# Need some help.



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

'sup?

It doesn't make sense that we introvert, and extrovert, different functions in according to the widely spread Grant stack.

What I mean by this, is it just doesn't work, that somebody that prefers say, Introverted Sensation magically shifts to Extroverted Feeling or Extroverted Thinking when conversing with others.

Why are they shifting to a completely different function? If their preferred function is Sensation - when they extrovert - it makes infinite more sense, that they would extrovert their Sensation when dealing with others.

Why would somebody that becomes immersed in the subjective impressions they receive from the outer world, suddenly be all Fe or Te when dealing with other people?
Why would they not, instead, go to Se - due to Sensation in general, this is where their mind is primarily oriented - data, facts, real-world information - why are we supposed to accept they suddenly become Mr.ExternalSense or Mrs.CupcakeHarmonizer?


I can not reconcile this in my head. It does not make sense.


Take Ti - why would someone that is primarily oriented towards philosophical thinking, abstract thinking, ideas, thoughts, prioritizing them, mulling over the overarching principles of our existence - suddenly morph into Mr.CrazYYY or Mrs.Real-World-Details??

This idea literally fits nothing.
Why the hell wouldn't they extrovert, through their dominant function? Why would a Ti dom, not extrovert through Te?
That's literally their dominant function. Thinking.

It just doesn't work that they suddenly shift to some other function entirely to extrovert.




Can anybody explain to me, why somebody that leads with Se would suddenly make all of their decisions entirely on their own, all the time? They are oriented toward the object. Not themselves.

How many people can you picture in your mind, that in any group gathering or team sport - observe everything, take in all of the sensory information, and then decide, "fuck everybody else, I'm going to make decisions all on my own, because I prefer Fi/Ti and not Fe/Te, so y'all are not included in my decisions, even though I'm perceptive and oriented towards you guys".
None. That's how many.

Also - why would that same persons introverted world suddenly be mostly a J one?
Why wouldn't the Se dominants introverted world also be Sensation?

It makes no sense someone would be oriented toward the outer world so much, so perceptive, so much about immersing themselves in the present context and enjoying life, that their introverted world suddenly becomes a J world of Ti abstract ideas or Fi high ideals.
You know _damn well_ their introverted world is going to also be Sensation for the most part, they're going to reflect on their perceptions, because they're oriented towards outer objects, and are oriented towards perception - it just doesn't work, that their inner world is also not oriented towards perception if it's their dominant function.


I think extroversion/introversion is highly misunderstood because all of the above is aligned with internet tarot cards tea-leaves 8-ball personalityWhAtever psychology - and none of it makes sense. At all.


TL;DR - it makes no sense that we all magically shift functions when introverting/extroverting, it makes more sense we remain in our dominant and most preferred function. 

Keen to hear thoughts.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> 'sup?
> 
> It doesn't make sense that we introvert, and extrovert, different functions in according to the widely spread Grant stack.
> 
> ...


Because the functions do different things. You're taking the orientation of them too literally. Just because I verbalize my thoughts that doesn't mean it becomes Te. You're making it seem as if Ti is a piece of bread but if I verbalize those thoughts it becomes a piece of toast. If a function is extraverted it means it takes primarily from the outside world, it is the standard. The introverted functions are basically your subjective relationship with that outside information.

Having sensing be filtered through more sensing, feeling filtered through more feeling is just stupid. As is the idea that because you're an introvert your functions would be something like this Ti>Si>Ni>Fi>E functions


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Because the functions do different things. You're taking the orientation of them too literally. Just because I verbalize my thoughts that doesn't mean it becomes Te. You're making it seem as if Ti is a piece of bread but if I verbalize those thoughts it becomes a piece of toast. If a function is extraverted it means it takes primarily from the outside world, it is the standard. The introverted functions are basically your subjective relationship with those things.


Actually, if you'd paid attention - you'll realize I'm arguing other people take the orientations too literally, and fail to realize nobody is entirely introverted or extroverted - which is to say, leading with say Ti as you claim to do - doesn't immediately force a complete introversion of your Thinking - it is also extroverted - which is why I created this thread.

Verbalizing your thoughts does make them Te. It doesn't make 'you' a Te dominant - it absolutely makes that Thinking extroverted, though.

I understand the dynamic between introversion and extroversion perfectly well - which is why I know, that if a function is primarily extroverted for instance - _that exact same function, is still there, in the same person, and is also introverted_.

If that function is dominant, it makes no sense the person would shift to an entirely _different _function with regards to their introverted internal world of self-reflections, it makes more sense they will simply shift to an introversion of their preferred function.


Take a Te dominant for example - when they introvert - why should we accept they're suddenly in an Si or Ni inner realm, and not a Ti one?

They're a Thinking type. They are oriented towards the outer world, and achieving clarity and unity among reasoning - why on _Earth_, is their inner world suddenly mystical primordial imagery or subjective sensory impressions?

Their preferred inner world, will be an introversion of that _very same function_ - Thinking.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Agree with AF. You can't 'extrovert via Te' if your dominant function is Ti, because it just doesn't work. 

Te implements and organizes external logical systems and information, and I couldn't give two shits about that. I don't care about sources or structure, I _purely_ care about rational consistency of content. Ti and Te both deal with logic, but one analyzes it and one applies it. I find Te aggravating as shit for that reason because it's all _here's what we gotta do, here's the plan, we need to improve and change and adjust constantly_ and fails to entertain alternate perspectives without serious sledgehammering. 

Verbalizing thoughts out loud is not a 'Te phenomenon' if you're Ti. If we're ignoring basic neurology once again, it would be in the domain of your extroverted auxiliary function, for precisely that reason. Because Ti/Te and Fi/Fe are opposing, so it automatically diverts to your extroverted aux. Why would you use two opposing judging functions one after the other instead of diverting to an integrated perceiving function?

And because that aux is extroverted, that's what people 'see,' but it doesn't mean that you're _not_ using your dominant function to interact. Also, because your first and second functions are perceiving/judging, having two judging functions coming right after one another would cause critical errors in cognition and prevent a person from being able to discern alternate perspectives than their initial ones.

