:Ni: as the Function of Sequence

[CuriousSoul]

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

...

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

I like to come to the forums and sometimes make comments, but your responses suggest investing a lot more time than is really realistic. I prefer to put most of my typology-related ideas into privates notes for myself rather than share everything in the forum at length. To explain myself much more fully than I do would just not make any sense time-wise, but I still think I've made useful and thoughtful contributions to the forum discussion.

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there. But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types. Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

[Jonathan]

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

Let's not include Dio's typings as primary evidence, okay? He's an interesting person, raises interesting points, and can be very interesting to have a conversations with, but his typings (on his admission) are more intended to spark debate than to be a primary source of what mainstream Socionics says. I'd recommend Rick's and Dmitri's typings just mainly because of their knowledge of the Socionics community, so at least we get a clear sense of what "mainstream Socionics" may be like, and then once we understand that we can know what we're tearing to shreds when we do so.

But anyhow, I agree with you...all those parameters come into play. The fact that I never assume that either my understanding of Socionics or Socionics itself is accurate surely complicates things. Hence I'm left with "I'm this if I consider this set of definitions, but I'm that if I consider this other set of definitions." Labcoat has even included in his signature his type based on classical, Tcaudian, and I think even Smilexian Socionics.

BTW, so what led you to consider ESFj > INFj? It's kind of hard to tell on a forum...not much info to go on just from posts.

[tcaudilllg]

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

Let's not include Dio's typings as primary evidence, okay? He's an interesting person, raises interesting points, and can be very interesting to have a conversations with, but his typings (on his admission) are more intended to spark debate than to be a primary source of what mainstream Socionics says. I'd recommend Rick's and Dmitri's typings just mainly because of their knowledge of the Socionics community, so at least we get a clear sense of what "mainstream Socionics" may be like, and then once we understand that we can know what we're tearing to shreds when we do so.

But anyhow, I agree with you...all those parameters come into play. The fact that I never assume that either my understanding of Socionics or Socionics itself is accurate surely complicates things. Hence I'm left with "I'm this if I consider this set of definitions, but I'm that if I consider this other set of definitions." Labcoat has even included in his signature his type based on classical, Tcaudian, and I think even Smilexian Socionics.

BTW, so what led you to consider ESFj > INFj? It's kind of hard to tell on a forum...not much info to go on just from posts.

Please don't refer to dual-type theory as TCaudian. And please don't mention my name in any way as relevant to the mention of this theory. It's an objective truth, devoid of any personal attatchment to anybody.

I didn't make the rules, they are just there.

[Jonathan]

Please don't refer to dual-type theory as TCaudian. And please don't mention my name in any way as relevant to the mention of this theory. It's an objective truth, devoid of any personal attatchment to anybody.

I didn't make the rules, they are just there.

Okay, sorry, but you did come up with it, and the term "information exertion," right? Also, you're the one who knows what the rules are and how to type by that method, right? I was just giving you credit.

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right? I'm still waiting for why I'm ENTj-ENFp. Maybe you can set Expat straight on why he's misreading XoX's type, since he's assuming people have only one.

And by the way, I like your idea, and I think you're onto something. I just wish I understood it better.

[Phaedrus]

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right?

Really? Where? Have I missed that?

[Expat]

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

Then please give me your interpretation of the INTp's hidden agenda.

How do you see it, for yourself and in INTp's generally? What do you think it means?

A secondary point, more to make you think: if INTps and ENTjs are mirrors, it should be easier for me to understand this bit, shouldn't it (feel free to argue that one answer is that I can't be ENTj).

[Expat]

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

Wait a moment -- those are "people" with whom you have no one-to-one contact, you don't really see them as individuals. You don't have to be an INTp (or whichever type) to see people as "things" in that situation. I don't think that is what we're talking about here.

[crazymaisy]

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

Wait a moment -- those are "people" with whom you have no one-to-one contact, you don't really see them as individuals. You don't have to be an INTp (or whichever type) to see people as "things" in that situation. I don't think that is what we're talking about here.

Hey, hold on there, it's just ONE EXAMPLE ... but I can see it's moreso that I didn't explain it well enough ... and can't --I guess. Let's just look at it this way:

People doesn't equal "person" to me across the board --unless somehow some sort of "fully understanding human element that connects to my interior shows me that they are more than a thing" on a case-by-case standard, and it's quizical, perhaps it's one of those "symbolic" things that has so much attached to it in meaning and no way to explain it, you can't see the picture in my head that which does explain it, but words fail to paint that picture outwardly. Even that phrase I'm using "human element" doesn't convey what I mean.

