Ni a Different Try

[BigApplePi]

Ni has been a puzzle to a great many INTP's. How would Ni play a role for the INTP (Ti Ne Si Fe)? I will add a non-MTBI concept. A mysterious symmetry is exposed.*

On this Forum I've recently encountered two different Ni primaries, ProxyAmenRa and Lyra. I will lean on how I experienced them. In both cases I've had the same experience, but in what sense? (The experience differed in that one engaged while the other did not.) What can be made of this? It's an attempt at resolution. It is a resolution I propose is one of natural conflict or differences rather than one of abnormality.

Both have Ni as their primary. Both behave the same and both behave differently. How so? Using the MBTI, we have
For Proxy, Ni Te Fi Se = INTJ
For . Lyra, Ni Fe Ti Se = INFJ

Is there another way to understand INxJ's? I notice in encountering these two people they both stick to their strongly intuited themes and promote them. It didn't matter that one (Proxy) communicated with a rational language while the other (Lyra) did so with a feeling emphasis. When I attempted to break into their themes, both strongly resisted. I don't recall either one ever giving me the slightest credence to what I had to say as opposed to what they had to say. This makes sense if one wants to direct a particular intuitive path and avoid all others.

Strangely I now notice one odd thing in myself. If I recognize their Ni, I must be taking on Ni myself through identification else how could I recognize it? I intuit their intuition only in passing and only for a moment. As long as I personally favor Ti, I can't or rather don't accept their intuited themes yet for myself. Ni flashes before me and I discard it. So for that moment I don't accept their theme any more than they do mine.

Is there a way to say this more simply? Can Understanding Made Simple come to the rescue? It dawned on me while INTP's are analysts, INxJ's are synthesists. The HIERARCHY tool says anything can be thought of as part of a hierarchy.

The other direction is often taken for granted. When we begin we think the first step is to analyze. This is not a given for things exist in any number of contexts or environments. An environment affects how we proceed with analysis though that is rarely consciously clear.

The statement above grossly underestimates the placement of the environmental direction. The symmetrical opposite of analysis is contextual placement and is just as legitimate as analysis. The first step need not be to analyze. Ni's don't. They take an issue and say, "Run with it to the exclusion of alternatives. It will perform as I describe, just try it out for the future. It will act with many things."

Ni is worldview that is based on a person’s map of abstract patterns, natural law, and how things will unfold in the future, and it’s agenda is to turn the present into this future model.

Ni is a way of seeing things that rise above competing views.

Ni have sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future.

Ni dominants confidently trust their intuitions, insights, ideas, and inspirations - often no matter what others say. Their thoughts become part of who they are, and they are completely independent of the world they live in. Ni dominants are the most independent minded of all other types.

Analysis is as foreign to an Ni primary as questioning what actually deserves analysis is to a Ti primary. Ti's will analyze but absent questioning their original choice once chosen. They just assume it is of interest ... by intuition? The latter is a top-down approach; the former a bottom up. Hence hierarchy.

So then why this thread? I ask you, is the above on the right track? Are there experiences in YOUR life which duplicate this experience? Doesn't analysis call a halt to an issue? Doesn't accepting the issue prime it so something actually gets done?

*This symmetry may hold in other ways for other types.

 

[own8ge]

TiNeSiFe. Closure of a Fe thought (Ti accepting a Fe thought, so that Fe doesn't question itself any longer.) This causes Fi. Fi is of significance to form Ni. Without a closure of Feeling, Ni can't exist. (This is confirm able by Ni characteristics and traits) -(ALSO Te types have Ti and Fi types also have Fe, How ignorant to think they don't.)

When Ne is guided inwardly (YES also Ni types have Ne. Fuck you!): Ni. Then you think in reverse. (Not even kidding.) Now you imagine nothing and go from there. This is how world-discovering theories come forward. (Einstein indeed had a great usage of Ni! How can you be so blind not see that, WTF?!) There is nothing in the imagination and then you CONCLUDE that there is something. From that something, you can conclude there is something else. This created the '1 answer to the question' of Ni. However, there was never a GOD DAMN question! Stop fucking around and try to be so directive!!: Ni can't be directive: It has to come out of nothing! *That Nothing Can come forward out of a state of mind, Thus be directive in the context that it can produce the result you seek: BUT a change of mindset is required. You have to SHUT DOWN your Cognitive Judging functions to produce a Meditative state of mind that is Ni Dominant. THEN you can IMAGINE what is known, you can imagine what you already know and come up with the CONCLUSIONS that form more CONCLUSIONS and you can go on and on and on and on... Eventually you get to the result that 1 = all and all = 1 (THIS IS WHY EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN GOD). But before you get there (1 = all, all = 1) YOU can stop your Introversion (Your Ni) To be extrovertedly be focused and write shit down. But when you write shit down, you get out of Ni state, and you have to reach that state of mind again (WHICH is hard! because you have to get to the same IMAGINATION the same FEELING you had. Because Ni is FEELING based. It is guided by FEELING thus Irrational as you rationals would define it.) -You NEED to get i nto the feeling again -To imagine where you left off, To get into the Feeling mindset that contained that specific feeling about the matter you were thinking off (THE FEELING = THE THOUGHT = THE LOGIC). If you don't feel that feeling where you left off, you can't think in Ni about it (IT = The same Thought you were having: NI IS ENDLESS! It has no END) Thus you have no clue what you were thinking. If you stop your questioning mechanism Then you don't get out of this feeling and can write literal 100 pages about 1 subject. Because when you extrovert yourself, you then maintain this Inner feeling and Ni mindset. (SO STOP YOUR FUCKING JI FUNCTION! ARGGHSAJF!)

But of course. Even though I can write 100 pages about Ni, No1 ever takes me serious when I do because you all are so god damn attached to your current logic about things and can't sense things out of your own perspectives.

(I wrote pages and pages in Ni state about all the functions and typology. Even before I knew about typology! (I began from nothing WHICH IS HOW NI WORKS. So Try to fucking understand, FOR ONCE...)

 

[nanook]

oh, what a fucking mess.


@own8ge

and you still think you are TiNe after claiming to use that much Ni ???

how about INTp NiFeTiSe? ISTj TiSeNiFe? ESTp SeTeFiNi?

the only types who have a natural clue about both ....

