# The simplest way to know if you're intuitive or a sensor



## O_o

Fried Eggz said:


> According to the Beebe 8-function model, it is the only function that stores memories of details. Hence INxJs have trouble remembering people's birthdays, names, etc because it is their demon function. Ni is the counterpart and remembers your impressions of what happened instead of the details.
> 
> So, in theory, an ExxP has a very mixed memory because their 4th and 5th functions are Ni & Si, whereas IxxJs are specialists.


Interesting, I've heard of this model but haven't read it. 
But it still fits in with what I said, I believe. It may store memories of details, be able to pin point better the changes, when something is off and such. but wouldn't this also depend on person to person? Clearly not all Si have the same ability to memorize, even if they may pick up on changes better based on the impact it left on them. Even with Si dominants, there is diversity regarding this and this diversity in memory ability goes beyond cognitive functions


----------



## Kavik

I'll be watching this thread as I still get confuse about the difference. Mainly since Ti and Ni can function so well together they look like N, or so I'm understanding so far.

Don't sensors like having physical objects to work with? Even if working with an abstract concept they will build an image of it in their mind while intuitives think in categories or impressions that don't need a physical representation?


----------



## pianodog

ephemereality said:


> I don't think this captures the gist of what the difference between intuition and sensation is at all to be honest. To sense means to pay awareness to information provided by one's senses and focus on that experience and to intuit means to focus on data not perceived by the senses but exists as something more intangible, to see what is not there but still there. Jung calls it as seeing behind the corner when you only see the corner. This is definitely not intuition:
> 
> 
> Intuition does not pull apart. It's as experiential as sensation, being perception.
> 
> What you have done here is more something akin to an abstract Ti model to be honest, and it seems to me that you confuse your ability to Think with intuition.


I think what I wrote is exactly or sounds nearly the same as what you said. Intuitive is abstract concepts, Ti is logical reasoning. Ti doesn't pop concepts out of the air, it pays attention to cause and effect and reasoning. 

I said sensing is focusing on your senses and intutition is focusing on abstract concepts and possibilities. How is that any different from what you wrote above? I don't get it.


----------



## pianodog

Kavik said:


> I'll be watching this thread as I still get confuse about the difference. Mainly since Ti and Ni can function so well together they look like N, or so I'm understanding so far.
> 
> Don't sensors like having physical objects to work with? Even if working with an abstract concept they will build an image of it in their mind while intuitives think in categories or impressions that don't need a physical representation?


If this was true then that would mean I was a sensor which I know I'm not. That has a bit more to do with learning style which can be somewhat independent from personality type. An intuitive can be a visual learner in which we use visuals to understand concepts. But thing is, intuitives don't imagine vivid details without alot of effort, when I imagine things in my head I more less see an image of something but it takes alot of concentration to think about the details of the image.


----------



## Entropic

pianodog said:


> I think what I wrote is exactly or sounds nearly the same as what you said. Intuitive is abstract concepts, Ti is logical reasoning. Ti doesn't pop concepts out of the air, it pays attention to cause and effect and reasoning.
> 
> I said sensing is focusing on your senses and intutition is focusing on abstract concepts and possibilities. How is that any different from what you wrote above? I don't get it.


No, that's not what I said. I never mentioned abstract concepts. Ti isn't just reasoning but it also deals with abstraction though in a logical manner. 

Sensing isn't focusing on one's senses as much as it is focusing on the experience of one's senses. It's different.


----------



## Valtire

O_o said:


> Interesting, I've heard of this model but haven't read it.
> But it still fits in with what I said, I believe. It may store memories of details, be able to pin point better the changes, when something is off and such. but wouldn't this also depend on person to person? Clearly not all Si have the same ability to memorize, even if they may pick up on changes better based on the impact it left on them. Even with Si dominants, there is diversity regarding this and this diversity in memory ability goes beyond cognitive functions


Personally, I think there's a large variation between all types in the way their functions express themselves. I have strong sensory processes for sight, and thus I can read facial expressions with impunity, but other INTJs are sound-oriented. I don't doubt there will be Si users who aren't focused on certain types of details.

Yet at the same time, I don't think an INTJ is going to be able to compete with an ISTJ on remembering these details even in extreme cases. Yet again this is assuming Beebe's model though, and the only reason I espouse it is because opposing Ne, Trickster Fe and Demon Si all describe me quite well.


----------



## Kavik

pianodog said:


> I said sensing is focusing on your senses and intutition is focusing on abstract concepts and possibilities. How is that any different from what you wrote above? I don't get it.


That sounds more like Ni. "They enjoy tinkering with ideas, perspectives, theories, visions, stories, symbols, and metaphors. Their dominant function, Introverted Intuition (Ni), serves as the veritable foundation for this inner playhouse" 
Introverted Intuition (Ni)

It's more a specific example for Ni dom but it has the gist.


----------



## pianodog

Ok may'be I just utterly suck at writing things in words. I wasn't wrong, just wrote things in a bad way. Perhaps my descriptions were more NE then anything. But I swear this is how my brain works. I notice some details on objects but I will always think about ideas and other perspectives of that object. 

And thinking just means pondering, it's not necessarily the Ti/Te functions. I don't sit there and logically think about things, my brain just spits out random information that I find interesting, if I want I can use Te to logically think it out but usually I never do that unless I'm trying to accomplish some goal that would require it. 
@O_o

Yeah I'm the same way. 100 ideas about something I look at. That paragraph I wrote about the door I wrote in 30-40 seconds, it didn't take me any effort to throw ideas around. One thing that made it bad though was that I put my ideas together logically out of habit, they don't come to me in that order such as brain - motor neurons - muscles - hand - touch, it was more like: 

Door- muscles- hands grab doors- brain operates everything 

Extraverted intuition is a horrible thing to try to put into words. Especially for someone who lacks Ti.


----------



## pianodog

Kavik said:


> That sounds more like Ni. "They enjoy tinkering with ideas, perspectives, theories, visions, stories, symbols, and metaphors. Their dominant function, Introverted Intuition (Ni), serves as the veritable foundation for this inner playhouse"
> Introverted Intuition (Ni)
> 
> It's more a specific example for Ni dom but it has the gist.


NE and Ni are both about ideas and concepts, Ne is like scatter brained, brain storming, random information that is very very broad but shallow. Ni is focused and sees all the way to end of a single path.

Ne is the function that annoys alot of people because it's the one that causes dominant NE's to go "You know what would be cool, if they had a bus that went to the moon." Ne is really random where as I've noticed my INFJ brother be very annoyed with my ramblings about things, I have to stay kind of focused when I talk to him, I don't usually have a point for a conversation, I just talk about things and end up with some kind of revelation or point sometimes.


----------



## Entropic

Fried Eggz said:


> Personally, I think there's a large variation between all types in the way their functions express themselves. I have strong sensory processes for sight, and thus I can read facial expressions with impunity, but other INTJs are sound-oriented. I don't doubt there will be Si users who aren't focused on certain types of details.
> 
> Yet at the same time, I don't think an INTJ is going to be able to compete with an ISTJ on remembering these details even in extreme cases. Yet again this is assuming Beebe's model though, and the only reason I espouse it is because opposing Ne, Trickster Fe and Demon Si all describe me quite well.


It's more the data that differs. I think reading type based off facial expressions is something a visual heavy Si type would do for example, because it's about discerning repeatable sensory data that has a specific meaning or association to the Si dom, but Ni would try to read some kind of intent for example.


----------



## O_o

pianodog said:


> @__
> 
> Yeah I'm the same way. 100 ideas about something I look at. That paragraph I wrote about the door I wrote in 30-40 seconds, it didn't take me any effort to throw ideas around. One thing that made it bad though was that I put my ideas together logically out of habit, they don't come to me in that order such as brain - motor neurons - muscles - hand - touch, it was more like:
> 
> Door- muscles- hands grab doors- brain operates everything
> 
> Extraverted intuition is a horrible thing to try to put into words. Especially for someone who lacks Ti.


Honestly, with such things like perceiving functions... I wonder if it's just best to demonstrate without trying to define. Not even bother with going out and thinking up of some example, rather just sitting there and.. just as soon as something pops into the head, just write it out. Just write it out in it's pure form. I mean certainly, one could reflect back on this and summarize/provide a definition and such. But by doing this, you're automatically sort of... stepping away from using it. 

I've noticed that often, people demonstrate use of Ne or other functions the best when they're _not_ purposely trying to do it. Rather when they're doing something entirely different... Almost, by actively trying to demonstrate how they fit with it, by... disconnecting themselves from it to state from it's definition how they relate to it, it's not as clear. If that makes sense


----------



## Valtire

ephemereality said:


> It's more the data that differs. I think reading type based off facial expressions is something a visual heavy Si type would do for example, because it's about discerning repeatable sensory data that has a specific meaning or association to the Si dom, but Ni would try to read some kind of intent for example.


Is this an attempt to type me, lol? If so, I equate with role Si as well; in fact Role Si is my bane. I feel like an anomaly for agreeing with 3/4 of Socionics and most of Beebe's model at the same time.


----------



## Kavik

pianodog said:


> NE and Ni are both about ideas and concepts, Ne is like scatter brained, brain storming, random information that is very very broad but shallow. Ni is focused and sees all the way to end of a single path.
> 
> Ne is the function that annoys alot of people because it's the one that causes dominant NE's to go "You know what would be cool, if they had a bus that went to the moon." Ne is really random where as I've noticed my INFJ brother be very annoyed with my ramblings about things, I have to stay kind of focused when I talk to him, I don't usually have a point for a conversation, I just talk about things and end up with some kind of revelation or point sometimes.


Ne is many ideas from one and Ni is one idea from many. I believe I read that somewhere and I find it accurate. Ne likes lots of info and Ni likes only the important bits. They aren't so much random as they are unconscious depending on their placement among other functions.


----------



## Entropic

Fried Eggz said:


> Is this an attempt to type me, lol? If so, I equate with role Si as well; in fact Role Si is my bane. I feel like an anomaly for agreeing with 3/4 of Socionics and most of Beebe's model at the same time.