Anyhow, I didn't claim that only INTp's look at people as things, just inferring my own INTp outlook into what I wrote in this thread before since it was brought up --> and it's NOT about "individuals" like you are saying. I didn't say that, you are saying that's what I mean, and it's not what I mean.

It's more Velvelteen Rabbit than anything, but that's not exactly it either. FWIW

[Phaedrus]

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

Then please give me your interpretation of the INTp's hidden agenda.

How do you see it, for yourself and in INTp's generally? What do you think it means?

Why do you think that it has anything to do with what we are talking about here? Why should seeing people as objects be related to the hidden agenda? What is the relevance here? You can love someone, or some thing, and still view everyone (including yourself) and everything as objects. You can be kind and thoughtful, and caring, and sympathetic even towards inanimate objects. It is not necessary to view them as persons in any meaningful metaphysical way that would imply that they are not objects.

[Expat]

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there.

Ok, fair enough. Then I had misunderstood you.

But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types.

Fair enough, again.

Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

Let me get into this a bit.

First, no-one - not even myself - behaves consistenly like one type every second of their lives. Personally, and agreeing with Smilingeyes's interpretation here, I feel most often as an EJ, and most of the time as an ENTj. On occasion I have "moments" of ESTj, ENFj and ESFj. When I am unsure of what to do, I "become" a sort of INTp. Under extreme stress, I may even "become" an ISFp as I suggested some time ago. So, that much is clear.

That is not the same thing, however, as not knowing which my "default mode" is, and which is what defines my relationships, for instance (I get along best with ISFjs because I behave mostly as an ENTj, not necessarily 100% of the time).

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

[Expat]

Why do you think that it has anything to do with what we are talking about here? Why should seeing people as objects be related to the hidden agenda? What is the relevance here? You can love someone, or some thing, and still view everyone (including yourself) and everything as objects. You can be kind and thoughtful, and caring, and sympathetic even towards inanimate objects. It is not necessary to view them as persons in any meaningful metaphysical way that would imply that they are not objects.

"Being kind and thoughtful and sympathetic" is not necessarily related to the hidden agenda, so that's not the point. Unless you think that it is indeed necessarily related to the hidden agenda, in which case it's an interesting piece of information.

However, what I was getting at should be perfectly clear to those who do understand the model (even if not agreeing with it - again, disagreeing with it and not understanding it are two different things).

Anyway, that is a dead-end discussion - for the moment. I have my own views on its possible implications, but it will go nowhere because it will be difficult to agree on what precisely we're talking about when we say phrases like "view people as objects".

@crazymaisy: ok.

[Phaedrus]

"Being kind and thoughtful and sympathetic" is not necessarily related to the hidden agenda, so that's not the point. Unless you think that it is indeed necessarily related to the hidden agenda, in which case it's an interesting piece of information.

I deleted the first version my post where I had mentioned that the existence of something that we should call "the hidden agenda" isn't accepted by all socionists, becuase I thought we both agreed on that. Maybe that was a mistake.

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

If you don't accept Ganin's understanding of the hidden agenda for INTps, then you should at least be aware of the fact that for example Stratiyevskaya also mentions that kind of behaviour in relation to in INTps.

So, cut the crap, will you. It should be obvious to any real INTp that you don't understand that type nearly as well as you think.

[FDG]

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

This actually is against you being an INTp. You're always an ass to everybody here. Never seen any kindness in your arrogant words.

[Jonathan]

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

This actually is against you being an INTp. You're always an ass to everybody here. Never seen any kindness in your arrogant words.

Ah, give him a break. Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

But the phrase "we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another" could actually apply to everyone, whatever the model says. Anyhow, if INTps show affection because of Fi, INFps and INTjs show affection because of Fe, so it doesn't really solve anything.

[Jonathan]

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

I will admit, it may be related to inadequate experience with certain kinds of people. In my own little creative world, it seems that I use all functions confidentally at times, but it may be different in social situations. I feel I get along great with both ESFj and ESFp (though that's from my perspective; I'm not sure what the other person thinks). With ESTj and ESTp, I can think about to some really good friendships with both, and also some strained relations with both. (...assuming I've typed those people correctly).

[Jonathan]

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right?

Really? Where? Have I missed that?

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10726

[Phaedrus]

Thank you, Jonathan.

[FDG]

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

I will admit, it may be related to inadequate experience with certain kinds of people. In my own little creative world, it seems that I use all functions confidentally at times, but it may be different in social situations. I feel I get along great with both ESFj and ESFp (though that's from my perspective; I'm not sure what the other person thinks). With ESTj and ESTp, I can think about to some really good friendships with both, and also some strained relations with both. (...assuming I've typed those people correctly).

