Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

[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.

[Petter]

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).

[niffer]

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.

[Pallas]

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

[Bertrand]

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

[Petter]

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.

[niffer]

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.