You're the one who said that dichotomy isn't equal to functions. 'Thinking' is not the same thing as Ti/Te, you need to contextualize it via the rest of the letters.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Agree with AF.


Surprise surprise.



> You can't 'extrovert via Te' if your dominant function is Ti, because it just doesn't work.


Yeah it does, and it works better than shifting to other functions.



> Te implements and organizes external logical systems and information, and I couldn't give two shits about that. I don't care about sources or structure, I _purely_ care about rational consistency of content. Ti and Te both deal with logic, but one analyzes it and one applies it. I find Te aggravating as shit for that reason because it's all _here's what we gotta do, here's the plan, we need to improve and change and adjust constantly_ and fails to entertain alternate perspectives without serious sledgehammering.


Well this explains why you find the idea difficult to comprehend - learn more about extroverted Thinking - but, save it for another thread, I didn't create this thread so people could try and teach me their own interpretations of functions, this is not one of those threads and that kind of thing will derail it.



> Verbalizing thoughts out loud is not a 'Te phenomenon' if you're Ti. If we're ignoring basic neurology once again, it would be in the domain of your extroverted auxiliary function, for precisely that reason.


Verbalizing your thoughts is absolutely extroverting your thoughts. It is absolutely 'Te'-ing your Ti. 
No two ways around this.



> Because Ti/Te and Fi/Fe are opposing, so it automatically diverts to your extroverted aux. Why would you use two opposing judging functions one after the other instead of diverting to an integrated perceiving function?


Circular reasoning.
Ti and Te, are the same function, only opposing with regards to introversion and extroversion - having a dominant preference for Thinking, is a dominant preference for Thinking - and if you prefer it introverted, so be it - this does not in any way negate the dominant preference for Thinking, and Ti types will absolutely possess extroverted Thinking.

They simply 'prefer' their Thinking to be introverted.

The idea in the OP isn't "one after the other" either - it is constant, dominant preference for Thinking remains constant - both introverted, and extroverted.
After _this_, then the other functions come in to play.



> And because that aux is extroverted, that's what people 'see,' but it doesn't mean that you're _not_ using your dominant function to interact. Also, because your first and second functions are perceiving/judging, having two judging functions coming right after one another would cause critical errors in cognition and prevent a person from being able to discern alternate perspectives than their initial ones.


Tell me more about how your shift to an extroverted Sensation in interacting with the outer world, incorporates Ti.
Then elaborate, on how Thinking is not extroverted in doing so.



> You're the one who said that dichotomy isn't equal to functions. 'Thinking' is not the same thing as Ti/Te, you need to contextualize it via the rest of the letters.


Dichotomy and functions don't line up, no - Thinking is _both _Ti and Te from a Jungian perspective, however from an MBTI perspective, no clue, lost interest in that.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Actually, if you'd paid attention - you'll realize I'm arguing other people take the orientations too literally, and fail to realize nobody is entirely introverted or extroverted - which is to say, leading with say Ti as you claim to do - doesn't immediately force a complete introversion of your Thinking - it is also extroverted - which is why I created this thread.
> 
> Verbalizing your thoughts does make them Te. It doesn't make 'you' a Te dominant - it absolutely makes that Thinking extroverted, though.
> 
> ...


I am paying attention. Who said anybody is entirely extroverted or introverted? Nobody, that's a straw-man. What we're saying is you have a preference for one over the other. You're the one that's being more confining. Yes, we use all the functions. But just because someone is good at Ni doesn't mean they're good at Ne. You're asserting they are with no evidence. Aside from them both being N they actually do very different things. There's more differences than similarities. Compare an INTJ to an ENTP, they're not very similar.

This is what I mean with you taking it literally. The way you're defining it has nothing to do with what the functions actually do, you're missing the point. 

You're not explaining anything. It's just "I can't fathom it therefore it's untrue" argument from incredulity. 

Again, because the functions do different things. A Ti dom doesn't act F just because their F is extraverted. It's a preference. You're making it seem like talking your thoughts out is the same thing as being Te. 

This is more easy to explain with S. If I'm talking about my subjective relationship to an object, is that Se or Si?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Well this explains why you find the idea difficult to comprehend - learn more about extroverted Thinking - but, save it for another thread, I didn't create this thread so people could try and teach me their own interpretations of functions, this is not one of those threads and that kind of thing will derail it."

Wow, look at Turi trying to control every little detail. If I didn't know any better I'd think he was a sensor :O


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I am paying attention. Who said anybody is entirely extroverted or introverted? Nobody, that's a straw-man. What we're saying is you have a preference for one over the other. You're the one that's being more confining. Yes, we use all the functions. But just because someone is good at Ni doesn't mean they're good at Ne. You're asserting they are with no evidence. Aside from them both being N they actually do very different things. There's more differences than similarities. Compare an INTJ to an ENTP, they're not very similar.


The notion that functions work in a stack, ala the Harold Grant one, suggests people are all the way introverted or extroverted, in how it cascades as an IEIE or EIEI stack.

It suggests for instance, Si dom, Te aux so on and so forth - right here, is an implication that the Sensing is all the way introverted, and Thinking is all the way extroverted.
It fails to account for the inherent Se and Ti within the Si-Te type.

I'm not asserting anything to do with 'good' or 'bad' - I don't attribute skill-levels to functions.

INTJs (assuming, Ni dominance for whatever reason) and ENTPs are very, very similar, from my observations, lol.
It's only in stereotypes that they aren't - I would argue the stereotypical INTJ we see bandied about the internet is actually a Ti type - they're Thinkers, not intuitives. Go read any of their posts.



> This is what I mean with you taking it literally. The way you're defining it has nothing to do with what the functions actually do, you're missing the point.


I beg to differ - has everything to do with the functions, which is why it's relevant to this thread - I think people that force Ne and Ni, for instance, into completely separate things, are missing the point - they're both Intuition.
It is oriented either inwards, or outwards - and this is a left-hand right-hand sort of preference.
I'm saying that in preferring Ne, it makes absolutely no sense that the persons inner world isn't more likely to be Ni, than some random J function - if they're a perceiving type, they're a perceiver.
Why are they magically a J inside?



