, which are both introverted expressions. As s consequence, the West has switched from being very extroverted, to being highly introverted. So MBTI probably lost a lot of its objective use, round about the time it became popular with the general public.

MBTI is still highly useful. It's just that people are no longer that interested in the purposes for which it was designed.

You still have human resources using it for employees and I think the workplace(along with family home life) could benefit from the more internal perspective for reasons I already gave above.


Something I also forget, alongside MBTI not needing to be perfect, is the development of Step II and Step III.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's been a while since I've had a civil discussion. Most of them have been infuriating lately.

Thank you. I was trying desperately to avoid another slanging match.

A problem that I see with your method is the fact that it does not entertain the idea that Te or Ni is also present(as inferiors or ters) in ISFPs and ESFPs. The fact that you listen to direct statements means you listen to a lot of subjective information. The "Ni" or the "Te" that you're hearing could be something else. I think it's best to listen to all Te-types or all Ni-types(SFPs) and to question, "what exactly makes them all Te or Ni?" And then "What makes non-Te or non-Ni types non-Te or non-Ni?" That way, you could focus on the function and not the type. This is of course assuming that you would find a common idea of "Te" or "Ni." (which i think you would)

I have considered that problem. However, Te AND Fi both occur in TJs and FPs in one of the 4 positions. So, focussing on what is common with TJs and FPs, would give you ideas about Te & Fi, but not about Te as opposed to Fi.

However, TJs would have Te mostly consciously, and Fi mostly subconsciously. So, as long as one pays attention to what seems to be deliberate behaviour and what seems to be automatic behaviour that one is not that aware of, one can notice the qualities of Te, independently of Fi, by focussing on the deliberate behaviour of TJs that is consistent with the automatic behaviour of FPs. That does make things a bit more complicated. But it just requires more effort.

I think the more empirical(not necessarily scientific) the method is, the more it produces "sensible ideas." By "sensible", I'm referring to logic and/or coherence. I place high emphasis on coherence and coherence is more than the order between theory and theory; it is also about the coherence of theory and data/observation.

Hume pointed out that even when you think you are eating an orange, you could be mistaken. Empirical data is under-valued, as any one fact implies many conclusions. But since any lots of empirical data can all imply many possible explanations, and each explanation can imply a different conclusion of the same issue, and each of those conclusions can be mutually exclusive of others, it's easy to prove both sides of a debate.

That is why over 1,000 years to settle the debate over Heliocentrism versus Geocentrism, and the only things that actually swung it, was Tycho Brahe's heavily overly-redundant tables, and Johannes Kepler going over that same data, with a mathematicians's rigour, 70 times. Newton was actually credited with the Theory of Gravitation, which answered Aristotle's problem of why humans don't go flying off an Earth moving at 15,000 miles per hour.

All in all, empirical data is incredibly useful, to tell which theories apply to our physical universe. But it only gives solid conclusions, when one considers every possibility that the data could imply, and that is usually a lot to think about, and few people make that much effort in thinking, particularly when they are more enamoured of experiments to resolve their epistemological questions.

This is why I wouldn't place high importance on what people think they're thought processes are. I don't think it's a good thing if they think about it thoroughly. It's prone to too much subjectivity. Their direct statements are still somewhat valuable of course, especially if you can find a way to really confirm their type. Unless... you have numbers. The importance of direct statements depends on the number of (possible)Te-doms you've heard from.

I rely highly on what people say, but not on their testimony.

When many of a certain type boast about their great intelligence, that does not mean they are intelligent, but that those of that type like boasting that they are intelligent, and that in itself tells me a lot about them. It tells me that they believe that others would change their treatment of them, if they were to be regarded as intelligent or stupid, without others even examining what they actually said, to see if what they said actually made sense. So it tells me that they believe that most people make decisions based on credibility, and not facts or reason. It tells me that they believe that people believe what they are told about others, simply because the speaker sounds sure of himself.

This in turn tells me, that the person could be much more likely to believe something if, say, it was said by Stephen Hawking, than if it was said by the Pope, even if it was the same statement. It also tells me, that since the person lauds his own intelligence, that anything that might suggest they are not as intelligent as they claim, would probably be rejected, and would be met with derision, and an attempt to discredit myself, rather than the statement.

Then I can observe if, and how, that happens, and then factor that in, to build up a picture of how the person's mental cogs connect with each other.

Currently, I prioritize "observational manifestations." I think the key factor in distinguishing what I mean by "direct statements" and "observational manifestation" is whether they're fully conscious of the behavior or not.

As I wrote, distinguishing between deliberate statements, and automatic clauses that are Freudian slips, would distinguish between the use of conscious Te in an TJ, and unconscious Te in an FP.

In reality, I am not fully conscious of these criteria myself. I simply keep interacting with more and more random people of any type on a daily basis, and my conclusions/ideas sort of just naturally surface. This method of random initiation of conversation is an irregular, non-conforming activity, but there are many benefits to this eccentric method: social experience, connections, breadth of data and test of theory.

The nifty thing about people, is that most people looove to talk about themselves. So one really only has to listen, and most people will give you more than enough data, both deliberate statements and behaviour, and unconscious Freudian slips, without you having to do much at all.

No. I'm horrible at forming an idea of where I am, and what I am suppose to be doing. My mind wanders off too much.

True. But if I pinned you down, to make you try? Or if I came at you sideways, to get you to answer casually?

I wouldn't need to pin an INTJ down. They'll talk about the task. But they just will start talking about what we WILL do, rather than what is going on right now.

Your observation on INTPs loving single picture of moments is noted. Reminds me of photography. It sounds like Si.

It is. Ne is paired with Si. Si is the memory-recall function. Ne plays with Si images to develop new ideas, just like Ni plays with Se flows to develop new ideas.

If ever I form a model, it is the most rigid model. But I rarely form models, so that rigidity doesn't really get to show itself much.

That's a quality of being an INTP. As you get older, you'll accumulate more and more models.

yeah, that makes sense considering NiTeFiSe. I guess I asked that question from the perspective of an TiNeSiFe too much, which is truth-centric. Then again, INTJs don't necessarily construct models just to improve reality muchlike how INTPs don't necessarily focus on truth or clarity. Under the context of understanding/clarity as the goal, the INTJ would still utilize Ni in the same manner. do you concur?

I've discusssed the problem of objective truth with INTJs.

They said they see truth in terms of the context in which the question is posed. To put it simply, if you asked them if the sky is blue, on a cloud-filled day, while you were on your way out the door, and had just picked up an umbrella, as if you were debating whether to take the umbrella or not, depending on their answer, they would say "no".

They also seem to have expressed that they like to study things that are germane to their current projects, but not otherwise. However, their Ni dominance, means they've almost always got some projects going on. So INTJs would say they always love to achieve clear understanding. But what they mean, in INTP terms, is they are extremely interested in understanding certain topics, but not others, and the topics they are interested in, change all the time, when their projects change. Accordingly, when an INTP is reading up on the physics of car mechanics, an INTJ often wonders why he is bothering, because neither has a driving licence, let alone a car, and for an INTJ, if you aren't going to do something to your car, then there is no purpose on understanding your car.

