# Descriptions of the functions that allow anyone to experience them.



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

I think this is the only way you can really draw the line between the functions and stop all the confusion statements like "I am not sure if this is Ne or Ni.." or "I am not sure if this is just Ni or Ni+Te..". 

If you find this to be a good idea, please try to make and share your own descriptions. Please make sure they are as _practical _ as you can. Here are mine:

*Ne:* 

Imagine anything in the room falling to the ground.
Rearrange the objects in your room. [See them moving]
Imagine something having a different colour.
*
Se:* 

Look at things as if you are taking a high quality picture or video of them with your eyes. It's okay if you "deceive yourself" as a result - in fact, you should.
Try to look at your laptop/PC screen without "going into it" - that is, without forgetting that you are still in a room and that the screen itself has a physical existence in that room. Maybe this would make you move your neck instead of just your eyes while looking at the screen


Please reply if you tried any of these and they worked for you. On the other hand if you are already familiar with either Ne or Se, please report if the descriptions for whichever of them actually matches the function itself. Thanks.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

rrr said:


> *
> Se:*
> 
> Look at things as if you are taking a high quality picture or video of them with your eyes. *It's okay if you "deceive yourself" as a result - in fact, you should.*


What?! I don't even understand what you mean by this, in this context.




> Try to look at your laptop/PC screen without "going into it" - that is, without forgetting that you are still in a room and that the screen itself has a physical existence in that room. Maybe this would make you move your neck instead of just your eyes while looking at the screen


I tried that and I think it worked for like a split second, and it REALLY freaked me out. I cannot even begin to explain how disorienting that was, but I actually whimpered from the discomfort... my dog trotted over in concern... lol!

Your "Ne" ideas were cake. 

I have no opinion on the validity of this method, haha.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

spectralsparrow said:


> What?! I don't even understand what you mean by this, in this context.


Well, if you already "know" that something is a certain colour, do not prevent yourself from seeing it having another colour at a moment where maybe some light is shun unto it, or maybe because right now it is reflecting the sun which makes it brighter.

Or for example if you have artificial lighting in your room and the lamp is not white, and perhaps is orange, and that makes your blue shirt look kind of gray, don't tell yourself what you "know" about its colour, and rather say to yourself "this looks gray: it is gray."



spectralsparrow said:


> I tried that and I think it worked for like a split second, and it REALLY freaked me out. I cannot even begin to explain how disorienting that was, but I actually whimpered from the discomfort... my dog trotted over in concern... lol!


I hope that was a "good kind" of freaking out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't think any of those examples reflect Ne or Se.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

rrr said:


> *Ne:*
> 
> Imagine anything in the room falling to the ground.
> Rearrange the objects in your room. [See them moving]
> Imagine something having a different colour.


Other than people with Dyslexia, Ne-doms that I know have great difficulty with mentally manipulating objects. This is also reflected in Neuroscience of Personality by Dario Nardi.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Other than people with Dyslexia, Ne-doms that I know have great difficulty with mentally manipulating objects. This is also reflected in Neuroscience of Personality by Dario Nardi.


Could just be intuition in general because I am bad at the above as well, because I don't really pay attention to the world around me.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Other than people with Dyslexia, Ne-doms that I know have great difficulty with mentally manipulating objects. This is also reflected in Neuroscience of Personality by Dario Nardi.


Can you quote Dario Nardi for us?

How many Ne doms do you know? How do you know they are Ne doms? And how did you know that they have that difficulty? I know an ENTP and I asked him about those things and he said he does them quite often. I wish I knew more Ne doms to ask in real life, but *spectralsparrow* here is an INFP and said the stuff is cake. Does this mean she's not an NP? Or she must have more Ne to have the difficulty?

And what do you think about the Se things?


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I don't think any of those examples reflect Ne or Se.


Why?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

rrr said:


> Why?


Because it doesn't reflect how Ne and Se actually operate as cognitive styles. Se is simply seeing what things are for example, none of the things you enlist here. Se isn't about taking a high quality picture with your eyes of an object, but Se is about experiencing the object exactly as is. You don't seem to be an Se-valuing type so I don't think you will understand what I mean with this, though, unless you were to gain a better understanding of how the functions operate in general.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

rrr said:


> Can you quote Dario Nardi for us?
> 
> How many Ne doms do you know? How do you know they are Ne doms? And how did you know that they have that difficulty? I know an ENTP and I asked him about those things and he said he does them quite often. I wish I knew more Ne doms to ask in real life, but *spectralsparrow* here is an INFP and said the stuff is cake. Does this mean she's not an NP? Or she must have more Ne to have the difficulty?
> 
> And what do you think about the Se things?


Well it's weird that they mentioned dyslexia, because I do have mild dyslexia. However my good friend is an INFP and she does not have dyslexia, but can also do this easily. I am also a very visual thinker in general, so is she. However when I said I wasn't sure on the validity of this experiment, it's because I don't know that any of this really relates to Ne or Se. I do know that I got really weirded out when I tried that "Se" thing, but I am pretty sure I put myself into a mildly dissociative state...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

spectralsparrow said:


> Well it's weird that they mentioned dyslexia, because I do have mild dyslexia. However my good friend is an INFP and she does not have dyslexia, but can also do this easily. I am also a very visual thinker in general, so is she. However when I said I wasn't sure on the validity of this experiment, it's because I don't know that any of this really relates to Ne or Se. I do know that I got really weirded out when I tried that "Se" thing, but I am pretty sure I put myself into a mildly dissociative state...


Of course you get weirded out by it because it's not really Se he's describing lol. This is more akin to actual Se: 

You are seeing a mug. This mug has a certain shape, color and so on. Se is simply the ability for seeing the mug exactly as it is, it is a mug that looks like this. For example, the mug on my desk right now, it's a grey mug. You can try to just see things for what they are but chances are that you will naturally resist and find this thinking difficult and/or too foreign. I am not even sure you will fully understand what I am in fact describing here. 