> You're not explaining anything. It's just "I can't fathom it therefore it's untrue" argument from incredulity.


Doesn't make sense.



> Again, because the functions do different things. A Ti dom doesn't act F just because their F is extraverted. It's a preference. You're making it seem like talking your thoughts out is the same thing as being Te.


Talking out your thoughts _is _Te. It is extroverting your thoughts. By definition.
I see you actually agree with my position here - in talking out your thoughts (which is absolutely Te) - this doesn't in itself make you a Te type, not a Te dom, not a Te aux, not a Te anything - but you _are _absolutely extroverting your Thinking.

Which is why, it makes sense that a Ti type, when extroverting and conversing with others - is likely to be engaging in Te, more than any other extroverted function, imo.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> "Well this explains why you find the idea difficult to comprehend - learn more about extroverted Thinking - but, save it for another thread, I didn't create this thread so people could try and teach me their own interpretations of functions, this is not one of those threads and that kind of thing will derail it."
> 
> Wow, look at Turi trying to control every little detail. If I didn't know any better I'd think he was a sensor :O


Low quality posting, keep it out my threads, thanks.
I want them on topic. 

I didn't create this thread asking what people think Te is.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> The notion that functions work in a stack, ala the Harold Grant one, suggests people are all the way introverted or extroverted, in how it cascades as an IEIE or EIEI stack.
> 
> It suggests for instance, Si dom, Te aux so on and so forth - right here, is an implication that the Sensing is all the way introverted, and Thinking is all the way extroverted.
> It fails to account for the inherent Se and Ti within the Si-Te type.
> ...


A thinker is somebody who prefers thinking over feeling. Just because INTJs rely more on intuition it doesn't mean they aren't thinkers. Intuition is a flavor to their thinking. I don't know how to phrase it better. We use all functions to some extent, so no it does not imply 100% introversion. I meant preference not how good you are at it. You're using anecdotal evidence? You're going to take that route after getting on me so many times in the past for it. WOW. Either way ENTPs are mostly enneagram 7s and INTJs are mostly enneagram 5s. Which are like polar opposites.

Just because they're similar in one way it doesn't make them the same thing. The I and E is in regards to whether or not you have a preference for taking it from outside or interpreting it on your own and having your own relationship with it. If A=B and B=C then A=C. That's Ti, it can't be observed outwardly but logically it is true. It's a truth but it came from your mind. The sky is blue is an objective fact that you need to look outside of yourself to realize. That's the difference between E and I in regards to functions. It's not whether or not you're verbalizing your thoughts. Also it just makes saying Se and Si redundant. Just say S, F, T, N if you don't think there's a difference between E and I functions.

What part are you not getting?

It's not though, you're simply using it in a way it wasn't intended to be used. Like I said, you're taking it too literally. No, I said talking out your thoughts doesn't necessarily mean Te.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Low quality posting, keep it out my threads, thanks.
> I want them on topic.
> 
> I didn't create this thread asking what people think Te is.


Further proving my point. You can say it's poor quality posting but how am I wrong exactly?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Your sole point seems to be that Ti and Te are the same function, which does not hold up under any scrutiny. Once again you become condescending and patronizing when challenged on your beliefs, which _are_ beliefs and not _facts_. You claim that you want to hear people's thoughts about your perspective and then shut down anything that remotely contradicts what you say. You are not capable of rational discourse at all. I stated what I thought, you didn't like it, good luck.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Your sole point seems to be that Ti and Te are the same function, which does not hold up under any scrutiny. Once again you become condescending and patronizing when challenged on your beliefs, which _are_ beliefs and not _facts_. You claim that you want to hear people's thoughts about your perspective and then shut down anything that remotely contradicts what you say. You are not capable of rational discourse at all. I stated what I thought, you didn't like it, good luck.


Ti, and Te, _*are *_the same function. Literally. 
Like read _anything _Jung wrote, about the functions - the functions are Sensation, Intuition, Feeling and Thinking.
That is the functions.
The attitude in which they are oriented, does not change the function. It simply is a preferred attitude (introverted, or extroverted).

I'ma say it one more time - print this out, put it on a poster, laminate this shit and show it to all your friends, pass it down from generation to generation and maybe, one day, one of my ancestors will decline to sign it for your ancestor:

_Introversion and extroversion are not functions. Introverted Thinking is not a different function to Extroverted Thinking - it is the same function, oriented differently due to the function-attitude. Introversion of Thinking orients the Thinking inwards towards the subject, Extroversion of Thinking orients the Thinking outwards towards the object. The function itself, remains Thinking throughout. Due to nobody being entirely introverted, or entirely extroverted, Introverted Thinking types do indeed possess Extroverted Thinking qualities._


It is my observation that these Extroverted Thinking qualities are what is most apparent in the extroversion of an Introverted Thinking type.
So on and so forth, for all four of the functions with respect to their inherent attitude duality.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Isabel Briggs Myers concluded that the aux has the opposite orientation to the dominant, from the results of many studies involving thousands of participants. 

Here's her reasoning, quoted from Gifts Differing 



> For example, ISTJ people normally run their outer life with their second best process, thinking, so it is conducted with impersonal system and order. They do not leave it to their third best process, feeling, as they would have to do if both their sensing and thinking were introverted. Similarly, INFP people normally run their outer life with their second best process, their intuition, so their outer life is characterized by spurts and projects and enthusiasm.
> 
> A more subtle kind of evidence lies in the "extraverted character" of the introvert's auxiliary process. *For example, in a well balanced ISTJ the observable auxiliary process, thinking, can be seen to resemble the thinking of the extraverted thinker more than that of the introverted thinker.*
> 
> Good type development thus demands that the auxiliary supplement the dominant process in two respects. It must supply a useful degree of balance not only between perception and judgement but also between extraversion and introversion. When it fails to do so it leaves the individual literally "unbalanced" retreating into the preferred world and consciously or unconsciously afraid of the other world. Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: They are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary.


While I don't necessarily agree with everything she's said here, I do think in the sentence I bolded, she makes a good point. 