For an INTP, the mechanism works differently, and not as the stereotypes suggest. It's true that we're interested in many things. But usually, because we have an intuition that we'll need it in the future. So an INTP might be reading about the physics of car mechanics, because he intends to get a car at some point in the future, and when he does, he expects that it will probably need some car maintenance, and he's getting the info now, so that when he does need it, he can get on and do it.

INTJs don't worry about being unprepared, because they rely so heavily on their intuition to answer any problem. So when they get a problem with their car, they are mainly looking to read up on car mechanics, just enough to give their Ni enough to build a theory that they can implement. They are really using the book-knowledge for a source of inspiration, and to provide enough knowledge to implement their inspirational ideas using Te.

INTPs are the classical stereotype book-learners, who then build radical theories from what we read. INTJs are more improvisers, who also read, to fill in what their intuition and practical know-how cannot.

hmm...this is confusing. I think it makes more sense that in coherence with the fact that INTPs are truth/clarity-centric and the fact that there being only one truth to things, INTPs focus on creating the most accurate model ever. That coheres with your idea of INTP "playing with the model", but playing with several models contradicts this idea.

Sometimes, one can imagine several possible theories to explain the same phenomenon, and several possible models of the same situation. To get the most accurate one, you have to check them all out thoroughly, until you've confirmed that all but one cannot be true. Often, one's empirical data simply doesn't eliminate them all, and then one can be left with 2 or more models that are all equally accurate.

I'm guessing what you mean by "movies" and "dynamic" is that the models of the INTJ is not as "set" as the INTP.

Ne generates ideas by analysing subconscious Si. Conscious Si is the common factor in all SJs, who are big on history. History is all about what did and did not happen.

Ni synthesises ideas by analysing subconscious Se. Conscious Se is the common factor in all SPs, who are big on sports, and particularly, team sports. Team sports is all about following the motion of the ball, and, based on observation of the motion, moving to where the ball will be, but not where it is now, because if you aim for where the ball is now, by the time you get there, the ball will have rolled on, and you'll miss it.

The conflct between Si and Se, is the idea behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. If we have a hard drive, to store a video of what happened for analysis, we can store that in terms of taking pictures, of a level of quality, measured in Mbs (megabytes), taking a certain number of pictures per second, measured in frames per second. The total data stored per second for analysis, is the number of Mbs per picture, multiplied by the number of frames per second. If we want to pay more attention to what is where, we may need to double the quality of the pictures, with the same hard drive, we'll double the space used, and we'll fill up the hard drive twice as fast. So to compensate, we'll have to halve the number of frames per second, and then the video will have a longer gap between frames, and we'll lose a sense of the flow of how the individual frames flowed from one to the next. If we want to pay more attention to how things are moving, we may choose to double the frame rate. But then we'll have to halve the picture quality, and then the individual pictures will be a lot more blurry. Si is a focus on recall with an initially high picture quality and a consequently lower initial frame rate. Se is a focus on recall with an initially high frame rate and a consequently lower initial picture quality. So Si is good for accurate recall of static details, such as in historical accounts, while Se is good for good recall of the flow of a dynamic process, such as catching a ball in team sports.

How can you have a different memory and yet be consistent? Si types are label-centric, generic-centric. What you're describing here seems more like Ni. Ni focuses on different interpretations opposing the generic interpretation.

INTJs usually argue that what you meant was wrong. ISTJs will actually argue that the words that you posted, were other words, which are clearly wrong, and will persist in that view, even when you quote yourself to show what you actually posted, for page after page of posts. They both argue similarly. But one changes the meaning of your words, while the other changes what you physically posted. ISTJs still manage to maintain consistency of the conversation, though. They simply focus intently, on how to change what you said in a few places, that supports that you were wrong, while leaving the rest consistent with that.

Alright, but I don't see the connection of this to my question. I'm not necessarily talking about Ti children.

It's been pointed out many times online, that these days, Westerners are behaving like teenagers even well into their 30s.

I was mainly thinking about epistemological nihilism, because the INTP is usually more concerned about things that are related to knowledge, knowledge-rejecting, and knowledge-approving.

Oh. Epistemological nihilism. Yes. But Ti still needs to conclude whether or not the facts are consistent with the rules that are to be applied to them, and in that respect, Ti gives or does not give "approval" of consistency with the rules of the topic.

yeah, it's "judgement" in that sense but not "judgement" in the "other sense."

Being judgemental, is a quality of introverted perceiving. Introverted perceptions are intense, by nature of their introversion, so intense, that they are constructed intensely to be incredibly consistent with everything the Pi-user knows, and so the Pi-user cannot see how their view would have a flaw. Their perceptions seem so consistent, that it seems obvious to them, that they would be accepted. Any other theory would seem to be woefully inadequate, by comparison. So it seems ludicrous to them, to even consider anything else. If the Pi-user is also an introvert, then they can see the value of their idea, but only from within their own mind, and struggle to extrovert it enough to explain it to others. So it's an idea that they know is right, but cannot make it clear to anyone else. So to others, it seems quite strange and often full of flaws. As a result, the Pi-dom often gets enraged at others, for not accepting what is so obviously true to them. But, having no way to explain it to others, often resorts to discrediting the other person's view, or even the other person's personal credibility, in order to get the other person to give up and just accept what the Pi-dom is so certain is obviously true. Hence, how Pi-doms are considered very judgemental, for judging others and their ideas as being full of flaws and criticisms.

I guess this is our primary conflict point. You don't seem to pay attention to the relevance of Pi-Pe-Ji-Je, while I, on the other hand, think its the most important. Si and Ni doms have big similarities, and these similarities are best defined by this idea of Pi. Same with Pe, Ji and Je.

I pay a LOT of attention to the similarities and differences between Si and Ni, and Ni and Ne. But

One of the implications of these emphasis on Pi-Pe-Ji-Je is that for Ni-Se types, Ni is their "storing function" not Se. Se is an "experience function" like Ne. It is "extraverted." It occurs in the moment. Ni and Si are "introverted." The idea of "storage" is necessarily internal. It is carried by the subject/person, not defined by the moment. This goes back to the idea of Ni-types frequently having an alternate memory of a past situation. Their memory is more fluid and less generic. They tend to interpret the past differently.

Actually, there are several types of memory:

Researchers distinguish between recognition and recall memory. Recognition memory tasks require individuals to indicate whether they have encountered a stimulus (such as a picture or a word) before. Recall memory tasks require participants to retrieve previously learned information. For example, individuals might be asked to produce a series of actions they have seen before or to say a list of words they have heard before.

Classification by information type

Topographic memory involves the ability to orient oneself in space, to recognize and follow an itinerary, or to recognize familiar places.[13] Getting lost when traveling alone is an example of the failure of topographic memory. This is often reported among elderly patients who are evaluated for dementia. The disorder could be caused by multiple impairments, including difficulties with perception, orientation, and memory.[14]

Flashbulb memories are clear episodic memories of unique and highly emotional events.[15] Remembering where you were or what you were doing when you first heard the news of President Kennedy’s assassination[16] or about 9/11 are examples of flashbulb memories.

Anderson (1976)[17] divides long-term memory into declarative (explicit) and procedural (implicit) memories.