(even though there are huge differences in HOW they experience Ni)

TiNe types will never get it.

because they extravert their N, whenever they access it. while doing so, there is no Ni.

they could sooner get in touch with their Si, and try to understand Ni through analogy with Si.

perhaps tough, TiNe types can actually introvert their N, when they go into their Fe shadow.

from a theoretical standpoint, that would make sense.
i don't claim experience.

 

[nanook]

blame the coherent and firmly maintained worldview, of which everyone has one and which underlies how people are perpetually disagreeing about everything other people believe in... on a single function and pretend that you don't have this particular function?

seriously?

one day you guys blame it on Fi, another day on Ni, then on Si.

"seriously this autistic shit has to stop"
(enjoying myself with the voice of jaques fresco)

it says: "i am always right and everyone who always disagrees uses one of those inferior functions, which are always wrong, because they can't be right."

you can't just make up argumentative shit like that.
try understanding reality for a change

lyra is wrong for assuming that anyone should or could adopt his/her worldview. being wrong like that is natural, just like rationals assuming that christians should or could give up on the bible is both wrong and normal. it has nothing to do with typology. people have different levels of insight into reality and no choice about it. no one can switch levels at request or invitation or instruction, no one can even see the suggestion (the illustration of another level) as it was meant to be seen by the illustrator. but people on most levels can't understand levels, can't see them, differentiate them, so they can't know it's wrong to attempt to bully people into changes. they can't even know, when they are doing it. "when does a seemingly rational argument try to cross the boundaries of a level, that is to say, a boundary that can not possibly crossed through arguments or language-information?" .... you may not know.

people on lower levels than oneself are sometimes experienced to be painfully dull. but seeing that it's not due to mal-intent on their side, nor something one could and therefore should change, creates inner peace. i recommend it .... i teach perspectives all the time. i'm a function of the universe and this is what i do. there is always one person who is coincidentally ready to get it. i don't get worked up emotionally about 10000 people not being ready. (for all i know this board is full of teenagers)

hm someone should invite her, when her name is used. @Lyra
sorry, him.

oh @ProxyAmenRa too
http://intpforum.com//member.php?u=2058

 

[own8ge]

blame the coherent and firmly maintained worldview, of which everyone has one and which underlies how people are perpetually disagreeing about everything other people believe in... on a single function and pretend that you don't have this particular function?

seriously?

one day you guys blame it on Fi, another day on Ni, then on Si.

"seriously this autistic shit has to stop"
(enjoying myself with the voice of jaques fresco)

it says: "i am always right and everyone who always disagrees uses one of those inferior functions, which are always wrong, because they can't be right."

you can't just make up argumentative shit like that.
try understanding reality for a change

lyra is wrong for assuming that anyone should or could adopt his/her worldview. being wrong like that is natural, just like rationals assuming that christians should or could give up on the bible is both wrong and normal. it has nothing to do with typology. people have different levels of insight into reality and no choice about it. no one can switch levels at request or invitation or instruction, no one can even see the suggestion (the illustration of another level) as it was meant to be seen by the illustrator. but people on most levels can't understand levels, can't see them, differentiate them, so they can't know it's wrong to attempt to bully people into changes. they can't even know, when they are doing it. "when does a seemingly rational argument try to cross the boundaries of a level, that is to say, a boundary that can not possibly crossed through arguments or language-information?" .... you may not know.

I totally agree. But Am I part of who you directed this to? XD >.>

 

[nanook]

not to my knowledge.....

 

[Lyra]

lyra is wrong for assuming that anyone should or could adopt his/her worldview.

You are wrong to assume that I assume so! For all you know I could be writing for totally different ends...

And in fact I probably am!

Identity and intent are tricky ones, particularly when there are assumptions and a historically verified shape-shifter involved.

people on lower levels than oneself are sometimes experienced to be painfully dull. but seeing that it's not due to mal-intent on their side, nor something one could and therefore should change, creates inner peace. i recommend it i teach perspectives all the time. i'm a function of the universe and this is what i do

I'm a warring soul. That's my peace. Change it? It's a function of the universe! Why do you seek to change that?

Much confusion I sense! Many assumptions I sense! Much muddledness there is!

 

[Lyra]

p.s. As for the rest of the topic... learn to Read! Too many words and posited causalities and complexities and life-explanations, too little feeling for life.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Any similarities between them is strained at best.

Spoiler

Lyra fits my understanding and observations of Ni but not Proxy.

Interestingly, even though JiNe aren't Ni dominants, they are still introverts with intuition, so there are some parallels.

 

[BigApplePi]

Thank you nanook. I must be one of those at a lower level because I don't always know what you are saying. A 2nd reading was more clear.

I didn't invite those two people directly because I was trying to make a point more general and they were only examples. They could read it or not.

 

[BigApplePi]

Lyra. You rarely say to whom you are directing your message. (It would help to name names.) If to me, my post is about the structure of life, not life itself. I will leave that up to you as you seem to know more about it than I.

 

[nanook]

well you are not at peace, "warring soul".

and i didn't meant to change anything.

i meant you are "wrong" as in having wrong expectations about possible outcomes.

my explanation was meant to evoke some deeper sense of acceptance in you and the many folks who think similar to Pi. (something evoked from within is not a change)

because yous guys operate under similar assumptions. which lead me to adresse the both/all of you.

the assumption, that those people, who don't change their opinion on request, must be fundamentally defective.

you use name calling to point out the defect, they come up with ideas like them having generally useless functions.

equally wrong would be any assumption, that violence (attacking the self-acceptance of other people) can lead to positive outcome.

you may have felt attacked by me. doing so wasn't my intention.

nor any sort of side taking, btw.

the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

sometimes we overrule wisdom that we have already gained.

 

[Lyra]

You missed my point :-). You're still talking to the assumptions. IME expectation and result are aligning at about 98% presently and in the present context.

 

[nanook]

whatever, just sharing my perspective. the principles therein are of general value, if not perfectly a match for your situation.

 

[Lyra]

I seem to have a habit of becoming the only (but misplaced!) example in justification of very vast generalities in this thread!

