YOU MEAN NiSe/NeSi!!1 Damn socionicist >: [
Yes, he does mean NiSe/NeSi :P
Nope. I meant NiSi/NeSe.
Why that over N/S? Because the root of Psychological Types is E/I.
Extraverted > Rational > Thinking/Feeling = TeFe_NiSi
Extraverted > Irrational > Sensing/Intuiting = NeSe_TiFi
Introverted > Rational > Thinking/Feeling = TiFi_NeSe
Introverted > Irrational > Sensing/Intuiting = NiSi_TeFe
Ni and Si get their information from the same source, but they interpret it differently. This means Ni and Si are more related than they first seem to appear, yet they are inseparable and contradictory, it's like your twin that you can't stand but have to endure because you're family. So this is why I say if we want to understand the interconnectedness yet differences between the functions we should look at, for example, NiSi rather than N/S.
Why certainly my good chum! In fact, I'll not only answer that, I'll throw in Directivity and Adaptivity and why it's separate from the former!
Most excellent.
Leading with Judgment means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a position within a framework of reasoning. Their perceptual points of view will be based on, and acquired through the parameters of these frameworks. A framework of reasoning is also not necessarily limited to a logical framework of reasoning, but frameworks of personal values, or of collective values as well, as they're all forms of reasoning.
What sticks out to me most as fundamental of Judgement is "parameters". Parameters of frameworks. Good, we're in agreement and have an understanding.
Leading Jugders make their perceptions fit into the parameters of their frameworks.
Leading Judgers are xxxJ
Leading with Perception means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a perceptual point of view, whether that be a personal worldview or an awareness of their environment and how they react to it. Their frameworks of understanding, as well as personal and executive decisions will mainly be based on and acquired through their perceptions.
Okay, now if to "judge" is to consider information as it fits or does not fit within the parameters of a framework, then to "perceive" is to subdue parameters of any and all frameworks and receive information purely based on intensity of experience.
Leading Perceivers make their judgments adhere to the intensity of their experiences.
Leading Perceivers are xxxP
Okay. We have Leading Judgers who "
fit information into frameworks" and Leading Perceivers who "
fit frameworks onto information". In terms of cognition, if this is the case, then the first function of a Judging type is logically a Judging function. And the first function of a Perceiving type is logically a Perceiving function.
A type that is NiTe, with a dominant Perceiving function, but fits information into frameworks is illogical. The ready state of an INTJ is Judging and therefore requires a dominant mode of "frameworking". Ni is not frameworking, but rather accepting the intensity of the perceptual information of the environment. Thus NiTe truly latches frameworks upon perceptions and is therefore not a Judging type, but actually INTP.
Directive means one has an innate preference for Proactivity, meaning an orientation toward closure, and accomplishment.
Adaptive means one has an innate preference for Reactivity, meaning an orientation toward open-endedness, and "Going with the flow."
Directive Perception: These perceptual Modalities provide visions of the way things have always been in a universal way, however it has a quality that compels one to believe that the world outside of them should look more like these personal points of view, so they can be thought of as a worldview, but they are also an Agenda in that the have a concept of time; beginning, middle, and end, where we should be and when.
Directive Judgment: In addition to having a Worldview map, one needs a way to navigate through that map, Directive Judgment is how you move forward through the dynamics of humans and systems to accomplish your goals, and then continue moving forward to the next goal.
Adaptive Perception: In a rapidly changing environment, one needs to be able to take in new information as it is occuring in real-time. These perceptual Modalities reactively accept new and objective information that is coming in from the environment. These perceptual modalities can be compelling to "Go with the flow" and let the environment move in its own way instead of trying to direct it, as well as experience the world in the present.
Adaptive Judgment: These Discernment Modalities react to incoming information in such a way that resonates with agreement or disagreement, based on personal reasoning criteria. They are reactive, in that they only resonate when they have been impacted by information, and they do this for the purpose of finding where they stand on this new information.
Why is it that "Directive" and "Adaptive" are caricatures of Judging and Perceiving according to Jung?
What seems to be the case is functions that have been defined already have been redefined. "Cutting a pie into 4 pieces and then cutting it into another 4 pieces".
Judging Perception
Directive Perception: Si, Ni
Judging Judgment
Directive Judgment: Fe, Te
Perceiving Perception
Adaptive Perception: Ne, Se
Perceiving Judgment
Adaptive Judgment: Ti, Fi
This does not make any sense. A function cannot both be judging and perceiving, it is one or the other.
NiTe becomes Ni [Judging Perception] - Te[Judging Judgment]
A violation of Ockam's razor. There is no need for Ni to be a judging function if it is accompanied by one already. Ni should be fully and wholly perceptual, and therefore, so should the NiTe type be a dominantly perceiving type.
*Now let me let you in on a little secret: Jung didn't already come up with this, he technically didn't know Adaptivity and Directivity existed in the way that it does, even though he did observe the effects of said phenomenon, he grouped it in with a separate one. This isn't the first time Jung did that, he originally believed all extroverts were feelers, and later corrected that assumption, unfortunately he didn't live long enough to correct this one, but that of course is what makes it an incomplete model. So if you're not properly adding that dimension of the psyche into your calculations of typing people, then you're destined to fail at what you're trying to accomplish. it's a crucial understanding that's being overlooked and will continue to be overlooked as long as people insist on conserving to the original work of Jung.
Alright, true Jung did not have "Adaptivity" and Directivity" but he did acknowledge the second functions in types.
Jung had Extravert-Introvert. This was determined by either E or I base, respectively.
Jung had Irrational-Rational or Perceiving-Judging. This was determined by either N/S or T/F Base, respectively.
Jung had Sensing-Intuiting. This was determined by either N or S base, respectively.
Jung had Feeling-Thinking. This was determined by either T or F base, respectively.
So, what was Jung missing that Myers-Briggs had? The systematic inclusion of a subordinate auxiliary.
A type, according to Jung, and Myers-Briggs Four Letter Code, that is:
I base - Introverted
N/S base - Irrational-Perceiving
N base- Intuitive
Ni base- Introverted, Irrational, Intuitive
is INxP or Ni_TeFe. The only thing that cannot be functionally determined through necessitation of the base function is the auxiliary. In the above example, we are left with two types, INFP and INTP or the "Introverted Irrational Intuitives".
There is no functional need for Adaptivity or Directivity, these are arbitrary inclusions proposed by Myers and Briggs indirectly through Je = J and Pe = P. They are unnessary and skew the Jungian cognitive functions as based on the Jungian Attitudes.
So, the question is, why do we have Adaptivity and Directivity?