No. I just suggested that Si types look for different data than Ni in the visual.

Ok fuck that grammar but I'm on the phone and you get what I mean.


----------



## Kathy Kane

My husband is a sensor and we view things differently for sure.

Here's an example: There is a busy parking lot we both park in often, and when it's packed people will park in a narrow dirt area. My husband and I will tell each other about what we experienced in that parking lot. 

I will talk about how the people who park in the dirt are crazy drivers who park at weird angles, squeeze into spaces too small for their cars, block each other, and have no regard for anyone else. 

My husband will say, "That blonde lady who drives the red 4-door honda civic is always in my way." or "Did you see all the dents in the gray Toyota Sienna? I'm not surprised since he cuts me off all the time."

I have no clue who drives what car, let alone what make and model those cars are. I know there is a black SUV with a white stripe that parks in the same spot every time. I only know that because I want to park there and I have to show up super early to get it before that person parks there. My husband knows the description of the person who drives it and the specific type of car it is. Where I have no clue.


----------



## VoodooDolls

For me it's pretty much about how far are you from giving attention to real life matters. I'm not sure tho but when someone comes to me and they start talking about such things as their pets and sports teams, or maybe politics, or the weather i would pretty much always derive the conversation into some weird topic related to it, for example: sighthings of UFOs during a hail storm in Egypt. This happens because i feel unconfortable and like i can't add anything to what's the other person is telling me and i prefer to go to some more unrealistic state where we can make hypothesis and weird theories, i enjoy so much that kind of conversation. Can't tell you 100% sure if that's intuitiveness but maybe that's some sign about it?. Make it whatever you want from my words.
Anyway this is kinda frustrating in a way, specially with hot girls.


----------



## Kavik

DonutsGalacticos said:


> For me it's pretty much about how far are you from giving attention to real life matters. I'm not sure tho but when someone comes to me and they start talking about such things as their pets and sports teams, or maybe politics, or the weather i would pretty much always derive the conversation into some weird topic related to it, for example: sighthings of UFOs during a hail storm in Egypt. This happens because i feel unconfortable and like i can't add anything to what's the other person is telling me and i prefer to go to some more unrealistic state where we can make hypothesis and weird theories, i enjoy so much that kind of conversation. Can't tell you 100% sure if that's intuitiveness but maybe that's some sign about it?. Make it whatever you want from my words.
> Anyway this is kinda frustrating in a way, specially with hot girls.


Nah, that's not strictly an intuitive thing. I can't stand small talk either and would rather talk in depth on an interesting topic unrelated to either person. If someone started talking to me about UFOs for fun I would be all over that once I got over the jarring switch in conversation when I expected to be forced to drone out small talk. The difference could be in Ill unconsciously say what they expect so I can move on faster while you'll jump to changing the topic.


----------



## niss

Yeppur, that's a theory, all right...


----------



## VoodooDolls

niss said:


> Yeppur, that's a theory, all right...


What does yeppur means?
EDIT: ok i googled it.
Knowledge adquired, dicktionary actualized.


----------



## niss

DonutsGalacticos said:


> what does yeppur means?


Yepper with a southern dialect.


----------



## Chest

DonutsGalacticos said:


> typical ESTJ-ESFJ reaction


don't do this


----------



## VoodooDolls

Chest said:


> don't do this


I'm joking 95% of the time.
Good vibrations yo.


----------



## IncoherentBabbler

As far as the car example goes, I wouldn't be so quick to judge MBTI based on something like that. Cars are boring. Why would I want to think deeply about them? Nah, just notice the superficial and move on. That's all cars are worth.


----------



## tanstaafl28

@pianodog

This is a really cool concept! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Cellar Door

I would look at the car and not even thinking about it, just notice it's there then go back to day dreaming.


----------



## Doll

That thing about the cars makes so much sense. I look at something and I immediately start thinking of something that might or might not be related to it, while completely missing anything about the object itself. I never take in my environment when it comes to anything concrete. I would make the worst witness ever.


----------



## Purrfessor

john.thomas said:


> By that logic (about the car thing) then I'm guessing about 98% of the world is sensors. I have never known someone to think about the history of cars when they see one :/


Honestly just because I see a car doesn't mean I think about cars. I'll be putting my key into the lock without even knowing it whilst my mind is thinking about other intuitive things. Like if I were to get a pet chicken if I'd be willing to eat it or if I'd love it too much.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Direct said:


> I don't think about the history of the cars though. That is more like Si. But even Si people are not crazy enough to think how cars replaced horses. So maybe that was one bad example.


Really? I think about that. Not just with cars either. A few months ago I was taking a flight across the country and I was thinking about how I can go this distance in 3 hours, but 200 years ago it would have taken someone months to travel the same distance in a covered wagon.


----------



## Hiemal

This, of course, assumes that the focal point of the mind is on an object in the environment, in which the distinctions would be made clearer. For instance, my mind doesn't give a shit about its surroundings, it draws me in and allows me to play in a mental sandbox of thoughts and probabilities; thus, I do not care about outside stimuli and simply glaze over any in favor of mental imagery unless it is important that I pay it heed. I'm not concerned about the everyday hum-drum; I'm concerned about the global picture, the feasibly insane, the maddening, and the paradoxes apparent behind the scenes of the great machine's curtain, and I'm especially drawn to the latter.

I wonder if ideasthetic sensors have mistyped as intuitives; or, rather more interestingly, ideasthesia is only among the intuition-favoring; it would make sense after all, the ideasthetic crossover is denoted concept -> sight, concept -> sound, etc.


----------



## AST

I know I'm a sensor because I don't run into trees when I'm walking.


----------



## Kavik

Alea_iacta_est said:


> This, of course, assumes that the focal point of the mind is on an object in the environment, in which the distinctions would be made clearer. For instance, my mind doesn't give a shit about its surroundings, it draws me in and allows me to play in a mental sandbox of thoughts and probabilities; thus, I do not care about outside stimuli and simply glaze over any in favor of mental imagery unless it is important that I pay it heed. I'm not concerned about the everyday hum-drum; I'm concerned about the global picture, the feasibly insane, the maddening, and the paradoxes apparent behind the scenes of the great machine's curtain, and I'm especially drawn to the latter.


Real life is boring. Mental withdraw into a sandbox is not an N Capitol. It's what goes on in the sandbox that makes a difference. I think in moving images and scenarios for things that will never happen but I want to see, writing stories in my head or imagining monsters smashing the car I'm looking at. I don't contemplate the meaning of the universe or the history of transportation from looking at a car unless asked or I'm dying of boredom and my mind has wandered way off.


----------



## jcal

Alea_iacta_est said:


> This, of course, assumes that the focal point of the mind is on an object in the environment, in which the distinctions would be made clearer. For instance, my mind doesn't give a shit about its surroundings, it draws me in and allows me to play in a mental sandbox of thoughts and probabilities; thus, I do not care about outside stimuli and simply glaze over any in favor of mental imagery unless it is important that I pay it heed. I'm not concerned about the everyday hum-drum; I'm concerned about the global picture, the feasibly insane, the maddening, and the paradoxes apparent behind the scenes of the great machine's curtain, and I'm especially drawn to the latter.
> 
> I wonder if ideasthetic sensors have mistyped as intuitives; or, rather more interestingly, ideasthesia is only among the intuition-favoring; it would make sense after all, the ideasthetic crossover is denoted concept -> sight, concept -> sound, etc.


I know I'm a sensor because I would think... no, I would KNOW... I had lost my sanity if my mind ever started doing that shit to me. :shocked: :happy:


----------



## LostFavor

ephemereality said:


> To sense means to pay awareness to information provided by one's senses and focus on that experience and to intuit means to focus on data not perceived by the senses but exists as something more intangible, to see what is not there but still there.


Isn't that more or less what he said though? :S

Intangible and abstract are basically the same thing. 


Anywho, I think the problem is ultimately: 1) Intuitives trying to write what it's like to be a sensor without actually understanding firsthand (because they literally can't) and 2) Mixing Ne/Ni and Se/Si into two big, overarching definitions, when the functions are distinctly different in practice, regardless of how they might look in theory.

That said, I think pianodog understands what he's talking about - it's just not coming out quite right. I've noticed that intuitives tend to struggle with idea clarity a lot because they're often pulling from information that they can't actually put into objective terms. As in, if you talk about a square, block box that's 10ftX10ft, that's a pretty inarguable kind of concreteness. If you talk about what it means to be "square" in the colloquial sense and how society treats people who are considered "square," then suddenly you're in amorphous-ville and everyone thinks you're saying 32,293 different things that you don't mean.

Incidentally, due to their perspective, sensors generally seem to be gifted at keeping even theoretical stuff in concrete terms. The rest of us usually have a lot of explaining to do. :tongue:


----------



## Hiemal

Kavik said:


> Real life is boring. Mental withdraw into a sandbox is not an N Capitol. It's what goes on in the sandbox that makes a difference. I think in moving images and scenarios for things that will never happen but I want to see, writing stories in my head or imagining monsters smashing the car I'm looking at. I don't contemplate the meaning of the universe or the history of transportation unless asked or I'm dying of boredom and my mind has wandered off the charts.


Though the specifications I included at the bottom qualify the intuitive mental landscape more than the sensor landscape. I can't stop thinking about the paradoxes and attempting to make sense of them, attempting to hyper-analyze and extract information from as little information as possible to predict models, and I'm always attempting to unravel universal and commonplace mysteries in my head, paying no heed to the obvious, meaning that I miss crucial details by simply glazing over them. The internal mental landscape is more favorable to introverts than it is to intuitives, but the specifications are what determine the differences.


----------



## jcal

LostFavor said:


> Incidentally, due to their perspective, sensors generally seem to be gifted at keeping even theoretical stuff in concrete terms. The rest of us usually have a lot of explaining to do. :tongue:


Probably because we need to do that for our own benefit... we need to find that concrete analogy to help explain it to ourselves. Once we've done that (you'll know because that light bulb will be glowing above our heads), it's easy to explain it the same way to someone else.


