# Pe vs Pi Physical World Awareness



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

After reading a few pages of http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/40708-you-know-youre-ne-ni-dominant-user-when.html you should notice that Ni-dom and JiNe often say that they are stumbling and tripping over *everything*. 

Is it really *so bad? *I mean, seriously? _How could you fail to notice the freaking post*?*
_
*Imagine a situation: you walk on a regular street in your city and see objects, people, etc. How do you see it? 
It is a tricky question because you have nothing to compare it with. But, nonetheless, try to describe it*

Thank you!


I will be first (Ne-dom, Si-inferior):
I am aware of everything that is going on around me and in the same time I do not feel absolutely connected to this plane of reality. Whenever I try to concentrate on an object - I fail after a few seconds. I see it, can touch it, but still cannot fully take in every information about. I will concentrate on it, see it clearly - and boom - I am in a daydream. Focus is kind of erratic and distracts on tangents. I will forget about the object in a short time. You will ask me and I will remember only vague images. _Color? Hm... I need to look agai_n. More likely I will tell you what I thought at the given moment in time. Associations, meaning, explanation, definition...
Daydream plays parallel to that reality. You are aware of everything but... I can describe it as this:
_when you put one layer in photoshop over another and make the upper layer somewhat translucent/transparent_.
I still remain aware of the world and react to it if there is a need for my attention.




Your turn


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

I always felt as though my consciousness was sort of melted into whatever concept I was vested in. I tend not to notice things unless they're different or notable in some way. When I do focus on an object, I can definitely take in the physical information, but as I've said in another thread, if I try too hard to do just that, I often find myself observing myself trying to observe the environment. I imagine it would be frustrating if I knew anything else. I'm actually relatively coordinated, so though I don't trip or blunder that often, I find I'm more in tune with why things are in place and what they mean. Specifically to me, not often in larger context.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm very capable of walking for significant distances lost in thought, registering little about the buildings and other things I'm passing. I don't walk into posts, though. The vast majority of the time, anyway.

My tendency to be significantly more oblivious than average to the physical stuff that's right in front of my face is definitely one of my weaknesses. It's one reason (although not the only reason) I tend to be bad news in the kitchen.

Picture me using a big-ass serving spoon (held in my right hand) to scoop some powdery stuff from a large can into a smaller container. I accidentally spill a little of the stuff onto the top edge of the smaller container, and then obey my inner OCPD command to immediately neaten it up. So I pick up the small container with my left hand and brush/tap the spill into the small container with my right hand. But — oops! — my right hand is still holding the big-ass spoon, and it's got powdery stuff in it, so my brush-tap gesture causes a boatload of powdery stuff (way more than the teensy spill I was trying to fix) to go flying all over the surrounding area. And now think about the fact that this is something I've done _more than once_.

Or... picture me loading water and coffee into a coffeemaker and then brewing up a fresh pot of coffee — but with no carafe in place to catch the dripping coffee. Don't ask me how many times I've done this. _Way more than once._ Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I tend to register my environment unconsciously being more focused on where I am going or where I want to be rather than where I am. At least when I am out walking and doing things.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

When I'm thinking about something but physically moving around, I'm a lot less focused on moving around. It would be no surprise if I walked into something. My five senses almost take a backseat and get pushed away in favor of mental focus. That doesn't mean I can't sense the world it just means I'm not focused on it. Peripheral vision to surroundings, primary focus on things that are thought.


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm usually grounded both in the present environment but thinking through my thoughts as well. So I may be having a thought run through my mind but I'm still consciously checking my surroundings as I walk.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

I like to think I'm physically aware. People tell me I'm not though.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

SoulRefugee said:


> I'm usually grounded both in the present environment but thinking through my thoughts as well. So I may be having a thought run through my mind but I'm still consciously checking my surroundings as I walk.


Same here. I'm having my own thoughts and mentally present at the same time. It's just multi-tasking.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

My Pe and Pi are auxiliary and tertiary and I consider myself very aware of my surroundings. I always see people I recognize before they notice me, unless all this time they were trying to avoid me :shocked: And this is just one example, of course they are more.

But I'm also thinking all the time as well. I'm quite alert when I'm out in general though.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

posted on wrong thread


----------



## Ekstasis (Dec 26, 2013)

> I am aware of everything that is going on around me and in the same time *I do not feel absolutely connected to this plane of reality.* Whenever I try to concentrate on an object - I fail after a few seconds. *I see it, can touch it, but still cannot fully take in every information about.* I will concentrate on it, see it clearly - and boom - I am in a daydream.


Quoting that because that's something I posted on another thread before:



> Along with not realizing where I am at and how I got there, I can't seem to figure out what I am looking at. I'm looking at a building but it doesn't seem to register in my mind as a "building". It's as if I'm staring at a blank canvas, even though the art is already drawn there. Because of this I feel really idiotic sometimes.


Found it interesting I'm not the only one who does this. Now to answer your questions:



> Imagine a situation: you walk on a regular street in your city and see objects, people, etc. How do you see it?
> It is a tricky question because you have nothing to compare it with. But, nonetheless, try to describe it


I see it as something that I will not remember later on in the future, even though I still have an impression of it. It's like a mist spray to me. After you spray it in the air you can visibly see the particles floating around. But they disappear quickly and you can still feel the moisture on your skin.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My five senses almost take a backseat and get pushed away in favor of mental focus. That doesn't mean I can't sense the world it just means I'm not focused on it. Peripheral vision to surroundings, primary focus on things that are thought.