Declarative memory

Declarative memory requires conscious recall, in that some conscious process must call back the information. It is sometimes called explicit memory, since it consists of information that is explicitly stored and retrieved.

Declarative memory can be further sub-divided into semantic memory, which concerns facts taken independent of context; and episodic memory, which concerns information specific to a particular context, such as a time and place. Semantic memory allows the encoding of abstract knowledge about the world, such as "Paris is the capital of France". Episodic memory, on the other hand, is used for more personal memories, such as the sensations, emotions, and personal associations of a particular place or time. Autobiographical memory - memory for particular events within one's own life - is generally viewed as either equivalent to, or a subset of, episodic memory. Visual memory is part of memory preserving some characteristics of our senses pertaining to visual experience. One is able to place in memory information that resembles objects, places, animals or people in sort of a mental image. Visual memory can result in priming and it is assumed some kind of perceptual representational system underlies this phenomenon. [18]

Procedural memory

In contrast, procedural memory (or implicit memory) is not based on the conscious recall of information, but on implicit learning. Procedural memory is primarily employed in learning motor skills and should be considered a subset of implicit memory. It is revealed when one does better in a given task due only to repetition - no new explicit memories have been formed, but one is unconsciously accessing aspects of those previous experiences. Procedural memory involved in motor learning depends on the cerebellum and basal ganglia.

NJs and SPs, who have Si, seem to be excellent at the types of recall required for recalling procedural memories. NPs and SJs, who have Se, seem to be much better at the types of recall of declarative memories. In both cases, Sensors recall such memories explicity, to reply them precisely, for use in the present, while Intuitives recall such memories only as part of a new idea they are currently building. When Sensors change details to adjust to the current situation, they seem to do so without explicit awareness of doing so, and pointing out that they've changed things, seems to produce an immediate denial, as if the unconscious refuses to allow them to become conscious of such adjustments. When Intuitives recall such memories for replay as is, such as in repetitively doing a task they already know, they can do so unconsciously, on "auto pilot", but the minute they start to think about the task consciously, they start to screw up.

I'm not well read on this, but my experiences somewhat agrees. It's just with certain assumed NiFeTi, specifically male ones, I don't see the usual manifestations of Fe. They're detached. Maybe I've misunderstood Fe or something.

Male INFJs can be very annoying. When they are asking about dates, they just go on and on, demanding more and more explanations. It's like their emotions have taken over their brain, and stopped them from thinking.

 

[scorpiomover]

Oh wow, you do already understand.

Given this wouldn't you think MBTI could lead to misunderstandings then? I mean, how a person sees themselves and how they are internally should hold more weight to people's treatment of them, rather than the external impression.

In an ideal world, yes. But currently in Western society, people generally respond to what they see on a surface level, one's external impression, with little consideration as to the complex motivations of how they think internally.

At least though I think the outside view and the inside view could be synthesized.

Of course they can. That's what I'm trying to do. But from what I can see, the result would be called complex, by most people. So it seems to be good for explaining human behaviour in greater detail and greater complexity, but would detract from our understanding, if just try to shove the introverted side and extroverted side together.

It could also ruin the mind to synthesise both sides completely. The human mind seems to be able to develop sophisticated ideas, by means of contrasting the results of 2 different functions from 2 different perspectives. It seems to me, that it is the nature of contrast, that lets us figure out so much, by allowing us to divide and subdivide the universe, in billions of ways. To synthesise the mind into 1 thing, results in removing the conflict that gives rise to analysing and figuring things out.

You still have human resources using it for employees and I think the workplace(along with family home life) could benefit from the more internal perspective for reasons I already gave above.

The main thing that helped me with my family, wasn't typing myself at all, but typing my family. I typed myself 20 years ago. Still got on with them really badly. I typed my mother recently, and now understand why she behaves as she does, and we get on a lot better than we used to.

But I'd agree that it would help, if you could find a way for a lot of people who were typed as INTJs, to accept they are ISTJs, and to let others who answered online tests that said they were Intutives, accept that they are really, Sensors.

Something I also forget, alongside MBTI not needing to be perfect, is the development of Step II and Step III.

What are Steps II and III?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In an ideal world, yes. But currently in Western society, people generally respond to what they see on a surface level, one's external impression, with little consideration as to the complex motivations of how they think internally.

I wouldn't even say it's idealistic; human society has come a long way in respecting in the inner world of man. Fields like psychiatry and psychology would be considered something taboo or ridiculous up to just a little over 100 years ago. Advertising, as publicly obtrusive as it is, addresses people's perceptions, motivations, and cognition, which largely owe to developments in psychology.

Accepting people on a surface level is still pretty common since it's breaks social etiquette to be 'too familiar', but in terms of societal progress the trend is understanding of the individual. With the DSM-5 nearly putting introversion as a mental disease you can see why it's important.

Of course they can. That's what I'm trying to do. But from what I can see, the result would be called complex, by most people. So it seems to be good for explaining human behaviour in greater detail and greater complexity, but would detract from our understanding, if just try to shove the introverted side and extroverted side together.

It could also ruin the mind to synthesise both sides completely. The human mind seems to be able to develop sophisticated ideas, by means of contrasting the results of 2 different functions from 2 different perspectives. It seems to me, that it is the nature of contrast, that lets us figure out so much, by allowing us to divide and subdivide the universe, in billions of ways. To synthesise the mind into 1 thing, results in removing the conflict that gives rise to analysing and figuring things out.

That is too extreme, I didn't mean synthesize the actual mind(if that's what you mean). But learn to appreciate both sides of a person. Since MBTI already focuses on a type in society, learning more about the inner psychology/cognition of types is the next step.

The main thing that helped me with my family, wasn't typing myself at all, but typing my family. I typed myself 20 years ago. Still got on with them really badly. I typed my mother recently, and now understand why she behaves as she does, and we get on a lot better than we used to.

The internal perspective could still benefit family home life. Even though they're the people you interact with the most throughout life and should 'know' the best, this 'knowing' is usually surface knowing. Introverts in an extroverted family should best know what that is like. * especially if the family is sensory dominant.

But I'd agree that it would help, if you could find a way for a lot of people who were typed as INTJs, to accept they are ISTJs, and to let others who answered online tests that said they were Intutives, accept that they are really, Sensors.

Oh?

What are Steps II and III?

MBTI, the new developments.

http://www.bapt.org.uk/conference_files/conference_3_gilparsonspresentation.pdf

Spoiler

Steps I, II and III
• Step I focuses on individual differences between
types
• Step II reveals individual differences within people of
the same type
• Step III deals with an individual’s effectiveness in
using type

• Step II must be interpreted in context of Step I
• Step III is best interpreted in context of Step I and
enhanced by understanding of Step II facets
• Step I and Step II validated by client
• Step III client may or may not be ready to
acknowledge or agree with the reality of statements

Steps I, II and III
• Step I

All types are equally acceptable and valuable​

• Step II

All facets results are acceptable ways of
accommodating one’s natural type to the demands
of the environment, and a reflection of individuality
within the 16 types​

• Step III

How effectively the person is currently using their
perception and judgement, so may suggest ways
to change way of doing things BUT not changing
type​

 

[Words]

However, TJs would have Te mostly consciously, and Fi mostly subconsciously. So, as long as one pays attention to what seems to be deliberate behaviour and what seems to be automatic behaviour that one is not that aware of, one can notice the qualities of Te, independently of Fi, by focussing on the deliberate behaviour of TJs that is consistent with the automatic behaviour of FPs. That does make things a bit more complicated. But it just requires more effort.

