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



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Dastan said:


> Hmm, when I think more about it, it seems that the way N and S impede each other is very different from the way F and T do.
> 
> T and F speak "different languages", they use different materials or modalities of information. Feelings can never be concepts and concept never be feelings, concepts can only describe feelings by concepts. Also there are some semantic disagreements: both can use the laws of logic and still produce contrary results. Usually thinking would see the more obvious reasons why A=A and not B, while feeling holistically finds some way to intentify or separate things by data that are not captured by words and concepts.
> 
> ...


You have a degree in bullshit?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Likewise, the opposite of Ni would not be Se (semi-opposite), but a Je function. My gut says Te instead of Fe. The opposite of a perceiving, flying, introverted function (Ni) would be a judging, grounded, extraverted function (Te).


And you maybe still don't understand that there are many ways to arrange oppositions, but not all of them would have influence on the function orders in consciousness and unconsciousness, which means that you cannot randomly choose one way of formulating oppositions in order to arrange the function orders. You don't give a sh*t about ancient thoeries... that' fine but you are still moving inside them. Otherwise you wouldn't use the division of the four functions S N T F at all or the opposition of E and I. If you want to let them be like this and use them you must try to understand why exactly the theories contain them... If you want to create your own understanding free from all this you should begin at the very beginning of human psyche and observe people or whatever, but without using concepts of theories that you don't trust...


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> You have a degree in bullshit?


Apart from "intentify" (I meant identify, already edited), not. What exactly is bullshit there?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Dastan said:


> And you maybe still don't understand that there are many ways to arrange oppositions, but not all of them would have influence on the function orders in consciousness and unconsciousness, which means that you cannot randomly choose one way of formulating oppositions in order to arrange the function orders. You don't give a sh*t about ancient thoeries... that' fine but you are still moving inside them. Otherwise you wouldn't use the division of the four functions S N T F at all or the opposition of E and I. If you want to let them be like this and use them you must try to understand why exactly the theories contain them... If you want to create your own understanding free from all this you should begin at the very beginning of human psyche and observe people or whatever, but without using concepts of theories that you don't trust...


I do what I want, I'm not gonna start from scratch, I'm gonna build from what is available as every sane person would do. Yet some constructions need to be destroyed in the proces, replaced by a new.

I just pity you guys for not having the courage to think outside the box, or even question the box for that matter. The box in this case is the established system of personality typing. Nay, your only interest is defending the box, because you have invested time and thought in understanding the box. It's like those religious fundamentalists not wanting to admit the Bible could be faulty because they have so much invested into it.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FRIEND. Look it up!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> I do what I want, I'm not gonna start from scratch, I'm gonna build from what is available as every sane person would do. Yet some constructions need to be destroyed in the proces, replaced by a new.
> 
> I just pity you guys for not having the courage to think outside the box, or even question the box for that matter. The box in this case is the established system of personality typing. Nay, your only interest is defending the box, because you have invested time and thought in understanding the box. It's like those religious fundamentalists not wanting to admit the Bible could be faulty because they have so much invested into it.
> 
> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FRIEND. Look it up!


I think this is an interesting idea, and I can see you put a lot of thought and work into it.

I understand why you want to work inside the existing structure. Making a new theory wouldn't make sense if you're just trying to modify or change the existing model. That makes sense to me.

A lot of people take theories from the past, and expand on them, or change them based on new information. 

This is how science is _done, _friends. Taking things that are already established, and coming up with ideas from those foundations.

That being said:

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

You're going to have to put the old model next to the new one for clarity. eTFJ (ENTJ?)

Also... I think it's difficult _in the first place _to understand how our conscious cognitive functions reason, and I'm not even sure if 'order' is the right way of looking at it altogether.

I mean, For me, I look at my surroundings and I'm mentally trying to see what I'm mentally trying to see, and I go in circles. 

Because we're doing these functions naturally, in a natural space, and when you try to put in synthetic observations (What I mean by this is... Trying to observe the way you think during a natural day-in-the-life)... Ultimately, I find this _unnatural, _and therefore producing inconclusive results.

I've been _so _obsessed and thought-focused on the type theories that I'm naturally biased and therefore botching my own experimental results.

Additionally, how could we possibly hope to experiment _on other people, _because we can't see inside their heads? We can only see how their functions manifest.

Time, and time again, we're seeing that functions manifest differently in the environment, and two completely different types can actually _seem _identical, upon preliminary observation.

So, yeah. My thoughts.

Keep up the good work! Keep thinking! But, be skeptical, and think critically. WHEN IS A BANANA NOT A BANANA?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> I do what I want, I'm not gonna start from scratch, I'm gonna build from what is available as every sane person would do. Yet some constructions need to be destroyed in the proces, replaced by a new.
> 
> I just pity you guys for not having the courage to think outside the box, or even question the box for that matter. The box in this case is the established system of personality typing. Nay, your only interest is defending the box, because you have invested time and thought in understanding the box. It's like those religious fundamentalists not wanting to admit the Bible could be faulty because they have so much invested into it.
> 
> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FRIEND. Look it up!


Actually I approve of what you say there. But don't generalize all people to be defenders of the box, lol... but it is right that people begin like this when they read about MBTI for the first time and many ones remain this way eternally.

I approve of your approach to free from established paradigms and look what actually makes sense. I only criticize that you jump on conclusions and proceed too quickly. One has to proceed conciderate when choosing trustworthy parts of something he does not accept completely.

Only because you see another way of opposites it is not necessarily the only one. Things have more than one property, so they can be compared or classifyed differently. Right? And one way of arranging the functions to opposites among other should have some special requirement to determine the arrangement of a function order. (By the way you seem to just accept that there must be only one definite order. Did you asked yourself what criterions arrange them in a order? ) Did you provide such an requirement? No. You just claimed that there is also some other dimension, which of course (okay in your logic because it would be the only way of seeing opposites) would influence the order of functions.

So you should have looked for reasons why this flying/spiritual vs. material/grounded dimension is more important for the order of functions than other dimensions or criterions.

Also let me try to capture this other dimension by criterions. What makes something more flying and spiritual than material and grounded? I guess I know what you mean, but in this way: When thinking or sensing, you are almost fully aware of every part of it. But when feeling or having intuitions there are much more unconscious holistic processes apart from the conscious part of them, so you can not trace back a feeling or intuition like linear thoughts or "real-time" sense perception. So is would be fully conscious vs. additionally feeding on unconscious processes. Is this similar to your flying/... dimension?


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Now this is what I would call thinking outside the box.

