Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

[Exodus]

@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.

[Petter]

@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.

[niffer]

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...

[Petter]

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.

[niffer]

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.

[Petter]

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.

[niffer]

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.