I can see we have different assumptions. This is probably another root of our disagreements. I think, and my experiences are my only support, that all of our 4 primary functions are "subconscious." We are, by default, not aware of the processes, but we can be if we understand what functions are. You can reflect on a particular cognitive experience and pinpoint that this is "Fe" or this is "Ne." Ti and Fe exists on an equal level of consciousness, and this is the subconscious. Function hierarchy (dom, aux, ter, inf) do not determine level of consciousness; they only determine level of preference. I am always aware of my Fe experiences, but I don't indulge it as often because of my dispreference for it. The "other" functions which are TeNiSeFi are "unconscious." They are simply absent from the subconsciousness-ready cognitive tools of the INTP. But they can be accessed through our most conscious state. Full consciousness exists outside of the jurisdiction of functions. They represent the most free state. I'd appreciate it if you could continue to elaborate your own ideas/understanding about this(consciousness and functions), especially about how you relate this to your personal experiences if you can.

I have considered that problem. However, Te AND Fi both occur in TJs and FPs in one of the 4 positions. So, focussing on what is common with TJs and FPs, would give you ideas about Te & Fi, but not about Te as opposed to Fi.

If you know even little about Te and Fi, then you'd know that they're not difficult to tell apart. IxFP's, under the right circumstances, "initiate Te" in specific ways such as organizing people or advising on certain procedures for certain technical problems. This is clearly distinct from "Fi" manifestations. What is going on inside their head cannot be anything but Te when they're under these logical/organizational scenarios. At times, they can be even more demanding in the same Te-manner than TJs. They could be more "representative" of Te than TJs.

The nifty thing about people, is that most people looove to talk about themselves. So one really only has to listen, and most people will give you more than enough data, both deliberate statements and behaviour, and unconscious Freudian slips, without you having to do much at all.

Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating. From my perspective, you focus on this because you have no alternative source of less-filtered information.

True. But if I pinned you down, to make you try? Or if I came at you sideways, to get you to answer casually?

Replying with "I don't know" is a habit of mine. So is Socrates, if i can recall. "I know that I know nothing." So is Descartes' and his only supposed knowledge of his own existence. I think that's quite representative of Ti. Minimal. Reductive. Critical. Doubtful.

I wouldn't need to pin an INTJ down. They'll talk about the task. But they just will start talking about what we WILL do, rather than what is going on right now.

hmm.

Sometimes, one can imagine several possible theories to explain the same phenomenon, and several possible models of the same situation. To get the most accurate one, you have to check them all out thoroughly, until you've confirmed that all but one cannot be true. Often, one's empirical data simply doesn't eliminate them all, and then one can be left with 2 or more models that are all equally accurate.

Often, but still the motivation for truth insists for only one model. Yes, looking through several possible models helps with this, but I'm talking about the tendency. This tendency to prefer this singular "true" vision is a tendency to deal with less or one model.

Si is a focus on recall with an initially high picture quality and a consequently lower initial frame rate. Se is a focus on recall with an initially high frame rate and a consequently lower initial picture quality. So Si is good for accurate recall of static details, such as in historical accounts, while Se is good for good recall of the flow of a dynamic process, such as catching a ball in team sports.

You think Ni-types depend only on this "dynamic process" for their memory? How do they remember historical accounts, where there are no"dynamic processes"?

I pay a LOT of attention to the similarities and differences between Si and Ni, and Ni and Ne. But

Actually, there are several types of memory:NJs and SPs, who have Si, seem to be excellent at the types of recall required for recalling procedural memories. NPs and SJs, who have Se, seem to be much better at the types of recall of declarative memories. In both cases, Sensors recall such memories explicity, to reply them precisely, for use in the present, while Intuitives recall such memories only as part of a new idea they are currently building. When Sensors change details to adjust to the current situation, they seem to do so without explicit awareness of doing so, and pointing out that they've changed things, seems to produce an immediate denial, as if the unconscious refuses to allow them to become conscious of such adjustments. When Intuitives recall such memories for replay as is, such as in repetitively doing a task they already know, they can do so unconsciously, on "auto pilot", but the minute they start to think about the task consciously, they start to screw up.

How do Si-types tackle with procedural memory? and vice versa? You may ignore topographic memory.

 

[scorpiomover]

I can see we have different assumptions. This is probably another root of our disagreements. I think, and my experiences are my only support, that all of our 4 primary functions are "subconscious." We are, by default, not aware of the processes, but we can be if we understand what functions are. You can reflect on a particular cognitive experience and pinpoint that this is "Fe" or this is "Ne." Ti and Fe exists on an equal level of consciousness, and this is the subconscious. Function hierarchy (dom, aux, ter, inf) do not determine level of consciousness; they only determine level of preference. I am always aware of my Fe experiences, but I don't indulge it as often because of my dispreference for it. The "other" functions which are TeNiSeFi are "unconscious." They are simply absent from the subconsciousness-ready cognitive tools of the INTP. But they can be accessed through our most conscious state. Full consciousness exists outside of the jurisdiction of functions. They represent the most free state. I'd appreciate it if you could continue to elaborate your own ideas/understanding about this(consciousness and functions), especially about how you relate this to your personal experiences if you can.

Interesting perspective. I was basing my views on Jung's writings, which described the inferior function as totally subconscious. He even said the following in the online chapter on Psychologiclal Types:

For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint.

I've also noticed that many INTJs are very good at mathematics, which normally utilises a lot of Ti, and often show high use of Ti & Ne in cognitive functions tests. I've also come across INTPs with high Fi. So I'm not so sure that just because you are an INTJ with Ni-Te-Fi-Se, that you could only utilise Ne, Ti, Fe and Si subconsciously, or utilise Ti & Ne less than Fi & Se.

Your theory sounds like Beebe's theory. I was considering that for a while. I haven't rejected it either. I simply noticed other things, and put it on the back-burner for the moment.

However, what is common, is that we both agree that the order of the 4 functions would be the order of deliberate preference. From that, we can see compare TJs, and see that Te is much more deliberately and consciously preferred, to Fi. So there is still room for my observations to be valid in your viewpoint.

If you know even little about Te and Fi, then you'd know that they're not difficult to tell apart. IxFP's, under the right circumstances, "initiate Te" in specific ways such as organizing people or advising on certain procedures for certain technical problems. This is clearly distinct from "Fi" manifestations. What is going on inside their head cannot be anything but Te when they're under these logical/organizational scenarios. At times, they can be even more demanding in the same Te-manner than TJs. They could be more "representative" of Te than TJs.

I guess that you see these things as more obvious than I do.

Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating.

You're right, and I never suggested that everyone talks non-stop. Far from it. I just said that it's easy to get people to tell you a lot, without having to put a lot of work into it.

