Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Is "possibilities" a good characterization of :Ne:? Perhaps "conceptualization" would be better? Or "conceptual possibilities"? I mean I tend to be good at seeing concrete possibilities related to a situation or possible courses of action one can take. Do I have :Ne: because of this?
Then again I'm not sure how good I am at seeing all the possible ways of conceptualizing or abstracting a situation or phenomena. I think I often come up as one (to me) most relevant way to abstract/conceptualize a phenomenon but I'm not very interested/capable of playing around with different levels of abstract concepts or different conceptual viewpoints.
It is hard to evaluate my capabilities objectively but anyways. What do you think? Does :Ne: PoLR really mean you are stuck with one viewpoint or course of action. Or is it more related to lack of capability to freely abstract and conceptualize and mold abstract concepts to different shapes and forms?
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Does :Ne: PoLR really mean you are stuck with one viewpoint or course of action.
Just one big time so everyone can see it;
NO
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Does :Ne: PoLR really mean you are stuck with one viewpoint or course of action.
Just one big time so everyone can see it;
NO
IME, :Ne: PoLR is double-faced; faces corrisponding to negative and positive sides.
+)Certainity in the correctness of the world-view promoted by the base function. ISxjs will fight to implement and see the real-world results of what has their program function tells them without wavering in doubt and/or diverting their path without a specific reason until the goal has been reached. This in normal circumstances.
-)Blindness to eventual inefficiencies in the path of development. Stubborness over lost causes. Intolerancy of what promotes doubt in themselves. If doubt appears, possibility of it becoming gigantic and, ultimately, overwhelming.
P.S. + and - are not meant to signify manifestation of + and - versions of functions.
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Or is it more related to lack of capability to freely abstract and conceptualize and mold abstract concepts to different shapes and forms?
I would say, only if the concepts are of an :Ne: nature, that is, an inquiry into the essence of them and how they are connected with the whole class of phenomena. I've seen :Ne: - polr types be really succesful in :Ni:-related topics, such as development of new theories and methods on time-series based market analysis.
Real-life example of Ne polr: ISFj math professor. Extremely fast-minded and smart. She clearly stated the requirments for the course, precisely indicating which theorems were passible of being asked. Nonetheless, one student proved the fundamental theorem of calculs in a different way than the one she had explained. Upon seeing it she immediatly claimed error, without thinking about the possibility of another version of the proof. When presented with the book from which the proof had been taken, she recognized her error, though after some battling.
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
I would say, only if the concepts are of an :Ne: nature, that is, an inquiry into the essence of them and how they are connected with the whole class of phenomena.
But isn't :Ti: also said to focus on the "essence" of things and "(causal) connections" between things. How is this different from the "inquiry into the essence" and "connections" of :Ne: point of view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Nonetheless, one student proved the fundamental theorem of calculs in a different way than the one she had explained. Upon seeing it she immediatly claimed error, without thinking about the possibility of another version of the proof. When presented with the book from which the proof had been taken, she recognized her error, though after some battling.
Would you think ISTj is somewhat different to ISFj in this sense? As leading :Ti: is usually exploratory in nature. For example I dislike studying already made prooves or solutions to problems. I approach these things in a more exploratory attitude. Trying to invent my own perfect method or prooving something in my own way. And in the end I tend to trust my own method more than any predesigned method (perhaps this is a sign of :Ne: PoLR, reluctance to believe what others proove over what I proove myself).
I can be inflexible if someone claims they have a method which disprooves something I have proven with my own method. My initial and natural reaction is: "their method doesn't work" and I'm quite reluctant in even trying to understand their method if I'm 100% sure my method works (another sign of :Ne: PoLR? Curiosity towards things that are personally "100% known" to be untrue/faulty is rather limited). I really have to force myself to concentrate on an approach which produces conflicting outcome compared with my own approach. I have learned to do it but it still sucks.
But if someone's method supports my conclusions then I don't mind them using a different method at all. I usually encourage people to use creative methods to solve problems. I would be proud of a student who could proove a theorem using their own method. Do I sound at all ISTj? Perhaps here is where ISFj and ISTj differ? ISFjs are good at learning approaches other people have constructed and proven to work and adopt them as "the best way to do things". ISTjs instead want to create their own approach and method and are very critical to approaches which seem to produce conflicting outcomes to their own approach. Or is my behavior in this sense closer to INTj than ISTj?
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Is "possibilities" a good characterization of :Ne:? Perhaps "conceptualization" would be better? Or "conceptual possibilities"? I mean I tend to be good at seeing concrete possibilities related to a situation or possible courses of action one can take. Do I have :Ne: because of this?
:Ne: is not about conceptualizing possibilities, but about "seeing" them, at least, that is how I experience it, it is a visual thing. Of course it can be argued that this is exactly what "conceptualization" is all about, a matter of the definition of concepts. Now I'm not big time into philosphy, but Ayn Rand ordered conceptualization as a mental integration of perceptions:
sensation -> perception (integrated sensations) -> concept (integrated perceptions).
Rand considered the integration of sensations into perception an automatic function, whereas conceptualization requires conscious effort (Source: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
I think :Ne: is about perceptions, the concept follows as a function of :Fi: , sometimes in the negative form of a rationalization.
BTW: You finally found out you're ISTj? That explains a hell of a lot!! I apologize for misunderstanding you :wink:
Re: Real face of Extroverted Intuition
Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
BTW: You finally found out you're ISTj? That explains a hell of a lot!! I apologize for misunderstanding you :wink:
Don't be so fast! I already lost it :( I have found almost 16 types so far and lost each :( But we shall see how this will end up. Perhaps I will go back to being ISTj if I can explain away a couple of serious contradictions people have pointed out to me today.