Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azeroffs
Overall, I think you have a good grasp on the functions.
Good. Thank you. That is honestly what I was hoping to hear, although I really was prepared to go back and scrap everything if I absolutely had to.
Quote:
I think your Ji descriptions were a little vague and not entirely accurate, and I'm not sure what to think of your Ni description partly because I'm not entirely sure what you mean and because I still don't really have it fully grasped in my head. At its base, Ji is about the generally unchanging relationships between objects. Ti are the quantifiable/explicit relationships. Fi the implicit/unquantifiable relationships.
I can accept that. I don't think that's too different from how I think of Ti and Fi, although I understand that the wording might have been unclear.
Quote:
Although the common understanding of Ne as potential and possibilities isn't wrong, I think it's a step removed from what Ne really is at it's base. Ne, in the same way Se focuses on explicit/sensual characteristics. Ne focuses on implicit characteristics. I think this means that Ne focuses on unquantifiable traits or skills. Ne types can easily tell that someone has potential because they see these inherent abilities. This is why Ne types often want to expand themselves as people because they are essentially accumulating Ne.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by implicit characteristics. I get the idea of Se as external characteristics, but I don't quite know what implicit characteristics would be. I loved the bit about Ne types expanding themselves because they are accumulating Ne. That's an interesting idea.
Quote:
Admittedly Te is hard to understand. I think Te at it's base is action or motion. Te focus on how people are dong things. Te isn't really about facts or business logic(wth is business logic?). Te types will try to do things effectively and simply.
Hmmm... I love Te focuses on how people are doing things, although in my head I cut the word people and just made it Te focuses on how things are being done. That is actually very helpful (because I can relate it in my head to external dynamics of objects.)
Quote:
I don't think Te is facts or 'business logic.' Well business logic yes, "facts" no. That's a poor description. I think Te is simply how outside systems have a relationship with each other, so in that sense, Te-egos tend to just be business-savvy in a way I could never be, not based on raw intelligence or because they're more 'factual', but because of having a natural know-how of how outside, external systems communicate with one another.
I get that that's right, but I can't put it into words that make sense in my head. I'll keep working on Te.
Quote:
Se is objective as well but it's not based on systems, more pure objects. So it relates to personal power and overcoming obstacles in external environment. (People or otherwise) It's not systematized or categorical or business-shaped as Te, however.
Makes sense to me.
Quote:
I think you're getting too specific. I think that depends on where the Ni-block is in your psyche. Ni-ego is usually just very pure and strong and relates to things like vision, insight, being a good writer, having the right knack or notion or general idea about the totality of something, even if you fuck up a lot on the specifics/details. I would say that description makes sense for gamma Nis though, maybe but as a descriptor for pure Ni, it's too specific.
You're probably right. I was just trying to give a more detailed account of Ni since I feel like I get it better than the other ones (since it's my base function). I tried to account for the other things like vision and insight and basically the fact that Ni-is-magic based on the fact that Ni is very subjective and removed from "the real world" and my thought was that this would make it easier to feel subconscious things, internal immaterial/nonphysical motion (which is, yes, like energy or vibration or something), etc. But a better description of Ni would probably include the whole feeling the abstract element more clearly.
Quote:
I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh, I think over all you did a good job, I just think you might be over-specifying.
Nah, you're not being harsh at all. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't way off, so if I'm off I want people to tell me. Also thanks for the good job. :D
Quote:
Yeah, but umm I'd say 'whole systems' running smoothly, making sure the whole thing just doesn't collapse, and can get enough stuff done at once in the time allowed. IEIs just like, focus too deeply at one thing at a time (even when we're multi-tasking) to understand how systems interact like that. We're also too individualistic and personal. It all just looks like a bunch of useless white fuzz to me.
Yeah, that is what Te is like. Like that sea of paperwork actually has some sort of informational content to Te-egos. It just looks like stuff to me. Trying to perceive the immaterial aspects and motions and significances and meanings of things does get in the way of, I dunno, Te-ing, doesn't it?