But Se in its simplest form is essentially seeing/experiencing what things are exactly for what they are. Inferior Se then, is for example when you get stuck on stupid objective details about objects. Zomg there's a stain on my shirt and now I cannot unsee stain! and so on.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Because it doesn't reflect how Ne and Se actually operate as cognitive styles. Se is simply seeing what things are for example, none of the things you enlist here. Se isn't about taking a high quality picture with your eyes of an object, but Se is about experiencing the object exactly as is. You don't seem to be an Se-valuing type so I don't think you will understand what I mean with this, though, unless you were to gain a better understanding of how the functions operate in general.


Well if you put it that way then there is nothing that can change your mind. But I would like to end with a quote from Richard Feynman, something that was found written on his blackboard after his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

rrr said:


> Well if you put it that way then there is nothing that can change your mind. But I would like to end with a quote from Richard Feynman, something that was found written on his blackboard after his death: "What I cannot create, I do not understand."
> View attachment 82694


Such an ironic statement. This isn't about changing my mind, this about correct or more correct understanding. I am saying that your understanding isn't accurate enough and I know because I am an Se type, albeit inferior one. I understand how Se operates within my psyche.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Of course you get weirded out by it because it's not really Se he's describing lol. This is more akin to actual Se:
> 
> You are seeing a mug. This mug has a certain shape, color and so on. Se is simply the ability for seeing the mug exactly as it is, it is a mug that looks like this. For example, the mug on my desk right now, it's a grey mug. You can try to just see things for what they are but chances are that you will naturally resist and find this thinking difficult and/or too foreign. I am not even sure you will fully understand what I am in fact describing here.


So here's the thing, I look at this stapler next to me and automatically see some sort of crocodile, or just... some personified gadget of sorts that symbolizes something else, sometimes I do not even have words for it. I remember a realization I had back before I knew about MBTI or cognitive functions. I hope this doesn't make me sound out-of-my mind here, because I'm not truly delusional, it's just where my mind automatically goes: I was looking at some canned pears, which were shaped like cobra heads, and I realized how I almost NEVER see something exactly as it is. It was astonishing to me and I tried to force myself to just see the pear, or to stop seeing the smiley face designs in devices with knobs. It was very hard to do and I dislike it when I do it. The fan above me becomes the fan of many other ceilings that I've seen, different or similar, or part of some story I once I read. Or the four blades make it look like a headless stick figure. This purple, flowery ...paper file thing next to me, is something I would hate to carry at school because it looks like it's falling apart and it's bulky. That's where my mind goes. I am not sure if this is sort of on track with what you're describing.



> But Se in its simplest form is essentially seeing/experiencing what things are exactly for what they are. Inferior Se then, is for example when you get stuck on stupid objective details about objects. Zomg there's a stain on my shirt and now I cannot unsee stain! and so on.


This is interesting because I have an ISFJ friend/coworker who is Si-dominant and it seems she notices these sorts of things all the time. Like if someone gets a new haircut, or if there is a coffee stain somewhere ("That's a nice spill you made on your cubicle wall!"), or that my earrings didn't match my outfit. I'm like. Why are you pointing this out? Who cares? I have Si, though it's my tertiary and I do sometimes revel in little details but it's very private and personal. For her perhaps that's the difference, too... she notices these things but adds personal meaning to them or judges them?


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Such an ironic statement. This isn't about changing my mind, this about correct or more correct understanding. I am saying that your understanding isn't accurate enough and I know because I am an Se type, albeit inferior one. I understand how Se operates within my psyche.


Well I am just not interested in you wasting your time trying to make me understand something I can't. I don't know why you bother, really.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

spectralsparrow said:


> So here's the thing, I look at this stapler next to me and automatically see some sort of crocodile, or just... some personified gadget of sorts that symbolizes something else, sometimes I do not even have words for it. I remember a realization I had back before I knew about MBTI or cognitive functions. I hope this doesn't make me sound out-of-my mind here, because I'm not truly delusional, it's just where my mind automatically goes: I was looking at some canned pears, which were shaped like cobra heads, and I realized how I almost NEVER see something exactly as it is. It was astonishing to me and I tried to force myself to just see the pear, or to stop seeing the smiley face designs in devices with knobs. It was very hard to do and I dislike it when I do it. The fan above me becomes the fan of many other ceilings that I've seen, different or similar, or part of some story I once I read. Or the four blades make it look like a headless stick figure. This purple, flowery ...paper file thing next to me, is something I would hate to carry at school because it looks like it's falling apart and it's bulky. That's where my mind goes. I am not sure if this is sort of on track with what you're describing.
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting because I have an ISFJ friend/coworker who is Si-dominant and it seems she notices these sorts of things all the time. Like if someone gets a new haircut, or if there is a coffee stain somewhere ("That's a nice spill you made on your cubicle wall!"), or that my earrings didn't match my outfit. I'm like. Why are you pointing this out? Who cares? I have Si, though it's my tertiary and I do sometimes revel in little details but it's very private and personal. For her perhaps that's the difference, too... she notices these things but adds personal meaning to them or judges them?


You see, this is what happens when you rely on fuzzy subjective descriptions of the functions that are as much confusing for the one making them as they are for the receiving person. It is just confusion piled over more confusion but people keep doing it because they like to talk about themselves. Not that that is a bad thing to do or like to do, but it's not the way if you want to _get to somewhere_.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> Other than people with Dyslexia, Ne-doms that I know have great difficulty with mentally manipulating objects. This is also reflected in Neuroscience of Personality by Dario Nardi.


I don't remember reading that, unless it was implied by the areas the Ne-dom sample brains were not so strong in.

I'm personally pretty good at this (and Ne-aux). I can tell by looking at furniture in a store if it will fit in a certain space.
I visualize clothes on a hanger on the body. I can mentally rotate an object in my mind.

However, I have never been good at technical drawing or drawing in perspective, but I am good at drawing organic things (people, animals, plants, etc).

Considering it's not unusual for Ne-dom to be inventive with objects & creative artistically, this is a sort of odd assertion...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

rrr said:


> Can you quote Dario Nardi for us?
> 
> How many Ne doms do you know? How do you know they are Ne doms? And how did you know that they have that difficulty? I know an ENTP and I asked him about those things and he said he does them quite often. I wish I knew more Ne doms to ask in real life, but *spectralsparrow* here is an INFP and said the stuff is cake. Does this mean she's not an NP? Or she must have more Ne to have the difficulty?
> 
> And what do you think about the Se things?