The type I resonate with is INSP.

I feel like there is something still not quite right with your options, but it is just such an interesting new way of looking at it.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

An attempt at brain model (the crossing lines indicate opposing functions):








OR









As you can see, I attributed the flying/spiritual functions (F/N) to the right hemisphere and the grounded/material functions (S/T) to the left hemisphere. Next came the introversion/extraversion spectrum, where obviously extraversion is attributed to the frontal lobes. Finally came the judging/perceiving spectrum, with judging functions more to the front than perceiving functions.

Ofcourse this is just a model, because I found the other ones like Lenore Thomson's ridiculous and assumpteous. This one is more in-tune with neuro-imaging (EEG) (not totally, just more).

Another possibility:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Proving why T is the opposite of N and why Ne's do not use T (Ti in particular), since tertiary (ENFP) or secondary (ENTP) thinking =/= inferior thinking.
> 
> How funny when you can't even understand how your own debunking arguments actually fuel my point and debunk your own.
> 
> I also still haven't seen you use T anywhere. All your posts are loaded with feeling and/or wisdom. Much more perception than actual cold T judgement. Consider INFj (has Fi, Ni and Te) or INFp (has Ni, Fi and Se) in my model.


Of course they're loaded with perception because I'm first of all a perception dominant, not a T dominant. But to claim they are feeling is misunderstanding what feeling is, in my opinion. I'm very categorical, but categories never take precedence over my concepts. 

And no, I honestly don't think you are an ENFP precisely of what you already wrote in response to someone else: 



> And I should take your word because you think are you are an ENTP Ti'er, and therefore have direct experience with Ti? Newsflash, just because your type says you use Ti doesn't actually mean you do... Or, are you claiming Ti to be your own? Do you feel attacked when my description of Ti does not resonate with you? Are you really, really sure you are not just using N, combined with another function besides T? Are you really, really sure you use Ti?
> 
> I knew this would happen. People debunking this idea because they are living proof that I'm wrong. Hey, maybe you just have a bad or inflated self-knowledge?


I think you are far more likely to be an Fe dom with inferior Ti in Jung's system. The post I just quoted for example, it's a good representation of how you clearly have a complex around thinking as an activity, which is why it's likely to be your inferior. You can't even respond to people rationally, but you think your logic (feeling) is logic. F dominant thinking, and when people try to attempt to engage with you on logical terms, you just fall back to what you've already stated but you are completely unable to address anything in a meaningful way. It's all about them feels. 

Your entire system you created in the OP too is a good example of inferior Thinking, in that it makes somewhat sense but then it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. If you want to create your own system, fine, no one is going to stop you, but to twist the system as it is into something else without even understand the systems you are twisting is just a poor example of understanding how the systems work and operate and utilizing them properly. All characteristics that tend to fall within the realms of Thinking.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

WHY must the functions IF they exist be evenly spread over the cortex?! Or is the brain a funny picture for making a concept more appealing, in these models?


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Well, the ST and NF could work, but my problem is with TF and SN, as I think that those types won't function properly, as having two judging or two perceiving functions at the higher level seems to be redundant at best, self-destructive at worst. One will judge too much without having a properly perception of the world that could be used as a base of their judgements, while the other would be slowed down by excessive time getting new information, plus having both logic and value based conclusions at a similar level would generate a ton of contradictions and things that would never work properly.

Besides, even if the current NT and SF seem to be impossible and to be a walking contradiction, I consider that the ability of being flighty and grounded at the same time isn't a curse or something completelly illogical, as you have the advantage of being realistic and imaginative at the same time, because both properties are different you can get diverse perspectives of the same problem, so you won't be stuck on a rut for too long. So I would say that having a balanced type isn't that difficult, even if things like Ni and Te seems to be impossible to have on a similar hierarchical level, you can grasp creative ideas that can be implemented later in the real world, and being able to do both processes allows to modify the current failed or poorly working systems.

So I think that you model needs more adjustments before it could be complete.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I think you are far more likely to be an Fe dom with inferior Ti in Jung's system. The post I just quoted for example, it's a good representation of how you clearly have a complex around thinking as an activity, which is why it's likely to be your inferior. You can't even respond to people rationally, but you think your logic (feeling) is logic.


An Fe dominant? You must be joking... Sure, I may have Fe, but it sure as hell isn't my dominant, N is my dominant. Which is why I have a problem with lineair logic, since intuition is dynamic logic.



> F dominant thinking, and when people try to attempt to engage with you on logical terms, you just fall back to what you've already stated but you are completely unable to address anything in a meaningful way. It's all about them feels.


It's not feels, you have no idea how annoying it is to constantly having to explain the same concepts over and over again in a different way to different minds. Not only this, but I also have to get them to think outside the box, because my model criticizes the box. Ofcourse I get annoyed, it's not feels, it's annoyance. I do not have the patience to logically explain my intuitive concepts all the time. Yet there is logic in them, lots of it. You just need to open your eyes and look at my model instead of my chit chat. No, I did not came to this conclusion using logic, but through intuitions. I know my intuitions are correct or semi-correct when my unconscious logic says "Yes, the puzzle is more complete this way." I do not thrust logic over intuition like many do, knowing perfectly well that neither of these opposite sides of the coin is superior in understanding. Logic is not superior to intuition, neither has, neither will (and neither is the opposite). Yet I can only thrust my intuitions when logic is compatible with it. In this case, my unconscious T *nods*, which is rare.



> Your entire system you created in the OP too is a good example of inferior Thinking, in that it makes somewhat sense but then it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. If you want to create your own system, fine, no one is going to stop you, but to twist the system as it is into something else without even understand the systems you are twisting is just a poor example of understanding how the systems work and operate and utilizing them properly. All characteristics that tend to fall within the realms of Thinking.


You criticize me of lack of T. Yet there is no T in you either. If you had T, you would recognize the logic in my model. If you had T and you disapproved of my model, you would show me all the little details that do not make logical sense first hand instead of just broadly criticizing my lack of T (you have not given ONE example). So, fuck you, I think you're just riding the big horse.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Mugino Shizuri said:


> Well, the ST and NF could work, but my problem is with TF and SN, as I think that those types won't function properly, as having two judging or two perceiving functions at the higher level seems to be redundant at best, self-destructive at worst. One will judge too much without having a properly perception of the world that could be used as a base of their judgements, while the other would be slowed down by excessive time getting new information, plus having both logic and value based conclusions at a similar level would generate a ton of contradictions and things that would never work properly.