Jung said that if consciousness is extroverted, then the unconscious is introverted. 
Yes, each function is still the same regardless of orientation, but the orientation is still different. That's why the distinction is made.
If dominant Thinking function could just switch from extraversion to introversion, then the dominant Thinking function would be neither extraverted nor introverted, it would simply be the 'Thinking function', swinging both ways.
What's the point of differentiating e from i at all, if the function remains the same and is oriented in both directions, therefore the same?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Kynx said:


> Isabel Briggs Myers concluded that the aux has the opposite orientation to the dominant, *from the results of many studies involving thousands of participants.*


Where did she say this? I surely don't see it in the thing you quoted.

Where are these "results of many studies" showing that people who prefer an introverted type of Judging, prefer an extraverted type of Perceiving, and vice versa?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Isabel Briggs Myers concluded that the aux has the opposite orientation to the dominant, from the results of many studies involving thousands of participants.
> 
> Here's her reasoning, quoted from Gifts Differing


How do we know she wasn't seeing a stereotypically introverted Te type among about a billion other issues we could raise.



> Jung said that if consciousness is extroverted, then the unconscious is introverted.


This is in reference to the inferior function/s, is it not?
Practically all the literature I have, from Jung, Jungian analysts and what not, indicates the inferior is the gateway to the unconscious.
Not anything and everything that isn't the superior/dominant.



> Yes, each function is still the same regardless of orientation, but the orientation is still different. That's why the distinction is made.
> If dominant Thinking function could just switch from extraversion to introversion, then the dominant Thinking function would be neither extraverted nor introverted, it would simply be the 'Thinking function', swinging both ways.
> What's the point of differentiating e from i at all, if the function remains the same and is oriented in both directions, therefore the same?


Most people, in my observations, are not strongly introverted or extroverted they are somewhere in between, however they do _have _a preference, if pushed, one way or another with regards to their dominant function.

Yes, the dominant Thinking function swinging both ways is precisely accurate - however it will generally swing one way a little more than the other, hence the preference and hence the predominant 'type' - though that other way the pendulum swings is still very real - and indeed, required.

If there was no such opposing orientation dynamic the pendulum wouldn't swing _at all_ which doesn't only prevent the I/E dynamic within a function, but also the bipolar relationship between different functions i.e Ni-Se, Si-Ne, so on and so forth.


----------



## Enoch (Feb 5, 2017)

Kynx said:


> What's the point of differentiating e from i at all, if the function remains the same and is oriented in both directions, therefore the same?


Because the way a Ti-dom uses Te will differ from the way a Te-dom uses Te, so the distinction still very much exists despite these two functions being the same, it is merely the orientation that is different.

Ti doms will only use Te in a way that their Ti allows them to.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Enoch said:


> Because the way a Ti-dom uses Te will differ from the way a Te-dom uses Te, so the distinction still very much exists despite these two functions being the same, it is merely the orientation that is different.
> 
> Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

From ya boi



> Let us suppose two youths rambling in the country come upon a fine castle; both want to see inside it. The introvert says, “I’d like to know what it’s like inside.” The extravert answers, “Right, let’s go in,” and makes for the gateway. The introvert draws back — “Perhaps we aren’t allowed in,” says he, with visions of policemen, fines, and fierce dogs in the background. Whereupon the extravert answers, “Well, we can ask. They’ll let us in all right” — with visions of kindly old watchmen, hospitable seigneurs, and the possibility of romantic adventures.
> 
> On the strength of extraverted optimism, they at length find themselves in the castle. But now comes the dénouement. The castle has been rebuilt inside, and contains nothing but a couple of rooms with a collection of old manuscripts. As it happens, old manuscripts are the chief joy of the introverted youth. Hardly has he caught sight of them than he becomes as one transformed. He loses himself in contemplation of the treasures, uttering cries of enthusiasm. He engages the caretaker in conversation so as to extract from him as much information as possible, and when the result is disappointing he asks to see the curator in order to propound his questions to him.
> 
> ...



Apply the above, to a singular function, and we see where I'm going with this topic.

Take Sensation, as an example - extroverted - it sees things, hears things, tastes things, feels things, touches things - it is your 5 senses, taking in observable information in real time. 

Without introversion, it does not perceive these sensations internally, it is forever in the outer world, not once does it immerse itself in the beauty of any of these sensations to any degree that is not entirely superficial, not once does it become engaged with the subjective impressions evoked by its perceptions.

This is unrealistic. This idea is essentially a mirror, it perceives the outer world exclusively, with no depth to it's perception whatsoever - objects in the mirror are exactly the same size as they appear, all the time, due to absolutely no subjectification of Sensation.

When an extroverted Sensation type hears something - what happens? That's it? That's the end?
"I heard a sound". Okay. Cool. A _loud _sound? Well, _loud _requires an introversion of Sensation to determine - need summadat subjective impression - internal comparisons regarding Sensation is being made (and judged accordingly to whatever Thinking or Feeling function is preferred _at the time_).

So, extroverted Sensation requires introversion of Sensation to be of any use.
Likewise, without extroverted Sensation, introverted Sensation has literally no data to work with.

"I see green grass" - how green? Introversion of Sensation required - how green will be determined by ones internal sense impressions, and in accordance with the variety of greens that particular person has encountered in their life.
Without introversion of Sensation, Extroverted Sensation doesn't have any idea how green, in accordance with it's own subjective experience in life thus far - it is only capable of comparing various hues of green that are within it's _current and present observable environment_.


Both are practically non-existent without the other, constant ebb and flow of introversion and extroversion within the same function - some people prefer an extroversion of Sensation, gather more sensory data etc - other people prefer an introversion of Sensation, subjective impressions of sensory data - either way, both are Sensation and both introversion and extroversion of Sensation is occurring - and due to this general preference for Sensation as a whole, I don't see any logical reason why an introverted Sensation type for instance, is magically shifting to Extraverted Thinking or Feeling to converse with the world, when they are a Sensation type first and foremost - it makes the most sense, that they would extrovert their preferred function (Sensation) above the less preferred Thinking or Feeling.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

If a person is dominant in say Ni, they have gone their entire life using the "intuition" function and directing it only inward, which ultimately makes it different than when it is directed outward. Ne and Ni are very different functions, I don't consider Ni users even remotely similar to Ne users because the psychological processing of information and overall mindest is completely different. When a person leads with an introverted function, they interact with the outer world using whatever functions they are most comfortable "extroverting". It is very odd that an Ni dominant would be comfortable completely rewiring their brain just to interact with the outer world; which for example is why most people who are dominant with one function are typically really bad with the opposite version of the same function (Ni and Ne for example).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@MusiCago - why do you believe Ni types directs their intuition 'only' inwards?