What would you like me to quote? There is a picture of his results and a description of what the areas of the brain are responsible for. There was much less usage of the occiptal lobe region responsible for mentally manipulating objects. Ne doms show low usage. Ne-doms' brain pattern manifested as 'christmas light' pattern. All the various areas of the brain lit up asynchronously. The Ne-dom's strength comes from trans-contextual thinking by quickly tapping into all the regions of the brain for meaning. Every type can do this, but the Ne-dom's usage of this pattern is significantly more than any other type (including INxPs).

I could ask you the same questions about the one ENTP you seem to be basing this off of. Otherwise, the two ENFPs I'm talking about were determined by the official MBTI test and certified practitioners. The ENTPs I'm referencing are things said by a couple of ENTPs on this or the ENTP.org forum (I admit that I am fuzzy on who said what, when, where, but I do know that it was an ENTP). The ENTPs were most likely self-typed.

From my experience with a few INFPs (self-typed and professionally typed) they are visual thinkers. It would not surprise me that they could manipulate objects in their mind. That said, INFPs are not Ne doms. Regardless, there is no correlation between Ne and the ability to mentally manipulate objects. If you have proof to the contrary, please cite your source as I'd be interested to read more.

I'm not sure what to say about Se. I would agree that becoming more aware of your surroundings is probably related.

Dario Nardi also wrote a book on developing any given function:

8 Keys to Self Leadership: From Awareness to Action: Dario Nardi: 9780971932616: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

spectralsparrow said:


> So here's the thing, I look at this stapler next to me and automatically see some sort of crocodile, or just... some personified gadget of sorts that symbolizes something else, sometimes I do not even have words for it. I remember a realization I had back before I knew about MBTI or cognitive functions. I hope this doesn't make me sound out-of-my mind here, because I'm not truly delusional, it's just where my mind automatically goes: I was looking at some canned pears, which were shaped like cobra heads, and I realized how I almost NEVER see something exactly as it is. It was astonishing to me and I tried to force myself to just see the pear, or to stop seeing the smiley face designs in devices with knobs. It was very hard to do and I dislike it when I do it. The fan above me becomes the fan of many other ceilings that I've seen, different or similar, or part of some story I once I read. Or the four blades make it look like a headless stick figure. This purple, flowery ...paper file thing next to me, is something I would hate to carry at school because it looks like it's falling apart and it's bulky. That's where my mind goes. I am not sure if this is sort of on track with what you're describing.


This is very Ne-Si informed, yes.


> This is interesting because I have an ISFJ friend/coworker who is Si-dominant and it seems she notices these sorts of things all the time. Like if someone gets a new haircut, or if there is a coffee stain somewhere ("That's a nice spill you made on your cubicle wall!"), or that my earrings didn't match my outfit. I'm like. Why are you pointing this out? Who cares? I have Si, though it's my tertiary and I do sometimes revel in little details but it's very private and personal. For her perhaps that's the difference, too... she notices these things but adds personal meaning to them or judges them?


Se and Si are both sensing so obviously they both notice physical details, but Si is more the way you describe it, where seeing one thing makes one recall a lot of similar things one has experienced. I don't understand Si well outside of a strictly intellectual POV so I won't attempt to describe it further than this. 

As for your co-worker, I cannot tell if she's an ISFJ or something else.



rrr said:


> You see, this is what happens when you rely on fuzzy subjective descriptions of the functions that are as much confusing for the one making them as they are for the receiving person. It is just confusion piled over more confusion but people keep doing it because they like to talk about themselves. Not that that is a bad thing to do or like to do, but it's not the way if you want to _get to somewhere_.


You're not an introverted type with a preference towards intuition, are you? Because if you were, I am quite sure you wouldn't find them fuzzy but actually quite accurate. See, the response I got based on what she tried, it's a very good example of how cognition differs between individuals. She was trying to approach understanding the world in a very different way but she couldn't/wouldn't by having me telling her exactly of how she would engage this function. 

But if I am trying to rotate objects in my mind, sure I can do that, though I am pretty slow at it and it requires more conscious effort from my end because I am a very poor visual thinker. That doesn't prove that I am an Ne type, that's the problem. You attribute Ne and Se to traits that are quite unrelated to the functions as cognitive attitudes. Any person who is a strong visual thinker is capable of doing what you describe with Ne. That's not what makes Ne Ne.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> [T]here is no correlation between Ne and the ability to mentally manipulate objects. If you have proof to the contrary, please cite your source as I'd be interested to read more.


Well I am not relating Ne to the ability of manipulating objects but more to the habit of doing this. However, if you don't have the ability you can't make a habit out of it. So it still counts what you are saying that EN*Ps don't have the ability to do it. (Btw do you do any of the things I related to Ne?)



PaladinX said:


> There is a picture of his results and a description of what the areas of the brain are responsible for. There was much less usage of the occiptal lobe region responsible for mentally manipulating objects.


Well you are making me doubt that the ENTP I know is really ENTP. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn with the data available. However, I think we do need more data. [If you are an Ne dom passing by please reply and tell us if you spend time manipulating objects visually or if, on the other hand, you have a difficulty doing this.]

And what types used the occiptal lobe the most? Is it mentioned in the Dario Nardi work?


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

If it turns out that a majority of Ne doms don't actually spend time manipulating objects in their head or visualizing things that are not there in their environment more than the other types, then I would gladly drop the assumption that that is related to Ne. I think we should make a poll. I will make it.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> View attachment 82694


Wise words. Your attempt is admirable, but the chances of success were slim from the beginning. I think that trying to explain a cognitive function to a person who doesn't naturaly use it is like trying to explain color to a blind person. For example, when trying to explain the color yellow people might say that yellow is the color of the sun, at which point the blind person will ask 'but what color does the sun have?' to which the answer will be - yellow. There might be a set of specific words that will be able to stimulate the mind of a blind person to suddenly see yellow, but you can't even be sure that any language is capable of it, and even if it does, you are still trying to describe an experience which is subjective. So even if you find the right words, it will apply only to yourself.