----------



## Kavik

Alea_iacta_est said:


> Though the specifications I included at the bottom qualify the intuitive mental landscape more than the sensor landscape. I can't stop thinking about the paradoxes and attempting to make sense of them, attempting to hyper-analyze and extract information from as little information as possible to predict models, and I'm always attempting to unravel universal and commonplace mysteries in my head, paying no heed to the obvious, meaning that I miss crucial details by simply glazing over them. The internal mental landscape is more favorable to introverts than it is to intuitives, but the specifications are what determine the differences.


Does that mean the preference of the type of inner landscape can define an N or an S? Maybe by itself?



jcal said:


> Probably because we need to do that for our own benefit... we need to find that concrete analogy to help explain it to ourselves. Once we've done that (you'll know because that light bulb will be glowing above our heads), it's easy to explain it the same way to someone else.


I don't know if it's a sensor thing but I have to build a mental image in my head of something that I can manipulate before I can start to 'see' a concept. If that's what you mean by concrete.


----------



## Hiemal

Kavik said:


> Does that mean the preference of the type of inner landscape can define an N or an S? Maybe by itself?


Somewhat, it means what the directive of the mental landscape is could probably indicate whether the individual is an intuitive or an sensor. Intuitives are more associative, and much more focused on the why and how, while sensors are more more, well, sensorial, and are thus focused on the specifics and the clearly defined. Imagination is not Jungian intuition, Jungian intuition is comfort with the behind the scenes and the focus on the ulterior.

I'll give you a specific example, when I first was learning Chemistry in highschool, I engaged in a "race" with my teacher to figure out the system before he could finish explaining a concept. The system being how it relates to the generalized picture of Chemistry and since Chemistry is the central science, everything. Oftentimes, I would find that halfway through his lectures, I was able to figure out and deduce the rest of the model and relate it to other models, thus weaving the web of Bayesian reasoning characterizing the more intuitive inclined.


----------



## Kavik

Alea_iacta_est said:


> Somewhat, it means what the directive of the mental landscape is could probably indicate whether the individual is an intuitive or an sensor. Intuitives are more associative, and much more focused on the why and how, while sensors are more more, well, sensorial, and are thus focused on the specifics and the clearly defined. Imagination is not Jungian intuition, Jungian intuition is comfort with the behind the scenes and the focus on the ulterior.


I wasn't trying to pin down imagination. Just the concepts going on in the sandbox of the mind. The default settings I suppose. The explanation of intuitives as being associative makes perfect sense to me after reading a bunch of the comments here but I don't think what makes a sensor a sensor in the mental sense has been well defined yet. At least to my understanding. It's still muddy. I don't really know how to identify with being Sensorial. Maybe it's being able to describing something with such physical depth that others can vividly see what is being described. 

Say, "a woman chews methodically on her pen while tapping her index finger on the office phone. She sucks in a shallow breath and leans back into a steam of light piercing the blinds. She glances at the building traffic outside and feels the heat of the falling sun through the tinted glass. The phone rings and her chair squeaks as the legs crash to the floor and she spits out the pen. She answers with a controlled voice and tight smile." Not sure if that would be a sensor example or not. It doesn't described what she's thinking or what's going on outside the visuals, but implies or eludes to those things and sets up so zoomed in detail and explanations can be added soon after to flesh out what's going on.


----------



## tangosthenes

AST said:


> I know I'm a sensor because I don't run into trees when I'm walking.


Correct... the test of whether you are a sensor or an intuitive... put a book on a pedestal and a tree between you and the book... if you both walk towards the book and run into the tree, you're an intuitive. If you walk to the tree and climb it, you're Se dom. If you walk around the tree to the book, pick it up for your collection, but never read it, you're an Si dom.

If you run into the tree- to decide whether you are Ne or Ni, if you fainted into the tree, you're Ni. If you tried to avoid the fall by catching your footing as you rebound off of the tree, but slip 3 to 4 times before finally landing on your forehead and knocking yourself out, you're Ne.


----------



## pianodog

Ok at this point it's clear to me that I sort of made a bias assumption based on Ne. It's hard for me to understand Se, Si or even Ni. So is there a beat all way to know if your Si, Se, Ne or Ni? Or do you just have to trial and error it? I mean it took me a while to even realize I was Ne simply because we don't notice the ways our brain processes information necessarily. People always told me I move from one thing to the next super fast and bring up a topic from 3 hours ago and continue on it like I was just discussing it. I never realized that this was an effect of Ne though. 

I'm gonna read up on the other three functions and see if I can't redo this.


----------



## pianodog

How about this? What if we could figure out ways to determine which dominant type you are by ruling out the individual functions as possibilities. 

For example, if you feel like things should be done traditionally, or you see no reason to change things then you can rule out Ne as a dominant function. 

If you think things all the time while doing a job which are often not related and zone out of your senses, then you can rule out Se as the dominant function. 

The point is, to exaggerate in order to figure out which function is NOT your dominant. 

I'm gonna make a new post.


----------



## Kavik

pianodog said:


> How about this? What if we could figure out ways to determine which dominant type you are by ruling out the individual functions as possibilities.
> 
> For example, if you feel like things should be done traditionally, or you see no reason to change things then you can rule out Ne as a dominant function.
> 
> If you think things all the time while doing a job which are often not related and zone out of your senses, then you can rule out Se as the dominant function.
> 
> The point is, to exaggerate in order to figure out which function is NOT your dominant.
> 
> I'm gonna make a new post.


Wait, how does that help determine N or S? Are you trying to use function pairs to determine which one is being used? Secondly, tradition is a bad example for Ne. Ne makes connections from things it sees, it wants a piece of everything an object is, seeing many from one. Ne sees the potential of the one. Ni wants only the important bits and will see many possibilities from other angles and builds interconnected networks of floating islands. Subconsciously, Ni is continually making way for connections, searching for information to fill holes preventing connections. They know what they don't know and it sees one from many. 

Se is tricky depending on placement and doesn't prevent the mind from retreating. It's more the "ohh, I saw something shiny, go back!" function. It can act as a detector to snap the brain out of zoned out mode to into the present if the body senses a change in the outward environment. I use Se, not as a dom, to collect new information which happens very quickly. I then pull that information into my head for analysis. If what I saw turns out to be irrelevant, my mind will drift to other, prior information I gathered. Se doesn't just collect physical info, either. It can also be writings on topics. if I don't use Se to find something new I will go crazy analyzing something to death that I previously collected. That for me leads to a Ti-Ni loop. That Ni goes crazy without new input, it loses it's many thus it can't properly create its one, though it will kill itself trying.


----------



## pianodog

Kavik said:


> Wait, how does that help determine N or S? Are you trying to use function pairs to determine which one is being used? Secondly, tradition is a bad example for Ne. Ne makes connections from things it sees, it wants a piece of everything an object is, seeing many from one. Ne sees the potential of the one. Ni wants only the important bits and will see many possibilities from other angles and builds interconnected networks of floating islands. Subconsciously, Ni is continually making way for connections, searching for information to fill holes preventing connections. They know what they don't know and it sees one from many.
> 
> Se is tricky depending on placement and doesn't prevent the mind from retreating. It's more the "ohh, I saw something shiny, go back!" function. It can act as a detector to snap the brain out of zoned out mode to into the present if the body senses a change in the outward environment. I use Se, not as a dom, to collect new information which happens very quickly. I then pull that information into my head for analysis. If what I saw turns out to be irrelevant, my mind will drift to other, prior information I gathered. Se doesn't just collect physical info, either. It can also be writings on topics. if I don't use Se to find something new I will go crazy analyzing something to death that I previously collected. That for me leads to a Ti-Ni loop. That Ni goes crazy without new input, it loses it's many thus it can't properly create its one, though it will kill itself trying.


I realize this but a function being dominant makes a HUGE difference if I understand right. An ESFP or ESTP will use Se differently than an ISTP would. What I've read is that Se dominants tend to suck up all the physical information, the way things taste, smell, appear in great detail compared to other dominant types. 

Likewise, ENFP and ENTP use Ne differently than an ENFJ would. Ne dominants tend to constantly be in a state of phasing in and out of reality thinking about things, we're never really all there unless we're doing something new and different.


----------



## Entropic

LostFavor said:


> Isn't that more or less what he said though? :S
> 
> *Intangible and abstract are basically the same thing.*


Nope, because this isn't true, especially not in a Jungian sense. If it was, then Jung wouldn't speak of such things as concrete intuition. Would you say that a 5-year-old girl who said she just saw a ghost explained something abstract? I wouldn't. Ghosts may be intangible but they are certainly not abstract constructs. 



> Anywho, I think the problem is ultimately: 1) Intuitives trying to write what it's like to be a sensor without actually understanding firsthand (because they literally can't) and 2) Mixing Ne/Ni and Se/Si into two big, overarching definitions, when the functions are distinctly different in practice, regardless of how they might look in theory.


I think a lot of people who have commented on why the OP is erroneous have provided good examples and understanding.



> That said, I think pianodog understands what he's talking about - it's just not coming out quite right. I've noticed that intuitives tend to struggle with idea clarity a lot because they're often pulling from information that they can't actually put into objective terms.


That has nothing to do with intuition but is likely more a result of leading with perception in general and/or being a feeler.



> As in, if you talk about a square, block box that's 10ftX10ft, that's a pretty inarguable kind of concreteness.


It's Te so of course it will appear more "concrete" because it's objective. That's the very terminology Jung used when he described the extroversion. Extroversion is concrete and introversion abstract.



> If you talk about what it means to be "square" in the colloquial sense and how society treats people who are considered "square," then suddenly you're in amorphous-ville and everyone thinks you're saying 32,293 different things that you don't mean.


Nah:
Urban Dictionary: be there or be square

Any definition can be standardized and therefore also have a correct or incorrect use. It may vary on context but it isn't necessarily as subjective as you are trying to claim it to be here.


> Incidentally, due to their perspective, sensors generally seem to be gifted at keeping even theoretical stuff in concrete terms. The rest of us usually have a lot of explaining to do. :tongue:


Sensation has nothing to do with being a concrete thinker or putting theory in concrete terms. If going by Jung's definition, Te would be the cause and source of that, not sensation, for the very literal reason that Te is extroverted thinking hence, concrete thinking. 

