# Could Intuitives actually be common?



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I'm becoming skeptical of the statistics that claim Intuitive types are less common. Not just based on the Internet.

For one thing, I know that in some countries, the majority of the population tests as STJ, but it ends up turning out to have been social pressure influencing their answers rather than a genuine preference.

I think that to a lesser extent, this may apply to American society. Attention to detail, punctuality, and other qualities are valued. It's actually conceivable that less self-aware Intuitives would test as Sensors, due to social conformity pressures and wanting to see those qualities in themselves.

The thing is, I've noticed that there are a LOT of things about society that really don't make much sense if the majority of people are Sensors. There seem to be a lot of things that are designed to help people who are oblivious to details. There's actually an amazing amount of symbolism/abstraction in most media, and just various other things like that.

Also, not all Intuitives are brilliant or create meaningful ideas... some of them are just good at grasping ideas, or may not come up with much more than mediocre ideas.

Likewise, an intelligent, perceptive Sensor might very well make a more powerful insight from a detailed observation than a bunch of average Intuitives might make from theorizing all day long. 

So, perhaps it's not so much that most of the Intuitives here are mistyped... perhaps it's just that Sensors aren't as common as we would have assumed.

I mean, there is an easy fix for some of the assumptions made. A good portion of the highly religious people that are assumed to be SJs might very well be NFs. Said NFs might then want to see themselves as "traditional," believing tradition preserves some moral idea they've came to value. They are influenced by society and tradition, certainly, but who is to say whether what triggers/inspires them is simply tradition, or a vision that appeals to their sense of morality? Are they resisting change to resist change, or because they fear moral corruption? 

Plenty of ENxPs could be showing up at parties, there could be a lot of NTs in the business world, etc.

All types are influenced by society and gather much of their learning from the world around them. The language we speak, the ideas we're exposed to, and to an extent that controls the range of thought. This isn't more true for Sensors than for other types, and I think a lot of people assume that it is.

If we get rid of that assumption, we might very well have closer to half and half.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Interesting idea.

The one thing I can thing of is why is the STJ the predominant attitude in the western world is because it is the predominant personality type. Westerners are focused very heavily on individualism, which means individual personality takes precedence over the collective. However, if the predominant personality predominates it's going to affect the culture.

In terms of the media being heavy on abstraction and inner meanings, could it really be that intuitives are just drawn to the media outlet moreso than sensors, and therefore their ideas are the ones that are propagated?


Where I can see your theory having some light would be the idea that personality tests are self-assessments and people answer questions to the best of their ability but external factors can shape how they may answer those questions so someone in a very traditional environment might feel the pull to answer questions for how they THINK they should think/behave versus how they actually think.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

SublimeSerendipity said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> The one thing I can thing of is why is the *STJ the predominant attitude in the western world is because it is the predominant personality type. * Westerners are focused very heavily on individualism, which means individual personality takes precedence over the collective. However, if the predominant personality predominates it's going to affect the culture.


I'm not convinced that's true, though. Isn't it equally likely that our culture just traditionally values STJs qualities, and that influences everyone?

It just seems like circular reasoning, that STJs must be predominant because everyone values STJ qualities. But couldn't the fact that society values those qualities be the REASON why they seem predominant in the first place? It's possible those types just happen to be the most successful in many areas, that it's a sort of "compromise position" that suits our society and allows it to function well enough. 

It could simply be that those three preferences are the least subjective. Sensing is more literal/objective than Intuition, Thinking is more objective than Feeling, and Judging leaves less open to interpretation than Perceiving. So, holding a society together with a minimum of confusion or psychological noise might require it to push people towards all of those preferences, at least as far as laws or when something practical is demanded of them.

It seems a lot more likely to me that people are just looking at questionable statistics and assuming them to be true, when we all acknowledge individually that the tests aren't the best way to determine type. If we acknowledge that individually, why shouldn't we apply it to statistics collected on type?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I like this idea for the sheer novelty of it all tbh. There is no proof or anything, I just think that it would be amusing. Even without that I never particularly seemed to think that intuitive were specifically uncommon. I actually think that introverts are just far less common because there is a lot of places where introversion is generally shunned down. Even in nerdy societies it's generally considered safe to have a socially reclusive inclination have a high reliance on objectivity above the subjective. There is always going to be a sense that people's flow of time or whatever is in synch and that most people are pretty content with aligning their psychic energy towards the objective. Any sort of actual introversion tends to be look down on. If you make a reference towards the self, then it means that it would be less well received. I honestly don't even personally see sort of general poorly adapted extroversion, which is generally fairly obvious as these types of introverts are actually more likely to stand out against the general sea of extroverts.

I'm not even mad though, I just sort of get frustrated at obvious extroverts who say they are introverted because they like to read alone or whatever. They are still aligned towards objects, it's just that their own objectivity is not towards people. Sort of like a Social-last extrovert in the instinctual variants.

I honestly don't know where this diatribe comes from, just a sort of replacement for rare type moved with my bitching about it being difficult for me to become invested in objects, because my first instinct is to automatically reject it. I'm self conscious about this fact that I feel the constant need to be contrarion, I don't even really feel unsafe or anything really. Just sort of frustrated that if I'm going to be accepted as a person, that I must perform arbitrary tasks that I don't really care to do. Such as making meme references, or what not. Meh I'm just a bitch ass hoe now >.<


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

SublimeSerendipity said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> The one thing I can thing of is why is the STJ the predominant attitude in the western world is because it is the predominant personality type. Westerners are focused very heavily on individualism, which means individual personality takes precedence over the collective. However, if the predominant personality predominates it's going to affect the culture.
> 
> ...


I don't know if that is true about individualism. We value individualism, as in like being independent, choosing your own destiny, and self-reliant, at least in the US....but our systems are tailored to a certain way of thinking. The society itself has a collective psychology of one. Which is probably SJ.

Schiller and Jung talked about this. Schiller basically said we had a more unified psyche, but culture, Jung said Christianity particularly, changed the collective psychology. The Greeks and Romans had more of a society of individual personalities. Which Jung described as an introvert world. 

They thought the reason why the psych was broke up in the first place was to assess their value, and have them compete against each other, to see which one would win. Like natural selection. As Jung said, a person isn't valuable to society, his function is. So SJ, or whatever, won out, and is best suited for making the world continue to operate. I just really don't see how anything could be done if somebody like NF had such a large role in the world. I'm kind of glad SJ run shit. Let them be the maintenance men of the world. I'll sit around and think. I like that arrangement.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I'm becoming skeptical of the statistics that claim Intuitive types are less common. Not just based on the Internet.
> 
> For one thing, I know that in some countries, the majority of the population tests as STJ, but it ends up turning out to have been social pressure influencing their answers rather than a genuine preference.
> 
> ...


I hear this from time to time (is it odd that I perceive this as coming mainly from NJ types?) and I could not disagree more.

I rather think the statistics are skewed the opposite direction, and that there are FEWER intuitives than most of the stats say. It is no stretch at all to assume that the CLEARLY BIASED descriptions prevalent will lead to mistypings toward, not against, intuition. No one here would contest that descriptions and tests are perceived as casting intuition in a more favorable light and specifically not focusing on the more negative aspects. This is probably because those who wrote those descriptions were intuitives or thought they were.

Why would NF want to be seen as more traditional to such an extent as to mistype on a wide scale?

Anyway, my personal observations, which are obviously anecdotal, but also honest and uniquely extensive, say that intuitives comprise definitely less than 20% of the population, perhaps as little as 10%.

What I disagree with is this:

Si = 40
Se = 27
Ne = 23
Ni = 10

S = 67
N = 33

Which, if memory serves, was the aggregate percentage breakdown combining most major polls. This is wrong. There are not TWICE as many Ne as Ni. No way. I don't know why this breakdown shows, but I think the divide is specifically on intuition and sensing, and is probably more accurately this:

Si = ~40+
Se = ~40+
Ne = ~10-
Ni = ~10-

S = ~80+
N = ~20-

I've put a lot of thought and written and scrapped a fair few posts on the subject, I've got graphs and parsed stats and the whole nine yards, but haven't felt fully prepared to pull the trigger on this one yet. I need to mull on it for another year or so, lol. Still, I am quite certain that the above is at least essentially true.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

But to add to the larger point, I think recent societal shifts are more friendly to N. My dad was born in the 50s. That was a colder, and more mechanical world. More black and white. Simpler time. More was expected out of children. There was less appreciation for diversity, nuance or complexity. I think it would be more difficult to be an NF in that era, for example. It would be shaken out of you. 

I think the hippies in the 60s might have softened/shaken things up a bit. But I see a resurgence of STJ type thinking in the focus on test scores and other such surface results in the classroom, as our test scores have fallen off in the last few decades.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't know if that is true about individualism. We value individualism, as in like being independent, choosing your own destiny, and self-reliant, at least in the US....*but our systems are tailored to a certain way of thinking. The society itself has a collective psychology of one. Which is probably SJ.*



This is exactly what I was saying. 

However, it's still not a collective culture, which virtually eliminates that idea of being free-thinking. We still value free-thinking (it's just the thoughts that are considered more PC are the ones that lean toward the SJ mentality, but again that's predominant personality persuading the culture).


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

It's an interesting note that the creator of socionics thought that ENTPs (Her own type) were the most common type, and that was made during the soviet times of Mother Russia, the most based of nations.

Though don't go quoting me as it's from word of mouth.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Is it that society shapes our personality or does personality shape our society?


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I hear this from time to time (is it odd that I perceive this as coming mainly from NJ types?) and I could not disagree more.
> 
> I rather think the statistics are skewed the opposite direction, and that there are FEWER intuitives than most of the stats say. It is no stretch at all to assume that the CLEARLY BIASED descriptions prevalent will lead to mistypings toward, not against, intuition. No one here would contest that descriptions and tests are perceived as casting intuition in a more favorable light and specifically not focusing on the more negative aspects. This is probably because those who wrote those descriptions were intuitives or thought they were.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'd like to see your proof. Sounds very interesting.

I think our population is comprised of far less N types than is generally agreed upon, as you said. I think society would be vastly different given more N types, or even the number of N types predicted from most stats. I just don't see it.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

zazara said:


> Is it that society shapes our personality or does personality shape our society?


Both, I think; society is originally created by the dominant type. As social creatures most of us prefer to adhere to the collective, rather than be ostracized, so we will submit to the _majority rule_. The majority, I think, is generally what creates society. Most society I observe is geared to S types rather than N, therefore I would say that the majority is almost always S.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Another thing I've noticed is that Intuitives often feel that they are unique or alone in the world, because no one else holds the same ideas. I believe that tendency to see oneself as unique/unusual, combined with associating intuition with unusually high Intelligence, has caused people to underestimate the number of Intuitives that exist. The statistics have reinforced these perceptions.

I just haven't seen a lot of consideration of how there might just be a lot of "average" Intuitives who don't stand out as much, or how many of those who DO stand out for their insight might not be Intuitive.

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me that a particular personality preference would be so ridiculously rare, given that those preferences are not generally maladaptive. I'm also not convinced that a large number of people don't just conform outwardly and try to make themselves into Sensors. 

I still feel that people are too quick to believe statistics based on a test they wouldn't even trust to correctly evaluate their own type. I really don't see why personal experience and dubious statistics are leading people to believe that an entire psychological function is nearly non-existent in the population. That seems really hard to believe, at least for me.

And now it seems like faith in the idea that Western society is individualistic is leading people to believe there are not pressures to mistype... and if not that, then they assume that the standards of society are completely derived from the true types of the majority rather than something imposed on everyone by historical concepts and government. This assumption reflects a basic trust in the commonly promoted ideals of individuality and democracy as basically true in the present, which is debatable.

There just seems to be a lot of determination to defend this idea, and very little interest in trying to discredit it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> Both, I think; society is originally created by the dominant type. As social creatures most of us prefer to adhere to the collective, rather than be ostracized, so we will submit to the _majority rule_. The majority, I think, is generally what creates society. Most society I observe is geared to S types rather than N, therefore I would say that the majority is almost always S.


I used the analogy that psychologies of society formed similar to how the solar system formed. Drop a plate on the floor. It breaks into many pieces. But usually, the biggest pieces will be around in a center area, other pieces may go flying further, some way across the room. But most of the plate, and the big pieces are clumped around a small area, close to each other. In the Solar System, those big pieces in the center form the Sun. All the smaller materials left on the outside form planets and other small stuff. They orbit the Sun, or larger bodies. That is what happened with functions. The biggest pieces had societies formed around them, and revolve around them. NF or whatever are like little asteroids orbiting these massive bodies. They are part of the solar system, but not as relevant as others.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Another thing I've noticed is that Intuitives often feel that they are unique or alone in the world, because no one else holds the same ideas. I believe that tendency to see oneself as unique/unusual, combined with associating intuition with unusually high Intelligence, has caused people to underestimate the number of Intuitives that exist. The statistics have reinforced these perceptions.
> 
> I just haven't seen a lot of consideration of how there might just be a lot of "average" Intuitives who don't stand out as much, or how many of those who DO stand out for their insight might not be Intuitive.
> 
> ...


You also have to take in consideration the sensors that are "not so average" .. the idea that uniqueness is connected to intuition probably confuses many people into believing they are intuitive because of that. There are many sensors who feel that they are unique or alone in the world as well. Fitting in has nothing to do with sensing or intuition I believe.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

zazara said:


> Is it that society shapes our personality or does personality shape our society?


I believe your personality is the result of everything you've ever remembered, your interpretation of the events, and the emotional weighting associated with those events, which forms a sort of mosaic of your past. Perhaps some people have an affinity to fantasize about the future, and associate emotional weightings to those fantasies, which may complicate just how our personalities are formed. I tend to break it down to everything you've ever sensed, heard, sub-consciously taken in, interpreted, felt, etc; you're truly a mosaic of these things, a tumbleweed of the places you've been, whether in reality or creative mentality. I believe the current state of society provides an ensemble of possible environments from which these experiences (the ones which shape your personality) may manifest, but society cannot [fully] influence those who grow by what they see in their mind. In this case, society is an interface of what is both "acceptable," i.e. may not be judged negatively by the masses, as well as the most prevalent personality characteristics in that population, i.e. it is coloured by what perspectives are shared by the majority of individuals in that system. Because the individuals with these different personalities are constituents of this system, they create the society; however, society itself is another one of those "environments" which colour your mosaic. It is in the capacity of the individual to either be influenced by society or to not, I believe.

In your case, as an artist, you may consider creating a mosaic of pictures (pictures which describe the most influential things you can remember, maybe the things that keep coming up in your mind, the patterns you see, etc), with the size of the pictures scaling to the relative intensity with respect to how they've shaped your personality. I imagine this kind of exercise would also allow you to learn a lot of things about yourself. It would have cool "about me" applications as well, i.e. post that on your tumblr, etc, to describe who you are to others.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Not true.

I think your definitions of intuitive and sensor are not correct. Intuitives should be roughly around 15-20%, and sensors should be 80-85% of world population. This is backed up by a simple deductive reasoning, and numerous MBTI statistics.

More so: ISTJ's/ISFJ's are most numerous types, ESTP's are the least common sensing types, ENTP's/ENFP's are one of the most common intuitive types, and INTJ's/INFJ's are the least common type in whole MBTI, making up about 1.5-2.5% of the world population alltogether.

Also, you can't play the "but I've met more intuitives than sensors in my life" card. Similar people have tendency to stick together. I wouldn't think that INFJ would have a multitude of ESTJ's in their social circle either.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I used the analogy that psychologies of society formed similar to how the solar system formed. Drop a plate on the floor. It breaks into many pieces. But usually, the biggest pieces will be around in a center area, other pieces may go flying further, some way across the room. But most of the plate, and the big pieces are clumped around a small area, close to each other. In the Solar System, those big pieces in the center form the Sun. All the smaller materials left on the outside form planets and other small stuff. They orbit the Sun, or larger bodies. That is what happened with functions. The biggest pieces had societies formed around them, and revolve around them. NF or whatever are like little asteroids orbiting these massive bodies. They are part of the solar system, but not as relevant as others.


*claps*
Good analogy. I'll have to remember this one. And, yes, I entirely agree.

I think a lot of problems actually occur when we, as a population, break away from the S definition and tradition of society. When we fight against order and system the structure begins to decay - there's nothing to hold us together anymore. I hear S types lamenting this all the time, and I somewhat agree. As an N, I'm constantly fighting against society, I don't conform, but I understand the need of structure. Revolution or dissention is required for society, to question tradition when it is just for the sake of tradition, and not as an end to a means, but I think when society becomes too focused on the individual, rather than the benefit of the whole (an N ideology, I think), society begins to collapse and lapse into anarchy. Therefore, it makes sense that the majority rule is S, the minority N, according to the needs they supply in population.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> You also have to take in consideration the sensors that are "not so average" .. the idea that uniqueness is connected to intuition probably confuses many people into believing they are intuitive because of that. There are many sensors who feel that they are unique or alone in the world as well. Fitting in has nothing to do with sensing or intuition I believe.


Perhaps, that could certainly happen in some cases.

But I take exception to the idea that Intuitives are "even rarer" than the statistics, and that _most_ of them are mistyped Sensors. I don't care for the idea that the majority of the population must truly prefer Sensing, and that's just that. I just don't see it, I don't see the majority of problems in our society as the result of ignoring Intuition and paying attention to concrete details.



candiemerald said:


> I think a lot of problems actually occur when we, as a population, break away from the S definition and tradition of society. When we fight against order and system the structure begins to decay - there's nothing to hold us together anymore. I hear S types lamenting this all the time, and I somewhat agree. As an N, I'm constantly fighting against society, I don't conform, but I understand the need of structure. Revolution or dissention is required for society, to question tradition when it is just for the sake of tradition, and not as an end to a means, but I think when society becomes too focused on the individual, rather than the benefit of the whole (an N ideology, I think), society begins to collapse and lapse into anarchy. Therefore, it makes sense that the majority rule is S, the minority N, according to the needs they supply in population.


That problem goes away if you don't assume that being Intuitive means fighting against society and not conforming. Why does Intuition mean you have to start revolutions or fight against the status quo? Or even that you have to be a strong individualist?

All it means is that you view reality in an ABSTRACT way, rather than a CONCRETE way. And I see no lack of people who view reality in an abstract way.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Perhaps, that could certainly happen in some cases.
> 
> But I take exception to the idea that Intuitives are "even rarer" than the statistics, and that _most_ of them are mistyped Sensors. I don't care for the idea that the majority of the population must truly prefer Sensing, and that's just that. I just don't see it, I don't see the majority of problems in our society as the result of ignoring Intuition and paying attention to concrete details.


Mistyped sensors is not half as big of an issue as mistyped intuitives.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I believe your personality is the result of everything you've ever remembered, your interpretation of the events, and the emotional weighting associated with those events, which forms a sort of mosaic of your past. Perhaps some people have an affinity to fantasize about the future, and associate emotional weightings to those fantasies, which may complicate just how our personalities are formed. I tend to break it down to everything you've ever sensed, heard, sub-consciously taken in, interpreted, felt, etc; you're truly a mosaic of these things, a tumbleweed of the places you've been, whether in reality or creative mentality. I believe the current state of society provides an ensemble of possible environments from which these experiences (the ones which shape your personality) may manifest, but society cannot [fully] influence those who grow by what they see in their mind. In this case, society is an interface of what is both "acceptable," i.e. may not be judged negatively by the masses, as well as the most prevalent personality characteristics in that population, i.e. it is coloured by what perspectives are shared by the majority of individuals in that system. Because the individuals with these different personalities are constituents of this system, they create the society; however, society itself is another one of those "environments" which colour your mosaic. It is in the capacity of the individual to either be influenced by society or to not, I believe.
> 
> In your case, as an artist, you may consider creating a mosaic of pictures (pictures which describe the most influential things you can remember, maybe the things that keep coming up in your mind, the patterns you see, etc), with the size of the pictures scaling to the relative intensity with respect to how they've shaped your personality. I imagine this kind of exercise would also allow you to learn a lot of things about yourself. It would have cool "about me" applications as well, i.e. post that on your tumblr, etc, to describe who you are to others.


But if you lose your memory, does that mean you lose the way in which you think and function? 

Everything you have experienced doesn't shape the way your brain works.. perhaps the way you act.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> That problem goes away if you don't assume that being Intuitive means fighting against society and not conforming. Why does Intuition mean you have to start revolutions or fight against the status quo? Or even that you have to be a strong individualist?
> 
> All it means is that you view reality in an ABSTRACT way, rather than a CONCRETE way.


Exactly. N and S types view the world differently. I don't mean that all Ns are revolutionists, or whatever (or that all revolutionists are N), but that we tend to view society differently, and thus will react to it differently.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

~Dumb Shit ignore Plz~


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

zazara said:


> But if you lose your memory, does that mean you lose the way in which you think and function?
> 
> Everything you have experienced doesn't shape the way your brain works.. perhaps the way you act.


Hmm, I believe your memory in this context may be more related to what is consciously remembered; the sub-conscious may retain much more information than that of the conscious mind, it is not fully understood, but I'm sure loss of conscious memory would not have destruction implications on the structural nature of the neural connections in your brain. If your memory was wiped than perhaps all the traffic and "vehicles" that populate your neural connections would be eradicated, but the roads and highways which constitute those neural connections may be retained. However, we still don't have enough data and analytical ability (or theory even) to understand the brain adequately to substantiate this analogy.

And I would argue your second point; my childhood experiences surely influenced the way I think.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> Hmm, I believe your memory in this context may be more related to what is consciously remembered; the sub-conscious may retain much more information than that of the conscious mind, it is not fully understood, but I'm sure loss of conscious memory would not have destruction implications on the structural nature of the neural connections in your brain. If your memory was wiped than perhaps all the traffic and "vehicles" that populate your neural connections would be eradicated, but the roads and highways which constitute those neural connections may be retained. However, we still don't have enough data and analytical ability (or theory even) to understand the brain adequately to substantiate this analogy.
> 
> And I would argue your second point; my childhood experiences surely influenced the way I think.


How about twins though? Let's say they grow up exactly the same way, same situation, same environment, same everything. The twins still have differentiating personalities. Some of them practically opposite of each other. Why is that? They had the same childhood experiences.. yet don't think similarly. It's because their brains function differently.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

KraChZiMan said:


> Not true.
> 
> I think your definitions of intuitive and sensor are not correct. Intuitives should be roughly around 15-20%, and sensors should be 80-85% of world population.* This is backed up by a simple deductive reasoning, and numerous MBTI statistics.
> *
> ...


I don't see anything "simple" about that deductive reasoning. I think it's flawed and self-serving reasoning that leads people to the conclusion you speak of.

The statistics you are throwing in my face are the same ones I'm calling into question. Shoving them back in my face every time I question their validity proves nothing. It doesn't matter how many times you cite them, or how many people you get to cite them... that doesn't make what you're saying any more or less true.

You seem determined to state your opinion as if it's a fact, and consider it the end of the subject.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

zazara said:


> How about twins though? Let's say they grow up exactly the same way, same situation, same environment, same everything. The twins still have differentiating personalities. Some of them practically opposite of each other. Why is that? They had the same childhood experiences.. yet don't think similarly. It's because their brains function differently.