This disrespects and disregards 'preferences' and well basically all of Jungs work with regards to duality, opposites, synchronicity, etc etc.

My observations, and the statistics, suggest otherwise with regards to people being "bad" at the opposing orientation of their preferred function.

I believe Socionics also counters this notion in the strengths of functions depending on position. 

Not really relevant, just saying the idea doesn't have any support.


----------



## Enoch (Feb 5, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> If a person is dominant in say Ni, they have gone their entire life using the "intuition" function and directing it only inward, which ultimately makes it different than when it is directed outward. Ne and Ni are very different functions, I don't consider Ni users even remotely similar to Ne users because the psychological processing of information and overall mindest is completely different. When a person leads with an introverted function, they interact with the outer world using whatever functions they are most comfortable "extroverting". It is very odd that an Ni dominant would be comfortable completely rewiring their brain just to interact with the outer world; which for example is why most people who are dominant with one function are typically really bad with the opposite version of the same function (Ni and Ne for example).


But an Fi-dom, I imagine, will switch to Fe in the instance that they relate to somebody else's struggles, for example, and logically, the stronger the Fi, or the greater the preference for introversion, the less likely they are to switch to using Fe because their Fi is so distinct and is therefore less likely to relate to the feelings of others.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> @MusiCago - why do you believe Ni types directs their intuition 'only' inwards?
> 
> This disrespects and disregards 'preferences' and well basically all of Jungs work with regards to duality, opposites, synchronicity, etc etc.
> 
> ...


Nani!?!? Lol xD


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

@Turi

Ni doms don't always direct their intuition inwards, that would mean there's no use of Ne which is false. Ni on it's own is always directed inward, like every introverted function. To rephrase what I said, an Ni dom goes their whole life developing Ni _first_, meaning that when they are using Ni (which is more than the majority of the time), that is the time they are only focusing their intuition inwards. Ni dominants will spend a very little amount of time developing Ne, considering it is strongly devalued on the conscious level (which by the way supports Jung's idea of preferences). It would take an _extraordinarily_ intelligent person to be able to be equally strong in both Ni and Ne; which is very rare and highly unlikely.



Enoch said:


> But an Fi-dom, I imagine, will switch to Fe in the instance that they relate to somebody else's struggles, for example, and logically, the stronger the Fi, or the greater the preference for introversion, the less likely they are to switch to using Fe because their Fi is so distinct and is therefore less likely to relate to the feelings of others.


Not necessarily. An Fi dom can use their auxiliary Se or Ne to gather the information they are being given (the story they are being told by the friend or something) then feed their Fi in order to relate to someone. This is why when high Fi users are relating to you, they're really (in the nicest way possible) doing it in a selfish way of exploring their own experiences and feelings to do so. If an Fi user has never gone through something themselves, they will have a very hard time sympathizing with someone because Fi is naturally selfish in the sense it is absorbed in it's own feelings (as turi has argued before) and cannot connect to the outer world without the help of Ne/Se. It is very rare that an Fi dom has any valuation for Fe and would enjoy engaging in it since it feels like a betrayal to themselves. However, Fi can "recreate" the product of Fe with the help of other functions, because functions are about _process_.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@MusiCago - 'Ni on its own' - no.

Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se. 

Of course they spend most of their early life developing Ni, they prefer intuition and introversion. 

Why on Earth then, considering a preference for intuition (which absolutely in no way is a separate function to Ne outside of its attitude) would they extrovert Feeling or Thinking over intuition.

This makes no sense.


----------



## Enoch (Feb 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
> It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se.


Couldn't be any more right.

Quite evidently I'm an Ne dom and when I am rapidly generating possibilities ocassionally I will also come up with internal intuitions.

Ne-doms needs Ni to eliminate the unrealistic possibilites, what they are certain of what is not going to happen as opposed to what is.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Enoch said:


> Couldn't be any more right.
> 
> Quite evidently I'm an Ne dom and when I am rapidly generating possibilities ocassionally I will also come up with internal intuitions.
> 
> Ne-doms needs Ni to eliminate the unrealistic possibilites, what they are certain of what is not going to happen as opposed to what is.


Where dat mind blown meme at?
I'm on my phone can you post it for me?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

As long as we are in the Jungverse, I think it only makes sense to say:
Ni - Intuition focused more on the subject than the object
Ne - Intuition focused more on the object than the subject

I think the notation is one of the thing that confuses people. The MBTI manual instead wrote them as N (I), and N (E), which I like. Here the implication is more obvious. Both are the function Intuition, but rather than being separate things, it's just the same thing with the larger part of its focus in a different direction. Ni and Ne are not discrete entities.

And thus N (I) does not require a conscious partner oriented in the opposite direction such as T (E) or T (E), because it still does interact with the object. It just has its primary focus on the subject. N (I), with J (I) accompaniment in the consciousness, can still function in the outside world, due to the extraverted portions of both N (I) and J (I).


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> @MusiCago - 'Ni on its own' - no.
> 
> Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
> It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se.
> ...


Ummm... What? When a person is actively engaging in Ni and only Ni for the moment being, they are using it on it's own. By itself. For the given moment. What do you not understand. Ni and Ne are two complete different functions. A person can use both at the same time but they are different. I never said Ni came on it's own I am saying theoretically a person could use Ni by itself without any other functions involved for a short period of time before returning to their day. You probably do this multiple times a day.



Enoch said:


> Couldn't be any more right.
> 
> Quite evidently I'm an Ne dom and when I am rapidly generating possibilities ocassionally I will also come up with internal intuitions.
> 
> Ne-doms needs Ni to eliminate the unrealistic possibilites, what they are certain of what is not going to happen as opposed to what is.


