Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
lol; you just figured that out.That's Ne+Ti and respectively Se+Ti. It's simply Ti applied to different things by different types.
Part of the theories Hitta propones also claims Delta values Ti-, Alpha values Ni-, etc. It considers functions opposite in i/e and opposite in +/- "two sides of the same coin" or something like that.
My further take on it is that it puts INTj next to ESTj and ENFj, much in the same way a lot of people put INTj in a sequence between ISTj and INFj when discussing things like (quasi) type change. ISTj and INTj on one hand, and INTj and ESTj on the other, are equally far apart this way.
In other words, if Hitta's (or whomever he parrots) theories are right, and you want to create a "type change" cycle to represent temporary shifts in behavior, you might as well put
INTj --(shared Te+/Ti-)-> ESTj --(shared Se+/Si-)-> ISFj --(shared Fe+/Fi-)-> ENFj --(shared Ne+/Ni-)-> INTj
as
INTj --(shared Ti)-> ISTj --(shared Se)-> ISFj --(shared Fi)-> INFj --(shared Ne)-> INTj
Interestingly enough the former goes backwards on the quadra cycle relative to the latter.
Another way to simulate Hitta's claims without accepting his presentation is to attribute behaviors of progressivism to the Ti/Fe axis and conservatism/responsibility to the Te/Fi axis. You roughly end up attributing the same traits to the same types that way (at least where his idea of Ne+ vs. Ne- values are concerned).
I'm writing this in a bit of a tired mental state so I should probably clarify my last post a bit...
What I meant to say is that Ne+/Ni- values in Hitta's model coincide with Ti/Fe values in the conventional model.
Likewise, Ti+/Te- values coincide with conventional Se/Ni values...
etc.
You can attribute each of his trait descriptions to a correlating conventional value group to get the same set of practical claims.
The only difference would be that the traits would be attributed to values relating to the opposite in Rational/Irrational compared to the conventional model. Ne+/Ni- values are the same as Ti/Fe values except in that they supposedly describe something "irrational" rather than "rational".
Hitta you're parroting what DarkAngelFireWolf69 says. There is a clear dividing line running down the characteristics you're mentioning in each of those functions.
Removed at User Request
My god... he CAN be taught!Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Forum IQ level... rising!
Removed at User Request
Another thing about those shared function things...
Taciturn/Narrator is always equal between two types that share a "opposite side of coin" function. For example, Te+ and Ti- are both manifest in Taciturn types, whereas Te-/Ti+ are manifest in Narrator types.
A good way to name the functions may be:
Te+/Ti- = Tt (Taciturn Logic)
Te-/Ti+ = Tn (Narrator Logic)
Si-/Se+ = St (Taciturn Sensing)
Si+/Se- = Sn (Narrator Sensing)
Fe+/Fi- = Ft (Taciturn Ethics)
Fe-/Fi+ = Fn (Narrator Ethics)
Ni-/Ne+ = Nt (Taciturn Intuition)
Ni+/Ne- = Nn (Narrator Intuition)
One could also use a set of alternative symbols for left and right in the INTj -> ESTj -> ISFj -> ENFj -> INTj sequence. Cup (v) and hat (^) are my respective suggestions.
In the sequence INTj -> ESTj -> ISFj -> ENFj -> INTj, Taciturn/Narrator occupies the spot that Static/Dynamic would be in in the sequence INTj -> ISTj -> ISFj -> INFj -> INTj.
So, if anything in Hitta's model has merit, Taciturn/Narrator might have to be viewed as something on the same level as Static/Dynamic. Interestingly, this allows me to reject Object/Field (which I do) while still believing in Taciturn/Narrator.
Reply With Quote