I already explained this. The TF's and SN's aren't any less balanced than the ST's and NF's. They are all evenly balanced. 
ST's and NF's: Strong extraverts or strong introverts, but weak perceivers or weak judgers
TF's: Weak extraverts or weak introverts, but strong judgers
SN's: Weak extraverts or weak inroverts, but strong perceivers

The problem is that the current model is too balanced by the main two functions alone, the golden unquestioned rule that e.g. an extraverted judging dominant must have a introverted perceiving aux. If so, then there would be no more need for the tertiary and inferior function since the ego in this case is already balanced on its own. By definition however, the ego is balanced by the unconscious. The ego is never balanced on its own. All types in the old model are not only weak extraverts or introverts, but weak judgers or perceivers aswell (considering the aux. diminished the dom. here). This is unrealistic.



> Besides, even if the current NT and SF seem to be impossible and to be a walking contradiction, I consider that the ability of being flighty and grounded at the same time isn't a curse or something completelly illogical, as you have the advantage of being realistic and imaginative at the same time, because both properties are different you can get diverse perspectives of the same problem, so you won't be stuck on a rut for too long. So I would say that having a balanced type isn't that difficult, even if things like Ni and Te seems to be impossible to have on a similar hierarchical level, you can grasp creative ideas that can be implemented later in the real world, and being able to do both processes allows to modify the current failed or poorly working systems.
> 
> So I think that you model needs more adjustments before it could be complete.


You can be both flying and grounded at the same time, like the SN and TF temperaments, but you will turn out as a strong judger and/or perceiver as a sacrifice.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> An attempt at brain model (the crossing lines indicate opposing functions):
> 
> View attachment 84029
> 
> ...


First of all, 'assumpteous' is not a word. Did you mean 'presumptuous'? Maybe 'sumptuous' <3

Now that_ that's _out of the way, I think you've lost me here. 

Do you have an understanding of neuroscience and/or chemistry to be able to confidently fit cognitive functions to areas of the brain?

Or is this like Betty Edward's 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain'?

I'm only asking because although you mention PET brain scans, I can't confidently conclude that you _also _mean that you are actually able to _comprehend _the information PET brain scans give. Do you have training in this field?

Also: If you _do _have training, could you give us an idea of what each area of the brain is responsible for, that is making use of these cognitive functions? 

_'ie. Hypothalamus is generally associated with linking the nervous system to the endocrine system via the pituitary gland. In this way, it is also theoretically responsible for the Se function.'_

Thanks.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

edit:just kidding, nevermind.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> I already explained this. The TF's and SN's aren't any less balanced than the ST's and NF's. They are all evenly balanced.
> ST's and NF's: Strong extraverts or strong introverts, but weak perceivers or weak judgers
> TF's: Weak extraverts or weak introverts, but *strong judgers*
> SN's: Weak extraverts or weak inroverts, but *strong perceivers*


Clearly you didn't understand my issues with your model. My biggest problem is exactly having too unbalanced higher ranked functions, as even the subconscious ones can balance them, they still 'weight' less than the more conscious functions and are more primitive, so the balance would be poor at best, plus I think that no personality is extremely introverted/extroverted or judging/perceiving, so having such extreme types screw the whole purpose of redefining types.



> The problem is that the *current model is too balanced by the main two functions alone*, the golden unquestioned rule that e.g. an extraverted judging dominant must have a introverted perceiving aux. If so, then there would be* no more need for the tertiary and inferior function* since the ego in this case is already balanced on its own. By definition however, the ego is balanced by the unconscious. The ego is never balanced on its own. All types in the old model are not only weak extraverts or introverts, but weak judgers or perceivers aswell (considering the aux. diminished the dom. here). *This is unrealistic*.


 Sir, you're forgetting that the two lower functions already balance the ego, and that's because they provide the type of perceptions and judgements that can't be done by the two higher functions, so they already round the whole personality. Like said, extremes aren't good, as they're unhealthy at best, so balance is the key for having a non screwed up personality. Plus you need to consider better the interaction and clashes between functions, specially by the fact that opposites have some common ground, and perceiving and judging share no common characteristic for drawing a proper comparation between them. 



> You can be both flying and grounded at the same time, like the SN and TF temperaments.


Still those types wouldn't be really functional for the reasons that I stated before.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Hey reckfull, I appreciate you citating Jung as a means to debunk my theory. But in case you haven't noticed, I don't give a shit about the established ancient means of perception. That means I don't care about what dead Jung thought decades ago, even if he founded this. God created the universe, yet God was wrong about multiple things, for example that non-believers go to hell or that males are more divine than females... Things evolve, and so should you.
> I see you using very little N.


I wasn't "citating Jung as a means to debunk [your] theory." Jung's work was the wellspring for the MBTI, I'm very familiar with Psychological Types, and I generally assume that what Jung wrote about whatever's under discussion may be of interest to my fellow forumites — so I often describe and/or quote what Jung had to say for that reason, regardless of whether I happen to endorse Jung's view on that particular issue or not.

Anyone who's read very many of my posts knows I think Jung got quite a lot wrong — and that a lot of Myers' changes to Jung were improvements. I don't believe in treating any theorist's views as sacred.


----------



## Distort (Aug 31, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


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


Assuming that this is using Jung's original framework, albeit with these tweaks, then individuals of the above types would probably end up in mental asylums. They'd be too cognitively unbalanced to exist as healthy people. Effective conscious use of a perceiving function and a judging function is needed, which would not be possible with these types; that is, until they became a lot older. At a younger age TFs wouldn't be able to consciously take in information for their Judging function to assess, and SNs wouldn't even be able to make decisions. The absorbed info would just be floating around in their brains not doing anything.

Also, an opposite isn't two concepts that are completely unalike in every respect. They are the flip-sides of two concepts within the same dichotomy. For two things to exist together in the same dichotomy, there needs to be a certain amount of likeness - I would even make the assertion that opposites have more alike than unlike. Darkness is the opposite of light. But they both belong to the same dichotomy; "photon levels". Blue is the opposite of orange, even though they are both colours. In fact, for something to be an opposite, it has to be intimately connected to the "other side" at a deeper level than something else that at first glance seems more similar.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> An Fe dominant? You must be joking... Sure, I may have Fe, but it sure as hell isn't my dominant, N is my dominant. Which is why I have a problem with lineair logic, since intuition is dynamic logic.