(Sorry to but it)
This is why I believe strongly in nature over nurture. We are inherently predisposed to a certain personality - the way we are raised influences us, not creates us.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

zazara said:


> But if you lose your memory, does that mean you lose the way in which you think and function?
> 
> Everything you have experienced doesn't shape the way your brain works.. perhaps the way you act.


He has a good point but really up to a certain extent. It's not that simplified. I think that there are very powerful subconscious urges and instincts that also play a role in how you perceive your past life, that ultimately contributes to your personality. In that sense I can really agree that experiences are not the only factor to play a role here. 

Saying that only conscious processes play a role, or even saying that conscious processes are just as equal is like seeing the tip of an iceberg and saying that this is the whole iceberg, just because this is the part you can actually see.

One example of subconscious cognitive processes could be the simple fact that many people can't enjoy the same piece of music equally as much, because they are wired differently. Some people listen to an EDM track and concentrate on the actual sound, as if different instruments of the song come together and produce an awesome parade of audiogasm. Other people perceive the sound of the music as a background noise, and rely mostly on the "emotional tones" that are carried by the way the song is being sung. The other type of people just listen to the lyrics, and interpret the song according to a different context in their imagination, such as that this song contains hidden meanings or inside jokes. This is subconscious process, because you cannot really consciously control the way you listen to the music, since the parts of your brain that process the song are not only concentrated in the thinking-memory part of the brain, but scattered around everywhere. 



candiemerald said:


> Exactly. N and S types view the world differently. I don't mean that all Ns are revolutionists, or whatever (or that all revolutionists are N), but that we tend to view society differently, and thus will react to it differently.


That's funny, because when I picture someone who can be described as "revolutionary and rebellious against society", I'd picture an SP type, not an N type. 

Of course I can agree to this point that intuitives are the vital source of interesting intellectual concepts, and enthusiastic adherence to ideas that have not gotten any ground yet.

Also there is this interesting phenomenon where there is always a some sort of INFJ or INTJ that invent the ideologies (communism, religious movements, political or social activism) to which the other, more energized people, such as SP's, adhere to and actually have the guts to stand by those beliefs. INxJ's are not actually the protester or rebellious types themselves, they just watch the masses from a safe distance and feel proud, or something roud:


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Not true.
> 
> I think your definitions of intuitive and sensor are not correct. Intuitives should be roughly around 15-20%, and sensors should be 80-85% of world population. This is backed up by a simple deductive reasoning, and numerous MBTI statistics.
> 
> ...


I think the stats on ENxPs are wrong. It makes no sense that there would be so many more ENFPs than other types. Many polls cite more ENFPsthan ESTPs. That is absurd. Simply absurd. Basically those stats tell us nothing about distribution and everything about bias in descriptions. ENFP sounds AWESOME! Yeah, that's me for sure! ESTP sounds like a dull-witted jock or a bully. Not me, no way. Why would there be so many fewer STPs than other similar types? Why!? Why more ENFP than, say, INFJ. Why!? It makes no sense until you consider biases in descriptions. 
@delphi367 - To counter your last argument, I'll grab the coattails of @zazara's - if unexceptional intuitives mistyping, why not exceptional sensors mistyping? Bias in descriptions is still the elephant in the room.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> *That's funny, because when I picture someone who can be described as "revolutionary and rebellious against society", I'd picture an SP type, not an N type. *
> 
> *Of course I can agree to this point that intuitives are the vital source of interesting intellectual concepts, and enthusiastic adherence to ideas that have not gotten any ground yet.
> *
> Also there is this interesting phenomenon where there is always a some sort of INFJ or INTJ that invent the ideologies (communism, religious movements, political or social activism) to which the other, more energized people, such as SP's, adhere to and actually have the guts to stand by those beliefs. INxJ's are not actually the protester or rebellious types themselves, they just watch the masses from a safe distance and feel proud, or something roud:


Me too  I've always seen revolutionists as SPs. I, frankly, see a great many of the political and social movements throughout history as SP, too. I was just saying that N types tend to see society differently, or refuse to see society as everyone else does, not that they necessarily dissent. 
Also, I think the way SPs and Ns rebel is often different.

Exactly. Ns see society from a different angle, and thus have a tendency to question tradition, which often incites change - not that they incite change them selves so much as they inspire it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> He has a good point but really up to a certain extent. It's not that simplified. I think that there are very powerful subconscious urges and instincts that also play a role in how you perceive your past life, that ultimately contributes to your personality. In that sense I can really agree that experiences are not the only factor to play a role here.
> 
> Saying that only conscious processes play a role, or even saying that conscious processes are just as equal is like seeing the tip of an iceberg and saying that this is the whole iceberg, just because this is the part you can actually see.
> 
> One example of subconscious cognitive processes could be the simple fact that many people can't enjoy the same piece of music equally as much, because they are wired differently. Some people listen to an EDM track and concentrate on the actual sound, as if different instruments of the song come together and produce an awesome parade of audiogasm. Other people perceive the sound of the music as a background noise, and rely mostly on the "emotional tones" that are carried by the way the song is being sung. The other type of people just listen to the lyrics, and interpret the song according to a different context in their imagination, such as that this song contains hidden meanings or inside jokes. This is subconscious process, because you cannot really consciously control the way you listen to the music, since the parts of your brain that process the song are not only concentrated in the thinking-memory part of the brain, but scattered around everywhere.


Yes, the iceberg thing makes a lot of sense. It's a nice visual picture of it all. 










That music example is great as well!


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

arkigos said:


> @delphi367 - To counter your last argument, I'll grab the coattails of @zazara's - if unexceptional intuitives mistyping, why not exceptional sensors mistyping? Bias in descriptions is still the elephant in the room.


This isn't a discussion I'm interested in having.

I'm already tired of this topic, the rest of you can discuss it among yourselves. Everyone's responses were thoroughly predictable, and I'm really bored. No offense.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think the stats on ENxPs are wrong. It makes no sense that there would be so many more ENFPs than other types. Many polls cite more ENFPsthan ESTPs. That is absurd. Simply absurd. Basically those stats tell us nothing about distribution and everything about bias in descriptions. ENFP sounds AWESOME! Yeah, that's me for sure! ESTP sounds like a dull-witted jock or a bully. Not me, no way. Why would there be so many fewer STPs than other similar types? Why!? Why more ENFP than, say, INFJ. Why!? It makes no sense until you consider biases in descriptions.
> @_delphi367_ - To counter your last argument, I'll grab the coattails of @_zazara_'s - if unexceptional intuitives mistyping, why not exceptional sensors mistyping? Bias in descriptions is still the elephant in the room.


But I speculated that ESTP is least common *sensor *type and ENxP should the most common *intuitive *type.



delphi367 said:


> This isn't a discussion I'm interested in having.
> 
> I'm already tired of this topic, the rest of you can discuss it among yourselves. Everyone's responses were thoroughly predictable, and I'm really bored. No offense.


This is exactly what discussing typology online is. Nobody is willing to find a consensus, as long as some "super member" throws a one-liner, and suddenly, consensus is found.



arkigos said:


> @_delphi367_ - To counter your last argument, I'll grab the coattails of @_zazara_'s - if unexceptional intuitives mistyping, why not exceptional sensors mistyping? Bias in descriptions is still the elephant in the room.


Exactly the same point I had. 

Sometimes I think that Sensing and Intuiting are causing bias in their own merit, and should be replaced with more neutral terms, such as aesthete and idealist. Definitely something to do with the fact that sensors place more importance on aesthetic beauty, tangiable information and preferring more pragmatic approach to life, while intuitives place more importance on the beauty through metaphors, abstract interpretations and more enthusiasm towards ideas.

Basically, the creativity of a sensing type would much rather create something that directly translates to either beauty, ugliness, fantasy, hell, heaven, romance or any other keywords such as that, while intuitives speak heavily through metaphors, such trying to describe your life through an alarm clock that falls from the top of a skyscraper, or something roud:


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> This isn't a discussion I'm interested in having.
> 
> I'm already tired of this topic, the rest of you can discuss it among yourselves. Everyone's responses were thoroughly predictable, and I'm really bored. No offense.


Predictability doesn't make it a less interesting topic. Maybe you meant that everyone is too predictable to you and therefore boring to discuss with. Oh well.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

zazara said:


> How about twins though? Let's say they grow up exactly the same way, same situation, same environment, same everything. The twins still have differentiating personalities. Some of them practically opposite of each other. Why is that? They had the same childhood experiences.. yet don't think similarly. It's because their brains function differently.


Like I said in my first post, the implication of the experience on the individual is subject to the interpretation of the experience and the emotional associations that are made with that experience, which would very likely differ between the twins. The interpretation, i.e. the mechanics of how interpretation works at a young age, is not fully understood (and I cannot effectively extrapolate my theories to give insight in that respect either), and should be considered complex at this point, i.e. unpredictable. The emotional associations themselves are characterized by the mental-chemical state at the time, which can be effected by so many factors one should consider it complex, i.e. not eating enough veggies can even have an effect on your mood, etc, and thus the emotional state during some experience. Also, the twins may look the same, but it would be a pretty big assumption that they would have the same experiences, etc; in fact, the only thing that would be very similar would be their physical traits. Imagine if they were both big thinker kind of people - the physical realm may not even impose that large of an influence on their personality in this case. I personally believe everyone is actually much more similar on the inside than on the outside, it is only hard to see that due to the superficial social shield everyone feels the need to have "up" due to the pressures of society and the fear of judgement associated with those pressures.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Predictability doesn't make it a less interesting topic. *Maybe you meant that everyone is too predictable to you and therefore boring to discuss with.* Oh well.


I didn't mean that anyone was PERSONALLY boring. I just mean that the direction the discussion is going in... isn't going to lead us to anything interesting. It's just going to result in rehashing common ideas based on common assumptions, and I've seen thousands of these discussions over the 7 years I've been involved in the typology community.

I mean, I can just already tell it's going to be one of THOSE discussions. Where everyone agrees on and reinforces popular assumptions about a topic, they all tell one another that they're right, and no new ideas are entertained. They just keep tossing the old ones around and rearranging them to clarify aspects of them. It's hard to explain.

I'm not saying you're all wrong about it, but the discussion is dull because literally everyone disagreed with me and is trying to convince me to conform to what the majority of people on this board believe. I don't like it when a discussion feels like me vs. everyone else. 

It's exhausting trying to get people to entertain your ideas if you're the only person who hasn't dismissed them out of hand. I'd rather have a discussion where some agree and some disagree, not one where no one agrees with me and everyone insists that I'm wrong.

I'm fresh out of arguments to defend my position, and I lack the patience to think of a new one. However, I'm not convinced to concede on the basis of what has been argued so far. Thus, the best thing for me to do is walk away.

That's all, I really don't consider you a boring person, okay? I promise.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> (Sorry to but it)
> This is why I believe strongly in nature over nurture. We are inherently predisposed to a certain personality - the way we are raised influences us, not creates us.


Subjecting yourself to that belief will surely only perpetuate it, not that there is anything "wrong" with that.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

arkigos said:


> @_delphi367_ - To counter your last argument, I'll grab the coattails of @_zazara_'s - if unexceptional intuitives mistyping, why not exceptional sensors mistyping? Bias in descriptions is still the elephant in the room.


The amount of resistance Delphi encounters with this possibility is the most interesting part. Her theory is very unpopular on an INXX dominated forum. 

I lack trust in the statistics on type breakdown by percentage due to the frequency with which people change their types. To take that a step further, with posters typing of the people around them using contradictory logic. For instance, typing athletic heroes as N's because N's can use sensing to have superior athletic skill, but dismissing typing of intelligent heroes as S's because S's can't display superior intellect. 

It's all very self serving and biased toward N's. And posters seem very focused on the reasons for why they are different and not reasons that we're alike. They seem to prefer to be separate from society and look down on society. I think you're reacting with cognitive dissonance to the prospect of losing your status as unique and different from society. 

I suspect many intuitives are coming from a place of flawed perspective when approaching logic. If your logic is based on flawed perspective you aren't going to find any new truths.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> This isn't a discussion I'm interested in having.
> 
> I'm already tired of this topic, the rest of you can discuss it among yourselves. Everyone's responses were thoroughly predictable, and I'm really bored. No offense.


Would it be more interesting if more people agreed with you? 

You aren't the first to bring this up. I've seen maybe 3-4 posts arguing essentially the same thing. It boils down to what your criteria for intuition is. 

That you find the opposing argument 'predictable' is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct. Isn't the correct answer the goal? Or is it entertainment?



KraChZiMan said:


> But I speculated that ESTP is least common *sensor *type and ENxP should the most common *intuitive *type.


Fair, and sorry for using your argument as a vehicle for a somewhat unrelated diatribe. That being said, I still am highly suspicious of this conclusion. There is no reason for ESTP to be the least common S type and no reason for ENxP to be the most common N type. It is fishy. Considering the bias leveraged against ESxP and toward ENxP in descriptions, on this forum, in general, I think there might be a more reasonable explanation than that some types are more or less common for no good reason. 

Also, the stats DO say that ENFP is more common than many SP types. They agree with you, and then take it further, hinting at an anomaly.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> That's all, I really don't consider you a boring person, okay? I promise.


No worries ~ 

I can see how that could be tiring for you instead of enjoyable.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RogueTi said:


> All I said was that there was study(sample size 5,700) where they typed gifted children, and more were Ns than suspected in the general population. Not all gifted students come from wealthy families and I think the standard of "giftedness" in this study was based off aptitude test results– if it was grades, then I suspect they wouldn't have had a slight P majority either, but I don't know if all Perceivers share my inability to get work done on time. That study is not being used to determine who's intelligent– it's looking at who's intelligence and _then_ their type. Not the other way around.
> 
> I'm not saying all S types are 'x' and all N types are 'Y' -> I'm saying there are differences between the types and that's how they're categorized. If there weren't, how would this test even work to begin with? I'm defining 'work' as 'being reasonably accurate in predicting and showing how a person processes information, indicting potential strengths and weaknesses associated with their method of processing and interacting, and all around being an intriguing subject that can give insight into the nature of human interactions'
> 
> If you think the letters are just based off family wealth, why are you so interested in them, as demonstrated by your 6,000+ post count?


I'm looking at it critically. What's wrong with asking questions?

And how well is it working at accurately predicting people?


----------



## RogueTi (Feb 28, 2014)

monemi said:


> I'm looking at it critically. What's wrong with asking questions?
> 
> And how well is it working at accurately predicting people?


I'd prefer if you could address the other things I brought up– I confess I'm not very good at letting things lie.

Nothing at all is wrong with questioning. That said, I know that when I've reached a thesis like "the myer-briggs letters are created almost solely by the economic status of the individuals' parents" I don't have 6,000 posts worth of questions to reaffirm that.

In my experience, myer-briggs has the potential to be frighteningly accurate. For some I'm sure it can serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, but in my experiences with my own result and that of my immediate friend group when I brought up the topic with them and they took the test it's been quite accurate. Was your result not accurate for you?


----------



## pukeyshibas (Dec 10, 2013)

monemi said:


> Agreed. It ends up with me coming online and watching another circlejerk. For such creative intelligent people, N's don't seem to be very open to being questioned and challenged. More like they want to come online and agree about what a burden it is to be so brilliant in an unexceptional world and how hard it is to fit in. Could we have a specific subforum for intuitive orgies where intuitives can congratulate each other on how very clever they are? Then the intuitives that actually have something intelligent to say that isn't consistently reinforcing prior assumptions can talk with other intuitives and sensors. And intuitives that want have an online orgy can go for it.


----------



## RogueTi (Feb 28, 2014)

Oh dear this board has no ability to remove posts. Just casually ignore what used to be here.

To monemi in the post above: It's odd that you manage to accuse all Ns of being close-minded, coming online only to praise each other, and simultaneously complain about other N generalizations, like that Ns are always smarter, which you seemed quite opposed to. 

Type doesn't work like that. It indicates trends and differences in processing methods. Some N types don't like to be challenged, but more often we're just willing to debate and debate for the sake of pulling apart ideas, especially in the case of xNTPs. A few more N types score higher on aptitude tests than their S type peers, this is shown by data, but many don't. It's just how it is.

I still don't understand why so many are insistent that N types are as common as S types when data points otherwise– so what if it's less common? (That said, if someone has a good reason for thinking it's closer to 50-50, then have at it by all means!) –but having nothing to say on the matter other than complaining about personal guesses and skewed data doesn't contribute anything to suggest otherwise and just seems like complaining that everything isn't even?


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

RogueTi said:


> In regards to the statistics that idoh pulled up, it's still skewed data; it's university students, not a random selection of students. "Gifted" students are statistically more likely to be Ns, which could contribute to after-highschool education. Once my post count gets higher I can post the link to source this.


this isn't harvard we're talking about. how are half of the people at a university all supposed to be gifted? there are so many universities, if this was true for all of them it would make intuitives pretty common wouldn't it? 

secondly, how does being gifted correlate to going on to university or after-high school education? what about people like albert einstein, who drop school even though they geniuses? going on to university has to do with family values, motivation, money, and grades; and last time i checked, isfjs are the best at getting grades. that's in the article too :tongue:


----------



## RogueTi (Feb 28, 2014)

idoh said:


> this isn't harvard we're talking about. how are half of the people at a university all supposed to be gifted? there are so many universities, if this was true for all of them it would make intuitives pretty common wouldn't it?
> 
> secondly, how does being gifted correlate to going on to university or after-high school education? what about people like albert einstein, who drop school even though they geniuses? going on to university has to do with family values, motivation, money, and grades; and last time i checked, isfjs are the best at getting grades. that's in the article too :tongue:


Grades /=/ preformance on aptitude tests. I score above-average on aptitude tests but grades were a nightmare for me. I'd say the 'J' helps a lot more with grades than any other letter on average. 

I have the opinion that "gifted" individuals are statistically slightly more likely to move on to post-highschool education, thus giving that data a slight skew- doesn't mean they all do, doesn't mean they all don't. Even regardless of this I'm just pointing out that the data isn't a random sample.

I never said half of university students are gifted. That would imply that I both believe that N types are all gifted and that N types were half the population, neither of which are stances that I have?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

There is no way we will ever have correct statistical information until we have accurate definitions of each cognitive function, each type, and be able to test it with any reliability. The majority of the definitions are just stereotypes and irrelevant cognition abilities like memory and imagination. When the definitions include things that everyone does on a regular basis, it's impossible to type people accurately. 

I've seen little discussion here on how to fix the glaring problems with the definitions. Yet, everyone wants to throw statistics out there as if it's relevant. I can see how this discussion is interesting, but I also see how pointless it is.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kathy Kane said:


> There is no way we will ever have correct statistical information until we have accurate definitions of each cognitive function, each type, and be able to test it with any reliability. The majority of the definitions are just stereotypes and irrelevant cognition abilities like memory and imagination. When the definitions include things that everyone does on a regular basis, it's impossible to type people accurately.
> 
> I've seen little discussion here on how to fix the glaring problems with the definitions. Yet, everyone wants to throw statistics out there as if it's relevant. I can see how this discussion is interesting, but I also see how pointless it is.


I was just fighting statistics with my own statistics, and my interpretations. I guess what I really wanted was for people to be open to interpreting things a bit differently than they had been. To realize how many assumptions they were making.

But you have a point about that. I personally think that part of the reason why N and S are closer to 50/50 in Socionics is because their definitions are actually more precise and have been hashed out over a long period of time. One of the weaknesses of MBTI is that the functions are de-emphasized, and the definitions are simplified and overly positive. 

Worse, what merit there is in MBTI is diluted by the SJ/SP/NT/NF temperament model, which ultimately links back to Galen's four temperaments. This prevents typology from advancing very far beyond that point.

Another merit I see in Socionics, while I don't believe that it's better in all cases... is that it highlights the importance of the Ni/Se, Ti/Fe, Fi/Te, and Si/Ne valuing pairs. The quadra concept makes divisions along those lines more apparent, and shows how Intuition and Sensing can compliment each other in a group rather than always conflicting.

When I attempt to type people more rigorously, I usually focus on Ni/Se vs. Si/Ne, and Ti/Fe vs. Fi/Te. I prefer Lenore's function definitions, and I also overlay Beebe's archetypes over the entire thing. I consider type as a whole, with all types having all the functions in different roles in their life. I find that, for myself at least, this approach gives me precise definitions, and the most consistent and reasonable results... although I imagine many would disagree with it.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RogueTi said:


> I'd prefer if you could address the other things I brought up– I confess I'm not very good at letting things lie.
> 
> Nothing at all is wrong with questioning. That said, I know that when I've reached a thesis like "the myer-briggs letters are created almost solely by the economic status of the individuals' parents" I don't have 6,000 posts worth of questions to reaffirm that.
> 
> In my experience, myer-briggs has the potential to be frighteningly accurate. For some I'm sure it can serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, but in my experiences with my own result and that of my immediate friend group when I brought up the topic with them and they took the test it's been quite accurate. Was your result not accurate for you?


I'm exploring possibilities. Not drawing finished conclusions. You pointed out that gifted people are more likely intuitives. Gifted people statistically come from higher income and better educated homes. It's not a large jump to see a correlation. If it is related, it seems reasonable to me to question intuition/sensing as a function. If intelligence and intuition and giftedness are by and large correlated, so is income and education of the parents. In that case, it would make sense that there would be an overall correlation that intuition is related to a class divide. If so, it would make sense that most people are sensors if most people don't have parents who went to university and didn't offer as many opportunities to practice using intuition. If there is a degree of class divide, well over half of the population wouldn't be intuitives. 



RogueTi said:


> Oh dear this board has no ability to remove posts. Just casually ignore what used to be here.
> 
> To monemi in the post above: It's odd that you manage to accuse all Ns of being close-minded, coming online only to praise each other, and simultaneously complain about other N generalizations, like that Ns are always smarter, which you seemed quite opposed to.
> 
> ...


Where did I accuse All N's of being close minded? I suggested in that N's could have a special subforum to congratulate themselves and the ones that wanted intelligent conversation (the ones who are open minded) could continue conversing with sensors. Might I suggest you try using a sense of humour? 

OP is debating. Some N's were quick to shoot down her suggestion without giving her thoughts reasonable consideration in my opinion. As though they found her suggestion threatening. I don't mind too much if intuition is common or not. What I do find very amusing is how defensive you and others get by the possibility that it isn't rare. Dear me, did OP screw with your snowflake status? We should kick the crap out of her until she stops. *insert shit eating grin here*

I have nothing to contribute? Thanks for that.

ETA: How accurate has MBTI been for me personally? Close enough. Mostly, I get the sense that the people creating the framework for ESTP really lack insight into my head and are doing a lot of guess work.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

[deleted]


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

I find it very strange that so many people are saying that Ns are very different from others, stand out from the norm, even rebel against society. I mean...why? That's not a rhetorical question. Why? What about percieving things abstractly leads to rebelliousness? What about percieving things abstractly is fundamentally _abnormal_? What about it is visible to you on the outside (especially with a NJ, who uses Ni--_introverted_ intution)?

This just sounds like ennegram 4 or 6, nothing to do with cognition.