From my perspective, you focus on this because you have no alternative source of less-filtered information.

I guess. I observe people in lots of ways. But you obviously are sure that you know better than me.

Replying with "I don't know" is a habit of mine. So is Socrates, if i can recall. "I know that I know nothing." So is Descartes' and his only supposed knowledge of his own existence. I think that's quite representative of Ti. Minimal. Reductive. Critical. Doubtful.

It was mine as well, so much so, that it would drive people crazy. Still, I know, that if someone patiently keeps asking for an answer, and refuses to accept the throwaway answers just to evade answering the question, they can get an answer from the most evasive of people. Most people don't realise that, and give up too soon. So you probably get away with it with most people.

Often, but still the motivation for truth insists for only one model. Yes, looking through several possible models helps with this, but I'm talking about the tendency. This tendency to prefer this singular "true" vision is a tendency to deal with less or one model.

When I was younger, I was brilliant at almost anything science and mathematical, and back then, I also thought of things in terms of one model, one answer.

But then I started to take an interest in logic. I learned Cantor's Theorem, got an interest in it, and worked on it over several years. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the ideas that we are taught in schools are extremely limited. We are taught that a function must map all elements of its domain to its co-domain, and that each value in its domain, must have one and only one value in its domain, or it can't be a function. This gives us the training to look for one, and only one, answer.

However, then I realised, that if we take another function, that maps from the domain to the power set of the co-domain, we can map every domain value to a subset of the co-domain. If a domain value has no corresponding values in the co-domain, we simply map it to the empty set of the co-domain. If a domain value has several corresponding values in the co-domain, we simply map it to a subset of the co-domain with all of those values. Thus, a function that is not defined and/or not well-defined, can always be represented by another function to a power-set of the co-domain, that is both defined and well-defined. The function can result in a set that is empty, that contains no solutions, and we can result in a set of multiple solutions, using the same function, just mapped to a larger co-domain than the original.

You think Ni-types depend only on this "dynamic process" for their memory? How do they remember historical accounts, where there are no"dynamic processes"?

How do Si-types tackle with procedural memory? and vice versa? You may ignore topographic memory.

What would happen, if an INTP was 100.00% I, 100.00% N, 100.00% T, and 100.00% P? He'd have no feeling, no desire, whatsoever, not even to eat, drink, or breathe, to stay alive. He'd be so P, to be unable to decide as to whether to walk with his left or right leg first, and couldn't ever take a step, ever. He'd be so lacking in Sensation, that he'd not see or hear. He'd be so unable to tolerate the presence of other people, that either the presence of another person would drive him insane, kill him, or make him unable to ever sense the presence of other people. Clearly, INTPs have both I AND E, N AND S, T AND F, P AND J. We just select one more often than the other.

Likewise, you have the ability to plan, to use Te. You just use Ti more. Likewise, you have values and desires, Fi. You just use Fe more. You theorise and brainstorm. You just do one more. You have Se and Si. You just do one more. But you have both.

As an example, there are plenty of sports fanatics, who are brilliant at sports, and can barely remember anything about history. but know every sports statistic about their favourite sports. They access their Si via their sports interests.

 

[Words]

I guess that you see these things as more obvious than I do.

I guess. I observe people in lots of ways. But you obviously are sure that you know better than me.

I apologize. My rigidity/certainty gets the better of me. I thought writing "from my perspective" would better things, but I now realize I wasn't even being constructive in the first place.

Interesting perspective. I was basing my views on Jung's writings, which described the inferior function as totally subconscious. He even said the following in the online chapter on Psychologiclal Types

I've read the book and I realize the seeming contradiction of my ideas with his, but it could be that Jung uses "conscious", "unconscious" and "subconscious" in a different way that we currently understand it. He certainly uses other words unconventionally. Perhaps what he really means by conscious is "dominant function", subconscious is "auxiliary function" and unconscious is "inferior function." Or that he could be wrong, or that it varies by person, or, of course, that I'm wrong.

I've also noticed that many INTJs are very good at mathematics, which normally utilises a lot of Ti, and often show high use of Ti & Ne in cognitive functions tests. I've also come across INTPs with high Fi. So I'm not so sure that just because you are an INTJ with Ni-Te-Fi-Se, that you could only utilise Ne, Ti, Fe and Si subconsciously, or utilise Ti & Ne less than Fi & Se.

I will present my explanation for that by explaining my premises, and I do hope you would read this. Te is, as concise as possible, collective rationalization. This means thinking in terms of how a group/organization of any kind/size collectively thinks. Rules, in particular, are the clearest, observable manifestation of Te or collective rationalization. It can be legal rules, swimming pool regulations, economic interplays, standard procedures, the scientific method, and more particularly, mathematical laws. Mathematics does not require the use of Ti, actually. If you know the procedure or if there's already established rules(which there are a lot in mathematics) then you can simply follow these steps as procedural as you can. This explains the proficiency of Te-thinking in mathematics.

As for cognitive functions tests, I don't think it's such a reasonable counter-data. These tests do not necessarily explain functions accurately and test-takers may interpret very subjectively.

I think INTPs with supposed high Fi, and I used to think I'm one of those INTPs, is just high Ji. I'm not sure how to elaborate on this, but that's my idea.

Your theory sounds like Beebe's theory. I was considering that for a while. I haven't rejected it either. I simply noticed other things, and put it on the back-burner for the moment.

Interesting. I can't remember if I've read Beebe or not.

However, what is common, is that we both agree that the order of the 4 functions would be the order of deliberate preference. From that, we can see compare TJs, and see that Te is much more deliberately and consciously preferred, to Fi. So there is still room for my observations to be valid in your viewpoint.

Yes.

You're right, and I never suggested that everyone talks non-stop. Far from it. I just said that it's easy to get people to tell you a lot, without having to put a lot of work into it.

I know. People actually like to talk about themselves because they don't often get to, and it's really easy to just listen. Sorry, I just wanted to quote this movie I recently watched.

It was mine as well, so much so, that it would drive people crazy. Still, I know, that if someone patiently keeps asking for an answer, and refuses to accept the throwaway answers just to evade answering the question, they can get an answer from the most evasive of people. Most people don't realise that, and give up too soon. So you probably get away with it with most people.

Right. But my point is that I don't like to make a model just like that. I have to think it through. I claim that this is not the case for Pi doms. They keep making models(or "Pi'ng" as i would call it) instantly or as quickly as they can and just modify or make other models if there's a problem with their previous model. In my case, i start with the opposite way. I check for consistencies first and then I finally make the model.

When I was younger, I was brilliant at almost anything science and mathematical, and back then, I also thought of things in terms of one model, one answer.

But then I started to take an interest in logic. I learned Cantor's Theorem, got an interest in it, and worked on it over several years. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the ideas that we are taught in schools are extremely limited. We are taught that a function must map all elements of its domain to its co-domain, and that each value in its domain, must have one and only one value in its domain, or it can't be a function. This gives us the training to look for one, and only one, answer.