That's exactly how I think of it. Most of the time my surroundings or things I'm interacting with are registered like peripheral vision, the impression of something being there, but it's all just background noise. I'm busy reading or remembering something or thinking about something that isn't present and take in the surroundings only enough to navigate through - mostly with success, though there are of course times I'll trip or run into something when I was looking the other direction. But I don't feel like I am actually more 'accident prone' than the 'average person'. I'd also note that sometimes accidents can happen even when I'm paying full attention and trying to prevent them, so... I don't think it's _necessarily_ related to being lost in thought, even if sometimes it is. Often it feels like my surroundings are processed subconsciously, or half-consciously, or somehow by some auto-pilot method without me needing to really think about it, I just do stuff while busy thinking about something else, and voila! somehow it's all done or now I'm home and I can't exactly remember having walked here, or checked the mail, or whatever because I was paying only minimal attention to what I was doing. But I could tell you this new theory I'd cooked up while I was doing all that.

As far as seeing things I tend to have a very narrow field of focus and it homes in only on certain types of things. Much of this has to do with tuning out depressing or boring scenery - ugly grey concrete buildings and sidewalks and city, bland beige walls and carpets, or flashy cheesy signs and adds, that sort of thing. My eyes will however catch little details that are pretty or interesting to me - like I'll notice the knott in a tree trunk that looks like a gnomes doorway, or clumps of moss growing on a brick wall that look like a little fairy forest, or the intricate trim on the edge of someone's blouse as they pass by. I do pay _more_ attention to my surroundings when they are things I actually want to see. If I'm walking through a city area I'm not going to be very outward focused, though I'll home in on the little traces of inspiring stuff here and there - like the moss, or a nicely shaped garden fence or something, but if I'm walking through the woods or a historical building or something then I'm all eyes, glancing every direction taking it all in, just loooooking - sometimes thinking about other things, but a lot of times just studying the pretty details. 

Yet even when I'm in my Observe mode, I feel like perhaps I don't have as large a range of directions or distance that I'm picking up on and processing all at once. I tend to move from detail to detail and may be caught off guard by something coming at me from the side or from further down the road. 

The physical world is certainly a springboard for thoughts, seeing or hearing or smelling or feeling something can often spark memories or ideas and my mind will quickly focus in on those rather than the thing that inspired them. Thoughts are also usually more interesting than the physical. Objects and surroundings most of the time only need a glance to know that they are there, and beyond that they're a bit boring so the mind wanders. Though this is an interesting point - I'm not particularly fascinated by how some_Thing_ works (hinges and gears and electric currents and baking soda etc.) I'm not excited or intrigued (or somehow pleasantly zapped in the brain) by seeing stuff in action or working smoothly. But I do know that some people are quite fascinated and excited by it and will be captivated by examining Things and what they are made of and how they work and all that. For me I'm far more captivated by how intangible concepts work - or at least the idea/principle behind the physical evidence (like with culture the specific actions and events which show and shape the culture are what we experience with the senses, but they aren't the most interesting bit, its the underlying attitudes and connections between different ways of thought and emotions that rise from events or lead to social practices, and the patterns of how it's developed to this point indicating where it might end up that's the captivating bit). So in that sense I like seeing how 'things' work. Thus my mind focuses on the thoughts about intangible things and doesn't pay acute attention to the physical, or is frequently jumping from the physical to the intangible. And I'm sure it's because of this that I may fail to notice why something isn't working beyond the fact that it's not working, or fail to notice the biker coming quickly down the hill at me from the side, or other things which would be obvious if I wasn't focused on my 'mind's eye' rather than my physical eyesight.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I tend to be oblivious to my surroundings because I'm immersed in my thoughts. When I do decide to look at something and actually pay attention to it, I usually get an "Oooh, pretty" reaction and it feels nice. Then I go back to thinking or daydreaming and the environment goes out of focus.


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

Unless something totally intense is going on inside me, I'm very observant of my surroundings. 

I enjoy taking everything in and am often the first to notice if something in the environment has changed, for example if a wall has been repainted  Same goes for people...if someone I haven't seen in a month plucks their eyebrows, I'll notice immediately and ask about it, ha ha


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I don't suspect this really differs among types - it doesn't seem to, based on the responses to this thread so far. I, like many others posting here, function in the physical world without mentally attending to it, focused on some thought or scenario and not that which is happening around me; if particularly inattentive, I frequently find myself jolted out of such a state by near-collision or similar. I don't see the difference between types here...


----------



## Metal Fish (Jan 3, 2014)

If it's quiet and familiar, i'll walk down the street largely ignoring everything around me and instead focus on whatever i happen to be thinking about at the time

If it's loud and unknown, i'll be tense and walk like i'm in a hurry. I'll be constantly scanning my immediate surroundings for threats. I avoid eye contact with everyone and dread passing ever person i approach.

Reading that makes me sound more Ni/Se than Ne/Si... that's weird. Well, i guess Si is preoccupied with self-preservation. And my Ne is still going off in my head finding potential danger in everything, like, "what if that car swerves and hits me? what if that guy's dog attacks me? what if this strange dude mugged me?" Than my Ti goes off trying to figure out the best course of action if one of these things were to happen to me. And maybe my Fe is the part of me that worries if other people think i'm following them, or going to mug them. I sound kind of autistic.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't suspect this really differs among types - it doesn't seem to, based on the responses to this thread so far. I, like many others posting here, function in the physical world without mentally attending to it, focused on some thought or scenario and not that which is happening around me; if particularly inattentive, I frequently find myself jolted out of such a state by near-collision or similar. I don't see the difference between types here...


