Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

[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.

[Petter]

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.

Yes, most activities involve more than one IM element/function. But I still think it is possible to define them. So some aspects of 'analogy' are about Ne, and other aspects are not.

I don't see how "That's a huge mountain" can be related to Se, if we are using my (or SSS's) definitions of Se and Si.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...r-IM-elements)

[niffer]

I don't see how "That's a huge mountain" can be related to Se, if we are using my (or SSS's) definitions of Se and Si.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...r-IM-elements)

Why not? Especially considering you said this:

"An "extroverted" function defines what an object means."

O.o

...

[Petter]

Why not? Especially considering you said this:

"An "extroverted" function defines what an object means."

O.o

...

I meant 'what an object means to you'. So it must affect a person in some way.

My definition of Se is strongly linked to premotor cortex.

[niffer]

I meant 'what an object means to you'.

Why? These are supposed to be extroverted functions right? "What an object means to you" -- that sounds subjective.

[Petter]

Why? These are supposed to be extroverted functions right? "What an object means to you" -- that sounds subjective.

But I think Jung's (and Aushra's) objective extroverted functions and subjective introverted functions are inaccurate.

All functions are in a sense subjective, as I already have mentioned. For example, if you lift weights you will get stronger. You interact with the weights (Te and Se), and you are affected personally/subjectively.