See, this is the problem. You ascribe intuition to things that have nothing to do with intuition in the first place, which is why your original ideas in the OP is such a mess too, because nowhere do they coherently describe Jung's original ideas. Intuition is the ability to "see" what is behind the corner without actually seeing it, and that's all there is to intuition. Linear logic is for example not at all related to thinking, feeling, intuition, anything. If you want an example of how cognitive functions affect one's cognitive styles, then Gulenko describes this well.


> It's not feels, you have no idea how annoying it is to constantly having to explain the same concepts over and over again in a different way to different minds.


Yeah, you get hung up on words. By feels I of course don't mean actual feelings, but Feeling in relation to some kind of judgement evaluation. I just used the word "feels" because that's what accurately describes the situation; you place importance and emphasis on your values over logical categorical thinking. 



> Not only this, but I also have to get them to think outside the box, because my model criticizes the box.


I have nothing against criticizing the box, but what's the point criticizing a box whose shape you don't even know is a box? 



> Ofcourse I get annoyed, it's not feels, it's annoyance.


So annoyance is not a feeling?



> I do not have the patience to logically explain my intuitive concepts all the time.


But this thread is hardly even an example of "some of the time" or "most of the time", but it is indeed "all the time", quite literally so. You haven't attempted to describe your model in depth logically to someone else just once, and when they criticize you all you do is lash back and tell them how they aren't thinking critically. That in itself is also Fe logic in that Fe tends to shame others. Fi more openly accuses. 



> Yet there is logic in them, lots of it. You just need to open your eyes and look at my model instead of my chit chat.


Logic can still be classified in better, worse, sound, less sound and so on. It's not very sound logic when you try to criticize and build a system based on a system one shows poor understanding of.



> No, I did not came to this conclusion using logic, but through intuitions.


The Jungian definition of intuition or just the general idea of intuition? They are not the same. 



> I know my intuitions are correct or semi-correct when my unconscious logic says "Yes, the puzzle is more complete this way."


I don't even... 



> I do not thrust logic over intuition like many do, knowing perfectly well that neither of these opposite sides of the coin is superior in understanding.


Then why for instance claim that logic is rigid? It's only rigid the way you describe it in the inferior position in psyche. The more inferior one function is, the more rigid and inflexible it becomes, and the more one distrusts and avoids to rely on it, precisely because of its rigid, archaic character. 



> Logic is not superior to intuition, neither has, neither will (and neither is the opposite). Yet I can only thrust my intuitions when logic is compatible with it. In this case, my unconscious T *nods*, which is rare.


I don't feel you are describing intuition here. You are describing something else, and I would bet a lot of money on feeling. You are for instance inserting a value judgement here, as if one must be more or less superior than the other. Intuition being a form of perception, doesn't judge according to values or logical categories. Things simply are as they are perceived. Never once did I claim logic is superior to anything, but when one is interested to express a logical system or an idea, it is important that it does in fact come across logically and by that I don't just mean that it's valid based on its premise, but that the entire reasoning itself is _sound_, and when people attempt to understand and/or criticize one's thinking, one can actually meet those arguments with _logic_. Anything else will simply give off the impression that you are in fact uninterested to reason at all. 



> You criticize me of lack of T. Yet there is no T in you either. If you had T, you would recognize the logic in my model.


Allow me to facepalm. It is precisely that I utilize Thinking better than you do, having it as my auxiliary, that makes me capable of seeing that your logic is flawed. Did you consider that? Do you even see how flawed this argument is in itself? (Nevermind the fact it's attempting to shift guilt.)



> If you had T and you disapproved of my model, you would show me all the little details that do not make logical sense first hand instead of just broadly criticizing my lack of T (you have not given ONE example). So, fuck you, I think you're just riding the big horse.


Because your model is so fucked up I have no point nitpicking it into parts. I don't need to or want to; it's sufficient to point out that you don't understand the systems you are attempting to criticize and as such your entire model collapses on itself. Because I am after all, actually an Ni dominant type, not a Ti dominant type, as you somehow seem to expect me to be. Ni takes precedence in the psyche, not Te. Nitpicking logical arguments or citing facts don't fall me fancy necessarily. I leave that to the actual T dominant types.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Allow me to facepalm. It is precisely that I utilize Thinking better than you do, having it as my auxiliary, that makes me capable of seeing that your logic is flawed. Did you consider that? Do you even see how flawed this argument is in itself? (Nevermind the fact it's attempting to shift guilt.)
> Because your model is so fucked up I have no point nitpicking it into parts. I don't need to or want to; it's sufficient to point out that you don't understand the systems you are attempting to criticize and as such your entire model collapses on itself.


Wow, you are one arrogant dude. By that logic all of us who have feeling as the dom. or aux. shall no longer attempt to empathize with the rest of the unfeely thinker population. "You are not worthy to get a taste of our superior emotional intelligence."

If you feel above the rest of us in understanding that your only interest is in telling us how idiotic we are but don't even attempt in explaining our idiocracy, well, in that case, I want to give you another fuck you, but I've already received a 10 points infraction for this an hour ago so it won't take long before I get banned... (if I had to make a guess you probably asked your ESTP moderator buddy here to intimidate me not being man enough to deal with a little everyday F-word yourself.)

Anyways, I don't give a rats ass if I get banned or not. (probably for the better for all of us) I have a real life. 

Have you considered your real type to be cerebral narcissist instead of INTJ? The cerebral narcissist wants others to worship his mind. Internet forums are great places for this.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Distort said:


> Assuming that this is using Jung's original framework, albeit with these tweaks, then individuals of the above types would probably end up in mental asylums. They'd be too cognitively unbalanced to exist as healthy people. Effective conscious use of a perceiving function and a judging function is needed, which would not be possible with these types; that is, until they became a lot older. At a younger age TFs wouldn't be able to consciously take in information for their Judging function to assess, and SNs wouldn't even be able to make decisions. The absorbed info would just be floating around in their brains not doing anything.


That is your personal opinion. Ne combined with Si would in reality look very stable to me, probably look a bit like F. Sure, they wouldn't have a conscious judging function but it is a dogma to assume that a judging is necessary to stand on your feet. (Where is the evidence??) The Si would do partially take care of that job here.


----------



## Distort (Aug 31, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> That is your personal opinion. Ne combined with Si would in reality look very stable to me, probably look a bit like F. Sure, they wouldn't have a conscious judging function but it is a dogma to assume that a judging is necessary to stand on your feet. The Si would do partially take care of that job here.


Well, it's to do with how the original theory works rather than it being my opinion. Jung stated that for balance in the psyche, one needs to have conscious use of either a P function predominantly, or a J function. The secondary function then needs back up the primary - to help it either judge the incoming information, or find new information for them to come to conclusions, depending on the persons primary. The brain does this constantly, back and forth, and if this cannot be achieved, then it isn't operating correctly. 

