• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.
Reaction score

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • How have you been recently? It has been a while since I stepped foot into this forum. I'm sure many things happened while I was gone.
    Not particularly - every now and again I'll find a song that tickles my fancy, though.

    My friend has been trying to get me into Daft Punk but... meh
    I go to a thread, find that you've provided a theme song for it, and then am hopelessly lost in a labyrinth of youtube music videos for hours.

    I like it. :)
    I just read that mention now...cool, I guess. Too bad it burned out all the discussion steam though.
    Sorry for neglecting this. I've had essays to do and it's made me quite mono-tracked. Finished the difficult one yesterday - handed in about 30 seconds before deadline. phew.

    I've had a listen though, thanks for the recs. :) Quite liked Flying Lotus for lying on my bed, I need to check out DJ Shadow more as it sounded interesting...

    Yeah, IDM. I think I've moved to experimental over time - though there are still distinct sounds I like. I went out walking the other day listening to BoC and felt a need to sleep on this deck-chair someone had arranged next to this giant plastic bear. Was like slipping into Alice in Wonderland or something. :kilroy: BoC makes everything more surreal. :p

    Do you use enneagram then, ESC? Was reading Snafu's thread. My closest type was 9 followed by 4. Seemed quite close, but maybe vagueish.
    you should make a poll about mars one
    I liked it. Hip-hop is an open sea to me, I don't really know how to chart it. But I've enjoyed most of the stuff you've put up that I've played.
    Hey Esc,

    Interesting, how does the wheel of emotions work? Is it saying whatever you're feeling in the moment, those are the other emotions nearby? Can you stay in one spot or does it keep on turning?

    I will have a listen to your playlist in a moment. I've been in a musical rut for a short while and need to broaden my horizons. :D:phear:
    Your ideas about dom function being more automatic and aux being more conscious is interesting. It makes sense. I dont really notice Ti as much as I notice my use of other functions. I dont know if "subconscious" is the right word though. I've experienced Ne'ing and Fe'ing without me being fully conscious of my use. I only noticed afterwards. I would say they are all subconscious with the dom function being the most "automatic."
    What's your opinion on Function hierarchy/functional stack/4 function/8 function etc?
    I think I have territory Ti and inferior Ne.
    Si suppresses Ni, Fe suppresses Te that makes TiNe have there positions.
    Does it seem to you that I use TiNe less effectively than INTP.
    Most of mathematics(especially after study) I think, suits well with Ti+Ne+Si, not Ti+N. Mathematics requires a load of inter-relational and detail-recall thought process. I don't buy this "dom-tertiary processing loop." Sure, it occurs, but not to most. Extraverted functions are also "internal." A TiNe might not observably manifest Ne but there is still unexpressed Ne. Same with other functions.
    I see. It makes sense. I think I understand now. Regarding, professionalization/skilled labor, I mean. As a Ti-type, I find it strange and foreign to think in terms "professionalization/skilled labor." My idea of reality is stressed more on being a jack of all trades, or maybe on how dynamic the realm of technicality is. It's not like learning a new language or learning symbols. That requires specialization. Fields such as mathematics I feel like you can naturally arrive at without this idea of "professionalization/skilled labor."