Right because you're not _just_ using Ne by itself, which I was basically saying we all do in my previous post (nowhere have I said when you use one function you never use the other, I'm saying you strongly prefer Ne and devalue Ni). The elimination process you're referring to could also be the product of your Fi/Ti coming into play, as well. Also wasn't this whole topic about when introverts interact with the outside world, their dom function is suddenly extroverted?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

MusiCago said:


> What do you not understand. Ni and Ne are two complete different functions. A person can use both at the same time but they are different.


I feel the need to jump in on this one. It's not a lack of understanding in the sense that you're describing. It's a matter of different people using different models.

It gets a little old seeing people who are using different models accuse each other of a "lack of understanding", unless if we are talking about specific models like Grant's or Jung's, as described by the original authors.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I feel the need to jump in on this one. It's not a lack of understanding in the sense that you're describing. It's a matter of different people using different models.
> 
> It gets a little old seeing people who are using different models accuse each other of a "lack of understanding", unless if we are talking about specific models like Grant's or Jung's, as described by the original authors.


Right, however when I explain my understanding of something in the most clear and concise way I possibly can for the sake of discussion then the response given is "this makes no sense", clearly there is some misunderstanding going on.

I'm perfectly okay with someone having a different model understanding than me, however when there is a discussion in the case of "my understanding vs your understanding of something" and ideas and logical arguments are being proposed, it's a tad frustrating when it becomes counterproductive because of a lack of mutual understanding.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Ummm... What? When a person is actively engaging in Ni and only Ni for the moment being, they are using it on it's own. By itself. For the given moment.


I don't believe this. 



> What do you not understand.


lol



> Ni and Ne are two complete different functions.


I suppose this is kind of the heart of this thread, they're not, and nobody seems to get this.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> I don't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok so if we are just responding with "I don't believe this" without any logical argument being made then

K gud talk.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Ok so if we are just responding with "I don't believe this" without any logical argument being made then
> 
> K gud talk.


To be fair I already expressed my thoughts on this, lol.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I feel that aux-Fe in the air, so warm and harmonious.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I feel that aux-Fe in the air, so warm and harmonious.


Try it from another angle.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> To be fair I already expressed my thoughts on this, lol.


You said



Turi said:


> @MusiCago - 'Ni on its own' - no.
> 
> Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
> It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se


Which I addressed with 



MusiCago said:


> I never said Ni came on it's own I am saying theoretically a person could use Ni by itself without any other functions involved for a short period of time before returning to their day.


To which you responded with



Turi said:


> I don't believe this.


Unless I'm missing something you said earlier in the thread before I posted, I don't believe many thoughts were expressed.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> You said
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ni doesn't come 'on its own'.
> It comes with a less preferred Ne and an inferior Se.


I never said Ni came on it's own I am saying theoretically a person could use Ni by itself without any other functions involved for a short period of time before returning to their day.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> I never said Ni came on it's own I am saying theoretically a person could use Ni by itself without any other functions involved for a short period of time before returning to their day.


I don't believe this.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> To people who don't understand the concept of duality or ebb and flow, night and day, east and west, north and south, high and low, left and right, hot and cold, life and death etc sure, I bet it doesn't make sense.


Condescending much?



Turi said:


> But, they are the same function, and the processes aren't 'completely' different' - the only difference - the one and only, sole difference - is the attitude - introverted, or extroverted.
> That's it.


Ni's polar opposite is Se, not Ne.

Yes Ne and Ni are the same in terms of the fact they are "intuition". But what do you think happens depending on how the energy is directed? What do you believe the cause and effect of these energies are, and how does the cause and effect of both not separate them? The cause and effect of both functions would have to be the exact same for them to be the same function.

Here I'll help ni vs ne


----------



## Enoch (Feb 5, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Yes Ne and Ni are the same in terms of the fact they are "intuition". But what do you think happens depending on how the energy is directed? What do you believe the cause and effect of these energies are, and how does the cause and effect of both not separate them? The cause and effect of both functions would have to be the exact same for them to be the same function.


Don't you have two hands?

One is left and one is right, they are the same but they are opposites, for some tasks you use both and for others you use one (in most cases your preferred hand), some people are more left than right, some people are more right than left, and some people are ambidextrous.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Condescending much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mate.. Ni and Ne are _not _separate functions.
They are the same function, separated only and exclusively by introversion/extroversion.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Enoch said:


> Don't you have two hands?
> 
> One is left and one is right, they are the same but they are opposites, for some tasks you use both and for others you use one (in most cases your preferred hand), some people are more left than right, some people are more right than left, and some people are ambidextrous.


That comparison doesn't really work because youre not directing mental energy in two opposite directions; besides like I already said - Ni's opposite is Se.



Turi said:


> Mate.. Ni and Ne are _not _separate functions.
> They are the same function, separated only and exclusively by introversion/extroversion.


So a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard are the _exact_ same because they are both dogs? Ok.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> So a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard are the _exact_ same because they are both dogs? Ok.


The comparison is more along the lines of both a short-coat Chihuahua (say, Ni) and a long-coat Chihuahua (say, Ne) being both the same species of canine (N).


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> The comparison is more along the lines of both a short-coat Chihuahua (say, Ni) and a long-coat Chihuahua (say, Ne) being both the same species of canine (N).


But even with _that_ comparison, they still have their differences and are still not exactly the same. Once you really get some insight into the differences you learn they are not the same. With the comparison of short vs long coat chihuahuas there are not many differences, however with Ne vs Ni there are many differences as towards the mental processing that goes on between the two.

Ni is convergent - it brings in sensory information from Se and compacts it down to find insight and meaning

Ne is divergent - perceiving the external world by connecting different objects and ideas to as many other objects and ideas as possible. It does not generate insight like Ni, it is more creative and likes to explore possibilities while Ni explores probabilities.

How are these two functions the same.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@MusiCago - personalityjunkie, right yeah look I'll stick with Jung and what makes logical sense and you stick with personalityWhatevers, and we'll all get along just fine.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

MusiCago:41455329 said:


> Enoch said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you have two hands?
> ...


I tried to explain to him but he doesnt get it. He thinks your subjective relationship to an object is Se if you verbalize it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I tried to explain to him but he doesnt get it. He thinks your subjective relationship to an object is Se if you verbalize it.