I hope I didn't confuse anyone xD


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> Wise words. Your attempt is admirable, but the chances of success were slim from the beginning. I think that trying to explain a cognitive function to a person who doesn't naturaly use it is like trying to explain color to a blind person. For example, when trying to explain the color yellow people might say that yellow is the color of the sun, at which point the blind person will ask 'but what color does the sun have?' to which the answer will be - yellow. There might be a set of specific words that will be able to stimulate the mind of a blind person to suddenly see yellow, but you can't even be sure that any language is capable of it, and even if it does, you are still trying to describe an experience which is subjective. So even if you find the right words, it will apply only to yourself.
> 
> I hope I didn't confuse anyone xD


Thank you for appreciating the attempt. But here is what I think: what you are saying is that it is impossible to answer "is your Se the same as my Se?" in the same way that you can't answer "is your red the same as my red?"

But there is a way to solve this: if you make a copy of my brain it would be absured to argue that that copy would see a different red than what I am seeing. This means that if all human brains (and eyes) are sufficiently similar, then it would be safe to say that we all experience colours in the same way. For MBTI that would be something similar to Dario Nardi's brain patterns related to each function.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

rrr said:


> And what types used the occiptal lobe the most? Is it mentioned in the Dario Nardi work?


ISFPs were the strongest users of both occipital lobe regions. (the other region was geared towards aesthetics and how things look) I'd have to look up what the other ones were at home.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

It is actually pretty easy to describe.
*It is what all the annoying jackasses we encounter every day do.*
So say me being a Fi dom.
That would leave Fe as a shadow function.

Now what is Fe then?
Well my whole familiy uses Fe.
Annoying stuff this apeal to community and harmony over truth.

Every time you meet someone that annoy you.
Chances are that they operate on a shadow level.

Lets continue with Se aux for me.
Colliding neathly with Si.
Oh so since you usualy do that I have to do it too?
Are you being difficult on purpose?

Then we have tert Ni.
Ne being the nemesis on this level.
Lets change something! Anything, twist it around.
Why? Cause everything is possible at once.
Haha as if. 

Last and definatly least is Te.
Having Ti with diabolic stance as it's shadow.
Lets do lots of hard thinking and nitpicking.
Oh okay. You have some reason to do so?
No I just felt like wasting a billion hours on some puzzle for fun.
WTF??! Myst anyone?


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Thank you for appreciating the attempt. But here is what I think: what you are saying is that it is impossible to answer "is your Se the same as my Se?" in the same way that you can't answer "is your red the same as my red?"
> 
> But there is a way to solve this: if you make a copy of my brain it would be absured to argue that that copy would see a different red than what I am seeing. This means that if all human brains (and eyes) are sufficiently similar, then it would be safe to say that we all experience colours in the same way. For MBTI that would be something similar to Dario Nardi's brain patterns related to each function.


You could say that red is red, and we all see it in the same way, but each person has different connotations and associations from it. I used color as an example to simplify things. A cognitive function is even more complicated than color. While a function has a common donominator that allows you to explain it in general, it manifests in different Types in different ways, and a Type is a common donominator itself which represents dozens of thousands of individuals, each unique in his own way.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> You could say that red is red, and we all see it in the same way, but each person has different connotations and associations from it. I used color as an example to simplify things. A cognitive function is even more complicated than color. While a function has a common donominator that allows you to explain it in general, it manifests in different Types in different ways, and a Type is a common donominator itself which represents dozens of thousands of individuals, each unique in his own way.


Well I am not just saying that red is red. I am saying that the way the brain processes red is a valid way of comparing subjective experiences of red objectively.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> It is actually pretty easy to describe.
> *It is what all the annoying jackasses we encounter every day do.*
> So say me being a Fi dom.
> That would leave Fe as a shadow function.
> ...


This is what I'm talking about, it might clear to you, but when you try to turn it into words in loses some of it's meaning. It might be clear for someone and completely vague for someone else. When describing the functions you used theoretical explanations that can be found in many sites about MBTI trying to explain those functions to others, which the OP is trying to avoid.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> It might clear to you, but when you try to turn it into words in loses some of it's meaning. It might be clear for someone and completely vague for someone else. When describing the functions you used theoretical explanations that can be found in many sites about MBTI trying to explain those functions to others, which the OP is trying to avoid.


Yes. That's exactly what I am trying to do. If you can make somone _experience_ something then that is better than a thousand definitions. The problem is weather that "something" is actually the function or not.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

Here's the link to the poll I just created in the polls section: http://personalitycafe.com/member-p...-manipulating-objects-visually-your-head.html


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Here's the link to the poll I just created in the polls section: http://personalitycafe.com/member-p...-manipulating-objects-visually-your-head.html


I think that's a great way to go about it. Through experiments and statistical data you could try to label cognitive functions with a process.
But I don't see it going beyond that. It still doesn't pass the comprehension barrier of those who don't use the cognitive function. When saying "manipulating objects" and "rearranging obejcts in the room" different people might understand it in different ways. For example, I can imagine something moving, but everyone have imagination. I still see the original object in its place, though. So I don't know if this is what you meant or something else entirely that I can't even comprehend.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> I think that's a great way to go about it. Through experiments and statistical data you could try to label cognitive functions with a process.
> But I don't see it going beyond that. It still doesn't pass the comprehension barrier of those who don't use the cognitive function. When saying "manipulating objects" and "rearranging obejcts in the room" different people might understand it in different ways. For example, I can imagine something moving, but everyone have imagination. I still see the original object in its place, though. So I don't know if this is what you meant or something else entirely that I can't even comprehend.


Well I think if you do not still see the original object in its place then that is called hallucination.

And I don't want people to understand as much as I want them to experience. Sure you can describe drawing to someone, but it is another thing to teach him to draw - that must involve doing particular exercises. Some people are born with the ability to draw, or at least develop it at a very early age and on their own, but drawing _IS_ learnable (Betty Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It would be _absurd_, totally absurd, to say that if you teach someone to draw then they are not drawing but merely imitating what a "real artist" who can "really draw" is doing... That because maybe they "understand" it differently then they are not drawing!