By this definition, I am certainly S. I don't know if others percieve me as normal, but I don't care a bit about rebelling against society or not, and I most certainly don't go around thinking about how most people are "cogs in the machine," unlike myself and my other N buddies of specialness.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> I find it very strange that so many people are saying that Ns are very different from others, stand out from the norm, even rebel against society. I mean...why? That's not a rhetorical question. Why? What about percieving things abstractly leads to rebelliousness? What about percieving things abstractly is fundamentally _abnormal_? What about it is visible to you on the outside (especially with a NJ, who uses Ni--_introverted_ intution)?
> 
> This just sounds like ennegram 4 or 6, nothing to do with cognition.


Yeah, I used to confuse my 4 type with intuition because of that.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

spiderfrommars said:


> I find it very strange that so many people are saying that Ns are very different from others, stand out from the norm, even rebel against society. I mean...why? That's not a rhetorical question. Why? What about percieving things abstractly leads to rebelliousness? What about percieving things abstractly is fundamentally _abnormal_? What about it is visible to you on the outside (especially with a NJ, who uses Ni--_introverted_ intution)?
> 
> This just sounds like ennegram 4 or 6, nothing to do with cognition.
> 
> By this definition, I am certainly S. I don't know if others percieve me as normal, but I don't care a bit about rebelling against society or not, and I most certainly don't go around thinking about how most people are "cogs in the machine," unlike myself and my other N buddies of specialness.


Yeah, I've never really thought that way either. I think a lot of people's ideas about what it means to be Intuitive are based on Ne, which is the same reason why NF/NT is the most popular way to divide Intuitives... it works great for Ne users. MBTI was created by an INFP, and Keirsey was an INTP. So most popular literature is written by them.

I think that it's such a strongly ingrained idea, that people confuse Intuition with Ne, so much that Ni users often aren't recognized. The idea is that if you're really a creative or insightful person, you have to be a rebel. And anyone who is "part of the system" is uncreative and stuck in the past. I could definitely see that sort of bias, LOL.

Most people just can't picture how someone could show creativity/insight while working inside an organization or system cooperatively. 

This also leads them to underestimate SJs, in addition to completely missing the NJs.



zazara said:


> Yeah, I used to confuse my 4 type with intuition because of that.


For what it's worth, I personally associated Enneagram type 4 with Fi. If I try to provide further granularity, I see 4w5 as INFP, and 4w3 as ISFP. Of course, that's assuming Enneagram and MBTI can be perfectly correlated. A lot of times, they can't.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> For what it's worth, I personally associated Enneagram type 4 with Fi. If I try to provide further granularity, I see 4w5 as INFP, and 4w3 as ISFP. Of course, that's assuming Enneagram and MBTI can be perfectly correlated. A lot of times, they can't.


Here's a chart that @idoh showed me awhile ago. You might find it interesting ~


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Most people just can't picture how someone could show creativity while working inside an organization or system cooperatively.


Are all intuitives necessarily "creative" in the general sense of the term? 

There could be those who do not exactly consider themselves creative and not see themselves as intuitive because of that. 

I think creativity can correlate to both sides of the functions anyway.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> Are all intuitives necessarily "creative" in the general sense of the term?
> 
> There could be those who do not exactly consider themselves creative and not see themselves as intuitive because of that.
> 
> I think there can creativity can correlate to both sides of the functions anyway.


This. ^^


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Are all intuitives necessarily "creative" in the general sense of the term?
> 
> There could be those who do not exactly consider themselves creative and not see themselves as intuitive because of that.
> 
> I think creativity can correlate to both sides of the functions anyway.


That's a good point.

I just have trouble thinking of a better one-word term to summarize Intuition. "abstraction"? "insight"? Sorry.

But you're right, not all Intuitives would see themselves as creative. I personally mostly see myself as "plotting," "planning," or just "having vision." Those are the terms I would have used to describe myself before discovering MBTI. Creative was never something I saw myself as, come to think of it. LOL.

This really just demonstrates why we need to test for Ni and Ne separately.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Intuition isn't even necessarily about ideas or thoughtforms to be exact. It's more about knowing what is not particularly known or whatever. A sort of connection to the collective unconscious and other things that are not commonly "seen" with the senses alone. One can make a theory about the things one observes. That is how science is thought up in many cases after all. There is a value for empiricism in the sciences, and physical data and other such things.

Intution ain't that special gaiz. Why not just do something unique if you want to be unique or whatever? I mean it's a wonderful thing to have, but having it alone doesn't make you a special or valuable person. Even if you reference it more than other people.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> I just have trouble thinking of a better one-word term to summarize Intuition. "abstraction"? "insight"? Sorry.
> 
> ...


Hm.. pattern-seeking? 

I think the test itself needs to be tweaked up. Most of the S/N questions on basic online MBTI tests seem to deal with practicality vs. possibility.. and I for one love possibility. I think the S answers are more suited towards sensor+thinker functions or something with the whole rational over imaginative thing. I don't know. They make sensing seem so dull to me.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@Sixty Nein

The question is, why are people seeing it as unique or more valuable in the first place? Is it simply because of the population percentages? To take pride in being one of the "chosen" perhaps? :laughing:

Maybe it's just a right-handed / left-handed thing. 

I write with my left-hand. Not many people do.. not sure why. Does that make me see the way I write as being more valuable than how everyone else writes? Not at all. I think the bias might have developed over time.. 

My grandma used to force me to use my right hand.. and I just couldn't. She told me back in the day, it used to be sinful and looked down upon! How strange. Nowadays, people think writing with the left-hand is super special or something. It's not. It's just the way my body works. I think the idea of intuition could be similar to that.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Hm.. pattern-seeking?
> 
> I think the test itself needs to be tweaked up. Most of the S/N questions on basic online MBTI tests seem to deal with practicality vs. possibility.. and I for one love possibility. I think the S answers are more suited towards sensor+thinker functions or something with the whole rational over imaginative thing. I don't know. They make sensing seem so dull to me.


Pattern-seeking? That's why I learned to read at age 3... I was obsessed with the symbols and knew there was a pattern behind them, so I had to figure it out. It wasn't that I was exceptionally intelligent, just exceptionally obsessed with identifying patterns. xD

That's not a bad one at all. One thing that does frustrate me about Sensors is that they can tend to see things as a series of isolated incidents rather than part of a larger pattern. Although, sometimes they're right.

If there is a bias in the test, it's that S is overly linked to J, while N is overly linked to P. I could see that pretty clearly. It's not a problem with N being made to look "better," it's that S often looks better to Js, while N often looks better to Ps. When I wish I was a Sensor, it's often because I think it would make me more practical and able to work faster. I get frustrated with myself over moving too slow, failing to notice stuff going on around me, or being so clumsy at doing something that it takes me twice as long.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Yeah, I've never really thought that way either. I think a lot of people's ideas about what it means to be Intuitive are based on Ne, which is the same reason why NF/NT is the most popular way to divide Intuitives... it works great for Ne users. MBTI was created by an INFP, and Keirsey was an INTP. So most popular literature is written by them.
> 
> I think that it's such a strongly ingrained idea, that people confuse Intuition with Ne, so much that Ni users often aren't recognized. The idea is that if you're really a creative or insightful person, you have to be a rebel. And anyone who is "part of the system" is uncreative and stuck in the past. I could definitely see that sort of bias, LOL.
> 
> ...


Most of the time, the most efficient way to bring about change is within the system. Why fight the system when you can steer it? It's slow, but persistence pays off. Do your research, create a solid argument, find/make friends to collaborate with, find out who you need to talk to make it happen, present your argument, negotiate if necessary, set it in motion. 

The "fight the system" approach is immature and inefficient unless you are dealing with a truly totalitarian system.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> If there is a bias in the test, it's that S is overly linked to J, while N is overly linked to P. I could see that pretty clearly. It's not a problem with N being made to look "better," it's that S often looks better to Js, while N often looks better to Ps. When I wish I was a Sensor, it's often because I think it would make me more practical and able to work faster. I get frustrated with myself over moving too slow, failing to notice stuff going on around me, or being so clumsy at doing something that it takes me twice as long.


I guess you're right on that one. I haven't taken the online test in awhile to be honest. :tongue:

Not all sensors work fast though. I think especially if you're a Ti or Fi dominant who would be more in their heads first. I could be wrong. I'm super clumsy too ~ yet I take notice of the things around me as well. Sometimes I'm in my head so much that I could lose balance or attention to detail from that even though I am inclined to be more attentive to the world around me rather than seeing the patterns or abstractions of it all anyway. It's odd.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> monemi has a habit of targeting a _kind_ of person, and not concentrating on the logical discussion at hand; who gives a $%^& who the other person it - the only thing worth discussing is the logical idea, those who get caught up on the personal stuff are only logs, as Shiro Ishii would define them.... fuck logs, we need only care about the idea, the person is nothing, everyone is a log, emotions are only obstacles, and those logs die with their emotionally-instigated ignorance, while the logical ideas persists into eternity. Fuck those who segregate individuals and are ignorant to fact they are part of the segregation themselves; if I were in control, everyone who were not honest to themselves would be dead as soon as I could imposed it; we don't have the time and energy to accommodate bullshit at this point in civilization. Fuck them, assholes without knowing it, the worst kind... But I am pretty drunk, and kind of pissed off at the moment, so you don't need to accept my treatment.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Pattern-seeking? That's why I learned to read at age 3... I was obsessed with the symbols and knew there was a pattern behind them, so I had to figure it out. It wasn't that I was exceptionally intelligent, just exceptionally obsessed with identifying patterns. xD
> 
> That's not a bad one at all. One thing that does frustrate me about Sensors is that they can tend to see things as a series of isolated incidents rather than part of a larger pattern. Although, sometimes they're right.
> 
> If there is a bias in the test, it's that S is overly linked to J, while N is overly linked to P. I could see that pretty clearly. It's not a problem with N being made to look "better," it's that S often looks better to Js, while N often looks better to Ps. When I wish I was a Sensor, it's often because I think it would make me more practical and able to work faster. I get frustrated with myself over moving too slow, failing to notice stuff going on around me, or being so clumsy at doing something that it takes me twice as long.


You're assuming sensors don't see a pattern. I see patterns and connections. I don't trust that the pattern is real and not just what I want to see. I see people who think every time something nice happens to them it is "God at work." It's called a coincidence... but yeah, whatever. I don't automatically conclude that a pattern or possible connection can be trusted.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


>


I'm so sorry monemi; your right, and please don't take what I said to heart. I was certainly in a drunken stupor and take back everything I said. What I said was utterly f#$%ed up. Sometimes I feel like I switch personalities and I hate my other side..


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

monemi said:


> You're assuming sensors don't see a pattern. I see patterns and connections. I don't trust that the pattern is real and not just what I want to see. I see people who think every time something nice happens to them it is "God at work." It's called a coincidence... but yeah, whatever. I don't automatically conclude that a pattern or possible connection can be trusted.


Yes, I agree with this. It's more a matter of preference than ability.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I'm so sorry monemi; your right, and please don't take what I said to heart. I was certainly in a drunken stupor and take back everything I said. What I said was utterly f#$%ed up. Sometimes I feel like I switch personalities and I hate my other side..


You don't need to apologize. Just... maybe less drinking and posting. It reminds me of a friend that used to drunk dial until I blocked his cell number. As amusing as you and his antics can be, I like to offer everyone respect even if I tease them. If you keep making a fool of yourself, you slowly wear that respect down.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


> You don't need to apologize. Just... maybe less drinking and posting. It reminds me of a friend that used to drunk dial until I blocked his cell number. As amusing as you and his antics can be, I like to offer everyone respect even if I tease them. If you keep making a fool of yourself, you slowly wear that respect down.


I do kind of value being honest to others over earning respect from them, I can't do much with respect anyways, especially because my views on certain ideas in which everyone seems to disagree and hate me for; the whole respect thing has kind of lost it's utility I suppose, I assume it is gone from the beginning, I can only hope my honesty will have people giving me an extra second of their attention. And I wouldn't even consider myself amusing (but I'm fine with others getting amusement out of it); for me I kind of feel like I'm disgracing myself. But yeah, it has gotten bad before so I'll do my best to refrain from the drunk posts and such.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> Pattern-seeking? That's why I learned to read at age 3... I was obsessed with the symbols and knew there was a pattern behind them, so I had to figure it out. It wasn't that I was exceptionally intelligent, just exceptionally obsessed with identifying patterns. xD
> 
> That's not a bad one at all. One thing that does frustrate me about Sensors is that they can tend to see things as a series of isolated incidents rather than part of a larger pattern. Although, sometimes they're right.
> 
> If there is a bias in the test, it's that S is overly linked to J, while N is overly linked to P. I could see that pretty clearly. It's not a problem with N being made to look "better," it's that S often looks better to Js, while N often looks better to Ps. When I wish I was a Sensor, it's often because I think it would make me more practical and able to work faster. I get frustrated with myself over moving too slow, failing to notice stuff going on around me, or being so clumsy at doing something that it takes me twice as long.


lol I actually related quite a bit to most of what you said. Particularly the middle part. I guess the reason why I'm an ISTP is that I am pretty bad at not just dealing with work, while being unmotivated and sluggish but also that I have a bad time seeing trends even though I'm pretty good at picking up patterns that only I particularly see.

It's like I'm somewhat blind as to what is particularly cliche but I still think that everything is somehow connected, even if I don't really know what it particularly is. I guess this is like middle of the road S/N preference.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I do kind of value being honest to others over earning respect from them, I can't do much with respect anyways, especially because my views on certain ideas in which everyone seems to disagree and hate me for; the whole respect thing has kind of lost it's utility I suppose, I assume it is gone from the beginning, I can only hope my honesty will have people giving me an extra second of their attention. And I wouldn't even consider myself amusing (but I'm fine with others getting amusement out of it); for me I kind of feel like I'm disgracing myself. But yeah, it has gotten bad before so I'll do my best to refrain from the drunk posts and such.


I skip the posts of people I don't respect.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> I guess you're right on that one. I haven't taken the online test in awhile to be honest. :tongue:


Oh, you've only taken the online test? I've heard those are actually inferior to the official MBTI... that has to be administered by an expert and validated through follow-up interviews. They've improved the instrument over the years, but it's expensive to take it. Not sure if it really is any better, though... I don't think it makes people that much more confident in their type in the end.



monemi said:


> *You're assuming sensors don't see a pattern.* I see patterns and connections. I don't trust that the pattern is real and not just what I want to see. I see people who think every time something nice happens to them it is "God at work." It's called a coincidence... but yeah, whatever. I don't automatically conclude that a pattern or possible connection can be trusted.


I never said that they didn't see a pattern at all, but I did word it poorly. What I meant was that they dismiss patterns, and choose to look at things in terms of isolated incidents. Certainly not that they were incapable of understanding the pattern. I did also say that sometimes they were right to do so.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


> I skip the posts of people I don't respect.


Yeah, I guess that puts it in better perspective, that should have been obvious to me; thanks.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I never said that they didn't see a pattern at all, but I did word it poorly. What I meant was that they dismiss patterns, and choose to look at things in terms of isolated incidents. Certainly not that they were incapable of understanding the pattern. I did also say that sometimes they were right to do so.


I think responses to perceived patterns vary. Intuitives prefer finding the patterns and working directly from them. Some sensors might find a pattern but ignore it. Some sensors don't tend to find the patterns. I'm one of the sensors who see's a pattern and if it's interesting, I'll seek to prove or disprove the pattern. But I don't skip ahead to working on the pattern. I see a correlation but prove causation before moving forward. I deal in facts. Conjecture is sometimes all we have. But if we're working from conjecture, lets not lose sight of the fact that it is conjecture and not fact.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Oh, you've only taken the online test? I've heard those are actually inferior to the official MBTI... that has to be administered by an expert and validated through follow-up interviews. They've improved the instrument over the years, but it's expensive to take it. Not sure if it really is any better, though... I don't think it makes people that much more confident in their type in the end.


Yeah, I kind of assumed we were talking about the online one since I doubt many here have taken the official one.. I might take it someday when I can afford to, but I'm not too concerned with that since I've figured out my type already. I'm not seeking validation on that anymore since I understand it now.. but it would be interesting to see what the real one is like! MBTI is more of a hobby to me than anything. I find it interesting, yet I'm not going to waste money on it so quickly. Maybe I'm just stingy like that. 

The interview thing sounds nice though! I think you're right on the last part. I've learned that confidence in anything comes from within. :happy:


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

monemi said:


> I think responses to perceived patterns vary. Intuitives prefer finding the patterns and working directly from them. Some sensors might find a pattern but ignore it. Some sensors don't tend to find the patterns. I'm one of the sensors who see's a pattern and if it's interesting, I'll seek to prove or disprove the pattern. But I don't skip ahead to working on the pattern. I see a correlation but prove causation before moving forward. I deal in facts. Conjecture is sometimes all we have. But if we're working from conjecture, lets not lose sight of the fact that it is conjecture and not fact.


Yeah, I've noticed that some Intuitives do go a bit too far in that regard. One thing that occasionally annoys me about Ne users, is that they're too quick to trust or follow a random pattern off the top of their heads without thinking it through.

I generally don't trust any particular interpretation or standpoint as absolutely true. I tend to see all the possible ways the information I have could be interpreted, and then look for more data to eliminate possibilities. I often see a conclusion before other people do, because I am the first to be aware that all but one or two possible interpretations have been eliminated by the data we're seeing.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I was just fighting statistics with my own statistics, and my interpretations. I guess what I really wanted was for people to be open to interpreting things a bit differently than they had been. To realize how many assumptions they were making.
> 
> But you have a point about that. I personally think that part of the reason why N and S are closer to 50/50 in Socionics is because their definitions are actually more precise and have been hashed out over a long period of time. One of the weaknesses of MBTI is that the functions are de-emphasized, and the definitions are simplified and overly positive.
> 
> ...


Some type descriptions in Socionics seem pretty good. When I read mine it's a little uncanny. However, the individual S/N/T/F descriptions are filled with irrelevant information. I especially don't like their Si or Fe descriptions. There is way too many assumptions about how people will act instead of how the functions work. 

I agree that the top two perceptions and the top two judging functions work together. The function order in the different systems are confusing and don't make sense. I don't see how anyone can use intuition without also using their senses and vice versa. 

Finding out the true statistical numbers would be cool, but I don't think any of the systems are accurate enough yet.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

zazara said:


> Hm.. pattern-seeking?
> 
> I think the test itself needs to be tweaked up. Most of the S/N questions on basic online MBTI tests seem to deal with practicality vs. possibility.. and I for one love possibility. I think the S answers are more suited towards sensor+thinker functions or something with the whole rational over imaginative thing. I don't know. They make sensing seem so dull to me.


Another problem with the questions: they aren't trying to determine if someone is Si or Se. They are all general sensor and intuitive questions. Yet Si and Se are different. I find that some ISTPs and INTPs don't actually use Se and Ne. They are just laid back ISTJs and INTJs. There has to be a better way to get the functions correct.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

No. It would be like admitting my whole life of feeling like an oddball was a lie.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> No. It would be like admitting my whole life of feeling like an oddball was a lie.


I feel like an oddball. It has nothing to do with intuition or sensing.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> You really think talking like that makes people open to what you have to say? You could stand to work on your persuasion skills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who says what the functions are? Um, let me guess, Jung the man who found them and defined them. Also do you even know how Ti works? It works by understanding systems, its whole focus is objectively understanding systems. Cognitive functions are a system, therefore yes Ti users are superior in understanding systems better than non Ti users *because its their whole focus.* Se does see possibilities, its sees the possible ways its going to react to new sensory information, while Ne sees intuitive possibilities, in how many ways can we understand a possible context/moment, we *naturally* search for underlying meanings and patterns by producing all possible possibilities in a given context, and we see all the different ways we can change any situation through all the possibilities given to us. 

Dont say something is impossible. Its ok to admit that others have a better understanding into certain things than you would. A person who knows only physics wont be as knowledgeable as the person who only knows biology. We all process things differently, meaning we all have certain strengths others do not have. Its not impossible for a Ti user to completely understand a system objectively, because that is literally the core principle of what Ti does.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Trying to turn subjective concepts into objective facts is a very extraverted thing to do. You are treating this EXACTLY like a religion. 

Something coming out of Jung's mouth, does not make it a fact.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Alright, but this is kind of going back to my point that you guys spend too much time on the object to begin with. You explore more possibilities. Those possibilities take time.
> 
> But doesn't just being a Ni dom kind of make inclination for closure permeate my entire life? It feels that way. And it is in the type description. We like to solve a problem and get it behind us. We don't like to let things "hang". That kind of expansive thinking/perception would honestly drive me crazy.
> 
> This may come back to what Jung said about general attitudes of E vs I. I has an inherent fear of the world. It distrust natures. That is why we are I to begin with. So us simplifying nature is a way of making it smaller, weaker. To diversity it, to make it larger... is to see it in all its monstrosity. We don't want to make the world bigger, we want to make it smaller. So we can keep a better eye on it, because we don't trust it.


You're starting to realize that there are people who think differently than you know, thats good. Yes Ni loves closure, so its bias is comparing everyone else to itself saying its superior because it reaches conclusions quicker but its just the fact that other functions aren't focused on that. Ne is only focused in seeing possibilities, as many as the context permits and beyond, so therefore it reaches possibilities quicker. We all do things differently, meaning we are all quicker than some other type at something.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Or you know, those patterns can reveal universal laws, which is how nearly all knowledge comes about. People who try to find patterns in everything are called things like "scientists" and "mathematicians". As Einstein said, it is about finding the "order under the appearance".
> 
> "There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."
> 
> Jung talked about this. Extroverts don't pattern seek, and their thinking is "slow". Because they clumsily fumble around with individual objects, while the introvert abstracts its properties and compares them to others immediately.


The extrovert bit is out in left field. Wow!

And you don't need to prove the value of finding patterns. Someone's going to concern themselves with discerning fact from fiction. The world needs cynics.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Sensing is certainly slower. Extroversion is slower because it takes longer to turn the outside world into an idea. Introversion starts with the idea, that is awakened by the outside world. Idea comes first and shapes the outside. Extrovert is opposite. He is brought to the idea slower, because he is too busy fumbling with the object and its particulars. Ni has a tendency for closure. It is more streamlined. It has a tendency to want to end things. Hence speed.


Thank you for your displays of INXX arrogance for me in this thread. Marvelous!


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@FearAndTrembling, you know how the idea of the circle doesn't exist in the objective world but we know it factually exists because of its components. Just like how a square or any other shape exists only in the subjective realm but doesnt exist in the objective world unless we create or find something with that shape. Cognitive functions are the same, they don't exist factually in the sense that you can see them with your eyes floating around but they exist factually in the subjective realm. Yes Jung was right about extraverts wanting to extravert the subjective world, hence why I'm doing that. Meaning the system is working efficiently because its a logical system that ties into the natures of thought processing. If people can see and love possibilities while others dislike seeing possibilities at all costs, then you give them a title, and compare the two. The functions exist logically perfect on paper just like a circles logic is always 360 degrees. If you try to change the degrees you know longer have a circle, if you start attributing behaviors and other assumptions to types and functions then you no longer have that type. If an Ne user doesn't have Ne then they are not an Ne user, therefore mistype. You have to see it logically to understand it, you have to see its system, but system understanding is a core principle of Ti only.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I think one thing that this thread has demonstrated clearly, is that there is no clear or agreed-upon idea of what Ni, Ne, Intuition, or Sensing are supposed to _mean._ We all throw these terms around, but we have only a vague idea of what we are referring to.
> 
> I suppose in the end, all of us are jumping the gun by offering any interpretation of present large-scale patterns. But I don't know how we could improve on or clarify things enough to remedy that situation and reach a point where we could make/assess more valid interpretations based on valid data.
> 
> ...


Agreed. We don't have universal understanding of the cognitive functions. Furthermore, posters like FAT, use the cognitive functions to discriminate and presume sensors and extroverts are slowwwww. He has presumed superiority without a shred of proof. And expects to have any authority on the matter. Is it any surprise that some of us are rather sick of it?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@FearAndTrembling, Where do you think all those books and knowledge comes from. From someones head. It was someone who sat down and created math which only exist in the subjective world but not everyone thinks or even cares about math. Just like how cognitive functions exist, they exist in the universe, in human nature, just like how math exists in the universe but not in the objective reality.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> Yeah, I have no idea why extraverts being "slower" thinkers would make sense at all. This isn't just true of Ne/Ni, but all the functions: extraverted functions, because of their breadth, are _quicker_. They cycle faster.
> 
> I do think introverts/introverted functions reach conclusions quicker, because they are driven to conclusion. I sometimes feel that I see the underlying point somebody's making a long time before they're done, and if I try to cut them off, they're annoyed because they "haven't made their point." So I can be quicker in that way.
> 
> ...


Why would sensors be slower thinkers either? Thinking differently doesn't equal faster. It's incredibly flawed logic from a discriminatory perception.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Thank you for your displays of INXX arrogance for me in this thread. Marvelous!



lol. at least I don't call you a worker drone and say you are only good for sex, like that other guy.

You need to step outside the dichotomy. Fast is not necessarily good. I think it is good. That is just my preference. But it obviously misses a ton of things. I have brought up before how my lack of sensing has made me look like an idiot. Somebody has to pay attention to those details. Detail makes everything work. Without it, everything falls apart.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

monemi said:


> Why would sensors be slower thinkers either? Thinking differently doesn't equal faster. It's incredibly flawed logic from a discriminatory perception.


They wouldn't. I was just talking about the difference between Ne/Ni because that's what the post I was replying to was talking about.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Shadow Logic said:


> Who says what the functions are? Um, let me guess, Jung the man who found them and defined them.


I've read Jung's definitions. They're actually far more involved than that. That is a simplified version of a simplified version of what he said. He DID say: "Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because this alone can give the appearance of a full life, so intuition tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities, since only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied."

That's the key sentence that people are grabbing onto, a very small part of what he wrote. But he also wrote 5 or 6 paragraphs explaining exactly what Intuition is, how it differs from Sensation, and how it manifests in the Extraverted attitude. 



> Also do you even know how Ti works? It works by understanding systems, its whole focus is objectively understanding systems. Cognitive functions are a system, therefore yes Ti users are superior in understanding systems better than non Ti users *because its their whole focus.*


That's actually not true, according to Jung. Ti doesn't objectively understand systems, that would be Te if anything. Ti subjectively understands intellectual principles, it's not really concerned with systems at all. It's fixated on the principles that underlie systems. 
_
"Introverted thinking is *primarily orientated by the subjective factor.* At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the *decisive points it is orientated by subjective data.*"

"It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the *development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.* Its aim, therefore, is *never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea;* its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. "_

You really want to call the process he describes objective?





> Se does see possibilities, its sees the possible ways its going to react to new sensory information, while Ne sees intuitive possibilities, in how many ways can we understand a possible context/moment, we *naturally* search for underlying meanings and patterns by producing all possible possibilities in a given context, and we see all the different ways we can change any situation through all the possibilities given to us.


Ah, okay. That's a bit more complete than your earlier definition. Now you're bringing in ideas about change, context, underlying meanings... there's more to Ne than just generating possibilities then.



> Dont say something is impossible. Its ok to admit that others have a better understanding into certain things than you would. A person who knows only physics wont be as knowledgeable as the person who only knows biology. We all process things differently, meaning we all have certain strengths others do not have.


In that context, yes. Someone who understands a subject better than another person because they've studied it more certainly knows more. But what makes you think that principle applies to this situation? I've studied MBTI for 7 years.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> Why would sensors be slower thinkers either? Thinking differently doesn't equal faster. It's incredibly flawed logic from a discriminatory perception.


Lets correct something though. I agree sensors dont think slower in what it means to think *but* all types are faster at other types in processing what it is they focus on processing. For sensors, they process sensations much more quickly than intuitives just like intuitives process intuitions much more quickly than sensors. Everyone is just using bias, and saying: "Since I think quick this way, Im quicker at thinking" which we know that isn't true. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@delphi367, *Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea;*. Ti works in the subjective realm but it objectively looks at facts. Te doesnt analyze anything it only applies facts to the objective world. Thinking objectively doesnt mean objective world. To think objectively is a subjective motion, while the moon itself would be an objective fact. Ti thinks about systems objectively which is a subjective process. What I have bold shows how Ti rejects any subjective information to acquire objective facts, hence why it looks at things objectively. Its goal is to take objective facts and to organize them in a way that it mirrors reality. This desire to do that is called "understanding systems". 

Sensors do want to reach the highest pitch of actuality, hence why its focused on seeking new sensations, hence why its an extraverted function based on sensation. They seek new sensations. Everytime they think of what they want to do, thats a possibility because it hasnt happened yet but they want to do it. When they are doing it, it becomes an actuality. Hence why I said they see possibilities based around how they will react to new sensations, they think of the possibility and then they act, because Se pushes them to seek that new stimuli.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Didn't Jung basically say that intuition is just like high speed, unconscious sensing?

It is like the nasal cycle. One nostril is always more clogged than the other. This serves the function of allowing two types of smell. Fast and quick, and slow and more closely examined. It's like two different noses. Sensing would be the clogged nose in this analogy. Aroma passes through it more slowly, and it is more closely examined.

And this is not an IN thing. Most INs actually think like the extroverts I am arguing with in here. Because we live in an ES world. Just because you score introvert on some test doesn't make you an introvert. Introversion is a philosophy, a way of life. A metaphysical view. That has almost totally been removed from our culture.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> they think of the possibility and then they act, because Se pushes them to seek that new stimuli.


What about Si then?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. at least I don't call you a worker drone and say you are only good for sex, like that other guy.
> 
> You need to step outside the dichotomy. Fast is not necessarily good. I think it is good. That is just my preference. But it obviously misses a ton of things. I have brought up before how my lack of sensing has made me look like an idiot. Somebody has to pay attention to those details. Detail makes everything work. Without it, everything falls apart.


Fast in what way though? I distrust intuition. I take a step back and look at the details and fact check. When dealing with abstract, I'll slow down and not just go with my gut. I don't trust it. 

When I'm in a fast paced, high stress situation, I find my thinking is faster than other people. Especially when I'm in survival mode, it literally feels like time is slowing down for me. My reflexes improve, my problem solving improves, etc... and the weird part is that the people around me do the opposite. They lose their heads or freeze up. This is why I prefer stressful jobs. When under stress, instincts kick in and I think very fast. In high stress environments, employer's love me. 

I take issue with "attention to detail" because I've seen people presume I pay attention to all details indiscriminately. They've given examples that were just anal. I pay attention to relevant details.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

zazara said:


> What about Si then?


Si stores sensations, which is why unhealthy ones can get so fixated on the past. To an Si user previous sensations that are stored is where they like to rely their perception. When they come across something new, they apply what sensations they have previously stored. The storing of sensations always plays into being comfortable, Si users are big into comfort because they rely on the sensations they know. The couch in their house that feels good, they dont want to change it because of the comfort it provides. Its the complete opposite of wanting to seek new intuitive possibilities (Ne), and wanting to seek new sensations (Se). An Se user is great for the Si user because the Se users introduces the Si user to all new sensations they can store, which is why they love their memories (as in previously stored sensations).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Fast in what way though? I distrust intuition. I take a step back and look at the details and fact check. When dealing with abstract, I'll slow down and not just go with my gut. I don't trust it.
> 
> When I'm in a fast paced, high stress situation, I find my thinking is faster than other people. Especially when I'm in survival mode, it literally feels like time is slowing down for me. My reflexes improve, my problem solving improves, etc... and the weird part is that the people around me do the opposite. They lose their heads or freeze up. This is why I prefer stressful jobs. When under stress, instincts kick in and I think very fast. In high stress environments, employer's love me.
> 
> I take issue with "attention to detail" because I've seen people presume I pay attention to all details indiscriminately. They've given examples that were just anal. I pay attention to relevant details.


Exactly. Your approach is much more scientific. It is like the scientific method. You don't trust quick, gut feeling. Carl Sagan is a perfect example of this. He was asked if he believed aliens existed somewhere in the universe. He said he didn't know or couldn't be sure. And the guy was pressing him like, come on, if you had to answer.... just give me an answer, yes or no, go with your gut. And Sagan said, "I never think with my gut." He is an extreme of this type who are never willing to go beyond the facts, ON ANYTHING. Whereas Einstein always thought with his gut. The world needs both.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> Fast in what way though? I distrust intuition. I take a step back and look at the details and fact check. When dealing with abstract, I'll slow down and not just go with my gut. I don't trust it.
> 
> When I'm in a fast paced, high stress situation, I find my thinking is faster than other people. Especially when I'm in survival mode, it literally feels like time is slowing down for me. My reflexes improve, my problem solving improves, etc... and the weird part is that the people around me do the opposite. They lose their heads or freeze up. This is why I prefer stressful jobs. When under stress, instincts kick in and I think very fast. In high stress environments, employer's love me.
> 
> I take issue with "attention to detail" because I've seen people presume I pay attention to all details indiscriminately. They've given examples that were just anal. I pay attention to relevant details.


I understand your frustration. People confuse sensation with details then base their whole understanding of Sensors to it. Its one of those "assumptions" I was talking about that people need to stop doing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos what are your stats based on? Anyway, based on this forum I think xNTP is by far the most common type I've run into, given my own biased propensity to hang out more in the cognitive type and socionics forum. I also definitely notice a higher degree of Ne types here on PerC over Ni, but the by far largest category is not N or S but F, specifically being Fe. Makes sense, as I think there is a part of the way fora operate that may draw Fe types in, but just as a curious thing I think is worth mentioning. I've been keeping stats of PerC for a while on the side now, though very lazily so.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Si stores sensations, which is why unhealthy ones can get so fixated on the past. To an Si user previous sensations that are stored is where they like to rely their perception. When they come across something new, they apply what sensations they have previously stored. The storing of sensations always plays into being comfortable, Si users are big into comfort because they rely on the sensations they know. The couch in their house that feels good, they dont want to change it because of the comfort it provides. Its the complete opposite of wanting to seek new intuitive possibilities (Ne), and wanting to seek new sensations (Se). An Se user is great for the Si user because the Se users introduces the Si user to all new sensations they can store, which is why they love their memories (as in previously stored sensations).


Using the word "sensations" can also mean emotions, gut feelings, or impressions (all things intuitives use as well.) This confuses people, who then ask for real world examples about your definition of sensations. You mentioned the favorite couch, but then anyone who has a favorite couch can question if they are using Si. It's still too vague. We can all store sensory information into our memory, and that isn't Si specific. 

The purpose is what is important. Why do they store sensory information? I say it leads them down the correct path in their decision making, conclusions, knowledge, etc. Maybe the slight creak from the couch when they sit means it's time to check the springs, because the last time it creaked like that a spring broke. Or they read in the manual to check the springs so that creak reminds them to do it. 

The information from the five senses keeps them focused on the truth of the matter. If they find comfort in a favorite chair, it's because they've determined it's still functional and doesn't need fixing. It's reliable and that's a good thing. 

That's the way I see it. If the definitions are more specific, then there should be less confusion and speculation about the functions. Using examples is good, but first there needs to be phrases in the definition that are unmistakable for some other function.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Using the word "sensations" can also mean emotions, gut feelings, or impressions (all things intuitives use as well.) This confuses people, who then ask for real world examples about your definition of sensations. You mentioned the favorite couch, but then anyone who has a favorite couch can question if they are using Si. It's still too vague. We can all store sensory information into our memory, and that isn't Si specific.
> 
> The purpose is what is important. Why do they store sensory information? I say it leads them down the correct path in their decision making, conclusions, knowledge, etc. Maybe the slight creak from the couch when they sit means it's time to check the springs, because the last time it creaked like that a spring broke. Or they read in the manual to check the springs so that creak reminds them to do it.
> 
> ...


Everything I said about Si you have to take into tandem instead of separating it into pieces and looking at the different parts of the process differently when it needs to be looked at as a system working in tandem of itself. The whole comfort of a couch doesnt work by itself because, as you said, other types can have a favorite couch also. Hence why I used the comfort of the couch in tandem with storing sensations, and relying on the comfort of the stored sensations. Sensations, which I thought Jung made fairly obvious, being the seeking or the storing of information that the 5 senses take in. An Fi user can have a favorite couch also but the cause of what makes it their favorite is different, for an Fi user its how much value they as an individual place on a favorite item. This is why Jung defined the functions, this is why when describing functions we describe them in tandem with their whole being and not just them doing separate processes. Its not that the Si user finds comfort in the chair per say, its that the Si user finds comfort in the information that their five senses have previously stored and they have adapted too about the comfort. Hence why we adapt to what we perceive. Sensations, as Jung already defined, dont have to do with gut feelings, or emotions they have to do with perception via the 5 senses. Se seeks new perceptions via their 5 senses while Si stores new perceptions via their 5 senses. If you read a description of a function, understand that the whole description works in tandem with all the other information that was previously defined about how cognitive functions and their natures work.

Edit: Also I disagree that they store sensations because it leads them on the correct path. It only leads them to the path most known to them. The "correct"path is subjective and the idea of a "correct" path would differ per person interpretating that. Which can lead to mistyping, because an Ni user could easily relate to the correct path sentiment, so could Ne-Ti, Fi-Ne, Fe-Ni, Ti-Se because all the paths those types take would probably feel like the "correct" path to them. Instead they store sensations because they use the introverted aspect of sensation, the function that *relies* on perceptive via the 5 senses. They introvert what they perceive via the 5 senses, rejecting all unpleasant sensations while storing all pleasant sensations. These pleasant sensations are what they try to imprint onto their external reality through their extraverted judging function, while the unpleasant sensations arw what they try to avoid in their external reality. Si also doesnt find "Truth" in anything, I think youre seriously confusing Si with Ni. Ni looks for that "Truth" while Si relies on previously stored sensations for comfort. The only "truth" is what makes the Si user comfortable and what causes them discomfort, and the sensations that they stored.

This is what I mean by people assuming things that arent there, Jung along with all other descriptions never said Si sees "truth", or sensations dealing with gut feelings, or abstractions. They never even hinted in that direction but youre assuming that it must see a truth, when "truth" has nothing to do with Si. This is why people are mistyping because others are assuming properties into functions that do not exist there because they are comparing functions to their bias, leading them to want to base other functions around theres.


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Lets correct something though. I agree sensors dont think slower in what it means to think *but* all types are faster at other types in processing what it is they focus on processing. For sensors, they process sensations much more quickly than intuitives just like intuitives process intuitions much more quickly than sensors. Everyone is just using bias, and saying: "Since I think quick this way, Im quicker at thinking" which we know that isn't true. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.


I would like to see proof of this, actually. The idea makes some sense intuitively, in that having a different focus will tend to make you better at dealing with that sort of information than someone with a different focus. However, I'm not sure if it _necessarily _follows in all cases.

It seems quite possible to me that someone with well developed tertiary intuition could process possibilities or connections better than someone with underdeveloped auxiliary intuition. Extrapolating that example, you might have someone who has so developed their inferior intuition that they process better than someone with it as dominant. Function order seems to be more about a person's internal focus or broad comparisons between whole type groups, rather than relative individual ability.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

eleventhheart said:


> I would like to see proof of this, actually. The idea makes some sense intuitively, in that having a different focus will tend to make you better at dealing with that sort of information than someone with a different focus. However, I'm not sure if it _necessarily _follows in all cases.
> 
> It seems quite possible to me that someone with well developed tertiary intuition could process possibilities or connections better than someone with underdeveloped auxiliary intuition. Extrapolating that example, you might have someone who has so developed their inferior intuition that they process better than someone with it as dominant. Function order seems to be more about a person's internal focus or broad comparisons between whole type groups, rather than relative individual ability.


This is how I break it down: if all factors are considered equal, excluding the fact that the personalities types are different, then one type who has one function as their dom is the other persons inferior and vice versa then, both of them are better adept at using their dom function than the other who has that function as their inferior.

For example, if you have an ISFJ and an ENTP, and all other possible factors being equal, then the ISFJ will be better adept at using Si than the ENTP, while the ENTP will be better adept at using Ne than the ISFJ. If you are using something naturally and it comes natural to you while it doesnt come natural to someone else, and all other possible factors being equal, then the one who is naturally adept at it will be better at it than the person who is not naturally adept at using it. Thats if all other possible factors, excluding type, are considered equal. Once other factors are not considered equal then you have to analyze each situation on a case by case basis, accounting for factors that arent equal.


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> This is how I break it down: if all factors are considered equal, excluding the fact that the personalities types are different, then one type who has one function as their dom is the other persons inferior and vice versa then, both of them are better adept at using their dom function than the other who has that function as their inferior.
> 
> For example, if you have an ISFJ and an ENTP, and all other possible factors being equal, then the ISFJ will be better adept at using Si than the ENTP, while the ENTP will be better adept at using Ne than the ISFJ. If you are using something naturally and it comes natural to you while it doesnt come natural to someone else, and all other possible factors being equal, then the one who is naturally adept at it will be better at it than the person who is not naturally adept at using it. Thats if all other possible factors, excluding type, are considered equal. Once other factors are not considered equal then you have to analyze each situation on a case by case basis, accounting for factors that arent equal.


Ah, I see. Nothing I disagree with then, all things being equal. I was thinking more practically that rarely in life are all things so even.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

eleventhheart said:


> Ah, I see. Nothing I disagree with then, all things being equal. I was thinking more practically that rarely in life are all things so even.


You are right, but to see the exact differences in type and how each type uses each function based on their function stack differently than another, it becomes a must to equal all the other factors. Once all the other factors lose equality then we're no longer purely talking about types and functions but instead adding outside factors which causes the level of balance to tip in one direction or the other. I agree that once you implement the types/functions into reality, all other factors lose their equality but you have to study the types/factors in tandem with all of those other inequal factors.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Everything I said about Si you have to take into tandem instead of separating it into pieces and looking at the different parts of the process differently when it needs to be looked at as a system working in tandem of itself. The whole comfort of a couch doesnt work by itself because, as you said, other types can have a favorite couch also. Hence why I used the comfort of the couch in tandem with storing sensations, and relying on the comfort of the stored sensations. Sensations, which I thought Jung made fairly obvious, being the seeking or the storing of information that the 5 senses take in. An Fi user can have a favorite couch also but the cause of what makes it their favorite is different, for an Fi user its how much value they as an individual place on a favorite item. This is why Jung defined the functions, this is why when describing functions we describe them in tandem with their whole being and not just them doing separate processes. Its not that the Si user finds comfort in the chair per say, its that the Si user finds comfort in the information that their five senses have previously stored and they have adapted too about the comfort. Hence why we adapt to what we perceive. Sensations, as Jung already defined, dont have to do with gut feelings, or emotions they have to do with perception via the 5 senses. Se seeks new perceptions via their 5 senses while Si stores new perceptions via their 5 senses. If you read a description of a function, understand that the whole description works in tandem with all the other information that was previously defined about how cognitive functions and their natures work.
> 
> Edit: Also I disagree that they store sensations because it leads them on the correct path. It only leads them to the path most known to them. The "correct"path is subjective and the idea of a "correct" path would differ per person interpretating that. Which can lead to mistyping, because an Ni user could easily relate to the correct path sentiment, so could Ne-Ti, Fi-Ne, Fe-Ni, Ti-Se because all the paths those types take would probably feel like the "correct" path to them. Instead they store sensations because they use the introverted aspect of sensation, the function that *relies* on perceptive via the 5 senses. They introvert what they perceive via the 5 senses, rejecting all unpleasant sensations while storing all pleasant sensations. These pleasant sensations are what they try to imprint onto their external reality through their extraverted judging function, while the unpleasant sensations arw what they try to avoid in their external reality. Si also doesnt find "Truth" in anything, I think youre seriously confusing Si with Ni. Ni looks for that "Truth" while Si relies on previously stored sensations for comfort. The only "truth" is what makes the Si user comfortable and what causes them discomfort, and the sensations that they stored.
> 
> This is what I mean by people assuming things that arent there, Jung along with all other descriptions never said Si sees "truth", or sensations dealing with gut feelings, or abstractions. They never even hinted in that direction but youre assuming that it must see a truth, when "truth" has nothing to do with Si. This is why people are mistyping because others are assuming properties into functions that do not exist there because they are comparing functions to their bias, leading them to want to base other functions around theres.


I appreciate Jung, the theory he provided, his work, and his dedication. However, his theory wasn't perfect. If it had been then there would be definitions, tests, and results that are unmistakable. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. He gave an amazing start, but it needs work. It's no wonder so many people are taking his work and trying to add to it and improve it, because it requires more attention.

That said, I don't believe he defined the functions to a point where they are distinct. I think Ni and Si are a lot alike, which is why people mistype Si for Ni all the time. When I question Si dom users it's clear that the reason they store sensory information is because they want everything to work correctly, especially their bodies. They have a favorite couch because it doesn't cause any problems and it performs exactly as it should. If it's broken they do their best to fix it. When something is reliable they grow attached to it because there is comfort in knowing it is doing its job. Their perception and observation of the senses confirms everything is going well. They know almost immediately when something isn't going to work out, and yes it is because they store sensory information. Something doesn't feel, smell, look, sound, or taste right so they don't attach themselves to it. They do want the truth in the form of knowing exactly what's wrong with something. Ni seeks the truth in intangible way and Si seeks truth through tangible ways. 

The distinction is the motivation and reasons for why Si stores sensory information. Everyone has senses and everyone has sensory memory. Si doms store them because they are reliable to ensure that everything is going to work out the way they should. People who don't have Si as one of their top function will store sensory information, but not to ensure everything is working properly, but because it's part of their natural memory.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I appreciate Jung, the theory he provided, his work, and his dedication. However, his theory wasn't perfect. If it had been then there would be definitions, tests, and results that are unmistakable. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. He gave an amazing start, but it needs work. It's no wonder so many people are taking his work and trying to add to it and improve it, because it requires more attention.
> 
> That said, I don't believe he defined the functions to a point where they are distinct. I think Ni and Si are a lot alike, which is why people mistype Si for Ni all the time. When I question Si dom users it's clear that the reason they store sensory information is because they want everything to work correctly, especially their bodies. They have a favorite couch because it doesn't cause any problems and it performs exactly as it should. If it's broken they do their best to fix it. When something is reliable they grow attached to it because there is comfort in knowing it is doing its job. Their perception and observation of the senses confirms everything is going well. They know almost immediately when something isn't going to work out, and yes it is because they store sensory information. Something doesn't feel, smell, look, sound, or taste right so they don't attach themselves to it. They do want the truth in the form of knowing exactly what's wrong with something. Ni seeks the truth in intangible way and Si seeks truth through tangible ways.
> 
> The distinction is the motivation and reasons for why Si stores sensory information. Everyone has senses and everyone has sensory memory. Si doms store them because they are reliable to ensure that everything is going to work out the way they should. People who don't have Si as one of their top function will store sensory information, but not to ensure everything is working properly, but because it's part of their natural memory.


I'm sorry I disagree, I happen to think that the cognitive functions are a perfect system but people are having a problem applying it to reality because they are having a hard time understanding it due to their bias. You're telling me you went around asking Si users but the problem with your evidence, is that its anecdotal and your relying on the fact that you may be able to type or the people you asked know how to type. Humans have always been making mistake trying to interpret things, this is no different. Look I understand why you think Si does that, but its wrong, Si doesn't look for a truth in anything. If you want to subscribe to theories outside of the definitions that Jung set, then fine, but I'm specifically arguing the cognitive functions, not theories that others created off of Jung.



> The Introverted Sensation Type
> 
> The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, *which is characterized by certain peculiarities*. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the *extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus.* *Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary*. *What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside.* Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert's characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. *This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects.* Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, *since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.*
> 
> ...


Read everything I just bold with the whole description, it clearly says that introverted sensation is focused on taking in and storing senses that are pleasant to them while pushing against sensations that are unpleasant to them. Jung even describes how close, they are not, to seeing any truth, because all the sensations they stored are subject to changes that the subjective psyche puts onto the objects. Their reality is based and relies upon their perception of the senses they have stored, they have no intentions of peering behind or penetrating truth into reality or objects. Jung makes it clear here, and in other descriptions he also makes it clear. Whether or not you don't subscribe to Jung definitions doesnt change the fact that these are the definitions of the cognitive functions. 

You're right everyone has senses and everyone has sensory memory, but its the introverted sensors that focus and *rely* on "certain peculiarities" that they have stored through their senses. If something is different then "what" they expect, they can become aggressive and domineering because reality doesnt match up with what they have previously stored. Hence why they rely on the comfort of the "certain peculiarities" they have stored through their senses. This "truth" seeking you are describing, is a trait of Ni, not Si. Its not in the definition, it can not be inferred from the definition. One would seriously have to "assume" it into the definition that Si looks for truth to even come to that conclusion and/or be a mistype.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Why does everyone keep using the word "stored" whenever it comes to introverted sensation? Personally I always interpreted it to being an automatic action in which an individual "assesses" the physical object and contorts their own eyes to match the phantasmal effect that only they particularly see. In that sense it is introverted because the direct sensation of the object is abstracted to the self.

I think a fixation on the past is just some sort of mental issue that can happen to anyone for any particular reason. Even if Dr. Jung says it himself, I will not particularly believe that Si is a storing function instead of something that constantly melds, but is reflected back to the ego of the person. This is because I dislike boring things, and I do believe an egoistic Si dominant will not particularly care about the truth of the object. Ultimately they narcissistically subject the world into a fantasy one, no concern for what is right or wrong, just what amuses them specifically. It is nice that someone else outside of myself go that truth.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Sixty Nein said:


> Why does everyone keep using the word "stored" whenever it comes to introverted sensation? Personally I always interpreted it to being an automatic action in which the individual "assesses" the physical object and contorts their own eyes to match the phantasmal effect that only they particularly see. In that sense it is introverted because the direct sensation of the object is abstracted to the self.
> 
> I think a fixation on the past is just some sort of mental issue that can happen to anyone for any particular reason. Even if Dr. Jung says it himself, I will not particularly believe that Si is a storing function instead of something that constantly melds, but is reflected back to the ego of the person. This is because I dislike boring things, and I do believe an egoistic Si dominant will not particularly care about the truth of the object. Ultimately they narcissistically subject the world into a fantasy one, no concern for what is right or wrong, just what amuses them specifically. It is nice that someone else outside of myself go that truth.


I say stored because everything you introvert you don't forget. I dont agree when someone says Si is about memories because all the functions are about memories in some form of another. Fi stores inner values, Ti stores objective information, Si store sensations (as in with the 5 senses) that have "certain peculiarities", Ni stores intuitive perceptions that arise from the priori of the unconscious. While the extraverts seek out, the introverts store in. How you say that the individual contorts their own eyes to match the phantismal effect that only they can particularly see because they assess the object, is a form of storing. The moment you assess an object and adopt your psyche around it, you are reacting to stored information.

The second paragraph I agree with in that all functions have a past attitude in some form of another because of the information they have previously stored. I also agree that Si users dont look for the truth in things, its not how Si processes information.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I'm sorry I disagree, I happen to think that the cognitive functions are a perfect system but people are having a problem applying it to reality because they are having a hard time understanding it due to their bias. You're telling me you went around asking Si users but the problem with your evidence, is that its anecdotal and your relying on the fact that you may be able to type or the people you asked know how to type. Humans have always been making mistake trying to interpret things, this is no different. Look I understand why you think Si does that, but its wrong, Si doesn't look for a truth in anything. If you want to subscribe to theories outside of the definitions that Jung set, then fine, but I'm specifically arguing the cognitive functions, not theories that others created off of Jung.


I guess we'll just have to disagree. I know the Si users I speak to have Si as their doms. I have no doubts about it. The fact that you suggested it's possible for me not to know or for them to not know really only shows my argument. If this were perfect then there would be no questions about it. 

This thread is about statistical accuracy and it has been proven that Jung's model can't be replicated, therefore no statistical information from his model is accurate. It can not be a perfect system if it can't be replicated. If you look at diagnosis of mental illness, it demonstrates how this should work. If a person has schizophrenia there is a test to show it, and every person who tests positive has it. You can't mess with the system. Jung's system is nowhere near such accurate typing. 




> Read everything I just bold with the whole description, it clearly says that introverted sensation is focused on taking in and storing senses that are pleasant to them while pushing against sensations that are unpleasant to them. Jung even describes how close, they are not, to seeing any truth, because all the sensations they stored are subject to changes that the subjective psyche puts onto the objects. Their reality is based and relies upon their perception of the senses they have stored, they have no intentions of peering behind or penetrating truth into reality or objects. Jung makes it clear here, and in other descriptions he also makes it clear. Whether or not you don't subscribe to Jung definitions doesnt change the fact that these are the definitions of the cognitive functions.
> 
> You're right everyone has senses and everyone has sensory memory, but its the introverted sensors that focus and *rely* on "certain peculiarities" that they have stored through their senses. If something is different then "what" they expect, they can become aggressive and domineering because reality doesnt match up with what they have previously stored. Hence why they rely on the comfort of the "certain peculiarities" they have stored through their senses. This "truth" seeking you are describing, is a trait of Ni, not Si. Its not in the definition, it can not be inferred from the definition. One would seriously have to "assume" it into the definition that Si looks for truth to even come to that conclusion and/or be a mistype.


When I ask Si doms if they relate to positive and negative sensory information they look at me like I'm speaking a different language. Since I don't use Si as a top function, I can't relate to it either. So I've asked questions until I get answers that are somewhat consistent. Si doesn't look for conceptual truths, but tangible and real truths. The truth in something working correctly and they do it through their sensory information. 

I realize I don't stick to Jung's descriptions, and I think I've sufficiently explained why I refuse to do so. His system has flaws and if the cognitive functions is going to be a real life application for personality then the descriptions require more distinct details.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I guess we'll just have to disagree. I know the Si users I speak to have Si as their doms. I have no doubts about it. The fact that you suggested it's possible for me not to know or for them to not know really only shows my argument. If this were perfect then there would be no questions about it.
> 
> This thread is about statistical accuracy and it has been proven that Jung's model can't be replicated, therefore no statistical information from his model is accurate. It can not be a perfect system if it can't be replicated. If you look at diagnosis of mental illness, it demonstrates how this should work. If a person has schizophrenia there is a test to show it, and every person who tests positive has it. You can't mess with the system. Jung's system is nowhere near such accurate typing.
> 
> ...


This explains a lot, as a Te user you want the information quantified but the fact exists that we dont have the technological resources, as of right now, to quantify the cognitive functions. One reason could be that people aren't adhering to the definitions that jung portrayed but instead are attaching assumptions to congitive functions because they do not understand the system. 

If you are talking to Si doms who do not relate to the definition of Si, then they are either not Si doms or they are not very aware of themselves. The latter does make sense when comparing it to what Jung said about Si users here: 



> In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and *he usually fares no better in understanding himself. *


I think you are forcing yourself to try to understand the functions but are creating assumptions to understand them. The functions need to be looked at in the context that Jung has provided through definition. If you choose not to adhere to that when discussing Jungian cognitive functions, then I will respect that.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> This explains a lot, as a Te user you want the information quantified but the fact exists that we dont have the technological resources, as of right now, that we have can not quantify the cognitive functions. One reason could be that people aren't adhering to the definitions that jung portrayed but instead are attaching assumptions to congitive functions because theybdo not understand the system.


I'm sure it bothers me because I'm a Te user. However, professionals have tested Jung's theory and haven't come up with reliable results. I don't believe it's because they don't understand the system, but because the system isn't perfected. It is just a theory and one that hasn't shown any indication of being proven correct. 



> If you are talking to Si doms who do not relate to the definition of Si, then they are either not Si doms or that are not very aware of themselves. The latter does make sense when comparing it to what Jung said about Si users here:


Again, I disagree with you. They don't relate because it lacks the details necessary to make it understandable to those who use it. 



> I think you are forcing yourself to try to understand the functions but are creating assumptions to understand them. The functions need to be looked at in the context that Jung has provided through definition. If you choose not to adhere to that when discussing Jungian cognitive functions, then I will respect that.


Actually, I'm intentionally looking at the current descriptions and trying to find out what's wrong with them by going to the users and asking questions. The lack of provability with Jung's theory needs more evaluation. I'm definitely not a Jung "purist" as some here like to say.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm sure it bothers me because I'm a Te user. However, professionals have tested Jung's theory and haven't come up with reliable results. I don't believe it's because they don't understand the system, but because the system isn't perfected. It is just a theory and one that hasn't shown any indication of being proven correct.


There was a time when professionals thought the world was flat and killed others who disproved the theory. There was a time when professionals thought direct current was more efficient then alternating current, and now we know thats wrong. There are theories that are constantly disproven that professionals adhere to. What you are doing is adhering to authority, which is a product of Te, and its a logical fallacy.



> Again, I disagree with you. They don't relate because it lacks the details necessary to make it understandable to those who use it.


We're going to have to agree to disagree, since you already admitted that you dont adhere to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions.



> Actually, I'm *intentionally*looking at the current descriptions and *trying to find out what's wrong with them* by going to the users and asking questions. The lack of provability with Jung's theory needs more evaluation. I'm definitely not a Jung "purist" as some here like to say.


As I said before you already admitted to not adhering to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions. Look at the bold, you just said you are *intentionally trying to find out whats wrong with them*. In order to *intentionally* do anything you must have a subjective response to the information. You, an individual, use an introverted perception as a dominant function, you are intentionally *looking* for anything through your introverted perception. In other words, the moment you intentionally look to disprove something, you close yourself off to completely understanding the nature of the object/event because you are fixated on something you have already decided is there based on what you introvertedly perceive. You'll never understand the system, if you dont try to understand the system for what it is instead of looking for all of these "flaws" that you decided were already there or you introvertedly perceived to be there.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

I have seen a lot of Ns acting as Ss, due to social pressures and the fact that they live in an sensor run society. Plus many Ne types are diagnosed with ADD and given medication which cause them to think more like Ss.
That being said, there is a reason that we live in a S run society (because Ss were always the overwhelming the majority). And even though the S-N ratio may not be as lopsided as some people claim, there is still significantly more Ss.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

alexibaka said:


> I have seen a lot of Ns acting as Ss, due to social pressures and the fact that they live in an sensor run society. Plus many Ne types are diagnosed with ADD and given medication which cause them to think more like Ss.
> That being said, there is a reason that we live in a S run society (because Ss were always the overwhelming the majority). And even though the S-N ratio may not be as lopsided as some people claim, there is still significantly more Ss.


I'm not entirely certain it's true that we live in an S-run society, though.

Most of what people associate with Sensing, might actually be more related to Extraversion. Sensors are often blamed for the more shallow and superficial aspects of culture, for instance... but a lot of times, those traits could actually represent society favoring the interests of Extraverts over Introverts. And this would be due to the fact that Extraverts are more persuasive and are out there getting things done, promoting their own interests, rather than sheer numbers.

I just haven't seen a lot of compelling evidence that our society is run by Sensors. I see more Te than anything else.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> I'm not entirely certain it's true that we live in an S-run society, though.
> 
> Most of what people associate with Sensing, might actually be more related to Extraversion. Sensors are often blamed for the more shallow and superficial aspects of culture, for instance... but a lot of times, those traits could actually represent society favoring the interests of Extraverts over Introverts. And this would be due to the fact that Extraverts are more persuasive and are out there getting things done, promoting their own interests, rather than sheer numbers.
> 
> I just haven't seen a lot of compelling evidence that our society is run by Sensors. I see more Te than anything else.


While its true we live in an extraverted as well as judging society and you have a good point i still think we also live in an S socety. For example, in school the popular kids are the ones who play sports, if it were intuitively run, we would have a bunch of kids analyzing leaves in the playground. Also, the ideal "hollywood" lifestyle includes nice houses, clothes cars and attractive females (all surface objects). Also, if you ask someone which actress they would like to go out with, I doubt they would say (insert actresses name here) because she has the best ideas on dramatic irony... that just doesnt happen.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> Plus many Ne types are diagnosed with ADD and given medication which cause them to think more like Ss


How exactly would ADD medication make one think like a sensor? 

Anyone can have ADD. It does not have to do with cognitive functions.. but rather a cognitive disorder.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

While


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

zazara said:


> How exactly would ADD medication make one think like a sensor?
> 
> Anyone can have ADD. It does not have to do with cognitive functions.. but rather a cognitive disorder.


Generally, drugs that help ADD do so by increasing the amount of dopamine in ones brain. Increasing dopamine(the nt that organizes neurons), also will in turn decrease acetylcholine (the nt that helps neurons speed in the brain). The more acetylcholine one has the faster the brain processes information and therefore can come up with new ideas and the less dopamine and less organization of information means that people need to look at the information they take in spatially, since they can not sufficently view the full picture in full detail. When more dopamine is brought into the process, the acetylcholine goes down... making the new ideas and spatial thinking(Ne) go away. 

Source: Neuroscience


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> Generally, drugs that help ADD do so by increasing the amount of dopamine in ones brain. Increasing dopamine(the nt that organizes neurons), also will in turn decrease acetylcholine (the nt that helps neurons speed in the brain). The more acetylcholine one has the faster the brain processes information and therefore can come up with new ideas and the less dopamine and less organization of information means that people need to look at the information they take in spatially, since they can not sufficently view the full picture in full detail. When more dopamine is brought into the process, the acetylcholine goes down... making the new ideas and spatial thinking(Ne) go away.
> 
> Source: Neuroscience


Less spacial thinking ≠ thinking like a sensor 

It's not like sensing is simply the lack of intuition. They are two different things. I doubt medicine would completely change someone's personality.. perhaps the way they are perceived to be, but not a total rewiring of the brain. 

Also, with the sport/leaves thing you mentioned before, I believe this has to do more with E instead of S. Many sensors don't enjoy sports. Many intuitives like sports. As a kid, I would have been definitely more inclined to look at leaves than participate in a group sport.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

zazara said:


> Less spacial thinking ≠ thinking like a sensor
> 
> It's not like sensing is simply the lack of intuition. They are two different things. I doubt medicine would completely change someone's personality.. perhaps the way they are perceived to be, but not a total rewiring of the brain.
> 
> Also, with the sport/leaves thing you mentioned before, I believe this has to do more with E instead of S. Many sensors don't enjoy sports. Many intuitives like sports. As a kid, I would have been definitely more inclined to look at leaves than participate in a group sport.


If you are familiar with the cognitive functions then yes Spatial thinking is exactly what Extraverted Intuition is. 
And cognitive functions are based on neurotransmitter activity, so technically medication that alters ones functions can alter how they perceive things (this is actually what the medication is for in the first place- to change how people with ADD perceive things and slow down their thought process so they can learn to focus on a certain amount of things at a time). 

Also the sports thing may not be the best example because there is a male/female bias. But still the idea holds true. Let me ask you this- Would you rather have analyzed possible ideas of where the leaves came from, or would you rather analyze the characteristics of the leaves themselves? because I meant previously to analyze the ideas of leaves not the leaves themselves. Heres a better example- in school, would you have rather Drawn art and look at art or analyze how and why people enjoy art? of course the first- thats what they teach


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

alexibaka said:


> For example, in school the popular kids are the ones who play sports, if it were intuitively run, we would have a bunch of kids analyzing leaves in the playground.


Analyzing leaves doesn't sound that Intuitive to me... if I were to imagine kids doing something Intuitive, I would picture them engaging in role play and fantasy, pretending to be characters from a story.

Also, I do know of men who are primarily interested in sports because of the theories behind it. They're focused on trying to predict who will win, which coaches have the best strategy, etc. Intuitives could very well be interested in sports, but for different reasons than Sensors. An Intuitive would look at a baseball game strategically, much as they would a game of chess. Even in the process of playing it, they might try to foresee the implications of every move they make. It's not as though Intuition has nothing to do during a game of sports.





> Also, the ideal "hollywood" lifestyle includes nice houses, clothes cars and attractive females (all surface objects).


Nice houses are definitely more pleasant to live in and entertain company in than bad houses. The quality of construction is generally better, you have more rooms and more options for setting up the rooms to accord with your interests. If you have a nice house, you can have a media room for your favorite science-fiction movies, a video game room, a room dedicated to your family history, or any number of things. You could pay a designer to build something totally unique to suit your tastes, if you wanted. Who _wouldn't_ want to live in a nice house if they had the money laying around?

A person could use their clothes as a form of self-expression to convey a fashion statement, or even a political statement about themselves. That isn't even uncommon. It's not always just about colors or how good it looks to the eye, sometimes clothing can be symbolic or tell people about what's important to you. 

As for cars, a lot of times men are primarily interested in cars as a system... they like figuring out how they work, customizing them, optimizing them, using them in competitions, etc. It's actually fairly similar to what computer nerds do when building or customizing their own computer. It could reflect Thinking just as much as Sensing.



> Also, if you ask someone which actress they would like to go out with, I doubt they would say (insert actresses name here) because she has the best ideas on dramatic irony... that just doesnt happen.


I don't think the tendency to focus on physical attractiveness is a manifestation of their N/S preference. Sexuality is often motivated by instincts that bring out more primitive kinds of behavior. It might SEEM like Sensing, but it's something that happens to people on an unconscious level... deeper than type, in most cases. 

If every man that is focused on a woman's physical attractiveness is a Sensor... then there must be very few male Intuitives. xD


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> Analyzing leaves doesn't sound that Intuitive to me... if I were to imagine kids doing something Intuitive, I would picture them engaging in role play and fantasy, pretending to be characters from a story.
> 
> Also, I do know of men who are primarily interested in sports because of the theories behind it. They're focused on trying to predict who will win, which coaches have the best strategy, etc. Intuitives could very well be interested in sports, but for different reasons than Sensors. An Intuitive would look at a baseball game strategically, much as they would a game of chess. Even in the process of playing it, they might try to foresee the implications of every move they make. It's not as though Intuition has nothing to do during a game of sports.
> 
> ...


While much of what you said is true. The hollywood lifestyle is definitely sensory driven (have you ever watched an episode of entourage), it is not so somebody can have a science fiction room in their house, or at least thats not what society makes the lifestyle out to be. It is about the enjoyment of the Now! Pleasure now, think later.
Plus role playing is not all N based. It is more introverted and perceiver based. And if it is N based, whens the last time youve heard someone say- he is so cool because he role plays dungeons and dragons... never
My point is that society naturally views popularity as sensors, sports players are the popular ones, no one thinks that the sports theorists watching the games are popular.
You do not see newspapers emphasizing peoples new philosophical ideas or the biggest "theorists" but rather the sex objects and celebs. 
And as for the men wanting attractive women... that is true. but that is another proof that people are products of society and want the type of girls that the sensory society wants (the attractive one). Evolutionarily and biologically, personality should matter just as much as attractiveness.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> If you are familiar with the cognitive functions then yes Spatial thinking is exactly what Extraverted Intuition is.
> And cognitive functions are based on neurotransmitter activity, so technically medication that alters ones functions can alter how they perceive things (this is actually what the medication is for in the first place- to change how people with ADD perceive things and slow down their thought process so they can learn to focus on a certain amount of things at a time).
> 
> Also the sports thing may not be the best example because there is a male/female bias. But still the idea holds true. Let me ask you this- Would you rather have analyzed possible ideas of where the leaves came from, or would you rather analyze the characteristics of the leaves themselves? because I meant previously to analyze the ideas of leaves not the leaves themselves. Heres a better example- in school, would you have rather Drawn art and look at art or analyze how and why people enjoy art? of course the first- thats what they teach


So it slows down their function.. they could still be dominant in it either way. 

Gender has nothing to do with it. It's the idea of being outgoing and expressive. Introverts take things in rather than express outwardly. Now anyone can enjoy sports anyway so yeah, it's not a great example to go with on this.

Neither. Everyone knows where leaves come from.. and I've never heard of a kid who "analyzes characteristics" of things. I would probably collect the ones with interesting shapes for fun. Actually, I'd rather be staring at the clouds and trying to figure out and imagine what they look like. Clouds look much more interesting than leaves. .. well, that doesn't matter. 


The "hollywood lifestyle" is more of a business than an actual lifestyle. It's all too fake to me. Everyone's trying to sell you something. Being shallow does not mean being a sensor. Judging society as a whole by what the media portrays is like.. judging birds by Big Bird on Sesame St.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

zazara said:


> So it slows down their function.. they could still be dominant in it either way.
> 
> Gender has nothing to do with it. It's the idea of being outgoing and expressive. Introverts take things in rather than express outwardly. Now anyone can enjoy sports anyway so yeah, it's not a great example to go with on this.
> 
> ...


Looking at the shapes of leaves (tangible characteristics) is an example of sensory analysis. Intuitive analysis would be wonderign where the leaves came from and why are they needed for the trees (When I was a kid, I did this all the time)

And what better way to judge society then by its institutions structures and what the media portrays... How else would you judge it by


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

alexibaka said:


> While much of what you said is true. The hollywood lifestyle is definitely sensory driven (have you ever watched an episode of entourage), it is not so somebody can have a science fiction room in their house, or at least thats not what society makes the lifestyle out to be. It is about the enjoyment of the Now! Pleasure now, think later.


You're telling me that one movie defines an entire lifestyle? I don't know if I buy that.

"Enjoyment of the now," sounds like a Perceiver thing, not a Sensor thing.

Science Fiction isn't as niche as you seem to think... you DO know that Star Wars is one of the most popular movies ever, right? The Star Trek movies don't do that badly either.



> Plus role playing is not all N based. It is more introverted and perceiver based. And if it is N based, whens the last time youve heard someone say- he is so cool because he role plays dungeons and dragons... never


It's better than your example, and D&D is disliked because it involves a ton of MATH. There are so many little details to keep track of, so many things to calculate. I don't think D&D is the end all, be all of roleplaying. It has little to do with the game being "too N."

But anyway, we've both rejected each other's examples here.



> My point is that society naturally views popularity as sensors, sports players are the popular ones, no one thinks that the sports theorists watching the games are popular.


Plenty of the players may very well be looking for patterns and trying to predict what their opponents will do, studying their past games before going against them. I wasn't talking about someone who JUST theorizes about sports. 



> You do not see newspapers emphasizing peoples new philosophical ideas or the biggest "theorists" but rather the sex objects and celebs.


Why does Intuition now mean philosophical ideas and theorists? A lot of the stuff you keep pointing towards seems more like Ti than any kind of Intuition.


> And as for the men wanting attractive women... that is true. but that is another proof that people are products of society and want the type of girls that the sensory society wants (the attractive one). Evolutionarily and biologically, personality should matter just as much as attractiveness.


You're reaching a bit there... evolutionarily, appearances were used to pick a more fit mate. Ideally, personality should matter just as much... but I'm not certain that it's primarily society's fault that it doesn't.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I'm not entirely certain it's true that we live in an S-run society, though.
> 
> Most of what people associate with Sensing, might actually be more related to Extraversion. Sensors are often blamed for the more shallow and superficial aspects of culture, for instance... but a lot of times, those traits could actually represent society favoring the interests of Extraverts over Introverts. And this would be due to the fact that Extraverts are more persuasive and are out there getting things done, promoting their own interests, rather than sheer numbers.
> 
> I just haven't seen a lot of compelling evidence that our society is run by Sensors. I see more Te than anything else.


It's an interesting discussion. There is a division of power among who "runs" society. I would say say that S dominates law enforcement, military, and that part of the executive branch. 

But sensing is appropriate for these kind of things. It is appropriate for teaching too. I brought up in another thread that Christianity is more successful than Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, because Christianity is more communicable. Extroversion and sensation are more communicable. They are less abstract. Christianity created a very concrete exterior psychology. Extroverts are better at navigating the world and communicating their ideas to it. 

The world needs to be maintained by sensing.. those are the people that actually make the world work. The people who pay attention to detail, and fix things. I've seen some introvert intuitive referred to as "excessive basement dwellers" on here. They are just modern versions of "superfluous men". Privileged, arrogant guys who are generally smarter than average, but have accomplished nothing, because they are misguided and frustrated dreamers. You had to be a man of privilege to be a superfluous man in the old days, like Tolstoy. The rest were condemned to the boring life of maintaining the world. Of production. Now the world is full of superfluous men, and they are particularly heavy on the internet. So I think that our society allows, and therefore produces more "superfluous" people. In other words, our society tolerates them more now.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

delphi367 said:


> You're telling me that one movie defines an entire lifestyle? I don't know if I buy that.
> 
> "Enjoyment of the now," sounds like a Perceiver thing, not a Sensor thing.
> 
> ...



Haha, Star Wars. yes star wars is popular but Im not sure if that is all N based...Star wars has many interesting details to it (Sensory), and the storyline is also very good and interesting (all human beings like good stories). Plus plenty of STs i know love scifi. I would say that there is an equal amount of Ss and Ns who enjoy scifi, though they like it for different reasons.

The tendency to think of new ideas on a spatial level is EXACTLY what Extraverted intuition means. Ti means to analyze things and their properties. Nevertheless the media is definitely more detail oriented than it is concept oriented(which is what N means).

I think our disagreements stem from our different ideas of intuition. You must have introverted intuition whereas I have extraverted intuiton. 
I have seen a lot of Nis think that Ne functions like Ni which it definitely does not. 

haha as for the dungeons and dragons example, I was just using that bc I saw it in an episode of freaks and geeks, I really dont like Scifi or role playing at all (and Im a very strong N). I was just building off the example given.


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

I like your stance on this, I mean if more people tested out and are truthful with themselves when taking the test i am sure results would be more accurate, even if it hurts to admit the truth i find its best to be honest with yourself so if people are answering these questions and not being truthful to who they are it's kind of cheating yourself in a way ...... thank you for the interesting view point on the matter though


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> There was a time when professionals thought the world was flat and killed others who disproved the theory. There was a time when professionals thought direct current was more efficient then alternating current, and now we know thats wrong. There are theories that are constantly disproven that professionals adhere to. What you are doing is adhering to authority, which is a product of Te, and its a logical fallacy.


I think you missed my point. You tried to imply that I didn't understand the theory so I was wrong. My point was that professionals have evaluated the theory, tested it, and have proven it isn't reliable. It wasn't my personal opinion, but indeed a fact. If I were adhering to authority then I would cling to Jung's theory regardless of all it's obvious flaws. 



> We're going to have to agree to disagree, since you already admitted that you dont adhere to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions.


That's fine with me. 



> As I said before you already admitted to not adhering to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions. Look at the bold, you just said you are *intentionally trying to find out whats wrong with them*. In order to *intentionally* do anything you must have a subjective response to the information. You, an individual, use an introverted perception as a dominant function, you are intentionally *looking* for anything through your introverted perception. In other words, the moment you intentionally look to disprove something, you close yourself off to completely understanding the nature of the object/event because you are fixated on something you have already decided is there based on what you introvertedly perceive. You'll never understand the system, if you dont try to understand the system for what it is instead of looking for all of these "flaws" that you decided were already there or you introvertedly perceived to be there.


The only reason I have closed off the possibility of Jung being correct is because he wasn't completely correct. Yes, he came up with a theory with amazing potential, but it wasn't perfect. There *is* something wrong with his conclusions. If not then we could type everyone with certainty and have no ambiguity about it. I'm not sure what it is about this system that attracts Ti users, but you guys are this systems biggest supporters.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I think you missed my point. You tried to imply that I didn't understand the theory so I was wrong. My point was that professionals have evaluated the theory, tested it, and have proven it isn't reliable. It wasn't my personal opinion, but indeed a fact. If I were adhering to authority then I would cling to Jung's theory regardless of all it's obvious flaws.


I completely understood right the first time. You're saying that "professionals" dont agree with it because they have tried to quanitfy it therefore you see it as having flaws. The "fact" that you base your premise off of the work of "professionals" and not logic is the reason why its an appeal to authority, which like I said, is a logical fallacy.



> The only reason I have closed off the possibility of Jung being correct is because he wasn't completely correct. Yes, he came up with a theory with amazing potential, but it wasn't perfect. There *is* something wrong with his conclusions. If not then we could type everyone with certainty and have no ambiguity about it. I'm not sure what it is about this system that attracts Ti users, but you guys are this systems biggest supporters.


Its quite obvious why Ti users are the systems biggest supporters, its because Ti users are based around understanding systems for what they are, and not for some assumptions. A Ti user will mentally see how the whole system logically fits, hence why the Ti users will say for the most part, its logically consistent. Some Ti users dont agree with the system though, but for the most part Ti users are fans of the system because we understand the system due to our functions adept skill at analyzing systems. Like I said you aren't focused on studying the system because you perceive a flaw/s that aren't there but only exist because you're intentionally looking for it. Your "flaws" in the system is based around the premise that the professionals "must" know what they are doing, and since they "must" and they agree its flawed, then its flawed. That is a Te approach, which doesnt' suprise me because INTJs arent focused on understanding systems but instead fixing systems they perceive as wrong. That doesn't mean that what an INTJ perceives as wrong, is essentially wrong, instead they could be wrong about their thoughts on how wrong they think they system is because they do not have Ti which is a function that relies on understanding systems.

At least you have admitted you have closed off the possibility of Jungs definitions of the functions being logically consistent, it lets me know that you have been debating your point from a biased view since you closed off possibilities that are logically consistent. Just because you can't quantify answers doesn't mean the answers are wrong. If the answers are logically consistent, then they exist just as the idea of math exists, we just dont have all the tools to quantify everything yet. Hence why we progress and learn more and dont have all the answers now but you're looking for something wrong because you have the preconceived notion that "there is something wrong with his conclusions" all because of some faulty logic of not being able to quantify it due to "professionals" interpreting wrong and lack of tools.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I completely understood right the first time. You're saying that "professionals" dont agree with it because they have tried to quanitfy it therefore you see it as having flaws. The "fact" that you base your premise off of the work of "professionals" and not logic is the reason why its an appeal to authority, which like I said, is a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you want to strictly follow jung's function model and definitions, you should also know he believed a person's functions could only go IIEE (introvert) or EEII (extrovert)
so according to jung, it wouldn't be possible for someone to have Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. if they were an extrovert, they would have to have Ne-Te-Fi-Si 

if you don't choose to believe this, then you yourself are only accepting part of the theory and admitting it's flawed


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I completely understood right the first time. You're saying that "professionals" dont agree with it because they have tried to quanitfy it therefore you see it as having flaws. The "fact" that you base your premise off of the work of "professionals" and not logic is the reason why its an appeal to authority, which like I said, is a logical fallacy.


The only way to prove that Jung's theory is indeed perfect, as you claim, is to have consistent and reliable test results. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Psychiatrists won't use his system because it isn't conclusive. They will use the tests to determine mental disorders though, because they are consistent and reliable. Maybe you believe it's all group-think and they refuse it for some personal reasons. I don't know. However, until the system has consistent results it's not going to have any impact with the people who could make it known and worthwhile. I have been doing a lot of reading about it, and I don't think his definitions are correct based on my real world observations. I'm not trying to convince you of this, I'm just stating my opinions. I believe it's flawed because of all the mistyping, lack of evidence, and imprecise definitions. I doubt we'll ever agree about this. I want to fix something you think is perfect. There isn't much wiggle room for agreement here, which is fine. 



> Its quite obvious why Ti users are the systems biggest supporters, its because Ti users are based around understanding systems for what they are, and not for some assumptions. A Ti user will mentally see how the whole system logically fits, hence why the Ti users will say for the most part, its logically consistent. Some Ti users dont agree with the system though, but for the most part Ti users are fans of the system because we understand the system due to our functions adept skill at analyzing systems. Like I said you aren't focused on studying the system because you perceive a flaw/s that aren't there but only exist because you're intentionally looking for it. Your "flaws" in the system is based around the premise that the professionals "must" know what they are doing, and since they "must" and they agree its flawed, then its flawed. That is a Te approach, which doesnt' suprise me because INTJs arent focused on understanding systems but instead fixing systems they perceive as wrong. That doesn't mean that what an INTJ perceives as wrong, is essentially wrong, instead they could be wrong about their thoughts on how wrong they think they system is because they do not have Ti which is a function that relies on understanding systems.
> 
> At least you have admitted you have closed off the possibility of Jungs definitions of the functions being logically consistent, it lets me know that you have been debating your point from a biased view since you closed off possibilities that are logically consistent. Just because you can't quantify answers doesn't mean the answers are wrong. If the answers are logically consistent, then they exist just as the idea of math exists, we just dont have all the tools to quantify everything yet. Hence why we progress and learn more and dont have all the answers now but you're looking for something wrong because you have the preconceived notion that "there is something wrong with his conclusions" all because of some faulty logic of not being able to quantify it due to "professionals" interpreting wrong and lack of tools.


You don't really have anything to go on besides your opinion that his system is logically consistent. Your mind projection on reality doesn't prove reality. Just because you think the system isn't flawed doesn't prove it isn't flawed. I don't trust your "system" building in this case, seeings how there is no evidence to support it. I'm not sure what you mean by professionals interpreting it wrong or a lack of tools. They took his theory and tested it, which resulted in inconclusive outcomes. They use other tests that are more reliable. If they had no way to test personality then they wouldn't be using any system currently, but they do have a system in place. 

I'm not completely closed off to Jung's system, however I have moved on from it because I've concluded it is not correct. It's good, don't get me wrong, it's just not completely accurate. If something comes from his systems that shows the past tests were done incorrectly then I would reconsider my position. I just highly doubt that would happen.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I thought I'd posted in this thread before... apparently not.

Social pressure is certainly an important factor, and people's ideas of who they are frequently don't match up with reality. The high N presence on this site is probably motivated by the same sorts of things - the difference inhering in the different values of the communities people seek to fit into when determining their type. It's certainly possible that the data is highly influenced by societal values; I'm surprised how many posters in this thread find the possibility so unlikely.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Again, I disagree with you. They don't relate because it lacks the details necessary to make it understandable to those who use it.


Can I ask if your idea of a perfect system is one that is able to account for human error and avert any potential misunderstandings?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

idoh said:


> if you want to strictly follow jung's function model and definitions, you should also know he believed a person's functions could only go IIEE (introvert) or EEII (extrovert)
> so according to jung, it wouldn't be possible for someone to have Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. if they were an extrovert, they would have to have Ne-Te-Fi-Si
> 
> if you don't choose to believe this, then you yourself are only accepting part of the theory and admitting it's flawed


Jung clearly never said that in any way. Actually Jung says that whenever a function is in the dominant position, its opposing function would be repressed the most. So if you are dominant Ne then you are inferior Si. He then goes onto say that all the other functions after the dom are part of the unconscious in some form or another, meaning they are too repressed but not as much as the opposing function of the dom. Therefore for an Ne dom, they must have Si inferior, and the other two functions must be in between the Ne and Si. He never once said that extraverts have two extraverted functions back to back or that an extraverted function feeds through another extraverted function. The only people who ever assumed such were myers and briggs, because they somehow assumed (like all other types who arent equipped to analyze systems for what they are) that anything after the Dom function is immeditaley directed in the opposite attitude which that also was wrong. 

I love how people make up these claims based on false premises and lack of translating Jungs definitions into precise words. The only type that would have Ne-Te-Fi-Si would be an ENFP who believes they are using their thinking function more dominantly than their feeling function. Other than that, that type you presented doesnt exist and Jung never once presented such an idea. Therefore his system still stands and is logically consistent, I adhere to that, not to the false assumptions people pull out from their flawed translations.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> Looking at the shapes of leaves (tangible characteristics) is an example of sensory analysis. Intuitive analysis would be wonderign where the leaves came from and why are they needed for the trees (When I was a kid, I did this all the time)
> 
> And what better way to judge society then by its institutions structures and what the media portrays... How else would you judge it by


Everyone uses sensory analysis and intuitive analysis. We have eyes that see shapes and minds that wonder. Children are curious. Of course the thought must have crossed my mind at some point when I was a kid. It's only natural. How can you tell if a child also wonders where the leaves came from? We are not mind readers so we will never know for sure. Judging by whether they physically draw something or not isn't reliable evidence to say that there are more sensors than intuitives based on that.. because we all perceive things, see the world, and do stuff. If none of us used our senses, we might as well be vegetables. 

Now, it is not better to judge it by the media because they show you what they want you to see. The media is run by big names. Institutions are run by the government. Things are not as they seem. I would think it would be better to judge by those you know personally rather than on the screen and how the way they live.. and even then, you will never know what they are truly thinking on the inside. It's all in how you personally conceive it to be in your own mind.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Jung clearly never said that in any way. Actually Jung says that whenever a function is in the dominant position, its opposing function would be repressed the most. So if you are dominant Ne then you are inferior Si. He then goes onto say that all the other functions after the dom are part of the unconscious in some form or another, meaning they are too repressed but not as much as the opposing function of the dom. Therefore for an Ne dom, they must have Si inferior, and the other two functions must be in between the Ne and Si. He never once said that extraverts have two extraverted functions back to back or that an extraverted function feeds through another extraverted function. The only people who ever assumed such were myers and briggs, because they somehow assumed (like all other types who arent equipped to analyze systems for what they are) that anything after the Dom function is immeditaley directed in the opposite attitude which that also was wrong.
> 
> I love how people make up these claims based on false premises and lack of translating Jungs definitions into precise words. The only type that would have Ne-Te-Fi-Si would be an ENFP who believes they are using their thinking function more dominantly than their feeling function. Other than that, that type you presented doesnt exist and Jung never once presented such an idea. Therefore his system still stands and is logically consistent, I adhere to that, not to the false assumptions people pull out from their flawed translations.


Where does he describe the AxByCxDy function order?

Also, Myers and Briggs did not assume as such. They describe the function layout as AxByCyDy. Because of quotes like this:



Jung said:


> _The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)_





Jung said:


> When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion. (1923, p. 426)


From my understanding, he explains that there is a conscious attitude oriented either by extraversion or introversion and the unconscious attitude would thus be characterized by the opposite. He then describes what he each function looks like in a given attitude. Finally, he explains that there are two conscious and two unconscious functions. My inference here is that the conscious functions would be oriented by the conscious attitude and the unconscious functions would be characterized by the unconscious attitude.

@_Kathy Kane_

To be fair, Jung thought that the functions were not measurable by scientific method.



Jung said:


> *Au fond, the attitude is an individual phenomenon and is inaccessible to the scientific method of approach.* In actual experience, however, certain attitude-types can be discriminated in so far as certain psychic functions can also be differentiated. When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is thereby produced. In accordance with the nature of the differentiated function, constellations of contents take place which create a corresponding attitude. Thus there exist a typical thinking, a feeling, a sensational, and an intuitive attitude. Besides these purely psychological attitude-types, whose number might possibly be increased, there are also social types, namely, those for whom a collective idea expresses the brand. They are characterized by the various '-isms'. These collective attitudes are, at all events, very important in certain cases, even outweighing in significance the purely individual attitude.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Everyone uses sensory analysis and intuitive analysis. We have eyes that see shapes and minds that wonder. Children are curious. Of course the thought must have crossed my mind at some point when I was a kid. It's only natural. How can you tell if a child also wonders where the leaves came from? We are not mind readers so we will never know for sure. Judging by whether they physically draw something or not isn't reliable evidence to say that there are more sensors than intuitives based on that.. because we all perceive things, see the world, and do stuff. If none of us used our senses, we might as well be vegetables.












For some reason, your post makes me think of this. xD


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Khiro said:


> Can I ask if your idea of a perfect system is one that is able to account for human error and avert any potential misunderstandings?


I don't know if there is a "perfect" system. I would think if this theory has real merit then there are ways to include fail safe methods. I do know that currently it's so ambiguous that some people can't even tell if they are extroverted or introverted. It's a big problem.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Where does he describe the AxByCxDy function order?


He gives the order clearly at the end of "Psychological Types", The section that goes over "11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions". Right here to be precise actually: 



> 11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions
> 
> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. *Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a relatively determining factor*.
> 
> ...





> Also, Myers and Briggs did not assume as such. They describe the function layout as AxByCyDy. Because of quotes like this:


Actually she did assume, as I just proved above. Jung made sure to clearly distinguish how the functions were ordered, and even going on to say that every conscious functions is paired with an unconscious function that is in every respect different but no opposed to. Therefore only Ne-Ti-Fe-Si can exist while Ne-Fe-Ti-Si can not exists, its the logical relationship between the functions. Everything I have bold is what Jung himself explained, but somehow people are getting it wrong, when Jung already described what is. 

It only makes sense because Jung already said that whenever a function is dominant then its opposing function will be the most repressed, and you cant have an extraverted function feed into another extraverted function so therefore the auxiliary has to be an introverted function to balance the extraverted dom, and the introverted auxiliary function cant be the opposing function of the dominant function. After you follow the logical premises you are only left with the functions that are different, in all respects, to the dominant function but not of which is an opposition to the dominant function. The function order organizes itself through the logic of the system.

To be honest I really believe a lot of people are cherry picking parts and pieces of what Jung says but discarding everything else he is saying. If you want to understand the system, understand the logic of the system through the definitions, He defines them clearly, but this isnt religion so stop cherry picking certain things when this is a wholistic system that can only be understand with a wholistic model.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> He gives the order clearly at the end of "Psychological Types", The section that goes over "11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions". Right here to be precise actually:


It is not written _*clearly* _as such. You are assuming that a function looks like Ax rather than just A. This is another assumption that Myers also made.



> Actually she did assume, as I just proved above. Jung made sure to clearly distinguish how the functions were ordered, and even going on to say that every conscious functions is paired with an unconscious function that is in every respect different but no opposed to. Therefore only Ne-Ti-Fe-Si can exist while Ne-Fe-Ti-Si can not exists, its the logical relationship between the functions. Everything I have bold is what Jung himself explained, but somehow people are getting it wrong, when Jung already described what is.


Yes, Myers did make an assumption, but you've implied the wrong assumption. She assumed AxByCyDy not AxBxCyDy. That was the factual error on your part.



> It only makes sense because Jung already said that whenever a function is dominant then its opposing function will be the most repressed, and *you cant have an extraverted function feed into another extraverted function* so therefore the auxiliary has to be an introverted function to balance the extraverted dom, and the introverted auxiliary function cant be the opposing function of the dominant function. After you follow the logical premises you are only left with the functions that are different, in all respects, to the dominant function but not of which is an opposition to the dominant function. The function order organizes itself through the logic of the system.


Why can't an extraverted function feed into another extraverted function?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> It is not written _*clearly* _as such. You are assuming that a function looks like Ax rather than just A. This is another assumption that Myers also made.
> 
> Yes, Myers did make an assumption, but you've implied the wrong assumption. She assumed AxByCyDy not AxBxCyDy. That was the factual error on your part.


*"For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." *

That is not an assumption, thats a fact from Jung about the system he discovered. 

*"Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. "*

This is also is not an assumption but instead another fact from Jung about the system he discovered. So now we know that the auxiliary function has to be different in all respects (from first bold) but it can not be opposed to the main function. How are you not seeing it, it is clear, there are no assumptions when he the discoverer of the functions, the definer of the functions and the system itself is clearly saying it. Its right at the end of Psychological types are you purposely not reading what he is saying or just discarding essential information. If you choose not to adhere to actual facts presented then I will respect that but dont claim they are assumptions when they are clearly not and instead are clearly said in definition what they are by Jung himself.

@PaladinX, Jung already described why an extraverted function cant have an extraverted function as its second in the first bold. The nature of the auxiliary function is in every right different than the nature of the main function. What composes the nature of any function is its, direction (extraverted vs introverted) and its attitude (perception vs judging). If you have an Introverted perceiving function then by definition your auxiliary has to be one of the two extraverted judging functions.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

PaladinX said:


> She assumed AxByCyDy not AxBxCyDy. That was the factual error on your part.


Wait, I never heard of either of those systems. 

Does that mean that under that particular system...

INFJ would be Ni-Fe-Te-Se, while INTJ would be Ni-Te-Fe-Se?

Because if it works like that, then it makes all the types with the same dominant function far more similar to one another than is currently thought.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> *"For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." *
> 
> That is not an assumption, thats a fact from Jung about the system he discovered.
> 
> ...





Myers said:


> Jung's only allusions to this fact are cryptically brief. As a result, almost all his followers except van der Hoop seem to miss the principle involved. They assume that the two most developed processes are used in the favorite sphere (both extraverted or both introverted and that the other sphere is left to the mercy of the two inferior processes. Jung writes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A response I made to this previously:



> While the logic here is technically valid, the fundamental flaw is that there is an assumption that each function has an attitude property. I believe this assumption to be based on the preceding sections when using terms such as "Introverted Thinking". There is an assumption being drawn that "Introverted Thinking" is the "function" rather than just "Thinking." However, never once does Jung indicate an attachment or property of attitude to a function in this particular section of the book. He always refers to the function as "Thinking" and not "Introverted Thinking."
> 
> The significance of this distinction is such that if the "function" being referred to in the quote is "Thinking," rather than "Introverted Thinking," then the phrase "differs ... in every respect" refers to the auxiliary function as being "Sensation" rather than "Extraverted Sensation," since Introversion and Extraversion are not actually being considered as properties of the Thinking and Sensation functions.



You are making the same argument that Myers does. My problem with this argument is that you and she are assuming that the attitude is simply a characteristic of the function. This is an inference that you both are making, not something that is clearly stated. Logically speaking, why is it necessarily true that in this context, the attitude is an implied characteristic of a function rather than as a separate phenomenon?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Wait, I never heard of either of those systems.
> 
> Does that mean that under that particular system...
> 
> ...


Yes, according to Myers and the official MBTI (not the folk psychology version of what the community calls MBTI). I personally disagree with that interpretation as well. I made an argument to Myers here:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...iary-balancing-extraversion-introversion.html


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> A response I made to this previously:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you are not realizing is that there are no assumptions. If I talk to you about a rock, then we are talking about the nature of the rock, thats not an assumption, thats a fact. We are talking about cognitive functions so therefore we are talking about the nature of cognitive functions. The moment Jung defined the functions and gave them different attitudes/directions he defined a static characteristic, therefore its part of the nature of cognitive functions. These aren't assumptions, and I'm not sure how you are having such a hard time seeing that, to be quite frank. If you have an introverted perceptive function as a dom then you can only have a function that is completely different in all respects to its nature, therefore it cant be perceptive nor can it be an extraverted function. Jung said it, he said it clearly.
@PaladinX, I actually was right about myers the first time also, this is what I said:



> The only people who ever assumed such were myers and briggs, because they somehow assumed (like all other types who arent equipped to analyze systems for what they are)* that anything after the Dom function is immeditaley directed in the opposite attitude which that also was wrong.*


I never said what you thought I said:



> She assumed AxByCyDy *not AxBxCyDy*.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> What you are not realizing is that there are no assumptions. If I talk to you about a rock, then we are talking about the nature of the rock, thats not an assumption, thats a fact. We are talking about cognitive functions so therefore we are talking about the nature of cognitive functions. The moment Jung defined the functions and gave them different attitudes/directions he defined a static characteristic, therefore its part of the nature of cognitive functions. These aren't assumptions, and I'm not sure how you are having such a hard time seeing that, to be quite frank. If you have an introverted perceptive function as a dom then you can only have a function that is completely different in all respects to its nature, therefore it cant be perceptive nor can it be an extraverted function. Jung said it, he said it clearly.


Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise we are repeating ourselves. 

@_Shadow Logic_

My apologies. I misinterpreted the statement you made about Myers.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise we are repeating ourselves.


Ill respect your decision to do so, but I do suggest you go and reread all of psychological types and put it all into one huge context that is relative to the sums of all its parts, because the function orders are put there and to understand the system in its complete form you have to understand it from Jungs point of view and not the one you are conceiving to understand, which means adhering to his definitions and logic. Ill leave it alone from here on and respect the decision to agree to disagree.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> @_Kathy Kane_
> 
> To be fair, Jung thought that the functions were not measurable by scientific method.


Psychology is considered a soft science even though there are strict testing involved. So I wouldn't expect the scientific method to be used to determine personality types. However, as it is there isn't a well structured method to give better results. Ideally it would be as rigorous as the scientific method, but I would never expect that to be achieved with personality. I'd be happy with consistent definitions that actually stayed true to the functions. I don't think Jung achieved that, though he gave us a theory that I think is capable of showing consistent results.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> @_arkigos_ what are your stats based on? Anyway, based on this forum I think xNTP is by far the most common type I've run into, given my own biased propensity to hang out more in the cognitive type and socionics forum. I also definitely notice a higher degree of Ne types here on PerC over Ni, but the by far largest category is not N or S but F, specifically being Fe. Makes sense, as I think there is a part of the way fora operate that may draw Fe types in, but just as a curious thing I think is worth mentioning. I've been keeping stats of PerC for a while on the side now, though very lazily so.


I agree that, at least in the parts of the forum that I frequent, there are a lot of NTPs and INFJs... but, also a lot of INTJs. 

I am highly suspicious of the number of INFPs on this forum, and I think many are mistyped. As a not-necessarily-useful anecdote, I know several xNFPs who wouldn't be caught dead on this forum, mainly because what they imagine as a bedlam of ceaseless debate triggers their inferior Te and they preemptively blow it off. Notably, it has been the xNFPs who have questioned my time spent on this forum, incredulous that I would subject myself to such nonsense. I think of Mike (NFGeeks) in this context, and how neurotically impatient and dismissive he is of such endless contention. This strikes me as low order Te, but particularly of low order Si/Te or Te/Si. It appears that xSFPs are more open to it, simply because it promises content? 

Moral of the story: I have a creeping suspicion that the high number of INFP on this forum is specifically inflated and incorrect... perhaps dramatically so.

My stats are just whatever I could find on the internet. I had a citation list, but I don't know where it is. My criteria for a poll is that it can't be one that is sought out on the internet and done without prompting... er, yes, any poll done specifically by those interested enough to seek it out is going to be bogus. Mostly, I used CAPT studies... though some weren't. I will round them up again and maybe just maybe do a post on it. 



alexibaka said:


> The tendency to think of new ideas on a spatial level is EXACTLY what Extraverted intuition means.


How and why is Ne spatial? I am very adept at spatial thinking, but my wife, an ENFP, is absolutely inept at spatial thinking. This somewhat bolsters my assumption that this is either unrelated to type, or more oriented to T and S? I'd expect, for example, an ISTP to be very naturally inclined to spatial thinking. Am I misunderstanding you?

I'd like to discuss your ideas on cognitive functions. By that I mean I'd like to correct them, but hope I might learn something interesting in the process. 

@_PaladinX_, @_Shadow Logic_ - 

Either Jung meant to say AxByCxDy or he was wrong. I have no issue whatsoever with calling Jung wrong. In fact, I am terrified of the idea that we might not be willing to do so. Obviously, we should not do so lightly, and we bear the burden of proving ourselves as to why, lest we make fools of ourselves using GPS to disprove Relativity. 

Jung was anything but clear on the subject, personal interpretation aside. I could easily read those paragraphs as meaning AxByCxDy, or as not including Attitude and simply stating that functions mirror/suppress their opposites. I am inclined to say that he meant the former, though if he did, he might have been more clear in doing so. Was he purposeful or scatter-brained? If he was an INTP, I'd go with the latter. I get a constant 'get what I mean, not what I say' vibe from his writing. Logically and intuitively, I think what he MEANT must be AxByCxDy. Whatever, who knows. We have to take it as it is and figure it out without him. To me, the answer is clear. Both my observation and every ounce of logic says that it must be AxByCxDy. 

Under this purported model, I'd be Ti Ni Se Fi? Right? Or Ti Si Ne Fe?

As to the first: No way, obviously. Not remotely an Ni. My intuition is objective and highly extraverted. This could not be more clear. As to the second: You'd have to bend the system pretty far to put INTPs such as myself as auxiliary Si. 

No, no, why am I even doing this? It makes no sense. There are acres and acres of reasoning, evidence, anecdote to support the opposite. More notably, there is nothing of any significance arguing for the other side, other than a murky interpretation of Jung. No. Prove it on its own merit or forget it. An interpretation (rather, a rejection of an interpretation) of Jung can't salvage this figurative X-wing from this allegorical bog. Can you make it stand on its own merit? If so, I'd be interested.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_arkigos_

For me, I wish to understand the system from Jung's perspective. Whether his is correct or not is secondary. I hold many perspectives and can argue from each of them. I don't think that AxByCxDy is necessarily false, but I also don't think there's enough evidence to support that it is necessarily true either. I am also open to AxByCyDy, AxBxCyDy, and Ax + B | C + Dy. To me it would be boring to argue from the popular perspective. I like to play devil's advocate and argue from other viewpoints.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

arkigos said:


> Under this purported model, I'd be Ti Ni Se Fi? Right? Or Ti Si Ne Fe?


As far as I can tell? You'd actually be Ti Ne Se Fe under the other model they were discussing.

There is another proposed model claiming that INTP can be Ti Ni Se Fe, saying that both main functions are introverted. But that's a different model altogether.

Ti Si Ne Fe is either an INTP in a dom-tert loop, or an ISTP... depending on how you choose to interpret it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@arkigos, in order to prove anything on its merit you have to adhere to the logic that the definitions display. If you are willing to do that then I am willing to prove the logical validity on Jungs system in all of its nature. We can either do this here or we can do it through Pm, I can care less either way, But I will start here with the ways the functions are ordered:

Jung talking about Unconscious Attitudes (Introverted Functions):



> *The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness involves an inferiority of the objective factor.* The object is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introverted. To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjectified, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable.


Jung declares that if an Introverted function is in a superior position then in the inferior position there will be an objective function. Meaning that on a scale of polar opposites it would be Xi-Ye, an example would be Ni-Se. 

What Jung Says before discussing the types:


> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, *and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted*. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a *certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life*. The* former I would term general attitude types*, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the *latter I would call function-types.*


Jung presents the *fact* that functions are either introverted/extraverted, and perceptive/judgement, and declares them as characterizations of functions, meaning that they are inherent in the nature of functions. This means that they are static characteristics of the functions. 

So now we know when Jung talks about the nature of the auxiliary being, in all respects, different but not opposed to the dominant function as it does here:



> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.


We now know he is including *all* the characteristics of the function because of the fact that he uses "in all respects" to *specifically* claim that the nature of the two functions, in every conceiveable way, must be different which includes the characteristics of Introversion/extraversion and Perceptive/Judgement.

So not only must the nature of a main function be in complete opposition of its inferior (Ie. Intuition-Sensation), we also know
that the nature of the auxiliary must not be opposed, but at the same time be completely different in every respect to the nature of the main function. Therefore the Auxiliary of an intuitive dom can not be a sensation function which Jung clarifies here using thinking and feeling for examples instead of intuition and sensation:



> Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. *For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking*. *Thinking, if it is to be real thinking* and true to its own principle, *must* scrupulously *exclude feeling*.


So far if we are given only three functions which include a Dominant, an Auxiliary, and an Inferior we now know using the *facts* of the system Jung discovered, that the Auxiliary at the least must not be opposed to its dominant and has to be different in all respects, while the inferior must not only be different in all respects but must include the factor of being the opposition of the main function. So it can either look like this Ax-By-Dy or Ay-Bx-Dx, thats only if we are excluding the tertiary for demonstration purposes. 

Now if we use all the logic given to us and apply it to the tertiary then we know that the tertiary must not only be opposing to the auxiliary but must also be different in all respects to the main function, meaning it would also be different in all respects to the inferior function. If you flipped the functions around, the logic still applies and nothing gets messed with. This is how you take facts and organize them to see if its logically impossible or not. Jungs framework (ordering) of the system is logically consistent and extremely precise, hence why there are no flaws in the logic of the framework of the system or Jungs, clearly set "facts" of, how the framework of the system works. If you choose to cherry pick and be consumed by the bias and logical fallacies your own mind produces then you will not see how the facts are clearly presented and can be reproduced in efficient models that always plays itself out in a logical manner every time. You have to read every single word in his book and put every single little fact he says into a wholistic model that is relative to itself.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I agree that, at least in the parts of the forum that I frequent, there are a lot of NTPs and INFJs... but, also a lot of INTJs.
> 
> I am highly suspicious of the number of INFPs on this forum, and I think many are mistyped. As a not-necessarily-useful anecdote, I know several xNFPs who wouldn't be caught dead on this forum, mainly because what they imagine as a bedlam of ceaseless debate triggers their inferior Te and they preemptively blow it off. Notably, it has been the xNFPs who have questioned my time spent on this forum, incredulous that I would subject myself to such nonsense. I think of Mike (NFGeeks) in this context, and how neurotically impatient and dismissive he is of such endless contention. This strikes me as low order Te, but particularly of low order Si/Te or Te/Si. It appears that xSFPs are more open to it, simply because it promises content?
> 
> ...


I know all about the functions and extraverted intuition is most certainly involving spatial thinking. It involves this but not only perceiving the world outside of you in a large spectrum rather than a small one. And maybe your wife is not a full enfp or maybe her functions vary. Again, the cognitive functions are not a perfect science


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> I know all about the functions and extraverted intuition is most certainly involving spatial thinking.


Could you give an example of spatial thinking ?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Shadow Logic_

In the introduction that you've quoted, he distinguishes functions from attitudes as two different types.

Here is the revised, most current version of that introduction:



> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the psychology of the types, starting with the two basic typs I have termed introverted and extraverted. This will be followed by a description of those more special types whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function. The former I would call *attitude-types*, distinguished by the direction of their interest, or of the movement of libido; the latter I would call *function-types*.


CW6 - Pg330, Par556. Emphasis his. (Italics in the book. I added the bold because all quotes are italicized).



> The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and *therefore have a primitive extraverted character* that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone.


CW6 - Pg387, Par637. Emphasis mine. "Therefore" being the operative word here. In the Introverted Thinker, the other functions have an extraverted character *because *they are relatively unconscious. This lends itself to the idea that there is a general attitude (e/i) of consciousness and a general attitude of unconsciousness regardless of functions. The characteristics of the function-types are thus influenced by the attitude-type given their existence in consciousness (or unconsciousness).

From this logic, we can infer that either conscious functions share one attitude and unconscious functions share another, or that the dominant is of one attitude and the rest, being comparatively unconscious, are of the opposite attitude.





alexibaka said:


> I know all about the functions and extraverted intuition is most certainly involving spatial thinking. It involves this but not only perceiving the world outside of you in a large spectrum rather than a small one. And maybe your wife is not a full enfp or maybe her functions vary. Again, the cognitive functions are not a perfect science


Can you please explain why extraverted intuition "most certainly" involves spatial thinking? Why is this neccessarily true? I'm not trying to disagree with you, but I think this is the missing link in your argument. From our perspective you are simply stating that this relationship is true without explaining why it is true.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

alexibaka said:


> I know all about the functions and extraverted intuition is most certainly involving spatial thinking. It involves this but not only perceiving the world outside of you in a large spectrum rather than a small one. And maybe your wife is not a full enfp or maybe her functions vary. Again, the cognitive functions are not a perfect science


That you know it means nothing. If I say I know that the sky is green, it does not make it so. I have to prove it or provide a compelling and coherent argument. Please do that. 

There is nothing whatsoever that speaks to Ne as you describe it. Either I misunderstand, or you are mistaken. Either way, asserting it won't accomplish anything. Explain. 


@_Shadow Logic_ - Well, I continue to agree completely with you. I was just saying that I am less convinced that it is unreasonable that someone would interpret it another way. Obviously they have, and obviously they aren't dumb. I think your interpretation is probably correct, but I don't feel comfortable saying that that is absolutely unequivocally what Jung meant. It is the most logical and plain interpretation in my eyes, and in yours, but I am not willing to slam the book shut in everyone's faces. On top of that, I am uncomfortable using Jung as a linchpin for the theory.... and certainly not an interpretable bit of Jung. It is far too reminiscent of sitting around and bible bashing with members of another Christian sect. 

We need to be able to discuss the theory, not in the shadow of Jung, but as spiritual peers. We should be critiquing, not interpreting, Jung. We should understand the theory, and it's underpinnings, and then know what Jung meant to say, or what he ought to have meant to say. 

In that vein, I will tell you that prior to ever having read or seen anything of Jung, I would contest that the auxiliary must be in every respect different from the dominant. Cognition is a machine. It has to be able to all the things that make a machine work. It has to be able to do them well:

1) Induct and exclude perceptions
2) Induct and exclude judgments

It is not sensical, or desirable, that half of the population would be deficient in induction, and half deficient in exclusion. Well, actually, it rather is true that they are, but the more extreme this would be, the less functional it would be. The further this goes, the more you have half of the people running at the mouth and having everything going in one ear and out the other, and the other half getting programmed and unable to change at all. While these people do exist, it's obvious that most people are capable at both aspects with a tendency one way or the the other, and that it is a dynamic thing. You have any given person who is at times and in ways rigid and reductive, but at ways open and expansive. A perfect system would put these as much in balance as possible. A successful system would result in it. 1000 times more important than that, it appears that this is the case if you are actually observing it. Survival and society constantly reinforces this as an equilibrium, and even those who argue that they fit outside of it must recognize that this is atypical and while not necessarily disadvantageous, it is also not what we observe in most cases. 

I can think of no elegant argument for the virtue of an Ax By Cy Dy system at all. Nor can I see it consistently reflected in observations. At all. It's a bust, at least until something compelling appears to hint otherwise. @_PaladinX_, I appreciate the devil's advocacy, and I applaud you for it. It must be done, and you do it well. 

@_delphi367_ - Right, and that is bust because I am demonstrably Si. I can show consistently that INTPs show Si and specifically not Se. I can also show that INFJs show Se and specifically not Si. I'd be eager to do this. However, it begs the question.... do you perceive yourself as Ni Fe Te Se ... and if so, why?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

It suddenly strikes me, as in dialogue with @_ephemereality_, that extreme cognitive introversion and extreme cognitive extraversion might prove itself ideal indeed... as a sort of extension of the principle of specialization that some have speculated propelled us as a species. The more purely and extensively we can delve deeply, or broadly, the more effective we might become. One could argue that it was extreme cognitive introversion that allowed Jung to accomplish his theory, or that it was extreme cognitive introversion that allowed Einstein or some others to accomplish theirs. I can immediately think of exceptions to this, but, it is an interesting thought. 

On the one hand, we might propose that anomalies in standard cognitive models are necessary to warp a system to another evolutionary state - or simply are endemic to any such natural system. Very Matrix, I know, but I think it is a compelling thought. These would be anomalous mainly because their functionality would not fit well with the principles of base survival economy. It is a paradox of specialization vs base adaptability. Our civilization has followed this model. A highly specialized society is ideal, but in low populations with high levels of environmental variability and attrition, not tenable... or at least not natural. 

However, anomalies and mutations will occur. Specialization will occur. It is evolutionary. I think that the AxByCxDy model fits this best as well, but also the anomalies that we have observed are also not problematic, unexpected, or undesirable. We see extreme cognitive introverts and extroverts everywhere. They stick out. That they stick out, and that we can observe them as such rather proves the point that this is the result of breaching the model, and that the model is as we understand it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@PaladinX, He's not saying functions are by themselves while their attitudes are something different. Look again:



> In the following pages *I shall attempt a general description *of the psychology of the types, *starting with the two basic typs* I have termed introverted and extraverted. *This will be followed by a description of those more special types whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function.* The former I would call attitude-types, distinguished by the direction of their interest, or of the movement of libido; the latter I would call function-types.


He is saying that the base of the types start of as either introversion while extroversion, hence why we have an extraverted type and an introverted type. In order to understand the two types he will then give out the descriptions of the "peculiarities" of each type and how the individual adapts and orients themselves to these "peculiarities" he further goes to define extraversion/introversion as attitude types while the function itself without the attitudes would be a function type. All he is doing is defining the differences that make the inherent qualities/characteristics of cognitive functions as a whole, therefore both the function types and the attitude types make up the the parts that sum up to make a cognitive function that is within an individual.



> From this logic, we can assume that either conscious functions share one attitude and unconscious functions share another, or that the dominant is of one attitude and the rest, being comparatively unconscious, are of the opposite attitude.


The premise of your logic is flawed only because Jung never once mentions a tertiary function. He talks extensively of the dominant and Inferior function, then briefly goes over the auxiliary function but never once mentions a tertiary. This leads me to believe that the tertiary was discovered later on or that Jung never looked into the nature of the tertiary. Now taking this logic of Jung never mentioning the tertiary and applying it to what I quoted of you, I see that Jung could have still made complete sense because the introverted thinker would have either an intuitive or sensation auxiliary with an inferior feeling, all three of which would have to be extraverted based on all the logic Jung has already presented (which I quoted a few times already). Given that Jung never talked about the tertiary it would be an *assumption* on anyone's part to think he meant that the tertiary would be in the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior, which is where Myer messed up when creating her formula. 

If on the other hand you decide to add a tertiary function, then it would be wise of you to include the logic that Jung has already presented for the structuring of the Dominant, Auxiliary, and inferior and when using that logic you inevitably, 100% of the time, come to the conclusion that the tertiary is opposing in nature to the auxiliary but different in all respects to the main. I refuse to assume that Jung meant that tertiary would also be the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior because of the fact that he never mentioned or talked about a tertiary function. All we know is that he acknowledged a dominant, an auxiliary, and an inferior, so if you want to see it from Jungs perspective as you claim you do, then it would also be wise to not assume anything that has to do with Jung's thoughts on the tertiary, since he never once talked about it.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

arkigos said:


> That you know it means nothing. If I say I know that the sky is green, it does not make it so. I have to prove it or provide a compelling and coherent argument. Please do that.
> 
> There is nothing whatsoever that speaks to Ne as you describe it. Either I misunderstand, or you are mistaken. Either way, asserting it won't accomplish anything. Explain.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I did not clarify how I meant the phrase spatial thinking. Extraverted intuition is perceiving the world in terms of underlying patterns and possibilities. In order to find patterns in the way things work, you must look at things from a big picture perspective rather than a detailed one (example- if you are only looking at one tree in the forest how would you know that all trees have brown barks? However if you are looking at the forest from a distance you would know that there is a pattern that all trees in the forest have brown barks). Therefore in order to find patterns, you cannot look at things from a detailed field but rather a spatial field. This is what I meant by spatial.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

zazara said:


> Could you give an example of spatial thinking ?


I have probably not been clear with how I mean spatial thinking. By spatial thinking I mean being able to see patterns in the way things work BECAUSE you look at things from a big picture spatial field. 
For example, lets say I merely look at a single tree in a forest that has a brown bark, would I be able to perceive of the pattern that all trees in that forest must have brown barks? no, because Ive only focused on one
However, if I look at the entire forest from a distance, i will be able to see a pattern that all trees in the forest have brown barks.
That is all I meant by "spatial thinking".

Also, the thing with the leaves- obviously everybody has both intuitive and sensing functions, but we are talking about which one we primarily use. Therefore, if I present a sensor and an intuitive with a leaf, and one asks where did the leaf come from and one asks what does the leaf look like, it does not mean that the one that asked where it came from is automatically an intuitive, obviously he or she can be a sensor who is just using intuition, I never disagreed with that, I was merely saying that the nature of analyzing leaves in that manner to describe where it came from is more LIKELY the intuitive way of looking at things. 
Our original disagreement was whether we live in an N or S society. So I was saying that children are not regularly and always taught to look at things from that intuitive type perspective in school, but rather to look at somethings details more.

And as for determining whether society is N or S based on personal experience, does not always work. Certain cultures are more intuitive or sensory than others. That is why I like to judge society as a whole from what is displayed to all cultures- Media


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Shadow Logic_

The confusion about the tertiary is because Jung referred to it as an auxiliary function. There is the dominant, two auxiliaries, and the inferior functions.

He mentions a "tertiary function" near the end of PT in the "Principal and Auxiliary Functions" section of chapter X:



> For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.
> 
> *The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.*


CW6 - Pg 406-407, Par669-670


He mentions it more clearly here:



> If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. *The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.*


CW12 - Pg 106-7


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

arkigos said:


> Right, and that is bust because I am demonstrably Si. I can show consistently that INTPs show Si and specifically not Se. I can also show that INFJs show Se and specifically not Si. I'd be eager to do this. However, it begs the question.... do you perceive yourself as Ni Fe Te Se ... and if so, why?