Si is as abstract as it gets and it's extremely unfair to suggest N as a whole is somehow more abstract than S when it's not. It's also typist because it suggests that sensors for some reason wouldn't be able to be abstract thinkers. Of course they can be. You are aware that Darwin is typed as a Te-S type by Jung? I wholeheartedly agree. His entire idea of evolution sprung out from his Si observations.



MisterDantes said:


> Just one observation I made. It's not a universal truth in any way.


Fair, but why if so make it seem like they are?


> Might be. My reason for using Katniss as an example was to show what an intuitive person ISN'T like


I think the whole "what is" or "what isn't" an intuitive or a sensor is a false dichotomy because can all sense and intuit. Even an inferior Se type might react the same way she did in the example you provided. 



> I wouldn't know but would you say his works are predominantly T?


Yes.



> That it isn't more N than S?


How would you know anyway? He has to utilize both when describing events occurring in his books.


> If any artsy example of N would do (not only litterary) I'd say The Seventh Seal (movie) is as far from S you could possibly come.


And why couldn't it be Si?


> why thank you!


Always my pleasure.



> I do understand the dichtomy, even if i might not be on the same level as you, but you're right that I'm less adept at explaining it. I attempted it because it's difficult to learn if you dont even try. Besides, if I was afraid of critique I wouldn't hang around on an internet forum in the first place, right?


Sure, but it's not particularly helpful in a discussion that's already rife of misunderstanding. Then it would be better to ask for input on whether it's correct or not imo.


----------



## ferroequinologist

DonutsGalacticos said:


> If you're right there about Si users having a amazing capability of remembering past events, like telling 45 minutes long detailed histories then for me it's a proof that i'm not Si user at least being it dom or auxiliary. I have experienced in frustrating lots of ocassions when i was trying to tell someone something about x past event and while going blablabla i lost myself and miserably failed cause i wasn't able to keep it there through all the process.
> For me it comes spontaneously, like i "aha" momments, but i definitely don't have a good memory, i can't keep them there. I've got a constant sensation of alzehimer. Also my inability to learn from my mistakes, i just do all shit over and over again, all o this has lead me to think i was an Se inferior user when in fact it's probably my 3rd.


That's very ISFP-sounding--trust me, I should know. ;-) "Live and Don't Learn" that's my motto (Like Calvin).


----------



## ferroequinologist

pianodog said:


> How about this? What if we could figure out ways to determine which dominant type you are by ruling out the individual functions as possibilities.
> 
> For example, if you feel like things should be done traditionally, or you see no reason to change things then you can rule out Ne as a dominant function.
> 
> If you think things all the time while doing a job which are often not related and zone out of your senses, then you can rule out Se as the dominant function.
> 
> The point is, to exaggerate in order to figure out which function is NOT your dominant.
> 
> I'm gonna make a new post.


I know you said you are going to start a new thread, but I thought I'd reply here, because it seems the new one is focusing on dominant sensors...

I would think that Keirsey probably actually has the best way to start looking at the various ways of perceiving. Rather than focusing on cognitive functions--which cannot be directly observed externally, he focused on two things--how we use tools, and how we communicate. 

For tools, he identified two ways of using tools--cooperatively and utilitarian(ly). 
For communication, he identified abstract (or conceptual) and concrete communication. 

The four temperaments tend operate in unique ways. SJ types tend to use tools cooperatively and speak concretely. NF types tend to use tools cooperatively, but speak abstractly. NT types use tools in a utilitarian manner, but speak abstractly. SP types use tools in a utilitarian manner and speak concretely. 

I know we could go places starting from that point, but I don't have the time right now to build on it. ;-) Maybe later today...


----------



## LostFavor

ephemereality said:


> Nope, because this isn't true, especially not in a Jungian sense. If it was, then Jung wouldn't speak of such things as concrete intuition. Would you say that a 5-year-old girl who said she just saw a ghost explained something abstract? I wouldn't. Ghosts may be intangible but they are certainly not abstract constructs.


I don't give a fuck what Jung said. I'm talking about the definitions of the words. 

Intangible - not having physical presence.
Abstract - not having a physical or concrete existence.

Basically the same fucking thing. 



ephemereality said:


> I think a lot of people who have commented on why the OP is erroneous have provided good examples and understanding.


Ok. You can think whatever you want about that.



ephemereality said:


> That has nothing to do with intuition but is likely more a result of leading with perception in general and/or being a feeler.


Wow, good reasoning there to back up your claim. Oh wait.



ephemereality said:


> It's Te so of course it will appear more "concrete" because it's objective. That's the very terminology Jung used when he described the extroversion. Extroversion is concrete and introversion abstract.


The fuck does Te have to do with a square box?



ephemereality said:


> Nah:
> Urban Dictionary: be there or be square
> 
> Any definition can be standardized and therefore also have a correct or incorrect use. It may vary on context but it isn't necessarily as subjective as you are trying to claim it to be here.


You're just reaching for things to disagree with, aren't you? Language is ambiguous, objects are not. I can't put it any simpler than that.



ephemereality said:


> Sensation has nothing to do with being a concrete thinker or putting theory in concrete terms. If going by Jung's definition, Te would be the cause and source of that, not sensation, for the very literal reason that Te is extroverted thinking hence, concrete thinking.
> 
> Si is as abstract as it gets and it's extremely unfair to suggest N as a whole is somehow more abstract than S when it's not. It's also typist because it suggests that sensors for some reason wouldn't be able to be abstract thinkers. Of course they can be. You are aware that Darwin is typed as a Te-S type by Jung? I wholeheartedly agree. His entire idea of evolution sprung out from his Si observations.


If you're going to throw claims around, provide reasoning for them. Seriously. And there's nothing typist about what I said; all you did was knock down a fucking strawman. Not once did I say that S's are incapable of abstract thinking, or vice-versa. What part of "gifted" did you turn into "everything"? You know gifted is a reference to talent, right?


----------



## Angina Jolie

@ephemereality I'm reading, reading and you say a lot of NOs, but cannot explain the functions yourself. I would love to ehar your explanation of N and S.


----------



## MisterDantes

Never mind.


----------



## VoodooDolls

ferroequinologist said:


> That's very ISFP-sounding--trust me, I should know. ;-) "Live and Don't Learn" that's my motto (Like Calvin).


Yeah i'm a constant fail at learning from my failures the problem is that i do use Si when arguing with people, ie, a typical way of counter-attacking my gf on an argument would be: "you did this at that x time, and you did that at that x time and now you're doing this again" or something similar to that. Same with my sister (ESTJ), she's like: "oh you don't do anything to help us to clean up the house" ---- me counter-attacks: "you're out all day, and the first thing you do when getting home is acusing me of not doing anything (when in fact i do something just it's not enough for her standards), *you did the same yesterday and i didn't acussed you of anything but now you do it to me, you're not being fair, go home blabla (Fi)* ... blbalabla..." I think i touched her inferior Fi and so she started unleashing her unstopable anger at me. I've read that's a typical Si tertiary form of *support* or *relief* for the dom and auxiliary functions. And this is, along with some nostalgic music moments, pretty much the only time i know there must be Si going on.

This graphic illustrates how Si works in ocassions for me:


----------



## Entropic

LostFavor said:


> I don't give a fuck what Jung said. I'm talking about the definitions of the words.


Maybe you should in a discussion about the cognition functions, something he came up with?


> Intangible - not having physical presence.
> Abstract - not having a physical or concrete existence.
> 
> Basically the same fucking thing.


They are definitely not equal by definition in this context, especially not when you equalize to abstract versus concrete thinking which is exactly what you did. Why don't you answer my question - is the sighting of a ghost abstract or concrete?


> Wow, good reasoning there to back up your claim. Oh wait.


Because you totes did right that now. My point is that being weak in expressing oneself in language may be more likely the cause of not having differentiated thinking, aka you are not a thinking dominant type. 



> The fuck does Te have to do with a square box?


Wow, you don't see how defining a concept has anything to do with Te?



> You're just reaching for things to disagree with, aren't you? Language is ambiguous, objects are not. I can't put it any simpler than that.


I'm trying to show that your argument is fucking inconsistent with your previous claims. If language is ambiguous then the use, application and definitions of "abstract" and "concrete" must be as well. Yet you are operating on the idea that they are not ambiguous? 

And objects may well indeed be ambiguous too. Let's take the example of a colored shirt and people disagree on whether it is a red shirt or a pink shirt or whether the shirt is colored at all because one person happened to be blind. 



> If you're going to throw claims around, provide reasoning for them. Seriously. And there's nothing typist about what I said; all you did was knock down a fucking strawman. Not once did I say that S's are incapable of abstract thinking, or vice-versa. What part of "gifted" did you turn into "everything"? You know gifted is a reference to talent, right?


It was the implicit conclusion based on what you said pretty much. It was extremely difficult to interpret you as in saying that sensors would not then be able to deal with abstract information in some way because you explicitly said that they need to link it back to the concrete. Not sensory mind, but concrete. Since you've already outlined that you think concrete is the opposite of abstract and is equal to the sensory perhaps be a bit less sloppy with your terminology then. 

Also, I am not sure I buy into the whole "type X is more gifted in Y than type A being gifted in B". Simplistic thinking. 



SplitTheAtom said:


> @ephemereality I'm reading, reading and you say a lot of NOs, but cannot explain the functions yourself. I would love to ehar your explanation of N and S.


I already did give a general explanation early on:


> To sense means to pay awareness to information provided by one's senses and focus on that experience and to intuit means to focus on data not perceived by the senses but exists as something more intangible, to see what is not there but still there. Jung calls it as seeing behind the corner when you only see the corner.


Apparently you also need to read what is written on the very first page.


----------



## ferroequinologist

DonutsGalacticos said:


> Yeah i'm a constant fail at learning from my failures the problem is that i do use Si when arguing with people, ie, a typical way of counter-attacking my gf on an argument would be: "you did this at that x time, and you did that at that x time and now you're doing this again"


Sorry. I guess I should have stated explicitly that I was joking. I thought the smiley would say that... duh... I was just commiserating--because I can really feel for you. I have zilcho memory. It's embarrassing. I can say something, and literally seconds later not remember what I said, and have to ask people to repeat to _me_ what _I_ said! argh. And it's getting worse as I get older... 