Furthermore, the primary function is the one of most differentiation, so its opposite along the axis is naturally the most primitive and least used, consciously. One cannot be TeFi, for example, because it breaks this rule, and also because since the next Perceiving function would be tertiary - fairly unconscious - the individual would not be able to make conscious use of it due to lack of consciously perceived information.

So it's a paradox. For Te to be most used, and Fi second, then neither can be very differentiated. So Te cannot be primary. If a certain Judging attitude is to become preferred, then a Perceiving attitude to give information to the J function also has to become preferred. Since this isn't the case, neither Te nor Fi has anything to judge consciously, so cannot be made use of. So Te couldn't be primary. Nothing would actually, it would all fall apart; unless you've changed other dynamics of the original theory that would create a different scenario, but you would have to have a good reason for doing so.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Distort said:


> Well, it's to do with how the original theory works rather than it being my opinion. Jung stated that for balance in the psyche, one needs to have conscious use of either a P function predominantly, or a J function. The secondary function then needs back up the primary - to help it either judge the incoming information, or find new information for them to come to conclusions, depending on the persons primary. The brain does this constantly, back and forth, and if this cannot be achieved, then it isn't operating correctly.


Information doesn't have to be judged. Ne/Si can work like an antenna. Ear in -> ear out, no judgement needed. A double perceiver will have both a RAW OUT- and IN-port (therefore making these types excellent reporters). (Also keep in mind that if judgement is absolutely necessary then there's always the tertiary/inferior functions.)

While in the case of Ne combined with F for example this mode of operatus becomes much harder as you will only have one RAW OUT-port, so a processor function is needed to filter and judge (proces) the information, and eventually send the processed package back to the world through the OUT-port. 



> Furthermore, the primary function is the one of most differentiation, so its opposite along the axis is naturally the most primitive and least used, consciously. One cannot be TeFi, for example, because it breaks this rule, and also because since the next Perceiving function would be tertiary - fairly unconscious - the individual would not be able to make conscious use of it due to lack of consciously perceived information.


A Te/Fi would be called a double judger, a double processor (therefore called this group the rationals). This group only has RAW ports in the unconscious. Hence, in their conscious mode they will be constantly processing instead of perceiving information. Unlike the SN's it will be rare for them to receive or send back pure/raw data. All incoming information gets filtered/colored with Fi and the only information that makes it back to the outside world is that which passes the Te filter. If SN's are looking at the world with no glasses, then TF's are looking at the world through strong glasses. With NF's and ST's wearing weak glasses. 

I look at it this way:

Ne/Se: RAW OUT
Ni/Si: RAW IN
Te/Fe: Filter OUT
Ti/Fi: Filter IN


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> ephemereality said:
> 
> 
> > Allow me to facepalm. It is precisely that I utilize Thinking better than you do, having it as my auxiliary, that makes me capable of seeing that your logic is flawed. Did you consider that? Do you even see how flawed this argument is in itself? (Nevermind the fact it's attempting to shift guilt.)
> ...


Physician, heal thyself. :tongue:

Back in January you burst onto the PerC scene with a thread in which you told us you'd discovered that seven of the eight cognitive functions corresponded to seven "chakras" that were located at different points on the body and that manifested in part as waves of different frequencies — which meant that "psychology should ultimately also be able to be proven technologically through the physics of waves." But any forumites who too hastily fell in love with your function/chakra system got a rude shock four days later, when you announced that you'd "decided to completely alter my original chakra - cognitive function model" and replaced the one in your OP with one that, among other changes, reflected your carefully-considered conclusion that intuition wasn't "a real cognitive function like the other three."

Five months later, in June, you wowed us again with a new thread in which chakras weren't mentioned and you served us up a new breakthrough theory in which, as the thread title boldly announced, "Introversion=perceiving / extraversion=judging."

But by July you'd switched over to a third revolutionary rewiring in a new thread that explained why, to quote the title, "Te, Ne, Si, Fi don't really exist." And when one of the other posters accused you of being confused, you confidently replied, "I'm 10 times more enlightened about this subject than before. This is a big claim but it's simply you guys who have delved too deep into mainstream MBTI theory while leaving your common sense behind."

Continuing your new-theory-of-the-month streak, August found you touting yet another revolutionary theory (inconsistent with July's theory, since it included Ne and Si and Fi...) in which you flipped the J/P for introverts — only to be informed that socionics had beaten you to the punch.

And now it's September, and you haven't let your theory-of-the-month subscribers down. Here we go with yet another major phoenixpinion reworking of the MBTI, confidently presented and, probably needless to say, substantially inconsistent with your previous reworkings.

In an earlier post in this thread, you urged me to "evolve," and I'll be the first to admit that evolution can be a good thing. With all due respect, though, I'd suggest that there's a fine line between evolution and running around like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd say that, at least in some cases, that line isn't all that fine.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


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


The premise you base your theory on is flawed. Opposites are established when two entities exist on the opposing perimeters of a category (ie. white and black are both colors). You can't establish something as opposite without setting an overarching boundary that makes the comparison possible, otherwise you could reason anything is the opposite of virtually anything you can't fathom as having similarities. The cognitive functions are sorted into judging and perceiving categories which lets us compare them. You can't claim a judging is the opposite of a perceiving function because they aren't governed by the same boundaries apart from being cognitive functions, and when you have a more refined set of principles to work on you use them to determine opposites to enhance our understanding of something.

Also, Ti would be the opposite of Fi, Te the opposite of Fe, Ne the opposite of Se, and Ni the opposite of Si.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Wow, you are one arrogant dude. By that logic all of us who have feeling as the dom. or aux. shall no longer attempt to empathize with the rest of the unfeely thinker population. "You are not worthy to get a taste of our superior emotional intelligence."


Yes, attack my character instead of considering the applications of the argument I delivered and why it might be true or not true. So do you admit its validity or not, or will you attempt to avoid it again with another character attack? This isn't a matter of intelligence since Thinking as a function has nothing to do with intelligence in itself but more to do with a specific worldview or perception/understanding of the world and how one makes sense of it, specifically because it's a judgement function. 