It can be said the same to me, in the sense that, the categories of people I do not get along with are more readily visible if we take into consideration non-socionics issue (say, political leanings) rather than types. I think that this stems from how we're not talking about close psychological distance.

Ah, give him a break. Smile Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

He doesn't to me. I'm not saying it out of a personal bias against him, here - he genuinely seems to be arrogantly disrespectful to almost anybody. Even worse, he is not openly disrespectful, but rather his anger slips here and there from the wording he gives to his sentences.

[Jonathan]

Ah, give him a break. Smile Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

He doesn't to me. I'm not saying it out of a personal bias against him, here - he genuinely seems to be arrogantly disrespectful to almost anybody. Even worse, he is not openly disrespectful, but rather his anger slips here and there from the wording he gives to his sentences.

Well, that sounds like good and honest feedback. I think one of the things to remember is that the point of studying typology isn't just as a theoretical exercise, or just to understand ourselves better, but also to understand how we (and others) misfire, or come off to other people in ways we aren't aware of. Then, people can learn to correct those behaviors, and hopefully come off in ways that are more acceptable to others. I do think these things are type-related, even if they're not seen in every person of a particular type.

Although you may not agree, what you're describing does sound like Fe PoLR, which would especially make sense since you value Fe. In any case, whether it's an Fe or Fi weakness, the key is to bring these sorts of things out, help each other work on them, and also (when possible), to give each other extra space, recognizing better other people's weak areas so that they don't bother us as much.

If we can do that, then this Socionics stuff is worthwhile; otherwise, it's just a mere theoretical exercise (in my opinion).

[Expat]

I deleted the first version my post where I had mentioned that the existence of something that we should call "the hidden agenda" isn't accepted by all socionists, becuase I thought we both agreed on that. Maybe that was a mistake.

For clarification --

1) When I refer to the "hidden agenda", I mean the 6th function, which is also called the "activation function". In that context, it is perfectly consistent with model A.

2) The way I see it, it's not that as if the "existence" of the hidden agenda would be accepted or not. The 6th function is sort of "unique" in being a weaker quadra value (weaker than the ego function) where you don't expect to be helped in it by someone else (as with the dual-seeking function); it's something you value and wish were more confident in but you don't quite manage it. So I think there is something to Ganin's concept, except (1) I think he exaggerates its importance and visibility and (2) I think his definitions are often either too simplistic, or erroneous, or misleading, or all of the above.

3) I used the term "hidden agenda" also for your benefit, since I mistakenly thought that would help the discussion.

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

"show your affection" is at least as related to Fe as it is to Fi, if not more so.

So, cut the crap, will you. It should be obvious to any real INTp that you don't understand that type nearly as well as you think.

On the contrary, it is obvious to the real INTps that it's you who don't understand the type, and I think that a "XoX criterion" - who among the supposed INTps sees INTp as a likely type for XoX - could be a very good way for determining who understands INTps.

[Jonathan]

The 6th function is sort of "unique" in being a weaker quadra value (weaker than the ego function) where you don't expect to be helped in it by someone else (as with the dual-seeking function)...

That makes sense experientially.
But I thought both functions in the dual block were things one sometimes seeks help with, to some extent, though not to the same degree.
Where does it say that the HA isn't something one wants to be helped in, at least sometimes?
It would seem that if it's weak, and one values it, and one's dual is strong in it, then one might want help in that area sometimes....or if not, why not?

[Expat]

What I meant is that you don't expect to be helped as much as with the dual-seeking function.

[DirectorAbbie]

Sequence, you say? Maybe my lack of is why I don't like getting my work done in the order it's assigned.

[crazedrat]

no. Ni divides things up into fundamental parts, and the creative function arranges them in sequence. Ni can see a frame of time, but it has no ability to differentiate between moving forward or backwards through it; or following one path in comparison to another.

[strrrng]

no. Ni divides things up into fundamental parts, and the creative function arranges them in sequence. Ni can see a frame of time, but it has no ability to differentiate between moving forward or backwards through it; or following one path in comparison to another.

Exactly. It may dynamic, but it is an irrational function, so the information it processes, while spanning across contexts, will not have sequential order. Things are synthesized, creating a sort of continuous, gestalt picture of the central themes and patterns underpinning a given thing. I'm not sure what you mean by 'dividing things up into fundamental parts'; I've always attributed any sort of division to Ne. I do think Ni has a sort of cross-correlational nature to it, and that it winnows things to extract the main processes. But it isn't really differentiated. And yes, it is Te and Fe -- the functions that deal with causal sequences -- that give temporal order to the Ni patterns.