Quote:
Whooo, good effort, that's a crapload of text I was getting kind of overwhelmed by all the info so it helped to go back over and just internalize your bolded points, and I think overall I understood a fair amount of your view of the nature of the functions and how they exist.
Thanks! I actually tried to post this on three separate occasions and couldn't get the words the way I wanted them, and this is my best attempt so far, so I just had to go ahead and post it. Thanks for taking the time to try to make sense of it all.
Quote:
Your description of Se, "strong attachment to the sense perception itself rather than anything the mind does to the object" really helped get a better image of it in my mind, cause it works...like the way it works with Ni, the seeming polarity between Ni and Se is what makes them work together optimally. Ni is seemingly cut off from reality in a way...like I get this picture of it just fermenting kind of chaotically...and adding static internalities like Ne would just make it combust or something...like adding the weight of objects that also have internal properties...it's like due to the nature of Ni, balancing the internal static nature of objects would be too much for it...because the lightness and apparent weightlessness of this function sequestered off in this mental realm is what gives Ni the fluidity it needs to be optimal...and the nature of Se is just really sharply clear and removed from that internal state..."rather than anything the mind does to the object". So it just basically protects it without imposing any insights that would weigh the Ni down.
Yay! I'm glad you liked the Se bit. That's the part I had to work the hardest on. I really like your idea of weight; it's a good way of saying what I've been thinking about subjectivity and objectivity and being tied down to earth without all the baggage those terms have.
Quote:
I liked Ne too, and couldn't really make Si fit in my brain no matter how hard I tried. I need to think about them more. Thanks for writing though this is pretty decent stuff.
Gracias for the Ne bit. Sorry the Si isn't working for you. It didn't really work in my head either and I just concluded it's kinda boring and sorta worked backwards from the other functions somewhat or something.
Quote:
Overall I think the descriptions were pretty good, and your descriptions of Se and Ne were especially good. Se double especially.
Gracias.
Quote:
However, your description of Fi is not really describing Fi at all -- it's still describing Fe. Anything to do with "states" is related to dynamic functions, not static functions like Fi. This is because a "state" is the current condition of a potentially changing continuum of conditions over time. Fi is more properly about like and dislike -- I like this person, I don't like that person, Jim likes Sally, etc. It's about the bond between people -- loyalty, etc. Fe is about emotional states -- I am happy, he is sad, etc. Empathy is an Fe thing. Fi doesn't care about emotional states, except insofar as they affect relationships. Fi cares about creating strong, healthy relationships between people, and avoiding or repelling bad relationships. However, unlike our F-valuing quadras, a "good relationship" is not defined as "a relationship that makes me happy", because that is Fe-valuing. A "good relationship" to an Fi-valuer is one which produces beneficial Te -- solid, practical benefits, not vague unreliable emotions (from their point of view).
Yeah... I know, you said that in another thread... I suppose that you're right; the other way of stating things does make the differences more explicit. I might be trying to see a connection between Fe and Fi that isn't really there. Also that description of Fi makes me like it even less than I already did (although I'm not disputing its accuracy or inaccuracy). The point of a relationship is definitely not to just produce a bunch of practical benefits. I can get those on my own. Also, how can you possibly know what's a "good relationship" and what's a "bad relationship"? I mean, there's some extreme cases where it's obvious, but relationships are extremely complicated matters and it's very difficult to label them "overall positive" and "overall negative", much less with the ethical connotations of "good" and "bad". Can I be an Fi-polr? (kidding). I do like your explanation of Fi though. It makes sense.
Quote:
Similarly, Ti is about the logical relationships between things. It's not so much about external states, but external connections: Thing A is connected to Thing B via Connection C. The "things" can be abstract, in the case of Alpha (Ti+Ne), or concrete, in the case of Beta (Ti+Se).
Again, you're probably right. I'll give some more thought to this. I think I want a certain kind of account/explanation, especially one that has to do with relationships between IMs, but I may be going about it the wrong way or something. We'll see.