So if you can't see what I am talking about, then perhaps yes, it is part a matter of intelligence, but it is more likely so that you are so blinded by your own ego fixations that the dominant function ultimately is, that you fail to recognize your own errors because doing so also means the admittance of one's over-reliance of the dominant and that the dominant can actually be flawed as a psychological perspective and doesn't inform the end-all of what things are. So the dominant then, being more of a neurosis, informs you to deny these flaws because that way you also deny your own inferior and thus also your own inferiority. Hence the development of shadow complexes that are a very important part of Jungian psychology. You're a great example of a guy who expresses these complexes to the point where I would think Jung would in fact label you as a genuine F type. I am not sure this would make you more happy knowing this though, but that's how you appear to psychologically behave in this thread, for example. 

Also, I wish to add that someone who has developed an actual Jungian type would always behave and react this way. That is how we can tell it is a type to begin with. Without shadow complexes that come with one's dominant, there is no real type to speak of in Jung's world, because Jung was only concerned about people whose mental health was clearly _not_ working, being a psychotherapist, rather than being interested in those whose health _is_ functional enough for them to pass in society without being overly dysfunctional. 



> If you feel above the rest of us in understanding that your only interest is in telling us how idiotic we are but don't even attempt in explaining our idiocracy, well, in that case, I want to give you another fuck you, but I've already received a 10 points infraction for this an hour ago so it won't take long before I get banned... (if I had to make a guess you probably asked your ESTP moderator buddy here to intimidate me not being man enough to deal with a little everyday F-word yourself.)


Well, I _am_ explaining your "idiocy", so to speak, though I never felt the need to resort to personal attacks for doing so. Perhaps you don't see that I am doing it, but I am. I am just not doing it the way you perhaps seem to expect me to do it, since you think I _should_ be picking your arguments into parts. Perhaps someone else will do that, but again, I see no point doing so because I have no time, energy or interest doing it. My overall impression is that I don't find your theory sound so that's the answer I provided. Never once did you ask me what about it that I don't find sound by the way, at which point I could very well provide you a lengthier explanation as to why more than providing more general strokes pertaining to how I see your overall understanding on the matter and wherein the problem seems to lie. 

As for TreeBob giving you an infraction, I have nothing to do with that. If you got issues with TreeBob you better take that with him. I act and always will act on my own. Perhaps what you should consider however is to review your behavior and how you actually engage people who do criticize you and adapt to that. I honestly don't take offense you personally attacking me, but others might and others might also think that you aren't acting like a very nice guy and are breaking the rules so that's worthy of an infraction. I have however not personally reported you and I see no point personally reporting you because you haven't personally offended me. I actually find your overall aggressive behavior rather hilarious and I definitely don't take it to heart. So take that information how you will.


> Anyways, I don't give a rats ass if I get banned or not. (probably for the better for all of us) I have a real life.


Then why are you still here writing to me? 



> Have you considered your real type to be cerebral narcissist instead of INTJ? The cerebral narcissist wants others to worship his mind. Internet forums are great places for this.


Yeah, that's type 5 with an 8 and 4 fix lmao.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Im totally horrified by your theory and need my blankie and a lie down.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

phoenixpinion said:


> Hey reckfull, I appreciate you citating Jung as a means to debunk my theory. But in case you haven't noticed, I don't give a shit about the established ancient means of perception. That means I don't care about what dead Jung thought decades ago, even if he founded this. God created the universe, yet God was wrong about multiple things, for example that non-believers go to hell or that males are more divine than females... Things evolve, and so should you.
> I see you using very little N.


When I encounter real N dom like you, I wonder how I or anyone else for a split second thought I was ENFP.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

phoenixpinion said:


> I do what I want, I'm not gonna start from scratch, I'm gonna build from what is available as every sane person would do. Yet some constructions need to be destroyed in the proces, replaced by a new.
> 
> I just pity you guys for not having the courage to think outside the box, or even question the box for that matter. The box in this case is the established system of personality typing. Nay, your only interest is defending the box, because you have invested time and thought in understanding the box. It's like those religious fundamentalists not wanting to admit the Bible could be faulty because they have so much invested into it.
> 
> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FRIEND. Look it up!


Do you have even the slightest clue how you are THE poster child for how Ne opposes Si, and yet you have the temerity to sit here and say they don't oppose, even as you display it in reality.

You make my sensing hurt so much, if we were in person, id probably throw bits of my dinner at you and back away slowly.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Of course they're loaded with perception because I'm first of all a perception dominant, not a T dominant. But to claim they are feeling is misunderstanding what feeling is, in my opinion. I'm very categorical, but categories never take precedence over my concepts.
> 
> And no, I honestly don't think you are an ENFP precisely of what you already wrote in response to someone else:
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree. This is a clear Ne dom rejecting Si. Are you an INTP? I find young INTP most likely to presume Si is part of their Ti.

If he's not an Ne dom, I will eat my goddamn hat. He actually grasped on to the similarities between Se and Te, Fe and Ne...commonly confused functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I strongly disagree. This is a clear Ne dom rejecting Si. Are you an INTP? I find young INTP most likely to presume Si is part of their Ti.
> 
> If he's not an Ne dom, I will eat my goddamn hat. He actually grasped on to the similarities between Se and Te, Fe and Ne...commonly confused functions.


Actually, I typed as INP for a long time because I confused Fi for Si. It became very clear at some point that I am a strong Fi-Te valuing type however, so I changed to INFP for a while, but in retrospect INTJ makes far more sense. I have very typical characteristics of inferior Se even the way Jung describes it, such as having extremely irrational and weird bouts of hypochondria and a general fear of the external world invading me in some way. 

But anyway, what the OP is expecting of me does however seem to be that he wants me to nitpick him like Ti types do, and since I don't value that kind of nitpick that in itself speaks against Ti as a dominant function. I might perhaps attribute this to some kind of dual-seek in socionics, which just further reinforces my impression of him as a whole at this point, unless something would drastically change that would change my perception of him.

And I don't see why an Ne type would have precedence being able to grasp those differences. Any somewhat intelligent person can. Still doesn't mean he actually understands what intuition is though, which I think he doesn't, and I find that odd if he were indeed an Ne type since they are dominant intuition.

With that said yes, I do think he is an Ne-Si type, but not in the order you suggest but I rather take that to an actual type me thread then as to not derail. 

Also regarding the post below, I think you take rationality-irrationality a bit too literally. Rationality-irrationality according to Jung is more about how we understand the world. Irrational types observe the world but they don't necessarily categorize the world. So that I think he appears irrational doesn't mean he in fact is an irrational type, because that misses the point what rationality-irrationality is about. Also, I never expressed that I think he is irrational. That's a judgement you made. I think perhaps that he's ideas are not very logically sound, but I am not sure I would go as to far to say I think he is irrational. That's you projecting that judgement onto me. I might however attribute him other characteristics and traits but irrational is not necessarily one of them. I think that he overall seems to be a very rational person in a Jungian sense, or he wouldn't find the need to structure his OP the way he did to begin with. 