I don't typically question someone's type without being asked, so I wasn't thinking along those lines when I wrote. Sorry if you thought I was questioning you... not my place...


----------



## jcal

Kavik said:


> I don't know if it's a sensor thing but *I have to build a mental image in my head of something that I can manipulate before I can start to 'see' a concept*. If that's what you mean by concrete.


Yes... that is exactly what I was referring to... building a mental model of a physical manifestation of the concept in order to examine how it actually might work in the real world. This got me thinking about how this seems to work in my mind... here's my 2¢ regarding how this process affects me:

Like many sensors I take offense to the notion that we are incapable of "deep" thought, or worse... just plain "stupid". At least concerning myself, I know this is not true... I know I am quite capable of understanding abstract theory. However, the way that I do it... the constant "translation" into the physical realm... is a very tiresome process. 

I have come to realize that this tiring/draining effect is virtually identical to the effect that translating thoughts into words has on most introverts, including myself. I am quite capable of both holding a conversation and working with abstract concepts... but they are both extremely tiresome and draining to do, so I prefer not to do either if there is no obvious need/benefit to do so. 

It becomes a double-whammy when someone wants to make small talk about abstract concepts/philosophies... there's now a double drain on my energy with typically no practical reward to be had for the effort expended. Just as conversation becomes more rewarding (i.e., worth the effort) when the topic is of personal interest to me, so does theoretical thought become worth the effort when it pertains to something I find of interest in the physical realm.


----------



## LostFavor

ephemereality said:


> They are definitely not equal by definition in this context, especially not when you equalize to abstract versus concrete thinking which is exactly what you did. Why don't you answer my question - is the sighting of a ghost abstract or concrete?


Well for one thing, whether you can actually see a ghost in the first place is pretty questionable, so you'll have to come up with analogy that isn't depending on who believes what about ghosts. Or at least, set a version of belief about ghosts that we can go from.



ephemereality said:


> I'm trying to show that your argument is fucking inconsistent with your previous claims. If language is ambiguous then the use, application and definitions of "abstract" and "concrete" must be as well. Yet you are operating on the idea that they are not ambiguous?
> 
> And objects may well indeed be ambiguous too. Let's take the example of a colored shirt and people disagree on whether it is a red shirt or a pink shirt or whether the shirt is colored at all because one person happened to be blind.


The irony of my saying that N's tend to struggle with clarity and then having us miss the point of what each other is saying is not lost on me. :happy:

My analogies might be factually inaccurate (I don't feel like poring over the lingual details right now) but I had hoped that people would catch my point (side note: only the first part of that original post of mine was actually directed at you). You seem bent on finding something wrong with what I'm saying though. Wish you'd spend more time trying to find what might be right. Then we'd have something to talk about, instead of doing this dance of who can catch each other more times saying something in a way that isn't supportable. 



ephemereality said:


> It was the implicit conclusion based on what you said pretty much. It was extremely difficult to interpret you as in saying that sensors would not then be able to deal with abstract information in some way because you explicitly said that they need to link it back to the concrete. Not sensory mind, but concrete. Since you've already outlined that you think concrete is the opposite of abstract and is equal to the sensory perhaps be a bit less sloppy with your terminology then.


You believe it was the implicit conclusion and it was extremely difficult _for you_ to interpret it a different way. I only emphasize that because it's easy to forget the lack of universality in a subjective interpretation of someone's words. 

Re: Terminology - see reference to irony above.



ephemereality said:


> Also, I am not sure I buy into the whole "type X is more gifted in Y than type A being gifted in B". Simplistic thinking.


I don't know what you mean here. I suspect it's another case of misinterpreting what I meant, but I won't presume this time.


----------



## Entropic

LostFavor said:


> Well for one thing, whether you can actually see a ghost in the first place is pretty questionable, so you'll have to come up with analogy that isn't depending on who believes what about ghosts. Or at least, set a version of belief about ghosts that we can go from.


That's beyond the point dude. The point, the entire point, is that ghosts would be immaterial and thus according to your definition also intangible, but yet the very idea of a ghost is actually concrete because it refers to a concrete object. It defeats your entire argument. If you are fantasizing about the new car you are going to buy is that car in your mind concrete or abstract? It doesn't exist yet because you haven't bought it. 



> The irony of my saying that N's tend to struggle with clarity and then having us miss the point of what each other is saying is not lost on me. :happy:


There are many reasons why people miss a point way unrelated to N or anything type-related in general. I actually understand your point but I choose to entirely ignore it because I think you are incorrect, simply put.



> My analogies might be factually inaccurate (I don't feel like poring over the lingual details right now) but I had hoped that people would catch my point (side note: only the first part of that original post of mine was actually directed at you). You seem bent on finding something wrong with what I'm saying though. Wish you'd spend more time trying to find what might be right. Then we'd have something to talk about, instead of doing this dance of who can catch each other more times saying something in a way that isn't supportable.


Nah. I have no interest in agreeing with you. 



> You believe it was the implicit conclusion and it was extremely difficult _for you_ to interpret it a different way. I only emphasize that because it's easy to forget the lack of universality in a subjective interpretation of someone's words.


lol. Yet you had perfect opportunity at this point to actually clarify what you mean. You are inconsistent in your terminology, the only thing we can rely on in order to have a clear communication. I pointed out your inconsistency in use. Is all. 



> Re: Terminology - see reference to irony above.


Except I never made such claims regarding terminology. You did.



> I don't know what you mean here. I suspect it's another case of misinterpreting what I meant, but I won't presume this time.


You mentioned gifts in relation to types and type differences. I simply disagreed.


----------



## LostFavor

ephemereality said:


> That's beyond the point dude. The point, the entire point, is that ghosts would be immaterial and thus according to your definition also intangible, but yet the very idea of a ghost is actually concrete because it refers to a concrete object. It defeats your entire argument. If you are fantasizing about the new car you are going to buy is that car in your mind concrete or abstract? It doesn't exist yet because you haven't bought it.


How is a ghost a concrete object? 

Hmm, strangely I don't see any reference to concrete in here: _an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image._



ephemereality said:


> You mentioned gifts in relation to types and type differences. I simply disagreed.


So you don't believe that people have talents? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.



ephemereality said:


> Nah. I have no interest in agreeing with you.


Well, I'm glad we cleared that up - I'll make a mental note to not get into conversation with you in the future. I try not to make a habit of talking to people whose hands are firmly planted over their ears. If I wanted to expend energy and get nothing out of it but a headache, I could just walk over to the wall and bang my head against it.


----------



## VoodooDolls

WTF ghost concrete, pain ie intangible, related to situations. etc


----------



## Mr inappropriate

DonutsGalacticos said:


> WTF ghost concrete, pain ie intangible, related to situations. etc


eh, you can draw a ghost (like Casper) but you cant do that with 'pain'.


----------



## VoodooDolls

That was what I said, we relate situations to the concept of pain, name it broken bones, blood from a cut, ending a relationship, etc, it's intangible. For ghost we don't need any context we have a general idea of the object by itself even if it doesn't exist like an alien or a yellow elephant. 

Sent from my RM-914_eu_spain_405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Entropic

lol you know the argument has gone way out of hand when even someone called @DonutsGalacticos gets it 

By the way, I don't mean that as a personal offense lol.


----------



## Sixty Nein

If ghosts are an abstract concept, then so are elves. Do you know what this means? People can go around claiming that they are actually elves!! Elves being an abstract concept would mean that only intuition types can be elves. This means we got a whole generation of kids claiming to be elves of some kind, and there will be a set of pretentious new age/indie music that is called "elfcore". Elf pornography will skyrocket. The original meaning of what it means to be an elf is lost to this new world. Do not let elves be the new vampire. They are in a shitty situation now, no need to make it worse for them.


----------



## niss

Sixty Nein said:


> If ghosts are an abstract concept, then so are elves. Do you know what this means? People can go around claiming that they are actually elves!! Elves being an abstract concept would mean that only intuition types can be elves. This means we got a whole generation of kids claiming to be elves of some kind, and there will be a set of pretentious new age/indie music that is called "elfcore". Elf pornography will skyrocket. The original meaning of what it means to be an elf is lost to this new world. Do not let elves be the new vampire. They are in a shitty situation now, no need to make it worse for them.


Not sure who you were addressing, but @ephemereality said, "Would you say that a 5-year-old girl who said she just saw a ghost explained something abstract? I wouldn't. Ghosts may be intangible but they are certainly not abstract constructs."

So, no ... not abstract.

I've read his comments and I find his understanding of the functions to be very similar to mine. I think if people would really read what he has said in this thread, it might clear up a great deal of confusion.


----------



## PaladinX

crashbandicoot said:


> eh, you can draw a ghost (like Casper) but you cant do that with 'pain'.


No, but I can pinch you. Can you draw air?



DonutsGalacticos said:


> That was what I said, we relate situations to the concept of pain, name it broken bones, blood from a cut, ending a relationship, etc, it's intangible. For ghost we don't need any context we have a *general idea of the object* by itself even if it doesn't exist like an alien or a yellow elephant.
> 
> Sent from my RM-914_eu_spain_405 using Tapatalk


Is that bolded line not the abstraction? If not, how do you define an abstract concept? Is Casper the idea of a ghost or is he a specific ghost? Without context, how do you know that I am talking about a Casper-like entity rather than a remote possibility? What about "head?" Is that a concrete or abstract concept? Why?


----------



## Kavik

I don't remember this thread being a debate on the definition of abstraction.


----------



## PaladinX

Kavik said:


> I don't remember this thread being a debate on the definition of abstraction.


Seemed like a good idea at the time.

*Shrugs*


----------



## Kavik

PaladinX said:


> Seemed like a good idea at the time.
> 
> *Shrugs*


Y'all were going in circles like someone locked in a Ti-Ni loop, getting way off topic, and it was making my head hurt. :bored:


----------



## LostFavor

Kavik said:


> I don't remember this thread being a debate on the definition of abstraction.