    Regarding mathematics, I think Te+Ni would excel, other than excelling at standardized expectations in general, in what I think is one of most useful side of mathematics: statistics and improbabilities. "Shared rationalizing" or Je in general applies the same nature of thinking applied in statistics. People and the interplay of people do not act under deterministic rules, but they act under probabilistic rules. This is also related to data and empiricism.
    If "conventional logic" is alright with you, then I agree with your general direction of specification. But Te-logic is not necessarily "easy to follow" I believe. "Conventional logic" maybe conventional but then you can also have complex mathematical conventions. Those are a type of "conventional logic" but they're too complicated to be "easy" for the ordinary person.
    Interesting specification. I'm not sure about those concepts you've mentioned. By common, simple, easy to follow etc...are you referring to the usual standards? I guess conventional logic is sort of easy to follow. But I agree with how Te is not necessarily reconciling. Te is just "attentive" to those relations of rationales methinks. You may like political or economic inter-plays, but you don't necessarily aim for world peace or economic equity.
    I keep getting trouble with them showing up the other way. I usually try going advanced and previewing a few times first. If that fails (haven't worked out why it sometimes does) I use flv.
    That's strange, i thought my diagrams addressed that question. Let's say that Je is indeed a physical box that contains both Fe and Te, and Ji is another box similar to the Je box but it contains Fi and Ti. Let's say that those boxes have a small hole on each of their sides. Let's say there are two ropes that go through those holes, one rope for each pair of hole. A Ji hole and Je hole for each rope. Let's say that these ropes are "F" and "T. They go through those holes and tie themselves to their corresponding functions. The "F" and "T" cannot be likened to Je and Ji. It can't be a container, its something else. I didn't include Ti-Fe/Te-Fe here because that would make the analogy more confusing, but Ti-Fe and Te-Fi CAN be containers. T and F is just something else. How do i know this? Through my understanding of functions.
    This reminds me of algebra. Ti-Fe, Te-Fi, Ji-Je is like +/-, exponent/root, multiplication/division. They have an inverse relationship. But T-F is like jumping across dimensions and inverse relations. In the expression "2x4+5", It's like adding 5 to 4 first, before mutiplying it to 2.
    I've drawn several versions, but I think 1842 gets it most right. There's no link between F and T. They're both judging functions but they don't have that "extreme opposites" relation, unlike Ji-Je, Ti-Fe, Te-Fi. They cannot be turned into a spectrum or a dimension. Ti-Fe is dimensional. Te-Fi is dimensional. Ji-Je is dimensional. But T and F is not dimensional. They just seem out of the picture.
    I dont think its as straightforward as that. I'll get to that diagram soon enough.
    I dont think Ji-Ti and T-Ti, for example, have the same the sort of relation nor are they equally contributing qualities. I will try to draw my own diagram showing what i think is their difference in relatioship.
    How I/E and Inferior functions relate to motives? Motives are complicated, I think. Too complicated to reduce to temperament. I think behavioral psychology is more relevant to motives. The relationship is too indirect, which is why Evidence-based methods and correlations are probably better are figuring this out than theory.

    Personally I'm motivated a bit by my dom and function and my inferior function. I think both take on an equal role on my motivation.

    I don't really think of Extra/Introversion as a single unit. I think of them only as a part of the functions. They lose sense when you isolate them i think.
    I can sense some validity in your perspective, but i just dont think your arguing it right. This is probably best supported evidentially than deduction.
    Of course Im not biased. :P Some biases are obstructing than others. I think yours, or as i claim, is obstructive.
    I still think you have a "cognitive bias." "Hidden", "Unspoken", and "Suggestive" is relative. Visibility or Level of Obviousness is relative. What could be obvious to an Fe type may be "hidden" to a Te type. What could be visible to a Te type may be "hidden" to an Fe type. Its perceptional bias to think that what you consider as obvious is also obvious to others.
    I see. Dom function means most used function and most used function means identification and attachment to that way of thinking. All other function is not as identified with, and they are forced by the subject to somehow validate the dom function.
    Communication Issues again: Do I really have to cover all bases? I already factored what you said about "hidden" when I replied to your last post.

    It disagrees with what you're saying because it is not at all "hidden" or "unspoken." Ne is about seeing a very much visible reality. The only thing is that it is often only visible to a type, Ne-types in this case. In fact, having a specific function in your 4 set is like having a unique senses. FiTe information is often invisible to TiFe. NiSe is invisible to SiNe. JiNe types are often described as having their "heads up in the clouds." This is because they are default Ne and Se information is invisible.
    Of course there are differences. Big differences. The biggest difference within the system of functions is not at all between the individual functions (T-F-S-N). It is about Je types vs. Ji types; Pi types vs. Pe types.

