The opposite of Ne is not Si! Nor is...

The opposite of Ne is not Si! Nor is...

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 126
Thank Tree150Thanks

This is a discussion on The opposite of Ne is not Si! Nor is... within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; ... Ti the opposite of Fe, nor Te the opposite of Fi and nor Ni the opposite of Se. Why? ...

  1. #1
    ENFP - The Inspirers

    The opposite of Ne is not Si! Nor is...

    ... Ti the opposite of Fe, nor Te the opposite of Fi and nor Ni the opposite of Se.

    Why?

    Why would the opposite of a perceiving function still be a perceiving function? And why would the opposite of a judging function still be a judging function?

    An opposite by definition would be one who has nothing in common (with the other), aka no shared ground, all differences. Hence, Ne cannot be opposite to Si because they have a shared ground: perceiving.

    Therefore, only judging functions, like Ti or Fi, have the potential to be Ne's true opposite.
    But which one?

    To find out, we need to look at the functions themselves. If we take a look at thinking and feeling we see that feeling is far more dynamic/natural (think spider web) than thinking, which is more lineair/fixed (cause->effect). To the thinker, only one answer can be the correct one (1+1=2, ONLY 2), whereas the feeler does not see it this way. T thinks in black-white, whereas F thinks in grey, simplistically speaking.

    This means that N/intuition (also about possibilities) has more in common than F/feeling than it has with T/thinking. So to make a big leap here based on all I know about MBTI/Jung I would say feeling is the judging counterpart of intuition, whereas thinking is the judging counterpart of sensing.

    Taking this insight to its rational conclusion we would have T/thinking being the opposite of N/intuition, and F/feeling being the opposite of S/sensing. There is a reason why ST's often can't stand intuitives, because N messes up their inner T framework by building bridges between seemingly separate concepts. Sure, a T may not get the emotional framework of F's, but F's sure do not question or try to alter their logical framework like N's do.

    This means that the real opposites are as follows:
    Se <-----> Fi
    Si <------> Fe
    Ne <-----> Ti
    Ni <------> Te

    To make this easier to understand, I would invent a new dimension besides extraversion/introversion and judging/perceiving. To pick a name I would call this the spiritual/material or flying/grounded dimension, where spiritual/flying would depict N or F and material/grounded would depict S or T. (This is the reason why STJ's are often seen as "fixed" or "close-minded", because they have no "flying" functions in their conscious psyche, coupled with their J. Or on the other hand, why NFP's are so "out there", unrealistic and/or impractical..)

    An extraverted flying judger would then be codename for Fe, or an introverted grounded perceiver would be codename for an Si dominant.


    Ofcourse, if my hypothesis is true then this poses a threat to the MBTI typing system. Yet, so what... The truth is what matters, not the established model/system. If it can't adapt to new ideas/perceptions then it's more dogma than anything else...

    However, the model can easily be adapted by switching the inferior from its old opposite to its new opposite, and then adding in the remaining pieces of the puzzle, like this:

    ESTP: now (Se -> Ti -> Fe -> Ni) becomes (Se -> Te -> Ni -> Fi) where Se and Te will be the conscious/ego functions and Ni and Fi will be the unconscious/shadow functions with Fi the inferior. As you can see (surprise myself), in this case the auxiliary had to be of the same E/I attitude otherwise the ESTP puzzle cannot be solved. However, don't take this fact as disproof of my theory, since Carl Jung himself never said that the auxiliary must have an opposite E/I attitude than the dominant function.

    Ofcourse if the functions of your new type do not match with yourself at all then try considering a different type in the new model. I'll be good samaritan and list the new types in advance:

    ST's or pragmatists:
    ESTj: Te -> Se -> Fi -> Ni (shadow: INFp)
    ESTp: Se -> Te -> Ni -> Fi (shadow: INFj)
    ISTj: Ti -> Si -> Fe -> Ne (shadow: ENFp)
    ISTp: Si -> Ti -> Ne -> Fe (shadow: ENFj)

    NF's or idealists:
    ENFj: Fe -> Ne -> Ti -> Si (shadow: ISTp)
    ENFp: Ne -> Fe -> Si -> Ti (shadow: ISTj)
    INFj: Fi -> Ni -> Te -> Se (shadow: ESTp)
    INFp: Ni -> Fi -> Se -> Te (shadow: ESTj)

    TF's or rationals:
    eTFJ: Te -> Fi -> Se -> Ni (shadow: iNSP)
    iTFJ: Ti -> Fe -> Si -> Ne (shadow: eNSP)
    eFTJ: Fe -> Ti -> Ne -> Si (shadow: iSNP)
    iFTJ: Fi -> Te -> Ni -> Se (shadow: eSNP)

    SN's or freebirds:
    eSNP: Se -> Ni -> Te -> Fi (shadow: iFTJ)
    iSNP: Si -> Ne -> Ti -> Fe (shadow: eFTJ)
    eNSP: Ne -> Si -> Fe -> Ti (shadow: iTFJ)
    iNSP: Ni -> Se -> Fi -> Te (shadow: eTFJ)

    Due to incompatibility with dominant/inferior functions, the NT temperament had to disappear, together with the SF's. These got replaced by the TF's and SN's.

    Thoughts? Can you resonate with a new type? (Personally, I can see myself as an eNSP.)
    Last edited by phoenixpinion; 09-26-2013 at 06:32 AM.
    itsdarkinside thanked this post.



  2. #2
    Unknown Personality

    OK first, I think your opposites actually have something to them...I've thought of something kind of similar to this in the past.

    That said, I wouldn't change any of the system as is (though if one is making a NEW one, that's great! as long as its purposes/direction are thought through etc), particularly because, if we're talking opposition, I'd say a Se-dom is much more likely to not favor Si, or Ne than Ni, simply because Ni is taking care of the inner world that they tend to neglect, whilst resorting to Ne would destroy the focus on actuality within objective reality, rather emphasizing the realm of the symbolic and potential within objective reality.


    I.e. the main thing is the current systems are not based on the idea that opposites kill each other, but rather that opposites complement each other, if in a clumsy way. The things that really can't coexist are two perspectives directly conflicting with respect to the same realm of processing.

    E.g. two Pi's, two Pe's etc cannot coexist peacefully IF one claims a well-defined preference, which is only true for some functions in general, if any.
    Chesire Tower thanked this post.

  3. #3
    ENFP - The Inspirers

    Quote Originally Posted by bearotter View Post
    That said, I wouldn't change any of the system as is (though if one is making a NEW one, that's great! as long as its purposes/direction are thought through etc), particularly because, if we're talking opposition, I'd say a Se-dom is much more likely to not favor Si, or Ne than Ni, simply because Ni is taking care of the inner world that they tend to neglect, whilst resorting to Ne would destroy the focus on actuality within objective reality, rather emphasizing the realm of the symbolic and potential within objective reality.
    Yep, in my model an Se-dom can have Ni as the auxiliary, like the eSNP. Si/Ne on the other hand for an Se-dom will always be in-between the auxiliary and the tertiary (in-between the conscious and unconscious), or, in other words, non-existant because they aren't differentiated.

    I.e. the main thing is the current systems are not based on the idea that opposites kill each other, but rather that opposites complement each other, if in a clumsy way. The things that really can't coexist are two perspectives directly conflicting with respect to the same realm of processing.
    Sure, the conscious and unconscious must try working together in harmony. However, the only reason why they exist in the first place is because they sort of diminish or work against eachother. (If you develop Ni for example, Ti will develop in the unconscious to balance your psyche.) Yin exists because it is the opposite of Yang and vice versa.

    E.g. two Pi's, two Pe's etc cannot coexist peacefully IF one claims a well-defined preference, which is only true for some functions in general, if any.
    I agree, in my model I have no type which has two Pi's or two Pe's, and neither does the current MBTI. That doesn't mean that e.g. Ni is the opposite of Si however. It simply means that you can only have one Pi function. The other Pi will be non-differentiated (in-between the auxiliary and tertiary), hence not your inferior/opposite, since that one IS differentiated, in the unconscious instead of the conscious, in a negative instead of positive way.

  4. #4
    INFP - The Idealists

    Opposites in established model mean the polar opposites, not the total opposites.

    And two extrovert-introvert functions can never co-exist together in the fashion of Ni-Fi or Ne-Te. Theory suggests that extroverts act and reflect, while introverts reflect and act. Acting + acting leads to rash deeds that lead to killing yourself in few days, while reflecting + reflecting leads to killing yourself due to not taking care of biological needs. Extrovert function and introverted function have to be together, to loop and form a certain block that defines the type (like how Ni+Fe is the basis of INFJ's functionality).

    Even in socionics it can't make sense, since the super-id, id, super-ego and ego are all divided in blocks with introvert function and extrovert function together.

    The general rule is that there has to be one I or E judging function and one I or E perceiving function together. If you break apart that rule, you have to spend 10 years in solitude to research and establish a new logical principles for cognitive functions.
    hornet and surgery thanked this post.

  5. #5
    Unknown Personality

    I think the main issue which could come up with having a TF type is if you have a notion of dominant
    type. If you don't, which actually some proponents of the dichotomy-based MBTI would say is how the MBTI should be viewed as well, i.e. there exist "ST" types but not "S-dom" types to them, then I think it's quite possible.

    A dominant (ok in the traditional meaning) say, S, would not be able to have N not conflict with them, simply because in the traditional definition, this means their focus is not only on perceiving, but also on perceiving in a specific way. The more that goes behind one means of perceiving, the more the other one will suffer simply because the former keeps asserting itself. Yes we can do two things at once, and do in fact do two things at once, but while we're doing two things, our focus may be on one, i.e. if it is truly our dominant type.

  6. #6
    INFJ - The Protectors

    You seem to criticize these oppositions because you think they are meant as mere oppositions of quality. Quality like dynamic, linear, close-minded, "flying" etc.

    I guess the oppositions and consequential dominant-inferior and repressing relations are not strictly due to quality of the functions but due to their responsibility/aim/function.

    Like your brain must reserve some capacity for perception. And according to Jung there are two kinds of perception. The arranging and switching between both maybe wastes some capacity. Therefore it works better if only of them takes the greater part of the perception capacity. Especially if one of them is the controlling activity (dominant function) also with big influence to other activities and capacities. From this perspective it would be less contradictionary that two kinds of perception contradict more than perception and feeling for example. It's more interfere and obstruct than contradict.

    So if your brain has reserved one zoned part of its capacity only for perception and another for feeling and thinking together, it would make sense that feeling and intuition for example work better together than sensing and intuition. They don't interfere because they use different capacities.
    hornet and KraChZiMan thanked this post.

  7. #7
    INFJ - The Protectors

    I always thought that the primary function and the least developed shadow function of a type work as opposites.
    So: Ni <=> Si, Ti <=> Fi, Se <=> Ne, Fe <=> Te.

    But there are four different kinds of opposites:
    Contradictory: When the two things have nothing common, one is being and the other thing is the negative of being (e.g. white and not white)
    Contrary: The two extreme points of a series of elements. (e.g. black and white)
    Privative: The negation of perfection of a subject. (e.g. life and death, sight and blindness)
    Relative: Two terms either of which needs the other to explain it (e.g. father and son, double and half)

    So, I think I listed the contrary opposites above. What you showed were maybe relative opposites. I'm not sure. :)
    Optimist Mind, mushr00m, DJeter and 4 others thanked this post.

  8. #8
    INFP - The Idealists

    Quote Originally Posted by kadda1212 View Post
    I always thought that the primary function and the least developed shadow function of a type work as opposites.
    So: Ni <=> Si, Ti <=> Fi, Se <=> Ne, Fe <=> Te.

    But shadow function is shadow function and conscious function is conscious function.

    The complete opposites like Ni <=> Si and the rest actually utilize same parts of the brain, but in a different direction. For example, a person who utilizes Ti can not even take a glimpse at utilizing Fi, because they have evolved a different sort of introverted judgemental function in themselves.

    It is getting extremely philosophical in here, if we are gonna argue based on which set of opposites are we talking about. If we take it in this light, there is really no rights and wrongs, just the "does established theory effectively link together cognitive functions or not?"

    In sense of how the functions outwardly appear, clash and are utilized in real life, the correct opposites should really be Ne <=> Si, Te <=> Fi etc. because these opposites are most different in their outwardly appearance.

    For example, Te wants to be convinced that a certain action promises a good outcome, and then Te does it at any cost, while Fi first wants to assure itself if a certain action is something that can simply be done, or not. If it can't be simply done, because it clashes with a certain moral ("can't build a railroad between the school and children's homes, it's dangerous"), Fi starts to seek for a compromise. This compromise is not that effective, but it still promises the outcome without ever clashing with a certain moral ("we build a U-turn in the railroad that goes right behind the school so that children will not be killed").

    The same example provided, Ti functions with a similar method, but uses morals with a logical basis ("can't build a railroad between the school and children's homes, this means the train will always have to make stops when children cross the road and the train can't make it to the station in schedule"). This is not Te because it is not certain if train has to take stops or not because of the children, maybe the children will be very careful to not play on the railroad at all, but at the same time, it's not false, because according to some scenarios, it could happen.

    Te couldn't care less, because children are irrelevant factor for the big train, and Te wouldn't waste additional resources because the kids are using this road for school. Te would just go around telling kids "Hey little darlings! Please stay away from the railroad at 3 o'clock in the afternoon for half an hour, it's gonna be like that for now on, just do it because trains are big and scary, and that's the time when they'll be driving about!"
    kadda1212 thanked this post.

  9. #9
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Just in case it's of interest to anyone, here's a bit of what Jung had to say on the subject of what was the opposite of what.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type suppresses thinking most of all because this is the function most liable to disturb feeling. For the same reason, thinking totally shuts out feeling if ever it wants to reach any kind of pure results, for nothing is more liable to prejudice and falsify thinking than feeling values.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    [W]henever intuition is given priority, ... [t]hinking, feeling, and sensation are ... largely repressed, sensation being the one most affected, because, as the conscious sense function, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition. Sensation is a hindrance to clear, unbiased, naive perception; its intrusive sensory stimuli direct attention to the physical surface, to the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation. Hence, if intuition is to function properly, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Now there are many people whose habitual reactions are irrational because they are based either on sensation or on intuition. They cannot be based on both at once, because sensation is just as antagonistic to intuition as thinking is to feeling. When I try to assure myself with my eyes and ears of what is actually happening, I cannot at the same time give way to dreams and fantasies about what lies around the corner. As this is just what the intuitive type must do in order to give the necessary free play to his unconscious or to the object, it is easy to see that the sensation type is at the opposite pole to the intuitive.
    hornet, surgery, fourtines and 10 others thanked this post.

  10. #10
    INTP - The Thinkers

    First off, what you call opposite is wrong (if that offends you think of it this way: it is very, very different from other people's definition of opposite and therefore entirely useless in communicating anything.) An opposite is not what shares no ground what or has nothing in common something else; it is actually the reverse of its 'opposite'. For example, what is the opposite of hot? By the conventional definition of opposite (and hot for that matter), most people would say cold. But hot and cold both describe relative temperatures, that is, that they both(sort of) tell us how fast the tiny things inside of stuff move around. So, by definition, 'opposites' must share some common ground (you couldn't say the opposite of a frog is to drink, just like the opposite of four is negative four, not ten and half). Why would the opposite of a perceiving function still be a perceiving function? And why would the opposite of a judging function still be a judging function? To answer your question, opposites have to be alike in some way.

    Other than that, I really like the idea of "fixed" and "flying" functions, and in my notebook I call them "literal" and "imaginary", but it's the same idea. In my mind, it's more like a spectrum with T at one and F at the other and S and N closer to their ends but not as far. Also, I would probably further divide your groups into the TFs & SNs, and STs & NFs, because, for some reason, their type code to function conversion seems completely different.
    Dastan, ManWithoutHats and KraChZiMan thanked this post.


 
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Your Real Opposite Is Not Your Four Letter Opposite
    By fourtines in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 203
    Last Post: 02-10-2013, 11:55 PM
  2. [INTP] How often do you think about the opposite sex?
    By R2-D2 in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 07:49 PM
  3. [INFP] If you were of the opposite sex...
    By Shayde in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 08:41 AM
  4. Its opposite day.
    By Nearsification in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 11:55 AM
  5. Opposite of Me
    By Perseus in forum ESFJ Forum - The Caregivers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 01:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:56 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
2014 PersonalityCafe