However, then I realised, that if we take another function, that maps from the domain to the power set of the co-domain, we can map every domain value to a subset of the co-domain. If a domain value has no corresponding values in the co-domain, we simply map it to the empty set of the co-domain. If a domain value has several corresponding values in the co-domain, we simply map it to a subset of the co-domain with all of those values. Thus, a function that is not defined and/or not well-defined, can always be represented by another function to a power-set of the co-domain, that is both defined and well-defined. The function can result in a set that is empty, that contains no solutions, and we can result in a set of multiple solutions, using the same function, just mapped to a larger co-domain than the original.

You mean in x^2=4, x can be 2 and -2? But this is in mathematics, which is all about theory. In the realm of theory, as long as something is consistent then it is acceptable. Do you think the same can happen in reality?

What would happen, if an INTP was 100.00% I, 100.00% N, 100.00% T, and 100.00% P? He'd have no feeling, no desire, whatsoever, not even to eat, drink, or breathe, to stay alive. He'd be so P, to be unable to decide as to whether to walk with his left or right leg first, and couldn't ever take a step, ever. He'd be so lacking in Sensation, that he'd not see or hear. He'd be so unable to tolerate the presence of other people, that either the presence of another person would drive him insane, kill him, or make him unable to ever sense the presence of other people. Clearly, INTPs have both I AND E, N AND S, T AND F, P AND J. We just select one more often than the other.

Likewise, you have the ability to plan, to use Te. You just use Ti more. Likewise, you have values and desires, Fi. You just use Fe more. You theorise and brainstorm. You just do one more. You have Se and Si. You just do one more. But you have both.

As an example, there are plenty of sports fanatics, who are brilliant at sports, and can barely remember anything about history. but know every sports statistic about their favourite sports. They access their Si via their sports interests.

I see. Well my version of the story is that the declarative memory is Pi and procedural memory is Pe. The declarative memory of Ni-Se types is Ni and the procedural is Se. The declarative memory of Si types is Si and procedural is Ne. This means that you don't have to have access to all functions to normally function.

 

[scorpiomover]

I apologize. My rigidity/certainty gets the better of me. I thought writing "from my perspective" would better things, but I now realize I wasn't even being constructive in the first place.

Not a problem.

I've read the book and I realize the seeming contradiction of my ideas with his, but it could be that Jung uses "conscious", "unconscious" and "subconscious" in a different way that we currently understand it. He certainly uses other words unconventionally. Perhaps what he really means by conscious is "dominant function", subconscious is "auxiliary function" and unconscious is "inferior function." Or that he could be wrong, or that it varies by person, or, of course, that I'm wrong.

Jung wrote:

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence.

I will present my explanation for that by explaining my premises, and I do hope you would read this. Te is, as concise as possible, collective rationalization. This means thinking in terms of how a group/organization of any kind/size collectively thinks. Rules, in particular, are the clearest, observable manifestation of Te or collective rationalization. It can be legal rules, swimming pool regulations, economic interplays, standard procedures, the scientific method, and more particularly, mathematical laws. Mathematics does not require the use of Ti, actually. If you know the procedure or if there's already established rules(which there are a lot in mathematics) then you can simply follow these steps as procedural as you can. This explains the proficiency of Te-thinking in mathematics.

Jung wrote:

In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.

Please note, that Jung refers to introversion/extroversion as a general attitude of interest, while he does NOT call the dominant function a general function type. Please also note that when something is true in the general sense, it means that it is mostly true, but that sometimes there are exceptions.

As for cognitive functions tests, I don't think it's such a reasonable counter-data. These tests do not necessarily explain functions accurately and test-takers may interpret very subjectively.

That would be a suggestion that cognitive function tests are so unreliable, as to say that we cannot take anything they say that seriously, that we can afford to ignore contradictions to our perceptions, without explaining those anomalies in any way. Please read what I wrote above, and see how that explanation indeed explains why a Te-aux could also sometimes use Ti.

I think INTPs with supposed high Fi, and I used to think I'm one of those INTPs, is just high Ji. I'm not sure how to elaborate on this, but that's my idea.

It's an interesting idea. I personally am not sure exactly why some INTPs have high Fi. But the ones who said that their cognitive function tests showed high Fi, didn't seem to be very sure that they were right and everyone else was wrong, and also didn't seem to be very doubtful either. But they did seem to say they were highly introverted, and very comfortable with that.

Yes.

Then, if we are to use personality theory to understand people, it is still worth examining the characteristics common to INTJs, ENTJs, ISTJs, and ESTJs, to study what is likely to be true of Te, and to study the characteristics common to INTPs, ENTPs, ISTPs and ESTPs, to study what is likely to not be true of Te.

I know. People actually like to talk about themselves because they don't often get to, and it's really easy to just listen. Sorry, I just wanted to quote this movie I recently watched.

Fine, except that I don't recall or notice that you did quote a movie. What movie was it that you were thinking of.

Right. But my point is that I don't like to make a model just like that. I have to think it through. I check for consistencies first and then I finally make the model.

That makes perfect sense, if you were a Ti-Ne, and Ti = "checking for consistencies", and Ne = "making a model", and dom-aux typology suggests a 2-step process for problem-solving: (1) the dom making points of value, (2) the aux suggesting points that complement the dom's points and together provide a complete solution. You start with the Ti issues, and then you propose the Ne solution.

I claim that this is not the case for Pi doms. They keep making models(or "Pi'ng" as i would call it) instantly or as quickly as they can and just modify or make other models if there's a problem with their previous model.

In the case of Pi-Je types, the 2-step process would be: (1) the dominant Pi proposes a concept, (2) the Je tests it in the external world, by trying to make it a reality for others, and then seeing how well it is accepted. Checking for consistencies oneself, would be Ji, and would be unnecessary, as one would be relying on others (Je) to check the model.

You mean in x^2=4, x can be 2 and -2? But this is in mathematics, which is all about theory. In the realm of theory, as long as something is consistent then it is acceptable. Do you think the same can happen in reality?

It not only CAN, it DOES.

The double-slit experiment is a classical example of this. In the experiment, one fires a laser beam of photons at 2 slits in a piece of card, with a screen on the other side, that captures the light. Normally, when one does this with lots of photons, some photons go through one slit and some another. Each slit spreads the photons out like a wave pattern around the slit. They combine and cancel each other at different points, leading to an interference pattern. When the laser beam is then slowed down, less photons pass each second, and eventually, one can slow the beam down so much, that only one photon escapes the beam every few seconds. When this happens with physical particles, one particle can only pass through one slit at a time, and so there cannot be any interference effect. But what we know, is that when physicists have done this, the interference pattern still occurs, as long as we are not checking which slit the photon is passing through. Effectively, as long as we don't know which slit each photon passes through, the individual photons act as if they split into 2, and the 2 photons pass through both slits simultaneously, continuing to generate an interference pattern.

Results like this, are why many physicists are of the opinion that the universe is mathematical, and not physical.

I see. Well my version of the story is that the declarative memory is Pi and procedural memory is Pe. The declarative memory of Ni-Se types is Ni and the procedural is Se. The declarative memory of Si types is Si and procedural is Ne.

That could be. But then Ni types would be better at declarative memory, such as semantics, than they are at procedural skills, which includes "how-to" practicality, and then INTPs would be the ones who are normally good at getting things done, while INTJs would be the ones who are good at defining things accurately.