(Just teasing. I know you're just Nai'ing, or Pie'ing, or whatever it is you Socionical Wilberian Space Androids call it. Meanwhile I'm Flying !!!)

 

[BigApplePi]

Any similarities between them is strained at best.


Lyra fits my understanding and observations of Ni but not Proxy.

Interestingly, even though JiNe aren't Ni dominants, they are still introverts with intuition, so there are some parallels.

@EyeSeeCold. I have two reasons for connecting Proxy with Ni:

(1) He openly call himself INTJ (Ni Te Fi Se) making Ni primary. Do you see an alternative to his self-assessment?

(2) In my extended discussions of economics with him, he presents a consistent view giving Te evidence which I call intuitive. That is, he presents a whole view of his economic position which is stated but not proved. My memory of the nature of this conversation is whenever I present some objection to his position in the form of some detail, he either counters it with something also unproven or evades a direct confrontation. He often will say, instead of countering what I object to, that if I read this or that economist, they will refute me. This is the way an intuitive who wishes to press his point would behave IMO. The discussion was gentlemanly, rational and at a thinking level. I offer no proof or link at this time for this unless really pressed. If he shows up here, he may or may not qualify what I've said.

You also said, "Interestingly, even though JiNe aren't Ni dominants." This statement eludes me as I don't know how Ji connects or how Ji and Je apply here.

 

[nanook]

i want to clarify my view on how stages relate to this.

(btw, nothing is said herein about any person. it's all boring generalities)

so obviously we are all sometimes locked into one perspective and incapable or simply not interested in exploring another perspective (presented by someone else) and our favorite perspectives are certainly related to our type.

the reason for not being interested is often, that we simply require coherency to remain functional. when the reason for not being capable is not directly related to different stages of development, it is often directly related to type.

the offered perspective may be incomprehensibly-subjective/specific to the internal flow of the other person. or it may be proper material for communication, but just too far away from our perspective to fit it. on first sight this has nothing to do with stages, when you visualize them like "conformist / rational / pluralistic"

but these stages are simply about the ability to hold, organize and navigate perspectives. and functions themselves are also perspectives.

so we might simplify for sake of illustration: a type who understands only people of his own type may be on stage one.
a type who understands people who use the same functions in opposite order may be stage two.
a type who understands people who use all of these functions in their other version (for example N vs S or F vs T) may be stage whatever.
a type who regularly understands people who use the opposite functions (I vs E) has practically transcended typology.
i just made these stages up, because i have no exact insight in which order we figure out insight into other types.

in my experience it's been roughly like
1) everybody is always wrong. fuck humanity.
2) wow, there are some cool people and they make sense!
3) wow, it's not them, it's me making sense out of them. i can create or conquer perspectives inside of me.
4) okay with some work and time, patience and tolerance i may learn to get the rest of humanity...
5) wait a moment, other people are learning too. how so?
6) they are all learning in the same order, though starting out from different points. it's a pattern of nature. all the time it hasn't been me learning, it was evolution doing it inside of me. evolution takes care of differentiating first but also uniting us later. evolution will save us from war and confusion and it happens now. and i am it.

so, when opinions about general issues like politics are unnegotiable and it's not due to pure information and not because of direct differences of the stages from which the opinions originate, the fact that they can't be negotiated is still always related to stages.

so, i don't even have to examine someone more closely and form any opinion about what stage he may gravitate towards. i don't have to speculate whether i am on a higher stage, he is on a higher stage, or we are at the same stage, at a stage where we can still not hold all possible typological viewpoints. and i don't do it.

i can simply sense: oh, there is an enormous difference in views. so arguing makes no fucking sense. let's do monologues instead. and i don't blame it on anyone, except evolution.

i think this is an alternative explanation to "there are some functions that can't pull their head out of the sand and others that can".

i'm pretty confident, that no function, despite the mbti myths saying otherwise (ironically Ni is know for handling perspectives well), is responsible for switching perspectives. there is a self structure that works it's way through the functions. nothing specific is known about this in common typology. but we can't forget about it.

our intelligence is significantly bigger than a function, or whatever the description or definition of a function can include.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I know you're just Nai'ing, or Pie'ing, or whatever it is you Socionical Wilberian Space Androids call it. Meanwhile I'm Flying !!!)

You were a poet and I didn't even know it.

(1) He openly call himself INTJ (Ni Te Fi Se) making Ni primary. Do you see an alternative to his self-assessment?

(2) In my extended discussions of economics with him, he presents a consistent view giving Te evidence which I call intuitive. That is, he presents a whole view of his economic position which is stated but not proved. My memory of the nature of this conversation is whenever I present some objection to his position in the form of some detail, he either counters it with something also unproven or evades a direct confrontation. He often will say, instead of countering what I object to, that if I read this or that economist, they will refute me. This is the way an intuitive who wishes to press his point would behave IMO. The discussion was gentlemanly, rational and at a thinking level. I offer no proof or link at this time for this unless really pressed. If he shows up here, he may or may not qualify what I've said.

You also said, "Interestingly, even though JiNe aren't Ni dominants." This statement eludes me as I don't know how Ji connects or how Ji and Je apply here.

Yeah I know he at least once considered himself INTJ but functionally I get impressions of TiSe and I think that makes more sense. I also don't mean it in any negative way, I'm just seeing him from a different perspective.


About that last part, I was just making a side comment about TiNe and FiNe being introverts with (aux) intuition. They may not be dominant Ni types, but being INxx they have similar thinking and lifestyles.

 

[BigApplePi]

Comments:

so obviously we are all sometimes locked into one perspective and incapable or simply not interested in exploring another perspective (presented by someone else) and or favorite perspectives are certainly related to our type.

If we are locked into a limited perspective, we will act from that perspective, but out of ignorance remain passive to other perspectives. Though we may deny they exist, nevertheless they do. This passiveness means we are subject to the "slings and arrows" of those perspectives. They can act on us rather than we on them and thus we lose our power.

so we might simplify for sake of illustration: a type who understands only people of his own type may be on stage one. a type who understands people who use the same functions in opposite order may be stage two. a type who understands people who use all of these functions in their other version (for example N vs S or F vs T) may be stage whatever. a type who regularly understands people who use the opposite functions (I vs E) has practically transcended typology.