I'd say, first of all, that the (few) responses so far aren't inconsistent with what I'd expect to be a general _tendency_ — and type is about tendencies and probabilities, not 100% predictability — for I's and N's (and INs especially) to be more absent-minded than E's and S's.

And I'd also say that, if the posters who pretty consistently type N when they take _dichotomy_-based tests (like the official MBTI) and read _dichotomy_-based descriptions but who label themselves S based on _cognitive function analysis_ identified themselves as N's, we'd probably see a stronger correlation — and, for example, fewer "inattentive" ISTJs.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'd say, first of all, that the (few) responses so far aren't inconsistent with what I'd expect to be a general _tendency_ — and type is about tendencies and probabilities, not 100% predictability — for I's and N's (and INs especially) to be more absent-minded than E's and S's.
> 
> And I'd also say that, if the posters who pretty consistently type N when they take _dichotomy_-based tests (like the official MBTI) and read _dichotomy_-based descriptions but who label themselves S based on _cognitive function analysis_ identified themselves as N's, we'd probably see a stronger correlation — and, for example, fewer "inattentive" ISTJs.


Tendencies and probabilities, certainly, but I don't know that there's enough data to draw meaningful conclusions (especially when most responses have been from INs); I was simply remarking on the consistency with which people's responses in general seemed to boil down to "I become focused on the mental, and maintain a basic but not quite adequate subconscious focus on the physical".

Most dichotomy-based descriptions tend to describe sensing in terms of attention to the physical realm, and intuition in terms of attention to abstract theories and symbolic impressions, so it seems obvious that there'd be a heightened correlation between sensors and attentiveness/non-absent-mindedness given it's a specifically referenced feature. But I suppose the question then arises: how many are there on here who actually do that, namely type themselves S based on analysis of cognitive functions but would type as N if working from the dichotomy-based side of things?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> But I suppose the question then arises: how many are there on here who actually do that, namely type themselves S based on analysis of cognitive functions but would type as N if working from the dichotomy-based side of things?


In my experience, it's not uncommon at all, and far more common than people who type S based on the dichotomies but N based on their "cognitive function analysis."

That's why, when I saw your post, it caused me to wonder, hmmm, I wonder if StunnedFox is one of those people who comes out N on dichotomy tests but labels himself S based on the functions. And it's why this post didn't surprise me.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> In my experience, it's not uncommon at all, and far more common than people who type S based on the dichotomies but N based on their "cognitive function analysis."
> 
> That's why, when I saw your post, it caused me to wonder, hmmm, I wonder if StunnedFox is one of those people who comes out N on dichotomy tests but labels himself S based on the functions. And it's why this post didn't surprise me.


I'm surprised that I phrased it so explicitly in that post; it would be more accurate to say that online tests consistently returned IxTJ verdicts, most of which placed me on the N side of S/N but (for those that returned a percentage value) with minimal differentiation between the two. Certainly the first time I did an online MBTI test (when I was 13) I was labelled ISTJ... in relation to typing myself using the dichotomies and not the cognitive functions, I'd struggle to choose either S or N, as neither descriptions seems fitting; I feel as though I'd eventually lean towards S, but that seems more likely bias on my part from having some level of understanding of cognitive functions theories. 

Looking at dichotomy descriptions alone in relation to S/N, and removing dichotomy-based testing from the picture, would you say that it would still be common for people to identify with N dichotomy descriptions but with Se/Si cognitive function descriptions?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> In a grander scale, as you have oft noted... virtually nobody really subscribes to MBTI or Jung in the professional community or ever has.


Far from "oft noting" that "virtually nobody really subscribes to MBTI ... in the professional community," I have "oft" pointed out that, unlike the cognitive functions, the MBTI dichotomies now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability — and anyone who's interested can read more about that in this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.

As McCrae and Costa (the most prominent Big Five psychologists) have noted, Jung's Psychological Types was something of a tangle in the sense that Jung's type categories — and, in particular, his very broad notions of what extraversion and introversion entailed — mistakenly lumped together a number of personality characteristics that subsequent studies (including Isabel Myers's decades of work) have shown don't actually co-vary.

Jung was a strong believer in the scientific approach, and Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. When she was finished, the Myers-Briggs typology consisted of (in McCrae and Costa's words) "a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices." It turns out that Myers was effectively tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions over 50 years ago — long before there was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

But the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that respect. As I have also "oft noted," the functions — which James Reynierse rightly (IMHO) characterizes as a "category mistake" — have never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists.

Getting back to Si, though, and as I've already noted in this thread — with a lot of supporting quotes in that linked post — even the most Jungian and function-oriented of the well-known MBTI theorists (e.g., Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk) abandon Jung for Myers when it comes to Jung's Si descriptions.

As a final note, it's maybe also worth noting that, as I've also "oft" pointed out (e.g., here), the descriptions of "rational types" (J-doms) and "irrational types" (P-doms) in Psychological Types pretty strongly suggest that, when Jung was dealing with someone he thought was a P-dom, he was probably dealing with someone who'd test P on the MBTI (whether they were extraverted _or_ introverted). So the people Jung pegged as Si-doms were more likely to have been IS_Ps than IS_Js — but by that I don't mean to suggest that I think Jung's Si descriptions do a respectable job of capturing a typical IS_P.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Far from "oft noting" that "virtually nobody really subscribes to MBTI ... in the professional community," I have "oft" pointed out that, unlike the cognitive functions, the MBTI dichotomies now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability — and anyone who's interested can read more about that in this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.
> 
> As McCrae and Costa (the most prominent Big Five psychologists) have noted, Jung's Psychological Types was something of a tangle in the sense that Jung's type categories — and, in particular, his very broad notions of what extraversion and introversion entailed — mistakenly lumped together a number of personality characteristics that subsequent studies (including Isabel Myers's decades of work) have shown don't actually co-vary.
> 
> ...