Rationality has most of all to do with structure and categorization than whether one is say, logical. Even Thinking types can be illogical as fuck.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

phoenixpinion said:


> An Fe dominant? You must be joking... Sure, I may have Fe, but it sure as hell isn't my dominant, N is my dominant. Which is why I have a problem with lineair logic, since intuition is dynamic logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem irrational to him because you are Perceiving dom and irrational, while unbeknownst to himself he is Judging or rational dom.

You are most def an N dom irrational.

As an F dom rational, my response to you was even more dramatically distasteful than his own, because I am S aux and he is still N aux.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Actually, I typed as INP for a long time because I confused Fi for Si. It became very clear at some point that I am a strong Fi-Te valuing type however, so I changed to INFP for a while, but in retrospect INTJ makes far more sense. I have very typical characteristics of inferior Se.
> 
> But anyway, what the OP is expecting of me does however seem to be that he wants me to nitpick him like Ti types do, and since I don't value that kind of nitpick that in itself speaks against Ti as a dominant function. I might perhaps attribute this to some kind of dual-seek in socionics, which just further reinforces my impression of him as a whole at this point, unless something would drastically change.
> 
> ...


Im sorry but I don't think you know what T and F mean. F IS RATIONAL LIKE T. He seems utterly irrational but strangely half insightful because of being sn Ne dom irrational. N and S are irrational, not F.

I am pretty sure you are a T dom. Or a rational.

How can you think that a person who claims we could be pure perception without any judgment can be anything but Perceiving dom?

The only way I can even deal with this thread is by reassuring myself what I am observing matches the original theory rather than his own, and the very idea that we should throw the baby out with the bath water is highly alarming to me.

I do question if my initial tired response to the OP was due to being rational dom or sensing, but I find his theory and mindset unbelievably annoying and can only accept his presence by reassuring myself I can mentally box him in and match him to what I know.

Otherwise my response to him would be full on ignorant dislike, which would throw me back in to the days before I started using type to try to understand or tolerate others.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Im sorry but I don't think you know what T and F mean. F IS RATIONAL LIKE T. He seems utterly irrational but strangely half insightful because of being sn Ne dom irrational. N and S are irrational, not F.
> 
> I am pretty sure you are a T dom. Or a rational.


I know what it means. They are as rational, yes, rational in different ways, yes. I already laid this out in a previous post of mine. I don't think he seems utterly irrational at all, he definitely thinks his thinking has some rational and internal logic to it nor do I see him as strangely insightful however. Whatever he's cackling on about has some logic to it, but I just don't see that logic having much merit because it doesn't consider the system it attempts to improve and how that operates. That's a big difference. Whatever insights he seem to have are therefore muddied somewhere along the way. 

Just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I must be a T dominant type. Preference towards Thinking yes, but dominant, no. I am far more ruled by my perceptions than I am my Thinking. My conceptualization is more important than it is structuring those conceptualizations, and I'm less inclined or interested to devise or formulate my own systems than I am working with systems already in place and utilize them to convey my ideas. 

With that said, I rather have you stop project your own ideas of how I perceive him on me. You're not me and you don't know how I think about him more than what can be inferred in this thread.

I see you added stuff, so I might as well address this:


> How can you think that a person who claims we could be pure perception without any judgment can be anything but Perceiving dom?


Because this is actually arriving at some kind of judgement because he's drawing a logical conclusion about the world, trying to define and categorize it. He also equally says one can be double-judgement. Nowhere does he try to for instance describe or depict something he experienced and simply convey that. 



> The only way I can even deal with this thread is by reassuring myself what I am observing matches the original theory rather than his own, and the very idea that we should
> throw the baby out with the bath water is highly alarming to me.





> I do question if my initial tired response to the OP was due to being rational dom or sensing, but I find his theory and mindset unbelievably annoying and can only accept his presence by reassuring myself I can mentally box him in and match him to what I know.


Because he's trying to understand according to Ti so naturally you would reject a Ti explanation and favor Te. It's the same reason why I reject it too and I won't bother addressing him the way he seems to desire and why I keep citing to Jung, because well blah, Te is like that. It prefers external sources and generally agreed upon knowledge. It also seems accompanied with some weak Ne intuition, ergo the whole "throwing baby out with the bath water" impression you have. That's how Ne can seem like when it's tertiary/inferior. Ne also being something you strongly devalue and would be the one you devalue the most after Ti, disrupts the stability of Se perception so it makes sense it bothers you. I bet @hornet can provide a better explanation. I'm less irked by the whole "throwing baby out with the bath water" thing as I am by the fact that he doesn't do so in a way that makes sense to me. At least present a fair reason as to why and I'll consider it a serious option. That's another reason why I'm more likely to be an irrational type because a judgement type would likely judge such things beforehand and whether it fits their own personal systems of the world. I consider myself quite open-minded really. If it makes sense and seems sound, then there's a real possibility it is in fact true. 



> Otherwise my response to him would be full on ignorant dislike, which would throw me back in to the days before I started using type to try to understand or tolerate others.


Yeah, because that would be a sign of inferior Te. I don't even dislike him, I mostly find his posts mildly amusing in themselves. I keep responding because he does, though I think it might benefit him at this point to not to.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I know what it is. I am using Si as a critical parent function. ISFP has Si as critical parent.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I know what it means. They are as rational, yes, rational in different ways, yes. I already laid this out in a previous post of mine. I don't think he seems utterly irrational at all, he definitely thinks his thinking has some rational and internal logic to it nor do I see him as strangely insightful however. Whatever he's cackling on about has some logic to it, but I just don't see that logic having much merit because it doesn't consider the system it attempts to improve and how that operates. That's a big difference. Whatever insights he seem to have are therefore muddied somewhere along the way.
> 
> Just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I must be a T dominant type. Preference towards Thinking yes, but dominant, no. I am far more ruled by my perceptions than I am my Thinking. My conceptualization is more important than it is structuring those conceptualizations, and I'm less inclined or interested to devise or formulate my own systems than I am working with systems already in place and utilize them to convey my ideas.
> 
> With that said, I rather have you stop project your own ideas of how I perceive him on me. You're not me and you don't know how I think about him more than what can be inferred in this thread.


HE IS AN IRRATIONAL PERCEIVING DOMINANT.

I will refrain from questioning your type, but you are completely wrong about him being an F dom. An F dom would never say why can't we be pure perception without judgment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> HE IS AN IRRATIONAL PERCEIVING DOMINANT.
> 
> I will refrain from questioning your type, but you are completely wrong about him being an F dom. *An F dom would never say why can't we be pure perception without judgment.*


Why not? Jung was likely an irrational type in socionics at least (INFp) and he is the one who originally devised the system we are referring to here and thus made these claims to begin with.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Why not? Jung was likely an irrational type in socionics at least (INFp) and he is the one who originally devised the system we are referring to here and thus made these claims to begin with.


You don't understand type theory. He is clearly Si rejecting (let us get rid of all archaic concept) and Perceiving dom (yes I am pure perception without judgment) and formulated new theory (N) at complete expense of fact or education (S). F IS RATIONAL.

In some ways he apparently understood type theory better than you. He is Ne dom to an annoying degree, and knows it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You don't understand type theory. He is clearly Si rejecting (let us get rid of all archaic concept) and Perceiving dom (yes I am pure perception without judgment) and formulated new theory (N) at complete expense of fact or education (S). F IS RATIONAL.


Sure, I can buy that the OP is Si-rejecting, but does his Ne seem like a healthy and good use of an Ne dom to you? Also, one cannot formulate a theory without first categorizing said theory. An idea can be one thing, but he's not just presenting an idea that seems novel to him, but he's clearly formulating this idea, classifying it and thus also categorizing it. That falls within the realms of judgement. 

Also, why must facts or education be sensation? Could equally be a rejection of Thinking. Thinking also deals with the realms of facts, especially Te.


> In some ways he apparently understood type theory better than you. He is Ne dom to an annoying degree, and knows it.


And you declare this based on what rationale? I don't see the OP as an Fi-valuing type. There's no way in hell the OP values Fi. If you are going to argue Ne dom, then you need to argue ENTP, but then he's a Thinker, albeit an auxiliary one, and I don't think an auxiliary Thinker would devise a system that is this poor. Other thinkers in this thread (dom and aux) is criticizing the OP precisely because of this. 

Just because things doesn't seem to make sense doesn't make it irrational in the Jungian sense. Irrational in the generally agreed upon understood sense perhaps, but not Jungian. A true Jungian irrational type would not be this concerned about presenting a system. They would be concerned about presenting ideas, concepts, impressions. Why? Because that is the nature of irrationality and the nature of perception. One perceives the world based on the impressions it leaves behind. Conveying this in communication would thus primarily relying on conveying these impressions.

Furthermore, wonky logic like is presented in the OP is very much in line with inferior Thinking. Why would irrational types even bother about logic or whether some things make sense or not? They don't. Logic is a non-issue in the true irrational type, but if you read some of the OP's posts, you see that logic is indeed a big deal to him. He thinks he's logical and his logic is not inferior and that his logic is equal if not even better compared to the logic of a Thinker. Doesn't sound like how irrational types reason. Why would an irrational type even care? It's not about the logic, it's about the _idea_ or whatever, especially when it comes to intuitive types.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Sure, I can buy that the OP is Si-rejecting, but does his Ne seem like a healthy and good use of an Ne dom to you? Also, one cannot formulate a theory without first categorizing said theory. An idea can be one thing, but he's not just presenting an idea that seems novel to him, but he's clearly formulating this idea, classifying it and thus also categorizing it. That falls within the realms of judgement.
> 
> Also, why must facts or education be sensation? Could equally be a rejection of Thinking. Thinking also deals with the realms of facts, especially Te.
> 
> ...


He is a clear Ne dom rejecting Si. He is clearly Perceiving wanting to downplay judgment. My argument is clear, simple, and actually based on Jung and the OPs cognitive attitude.

You on the other hand keep beating some ridiculous dead horse about how he is sooo irrational, being a stoopid Feeler.

You are simply incorrect.

I don't know if he is ENTP or ENFP, but he is the Ne Si axis for sure.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. It is comically biased against Feeling. What argument could you possibly make for Fe, other than you presuming his Ti is not as proficient as your own?


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> An opposite by definition would be one who has nothing in common (with the other), aka no shared ground, all differences.


Are you sure about this?

- Up is not the opposite of down, because they are both directions.
- Black is not the opposite of white, because they are both colours
- Hot is not the opposite of cold, because they are both temperatures
- Sinking is not the opposite of floating, because they're both like things that happen in water and stuff


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


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


I think the opposite of a perceiving function is still a perceiving function. A relationship of opposition has to be put within one spectrum because it is a form of relationship, which means that the two have something to do will each other.

B as the opposite of A is related to A as an opposite, and thus B has something to do with A.

So the opposite of "tall" is "short," both of which describe height.
The opposite of "thin" is "thick," both of which describe thickness.

The opposite of "tall" would not be "thick" or "thin".


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


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


A function pair isn't about linking opposites.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> Are you sure about this?
> 
> - Up is not the opposite of down, because they are both directions.
> - Black is not the opposite of white, because they are both colours
> ...


In the realm of temperature, hot and cold are opposites.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> Are you sure about this?
> 
> - Up is not the opposite of down, because they are both directions.
> - Black is not the opposite of white, because they are both colours
> ...


Things that happen in water and stuff.. :laughing:
I'm not certain what OP can't get about this, that opposites must be on a specific spectrum... and that a PP or JJ type would be completely unbalanced, either totally passive or rash and impulsive.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

The orientation and function of those pairs are contrasting so there is opposition, but I'd prefer to call it complementary since one can't have sensing without intuition, feeling without thinking and even introversion without extraversion.

As functions, they're kind of doing the opposite but a literal lack in those things would create problems and no use of the opposites is kind of baseless.


----------



## LePapillonDesEtoiles (Sep 5, 2020)

That makes sense.
For some days now I have been thinking that Fi is the opposite of Se.

And why should there be an intuitive Fe / Fi-dom and Fe / Fi-dom sensor? It makes no sense..


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I agree with the OP to the extent that these functions aren't complete opposites, but I disagree on everything else. 
The functions are to an extent part of the same cognitive process. Ne extrapolates from data, Si manages data. Ne can't function without Si. In the same way, Si can't function without Ne, since it doesn't gain new insights. You can't ever gain any knowledge if you're not open to new possibilities. (I'm cutting some corners in explaining, but the point should be clear)

The idea that the functions can't be opposites because they are on the same spectrum is ludicrous and just coming up with an entire new theory based on not understanding the current one is a great recipe for going off the rails into your own little world.


----------