Wut

Guys. 

Ni and Ne are not separate functions. 
How the hell do you guys not understand this?


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> @MusiCago - personalityjunkie, right yeah look I'll stick with Jung and what makes logical sense and you stick with personalityWhatevers, and we'll all get along just fine.


I didn't send you a personalityjunkie url I sent you a google search url; it's your decision to click on whatever websites pop up. My point there was that ni vs ne is all over the internet and I have no clue where you're getting that Ni and Ne are the exact same thing. You say that you stick to Jung's work but my question is where? Where are you getting your informatiom from? And don't just say "Jung". It seems to me like these are your own conclusions and you're trying to pass off as gospel from Carl Jung - I mean it's in title of your thread.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Let's take the hand analogy. They're hands (N). One is right (I) and one is left (E). However, the right side of the brain which controls the left hand, is _markedly different_ than the left side of the brain which controls the right hand. It has different anatomy, it values different things, it processes and expresses information differently.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Wut
> 
> Guys.
> 
> ...


Yes they are. 

If we go by your logic then an ISFJ and an ESFP are indistinguishable from eachother when they're talking.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@MusiCago - you don't need to send a link to personalityjunkie, I recognize the terminology and see this can't go anywhere.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes they are.
> 
> If we go by your logic then an ISFJ and an ESFP are indistinguishable from eachother when they're talking.


Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> @MusiCago - you don't need to send a link to personalityjunkie, I recognize the terminology and see this can't go anywhere.


Maybe because you can't accept the fact that you're wrong on this one and you have nothing more to argue; not trying to be a dick or anything

https://giphy.com/gifs/tea-kermit-t...um=landing&utm_campaign=Media Links&utm_term=


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Saying that your argument is still valid when presented with _absolute evidence_ to the contrary by _invalidating absolutes_ is intellectually disingenuous. He followed your argument to its logical conclusion. If Ni and Ne were the same, INFPs and INFJs would act the same. They don't, because within the context of JCF, those processes are defined as separate things. Yes, they're intuitive processes. Just like hands are hands. But _a hand_ is not the same thing as _the motor cortex_. _Intuition_ (N) is not the same as _Ni and Ne_.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.


http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/021/464/14608107_1180665285312703_1558693314_n.jpg


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Saying that your argument is still valid when presented with _absolute evidence_ to the contrary by _invalidating absolutes_ is intellectually disingenuous. He followed your argument to its logical conclusion. If Ni and Ne were the same, INFPs and INFJs would act the same. They don't, because within the context of JCF, those processes are defined as separate things. Yes, they're intuitive processes. Just like hands are hands. But _a hand_ is not the same thing as _the motor cortex_. _Intuition_ (N) is not the same as _Ni and Ne_.


Within JCF, the INFJ stack is Fi-Ni etc and INFP is Ni-Fi etc so down goes that ship.

What absolute evidence, BTW, I'm definitely right, lol. I mean I'm so right y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. 

Read some Jung, boiz.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Maybe because you can't accept the fact that you're wrong on this one and you have nothing more to argue; not trying to be a dick or anything
> 
> https://giphy.com/gifs/tea-kermit-t...um=landing&utm_campaign=Media Links&utm_term=


Except I'm not?
So that's a thing. 

The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition.

Introversion and extroversion preferences alter the function attitude, not the function itself, which remains the same.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Within JCF, the INFJ stack is Fi-Ni etc and INFP is Ni-Fi etc so down goes that ship.


Have you ever seen an INFP and INFJ comparison? Their ways of mental processing are completely different due to the fact they consciously prefer the opposite functions; and that's backed by Socionics bud.



Turi said:


> What absolute evidence, BTW, I'm definitely right, lol. I mean I'm so right y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.
> 
> Read some Jung, boiz.


Provide some sources and make some logical sense rather than ending a discussion with "I'm right you're wrong" when proved otherwise using nothing but absolute reason and logic. I'm not trying to insult you Turi, I just don't quite get whats going on in that mind of yours and why you're so hard to reason with.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Except I'm not?
> So that's a thing.
> 
> The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition.
> ...


Like I said, function attitude towards introversion differentiates from function attitude towards extroversion.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Like I said, function attitude towards introversion differentiates from function attitude towards extroversion.


Nice edit.  

Just read some Jung. Like literally go to the Definitions section of Psychological Types, and tell me how many functions there are. 

4.

Function-attitude does not change the function. It simply produces an attitude.

Thinking is Thinking. 
Ti, Te, same function.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Nice edit.
> 
> Just read some Jung. Like literally go to the Definitions section of Psychological Types, and tell me how many functions there are.
> 
> ...


Do you agree that thought is subjective and objects are objective?

Can you observe tangible facts without the use of your 5 senses? Can you come to an understanding of things without thinking about them?

If not then no, introverted and extroverted functions are not the same thing.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Nice edit.


Well ya' know, I have to word my sentences in a very specific way - just for you Turi.



Turi said:


> Just read some Jung. Like literally go to the Definitions section of Psychological Types, and tell me how many functions there are.
> 
> 4.
> 
> ...


I'm tired of repeating myself. You have not answered my previous question about cause and effect of the function attitudes towards I or E, and the reason you refuse to is because you know where the logical outcome will get you and you are incapable of accepting the fact that you're wrong.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Well ya' know, I have to word my sentences in a very specific way - just for you Turi.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of repeating myself. You have not answered my previous question about cause and effect of the function attitudes towards I or E, and the reason you refuse to is because you know where the logical outcome will get you and you are incapable of accepting the fact that you're wrong.


Well, stop repeating yourself because you're wrong anyway.

Lemme lay it out nice and clear for you, again - the attitude of a function does not change the function. 
It simply means it is preferred outwards, or inwards - the function itself remains the same.

There are four functions. 
Introverted and extroverted attitudes are just that attitudes. Not different functions.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Well, stop repeating yourself because you're wrong anyway.
> 
> Lemme lay it out nice and clear for you, again - the attitude of a function does not change the function.
> It simply means it is preferred outwards, or inwards - the function itself remains the same.
> ...