I was referring to your posts comparing MBTI to "Big Five" in which I seem to recall you citing MBTI's lack of acceptance in wider circles as reasoning for it's inferiority to Big Five. I seem recall those arguments made their rounds in at least that context. 

Are you meaning to insinuate that Jung would have accepted MBTI because it was well-studied? Of course not. I am a big believer in the scientific method as well. If Jung had such a great deference for this sort of thing, he sure had a funny way of showing it. Did he adhere to the model with the longest list of studies? Not remotely. 

So, I guess to clarify your above post in my mind... you are stating you do believe that MBTI has good support in the professional and scholarly/scientific Psychology community?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@reckful your inherent bias and ultimate problem is that you a) actually think that subsequent application and changes to Jung's work are in fact improvements which is something that can be argued but is certainly not a truism outside of your own personal value projection for it to be true; b) assumes that other somewhat related works within the field of personality actually are correct or better when compared to Jung's perception of reality and understanding of it. 

Jung argued for a different reality than you are arguing and you deny this reality and therefore you think that since subsequent work in the field addresses the reality you yourself concern yourself with, it must be better or more true. No. That's cognitive bias on your part.


----------



## GentleDestroyer (May 10, 2014)

I usually don't see the unliving physical world. I do not remember the movement from place A to place B at all. Though I never fall over or crash into anything. But when I am not moving, and I don't have a living thing to focus on, I am really interested in the details of my environment - usually I wonder all those little details.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen! In this corner we have arkigos...



arkigos said:


> I am a big believer in the scientific method as well.


...and in this corner we have... arkigos!



arkigos said:


> Can MBTI, for example, tell me why I don't care about objective citations or facts?





arkigos said:


> To illustrate, consider the post by reckful, above. This is a brilliant example of objective logic. Te. I rather literally never think in this manner and do not believe that I could think in this manner. ...
> 
> Conversely, my logical process is abstract, or 'pure', logic. I seek only internal consistency, rather than external validation. ... I am quintessentially Ti.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I was referring to your posts comparing MBTI to "Big Five" in which I seem to recall you citing MBTI's lack of acceptance in wider circles as reasoning for it's inferiority to Big Five. I seem recall those arguments made their rounds in at least that context.


I don't recall posting that the MBTI is "inferior" to the Big Five and, on the contrary, I've made posts here and elsewhere where I've shot down misinformed claims by other posters about the purported superiority of the Big Five in various respects.

In the spoiler you'll find a _Big Five vs. MBTI_ collection from some previous posts of mine.


* *




The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for a number of somewhat different typologies that are generally seen to be tapping into the same five temperament dimensions, but the most well-known one is McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI typology. Like the MBTI, the NEO-PI is a proprietary, copyrighted, self-assessment test, and the Big Five reading I've done leads me to think it's probably not substantially different from the official MBTI instrument in the room-for-improvement department. (Here's a recent Big Five critique that talks about a number of its shortcomings.)

Probably the biggest advantage the Big Five has over the MBTI is that it includes Neuroticism (_aka_ Emotional Stability), although I understand the official MBTI folks have been working for a while on an expanded version of the MBTI that will add a corresponding dimension.

For an ordinary person looking for a typology to help them understand how the personality components that the MBTI and Big Five tap into (whether you view them in terms of the dichotomies — which correspond to the Big Five dimensions — or the functions) combine to form multiple relatively distinct personalities, and looking for rich descriptions of those personalities, I don't think there's any question that the Big Five can't really compete with the MBTI. There's no Big Five equivalent of Jung's Psychological Types or Myers' Gifts Differing or Keirsey's Please Understand Me or any of the other reasonably well-regarded MBTI sources that are aimed at non-academics. And yes, the descriptions in those kinds of Jungian/MBTI sources go well beyond the kinds of limited descriptions that can (at least arguably) be backed by one or more peer-reviewed studies — but, unless and until the day comes when a lot more studies have been done, I think anyone who simply dismisses all those less-than-fully-"scientific" sources is missing out on a lot.
...
As a final note, I reject the notion that there's any need for anyone to _choose_ between the MBTI and Big Five. Assuming (as I do) that the real underlying temperament dimensions that the MBTI is dealing with (in its imperfect way) are the same as four of the dimensions that the Big Five is dealing with (in its imperfect way), I don't see any reason not to look to respectable Big Five sources _and_ respectable MBTI sources (as I do) for interesting data and possible insights into the nature of those dimensions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that the Big Five is "scientific" and the MBTI isn't is more wrong than right. First of all, it seems strange to me to think that the four MBTI preferences aren't tapping into the same actual dimensions of human temperament as the four corresponding Big Five dimensions. So any studies that involve any of those dimensions are — at the level that really matters — studies that relate to the Big Five and the MBTI both. But, FYI, there have been decades of studies based on MBTI results as well as studies that work with Big Five test results.

When you read about what those dimensions involve in a typical MBTI source, are you getting a perfect handle on those dimensions? Nope. But the same is true of Big Five sources. The science of human temperament is young, and there's much still to be learned.
...
You can "rigidly classify people" ... using _either_ Big Five or MBTI but, if you do, in either case, you're misapplying the theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And I'd also note that one of the advantages that typical MBTI sources have over typical Big Five sources is that the former generally spend more time talking about personality characteristics that tend to result from combinations of two or more preferences.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Among the many internet forum myths you may encounter from time to time are (1) that the Big Five is "scientific" and the MBTI isn't, and (2) that the Big Five is about "behavior" and the MBTI is about "how you think."

In fact:

Like the Big Five, the MBTI now has decades of studies — albeit, like the Big Five, "soft scientific" studies — that provide respectable support for its reliability and validity. For more on that, see this post; and for more on the differences between hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, see this post and the posts it links to.
 At the end of the day, Jung's typology, the Big Five and the MBTI all deal, at their core, with _internal_ temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested _both_ internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior). And you can read more about that here.
As noted in one of the linked posts, McCrae and Costa are probably the most prominent Big Five scientists, and they long ago concluded (see this article) that the four MBTI dichotomies were essentially (albeit with some variation) tapping into four of the Big Five factors, and that each typology probably had things to learn from the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Internet forum claims that the Big Five is substantially superior in the test/retest department are often accompanied by statistics that confuse retest rates on _single dimensions_ with retest rates for, e.g., a complete four-letter type. Over at one of the other forums, I recently corrected a member who posted this:



> MBTI has a test-retest rate of some 60%, meaning two out of every five people get different results when retaking the test.
> 
> The most commonly used test in personality studies is the NEO PI-R, the levels of consistency are incredibly high (N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90; between .75-.9).


In my reply, I explained:



> That 60% MBTI statistic relates to a retest standard that says you got a different result if _any one_ of the four dimensions is different. That corresponds to an average test-retest rate of 88% for the individual dimensions.
> 
> If you apply the same test-retest standard to those Big Five statistics you gave us, you get .92 * .89 * .87 * .86 * .90 = a 55% test-retest rate (or 60% if you leave out Neuroticism).


It's probably also worth noting that there's a fair amount of data that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution. Assuming that's the case — and assuming, accordingly, that a large portion of the population is in or near the middle on at least one dimension — and given all the possible sources of testing error (from the fact that it's a young science and they're still working out precisely what the temperament dimensions consist of, to flaws in particular tests, to multiple kinds of human error in any self-assessing personality test), it would strain credibility if the test-retest statistics didn't indicate a significant percentage of cases where _at least one_ of the dimensions came out with a different preference on retesting (and _one_ letter change is all it takes to constitute an MBTI retest "failure").


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Ladies and gentlemen! In this corner we have arkigos...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and in this corner we have... arkigos!


Dude, that was my whole point. I have all sorts of respect and value for the scientific method... the point being, the point that I made, was like .. "Hell, even *I* am a big believer in the scientific method!" ..but we can all agree that direct empiricism is not how I reason or the main thrust of my musings, whether I prefer it on principle or not. I was correlating that to Jung, who may have been a big believer in the scientific method, nevertheless his whole approach to Psychological Types for example ... well.... in one corner we have Jung..

...and in the other corner, we have Jung.

Perfectly said. It is odd you saw me as trying to 'pull a fast one' rather than comprehending that you were absolutely meant to perceive such because such was the core of my very point. 



reckful said:


> I don't recall posting that the MBTI is "inferior" to the Big Five and, on the contrary, I've made posts here and elsewhere where I've shot down misinformed claims by other posters about the purported superiority of the Big Five in various respects.
> 
> In the spoiler you'll find a _Big Five vs. MBTI_ collection from some previous posts of mine.
> 
> ...


That is so weird. My apologies. You must have said something about the importance of the fifth big five dimension or you saw it as explaining or helping explain some confusion people were having about some aspect of themselves in context of MBTI? ... and then, to support that, gave a little spiel on what it was and why you thought it was a legitimate thing and an important consideration. At the time I very much perceived that you were proselytizing Big Five over MBTI. I think I even expressed as much to you at the time. I must have taken the emphasis or perceived emphasis out of context.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

The level of physical awareness that I experience is that it is typically within the extremes of complete and total apathy towards it, and that of hypersensitivity to which my nerves are shot and I act little more than a complete beast. Typically like that of a turtle in which I hurdle up inside of myself, and try to desensitize the extremeness of the physical sensations that I experience. In more neutral forms, I typically forget when I showered or not. Going on for days without bathing or really knowing outside of a vague feeling of dirtiness. It feels as I am psychotic on some level, and that I am not completely in the real meat space. Rather that I merely experience a phantasmal image of meat space, that is nothing more than a vague palette of colors splashing on around me. In essence, I believe that I perceive shape and mass to be much larger and smaller than they really are. A person's hand from my perception is far longer than it is, a mouse would be more striking and violent to my sensory glands that it is not. Everything is smudged together, without much semblance of what actually is there. Movement in particular makes everything more difficult to perceive. I have been noted repeatedly that I respond to something completely different than to what is actually there, and is known to reply to a topic and then figure out that the topic itself is actually something completely different. The most striking example of this is when I replied to this topic and thought "Dominant" and "Submissive" energy was non-sexual. This is coming from a sexual deviant, who spends most of my time jerking off to anime porn. On the other hand, I'm generally fixated on the present and the future at the same time. So I got that going for me, and when I go to the past, it is merely to find out what I need to do or the etiology of what my issues are.

Do note that I don't really consider my theory on dominant and submissive energy as important or serious anymore. My description of Ti-Fe there is utterly terrible.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I actually think that car thing is more related to Thinking. My wife and I are about the Ne-est pair you can imagine and we know where we freaking parked. Orange level.... er, .... 23 or 32. We've never lost our car or anything like that. I know for a fact that Si types DO sometimes make mistakes like that. Absolutely, they do. xSFJ losing stuff? Yes. All the time. ISTJ does well, but it is likely their Te and it isn't their PERCEPTION, but their rational mindfulness. They write it down. Why do they write it down? I just take mental note and do pretty well... but the ISTJ always wants to write it down. That is Te, not Si.


I have never seen anyone who wants to write down that. NEVER. it becomes extroverted thinking because it wants to write that down ? But you are Ti, so you take a mental note ? 

:kitteh: are you trying to troll me ? (or I have never seen an ISTJ ? )


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

reckful said:


> And I'd also say that, if the posters who pretty consistently type N when they take _dichotomy_-based tests (like the official MBTI) and read _dichotomy_-based descriptions but who label themselves S based on _cognitive function analysis_ identified themselves as N's, we'd probably see a stronger correlation — and, for example, fewer "inattentive" ISTJs.


Mind-blowing.

Anyway, I don't think my physical awareness is _that _bad (I don't generally bump into things), but my memory of it can be bad I suppose. I mean, my sense of direction is pretty bad, so I try to concentrate somewhat to make a mental note of things are so I'll have some idea where they are supposed to be in relation to each other, but I easily get lost regardless. Besides that, I don't think I see things in any special way.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Well I can be deep in thoughts, but the sensations of the world doesn't leave.
It is always there demanding attention.
I can mute it somewhat down, but it stays there at the periperary.
Focusing on something is easy, I just open the floodgates and let it all in.
Whenever I observe an object there is always a deeper layer to lock onto.
Details within details.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

crashbandicoot said:


> I have never seen anyone who wants to write down that. NEVER. it becomes extroverted thinking because it wants to write that down ? But you are Ti, so you take a mental note ?
> 
> :kitteh: are you trying to troll me ? (or I have never seen an ISTJ ? )


Er, I suppose I'd expect Te to be more inclined that way, but really that was too specific. It is pragmatism.

My point was not to make an overly specific Ti and Te dichotomy, though I see how it could be read as such. I meant to say that I have good as or better memory as an ISTJ... and that, yes, if they feel it is pragmatic to do so, they are not going to rely on their memory for something important. Or whatever. They will be clever and take a picture of it on their phone or 'write it down' or do some mnemonic or .. if they pragmatically assess that they will just be able to remember it, they will just remember it. Or whatever.

If an ISTJ and I were in the same situation, walking away from our cars in a mazelike parking lot.... coming back 8 hours later from another direction... I think I would be as, if not occasionally more, likely to correctly locate my car without too much trouble. Why? Because if I can't find it, I'll have to call a cab. So, I make sure to remember where it is. An ISTJ might extend that to more things more consistently than I do and might think of it as more significant in and of itself? Stuff I might consider minutia, or that doesn't concern me because I don't tend to follow pragmatics for their own sake. I don't know. 

They are also more likely to suggest a more pragmatic and common sense way of doing it, I'd argue. Such as writing it down. I am there trying to enter my Mind Palace and they pull out their camera and snap a pic... obvious answer, super pragmatic... and laugh at me affectionately. Clever! Off we go.


EDIT:

Also, the more pertinent question... which of us would be more likely to 'happen' to remember such a detail, had none of us thought to consider it at the time. I don't think Si types would be at all more inclined to succeed in this respect. I am not even sure Se would do THAT much better. I'll admit, though, that I would expect Ne-doms to be among the worst with something like this. Would, say, an ESFJ do much better? Meh. I doubt it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

arkigos;6323986
EDIT:
Also said:


> Only what is brought into conciousness will be remembered.
> That is my experience with my Se based memory.


----------



## pianodog (Jan 25, 2013)

I'm a bit odd in that I like to pay attention to my external world quite a bit, however its more like glimpses of objects in which I get ideas from. I always like observing colors, buildings, and people and I sometimes notice details, if on purpose I do, but generally, I get ideas like "It's amazing what man has accomplished" "What would people 400 years ago think of our food transportation systems?" "Wonder what that guy means by 'Watching the birds' " 

So probably due to being exposed to the arts like drawing, I tend to notice physical traits of objects but their overshadowed by underlying concepts and possibilities. Does drawing from an early age affect how in touch with the physical world you are?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Er, I suppose I'd expect Te to be more inclined that way, but really that was too specific. It is pragmatism.
> 
> My point was not to make an overly specific Ti and Te dichotomy, though I see how it could be read as such. I meant to say that I have good as or better memory as an ISTJ... and that, yes, if they feel it is pragmatic to do so, they are not going to rely on their memory for something important. Or whatever. They will be clever and take a picture of it on their phone or 'write it down' or do some mnemonic or .. if they pragmatically assess that they will just be able to remember it, they will just remember it. Or whatever.
> 
> ...


I think between the gf and I she would remember and I wouldn't. She would also spot it faster than I. She has a pretty good memory and I never had a good memory, though I wonder if it's not also just something cognitively trained because she lives in a society that highly values rote memorization as a skill in school and I come from a society that doesn't pretty much, and it wasn't vital in my day-to-day business at home either for most of the part.

The way I would try to remember where I parked the car would be based on some general impression of its whereabouts like it was in the far back or in the front, the car is red or whatever so I'd look for red cars. I might recall number plates if I get confused though I have even forgotten my own street addresses despite living on the same address for years so I wouldn't count on it LOL.

How does that happen even...


----------



## Superfluous (Jan 28, 2014)

*cries because @Aha 's description was relatively beautiful*

I'm walking down the street and... 
I feel disconnected with the world. I feel my feet padding onto the ground and the stickiness of the humid summer's air.. yet I feel detatched from the sounds, the scenery, and I'm not at home. I'm observant and wide eyed, and my thoughts fly without attatchment. I'm on a mission to get to point B, however anything that gives me a sense of belonging and relativity - I stop and stare, wander around it, *such as, if it's a store, I'll stay in it, and embrace the atmosphere and enjoy the look of the clothes, and might fight the urge to impulse buy* I'm usually an overstimilating person, as restless as I am, but the world, It's seems over stimilating - so I have to zone everything out. Noise noise noise, and then there's me; quiet and being.

I'm moved to NYC recently, from florida, and as much as people love it, it's not the fantasy people picture. For me, it's reality on steroids, and I have no sentiment for it. Will I ever? Sure. But certainly not now. I need a sense of belonging, and I for one, don't fit this concrete fantasy.

In florida I felt lethargic, the air was heavy, and so was I. I was, with a lack of a better word, bored. But when I went to go visit last time, the colors were saturated, and I felt aches I didnt even know I had disappear - I was light on my feet, wide eyed, and breathing a bit more deeply. I love to walk barefoot, and know that it's clean nature between my toes, and I roll down the window so I can point my hand against the wind. I'm wide awake, aware, and the first person to catch everything (I mean I always am) since I see the world as a poet and I must intrepret and read between the lines.

California, Santa Monica. Ever been? That's my place to be.


----------



## BlackShugar (Apr 29, 2014)

Whenever I go for a walk in the park nearby, I immerse myself in my own thoughts. And man, that's the most peaceful time og the day. I can think while amidst nature surrounded by people I don't know. Every now and then I will use my eyes to see who's in front of me but I mostly I am lost in my own thoughts. At home though, my coordination with operating thing can be a bit clumsy. Like I am lost in my thoughts and unconsciously I try to open a cupboard, but can't feel the handle because I didn't even look at where the handle is and aimlessly I was just reaching out for the handle. So, when I am just waving my hand in the air, I am like "Where's the handle ?" and I need to then use my sensory visual organs called 'eyes' to direct my hands. And couple of other things happen too, especially in kitchen like looking for a water bottle in the cupboard where glasses are supposed to be, etc etc.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

I opened my bedroom window yesterday, and there was a nice breeze that was hitting my face. I can't explain how I felt exactly, but in that moment it made me feel as if I was real. It put things into perspective for me, which is that I need to get out this summer and explore the world a bit more. I spend so much time tuning out my environment, you would think I was walking through life completely blind.

My father is an ESFP. He often points things out and makes me aware of them that I would ideally miss on my own, which can be a bit exciting. You should see how excited that man gets when he sees a tree with fruit growing on it. I just smile and think to myself, "What a silly creature that man is. I wish a tree could make me that happy."


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm surprised at Pe-types saying they are super immersed in their thoughts and not in tune with the physical surroundings. Unless there is something really heavy to analyze, or I'm daydreaming, my physical surroundings spark my thoughts. I don't intentionally focus on them, but my attention will be drawn in, and then it will spark a string of other thoughts. Ne can work very much inside the head, but the string of thoughts is often, more often than not sparked by something completely outside myself.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Aha said:


> After reading a few pages of http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/40708-you-know-youre-ne-ni-dominant-user-when.html you should notice that Ni-dom and JiNe often say that they are stumbling and tripping over *everything*.
> 
> Is it really *so bad? *I mean, seriously? _How could you fail to notice the freaking post*?*
> _
> ...


I think this is accurate for Ne. Notice everything, but for such a short time it's so easy to forget in moments what we just noticed. This can be really frustrating if, two seconds later, what I noticed actually becomes relevant, and I start kicking myself for already forgetting about it.

My INTJ friend, it's like he just ignores everything. He basically filters nonstop, until something becomes absolutely insanely important in his mind. He also trusts his perception so absolutely that I can be telling him how awesome something is, and he just ignores it completely...until he experiences how great it is, then suddenly it's the best thing EVER (even more extremely awesome than I said), totally black and white. And also, he acts like I never said anything about it, and it's now all his perception leading him to the promised land, LOL.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

RunForCover07 said:


> I opened my bedroom window yesterday, and there was a nice breeze that was hitting my face. I can't explain how I felt exactly, but in that moment it made me feel as if I was real. It put things into perspective for me, which is that I need to get out this summer and explore the world a bit more. I spend so much time tuning out my environment, you would think I was walking through life completely blind.
> 
> My father is an ESFP. He often points things out and makes me aware of them that I would ideally miss on my own, which can be a bit exciting. You should see how excited that man gets when he sees a tree with fruit growing on it. I just smile and think to myself, "What a silly creature that man is. I wish a tree could make me that happy."


I think this is why Pi doms are so huge on the tropical vacation sort of thing (at least in my experience), where the change in external environment is so drastic that it really provokes the inferior into action (in a good way, since it's generally pleasant to be on vacation).

For me, I generally don't really care where I am as much as what it is I'm doing or who I am with. It's not that I don't enjoy the tropical vacation, it's just not insane to me or awe inspiring.

It could be that this is also a northern thing, where we have really miserable winters. Coincidentally, I think the Pi doms are the ones that complain the most about winter too, while I just generally don't care (not that I enjoy it, just isn't as much of an affect on me).


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

Ugh, I hate the surroundings issue. I get so much crap for it. Even just earlier, I accidentally knocked the last roll of TP into the bowl ;o;

(bf's fault for not putting it on the roll, but....)

God there have been so many incidents. I'm dissociative so I think that makes it worse. I remember and pay attention to so little of my environment. Now, people? I notice everyone and remember everything about how they look, what they are wearing, etc. But things... ugh... my awareness is incredibly selective... we have a lot of dishes and things break around here... and it's always my fault :/


----------



## Lemxn (Aug 17, 2013)

My ESFJ mother never understood how is that I don't notice things or I stumbing everything, like If I don't have eyes.

For me it is very much difficult to focus in my environment, and when I try to see an object I have to really make an efford to really look at it, and it somethings called my attentions it's usually because it is way to different from the things I usualy "see". The other day I told my sister about how much I love her new drawing on the wall...she said it was there since she lives in there...My ENFP bought this new huge television, I mean, HUGE television and I notice it three hours after we were watching it..., etc.

I know the reason it is because I am too much into my head, and no matter how much attention I am paying I am never really here, that's why I don't notice details or throw things all the time, because the pyshic world is very much separate from where I really am.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

reckful said:


> Or... picture me loading water and coffee into a coffeemaker and then brewing up a fresh pot of coffee — but with no carafe in place to catch the dripping coffee. Don't ask me how many times I've done this. _Way more than once._ Let's just leave it at that.


I've done that more than once. It's a humbling experience to live through. Stay strong.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

SoulRefugee said:


> I'm usually grounded both in the present environment but thinking through my thoughts as well. So I may be having a thought run through my mind but I'm still consciously checking my surroundings as I walk.


Se-Ti or what?


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... sometimes, I like to entertain myself and deconstruct reality. That is, I like to overexaggerate certain features and contemplate their psychic effect. There is a supermarket with freshly paved parking and a radiant green sign. I would imagine myself walking on fields of wet velvet lit by a post appocalyptic glow. Other times I like to imagine reality as a construction of Platonic solids. Or contemplate the true nature of three dimensional space considering what we see is in fact a projection onto a two dimensional concave surface within the retina. Take it another step, I sometimes wonder what actual chaos would look like without the perceptive filters of our brain. Sometimes I try to imagine something independent of time: how someone might look like at different stages of life. Sometimes when the traffic is overbearing I want to hide inside my head and not notice anything. White noise is pure agony. Sometimes when I walk the same path I prefer to lose myself in contemplation. For better or for worse. Very often I'm ask how I can daydream behind the wheel and notice everything and notice things other people don't notice when they're driving. Banalities, I'm oblivious to.

Even when I travel and the architecture is something breathtaking and it's one of those moments I feel most alive there is always a sense of wonder and a desire to understand what exists beneath the surface. Maybe there's a reason why this painting always spoke to me.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

I swing between real world in full power and glimpse of day dreams. 
I'm extremely aware of everything around but they are never mere facts, they build connections from themselves, like puffs of unreal from the real.
For example, I'm walking in the woods, I observe with my two physical eyes everything, each stone, each branch, each leaf, the sun rays coming through the trees, feel the wind etc but the third eye above my head capturing connection, I see a branch then immediately think it looks like something else then this something builds another memory.. next! I look at the leaf and compare to a animal footprint then I imagine me showing this to someone, next ! And so on...

I'm the first one to react in any event, I hear half sound of something and I'm already on my feet reacting. 
I see someone looking for something and I already get what he is looking for because I can see the connection where it came frkm
(That freaks my family out, because I just looked at them and say "it's in the kitchen counter" and they are, what???
1. How do you know what I'm searching and
2. How can you remember where it is


Also when I need to find something I just need to close my eyes and search for it inside my mind, I trace back my path, almost searching inside drawers and so on and I come to go look exactly where it was


----------



## Desiderium (Jan 31, 2014)

I would be lost in thought, yet aware of what was going on around me, like multi-tasking. Usually, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate my physical awareness a 6 or 7. I'm prone to daydreaming but I'm never fully immersed in "lala land".


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

It depends on what I'm doing. I generally zone out and dont notice the environment, but if I'm trying to find somewhere I've never been I'm very alert and notice everything around me. If I'm alone I zone out much easier than with people, because they keep talking to me so I have to keep on my toes to reply and listen and stuff. I listen to music while walking alone a lot which can help me got straight into an idea-world and no concentrate on things around me.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't need to make an effort to notice or focus on whats going on around me, it just happens. Maybe its a dominate Pe thing.. I zone out a lot and daydream a bunch, but I'm still aware of whats surrounding me without having to consciously think about it. For example if I'm taking a walk by myself or biking a lot of the times I'll be daydreaming or completely in my thoughts, I'm not consciously paying attention to where I'm going or whats around me, but I'll still be 'aware' of it and able to react to it without consciously paying attention to it.

The weirdest times this happens is when I'm driving. I've literally have had experiences when I'm driving and I'll suddenly 'realize' that I'm driving, like I was so wrapped up in my daydream that I forgot I was driving, I wasn't focused on it. But, I'll still be driving completely safely. It sounds incredibly crazy and dangerous, I know, but thats literally how I would describe it, and it never actually effects my regular driving. I know this because its happened when other people were in the car, and I asked them if I seemed distracted to them or if I was driving oddly, and they said they noticed nothing.


----------