And this can even be useful for communication between people that use the same function, just like how two artists can learn from each other's drawing technique and style.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Well I think if you do not still see the original object in its place then that is called hallucination.
> 
> And I don't want people to understand as much as I want them to experience. Sure you can describe drawing to someone, but it is another thing to teach him to draw - that must involve doing particular exercises. Some people are born with the ability to draw, or at least develop it at a very early age and on their own, but drawing _IS_ learnable (Betty Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It would be _absurd_, totally absurd, to say that if you teach someone to draw then they are not drawing but merely imitating what a "real artist" who can "really draw" is doing... That because maybe they "understand" it differently then they are not drawing!
> 
> And this can even be useful for communication between people that use the same function, just like how two artists can learn from each other's drawing technique and style.


I understand what you're saying but when someone is drawing you can physically see what he is doing. You can't tell if someone's cognitive process is the way you expect it to be.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> I understand what you're saying but when someone is drawing you can physically see what he is doing. You can't tell if someone's cognitive process is the way you expect it to be.


Not if you have Dario Nardi's equipment - or contact someone who have them.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Not if you have Dario Nardi's equipment - or contact someone who have them.


But you don't 

And even if you did, nobody said that you would be able make someone do what you intended them to do.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> nobody said that you would be able make someone do what you intended them to do.


Well, tell that to ENTJs 
But really, what do you mean by that?


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Well, tell that to ENTJs
> But really, what do you mean by that?


What do you mean what I mean.. what were we talking about the whole thread? XD


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> What do you mean what I mean.. what were we talking about the whole thread? XD


I am sorry you have confused yourself.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

rrr said:


> Not if you have Dario Nardi's equipment - or contact someone who have them.


If the most popular functions model — i.e., the one that says an INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se — is correct, and if Dario Nardi understands the functions well enough to match instances of them in action with brain scans, you'd think he'd be able to design a cognitive functions test where INTJs would tend to come out Ni-Te and INTPs would tend to come out Ti-Ne. But, apparently, he can't.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> I am sorry you have confused yourself.


Doubt it. Anyway we are completely digressing from the topic.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> Doubt it. Anyway we are completely digressing from the topic.


Actually I just reread your reply and I think I was just stupid and didn't get what you mean at first.

But you can make people do things you want them to do! They just have to have some basic amount of "theory of mind"


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

rrr said:


> Actually I just reread your reply and I think I was just stupid and didn't get what you mean at first.
> 
> But you can make people do things you want them to do! They just have to have some basic amount of "theory of mind"


I don't see how it proves you point.. the video showed that the children failed the test. While it's obvious it's not the same with adults, a picture of a duck/rabbit is not a cognitive function. Just as the woman in the video failed to find the right words to explain that there are different ways to see the drawing, for all we know there are no right words to truly explain someone a cognitive function they never used before, at which point I'm going back to my blind person analogy.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> This is what I'm talking about, it might clear to you, but when you try to turn it into words in loses some of it's meaning. It might be clear for someone and completely vague for someone else. When describing the functions you used theoretical explanations that can be found in many sites about MBTI trying to explain those functions to others, which the OP is trying to avoid.


Of course you shouldn't pay attention to my description.
That is arbitrary and only random labels anyway.
They where used as examples on how the shadow draws out negativity in me.



> *It is what all the annoying jackasses we encounter every day do.*


This is what is important!!!!!
When you collide with the shadow you can't help but experience it.
My labeling of it was just my subjective reaction.
Since pure experience can't be transfered.
*IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!*
Any step by step instruction will only give a random experience that will never match anothers.
When we take cognitive functions into consideration you can't even hope to communicate others than the person uses.
They will autofilter it out cognitively. That is was it means....
The only way to experience the ones you don't have is to out yourself in the path of the types that don't share your functions.
*And let them have their way with you.*
Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Of course you shouldn't pay attention to my description.
> That is arbitrary and only random labels anyway.
> They where used as examples on how the shadow draws out negativity in me.
> 
> ...



Well yeah.. That what I was saying.. Didn't quite get that last part though


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> Well yeah.. That what I was saying.. Didn't quite get that last part though


Well as an INTJ Ni-Te-Fi-Se you would only really get to experience the full annoyance of your shadow functions
by hanging out with several ISFJs Si-Fe-Ti-Ne. Only then would you experience the reality of the stances you have rejected.
You could help polish silverware to prepare for the formal tea party, where there would be casual subtle gossip,
marveling over the curtains and other random decorating objects in the house etc etc.... Idle small talk is a good thing
cause then everyone gets to really subjectively sink into whatever sensation is on redo. And then one can chat about
those sensations. Like the taste of wine and the condition of the beef and all the subtle litte taste clues in coffee and what have you.
And we will do it all over tomorrow, the day after that and so on.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Well as an INTJ Ni-Te-Fi-Se you would only really get to experience the full annoyance of your shadow functions
> by hanging out with several ISFJs Si-Fe-Ti-Ne. Only then would you experience the reality of the stances you have rejected.
> You could help polish silverware to prepare for the formal tea party, where there would be casual subtle gossip,
> marveling over the curtains and other random decorating objects in the house etc etc.... Idle small talk is a good thing
> ...


I disagree. My father is an ISTJ and I suspect my mother is an ISFJ. I was affected by them greatly, and some of their perceptions and judgings affected my principles, but I accepted those perceptions and judgings in my own way. I understand more or less their way of thinking but if I were to learn NEW information, I would go about it in the old INTJish way, because this is what the MBTI is all about- preferences.

Same here, you can hang with people that use your shadow functions on a regular basis. You can understand theoretically what supposedly is their point of view, but you would still not quite "get it". No matter how much time you would be around those people you would still be out of your comfort zone on some level and always return to who you really are, or nothing can change in the first place and you would keep behaving in your typical way, often leading to confrontations.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> I disagree. My father is an ISTJ and I suspect my mother is an ISFJ. I was affected by them greatly, and some of their perceptions and judgings affected my principles, but I accepted those perceptions and judgings in my own way. I understand more or less their way of thinking but if I were to learn NEW information, I would go about it in the old INTJish way, because this is what the MBTI is all about- preferences.
> 
> Same here, you can hang with people that use your shadow functions on a regular basis. You can understand theoretically what supposedly is their point of view, but you would still not quite "get it". No matter how much time you would be around those people you would still be out of your comfort zone on some level and always return to who you really are, or nothing can change in the first place and you would keep behaving in your typical way, often leading to confrontations.