Apparently it is now. Seems the winning strategy is to split hairs until you hit an atom and it leads to an explosion or a meltdown.

Side note to some of the people talking about ghosts: Just because we've taken the concept of ghosts and turned them into moderately physical monsters in some cases (e.g. ghostbusters) doesn't mean that the root concept is something concrete (in fact, pop culture ghosts are more or less a derivative of the presiding definition). That may be why you're thinking that ghosts are concrete.


----------



## VoodooDolls

PaladinX said:


> No, but I can pinch you. Can you draw air?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bolded line not the abstraction? If not, how do you define an abstract concept? Is Casper the idea of a ghost or is he a specific ghost? Without context, how do you know that I am talking about a Casper-like entity rather than a remote possibility? What about "head?" Is that a concrete or abstract concept? Why?


That's one of the numerous physical appareances we've got for _ghost_, it works the same for the word _human_. We can't attribute the word _anger _a physical appareance.


----------



## Kavik

LostFavor said:


> Apparently it is now. Seems the winning strategy is to split hairs until you hit an atom and it leads to an explosion or a meltdown.


It was becoming pointless to the original question and more a strangle hold on who's pointlessly right on a definition that's already defined. Reminds me a bit of congress. 



DonutsGalacticos said:


> That's one of the numerous physical appareances we've got for _ghost_, it works the same for the word _human_. We can't attribute the word _anger _a physical appareance.


The color red = anger. Colors are associated with emotions though it's a human projection and not the actual 'object' of emotion. Ghosts are the same thing, projections of human souls in an astral form.

Here's another stab at the difference of T vs S using My MBTI Personality Type - MBTI Basics - Sensing or Intuition as a source

Intuition= symbols
Sensing= concrete images


----------



## Mr inappropriate

PaladinX said:


> No, but I can pinch you. Can you draw air?


maybe, like the bubbles in boiling water. I dont have to draw air though, just swing your hand rapidly, you can *touch* air.


----------



## PaladinX

DonutsGalacticos said:


> That's one of the numerous physical appareances we've got for _ghost_, it works the same for the word _human_. We can't attribute the word _anger _a physical appareance.


So is "death" a concrete concept because we can attribute a physical appearance to it?



crashbandicoot said:


> maybe, like the bubbles in boiling water. I dont have to draw air though, just swing your hand rapidly, you can *touch* air.


And if I pinch you, you can *feel *pain.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

LostFavor said:


> Side note to some of the people talking about ghosts: Just because we've taken the concept of ghosts and turned them into moderately physical monsters in some cases (e.g. ghostbusters) doesn't mean that the root concept is something concrete (in fact, pop culture ghosts are more or less a derivative of the presiding definition). That may be why you're thinking that ghosts are concrete.


Well, I think most things can be made into a concept somehow, but in this context it makes sense to think of ghosts as in the physical monsters because they were being used as an example of something not abstract. So the root meaning is not necessarily that important.


----------



## Kavik

PaladinX said:


> No, but I can pinch you. Can you draw air?


I suck at drawing but I can find a picture for you.









Unless you want to go nuts and argue the wind tunnel only produces an impression of air moving through particles.


----------



## LostFavor

Nonsense said:


> Well, I think most things can be made into a concept somehow, but in this context it makes sense to think of ghosts as in the physical monsters because they were being used as an example of something not abstract. So the root meaning is not necessarily that important.


Given that the whole point of him bringing up ghosts as an example was to pick at the nuance between words, the root meaning is, in fact, essential. In other words, if you're going to get super picky about words, you better be ready to get your own words picked at. 

Else you're just hiding behind a double standard.


----------



## Kavik

*Abstract *as defined by the dictionary:
- existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
- consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.
- extract or remove (something). 

You should probably argue if a physical projection of an abstract idea is concrete or not on a broad scale. Hence, is the projection of the concept of a human soul, an abstract idea, materialized in the form of a see-through human and untouchable projection, still abstract? The idea is still abstract though it has been given physical form.

Noted, an abstract idea molded into a concrete form can be touchable though at its root it's still a projection.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

LostFavor said:


> Given that the whole point of him bringing up ghosts as an example was to pick at the nuance between words, the root meaning is, in fact, essential. In other words, if you're going to get super picky about words, you better be ready to get your own words picked at.
> 
> Else you're just hiding behind a double standard.


If you say so.


----------



## PaladinX

Kavik said:


> I suck at drawing but I can find a picture for you.
> 
> View attachment 126193
> 
> 
> Unless you want to go nuts and argue the wind tunnel only produces an impression of air moving through particles.


Isn't that just smoke moving through air? 

Speaking of air and motion, we just sucked you in to this side-discussion. =D


----------



## Kavik

PaladinX said:


> Isn't that just smoke moving through air?
> 
> Speaking of air and motion, we just sucked you in to this side-discussion. =D


I'm known for chasing rabbit holes, they can be fun :crazy: I shamelessly fit into the ISTP stereotype of wanting to fix things by cutting through the bullshit and laying out the facts that make the most sense. 

Though I'm keeping the attempt to define N vs S in mind. It's the final goal stashed away in my pocket to whip out when the final conclusion is made.


----------



## PaladinX

Reading back over some of the posts in the thread, I think I found the problem. S vs N is being contrasted essentially as things you can see and things you can't.

Let's back peddle for a second. We are talking about cognition, how we acquire knowledge. The problem with dividing the line of acquiring knowledge between things you can see and things you can't, is where does knowledge by reason fit? 

In my opinion, what Jung was essentially getting at with E vs I, has now become S vs N.

Concepts, in my opinion and according to Jung, are the realm of Thinking.



Jung said:


> Thinking in its simplest form tells you what a thing is. It gives a name to the thing. It adds a concept because thinking is perception and judgment. (German psychology calls it apperception.)


- Tavistock Lecture I


S vs N is more contrasted in the time sense. Sensing is about what is, here and now, and possibly what was experienced. Intuition is about what might have been and what could be.



> One would assume one has a complete picture of the world when one knows there *is *something, *what* it is, and what it is *worth*. But there is another category, and that is time. Things have a past and they have a future. They come from somewhere, they go to somewhere, and you cannot see where they came from and you cannot know where they go to, but you get what the Americans call a hunch.
> 
> ...
> 
> Intuition is a function by which you see around corners, which you really cannot do; yet the fellow will do it for you and you trust him. It is a function which you do not normally use if you live a regular life within four walls and do regular routine work. But if you are on the Stock Exchange or in Central Africa, you will use your hunches like anything. You cannot, for instance, calculate whether when you turn round a corner in the bush you will meet a rhinoceros or a tiger--but you get a hunch, and it will perhaps save your life. So you see that people who live exposed to natural conditions use intuition a great deal, and people who risk something in an unknown field, who are pioneers of some sort, will use intuition. Inventors will use it and judges will use it. Whenever you have to deal with strange conditions where you have no established values or established concepts, you will depend upon that faculty of intuition.


- Same lecture. More here.


----------



## VoodooDolls

PaladinX said:


> So is "death" a concrete concept because we can attribute a physical appearance to it?


Well in that case you're not refering to the abstract concept, "the essence" - the end of it all, black holes, non prescense, boreal transmutation or whatever. Instead you're talking bout death in his concrete term to refer the typical personification of the guy with the scythe, or maybe a man lying death?. The thing is that you can't reverse it on ghost, turn concrete into abstract at least not that i know, besides "metaphoring things", like some statue of an indu god that represents for them infinite wisdom or pain in some way, again associating things not turning them into abstract concepts, so maybe it's about objective and subjectiveness?. It can be quite misleading.


----------



## Bricolage

PaladinX said:


> See the definition I provided earlier from Jung on what constitutes a function. This definition is also from Psychological Types.


That's great. Today cognitive function means Te, Fi, etc. Psychological Types predates MBTI which is probably why you're getting mixed up.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> I don't believe the mbti dichotomies are at all accurately aligned with the functions.


Socionics actually gets the perceiving/judging thing right with introverts, so agreed.


----------



## PaladinX

Bricolage said:


> That's great. Today cognitive function means Te, Fi, etc. Psychological Types predates MBTI which is probably why you're getting mixed up.


Hardly. But we're done. You win.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> The dichotomies should not be associated with the functions. It just creates confusion.


I actually favor JCF interpretation more too. I'm just saying what the 4 dichotomies refer to in MBTI.


----------



## Bricolage

PaladinX said:


> Hardly. But we're done. You win.


Hardly what? That's what cognitive function means and psychological types came before MBTI.


----------



## Kavik

Bricolage said:


> Hardly what? That's what cognitive function means and psychological types came before MBTI.


Psychology and definitions do evolve and change over time. You're off target. Try to simplify N vs S. Perhaps in your own words?


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> Psychology and definitions do evolve and change over time. You're off target.


That's my whole point. Cognitive function means something different today. 

There are 8 cognitive functions - Fe etc. There are 4 dichotomies in MBTI. Sheesh people.


----------



## Kavik

Bricolage said:


> That's my whole point. Cognitive function means something different today. There are 8 cognitive functions - Fe etc.


How would you break them down to create N and S? What defines each one, in your own words?


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> How would you break them down to create N and S? What defines each one, in your own words?


It's more the other way around, if you insist on correlating the MBTI letters with JCF in the first place. The interplay of the letters theoretically determines if you extravert judging or introvert judging and how prominently that plays in your functional stack. I would favor JCF though.


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> How would you break them down to create N and S?


In short, I really wouldn't normally lol.


----------



## Kavik

Bricolage said:


> It's more the other way around, if you insist on correlating the MBTI letters with JCF in the first place. The interplay of the letters theoretically determines if you extravert judging or introvert judging and how prominently that plays in your functional stack. I would favor JCF though.


Not what I asked.



Bricolage said:


> In short, I really wouldn't normally lol.


Try it, you might surprise yourself.


----------



## pianodog

I'm gonna go with this: 

Ne - Direct Intuition in which the brain produces/sees ideas, patterns, symbols, representations generated from 1 or a few ideas growing into a complex network

Ni - Indirect intuition which is filtered by the ideas that are known which takes a large amount of information and condenses it into a single eureka almost like a straight line 

Se - Direct Sensing in which the brain absorbs ALL sensory information without filtering information. 