This means that you don't have to have access to all functions to normally function.

All personality theories categorise normal people's personalities into types, that all can normally function. But then, Sensors sometimes use intuition. Intuitives often do the conventional thing, like dating. Just because you prefer one type, doesn't mean you only ever do one.

 

[scorpiomover]

I wouldn't even say it's idealistic; human society has come a long way in respecting in the inner world of man. Fields like psychiatry and psychology would be considered something taboo or ridiculous up to just a little over 100 years ago.

Well, it's true that your parents' generation were raised with the idea that psychiatrists and psychologists know more about the human mind than a preacher, and the preacher was probably raised with that notion too. If we assume that everything up to your parents' generation were the same, and life had not changed until you were born, that would be a reasonable hypothesis.

Advertising, as publicly obtrusive as it is, addresses people's perceptions, motivations, and cognition, which largely owe to developments in psychology.

It's true that modern advertising tries to appeal to the subconscious, to override the ability to reason effectively, so as to get people to buy products they don't really need. Clinica psychology studies how the subconscious can override rational conscious choices, such as in the case of psychological disorders, in an impartial and amoral way, allowing for corporations to make their own moral choices as to how to use that information.

Accepting people on a surface level is still pretty common since it's breaks social etiquette to be 'too familiar', but in terms of societal progress the trend is understanding of the individual. With the DSM-5 nearly putting introversion as a mental disease you can see why it's important.

A few hundred years ago, most people lived sparsely, and spent much time alone when in work. Abhorrence of introversion would have meant you couldn't get things done. So you see in a lot of religious sources from the past, how famous and admired characters, such as famous religious figures, who often achieved enlightenment by being in the desert or the forest for years.

The introduction of mass consumerism, meant that people could make a lot more money selling to millions, than a few. But to do that practically, you had to get people to gather in one place, which meant cities, and getting people to value extroversion, and consquently to abhor introversion. Those who were raised in such times, and were influenced by psychologically-based advertising to embrace such values, included your parents' generation, and most psychologists who have spent enough years in their career to have achieved the professional status to be influential on what goes in the current DSM.

However, once online retailing and home deliveries became the norm, then the most useful selling techniques, would be to encourage people to only buy online, so that you wouldn't need shops, and to go online, so that you could still advertise to them, and cheaply. To do that, you'd need to use psychology to convince them that they are better off being physically introverted and isolated, but to be still be online for hours every day. It is only in the last 5 years, that you see lots of people talking about "the value of introversion", and mostly, it's people who are under 30.

That is too extreme, I didn't mean synthesize the actual mind(if that's what you mean). But learn to appreciate both sides of a person.

Jung talked about the value of the subjective viewpoint.

Since MBTI already focuses on a type in society, learning more about the inner psychology/cognition of types is the next step.

The internal perspective could still benefit family home life. Even though they're the people you interact with the most throughout life and should 'know' the best, this 'knowing' is usually surface knowing. Introverts in an extroverted family should best know what that is like. * especially if the family is sensory dominant.

I quite agree. I find Introverted Intuitives often say they don't understand people, and particularly not their own family, whose reactions they've observed in so many situations, for decades, that they have 20 times enough data to know them inside and out. Then again, that's understandable, because introverts tend to focus on their own behaviour, but not others, and intuitives tend to focus on their own inspiration for drawing conclusions, and not what actually happens.

I don't see Extroverted Sensors ever say that they don't understand their family, just that their family includes people who don't think like they do at all, but can be very well understood, if you pay attention to their behaviour. Then again, that is reasonable, because extroverts focus on others, and sensors focus on what actually happens.

MBTI, the new developments.

http://www.bapt.org.uk/conference_files/conference_3_gilparsonspresentation.pdf

That doesn't seem to be about the development of MBTI, but about the development of how people use MBTI, which was one of the reasons for learning about MBTI in the first place. Why learn a theory, that has useful personal applications, if you're never going to use it? You might as well learn everything about biology, but still eat junk food.

 

[Words]

Jung wrote: For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence.

I can see that he indirectly defines consciousness as "a disposal of will" and that functions and the products of functions can be conscious. Is this your point? I think your going to have explain your interpretation of this, and how it is related to our discussion.

Jung wrote:

In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.

Please note, that Jung refers to introversion/extroversion as a general attitude of interest, while he does NOT call the dominant function a general function type. Please also note that when something is true in the general sense, it means that it is mostly true, but that sometimes there are exceptions.

If a type's most "differentiated function" is not hir most dominant function, then what is? And again, your going to have to explain how this is related to our discussion. Thanks for presenting me with this new variation, but how are general attitude types vs. function-types related to "INTJs, T functions and mathematics?" Regardless of whether the INTJ is "oriented by the direction of general interest"(Introversion) or his "differentiated function"(Ni I would assume), the INTJ is still a Te-type.

That would be a suggestion that cognitive function tests are so unreliable, as to say that we cannot take anything they say that seriously, that we can afford to ignore contradictions to our perceptions, without explaining those anomalies in any way.

Good point. But not all data is acceptable data. It requires confirmation. I don't know what function test your referring to and I don't know where you got the data that shows INTJs getting high Ti scores.

Please read what I wrote above, and see how that explanation indeed explains why a Te-aux could also sometimes use Ti.

I don't think your explanation was clear enough.

It's an interesting idea. I personally am not sure exactly why some INTPs have high Fi. But the ones who said that their cognitive function tests showed high Fi, didn't seem to be very sure that they were right and everyone else was wrong, and also didn't seem to be very doubtful either. But they did seem to say they were highly introverted, and very comfortable with that.

The similarities of Ti and Fi, which is Ji, is that it acknowledges relativity in judgments. Ji-types are more familiar with relativity than other types, I think.

Then, if we are to use personality theory to understand people, it is still worth examining the characteristics common to INTJs, ENTJs, ISTJs, and ESTJs, to study what is likely to be true of Te, and to study the characteristics common to INTPs, ENTPs, ISTPs and ESTPs, to study what is likely to not be true of Te.

Worthy, but I think incomplete because again I think Te can and must also be examined in xxFPs to get a clearer idea.

Fine, except that I don't recall or notice that you did quote a movie. What movie was it that you were thinking of.

Google it. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I think the main character is INTP, and his love-interest an Ne-dom of some kind.

That makes perfect sense, if you were a Ti-Ne, and Ti = "checking for consistencies", and Ne = "making a model", and dom-aux typology suggests a 2-step process for problem-solving: (1) the dom making points of value, (2) the aux suggesting points that complement the dom's points and together provide a complete solution. You start with the Ti issues, and then you propose the Ne solution.

Hm... yes for the Ti but no for the role of Ne. Ne provides possibilities and possible solutions but not really what I would call a "model." There's a difference between a possibility and an expected outcome. I can't simply choose an answer. Si, for me, makes the model or chooses that answer.

In the case of Pi-Je types, the 2-step process would be: (1) the dominant Pi proposes a concept, (2) the Je tests it in the external world, by trying to make it a reality for others, and then seeing how well it is accepted. Checking for consistencies oneself, would be Ji, and would be unnecessary, as one would be relying on others (Je) to check the model.