Disagree? Oh I see you subcribe to MBTI.
Silly me that once again thought the distinction of MBTI and Cognitive function forum actually meant something.
I will leave you to amuse yourself with the ghost of Briggs.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Disagree? Oh I see you subcribe to MBTI.
> Silly me that once again thought the distinction of MBTI and Cognitive function forum actually meant something.
> I will leave you to amuse yourself with the ghost of Briggs.


Do I sense condescending? 
I don't see the problem with bringing up MBTI when talking about something like INTJ.
Sure, I can take that back (although I don't see a reason to), my point still stands.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> Do I sense condescending?
> I don't see the problem with bringing up MBTI when talking about something like INTJ.
> Sure, I can take that back (although I don't see a reason to), my point still stands.


Yeah I'm an asshole today.

Anyway I get what you are saying.
I don't disagree per se. But here is the thing.
Your parents had an influence on you no doubt. My mom is ISFJ too.
I don't know how it worked for you as you would supress your Se anyway without much encouragement.
I on the other hand was in constant battle against Si.
It makes sense actually since Ni and Si are so far removed they have hard to believe in the myth of the other.
Se and Si on the other hand are in a more direct fight.
I think I actually might have projected my issues with Si onto you INTJs when I think about it.
How weird... XD


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Yeah I'm an asshole today.
> 
> Anyway I get what you are saying.
> I don't disagree per se. But here is the thing.
> ...


I actually have no problem with the idea behind Si.. I mean, I'm familiar with its principals, I just can't actively use it like people who have it in their functional stack, like I said in the comment from.. umm.. 2 hours ago.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> I actually have no problem with the idea behind Si.. I mean, I'm familiar with its principals, I just can't actively use it like people who have it in their functional stack, like I said in the comment from.. umm.. 2 hours ago.


The idea behind Si?
Well I don't have an issue with the idea behind Ti either!!! XD
That is not the point.
We are talking about the reality of Si.
As real as it can become from an Se objective take on things.
The real observable behaviour of Si doms and their claim on your time and energy.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> The real observable behaviour of Si doms and their claim on your time and energy.


Hmm.. I don't seem to follow. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> Hmm.. I don't seem to follow. Care to elaborate?


Si penetrates our society and creates traditions, norm and laws as to not rock the boat.
It is all about removing attention from the reality of life as it is and retreating into a mirage off it.
Every reminder of the object as it is revolts Si users. Hence they work hard to rein in Se users.
Ni and it's ideas are even more revolting as it implies that one can somehow predict things.
Si don't predict, it tries to force the world to become absolutely predictive by preserving status quos.
Ni doesn't need that as it can take any Se information and transform it into a pattern that can track
any occorance. Si can only draw on Ne a shapeshifting way of looking at the world.
A chaos function if you will. Where every possibility is dealt with at the same time as one massive intuitive object.
Ni retreats into it's own inner clean intuitive realm, free to follow any path regardless of outside chaos.
Without Si we wouldn't have as many boundaries as we have right now.
We would have more freedom as there wouldn't be so much fear of the reality of the sensed object.

George Carlin have a great take on this process.


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

I'll give a rundown of how I experience things:

Fi: How does your core person and soul feel? An environment can just completely vibe with something inside of me, can seem mediocre, or bad (which I try to escape from). "Value judging" isn't really conscious, it's not like I usually think "I like this thing better, so I will do this." I just feel something deep down and just know it's right. Look into your person and think about how your current situation in life makes you feel. Feelings aren't the same as emotions - feelings are like colors in a sense, some being more positive and others more negative. Don't try to feel an emotion; instead, find the right feeling tone.

It can be so heavy and beautiful, feeling intense, or mediocre and lukewarm like brown. It can be intensely bad - everyone has experienced this when someone has cut you to your core with criticism. But, ignore the emotion and look deeper into what kind of tone it gives to your inner person. Judging whether someone is dangerous or not just from appearance is another way people use Fi.

Se: Look around and see things as they are. Notice all the details, like how this lamp near me is dusty, but has clear spots where somebody brushed it with their finger. Notice all the different beats in music (or instruments, depending on what type of music) and try to identify each of them. Open a window and try to feel the air creeping in and really pay attention to the temperature difference.

Ni: Give a background to the things you see. Input some information in your head that seemingly doesn't go together, let it stew around while not really thinking about it, and wait for the aha! moment. Like in math class, when you have no idea what's going on, but then you suddenly completely understand it and the light bulb turns on.

Te: Figure out something you want (this is the goal). Figure out what the first step is towards your goal, then the next, and so on. Systematically organize things in an efficient way. It can be your drawers, your room, papers, etc.

I hope none of this is "fuzzy", and I'll try to clarify anything that seems that way.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Si penetrates our society and creates traditions, norm and laws as to not rock the boat.
> It is all about removing attention from the reality of life as it is and retreating into a mirage off it.
> Every reminder of the object as it is revolts Si users. Hence they work hard to rein in Se users.
> Ni and it's ideas are even more revolting as it implies that one can somehow predict things.
> ...


The video is funny and very true, but I don't see what it has to do with Si.
Si relies on past experiences and the familiar to understand the present.
Something that I think greatly describes Si is the phrase "history repeats itself".
Si is not the process you described or that George Carlin described, it's the ability to identify the process.

I might be wrong, but presently I can't see how the two things connect.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> The video is funny and very true, but I don't see what it has to do with Si.
> Si relies on past experiences and the familiar to understand the present.
> Something that I think greatly describes Si is the phrase "history repeats itself".
> Si is not the process you described or that George Carlin described, it's the ability to identify the process.
> ...


Then I suggest you read some Jung.
I'm not here to spoon-feed you.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

hornet said:


> Then I suggest you read some Jung.
> I'm not here to spoon-feed you.
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


LOL you're saying it like you are here on some sort of mission. You can leave if you want 
Sure, I'll read it, I don't mind learning and correcting myself where I might be wrong, but either way we digressed quite a bit from the original discussion, in which my original opinion didn't change.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> The video is funny and very true, but I don't see what it has to do with Si.
> Si relies on past experiences and the familiar to understand the present.
> Something that I think greatly describes Si is the phrase "history repeats itself".
> Si is not the process you described or that George Carlin described, it's the ability to identify the process.
> ...


 @hornet's point is that Carlin exemplifies Si logic with his reasoning process that he uses in order to create his humor, possibly indicating that Carlin is an Si type which could explain why I never found him funny. I just found him annoying and anal for most of the part.

If I would type Carlin, I would wager ESTJ/LSE.

Though another way I suppose, seeing it, is how not calling something for what it is could be seen as Se fear, but I am not sure it is necessarily. Changing the meaning of things is sometimes beneficial, or we would still be calling black people ******* and so on.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> @_hornet_'s point is that Carlin exemplifies Si logic with his reasoning process that he uses in order to create his humor, possibly indicating that Carlin is an Si type which could explain why I never found him funny. I just found him annoying and anal for most of the part.
> 
> If I would type Carlin, I would wager ESTJ/LSE.


Well this is exactly what I meant........... =\


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> @_hornet_'s point is that Carlin exemplifies Si logic with his reasoning process that he uses in order to create his humor, possibly indicating that Carlin is an Si type which could explain why I never found him funny. I just found him annoying and anal for most of the part.
> 
> If I would type Carlin, I would wager ESTJ/LSE.


My guess is that he is an INFP.
In interviews he talks about having given up on humanity.
Like he is some burned idealist.
Being burned he would be in his inferior acting like an ESTJ.
But maybe he is actually an ESTJ who just plays the burned idealist cause it pays so well.
Hard to tell.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mbaruh said:


> Well this is exactly what I meant........... =\


No? You made some point how you failed to see how Carlin represented Si in that video?



hornet said:


> My guess is that he is an INFP.
> In interviews he talks about having given up on humanity.
> Like he is some burned idealist.
> Being burned he would be in his inferior acting like an ESTJ.
> ...


Not sure how feeling like that necessarily must point towards INFP? I also often feel like giving up/or that I have already given up on humanity. Though the primary reason for this is because I cannot stand to live with my own species' utter stupidity.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No? You made some point how you failed to see how Carlin represented Si in that video?


I think that there has been some misunderstanding here. I said that I don't see how the process Carlin was talking about represented Si. Carlin himself represented Si quite clearly.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> No? You made some point how you failed to see how Carlin represented Si in that video?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how feeling like that necessarily must point towards INFP? I also often feel like giving up/or that I have already given up on humanity. Though the primary reason for this is because I cannot stand to live with my own species' utter stupidity.


I'm not sure on that guess off course.
I just put it out there cause I remembered thinking he was INFP while I watched some vids of his.
And I thought it lined up neatly with your ESTJ assertion.
It would be neat to pin him down though.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mbaruh said:


> LOL you're saying it like you are here on some sort of mission. You can leave if you want
> Sure, I'll read it, I don't mind learning and correcting myself where I might be wrong, but either way we digressed quite a bit from the original discussion, in which my original opinion didn't change.


Yeah well sorry for being an ass.
I'm just in a place where I struggle to be very empatic and understanding of others.
I have to act real tough right now IRL and it shows itself clearly in my interactions with others.
It is as if I can't let go of giving others a hard time whenever their opinion deviate from what I think of as facts.
I like to refer to it as a grip episode. Or ENTJ mode. ;P


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

hornet said:


> Then I suggest you read some Jung.
> I'm not here to spoon-feed you.
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


Jeepers creepers, hornet. First you make a post looking down your nose at the "MBTI" and the "ghost of Briggs." But then you make a post — consistent with several earlier posts in the thread — where you offer up a characterization of Si that, rather than being Jungian, matches the changes Myers and Briggs made to Jung, based (in the case of Si) on their experience with actual, real-life SJs. As explained at length in this post, the idea of Si-doms as conservative creators/preservers of "traditions, norms and laws as to not rock the boat" (your words) who do their best to "force the world to become absolutely predictive by preserving status quos" (your words again) is reasonably consistent with Myers and Briggs but bears virtually _no resemblance_ to Jung's Si-dom portrait. To Jung, Se-doms and Si-doms were equally "irrational," and he explained that the Si-dom "is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens." As described in some detail (with many quotes) in my linked post, virtually no well-known modern MBTI source — including function-centric theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi — makes much use of Jung's Si descriptions.

But now, in the face of @mbaruh's challenge, you snootily suggest he should "read some Jung" since you're "not here to spoon-feed" him.

I'd suggest you ought to spend some time spoon-feeding yourself before you make any more posts pretending to correct other people's misunderstandings.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> I'm not sure on that guess off course.
> I just put it out there cause I remembered thinking he was INFP while I watched some vids of his.
> And I thought it lined up neatly with your ESTJ assertion.
> It would be neat to pin him down though.


It does seem Fi-informed, I guess. I know my sentiments are Fi-informed. Based on that one video though, I haven't studied Carlin in depth, I think Te-Fi is rather obvious. I am unsure if I see him as an introvert though, at least based on that performance. The logic was very Te-driven as in, "These are the generally agreed upon definitions of these words". I don't think a Ti type would find the meaning of PTSD as static in contrast.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

reckful said:


> Jeepers creepers, hornet. First you make a post looking down your nose at the "MBTI" and the "ghost of Briggs." But then you make a post — consistent with several earlier posts in the thread — where you offer up a characterization of Si that, rather than being Jungian, matches the changes Myers and Briggs made to Jung, based (in the case of Si) on their experience with actual, real-life SJs. As explained at length in this post, the idea of Si-doms as conservative creators/preservers of "traditions, norms and laws as to not rock the boat" (your words) who do their best to "force the world to become absolutely predictive by preserving status quos" (your words again) is reasonably consistent with Myers and Briggs but bears virtually _no resemblance_ to Jung's Si-dom portrait. To Jung, Se-doms and Si-doms were equally "irrational," and he explained that the Si-dom "is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens." As described in some detail (with many quotes) in my linked post, virtually no well-known modern MBTI source — including function-centric theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi — makes much use of Jung's Si descriptions.
> 
> But now, in the face of mbaruh's challenge, you snootily suggest he should "read some Jung" since you're "not here to spoon-feed" him.
> 
> I'd suggest you ought to spend some time spoon-feeding yourself before you make any more posts pretending to correct other people's misunderstandings.