Si - Indirect sensing in which the brain processes everything by internal memories or experiences of the past. 

This may not be correct but its closer than I think I was before. I'm trying to learn what the four are. Se is the one I know the least about, I see it as randomly absorbing sensory information in great detail but there is probably more to it than that.


----------



## dinkytown

My summary before I go to bed:

Concrete thinking is Te. Something is either there and true, or it is not. Concrete thinking is not S. 

Abstract thinking is Ti. Logic can go beyond the objective facts. Abstract thinking is not N. 

People need to remember that N and S are perception functions.


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> Not what I asked.


You don't "break down" the cognitive functions to get the MBTI letters. The MBTI is simply an inventory with 4 dichotomies.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> My summary before I go to bed:
> 
> Concrete thinking is Te. Something is either there and true, or it is not. Concrete thinking is not S.


Who said concrete thinking was S? MBTI simply deals in preferences.

Se and Si are clearly connected to sensory data, but in different ways.

Anyway Se and Si aren't judging functions, which "think," Se and Si are perception functions.


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> Not what I asked.


Your proposal betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the MBTI and JCF in general.


----------



## Kavik

Bricolage said:


> You don't "break down" the cognitive functions to get the MBTI letters. The MBTI is simply an inventory with 4 dichotomies.


Then what are Te Ti Se Si ect? Isn't that exactly what MBTI does? Creates letters from those combinations? Your logic makes no sense.


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> Then what are Te Ti Se Si ect?


Cognitive functions. We've been over this.


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> Isn't that exactly what MBTI does?


Not really. Strictly speaking MBTI slots you one way or another via four dichotomies (I/E, etc.) to make 16 possible types.


----------



## dinkytown

pianodog said:


> I'm gonna go with this:
> 
> Ne - Direct Intuition in which the brain produces/sees ideas, patterns, symbols, representations generated from 1 or a few ideas growing into a complex network
> 
> Ni - Indirect intuition which is filtered by the ideas that are known which takes a large amount of information and condenses it into a single eureka almost like a straight line
> 
> Se - Direct Sensing in which the brain absorbs ALL sensory information without filtering information.
> 
> Si - Indirect sensing in which the brain processes everything by internal memories or experiences of the past.
> 
> This may not be correct but its closer than I think I was before. I'm trying to learn what the four are. Se is the one I know the least about, I see it as randomly absorbing sensory information in great detail but there is probably more to it than that.


You're getting close but it's far too examplish. Your describing the stereotypical symptoms of the functions, not the functions themselves. 

At its barest bones:

Se: Objective perception of tangible associations. These perceptions can be proven true or false.
Ne: Subjective perception of intangible associations. These perceptions can be proven true or false. 

Si: Subjective perception of tangible associations. Cannot be proven true or false. 
Ni: Subjective perception of intangible associations. Cannot be proven true or false.


----------



## Bricolage

That said, any type could bump into a pole. :laughing:


----------



## Bricolage

Kavik said:


> When I say symptoms I refer to the test questions such as 'do you have an organized desk?' 'Do you like to start projects early?'
> 
> 
> 
> Hence trying to come up with better definitions for N vs S, to evolve and branch out from the old to create a more accurate version.


I'm saying both JCF and MBTI are limited.


----------



## Bricolage

pianodog said:


> Ok how about this?
> 
> What's the difference between Ne-Te and Ne-Ti?


An ~ENFP and an ENTP lol?


----------



## dinkytown

pianodog said:


> I don't think everything my Ne pops up can be proven true or false. For example, if I think of stuff about the soul, or the future. Your explanations are confusing to me, sorry.
> 
> Intuition generally isn't objective or subjective, it can be either depending on what it comes up with. At least, that's the way I see it.
> 
> But that's simple enough for me.
> 
> Intuition is perception of intangible associations
> Sensing is perception of tangible associations.
> 
> And breaking them down:
> 
> Ne is a perception if intangible associations and symbols which branch off from a single idea to a network of ideas. Ne is not specific.
> Ni is a perception of intangible associations and symbols which have a single idea or goal and in manifested to a conclusion by gathering the perceived associations. Ni is specific.
> Se is perception of tangible associations which creates a vivid and objective view of the external world. Se is not specific to self.
> Si is perception of intangible association which creates a vivid and subjective view of the world by associating it with their past experiences.
> 
> Closer?


I disagree that intuition isn't objective or subjective. Ne is highly objective. I vividly and objectively perceive associations based on nothing tangible that are definitely possible to prove true. It's hard to explain, they just are. I look at a puzzle and suddenly the possible answers just appear to me. These answers can be objectively proven as true or not. I can be discussing a business decision with colleagues and scenarios just come to my head. Nothing tangible prompts these perceptions, my mind just perceives them almost unconsciously. People might call out my ideas as bullshit seeing how random they are, but they can objectively tested as to whether or not they work. My Ne perceptions are not specific to myself. 

Ni perceives subjective associations. They see intangible symbolism that comes out of nowhere. The symbolism is not based on physical reality. You cannot prove symbolism wrong. You cannot prove Ni wrong, it's subjective. Your descriptions of Me and Ni both sound like Ni to me. Ni is specific to the individual perceiving it. 

Your S descriptions seem spot on.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Ne is highly objective. I vividly and objectively perceive associations based on nothing tangible that are definitely possible to prove true.


What about UFOs?


----------



## Kavik

blues street news said:


> Your S descriptions seem spot on.


So by the above logic both S and N use symbols and physical imagery? Though N prefers associations that are not seen but can be tested. An S makes associations that are seen as they are tested. Or is that still specific to the broken down parts?


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> You cannot prove symbolism wrong.


I think you can prove symbolism irrelevant - like if someone has some ridiculous interpretation of a movie that's clearly not based on the characters or plot or anything comprehensible. Like I could correlate Jack in Titanic to a walnut. That's just irrelevant. I could come up with some explanation but it would be irrelevant to the movie and character.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> What about UFOs?


Lol I'm not a mad man. 

But my perceptions of the world often seem disconnected from reality. I then proceed to spend hours analyzing and developing arguments to support and prove my perceptions. Thats the point; Extraverted intuition can eventually be proven true or false. Einstein didn't see tangibly that his theories were correct; he intuitively perceived his theories and then devoted his life to gathering evidence to support his perceived connections true. Hyperbolic example I know, but that's what Ne is. It's not being crazy random and coming up with zany ideas. Well it is, but it's deeper. It's perception of objective associations based on nothing physically tangible.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Lol I'm not a mad man.
> 
> But my perceptions of the world often seem disconnected from reality. I then proceed to spend hours analyzing and developing arguments to support and prove my perceptions.


Well the analyzing part is Ti for you right? Isn't it Ti that proves your Ne perception right or wrong for you?


----------



## pianodog

blues street news said:


> I disagree that intuition isn't objective or subjective. Ne is highly objective. I vividly and objectively perceive associations based on nothing tangible that are definitely possible to prove true. It's hard to explain, they just are. I look at a puzzle and suddenly the possible answers just appear to me. These answers can be objectively proven as true or not. I can be discussing a business decision with colleagues and scenarios just come to my head. Nothing tangible prompts these perceptions, my mind just perceives them almost unconsciously. People might call out my ideas as bullshit seeing how random they are, but they can objectively tested as to whether or not they work. My Ne perceptions are not specific to myself.
> 
> Ni perceives subjective associations. They see intangible symbolism that comes out of nowhere. The symbolism is not based on physical reality. You cannot prove symbolism wrong. You cannot prove Ni wrong, it's subjective. Your descriptions of Me and Ni both sound like Ni to me. Ni is specific to the individual perceiving it.
> 
> Your S descriptions seem spot on.


Ok, Ne doesn't have a goal on its own. I often get an idea and get more idea, sometimes I will think of something useful I can use the ideas for but sometimes it's just an endless trail of ideas. Ne ideas aren't specific at all, they seem random to other people. That means that in a business discussion, Ne doms with lesser developed other functions will tend to drift away in random musings, stuff completely unrelated directly to the topic at hand. They relate by association and symbols and Ne is not specific to goal or situation, it goes where the wind takes it in imagination land. The more boring a task is, the more we like to think about things more distantly related to what we're doing. This is why Ne can't be proven right or wrong often, because Ne alone generates Ideas that aren't complete enough to be proven right or wrong, to be considered subjective or objective. 

As for Ne doms, it's more intense than INTP. We use intuition as our main function which means we constantly make connections to things in non logical manner. My ideas normally are scattered, linked by intangible associations and not limited by the subject at hand at all unless I purposely try to stay in constraints which makes Ne harder to work with. For ne doms, everything is possibilites and any sort of collaborative point comes from having to deal with it through F or T.

Ne is often unrealistic as in it's ideas are not grounded to any subject unless purposely forced by the user.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> I think you can prove symbolism irrelevant - like if someone has some ridiculous interpretation of a movie that's clearly not based on the characters or plot or anything comprehensible. Like I could correlate Jack in Titanic to a walnut. That's just irrelevant. I could come up with some explanation but it would be irrelevant to the movie and character.


But that's not symbolism though. Comparing a character (a tangible object) to a walnut (another tangible object) is not symbolism; that's just a delusional comparison. Symbolism is comparing a concept, either tangible or intangible, to the subjective human experience. How can you prove a flower does not symbolize love? A house does not symbolize death? A car does not symbolize greed?
etc.


----------



## Bricolage

pianodog said:


> Ok, Ne doesn't have a goal on its own.


It has a signature way of operating but it's not a judging function that's for sure. Extraverted intuition per Jung is an _irrational _function.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> But that's not symbolism though. Comparing a character (a tangible object) to a walnut (another tangible object) is not symbolism


It's _faulty _symbolism. Symbolism means the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities. Saying a walnut is like Jack in Titanic is forging a connection but it's just off. Hence faulty symbolism.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Comparing a character (a tangible object) to a walnut (another tangible object) is not symbolism


Let me put it another way. Some critics see Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood as representing capitalism. That just happens to be a decent connection based on the evidence IMO. Something a little more "delusional" might get 50/50 critics agreeing with you. Like if I said Daniel represents "rage" or "paternalism" people might be lukewarm about that symbolic interpretation.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> Well the analyzing part is Ti for you right? Isn't it Ti that proves your Ne perception right or wrong for you?


Yes exactly. Ne can be analyzed and proven or disproven. It sees possibilities that either work or don't work. Logic, either Ti or Te, is what does the analyzing or proving. And it doesn't need to be analyzed by me. I can state my Ne perceptions and leave it to others to analyze. My Ti hates doing this though. I'll analyze something for hours until I run it into the ground. Hence why I'm not sleeping right now when I tried going to bed two hours ago lol.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Yes exactly. Ne can be analyzed and proven or disproven. It sees possibilities that either work or don't work.


To backtrack to the UFO point, I'm saying you probably couldn't* definitively* dis/prove the Ne idea that UFOs exist with Te or Ti. You could try, which thousands of people already have - in vain lol.


----------



## pianodog

You know what I see as a big problem is the idea of tangible and intangible associations being misunderstood. 

As an Ne dom, I see everything for it's meaning more than tiny details. We see symbols. We think of a walnut, we think of it being food. That's extremely over simplified but I can't put it into words exactly but we sort of see everything as symbols of it's use, it's purpose, or it's point. 

It's like if a sensor looks at a phone, they probably notice the phone's details but not consciously having any thoughts of what the phone does, or how it operates. Even if we deal with cell phones all day, it just increases the amount of ideas that come off of the symbol. This is what it's like to be an Ne dom, we see everything as a sort of symbol. Everything has a purpose and is sort of connected not just in philosophical way. It's not logically oriented, it's like seeing everything for it's potential basically rather than it's surface.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> Let me put it another way. Some critics see Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood as representing capitalism. That just happens to be a decent connection based on the evidence IMO. Something a little more "delusional" might get 50/50 critics agreeing with you. Like if I said Daniel represents "rage" people might be lukewarm about that symbolic interpretation.


Oh Pi perceptions can definitely be discussed and analyzed but can you prove or disprove them? I don't think so. If so someone told me a song on the radio didn't symbolize a past relationship to me; I'd stare at them blankly. How can someone prove/disprove such a thing? If someone perceives a movie character as symbolizing "greed" and another doesn't, how are either of them wrong? It's just their subjective impression. 

I'd like to add as a side note that I've never perceived that kind of symbol you're describing. I've never seen a movie and thought, that character is "rage" or that other character is "greed". Crazy Ni, it's foreign to me.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Oh Pi perceptions can definitely be discussed and analyzed but can you prove or disprove them? I don't think so. If so someone told me a song on the radio didn't symbolize a past relationship to me; I'd stare at them blankly. How can someone prove/disprove such a thing?


If the dude had been in his New York Apartment on April 10th and claimed this relationship happened in San Francisco on April 10th he's deluding himself or conning you lol. So you could disprove it if you could prove that the Si perception related to the relationship never really happened.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> To backtrack to the UFO point, I'm saying you probably couldn't* definitively* dis/prove the Ne idea that UFOs exist with Te or Ti. You could try, which thousands of people already have - in vain lol.


But UFOs existing or not IS objective. Think about it. Either there have been UFOs, or there have not been. Just because a means to prove or disprove their existence hasn't been developed doesn't mean it isn't objectively true that UFOs exist or they don't.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Oh Pi perceptions can definitely be discussed and analyzed but can you prove or disprove them? I don't think so. If so someone told me a song on the radio didn't symbolize a past relationship to me; I'd stare at them blankly. How can someone prove/disprove such a thing?


There are crazy people out there - some of whom are Si or Ni-dom - who just confabulate shit.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> But UFOs existing or not IS objective. Think about it. Either there have been UFOs, or there have not been. Just because a means to prove or disprove their existence hasn't been developed doesn't mean it isn't objectively true that UFOs exist or they don't.


True. I'm just saying you can't dis/prove it using Te/Ti. So there's no way for humans to tell for sure whether UFOs exist or not based on how equivocal/lacking/retarded the current data is. 

For that matter, Te/Ti can't definitively tell you whether god or a pink pony does or does not exist in some far corner of the cosmos.

I also think some unmoored Ne-concocted symbolism, unlike something possibly tangible like a UFO, is less prone to yes/no validation using our rational judging tools, namely Te and Ti.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> If the dude had been in his New York Apartment on April 10th and claimed this relationship happened in San Francisco on April 10th he's deluding himself or conning you lol. So you could disprove it if you could prove that the Si perception related to the relationship never really happened.


Deception is a judgement. If he deliberately conned me about having a relationship that didn't actually happen for whatever reason, that would a conscious decision on the part of his T and F functions. 

If someone truly and sincerely listened to a song and perceived a true connection with the emotions and experiences of a past relationship that didn't actually happen, I'd say they're suffering from mental issues completely unrelated to cognitive functions.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Deception is a judgement. If he deliberately conned me about having a relationship that didn't actually happen for whatever reason, that would a conscious decision on the part of his T and F functions.


He could really believe the memory though and just be wrong based on his objective whereabouts on that date. So his Si memory would be inaccurate.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> If someone truly and sincerely listened to a song and perceived a true connection with the emotions and experiences of a past relationship that didn't actually happen, I'd say they're suffering from mental issues completely unrelated to cognitive functions.


Cop out lol.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> There are crazy people out there - some of whom are Si or Ni-dom - who just confabulate shit.


Some people see a movie character, or other stimulus, and viscerally and sincerely see "rage" or "greed". That's Ni and its definitely subjective. Of course nothing is stopping an Ni Dom from making up a nonsense symbol they didn't truly perceive. But that's not Ni acting, that's just their J functions concocting bullshit out of thin air.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Some people see a movie character, or other stimulus, and viscerally and sincerely see "rage" or "greed". That's Ni and its definitely subjective. Of course nothing is stopping an Ni Dom from making up a nonsense symbol they didn't truly perceive. But that's not Ni acting, that's just their J functions concocting bullshit out of thin air.


Is Ni the only function that could render such a comparison or metaphor lol?


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Some people see a movie character, or other stimulus, and viscerally and sincerely see "rage" or "greed". That's Ni and its definitely subjective. Of course nothing is stopping an Ni Dom from making up a nonsense symbol they didn't truly perceive. But that's not Ni acting, that's just their J functions concocting bullshit out of thin air.


This is getting too lightweight - "truly perceive"? Who can say what a Ti-dom _truly thinks_ in his or her noggin? This is less perceiving/judging than the problems of objectively deciphering the movements and mechanics of introverted functions. Who can say what IXFP truly feels lol?


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> He could really believe the memory though and just be wrong based on his objective whereabouts on that date. So his Si memory would be inaccurate.


Si isn't memory. Si is the subjective associations one forms associated with tangible objects. If someone is creating these associations based on a faulty memory, that's a problem with the memory, not Si. 



> Cop out lol.


Why? Do mental disorders not exist? Can Si types not hallucinate? Can Si types not suffer from delusion and the associated mental problems? Can Si not suffer memory loss? Can Si types not be schizophrenic?


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Si isn't memory. Si is the subjective associations one forms associated with tangible objects.


That's pretty damn close to memory lol. Any memory is a subjective remapping of the objective event. As with any memory, you can make connections about events that never happened. Si and faulty memory aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> Is Ni the only function that could render such a comparison or metaphor lol?


Ni is the only function that viscerally perceives such symbolism. Ask @Ephemerality, he knows more about Ni than I do.

That's not to say Ti and Te can't form such associations, but they don't perceive them viscerally.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> perceive them viscerally.


Lol Si doesn't perceive viscerally? Again, this is floating off into subjective fairy land.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> That's pretty damn close to memory lol. Any memory is a subjective remapping of the objective event. As with any memory, you can make connections about events that never happened. Si and faulty memory aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


Si isn't remapping events. Si is seeing a house you grew up in and perceiving "happiness" or some other subjective concept. It's seeing a song you listened to on your first date and perceiving "love". It's associating tangible event, things, and places in the world with these subjective concepts.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Si isn't remapping events. Si is seeing a house you grew up in and perceiving "happiness" or some other subjective concept. It's seeing a song you listened to on your first date and perceiving "love". It's associating tangible event, things, and places in the world with these subjective concepts.


I didn't say Si was remapping events lol.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Si is seeing a house you grew up in and perceiving "happiness" or some other subjective concept. It's seeing a song you listened to on your first date and perceiving "love". It's associating tangible event, things, and places in the world with these subjective concepts.


That's basically accurate.


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> Lol Si doesn't perceive viscerally? Again, this is floating off into subjective fairy land.


We're two Si users trying to discuss a function neither of us have. So both of our examples of Pi is going to be Si heavy. We associate symbols with tangible, real world objects. Ni users dont do this They associate symbols with these intangible essences. They don't associate symbols with reality. They see a movie but they see "love" as well. Like they literally see "love" as this intangible object. We need a true INTJ or INFJ to chime in.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> We're two Si users trying to discuss a function neither of us have. So both of our examples of Pi is going to be Si heavy. We associate symbols with tangible, real world objects. Ni users dont do this They associate symbols with these intangible essences. They don't associate symbols with reality. They see a movie but they see "love" as well. Like they literally see "love" as this intangible object. We need a true INTJ or INFJ to chime in.


So you think I'm an XNXP? Is that right? By all means call in the INXJ cavalry though. :tongue:


----------



## dinkytown

Bricolage said:


> So you think I'm an XNXP? Is that right? By all means call in the INXJ cavalry though. :tongue:


I mean I'm taking your word for it that you're an ENTP. I certainly know you're no xNFP. Strong Fi users don't argue like this lol. They're much less crudely combative.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Strong Fi users don't argue like this lol. They're much less combative.


You finally made me laugh.


----------



## Bricolage

blues street news said:


> Strong Fi users don't argue like this lol. They're much less crudely combative.


Heavy Fi users have wisely exited the building already lol.


----------