You forget that Je types do not have both Te and Fe. How would an INTJ create a value-related model with Te? Fi is still necessary.

Overall, I'm not very convinced with such a procedural way of looking at the interactions of functions. I think it's much more complicated than Pi and then Je or Ji and then Pe. I think subconsciously you always use all four functions in some way.

It not only CAN, it DOES.

The double-slit experiment is a classical example of this. In the experiment, one fires a laser beam of photons at 2 slits in a piece of card, with a screen on the other side, that captures the light. Normally, when one does this with lots of photons, some photons go through one slit and some another. Each slit spreads the photons out like a wave pattern around the slit. They combine and cancel each other at different points, leading to an interference pattern. When the laser beam is then slowed down, less photons pass each second, and eventually, one can slow the beam down so much, that only one photon escapes the beam every few seconds. When this happens with physical particles, one particle can only pass through one slit at a time, and so there cannot be any interference effect. But what we know, is that when physicists have done this, the interference pattern still occurs, as long as we are not checking which slit the photon is passing through. Effectively, as long as we don't know which slit each photon passes through, the individual photons act as if they split into 2, and the 2 photons pass through both slits simultaneously, continuing to generate an interference pattern.

it's not like that this means that 2 of the same events are actually occurring differently, which makes way for 2 explanations. These are two different events. There is a difference in one factor: the act of observation. The question is why observation creates this alternate scenario. On the whole, It does not negate the possibility that these 2 different situations can have 1 explanation/reality for each.

Results like this, are why many physicists are of the opinion that the universe is mathematical, and not physical.

well, that is interesting.

That could be. But then Ni types would be better at declarative memory, such as semantics, than they are at procedural skills, which includes "how-to" practicality,

But INxJs ARE better at remember a particular relevant fact than dancing or some motor-related execution. (And No, clearly procedural memory is about the motor-skills(Se), and not about this "how-to" practicality of yours)

INTPs would be the ones who are normally good at getting things done, while INTJs would be the ones who are good at defining things accurately.

It could be that Ni is a form of declarative memory but not necessarily the semantic-kind of declarative memory. Memories aren't even about defining in the first place.

All personality theories categorise normal people's personalities into types, that all can normally function. But then, Sensors sometimes use intuition. Intuitives often do the conventional thing, like dating. Just because you prefer one type, doesn't mean you only ever do one.

I agree. but that's not my point. My point is the four-function subconscious idea can stand alone.

 

[nexion]

You are sorely mistaken in your OP. I can see where the confusion comes from though: MBTI fucked up the functions by switching functions depending on *version and it's still confusing and misleading people.

MBTI either generalizes the function definitions enough to account for this disparity or simply uses different definitions for introverts and extroverts, both of which would be misleading and stupid. Why the creators of this theory decided to be retarded and do that and then screw up the function definitions, I will never know.

Sorry. I really need to stop talking about MBTI. And typology in general.

 

[Words]

Sorry. I really need to stop talking about MBTI. And typology in general.

Why? You don't have to take it seriously. I mean I take it seriously, but I can understand that kind of mindset of avoiding it. I don't know why I understand though.

 

[scorpiomover]

My point is the four-function subconscious idea can stand alone. I think subconsciously you always use all four functions in some way.

From what you wrote, this seems to be your central thesis, the main basis from which you concluded everything else. Am I correct?

 

[Words]

From what you wrote, this seems to be your central thesis, the main basis from which you concluded everything else. Am I correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. The main basis are really my observations and deductions. I didn't simply accept the four-function model as it was presented with my first reading of MBTI, I was originally in line with the 8 function model. Then along with observations, I started to try and really make sense of the functions. I thought my new idea of functions explains what I was observing well, then I noticed that the four-function model explains these new observations. Actually, I'm not sure if it was so orderly. It just happened intuitively.

If not the method of my knowledge, then I would say that my idea of cognitive functions and my observations are my "central thesis." From this comes the justification of the four-function model.

 

[scorpiomover]

@Words

I'm not sure what you mean. The main basis are really my observations and deductions. I didn't simply accept the four-function model as it was presented with my first reading of MBTI, I was originally in line with the 8 function model. Then along with observations, I started to try and really make sense of the functions. I thought my new idea of functions explains what I was observing well, then I noticed that the four-function model explains these new observations. Actually, I'm not sure if it was so orderly. It just happened intuitively.

If not the method of my knowledge, then I would say that my idea of cognitive functions and my observations are my "central thesis." From this comes the justification of the four-function model.

I meant, the word "basis", as in "base", "foundation", not the colloquial use of basis in place of "reasons".

As I understand it, your basic view is that there are four types of functions, Ji, Je, Pi and Pe. Would that be correct?

 

[Paladin-X]

Forgive my ignorance if I've missed something. I skimmed through the latter half of this thread.

If you look at the functions in pairs as opposed to trying to isolate them, then it makes more sense why Pi seems to be related to Judging and Ji seems to be related to perceiving. Because Pi is always connected to Je and Ji is always connected to Pe.

Here is an excerpt from The Portable Jung

The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.

To recapitulate for the sake of clarity: the products of all functions can be conscious, but we speak of the "consciousness" of a function only when its use is under the control of the will and, at the same time, its governing principle is the decisive one for the orientation of consciousness. This is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere afterthought, or rumination, and when its conclusions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical result holds good both as a motive and as a guarantee of practical action without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, because the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily produce a different orientation which, partially at least, would contradict the first. But since it is a vital condition for the conscious process of adaptation always to have clear and unambiguous aims, the presence of a second function of equal power is naturally ruled out. This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, as has been found to be the case in practice. Its secondary importance is due to the fact that it is not, like the primary function valid in its own right as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the dominant function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function alongside thinking, because it is by its very nature too strongly opposed to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must rigorously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not do away with the fact that there are individuals whose thinking and feeling are on the same level, both being of equal motive power for consciousness. But in these cases there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. The uniformly conscious or uniformly unconscious state of the functions is, therefore, the mark of a primitive mentality.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation is antagonistic to thinking; they need not be absolutely excluded, for they are not of a nature equal and opposite to thinking, as feeling is--which, as a judging function, successfully competes with thinking--but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. But as soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would bring about a change of attitude which would contradict the whole trend of thinking. They would change the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the dominant function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.

The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition. These peculiarities are of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical treatment of such cases, but it is important that he should know about them. I have frequently observed how an analyst, confronted with a terrific thinking type, for instance, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. Such as an attempt is foredoomed to failure, because it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should the violation nevertheless be successful, a really compulsive dependence of the patient on the analyst ensues, a transference that can only be brutally terminated, because, having been left without a standpoint, the patient has made his standpoint the analyst. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of its own accord, and with adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development proceeds via the auxiliary function--in the case of a rational type via one of the irrational functions. This gives the patient a broader view of what is happening, and of what is possible, so that his consciousness is sufficiently protected against the inroads of the unconscious. Conversely, in order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness.

The unconscious functions exist in an archaic, animal state. Hence their symbolic appearance in dreams and fantasies is usually represented as the battle or encounter between two animals or monsters.
--Carl Jung, Portable Jung, edited by Joseph Campbell, p266-269.