Assuming a "type" can be defined, there are various awarenesses of other types. A baby doesn't know type.

i'm pretty confident, that no function, despite the mbti myths saying otherwise (ironically Ni is know for handling perspectives well), is responsible for switching perspectives. there is a self structure that works it's way through the functions. nothing specific is known about this in common typology. but we can't forget about it.

I assume the brain can switch functions, though how defined either side of the switch is and what switch we choose to talk about may be arbitrary. The brain can choose to look high or low, left or right, generally or specifically, orderliness or evaluatory, choose or leave undecided, look into the self or look at the outside world, break something down or move something somewhere.

our intelligence is significantly bigger than a function, or whatever the description or definition of a function can include.

Yes. That doesn't stop people from trying to classify these things.

 

[Words]

lyra is wrong for assuming that anyone should or could adopt his/her worldview. being wrong like that is natural, just like rationals assuming that christians should or could give up on the bible is both wrong and normal. it has nothing to do with typology. people have different levels of insight into reality and no choice about it. no one can switch levels at request or invitation or instruction, no one can even see the suggestion (the illustration of another level) as it was meant to be seen by the illustrator. but people on most levels can't understand levels, can't see them, differentiate them, so they can't know it's wrong to attempt to bully people into changes. they can't even know, when they are doing it. "when does a seemingly rational argument try to cross the boundaries of a level, that is to say, a boundary that can not possibly crossed through arguments or language-information?" .... you may not know.

people on lower levels than oneself are sometimes experienced to be painfully dull. but seeing that it's not due to mal-intent on their side, nor something one could and therefore should change, creates inner peace. i recommend it

Good stuff. I'm thinking of this as basically "Intelligence" but it doesn't seem accurate.

Sure there are hopeless cases, but I disagree with halting arguments or conflict. Repetition of plain rational arguments may amount to nothing because of these supposed boundaries, but I think there are other somewhat fruitful and yet still forceful ways of presenting an alternate(and maybe more complicated) vision that are more attuned to the other person. Maybe people's perceptions are defined by their level of insight, but creating perceptional conflict through some of form of argumentation is perhaps that battering ram that assists the other person. False Consciousness remedied by an Antithesis. Political revolutions in history originate from ideas sourcing from a higher level of intuition.

Any similarities between them is strained at best.

Spoiler

Lyra fits my understanding and observations of Ni but not Proxy.

Interestingly, even though JiNe aren't Ni dominants, they are still introverts with intuition, so there are some parallels.

I think Ni still fits Proxy. Maybe it's more apparent when he talks about economics.

so we might simplify for sake of illustration: a type who understands only people of his own type may be on stage one. a type who understands people who use the same functions in opposite order may be stage two. a type who understands people who use all of these functions in their other version (for example N vs S or F vs T) may be stage whatever. a type who regularly understands people who use the opposite functions (I vs E) has practically transcended typology.

sounds neat. What do you mean by "use the functions in opposite order"? PiJe vs. JePi or JiPe vs. PeJi?

I don't regularly understand those with opposite functions(I vs. E), but I think I understand the functions themselves, which allows me to gain conscious access to these functions, which then allows me to gain insight on those who regularly use these functions which are foreign to me. I don't think I've transcended typology though. It can still fit Jungian framework I hink. This is all just assumptions of course.

i can simply sense: oh, there is an enormous difference in views. so arguing makes no fucking sense. let's do monologues instead. and i don't blame it on anyone, except evolution.

Presenting an alternative even if it is seemingly an ugly alternative for the other person is crucial methinks. No other way to reconciliation.

i'm pretty confident, that no function, despite the mbti myths saying otherwise (ironically Ni is know for handling perspectives well), is responsible for switching perspectives. there is a self structure that works it's way through the functions. nothing specific is known about this in common typology. but we can't forget about it.

I think Ni is plainly (though over-simplistically) the "switching perspective" function. That doesn't necessarily give Ni-types much advantage though. Switching perspectives does not mean switching to a good perspective. It's like holding a gun when you don't know how to fire it. Intelligence determines the quality, quantity and the flexibility of the perspectives Ni generates. When you don't have the intelligence, your gun misfires and it might even lead to self-death. Conspiracists and loons are, for example, often Ni-types that have "shot themselves."

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@EyeSeeCold. I have two reasons for connecting Proxy with Ni:

(1) He openly call himself INTJ (Ni Te Fi Se) making Ni primary. Do you see an alternative to his self-assessment?

(2) In my extended discussions of economics with him, he presents a consistent view giving Te evidence which I call intuitive. That is, he presents a whole view of his economic position which is stated but not proved. My memory of the nature of this conversation is whenever I present some objection to his position in the form of some detail, he either counters it with something also unproven or evades a direct confrontation. He often will say, instead of countering what I object to, that if I read this or that economist, they will refute me. This is the way an intuitive who wishes to press his point would behave IMO. The discussion was gentlemanly, rational and at a thinking level. I offer no proof or link at this time for this unless really pressed. If he shows up here, he may or may not qualify what I've said.

When it comes to economics you want me to prove the already proven? Engaging in such a task, retracing the steps of economists over the last 1000 + years, would be a monumental waste of my time.

And what objections? The only thing that came close to an objection you had was that people may disagree with me. Well then, so be it but in no way does this invalidate my position. All the other "objections" appear to me to be none other than acid trips.

As for my position, I have developed it over many years of inquiry and people along the way have put forward compelling arguments. Over these years my position change many times when sound evidence and reason became manifest.

If you like me to describe the way I think just ask.

 

[Lyra]

Occam's razor: Pi is annoying to talk to.

 

[BigApplePi]

Occam's razor: Pi is annoying to talk to.

-Some would be surprised to find how much I talk to myself.-

Not wishing to become once again a victim of Lyra's cutting remarks, I proceeded to look up Occam's razor. Superficially simplest theories make the most sense. What about, "Black cats crossing your path bring bad luck"? An unexamined simple theory can have a hidden flaw. Once the flaw is found, the simple theory must be tossed.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Proxy

When it comes to economics you want me to prove the already proven?

Spoken like a true Ni. Ti view: If it's proven, the task is to give the proof. "Follow me and I'll lead you right" doesn't appeal to everyone. If one is talking to someone, the proof must convince them and that may not be easy to the naive mind. Lot's of theorems are true in mathematics, but we want to see the proofs. Those proofs are given over and over to students. Why not with economics?

Engaging in such a task, retracing the steps of economists over the last 1000 + years, would be a monumental waste of my time.

Another Ni statement. There is such a thing as a summary. Summaries save time. A 1000 year history isn't necessary except for top-down reference. Your belief in summary is: governments are bad so prohibit them. To be refuted: If governments MUST form they can't be prohibited. Now we can parse those words, but still I've presented a summary. What you have very well explained is their badness. What you have not explained how you plan to keep governments from forming in the first place. To complete your proof, you must explain their existence.

And what objections? The only thing that came close to an objection you had was that people may disagree with me. Well then, so be it but in no way does this invalidate my position. All the other "objections" appear to me to be none other than an acid trips.

Objections? Ah ain't got no stinkin' objections as long as Lyra agrees with me. Lyra is my favorite objector.

As for my position, I have developed it over many years of inquiry and people along the way have put forward compelling arguments. Over these years my position change many times when sound evidence and reason became manifest.

Who is compelled? There are two sides to this.

If you like me to describe the way I think just ask.

I do like you Proxy. You are my favorite INxJ. The next in line doesn't even come close. How do you thimk?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think Ni still fits Proxy. Maybe it's more apparent when he talks about economics.

How so? I'd call that over-focusing, if it's only apparent in a certain circumstance.

TiSe is my overall impression, regardless of his discussions on economics.

 

[BigApplePi]

How so? I'd call that over-focusing, if it's only apparent in a certain circumstance.

TiSe is my overall impression, regardless of his discussions on economics.

@EyeSeeCold. Interesting difference. If my memory serves, you go for something called socionics (sp?) which I've never looked into. I take the MBTI as a starting theory as long as I haven't mastered it. According to it,

TiSe -> ISTP (Ti Se Ni Fe) while NiSe -> INTJ (Ni Te Fi Se) which I looked up. Do you agree so far?

To check out any person, I would think we'd have to take a fair sampling. Go beyond his economics ... yes.
Sorry Proxy for picking on you:

OHHH DEARY, your poor sensibilities have been offended by someone exhibiting a certain character trait. I weep for you. I really do!!!

What would you say that is? Fe or Fi? I vote for Fi cuz its how he feels internally. I could be misjudging though. Damn. I wish Adymus hadn't gone Pod'Lair.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ProxySpoken like a true Ni. Ti view: If it's proven, the task is to give the proof. "Follow me and I'll lead you right" doesn't appeal to everyone. If one is talking to someone, the proof must convince them and that may not be easy to the naive mind. Lot's of theorems are true in mathematics, but we want to see the proofs. Those proofs are given over and over to students. Why not with economics?

Yes! It is called a treatise on economics. One treatise I have recommended was 'Man, Economy and State' by Rothbard. It contains the proofs!! It was specifically written for teaching university students.

I have downloaded all of the subjects that one can do in an economics degree from the university where I am doing my PhD and studied every single slide and additional reading material. The degree does not even come close to the level of detailed proofs Rothbard puts forward. If you think Rothbard's work is no suitable, you will be woefully disappointed with an economics degree.

---

The debate you have put forward below has absolute nothing to do with the moral and intellectual validity of capitalism. The debate you have put forward is how capitalism can be achieved. I hope you can understand this.

Another Ni statement. There is such a thing as a summary. Summaries save time. A 1000 year history isn't necessary except for top-down reference. Your belief in summary is: governments are bad so prohibit them.

The conclusion of the detailed reasoning being that what ever government touches it destroys.

To be refuted: If governments MUST form they can't be prohibited.

There is nothing in the fabric of reality which entails that governments must form. It is merely a general observation at this given point in time. If you used the medieval period of history as you reference point, your inductive line of reasoning suggests that some societies function under anarchy and some societies have the parasite known as government. The only sound argument that you can draw from induction is that societies are structured in different ways i.e. anarchy or some form of government. In conclusion, your deterministic statement is invalid.

Now we can parse those words, but still I've presented a summary. What you have very well explained is their badness. What you have not explained how you plan to keep governments from forming in the first place. To complete your proof, you must explain their existence.

I have already answered this near ad infinitum times over the years and you simply keep on forgetting.

Governments or proto-governments form by the use or threat of violence against individuals to make them submit to being ruled. Those in government realize they are greatly outnumbered so to prevent their own demise they must get the consent of people they're ruling. They then propagated by fallacious arguments and reducing people's ability to reason eg. the kind is god, the king is god's representative, social contract theory, humans don't cooperate unless being forced, perversion of history, democracy, etc. This is why governments heavily subsidies the intelligentsia; to create and uphold the moral and intellectual arguments to maintain its existence. This is why governments like to control the education system; to prevent alternative arguments being presented.

They certainly don't teach the virtues of capitalism in schools and universities.

There is not much you can do about an overwhelming use of force to make you submit. This why libertarians don't simply succeed. When they have done so in the past they were crushed eg. The American Civil War or better termed, The War of Northern Aggression. Of course, the north's government did not tell people the true reason why they were fighting ie. to maintain taxation of the south. They were told a lie regarding slavery. To this day people still believe this lie. This is an example of a government maintain the people's consent through the propagation of fallacious arguments.

What can be done is similar to what occurred during the enlightenment, the British Classical Liberal intellectual revolution. That is, putting forward the moral and intellectual arguments about why capitalism should adhered to and the appeal for government intervention should be resisted. I must state it was not perfect and free of bloodshed. The succession of the American colonies to form a classical liberal form of government was achieved through the sound defense against English aggression. Continuing, with a sizable portion of the population adhering the moral philosophy of capitalism, people will reject the belief that the government is necessary in structuring society. The failure of Classical Liberalism is that they didn't continually put forward the moral and intellectual arguments to nullify the appeals to socialism, communism and fascism.

In conclusion, what needs to be done is the propagation of the case for capitalism. That is exactly what I am doing.

Who is compelled? There are two sides to this.

The word 'compelled' was used as an adjective. The statement means that the arguments that people presented to me warranted me engaging in research. I would hardly be a truth seeker if I did not take the initiative to seek truth.

I do like you Proxy. You are my favorite INxJ. The next in line doesn't even come close. How do you thimk?

I like you too; well, sometimes.

How do I think? I develop models of systems and process in my mind, I run continuous thought experiments and test everything against logic and evidence. I also have a pretty damn good memory I can call on. At all times I resist the conveyance of information in obfuscated forms. Language exists to convey precise information and I use it.

What would you say that is? Fe or Fi? I vote for Fi cuz its how he feels internally. I could be misjudging though. Damn. I wish Adymus hadn't gone Pod'Lair.

I was belittling someone for appealing to arguments of the most rudimentary and superficial form. It is hoped through belittlement that the person will realize this and alter his behavior.

 

[Duxwing]

There is not much you can do about an overwhelming use of force to make you submit. This why libertarians don't simply succeed. When they have done so in the past they were crushed eg. The American Civil War or better termed, The War of Northern Aggression. Of course, the north's government did not tell people the true reason why they were fighting ie. to maintain taxation of the south. They were told a lie regarding slavery. To this day people still believe this lie. This is an example of a government maintain the people's consent through the propagation of fallacious arguments.

The South didn't like the policies of the federal government-- the specific policies are likewise irrelevant to the overall cause-- and rose up in rebellion. From the North's perspective, the lack of Southern tax revenue was a problem that paled in comparison to the prospect of any state displeased with federal law simply withdrawing from the union. All ideological concerns aside, the North bore an interest in maintaining a single United States, and thus, in returning the South to the Union-- by force if necessary.

As for a corruption of the intelligentsia, I must agree. Oftentimes otherwise long and well written essays read in our AP History class will be capped off with something to the effect of, "... and X did Y because he was such a patriot. Go America!". Such emotional remarks don't belong in discussions of such caliber, and I too recognize the taint of nationalistic pride in the books that we read. Nevertheless, bias is inevitable in history, and one should be careful not to become stuck in a single perspective.

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@Duxwing

I don't disagree with what you posted.

 

[Words]

How so? I'd call that over-focusing, if it's only apparent in a certain circumstance.

TiSe is my overall impression, regardless of his discussions on economics.

I think I see where you're coming from with the Se, but he is undoubtedly a Te-type. Observe his method of argumentation. It's always in reference to a technical standard. He rarely relies on a spontaneous logical invention, which is what Ti-types do. We tend to rationalize on the spot. He always refers to a collectively considered authoritative book or author or school(Adam Smith, Austrian School etc.) You can vividly observe the differences by reading their discussion with Pi(and also our previous discussion in an older economics thread), who is a Ti type. There is a conflict there because one thinks in terms of "inter-rationalities" whereas the other wants to make-do and simplify right away. Proxy is either a Te-dom or a Te-aux. I think the latter.

Because he is a Te-aux, I think that the Se you see is an Inferior Se. Proxy probably has extensive use of his Te and Se functions. I know I said I rejected the idea of loops, but yeah Te is more compatible with Se than Ni for an NiTe. Te and Se both "grounds" the Ni function. They can be mistyped for ENTJs. INTJs who sort of emanate more Fi tend to be Ni'sh as well. One of my INTJ friends is like that. Weak but visible presence of Te, He can be mistyped as an IxFP if without consideration of functions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@EyeSeeCold. Interesting difference. If my memory serves, you go for something called socionics (sp?) which I've never looked into. I take the MBTI as a starting theory as long as I haven't mastered it. According to it,

TiSe -> ISTP (Ti Se Ni Fe) while NiSe -> INTJ (Ni Te Fi Se) which I looked up. Do you agree so far?

Yes, I agree. My perspective is influenced by Socionics, but I'm looking at the functions and not the letters. I think it's still possible to reach consensus this way.

To check out any person, I would think we'd have to take a fair sampling. Go beyond his economics ... yes.
Sorry Proxy for picking on you:

OHHH DEARY, your poor sensibilities have been offended by someone exhibiting a certain character trait. I weep for you. I really do!!!

What would you say that is? Fe or Fi? I vote for Fi cuz its how he feels internally. I could be misjudging though. Damn. I wish Adymus hadn't gone Pod'Lair.

I don't think that quote has anything to do with how Proxy felt internally. He wasn't directly disclosing any information about himself. I just see it as conversational banter, and if I stretch it, the closest thing it fits imo is simple Fe. Still, I don't think this captures the whole picture of Proxy.



@Words In your illustration, where does Ni fit in? Of all the orientations, Pi dominant is the last one I would associate with Proxy(Ji/Je > Pe > Pi). And I haven't explained why I thought Se. Of course we're looking at it from different perspectives.

It's kinda weird talking about Proxy like this though, since I'm not really one for gossip.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Why don't you invite @The Gopher and @Cognisant to comment? They have both met me in person a number of times.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

In my extended discussions of economics with him

From my experiences it seems that while Proxy (he seems like a willing participant, so I might as well add input, amirite?) knows his systems very well, he's not as able to connect or incorporate them into other systems because they have yet to be thoroughly proofed; and until they are proofed, which is completely dependent on (I'm assuming) risk/reward, external possibilities are essentially viewed as threats to the existing proofed system regardless of it's level of correctness (I'd argue it's 90-95%. Not too shabby). This is what I deem to be the work of Ni.

Something else to consider that may play a role in articulation style is dyslexia.


As for Lyra, I respect Lyra, I just haven't gotten much of a chance to wrap my head around most of what s/he's put forth. But there's a definite siren song that I won't be able to avoid come Xmas break.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Proxy

The debate you have put forward below has absolute nothing to do with the moral and intellectual validity of capitalism. The debate you have put forward is how capitalism can be achieved. I hope you can understand this.

I would have to learn more to see how capitalism would go and whether it would NATURALLY be abused. You claim it would not be abused, but we still have to talk about the presence of government. Mind you, I don't generalize government. There are all kinds of governments.

The conclusion of the detailed reasoning being that what ever government touches it destroys.

Are you not saying a gov't, ANY gov't is going to go corrupt and will produce the destruction you say? You never met a good gov't you liked?

There is nothing in the fabric of reality which entails that governments must form. It is merely a general observation at this given point in time. If you used the medieval period of history as you reference point, your inductive line of reasoning suggests that some societies function under anarchy and some societies have the parasite known as government. The only sound argument that you can draw from induction is that societies are structured in different ways i.e. anarchy or some form of government. In conclusion, your deterministic statement is invalid.

This is where we differ and I have an objection. I don't mean to say some societies will form and do so without government and be successful. That is your argument. I don't mean to say governments must form. I propose that given certain conditions, they MUST form. Does Rothbard differentiate when this happens and when it doesn't?

I have already answered this near ad infinitum times over the years and you simply keep on forgetting.

Governments or proto-governments form by the use or threat of violence against individuals to make them submit to being ruled.

I don't care to remember generalizations if they aren't correct. You have just stated a primary condition for governments forming: the threat of violence. When a group of people get together with or without a strong leader, they decide to get organized. Once the organization is put together, all* have to agree on it. Too late. The rules are formed. Is Rothbard so naive as to think force won't be used to ensure this organization isn't upheld? Of course there will be force and there will be violence to preserve the organization. Now I'm not a student of history, so I would call upon you and those of superior knowledge to add WHAT OTHER conditions call for the formation of governments? Are you claiming violence ONLY?

*Amendment. I said "all have to agree on it." That's not true. Some will not agree. Some will remain isolated. But man the conformist communicating social animal will incorporate the minorities who in a democracy will weigh the pros and cons and decide to go with the majority.

Those in government realize they are greatly outnumbered so to prevent their own demise they must get the consent of people they're ruling. They then propagated by fallacious arguments and reducing people's ability to reason eg. the kind is god, the king is god's representative, social contract theory, humans don't cooperate unless being forced, perversion of history, democracy, etc. This is why governments heavily subsidies the intelligentsia; to create and uphold the moral and intellectual arguments to maintain its existence. This is why governments like to control the education system; to prevent alternative arguments being presented.

They certainly don't teach the virtues of capitalism in schools and universities.

Yes. Leaders of government will do all that. Don't forget those being led do not have economics degrees. They are ordinary people who are afraid of what happens with anarchy. If you are saying teaching the virtues of capitalism is going to overcome not only (1) the initial formation of governments but (2) their dissolution once they are established, that is either an audacious thing to say or mighty brave. You are going to need lots and lots of help.

There is not much you can do about an overwhelming use of force to make you submit. This why libertarians don't simply succeed.

Back to Rothbard. Does he show how success is achieved or does he merely advocate? Does he explain how capitalism will work or does he merely iterate the evils of past government?

What can be done is similar to what occurred during the enlightenment, the British Classical Liberal intellectual revolution. That is, putting forward the moral and intellectual arguments about why capitalism should adhered to and the appeal for government intervention should be resisted. I must state it was not perfect and free of bloodshed. The succession of the American colonies to form a classical liberal form of government was achieved through the sound defense against English aggression.

Continuing, with a sizable portion of the population adhering the moral philosophy of capitalism, people will reject the belief that the government is necessary in structuring society. The failure of Classical Liberalism is that they didn't continually put forward the moral and intellectual arguments to nullify the appeals to socialism, communism and fascism.

This sounds more like your answer. What caused them to fail? How successful were they? Does Rothbard or his fellows answer this? I believe it would be necessary to look more deeply into the conditions for this "intellectual revolution" to see if it occurred under special conditions or if it can be made to occur under every condition. Who here knows this history? I am not a student of this.

In conclusion, what needs to be done is the propagation of the case for capitalism. That is exactly what I am doing.

Gulp! What needs to be done is that plus countering of the opposition.

Me: I don't personally believe governments are going to be saintly. I would propose sometimes governments are desirable to take care of universal problems that require so much coordination that groups in isolation can't be made to adequately cooperate. Whether or not such government can itself be controlled is the other question. Whether or not this universal coordination is worth the trade off in inevitable corruption is a question.

I had better post this to put a stop to this continual editing, lol.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hey The Gopher and @Cognisant

I heard you met this Proxy guy. If you survived the ordeal, you are welcome to comment on his personality type. I dare him to comment on yours.

 

[BigApplePi]

@EyeSeeCold

I don't think that quote has anything to do with how Proxy felt internally. He wasn't directly disclosing any information about himself. I just see it as conversational banter, and if I stretch it, the closest thing it fits imo is simple Fe. Still, I don't think this captures the whole picture of Proxy.

It's kinda weird talking about Proxy like this though, since I'm not really one for gossip.

I believe gossip is headed for some social conclusion and I'm not for that either. I just find the conversation about typing of interest. My feeling (Si?, no Ti) is that what Proxy said is a mixture and without knowing ease and intensities no comparative conclusions can be drawn. No conclusions = non-gossip. I'll show you what I mean. Here is what Proxy said. It's speculation; I don't mean it to be accurate:

OHHH DEARY, your poor sensibilities have been offended by someone exhibiting a certain character trait. I weep for you. I really do!!!

OHHH DEARY = Fi (He feels it)
your poor sensibilities have been offended by someone exhibiting a certain character trait. = Te
I weep for you. I really do!!! = Fe (because it's stylized)

 

[BigApplePi]

I think I see where you're coming from with the Se, but he is undoubtedly a Te-type. Observe his method of argumentation. It's always in reference to a technical standard. He rarely relies on a spontaneous logical invention, which is what Ti-types do. We tend to rationalize on the spot. He always refers to a collectively considered authoritative book or author or school(Adam Smith, Austrian School etc.) You can vividly observe the differences by reading their discussion with Pi(and also our previous discussion in an older economics thread), who is a Ti type. There is a conflict there because one thinks in terms of "inter-rationalities" whereas the other wants to make-do and simplify right away. Proxy is either a Te-dom or a Te-aux. I think the latter.

Because he is a Te-aux, I think that the Se you see is an Inferior Se. Proxy probably has extensive use of his Te and Se functions. I know I said I rejected the idea of loops, but yeah Te is more compatible with Se than Ni for an NiTe. Te and Se both "grounds" the Ni function. They can be mistyped for ENTJs. INTJs who sort of emanate more Fi tend to be Ni'sh as well. One of my INTJ friends is like that. Weak but visible presence of Te, He can be mistyped as an IxFP if without consideration of functions.

@Words.
Very nice analysis. (My Fe,Si as lower functions).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@EyeSeeCold
I believe gossip is headed for some social conclusion and I'm not for that either. I just find the conversation about typing of interest. My feeling (Si?, no Ti) is that what Proxy said is a mixture and without knowing ease and intensities no comparative conclusions can be drawn. No conclusions = non-gossip. I'll show you what I mean. Here is what Proxy said. It's speculation; I don't mean it to be accurate:

OHHH DEARY = Fi (He feels it)
your poor sensibilities have been offended by someone exhibiting a certain character trait. = Te
I weep for you. I really do!!! = Fe (because it's stylized)

This approach just seems to me too particular though, I don't think MBTI or any other system is precise enough for such a method.

Rather than analyzing a person's semantic content for correlations to function themes, I think literary content should be used to form a mental-behavioral model of someone's overall motivations, actions and thought patterns, which then should be compared to functions or an overall type.


With that, I would say that while Proxy seems to like discussing topics of interests / expertise, which are usually economics and politics, it seems he also searches for an equal — in terms of relevant knowledge and rhetorical debate, he's engaging(and apparently somewhat socially outgoing though still has difficulties). I find TiSe unproblematic with that.


One communication issue I see in all this, that's still yet to be resolved, is not having everyone's ideas of the functions and types clearly laid out, calibrated, and agreed upon. It's like two people thinking of an orange, but one person calls it an apple which confuses the other person. Or one person thinking of an apple and the other thinks of an orange, but both call it an apple.

 

[BigApplePi]

This approach just seems to me too particular though, I don't think MBTI or any other system is precise enough for such a method.

Rather than analyzing a person's semantic content for correlations to function themes, I think literary content should be used to form a mental-behavioral model of someone's overall motivations, actions and thought patterns, which then should be compared to functions or an overall type.


With that, I would say that while Proxy seems to like discussing topics of interests / expertise, which are usually economics and politics, it seems he also searches for an equal — in terms of relevant knowledge and rhetorical debate, he's engaging(and apparently somewhat socially outgoing though still has difficulties). I find TiSe unproblematic with that.


One communication issue I see in all this, that's still yet to be resolved, is not having everyone's ideas of the functions and types clearly laid out, calibrated, and agreed upon. It's like two people thinking of an orange, but one person calls it an apple which confuses the other person. Or one person thinking of an apple and the other thinks of an orange, but both call it an apple.

What you say seems to be on the right track. Here are the problems. I'm going to have trouble putting this into words but here is a try, in no particular order:
1. None of this is ever going to be precise.
2. The eight functions have yet to be defined in a functioning person. That is, we may believe we are defining a function but they are always mixed on some scale with the other seven or maybe the other three.
3. What we could have is a central theme like eight rain drops on a smooth pond causing eight ripples. We see all eight ripples at once.
4. Not at once but close. Not all drops the same size. Some are miniscule; some heavy.
5. Functions could be mutually exclusive time-wise, like e and i or p and j, but alternate rather than be exclusive over longer intervals. They could be 75-25 rather than 100-0.
6. Look at brain scans for clues as to what can be matched.
7. If the world of drops (function definition) is to be matched with the world of human behavior, this will be hard to do since human behavior is not very modularized. The former might be relatively definable while the latter is more or less smeared. If smearing, we have to go with statistics just like quantum mechanics.
8. All this may already be known. Is it? Consult with Auburn

 

[ideae]

Ni? Right, I'm calling the knights!

 

[snafupants]

Ni - pushing away all cultural artifacts restricting gnosis

Ne - stream of consciousness, in the moment spunk creativity

 

[viche]

It dawned on me while INTP's are analysts, INxJ's are synthesists.

This has been described in socionics some time ago, you might want to look into it. All of the Pi-dominant and auxiliary types are called dynamic in socionics. Dynamic types are said to excel at synthetic thinking. All of the Ji-dominant or auxiliary types are called static and static types excel at analytical thinking.

For those who don't know what Pi and Ji stand for, Pi refers to introverted perceiving functions, Ni and Si, and Ji stands for introverted judging functions, Ti and Fi.

You might find this article of interest in furthering your own thoughts on this subject:


Static–Dynamic Dichotomy

In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.

Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time with events. Statics cannot stand empty space—they immediately fill it with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty time—boredom, stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense, Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.

Now consider this dichotomy on the individual levels of communication.

Intellectual Level

Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking. (<-- this is what you have been discovering yourself. this cognitive phenomenon was explained in socionics literature decades ago. this is why i recommend studying socionics to those who are interested in undertanding types in greater detail, it has a lot of interesting information that MBTI doesn't touch upon.)

Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.

The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.

Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.

Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.

Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.

Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).


You can read further about static/dynamic types here. The above is only an exerpt: Forms of Thinking

Analysis is as foreign to an Ni primary as questioning what actually deserves analysis is to a Ti primary. Ti's will analyze but absent questioning their original choice once chosen. They just assume it is of interest ... by intuition? The latter is a top-down approach; the former a bottom up. Hence hierarchy.

Analysis is not foreign for INxJs, just of tertiary importance. For INFJs Ti serves as a supplementary tool for their dominant function. Once INFJ figures out a rough, vague schematic of something, this is enough for them. INTP's more rigorous analysis seems excessive to INFJs. This is because INFJ is an irrational type while INTP is a rational type.

In socionics this is treated by assigning dimensions to functions.
Dominant function is assigned 4 dimensions and thus has the overarching importance for the person. Secondary function gets 3 dimensions, teritary 2 and so on. In INFJs Ti is only 2-dimensional and is thus used as a crude supplementary tool that serves the primary goals of their dominant function Ni.

Types also have subtypes which are determined by how much focus someone gives to their dominant vs auxiliary function. Fe-INFJs are stronger at synthetic thinking but weaker at analytical thinking. Ni-INFJs are more interested in employing their Ti and usually perform better at analytical thinking.