I don't care! 
I know I'm projecting a whole lot here.
But hey where is the off switch?
I don't see it...
Gee imagine how much worse it could have been if I hadn't spent as much time on this as I have.
Thanks for the link I will read it and try to figure out the points you mentioned.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@reckful
I read trough your link-post.
I can see what you are getting at.
I can't say right now what explanation I would put on a pedestal at this point.

To me it seems that Jungs Si description is capturing how the Si-dom experiences the world.
While Myers captures how the ISXJ appear to experience the world.
It is no secret that MBTI is built around the extroverted function and how to spot it.
To break it down into cognitive functions you have to use judging and perceving.
These two pointers sole purpose it to make it clear what function is extroverted.
Is it the first or the second. You go from there. It is the Te way of handling it.
The introverted functions can't really be detected directly, they only can be infered by their effect on the extroverted.
To me MBTI is incomplete since it ignores the subjective reality of introversion.
Having had both an ISFJ as a mother and an ISTJ as a grand mother, I can find no flaw in Jungs description.

Me holding others to a standard I myself can't follow is another issue entirely though.
I prefer not to mix those two up.

Disagree that MBTI had a better explaination of Si.
It was an improvment on how Fe/Te appears mixed with Si though.
So in order to describe external manifestation of Si you got to go the Myers road of ignoring the internal reality of Si.
Can't be helped as far as I can tell.

*So I will admit to holding others to a standard I don't follow myself.
Thanks for pointing it out for me.
I appreciate it. It would have been a bitch to spot it myself.*


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> It does seem Fi-informed, I guess. I know my sentiments are Fi-informed. Based on that one video though, I haven't studied Carlin in depth, I think Te-Fi is rather obvious. I am unsure if I see him as an introvert though, at least based on that performance. The logic was very Te-driven as in, "These are the generally agreed upon definitions of these words". I don't think a Ti type would find the meaning of PTSD as static in contrast.


In those vids he is quite old, so it makes sense that he would be more grounded in inferior. 
Either Te or Fi.
If we look at some younger vids of his it becomes more clear I think.






I would say this is much more of an ESTJ way of approaching it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> In those vids he is quite old, so it makes sense that he would be more grounded in inferior.
> Either Te or Fi.
> If we look at some younger vids of his it becomes more clear I think.
> 
> ...


Yeah, he even looks like an ESTJ to me. Notice how similar he is to say, a young Arnold Schwarzenegger. And Te humor, I don't quite get it, especially when Si-informed, I really don't. I do think each type has its own set of humor kind of that we appreciate. I appreciate humor with more focus on double-entendres in a dark way. 

Like the TV-series Dexter. That show has a great sense of humor but I can see why not everyone can even see the humor in the show. You do need decent intuition to spot it, and I think Ni more so than Ne. Ne can spot it, but it might not find it funny, necessarily.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Yeah, he even looks like an ESTJ to me. Notice how similar he is to say, a young Arnold Schwarzenegger. And Te humor, I don't quite get it, especially when Si-informed, I really don't. I do think each type has its own set of humor kind of that we appreciate. I appreciate humor with more focus on double-entendres in a dark way.
> 
> Like the TV-series Dexter. That show has a great sense of humor but I can see why not everyone can even see the humor in the show. You do need decent intuition to spot it, and I think Ni more so than Ne. Ne can spot it, but it might not find it funny, necessarily.


I think that what position you have the function in the shadow has a lot to do with it.
I doubt that anyone can find their 8th daemon function much funny.
I've found the shadow fascinating in a cruel way lately.

I havn't watched any Dexter so I have no idea about the humor. 
I might watch an episode now just to do research.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> I think that what position you have the function in the shadow has a lot to do with it.
> I doubt that anyone can find their 8th daemon function much funny.
> I've found the shadow fascinating in a cruel way lately.
> 
> ...


Possible. I haven't looked much into Beebe because I am not overly fond of everything he claims.

Unrelated. but sigh, stupid Se. I just noticed that the image in your sig doesn't quite match the background. I am feeling inclined to make it transparent for you because it bothers me and now I can't unsee it.

EDIT
There, now I won't be annoyed everytime I see your sig from now on.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Possible. I haven't looked much into Beebe because I am not overly fond of everything he claims.
> 
> Unrelated. but sigh, stupid Se. I just noticed that the image in your sig doesn't quite match the background. I am feeling inclined to make it transparent for you because it bothers me and now I can't unsee it.
> 
> ...


Yeah Bebee is his own thing.
I just use the overall framework, never did read him detailed.
Like every function has an Archetypal influence over you kinda.
Then I just run around trying to see if it is true.
It seem to be on some level so I go with that.
Should probably spend more time dealing with what he asserts.

LOL I didn't notice cause my laptop at an angle masked it.
Consider it fixed.


----------



## Wayside (Nov 29, 2012)

Just want to add my two cents on Ne since it's my aux function. The tasks rrr listed are really difficult for me. Whenever I try to mentally manipulate objects they start doing things I don't intend them to do. I have to put a tremendous amount of mental energy into imaging what something would look like as a different colour, what things would look like rearranged, what an outfit would look like, etc. and I'm often quite unsuccessful. It usually involved a furrowed brow and squinting (even with my eyes closed). As an aside, I've heard of mental manipulation a being used in fairly advanced forms of meditation. Whether or not certain cognitive functions would confer some advantage in this, I'm not sure.

In my experience Ne has an explosive quality to it. I might come across something that interests me and it immediately triggers multiple ideas at the same time about what could be. I think that's something very characteristic of Ne; it doesn't suggest one possibility, it suggests many simultaneously.


----------