I find it hysterical that you know about the laws of duality but you've never heard of cause and effect.

Let me lay it out nice and clear for _you_. If the functions all worked exactly the same regardless of energy directed inward or outward, why would Jung even state the difference of function introversion and function extroversion if there were no differences in the first place? Unless you respond with a valid argument, I'm done here.

Good talk.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> I find it hysterical that you know about the laws of duality but you've never heard of cause and effect.
> 
> Good talk.


Irrelevant to the argument. 

Which is, extroverted and introverted attitudes differences do not = completely different function.

Edit: noticed you're trying to manipulate my position here likely to gain the support of others - at no point have I claimed introverted and extroverted attitudes make no difference or stated the function acts the same, the difference is it is either oriented inwards, or outwards, remaining the same _function_ either way.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

He knows I'm right so he just stopped responding. Happened like 4x this week


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Which is, extroverted and introverted attitudes differences do not = completely different function.


Go back and read my edit.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Edit: noticed you're trying to manipulate my position here likely to gain the support of others - at no point have I claimed introverted and extroverted attitudes make no difference or stated the function acts the same, the difference is it is either oriented inwards, or outwards, remaining the same _function_ either way.


Where am I being manipulative? I didn't manipulate anyone here to agree with me. This *entire time* you have sat here and preached Ne and Ni are the same thing. How does that not contradict 



Turi said:


> at no point have I claimed introverted and extroverted attitudes make no difference or stated the function acts the same


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Agent X

What you postulated about being more in tune with certain shadow functions opposed to others is true for me. However, I find that I'm at least aware of my Fi and I distrust Fe a lot, personally. So I think it depends on how valued the function is. I put a lot of value on my Ni but value Te and Fi about equally. So while I have access to Ne by default, it still confuses me and I'd rather not use it. It's more like it's conscious but not valued. Same goes for Ti as well. I value Fi a lot, but not Fe. Se and Si are both very foreign to me though I like the idea of them - especially Se. 

I mean, I think there will be variants due to each individual.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

MusiCago said:


> That comparison doesn't really work because youre not directing mental energy in two opposite directions; besides like I already said - Ni's opposite is Se.


Ni's opposite isn't Se. Ni is the other side of the axis of Se. They need each other to coexist, in my mind. So, I'd say they're also yin and yang. Ni and Ne are the exact same function, though. One is directed subjectively and the other is directed objectively. The only difference between them is the attitude (introversion and extroversion).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Where am I being manipulative? I didn't manipulate anyone here to agree with me. This *entire time* you have sat here and preached Ne and Ni are the same thing. How does that not contradict


Ni and Ne are the same thing, exactly, as far as functions are concerned. 

The orientation is obviously different, they have differing function-attitudes, this is what separates the two, despite being the exact same function.

A position I will not move from due to it simply being a plain, observable truth that you can verify by just reading some Jung.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

After reading the rest of the thread, I fear that these misinformed internet sites are really causing some confusion. The best thing I can say is to read the original source of the cognitive functions. You know, the guy who came up with them? The difference is the attitude. If one's introverted attitude is extreme and another's extroverted attitude is extreme, then yes, they can look like entirely different processes, but the process is the same.

It's straight out of what I'd think the most popular typology book on the planet is.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> Ni's opposite isn't Se. Ni is the other side of the axis of Se. They need each other to coexist, in my mind. So, I'd say they're also yin and yang.


According to the laws of duality, opposites need each other to coexist.



brightflashes said:


> Ni and Ne are the exact same function, though. One is directed subjectively and the other is directed objectively. The only difference between them is the attitude (introversion and extroversion).


If two functions are the same thing, they are not true opposites. As I've attempted to reason with Turi, function attitude towards introversion differentiates from functions attitude towards extroversion, making them two separate things. They are the same in the sense they are intuition (N) functions, but Ne and Ni are not the same thing.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ni and Ne are the same thing, exactly, as far as functions are concerned.
> 
> The orientation is obviously different, they have differing function-attitudes, this is what separates the two, despite being the exact same function.
> 
> A position I will not move from due to it simply being a plain, observable truth that you can verify by just reading some Jung.


Then why can't you answer my question? Oh right, cause it debunks your position.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ni and Ne are the same thing, exactly, as far as functions are concerned.
> 
> The orientation is obviously different, they have differing function-attitudes, this is what separates the two, despite being the exact same function.
> 
> A position I will not move from due to it simply being a plain, observable truth that you can verify by just reading some Jung.


If two things have differences, they are not the exact 100% same; this is a universal truth.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Then why can't you answer my question? Oh right, cause it debunks your position.


What exactly is your question, then? I didn't see one. Also, @MusiCago, read Jung's book on Typology and get back to me. The FUNCTION (intuition) is the same. The attitude is different. tell me what's different about these two phrases:

Introverted Intuition
Extroverted Intuition

Intuition is intuition period. It's the attitude that directs what it will look at. How is this a hard concept to understand?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> What exactly is your question, then? I didn't see one. Also, @MusiCago, read Jung's book on Typology and get back to me. The FUNCTION (intuition) is the same. The attitude is different. tell me what's different about these two phrases:
> 
> Introverted Intuition
> Extroverted Intuition
> ...


Here you go: 

Do you agree that thought is subjective and objects are objective?

Can you observe tangible facts without the use of your 5 senses? Can you come to an understanding of things without thinking about them?

If not then no, introverted and extroverted functions are not the same thing.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> read Jung's book on Typology and get back to me. The FUNCTION (intuition) is the same. The attitude is difference. tell me what's different about these two phrases:
> 
> Introverted Intuition
> Extroverted Intuition
> ...


Do you not understand what happens when the intuition attitude is directed towards introversion or extroversion?



MusiCago said:


> Ni is convergent - it brings in sensory information from Se and compacts it down to find insight and meaning
> 
> Ne is divergent - perceiving the external world by connecting different objects and ideas to as many other objects and ideas as possible. It does not generate insight like Ni, it is more creative and likes to explore possibilities while Ni explores probabilities.


There is a cause and effect to where the energy of a function is directed. If there wasn't, Jung would have never mentioned the differences of function introversion and extroversion in the first place.


----------

