If Ne is ideas in terms of being creative, couldn't the argument be made that Ne creatives are more willingly creative than Ne leads?
I'm not saying this is right just asking the question.
If Ne is a creative function, wouldn't Ne creatives be the most creative types?
If Ne is ideas in terms of being creative, couldn't the argument be made that Ne creatives are more willingly creative than Ne leads?
I'm not saying this is right just asking the question.
I'm not sure "the creative function" is creative in the colloquial sense. I think the name stems from its ability to be employed sort of at will as opposed to a leading function that's always turned on. That means Ne creative is kind of used at the mercy of some dogmatic Ti or Fi lead-person.
CoolOriginally Posted by Cataclysm
I always heard that the creative function was, somehow, a person's way of connecting with others. Cool reply by you and def interesting for sure
I agree with this, I use second slot Ne to pretty much do this. But I think C in DNCH probably makes someone more inclined to be creative? I got creative Ne plus C and that seems to make sense so far. But I think Ne lead with C would be a really creative person more than a 3D Ne person. I personally think people have a sense of pride in their creative, so I like to think I'm a really creative person, that's until I meet highly creative people, but most ppl I know would describe me as creative. Plus I think irrationals are more creative than rational types, there's something about them that gives them the ability to just take whatever and make something out of it that has appeal.
It's interesting that an ILE, according to theory, might use Ti, an introverted function, to draw attention to their lead Ne, an extroverted function. Perhaps because the lead is inert it is better to communicate using the creative since it is adaptive. Again, this is according to theory
Creative Ne is productive instead of being hypothetical. It is like they tend to generate solutions under the same discipline.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Are you saying that an ILEs Ne function operates on hypotheticals?
Creative functions are constrained by the lead. The lead is the hand, the creative is the tool.
Congrats on successfully offending the wrist.
I feel like my analogy may have gone over your head
I was making a joke, Dogbert
It was an extremely offensive joke
Dogbert is probably LIE. The LII is Dilbert.
And while I'm on this topic, the pointy-haired boss is probably SEE, Tina seems EII, Alice might be LSI, Carol = ESE, the evil CEO is LIE, and Wally......which type is Wally? Maybe an ILE who has given up? He's extremely creative when it comes to not working.
And Ted...... Maybe an LSE? He seems Delta somehow, never foreseeing when he's going to be fired.
Mordac, the Preventer of Information Services, is clearly ILI.
Short answer? No.
The long answer is for someone else to type.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Thanks.
.....
......
.... But you still owe an apology to seething wrist joints around the world
Dogbert.... the template/inspiration for Brian the Dog?
Jesus, where does it stop, then I need to apologies to arms, elbows, shoulders, spines, hips, knees, toes, gravity? Just take your PC garbage out back and shoot it
Damn. That wasn't me banging your mom last night, dude. Would have love to bang her but I was too drunk even for that. The fact that a wrist joke would drive you to be that butt hurt is pretty awesome
Shooting any piece of garbage, even if it were a square of toilet paper, would be better than listening to you cry about how offensive wrist jokes are to you.
Cool replies. My original question wasn't me trying to validate the theory but to hear interesting replies. Awesome
Ok I can't tell if you're playing along or actually think I'm mad because that hurt
I don't know whether Dogbert was the inspiration for Brian or not. I suspect that Brian is just the purest expression of Seth MacFarlane. He is MacFarlane without the filters. Or, possibly, I'm projecting.
MacFarlane seems to me to act like an LIE, but he also looks like his Fe is on all the time, so maybe he's EIE?
Well, Brian is actually the straight man to the goofy sidekick, whether that goof is Peter or Stewie. It's in buddy-buddy comedy films where there's usually a straight man & a goof ball that drive the humor.
IMO, Brian is an aspect of Seth MacFarlane's real personality and views. If Seth has a controversial opinion, he will generally express that view through Brian's character. You could be correct in your theory
Dogbert was an intelligent, "anthromorphic" white dog who fit in scholastic, social circles. If people could be entertained by Dogbert, why not create a version of that using Seth's vision
Cornfed from an the cartoon "Duckman" may have also inspired Brian's character as well.
Yes, much less inclined to take part in tedious patent process.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You're getting worked by the internet & you're so convinced that you can psychoanalyze that you're actually working yourself
what
No, it couldn't be.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
The way I see creative functions, the word auxiliary Jung actually used, or at least it's what it was translated to, works better.
He talks about how too much base function leads people into a neurotic state, so does too little but it's not the point here.
This auxiliary function is supposed to ease the neurotic outcome by helping to balance things out.
So, if you think of creativity as Ne, it really depends how "constructive" this creativity ends up being. In Ne bases, the Ne could lead easily to suboprimal results if it's used all alone too much.
The Ne creative would be more positive since it would indicate a form of growth from the individual.
The base Ne can tho develop in the second function too, so what would be more creative between Ne through Ij or Ij through Ne probably depends on personal opinion and circumstances at this point.
Of course, similar can be said of all functions.
I like choosing more than generating ideas. While I can quickly jot down a few options when someone needs them, the IEEs are much better at it. Perhaps, this is because LSEs themselves constantly generate new ideas about how to improve anything here and there, which, however, they find difficult to convey to others. Once I had LSE boss who knew his stuff very well, but talked to clients like:
- Hey, you!
- Me?
- You. What you ordered is total bullshit, I know what you really need!
Then he tried to push his idea by force, and shoved good and bad ideas down the throats of clients with equal zeal. It seemed weird and funny, because when you come to a consulting company and pay money, you don't expect to be humiliated, so clients were very surprised
As far as I can tell from the LIIs that I knew, they also like to choose only one idea and push its technical implementation to the limit. Usually, where LII passed, everything becomes square and does not seem creative at all.
program*
Not hand.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Yes. From what I know, the most creative type would be EIE, interestingly in Model G they are considered to have Ne as their actual Creative function. SEEs, ILEs, SLEs are also innately very creative. Some other contenders for creativity would be ILI and LIE. The least creative would probably be ESI (rather definite), SEI, and SLI.
I think basically any type can be creative, but the ones that are going to be often have an extraverted nature already one way or another (also taking into account the inheritance of extraverted qualities from the parents).
Last edited by Ocean Man; 04-24-2022 at 02:52 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