    If I had to start talking about functions from scratch, I would begin with these 4, not the individual functions. Because they're the clearest. I would then talk about the relationship between Te-Ti and Fe-Fi. Then finally, Ni-Ne and Si-Se, because I find these vague.

    Proxy imo INTJ. There are many kinds of INTJ, some seemingly T-doms, some not.
    How is the dominant function necessarily the "area of conscious identification and awareness"? Is an Ni type necessarily aware of being an Ni type? And a Ti type? Are people even aware, do they even bother to think about their "conscious identification"? Why would a pair-relationship mean a master and slave relationship? Why would it be about service?
    It's what makes NFs seem psychic, mystical or perceptive, and what makes STs seem unimaginative and straightforward, pragmatic.

    The only NFs that I would consider as "psychic, mystical or perceptive" are the Ni-NFs. NeFi and FiNe are not at all "psychic" or any of those traits you mention. I think you misunderstand the Ne function. The Ne function is simply like a different pair of eyes. If Se sees physical reality, Ne sees the abstract reality. It's not mystical or psychic at all. It is simply about seeing the aspect of reality that's not visible to the naked eye. Think of Plato and his comparison of the forms and of sensory reality.

    About the STs, what about the spontaneous creativity of TiSe and SeTi types? They handle changes in their own way, in their own Ti. It's not something straightforward. It's quick-thinking. Ti is about adaptability. It formulates logic out of thin air. You can't call that "unimaginative."

    Yes, there is a bias.
    I don't like internal / external since I can see N,F / T, S in that way also, it would need more specification. N, F information may be externally derived(E) but internally directed(what's hidden, unspoken); the same for T,S except it's externally directed(what's apparent, obvious etc).

    I could be wrong but it seems to me that you talk of functions as if they were strictly Ni-Fi and Te-Se. I'm sensing a bias. And yes, I'm positive you are an Ni-Se type and slightly certain that you are a Te-Fi type.

    Assimilation is about serving the dominant. Both are about supplementing the ego. Just one fits into the environment, and the other fits the environment into itself. "

    What is the ego? Is it the dom function? How exactly does assimilation or adoption serve the ego? Why does Fe need Ti to justify itself? How?

    Your Adoptive and Assimilative idea is about the relationship of I functions and E functions, yes? E functions "adopt" their respective I counterpart whereas I functions "assimilate" their E counterpart. But then you talk about the relation between Fe and Ti? Fe "adopts" Ti? This is within the context of the four function framework. Fe---Ti is different from Te-----Ti. Adoption is about supplementing the Dominant or the Inferior Function?
    Now for some SiTi'ng of your Ni:

    I don't think "reality" is the right word for this because even Je and Pe functions are "subjective" in as sense. One person's Se experiences might be different from another though in reality they are similar. I think its a matter of intentions or "functions" or "meaning." Extraverted functions are intended, by the person, to deal with the outside world. It is useful to think of E functions in terms of "reality", but it is not accurate. Especially when you factor in Inferior Functions. Ti types make horrible Fe judgements and Ni types have terrible sensory info.
    I've asked those very questions while reading Jung's Psycho Types. The only conclusion I've reached that can be somewhat intuitively understood without me having to suggest a new idea is...

    Extraversion is "objective"...or maybe "external" or the cross-reference of both meanings.

    Introversion is "subjective"...or maybe "internal" or the cross-reference of both meanings.

    The word "Orientation" makes me think of the central point of a revolution. Imagine a rock tied to a stick. When you twirl the stick, the rock follows and you create a revolution. The rock may be located at any point in a specific time but only within limitations placed by the stick. The stick is the object or the subject(i believe Jung included the ideas of object and subject in his book), and the rock is the cognitve process(T, F, N, S). Thus, a function is extraverted when "it is oriented around the object." Likewise, introverted when "oriented around the subject." Subject is the person.
    It's more that I get interested in experimenting with a certain format, and if it fits the content of that comic then I think 'may as well have a go', might do might not. It felt like a product of its time, I'm not sure if people would be interested in it right now. :P
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom