Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

  1. #1
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

    First of all, I don't think Keirsey's second ring and third ring are accurate.

    My view is that Keirsey was mostly right, and Jung (and Aushra) were wrong. For example, SLI and SEI do not focus on their internal worlds more than ILE and IEE. All of them focus on both the external world and the internal world. But SLI's and SEI's "worlds" are more about reality, and ILE's and IEE's "worlds" are more about ideas. However, extroverted/introverted behavior is not related to this. Extroverts are more interested in the meaning of/interaction with objects than the exact definition/description (and vice versa). Therefore, extroverts are more active and spontaneous.


    http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

    http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/keirs...erament-sorter

    "Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

    First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

    Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

    Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

    At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas."



    "The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive)

    The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."



    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-in-Socionics

    "Jung started describing psychological types with the directions of human psyche extraversion – introversion.

    Every phenomenon in the world can be considered either from the point of view of objects or from the point of view of relationships.

    So, we have divided all the information flow into two big parts:

    1. information about objects;
    2. information about relationships.

    Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
    Information aspects about relationships are called introverted.

    Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself".

    Differences in the personality types are determined by the mechanism (one of these two) which is more often, customarily, surely, successfully and effectively used by the person. Let us remind of the fact that we can speak about a harmoniously developed personality when a person uses his strong and weak features almost like the proportion of golden section: approximately 60:40. That is a harmoniously developed extravert in about 60% of cases uses the mechanism of extraversion: is interested in the objects of the outer world, people, affairs etc. And about 40% of his attention is drawn to his inner world: to himself, his own attitude to the objects (people, affairs). An introvert accordingly vice versa ."

  2. #2
    würd Wyrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,335
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SLI and SEI lead with an involved perceiving function, while IEE and ILE lead with an abstract perceiving function, and this would be "outer world" and "inner world" in probably the most typical sense. Aushra's idea of extraversion vs. introversion is the thing about objects and fields (and she notably actually considers abstractions to be part of the "outer world"), and Jung's is something entirely different. Technical terminology like that tends to be really variable depending on what you're working with. This is why we need to have clear language and generally just avoid technical terminology that isn't defined first like the plague.

  3. #3
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    SLI and SEI lead with an involved perceiving function, while IEE and ILE lead with an abstract perceiving function, and this would be "outer world" and "inner world" in probably the most typical sense.
    Okay, so you agree with Keirsey that N is about the inner world and S is about the outer world, right? I think neither intuitives nor introverts are more focused on the inner world.

    Aushra's idea of extraversion vs. introversion is the thing about objects and fields (and she notably actually considers abstractions to be part of the "outer world"), and Jung's is something entirely different.
    I disagree with you. Aushra's objects and fields correspond to Jung's objective extroverted functions (or extroverted attitude + function) and subjective introverted functions. What is the difference, according to you?

    "Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

    Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"
    Last edited by Petter; 04-22-2017 at 10:25 AM.

  4. #4
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    First of all, I don't think Keirsey's second ring and third ring are accurate.

    My view is that Keirsey was mostly right, and Jung (and Aushra) were wrong. For example, SLI and SEI do not focus on their internal worlds more than ILE and IEE. All of them focus on both the external world and the internal world. But SLI's and SEI's "worlds" are more about reality, and ILE's and IEE's "worlds" are more about ideas. However, extroverted/introverted behavior is not related to this. Extroverts are more interested in the meaning of/interaction with objects than the exact definition/description (and vice versa). Therefore, extroverts are more active and spontaneous.


    http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

    http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/keirs...erament-sorter

    "Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

    First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

    Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

    Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

    At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas."
    [/I]
    I can't tell what category this is supposed to be for Keirsey but 1) in socionics, Ne can be roughly said to be about what is possible in the external world, which includes plans for the future as well as speculative futurism. When it comes to "pure imagination", dreams, etc., things that don't have any obvious connection to the real world, it's more about Ni. A dichotomous approach is not going to see these differences.

    2) Since we're talking about type dichotomies it's worth remembering that ILEs and IEEs also have bold Te and Se, so they are concerned in a very real way about making actual results happen in the real world, not just coming up with ideas for it.

    And for Si leading types, they are concerned with how the immediate environment affects them and others. It's introverted because it's how things affect you subjectively. But then they also have bold Ni and Fi, so they will be focused on the true "inner world" to that extent.

    Other than that I do think this kind of discussion is too pedantic to give any new insight into the IM elements.

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  5. #5
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I can't tell what category this is supposed to be for Keirsey but 1) in socionics, Ne can be roughly said to be about what is possible in the external world, which includes plans for the future as well as speculative futurism. When it comes to "pure imagination", dreams, etc., things that don't have any obvious connection to the real world, it's more about Ni. A dichotomous approach is not going to see these differences.
    What exactly do we mean by the external world, though?

    I think that description is inaccurate. ILI and IEI are focused on plans for the future and "speculative futurism", not ILE and IEE.

    Reinin:

    Subjective intuition.
    The inner harmony. A state, a mood, and a sense of time. Personal evaluation of events, of people's actions and morals.

    Objective intuition.
    The order of events from the beginning to the end, i.e. the sets of events known beforehand, the schedule. Potential opportunities. Behavior program, the way of life, the rhythm of life. Scenario of any action, acting in accordance to predetermined scenario.

    2) Since we're talking about type dichotomies it's worth remembering that ILEs and IEEs also have bold Te and Se, so they are concerned in a very real way about making actual results happen in the real world, not just coming up with ideas for it.
    I am skeptical of "bold" (and "valued") functions, and I don't see how this is relevant to extraversion/introversion or external/internal worlds.

    And for Si leading types, they are concerned with how the immediate environment affects them and others.
    I agree.

    It's introverted because it's how things affect you subjectively. But then they also have bold Ni and Fi, so they will be focused on the true "inner world" to that extent.
    What do you mean by "affect you subjectively"? Aren't all our experiences subjective?

  6. #6
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    What exactly do we mean by the external world, though?

    I think that description is inaccurate. ILI and IEI are focused on plans for the future and "speculative futurism", not ILE and IEE.
    Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.

    Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.

    Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.

    What do you mean by "affect you subjectively"?
    Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.

    Aren't all our experiences subjective?
    That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:

    That's a huge mountain (Se)
    These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)

    That being said, there are examples of Si information that are less subjective (more typically Si with Te).

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  7. #7
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.
    Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.
    Isaac: "We continue our look at hypothetical alien civilizations". Yes, this is typical Ni thinking, so it is in a sense more detached from reality. Ni visualizes a future scenario. But Ne is more detached from reality in another sense, since its ideas/concepts are radical and new.

    My point is that Ni and Ne are not the subjective and objective versions of the same type of thinking. They are completely different.

    Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.
    I agree with you.

    Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.
    Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?

    That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:
    Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?

    That's a huge mountain (Se)

    These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)
    Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?

  8. #8
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?
    Yes, in the sense that it is an experience flowing into your physical body.

    Augusta's definitions of static/dynamic and object/field aren't totally satisfactory but I do believe there is some truth to them.

    Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?
    I'm not sure what your point is.

    Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?
    Why doesn't it work? The information that a football is flying through the air is objective information about the physical world, hence Se. The information that the football hurt your head by hitting it is part of your subjective experience of the physical world, hence Si. I think you're reading too much into it. Se and Si are both subjective faculties but that doesn't mean that their information is equally subjective.

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  9. #9
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yes, in the sense that it is an experience flowing into your physical body.
    Augusta's definitions of static/dynamic and object/field aren't totally satisfactory but I do believe there is some truth to them.
    "...there is some truth to them".

    That is far from satisfactory. We get completely distorted descriptions of the types because of that.

    I'm not sure what your point is.
    You italicized 'information'. What did you mean?

    Why doesn't it work? The information that a football is flying through the air is objective information about the physical world, hence Se. The information that the football hurt your head by hitting it is part of your subjective experience of the physical world, hence Si. I think you're reading too much into it. Se and Si are both subjective faculties but that doesn't mean that their information is equally subjective.
    Se corresponds to external statics of objects in mainstream Socionics (SSS definitions are different as you probably know). A football flying through the air is about "objective" information, yes. So far so good. But it is also about dynamic information. That is why it doesn't work.

    SRSI thinks action/movement is processed by Te, which is true. But we need a perceiving function that processes action/movement as well.

    ---------

    Furthermore, are these two definitions really equal? For example, there are two bananas in front of you, and you compare their sizes and shapes. Is that comparison about objective or subjective information?

    "Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

    Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"

    "
    Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
    Information aspects about relationships are called introverted."
    Last edited by Petter; 04-30-2017 at 05:26 AM.

  10. #10
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,157
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Petter I think we are pretty much on the same page. The only point I would make is that nobody starts with Augusta's aspect definitions and then derives what the types should be from that, exactly because of the issues you mention. In practice people associate a collection of themes with each element like the ones on my semantics page -- and if they are ambitious, then try to abstract out the essence of each element to form original definitions. These themes are generally agreed upon, but the abstract definitions are not (other than Augusta's early attempt). This is what my research aims to address.

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  11. #11
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    @Petter I think we are pretty much on the same page. The only point I would make is that nobody starts with Augusta's aspect definitions and then derives what the types should be from that, exactly because of the issues you mention. In practice people associate a collection of themes with each element like the ones on my semantics page -- and if they are ambitious, then try to abstract out the essence of each element to form original definitions. These themes are generally agreed upon, but the abstract definitions are not (other than Augusta's early attempt). This is what my research aims to address.
    The problem is that we don't agree on these themes. "That's a huge mountain" is Se in your view. I think it is Si instead. So we are not talking about the same types.

    I am in general skeptical of SSS, but I think they got S (Si) right.

    -----

    +S — beauty and prettiness (spatial relations), harmony of lines, colours, forms; comfort, convenience, pleasant sensations; sensory delights, pleasure and tactile sensibility; vision of details, aspiration to concretize a scope.

    −S — discomfort and comfort, aesthetics, beauty and ugliness, harmony and disharmony, contrast in sensations; vision of an overall picture and concrete details.

    +F — defense, safeguard, shield, rebuff, battle for interests, acquisition, benefit, saving, thrift, accumulation of resources, profit... Depending on context, the concept «survival» may belong to +F-element (conservation of life) and -F-element (to survive due to the destruction of other). The same applies to the concepts of strength, will, living space)

    −F — seizure, attack, assault, aggression, pressure, influence, authority, power, control, volitional pressure, loss, weakness, and all +F manifestations.



  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hilariously, you @Petter are incredibly involved in your own subjective reality and ideas with the premise of this thread of yours. You clearly have some kind of agenda where you're trying to assert that your own type is not as subjective and inward-oriented as is defined or something like that, and you're not really offering the best practical example using yourself, more like proving yourself wrong actually...

  13. #13
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Hilariously, you @Petter are incredibly involved in your own subjective reality and ideas with the premise of this thread of yours. You clearly have some kind of agenda where you're trying to assert that your own type is not as subjective and inward-oriented as is defined or something like that, and you're not really offering the best practical example using yourself, more like proving yourself wrong actually...
    Lol... I can assure you, that is not my agenda. I am only trying to get it right, i.e. finding adequate definitions of the functions/IM elements and a good model of the types.

    Ni is not more subjective and inward-oriented than other functions in my view (Se may be an exception... I am not sure yet). But it is focused on seeing new patterns which explain some aspects of reality. Other people don't see this pattern, so they may find the Ni-dominant type esoteric or full of himself.
    Last edited by Petter; 05-18-2017 at 07:16 AM.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Ni is not more subjective and inward-oriented than other functions in my view (Se may be an exception... I am not sure yet). But it is focused on seeing new patterns which explain some aspects of reality. Other people don't see this pattern, so they may find the Ni-dominant type esoteric or full of himself.
    Huh. I agree with this actually. That's really weird.

    Well. About it not being that subjective anyway, on some level, with you saying it's no more subjective than other IEs except Se. In the non-typological-pseudoscience-specific layman's understanding of "subjective" aka most of the world's.

    As for "inward", I think "inward derived" rather than "inward oriented" is an idea I'd accept. Experiencing Ni is still subjective and derived from an internally-created interpretation of perception. An analogy would be like Ni is the neurons forming connections to Se's nerve/sensoric experience. It's the dual IE to Se and that's how the dual IEs work in connection in this case. Actually it's more or less really what it is too or is at least a large part of it, it's hardly even an analogy. I'm not a cognitive scientist but based on what I do know about the subject and the descriptions of these IEs if we were to take them seriously, there's really nothing else that it could be. Like it doesn't work by magic.
    Last edited by niffer; 05-18-2017 at 09:13 AM.

  15. #15
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Huh. I agree with this actually. That's really weird.
    Well. About it not being that subjective anyway, on some level, with you saying it's no more subjective than other IEs except Se. In the non-typological-pseudoscience-specific layman's understanding of "subjective" aka most of the world's.
    As for "inward", I think "inward derived" rather than "inward oriented" is an idea I'd accept. Experiencing Ni is still subjective and derived from an internally-created interpretation of perception. An analogy would be like Ni is the neurons forming connections to Se's nerve/sensoric experience. It's the dual IE to Se and that's how the dual IEs work in connection in this case. Actually it's more or less really what it is too or is at least a large part of it, it's hardly even an analogy. I'm not a cognitive scientist but based on what I do know about the subject and the descriptions of these IEs if we were to take them seriously, there's really nothing else that it could be. Like it doesn't work by magic.
    Yes, it depends on how we define 'subjective'. All functions/cognitive processes are subjective since they derive from people (i.e. subjects). But Jung (and Aushra) used another distinction between subjective and objective. Extroverted functions correspond to the "collective standpoint", hence they are objective. I think he was wrong about this, though.

    I agree with you. "Inward derived" is better than "inward oriented", because Ni is ultimately about real objects (in the outer world). But is Ne, for example, outwardly derived? Is an ILI more in his/her inner world than an ILE? I don't think so. The difference is that ILE switches from the inner world to the outer world more often than ILI, since he/she is an extrovert (i.e. more action).

    Btw, I (and SSS) think our sensory experiences correspond to Si instead.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Btw, I (and SSS) think our sensory experiences correspond to Si instead.
    The subjective experience of it is more associated with Si ... and Se is normally more associated with force or output. But I don't think it's that perfectly clear cut since we use all 8 IEs. I'm curious as well as to what you would think Se is in comparison, since you said that Se may be the only exception to subjectivity.

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    The subjective experience of it is more associated with Si ... and Se is normally more associated with force or output. But I don't think it's that perfectly clear cut since we use all 8 IEs. I'm curious as well as to what you would think Se is in comparison, since you said that Se may be the only exception to subjectivity.
    Se is about any sensing that is directly related to (the planning of) physical behavior, in my view. So "force" is just one aspect of Se.

    I think Jung's (and Aushra's) objective extroverted functions correspond fairly well to low-dimensional functions (norm etc).

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    I think Jung's (and Aushra's) objective extroverted functions correspond fairly well to low-dimensional functions (norm etc).
    Idk what your point in saying this was, unless it was just random.

    You have to remember that all sensors for e.g. will have both high-dimensional Se and Si and all intuitives low-dimensional Se and Si. The same principle applies for intuitive, ethical, and logical IEs too. So although we have definitions to guide us, in practice it should be difficult to differentiate the two IEs of the same domain but opposite vertness a lot of the time, since there's going to be a lot of the same/similar type of information coming from a similar level of expertise from the both of them and interplay.

  19. #19
    würd Wyrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,335
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Idk what your point in saying this was, unless it was just random.

    You have to remember that all sensors for e.g. will have both high-dimensional Se and Si and all intuitives low-dimensional Se and Si. The same principle applies for intuitive, ethical, and logical IEs too. So although we have definitions to guide us, in practice it should be difficult to differentiate the two IEs of the same domain but opposite vertness a lot of the time, since there's going to be a lot of the same/similar type of information coming from a similar level of expertise from the both of them and interplay.
    saves this next time someone praises Ni or Se while simultaneously downgrading Ne or Si

  20. #20
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Southern California
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    saves this next time someone praises Ni or Se while simultaneously downgrading Ne or Si
    I dunno, I think people overblow the contribution of their unvalued functions, but I also think its why typing by values is actually much clearer to me than function sometimes. the difference between IEI and EII for example really stands out in flavor if not raw ability. EII comes off as a lot "smarter" to me as a Te valuer even though technically they should be equal in some bizarre sense. I feel like people use that logic to blur the lines and perhaps mistype themselves for want of having a certain set of abilities and values versus what they truly manifest

    I do think, for example, Ni v Ne valuing is a big difference. and its more of a value judgement to praise it or whatever, but I think its kind of illicit to use structural knowledge to say the praise is invalid, when the structural differences are greater (and simultaneously less) than what is made out to be here, and that we ought to disagree on value lines if that's what we're going to do rather than try to quell the "argument" along the lines presented here by niffer

    in other words, I think they're trying to evaluate the "problem of downgrading x or y in light of y or x" with the wrong method, at least when it comes to "praise" or whatnot, in terms of pure thinking structure she's not wrong per se, but it lacks nuance, its the wrong tool for the job, too much is lost in that approach (hence subtle mistypes or confusions)

    if we're gonna argue praise or values lets argue them accordingly I guess is what I'm saying. it doesn't all need to be leveled out, which is what I see a lot of attempts at. its as if people reel from ethical discussion as if it had no value or is inherently dangerous (i perceive this happening a lot), but I feel such discussion reveals a shitload and almost get the sense people are hiding from it perhaps for that reason

    its the same reason I really love strat, she tears the mask off so much

    I feel like Fi here is much rarer than people think, and its not because there's a lack of 2d+ Fi capacity

    because what I'm really talking about here is Fi, that's where all this is coming from, its where strat is coming from, its where my criticisms of niffer come from, etc just because its laid out in a relatively logical form people can't wrap their mind around it, can't see Fi anywhere, its always Ti or Te or whatever, thus they also don't know when its absent. so they assume its everywhere or somewhere at least, and there's almost none here and so you get ILEs thinking theyre LIE etc because we've totally erased Fi from our set of tools to evaluate etc

    people get outright hostile when it does manifest, which I understand, but its like just watch it happen, the reaction it elicits is exactly as strong as you'd think when you realize there's been a (somewhat successful) tendency to eradicate it

    Fe is chameleon in a really pernicious sense because it likes to obfuscate things in exactly this way and set itself up as the only "legitimate" ethical discourse, and then when things are sufficiently blurry you do think Fe valuers with whatever capacity for Fi is all that Fi amounts to. I feel like the forums in some sense have gone through this, like we're living in some kind of crazy post apocalypse
    Last edited by Bertrand; Yesterday at 12:53 AM.

  21. #21
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Idk what your point in saying this was, unless it was just random.
    Jung, Te: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

    I think Jung was completely wrong about this. In what sense does LIE organize objects from a collective standpoint? I just don't see it. It corresponds more accurately with 2D functions.

    SSS, norms:

    "Now you are able to explain to someone else what the green color is - because there are the color charts. Now you can be sure that you are holding your fork and knife up to the etiquette. Now you know that you won't to shock people, by putting on white socks together with dark trousers. Now you are firmly convinced that 2 +2 = 4, and thank God, everyone has been taught that in school. You can now refer to a dictionary or a textbook. All in all, we have finally found something definite in this ever-changing and multifaceted world."

    You have to remember that all sensors for e.g. will have both high-dimensional Se and Si and all intuitives low-dimensional Se and Si. The same principle applies for intuitive, ethical, and logical IEs too. So although we have definitions to guide us, in practice it should be difficult to differentiate the two IEs of the same domain but opposite vertness a lot of the time, since there's going to be a lot of the same/similar type of information coming from a similar level of expertise from the both of them and interplay.
    Yes, that is one reason why it is difficult to distinguish between Se and Si etc. But if we want an accurate model of the types, then we must define the functions. "That's a huge mountain" (see discussion above) cannot be Se and Si.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Jung, Te: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

    I think Jung was completely wrong about this. In what sense does LIE organize objects from a collective standpoint? I just don't see it. It corresponds more accurately with 2D functions.

    SSS, norms:

    "Now you are able to explain to someone else what the green color is - because there are the color charts. Now you can be sure that you are holding your fork and knife up to the etiquette. Now you know that you won't to shock people, by putting on white socks together with dark trousers. Now you are firmly convinced that 2 +2 = 4, and thank God, everyone has been taught that in school. You can now refer to a dictionary or a textbook. All in all, we have finally found something definite in this ever-changing and multifaceted world."
    Yes, I completely agree, at least on this example with Te in particular. Have yet to think about this for the rest of the IEs/cog.functions however.


    Yes, that is one reason why it is difficult to distinguish between Se and Si etc. But if we want an accurate model of the types, then we must define the functions.
    I agree.

    "That's a huge mountain" (see discussion above) cannot be Se and Si.
    I disagree. It *must* be both, at least to some minor degree, and especially in this case of them being from the same domain (sensing). You cannot technically have an IE as completely standalone as it is expressed with the cognition of a person, as all 8 IEs are necessary for IM/type and can and are being accessed, correct? You can have different ideas generally associated with and specific to each IE as you theoretically define them but when it comes to isolating which single IE is being used in practice from an activity being carried out it's negligible on whether that can be done; it must be more casual and blurry than that. In the bigger picture there may be one IE that's being used more compared to the other IEs (e.g. mostly Ne is being used with analogy or associated with making and understanding analogies, or mostly logical functions are used when doing mathematical calculations), but technically not only one in many cases with many activities, especially not when looking at the even bigger picture. Your brain is actively using many different parts of it, both introverted and extroverted cognition, all the time. It is not simple.

    I do however, agree with you that there is merit in trying to define the IEs more in the sense of trying define which IEs are involved in which specific aspects of carrying out certain activities, and how. E.g. even saying that Ne is "analogy" is only true in a broad sense too, since without some degree of Ni usage the analogy would probably be off-base.
    Last edited by niffer; Yesterday at 11:52 PM.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,113
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I do think, for example, Ni v Ne valuing is a big difference. and its more of a value judgement to praise it or whatever, but I think its kind of illicit to use structural knowledge to say the praise is invalid, when the structural differences are greater (and simultaneously less) than what is made out to be here, and that we ought to disagree on value lines if that's what we're going to do rather than try to quell the "argument" along the lines presented here by niffer
    Let me just say that my opinion is not related to Wyrd's (or yours), i.e. I don't support Wyrd's or necessarily have any particular opinion on what you or Wyrd said. Just to make sure, since you mentioned me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •