[Boolean11]

It doesn't matter where we agree and diverge. What matters is whether you can sufficiently explain your model to somebody else. If you can't even formulate and express your own model in a way that makes sense to somebody else that is quite familiar and well-versed with MBTI then your model isn't much to hang in the Christmas tree to be honest.



Yes, I understand the feeling of having a very large model in your head and it's hard to know where to start but then use your Te and start with the facts and sort it out from there. Having a large model in my head has never stopped me from trying to explain or express this model. That just sounds like a cheap cop-out. If someone doesn't understand or is disagreeing then those things can always be clarified.

So where's the problem?

From my understanding, we start with ideas, then use Te to check whether they correlate with reality, not the way you describe it. I'm guessing you guys start with "facts" (your extroverted intuitions, which you trust since they are *accurately* observed from objective reality) then use your judging function Ti to make sense of the deluge of information you get from Ne.

Anyway, if you've learnt to speak another language maybe you'd be able to relate to my point that common premises must be shared before one can begin explaining else communication won't be there. In theory how could I start explaining you Shakespeare in Shakespearian talk if the means of communication are little. All my efforts would be wasted leading to frustration since I won't be able to receive feedback that you even understand what I've laboured my efforts with.

[Boolean11]

Where, exactly, is this information, O Teacher?

Again as an INTJ, how do you exactly form your systems of understanding?
Do you, like me and what I think INTJs do, create ideas (/systems or models) then test whether they appear to be logical after formulating? I'd see this as employing a model via Ni then using Te to get external validation.

[LeaT]

From my understanding, we start with ideas, then use Te to check whether they correlate with reality, not the way you describe it. I'm guessing you guys start with "facts" (your extroverted intuitions, which you trust since they are *accurately* observed from objective reality) then use your judging function Ti to make sense of the deluge of information you get from Ne.

Anyway, if you've learnt to speak another language maybe you'd be able to relate to my point that common premises must be shared before one can begin explaining else communication won't be there. In theory how could I start explaining you Shakespeare in Shakespearian talk if the means of communication are little. All my efforts would be wasted leading to frustration since I won't be able to receive feedback that you even understand what I've laboured my efforts with.

No, I mean the facts Te use to back up your theory. I know your formulate your theory first but you need to start with the facts you use to support your model just like I always first explain the facts I use before I analyze these facts with Ti.

Present the facts. I know you cannot show the connection like I can with Ti but you can still lay out the facts that you gathered to support your theory using Te.

And why do you assume I cannot learn to speak Shakespearian? Why do you assume you cannot explain the parts that are unclear or easy to misunderstand? This is the INTJ forum.

I am asking you because you were the one claiming that @ChanceyRose is wrong and you come out spouting comments about how the functions work and you ask ChanceyRose if she understands the functions. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't explain yourself properly when you attack somebody else and they ask what the heck you mean then maybe you shouldn't have attacked.

[Boolean11]

No, I mean the facts Te use to back up your theory. I know your formulate your theory first but you need to start with the facts you use to support your model just like I always first explain the facts I use before I analyze these facts with Ti.

Present the facts. I know you cannot show the connection like I can with Ti but you can still lay out the facts that you gathered to support your theory using Te.

And why do you assume I cannot learn to speak Shakespearian? Why do you assume you cannot explain the parts that are unclear or easy to misunderstand? This is the INTJ forum.

I am asking you because you were the one claiming that @ChanceyRose is wrong and you come out spouting comments about how the functions work and you ask ChanceyRose if she understands the functions. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't explain yourself properly when you attack somebody else and they ask what the heck you mean then maybe you shouldn't have attacked.

I'm trying to explain to you that we don't start with "facts", but a series of subjective ideas that we aren't even sure are right. I'll give you an example like this:

Sensory data from "Se":
Sky, Tree, Shop
The "Ni" interpretation:
From here "Ni" builds the first crude model, "A shop made out of trees hanging in the sky". This is the subjective relationship Ni makes from the sensory data provided, and after this Ni regards it self as having finished the model.
The "Te" judgement:
After this "Ni"'s model seeks external validation that the model it is building is rational, so Te tests the model by saying that "The shop in the sky model bears no resemblance to any reality that we've seen so its irrational in this model". After this point the model will be sent back to Ni with the parameters provided by Te being used to guide the reiteration of the model first made by it (Ni).
This process repeats itself till Te fully validates the model generated regardless of how long it may take. But again, how long this process may take is dependent on the user since if frustration occurs to unbearable limits then Fi takes over Te as the judgement function.
The" Fi" judgement:
In the hypothetical situation that Te fails to give meaningful feedback to the "shop made out of trees" models, "Fi" takes over and creates its own judgement of Ni's intuitions and it may go something like this: in a case a, (A) Fi may simply accept the model that Ni has made since it feels good; or in another case, b to say, "Fi" being introverted will just work with those ideas and rearrange them to a point were it feels good. Fi would force Ni to create data that fits what it wants to accept. And this might me ending with the result (from a reworked Ni model)that (B) "Its a tree hanging in the sky with a shop attached to it".

This is my personal model of how I perceive my functions to work and I can relate to it pretty well.

[Miss Butterfly Girl]

Before I knew I was an INTJ, I took a short test that said I was an ENTJ! But before that I was never in touch with reality or my feelings. I enjoyed being alone and most of my peers did not understand me. I am constantly inside my imagination and I was often accused of being a boy for being so objective (I still do to this day)! Luckily, I was raised by an INFJ great-great aunt and an INTJ father to challenge me and engage me. I was concerned about death, the future and hated being a child--I felt helpless sometimes and craved independence. My life was quiet and sheltered so I did not need my Fi or Se probably.

[Boolean11]

No, I mean the facts Te use to back up your theory. I know your formulate your theory first but you need to start with the facts you use to support your model just like I always first explain the facts I use before I analyze these facts with Ti.

Present the facts. I know you cannot show the connection like I can with Ti but you can still lay out the facts that you gathered to support your theory using Te.

And why do you assume I cannot learn to speak Shakespearian? Why do you assume you cannot explain the parts that are unclear or easy to misunderstand? This is the INTJ forum.

I am asking you because you were the one claiming that @ChanceyRose is wrong and you come out spouting comments about how the functions work and you ask ChanceyRose if she understands the functions. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't explain yourself properly when you attack somebody else and they ask what the heck you mean then maybe you shouldn't have attacked.

Again with her, I'm again trying to understand why her model is different from mine since I seems illogical compared to mine, however I see this as point to start learning and improving my model if I exactly understand the build blocks we created then I would compare hers to mine. If I perceive her judgement as being superior to mine then, I would have to slowly start to amend my model too since I would be certain that it was flawed on that angle.

[LeaT]

Again with her, I'm again trying to understand why her model is different from mine since I seems illogical compared to mine, however I see this as point to start learning and improving my model if I exactly understand the build blocks we created then I would compare hers to mine. If I perceive her judgement as being superior to mine then, I would have to slowly start to amend my model too since I would be certain that it was flawed on that angle.

Which is why I'm saying that you need to spill the beans or we can be stuck here talking about what you think about your model without ever actually talking about your model.

[ChanceyRose]

@Boolean11, first of all, thank you for backing off from the aggressive approach. Speaking personally, attacking me is a surefire way of getting me to disagree with you on principle alone. I am by no means an expert on personality theory. One of the reasons I enjoy this site is the discussion that occurs between opposing points of view and the opportunity to learn from others.

I am not as cognizant of my own personal interaction between Ni and Te as you are. My focus while here has been to understand my emotional growth (or lack thereof) and to comprehend the theory as it is understood by the collective. (I prefer to know the general consensus before I branch off on my own; makes it easier for me to explain and defend my aberrations.) Even so, I will respond today to your request that I explain my model. Give me a few hours to put it in writing.

[Boolean11]

@Boolean11, first of all, thank you for backing off from the aggressive approach. Speaking personally, attacking me is a surefire way of getting me to disagree with you on principle alone. I am by no means an expert on personality theory. One of the reasons I enjoy this site is the discussion that occurs between opposing points of view and the opportunity to learn from others.

I am not as cognizant of my own personal interaction between Ni and Te as you are. My focus while here has been to understand my emotional growth (or lack thereof) and to comprehend the theory as it is understood by the collective. (I prefer to know the general consensus before I branch off on my own; makes it easier for me to explain and defend my aberrations.) Even so, I will respond today to your request that I explain my model. Give me a few hours to put it in writing.

Just on a little note, I was under the impression that as a lead thinker you wouldn't need my "F" mask on since you would fight any feelings that you may obstruct you. My intention if never bad even though I may feel unease when ever I have to consider changing my stance.

Anyway, did you see my little crude model of how I perceive my functions to work, if not here it is (how exactly do you see yours):

Sensory data from "Se":
Sky, Tree, Shop
The "Ni" interpretation:
From here "Ni" builds the first crude model, "A shop made out of trees hanging in the sky". This is the subjective relationship Ni makes from the sensory data provided, and after this Ni regards it self as having finished the model.
The "Te" judgement:
After this "Ni"'s model seeks external validation that the model it is building is rational, so Te tests the model by saying that "The shop in the sky model bears no resemblance to any reality that we've seen so its irrational in this model". After this point the model will be sent back to Ni with the parameters provided by Te being used to guide the reiteration of the model first made by it (Ni).
This process repeats itself till Te fully validates the model generated regardless of how long it may take. But again, how long this process may take is dependent on the user since if frustration occurs to unbearable limits then Fi takes over Te as the judgement function.
The" Fi" judgement:
In the hypothetical situation that Te fails to give meaningful feedback to the "shop made out of trees" models, "Fi" takes over and creates its own judgement of Ni's intuitions and it may go something like this: in a case a, (A) Fi may simply accept the model that Ni has made since it feels good; or in another case, b to say, "Fi" being introverted will just work with those ideas and rearrange them to a point were it feels good. Fi would force Ni to create data that fits what it wants to accept. And this might me ending with the result (from a reworked Ni model)that (B) "Its a tree hanging in the sky with a shop attached to it".

[ChanceyRose]

Just on a little note, I was under the impression that as a lead thinker you wouldn't need my "F" mask on since you would fight any feelings that you may obstruct you. My intention if never bad even though I may feel unease when ever I have to consider changing my stance.

Anyway, did you see my little crude model of how I perceive my functions to work, if not here it is (how exactly do you see yours):

I did see you model, but thank you for reposting it.

While don't need your "F" mask as you call it, neither do I appreciate being called imbalanced or accused (in what I read as a rather defensive, snotty, tone) of not being familiar with the source material. Feel free to criticize my theories and my understanding but repeatedly making the attacks personal will compel me to squash you.