Personally, I accept the common model of Ni, Fe, Ti, Se. Sometimes, a function test shows Ni, Ti, Fe... but I still think that's closer to INFJ than INTJ. Some would disagree.

I was just pointing out that, if you WERE to accept that proposed model, that is what it would mean. I personally don't think INTPs use Se, either. 

My reasoning for the current model isn't based on a source though, but my own insight. In my mind, I don't see how a person could have Ti without Fe, or Ni without Se. I believe that opposite functions complete each other, and that functions in the "wrong" orientation are antagonistic to the entire set of conscious functions. In other words, Si would be far more antagonistic to Ni... because it tries to play a similar role in the psyche as Ni, but in a way that is anathema to the dominant function.

Also, it simply makes sense... every type needs a form of Introverted Perception, a form of Extraverted Judgment, a form of Introverted Judgment, and a form of Extraverted Perception. I believe we have a preference on each of those four. The common model provides that balance, but the other models provide no balance, and create competition for the same roles in the psyche while leaving others unfulfilled entirely.

Another useful thing to look at is Beebe archetypes... if you look at how the functions play "roles" in the psyche, and get used to that idea, then you begin to see why the common function order is the correct order. The dominant function as Heroic, the auxiliary as Parental, the tertiary as Child, the inferior as Anima/Animus... etc. It then becomes less about function development, and more about the roles the functions play in the psyche. That's when all this starts to make sense.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@alexibaka - So, you mean spatial as being both physical spatial and as 'big picture' thinking? Or are you just co-opting a term that is specifically meant to refer to physical space and intending it to mean including greater context of any kind?


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

arkigos said:


> @alexibaka - So, you mean spatial as being both physical spatial and as 'big picture' thinking? Or are you just co-opting a term that is specifically meant to refer to physical space and intending it to mean including greater context of any kind?


Well both really, when I say spatial thinking I mean big picture thinking. When I think of big picture thinking, I think of both zooming out on a literal picture (or forest) AND zooming out on the background of certain ideas. Either way you can see the full picture better and where the picture originated better, but the details of actual picture worse. I referred to this as spatial because when I think of big picture I think of space itself, maybe thats just me


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> @Shadow Logic
> 
> The confusion about the tertiary is because Jung referred to it as an auxiliary function. There is the dominant, two auxiliaries, and the inferior functions.
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing both of those out for me. Let's focus on this for now:



> *The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones.* Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.


It does seem he is aware of the tertiary and he is aware that the unconscious functions must be grouped in way that patterns the conscious functions. The fact that he is using both terms in plural form leads one to realize he talking about types having more than one unconscious function and more than one conscious function, and all of these functions must be grouped in a way that shows a pattern.

If we look at this now: 


> 1If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, *then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it*. *The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.*


In this paragraph he is showing the parallel natures of both the dominant function and the inferior function, showing that they both have an auxiliary. This further goes to show my point because he has already defined for us what an auxiliary function is. So if an auxiliary function is a function that is not opposed to the main function but is different, in all respects to it then we can apply that logic to the auxiliary of the inferior function meaning that the inferior functions auxiliary would have to not be opposed to the inferior function but must be different in all respects. This works conclusively with the system, to prove it let's look at an INTJ:

The INTJs functions (if only talking about their Dom, auxiliary, and inferior) would be Ni-Te-Se but if we flip the functions around where Se isn't the dominant function then we get Se-Te-Ni, but that doesnt logically hold because Te is not the auxiliary to Se in any case. The auxiliary of Se in this case, if we are adhering to Jung's logic with absolutely no assumptions, would be a function that is not opposed to but different in every respect. Therefore the auxiliary can only be Fi or Ti. In this case though Ti has to discarded but it is not different in every respect nor opposed to Te which is in the function stack of the INTJ, leaving the only logical choice to be Se-Fi-Te-Ni if looking at it backwards and Ni-Te-Fi-Se. When you reverse the order you get a different type altogether but the logic of the system still holds and is consistent.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@alexibaka

Sounds like you're trying to say the phrase "you can't see the forest for the trees" 

I'm not sure it has to do specifically with Ne or more rather of generally putting things into perspective.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@arkigos, I'm with you that we shouldn't just discard anyone else's input but if their logic is flawed, then their reasoning is flawed leading to cognitive biases. Im here to point out the logical consistency of the system and its framework through the use of the definitions just like you would prove the logical consistency of math by using the definitions that are provided in math. The moment you start using definitions that are assumed into math and have no logical basis then you are escaping the realm of math and entering a realm only you are thinking about. So I rather we adhere to the specifics that Jung has offered when we talk about types. For anyone to say Jung isnt clear, is to say that they dont understand because Ive noticed that Jung explicitly chose certain words in his descriptions to get the point across.

If people want to critique the system, then I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with people critiquing the system using logical fallacies and flawed premises. If youre going to critique the system then define exactly what you are critiquing and if its a problem of the system or your understanding of the system. I won't say people are dumb but I will say they are having a hard time understanding a system and assuming into the system flawed premises that arose from their subjective reasoning, leading to fallacies and bias. That is a problem when trying to understand the system.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

zazara said:


> @alexibaka
> 
> Sounds like you're trying to say the phrase "you can't see the forest for the trees"
> 
> I'm not sure it has to do specifically with Ne or more rather of generally putting things into perspective.


Thats exactly what Im trying to say! And since Ne zooms out on the big picture in order to see patterns in the way things are inside, it is a good example of Ne. 
Though it can be used for many functions in different contexts. For example Se types can see the big picture only from the details they perceive. So instead of finding patterns from looking at the big picture, they find the big picture by looking at details... if that makes sense


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> @arkigos, I'm with you that we shouldn't just discard anyone else's input but if their logic is flawed, then their reasoning is flawed leading to cognitive biases. Im here to point out the logical consistency of the system and its framework through the use of the definitions just like you would prove the logical consistency of math by using the definitions that are provided in math. The moment you start using definitions that are assumed into math and have no logical basis then you are escaping the realm of math and entering a realm only you are thinking about. So I rather we adhere to the specifics that Jung has offered when we talk about types. For anyone to say Jung isnt clear, is to say that they dont understand because Ive noticed that Jung explicitly chose certain words in his descriptions to get the point across.
> 
> If people want to critique the system, then I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with people critiquing the system using logical fallacies and flawed premises. If youre going to critique the system then define exactly what you are critiquing and if its a problem of the system or your understanding of the system. I won't say people are dumb but I will say they are having a hard time understanding a system and assuming into the system flawed premises that arose from their subjective reasoning, leading to fallacies and bias. That is a problem when trying to understand the system.


You are using logical fallacies as your premise for claiming Jung's system is perfect. You can't use your Ti function as the reason for your understanding of the system, since that's the mind projection fallacy. Ti is your subjective view on the world. You are using the hasty generalization fallacy by saying Jung's small sample of evidence is proof of it's perfection. You are also using the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof from Jung's theory to those opposing it. I think you might have also had some chronological snobbery in there as well. I could even mention your comment implying other posters are "dumb", but I'll let that one slide. 

It is a fact that the testing of Jung's theory is unreliable. There isn't any logical fallacies in that statement. In order to logically prove that Jung's theory is perfect you need to show tests that are reliable, repeatable, and consistent. No one has been able to do that yet. Maybe you will be the first one.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> You are using logical fallacies as your premise for claiming Jung's system is perfect. You can't use your Ti function as the reason for your understanding of the system, since that's the mind projection fallacy. Ti is your subjective view on the world. You are using the hasty generalization fallacy by saying Jung's small sample of evidence is proof of it's perfection. You are also using the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof from Jung's theory to those opposing it. I think you might have also had some chronological snobbery in there as well. I could even mention your comment implying other posters are "dumb", but I'll let that one slide.
> 
> It is a fact that the testing of Jung's theory is unreliable. There isn't any logical fallacies in that statement. In order to logically prove that Jung's theory is perfect you need to show tests that are reliable, repeatable, and consistent. No one has been able to do that yet. Maybe you will be the first one.


Thats what you're not understanding, the system itself is logically consistent, there are no fallacies and the definitions are clear. People are having a hard time understanding a system because they are assuming too much about it. If you ever want to study any system then you have to understand the system for what it is. If you read a book on math, you take in the information, you dont try to disprove the concept of math or its logic. Cognitive functions are a system, and you need tools to study a system, I have tools to study a system so I study systems. I also apply logic the whole step and there is not one logical fallacy or logical flaw in the system of cognitive functions if you understand it precisely and wholistically. Whether you believe that or not is not my problem, as @PaladinX already showed you Jung had doubts that you could quantify it using the scientific method. I dont believe that but I do believe that we dont have the tools to quantify it yet. I dont care if there were a million scientist studying it and they couldnt do it or understand it, I know using pure logic and logic alone that the system is a logically consistent system once you adhere to its definitions wholistically.

I dont even know why you even respond to me, you already said that you dont adhere to Jungs definitions, and are intentionally looking for flaws. Theres not much more you and I can discuss on the subject, to be quite frank.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I dont even know why you even respond to me, you already said that you dont adhere to Jungs definitions, and are intentionally looking for flaws. Theres not much more you and I can discuss on the subject, to be quite frank.


To be honest, considering this specific discussion, I find quite amusing that someone can try to find his or her Jungian type, while the same person disregards the base concepts of that system. I know that it may be difficult to grasp the idea behind the cognitive functions at first, but if you understand them well, many things begin to make sense, therefore searching for flaws for the sake of it sounds like nitpicking.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Thats what you're not understanding, the system itself is logically consistent, there are no fallacies and the definitions are clear. People are having a hard time understanding a system because they are assuming too much about it. If you ever want to study any system then you have to understand the system for what it is. If you read a book on math, you take in the information, you dont try to disprove the concept of math or its logic. Cognitive functions are a system, and you need tools to study a system, I have tools to study a system so I study systems. I also apply logic the whole step and there is not one logical fallacy or logical flaw in the system of cognitive functions if you understand it precisely and wholistically. Whether you believe that or not is not my problem, as @PaladinX already showed you Jung had doubts that you could quantify it using the scientific method. I dont believe that but I do believe that we dont have the tools to quantify it yet. I dont care if there were a million scientist studying it and they couldnt do it or understand it, I know using pure logic and logic alone that the system is a logically consistent system once you adhere to its definitions wholistically.
> 
> I dont even know why you even respond to me, you already said that you dont adhere to Jungs definitions, and are intentionally looking for flaws. Theres not much more you and I can discuss on the subject, to be quite frank.


This is one of those cases where your logic can't be peer reviewed since it's subjective. It sounds like you understand the system, rather than that the system is indeed sound and flawless. If you want to use math then you need to make it relevant. Right now there is some flaw in Jung's theory. It would be like saying 2+3=4 is logical even though no one has shown it to be true. 

I responded because your post seemed to point to my arguments. I didn't say Jung's theory has any logical fallacies. I only said your argument has logical fallacies. If you want to nitpick about fallacies then you need to make sure your argument is sound without them.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> To be honest, considering this specific discussion, I find quite amusing that someone can try to find his or her Jungian type, while the same person disregards the base concepts of that system. I know that it may be difficult to grasp the idea behind the cognitive functions at first, but if you understand them well, many things begin to make sense, therefore searching for flaws for the sake of it sounds like nitpicking.


Those who use Ni/Te find it difficult to reach the truth when there is a whole in the system. I can't settle for subjective logic, as I seek objective logic first and foremost. Plus, I've already said that Jung came up with an amazing theory. Wanting to fix it only demonstrates my respect for his original ideas.

That would be like scientists only ever using the original theories and never trying to gain more insight and knowledge about it. As if they would say, " Aristotle's theories are perfect as is, so we don't need to continue to investigate and improve upon them." That's just silly. There is always more to learn.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> This is one of those cases where your logic can't be peer reviewed since it's subjective. It sounds like you understand the system, rather than that the system is indeed sound and flawless. If you want to use math then you need to make it relevant. Right now there is some flaw in Jung's theory. It would be like saying 2+3=4 is logical even though no one has shown it to be true.
> 
> I responded because your post seemed to point to my arguments. I didn't say Jung's theory has any logical fallacies. I only said your argument has logical fallacies. If you want to nitpick about fallacies then you need to make sure your argument is sound without them.


My argument was sound and has always been sound. You misinterpreted my whole argument. My argument is that the system of cognitive functions are logically sound, using pure logic one will realize the system of cognitive function s is logically consistent. Anyone leaving the definitions, assuming aspects into, and intentionally looking for flaws is already biased and is looking for things that dont exist. If you want to say you dont believe in the functions because it hasn't been quantified efficiently yet, then fine I respect that, but that is your bias, that is not a problem with the system, thats a problem you perceive to be in the system. The definitions give the structure and the logic of the system, if you dont adhere to that then you will not understand the system of cognitive functions. Maybe people need to increase their vocabulary or something because their are specific words Jung's chooses to be precise that ive pointed out people are completely disregarding. 

I'm sorry your argument has been riddled with logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, cherry picking, fallacies of the single cause, incomplete comparison, and many more. In order to claim a premise it must not be logically flawed and your whole premise is based off the faith you have in "professionals", while the origins of my premise lie in the definitions that Jung created when he discovered the cognitive functions. He made a system, and gave the definitions for each part and even went on to specifically describe how they work in relation to each other. There are no flaws within the system of the cognitive functions but there are many flaws in your premise.

The system can only be understood by adhering to the logic that Jung gave within the definitions, anything else outside of the context given by the definitions is a fallacy by default.
@Kathy Kane, heres something I want you to notice. If you apply logic to your [2+3=4], one can see that two things added on to three things does not give 4 things because there is 1 thing left over meaning that there was initially 5 things. Thats how logic works, if you take the system of logic and apply it to the system of cognitive functions then you will noticd that there are no logical flaws in the system of cognitive functions. You also said you dont adhere to subjective logic which is funny because the system of cognitive functions is exactly that, subjective logic, you might want to start considering trying to adhere to some subjective logic because you're going to need it to understand this system.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Those who use Ni/Te find it difficult to reach the truth when there is a whole in the system. I can't settle for subjective logic, as I seek objective logic first and foremost. Plus, I've already said that Jung came up with an amazing theory. Wanting to fix it only demonstrates my respect for his original ideas.
> 
> That would be like scientists only ever using the original theories and never trying to gain more insight and knowledge about it. As if they would say, " Aristotle's theories are perfect as is, so we don't need to continue to investigate and improve upon them." That's just silly. There is always more to learn.


You can get more from the cognitive functions if you stay within the context of its definitions. You can build off of it but what ever you build has to stay within the context of the definitions. If you don't then you'll never get anything out of it.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Shadow Logic said:


> The system can only be understood by adhering to the logic that Jung gave within the definitions, anything else outside of the context given by the definitions is a fallacy by default.


This is interestingly similar to an argument I hear from some religious people.

They assert that Christianity can only be understood based on the reasoning found in the Bible, and that any logic or context that isn't Biblical is irrelevant, because it's outside the Christian worldview, and thus you can't entertain it as a Christian. 

I have heard of people claiming MBTI is a religion before. I don't agree with them, but this is the first time I ever really understood what they were talking about. I get the resemblance now.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A "fact" of a flawed system. Much like creationism is a fact, and other internal logic. To disagree with Jung, is not a fallacy.


Like I already said, the system and all of its definitions are not logically flawed due to their not being any logical flaws, logical flaws being fallacies or those of which can not be true because logical proofs (proofs of inference) prove them to be impossible logically, Jungs system does not fail in that regard. If so point to me to the exact proof of inference that is flawed, not your opinion on whats flawed, but the actual quote that Jung said and how it is a fallacy or proven impossible by the proofs of inference. 

You're also using flawed logic, I said (and if you need me to quote what I said I will) the parts of the system (the definitions) are logically sound within the system meaning that the whole system and everything within is logically sound. Therefore if you're going to attempt at using a metaphor to compare and contrast what I said with what you think then make sure the metaphor is logically consistent with what it is suppose to represent. In this case you're use of creationism as a metaphor to Jungs system is used wrong, because as I said the parts of Jungs system (the definitions) are logically sound in the system, due to it not containing one logical flaw or fallacy in the system. If you're going to use creationism as a metaphor then you would have to say the parts that make up the system of creationism are logically sound. As in the fact that evolution cant be the starting point of life, thats logically sound within the system because the principle of the system is that creationism is the belief in something creating all of life while evolution points to all of live evolving to where we are today. Now if you say creationism is a fact of life, then thats logically flawed because that statement is not logically sound in the universe. If you ask me do I believe that Jungs system is logically sound in the objective universe though, my answer would still be yes but Ill get into that next...



> A fact of a system that claims to have a basis in reality, but has not proved such a basis. You could make an internally logical system for any fantasy world. So what. You have to appeal to actual experience because these things claim basis in actual experience, and experience is the antecedent of it. See Dewey. Jung's work is based on his own observations and interpretations. How are those observation and interpretations beyond reproach? How is this system beyond reproach? They are not simply based on your restrictive logic. They are based on thing like observation, interpretation, all the subjective factors that you want to remove. There is nothing at all factual about cognitive functions. There is no agreed up, universal definitions. It is hermeneutics of the soul.


It has basis in Jungs personal reality due to Jungs personal experiences, perceptions, and orientations. He discovered a logically sound system that translated what he saw into words. Therefore all of cognitive functions would be how Jung saw life, if you want to understand his system you still have to adhere to his definitions. Now this is why I think its logically sound in objective reality: if this whole system is pretty much Jungs personal interpretation on personality then you would have to see the system through his eyes to see his objective reality. Objective reality is the same always but the way we perceive that reality differs per person, it makes more sense to try to see something from the persons eyes that created it to try to fully grasp what they are trying to explain instead of assuming that what they saw is wrong because you dont understand what he saw. 



> To add:
> 
> You know what else was logical? The planets on epicycles. Totally logical framework, totally wrong of course, but totally logical. And you know what else? Those systems actually made pretty damn good predictions of the planets. I would actually rank the planets on epicycles as a superior "fact" to cognitive functions.
> 
> So, enjoy your dogma. Disregard any outside information. It's right, and it will always be right.


I haven't really researched too much on the theory of planets on epicycles but if it was proven false as you suggest it has then it obviously was logically flawed. In logic, one has to also adhere to all possible factors, if a possible factor can prove a logically statement or model wrong then that means the logic was flawed. There are no "superior facts", there are only facts and anything that is not a fact is not a fact. If you think something is a fact and then find out its wrong that doesnt mean it was once a fact and then it stopped being a fact, that only means that you were wrong with what you thought was a fact and then learned what the true fact is.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> The only reason I mention it is because you keep claiming to use pure logic, yet your posts are full of Fe judgments. Pure logic wouldn't include any of that at all.
> 
> I'm sure I have a different definition of Fe than Jung, so you'll dismiss it anyway. No need wasting my time explaining it to you.


What exactly am I saying that is an Fe judgement in how I explain the system? Also what exact definition of extraverted feeling are you adhering to when you talk about the Fe Judgements I'm making?




> That didn't change anything about my statement. Your personal subjective validity and reasoning is nothing near pure logic. Those things come from your experiences and bias. Such an arrogant statement coming from someone who refuses to see the flaws in Jung's theory doesn't move me to change my position.* I don't think a mere human is capable of using pure logic.*


Not only do you discount my subjective logic being consistent with symbolic/mathematical logic and the proofs of inference but you also have a preset thought that a "mere human" isn't capable of accomplishing such a task with his mind alone. There is not much I can do to convince you otherwise, you will believe what you want.



> Logic itself isn't off of bias or experience. YOUR personal logic is though. You are changing the premise of my argument (another fallacy BTW.) Maybe you don't see what I'm saying, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are unintentionally missing my point.


My personal logic is nothing but objective reality flowing through a system of proofs of inference to see how valid its logic truly is. Don't know how that is biased or has anything to do with experience. My experience are my perceptions but my perceptions get filtered and organized through my subjective logic which is nothing but y mind scanning information though an unconscious method of using proofs of inference. I also said originally also that my internal/subjective logic is pure logic of which you dont believe is the case. How you know how I think internally is quite baffling considering we have never really met or talked outside of this specific thread. That could only mean you are assuming I dont think the way I think, and if thats the case then there is nothing I can do to change your mind, because as I said you will believe what you want, no matter what I say.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> No logical system has any worth absent some level of axiomatic truth. Logical soundness only has worth in relation to finding logical truths; logical validity only makes sense if you have some measure for judging the truth of your initial assumptions. Your claim is that in Jung's work there is a logical system, but to achieve the logical validity you claim it has you have to accept his definitions as true; on what basis do you do that? Mathematics builds from its initially accepted axioms to achieve its system; its logical soundness has worth to people because it is shown that the deductive logic is correct through repeated validation in the external world. Can you assuredly say the same for Jung's theories? I'm not convinced.


Mathematics build from axioms that have to follow by proofs of inference, and if it does then its mathematically and logically sound. It takes no one to accept that, it is already that. When Euclids created the axiom forms of Geometry, everyone could have disagreed and said he was wrong and he knew nothing, but that still wouldn't have proved the logic of his axiom forms wrong. He used symbolic logic to prove how logically sound all of his axiom forms were. There is a logic that you cant prove wrong no matter how many people believe it or not, and thats pure logic. If I define a line as the distance between two points, then no matter what the distance between two points will always be a line, no matter how much anyone doesnt want to believe that. Jungs system is that logically sound within itself, that it passes through all the proofs of inference with no logical mishaps at all. The measure of judging anything logical is through the proofs of inference (logical proof), thats how we measure the validity of any type of logic. 

His definitions are true to what he perceived, so to understand his system, you have to look through his eyes and understand it the way he did or you will not understand his system. If you are looking at his system through your own perception then you will never understand his system, because its based on his perception on what he saw. He defined what he saw, and his definitions are logically sound within his system. If you don;t want to adhere to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions then you will not understand his view on cognitive functions because those definitions are the gateway into his understanding.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Mathematics build from axioms that have to follow by proofs of inference, and if it does then its mathematically and logically sound. It takes no one to accept that, it is already that. When Euclids created the axiom forms of Geometry, everyone could have disagreed and said he was wrong and he knew nothing, but that still wouldn't have proved the logic of his axiom forms wrong. He used symbolic logic to prove how logically sound all of his axiom forms were. There is a logic that you cant prove wrong no matter how many people believe it or not, and thats pure logic. If I define a line as the distance between two points, then no matter what the distance between two points will always be a line, no matter how much anyone doesnt want to believe that. Jungs system is that logically sound within itself, that it passes through all the proofs of inference with no logical mishaps at all. The measure of judging anything logical is through the proofs of inference (logical proof), thats how we measure the validity of any type of logic.
> 
> His definitions are true to what he perceived, so to understand his system, you have to look through his eyes and understand it the way he did or you will not understand his system. If you are looking at his system through your own perception then you will never understand his system, because its based on his perception on what he saw. He defined what he saw, and his definitions are logically sound within his system. If you don;t want to adhere to Jungs definitions of cognitive functions then you will not understand his view on cognitive functions because those definitions are the gateway into his understanding.


I'm not necessarily taking issue with your claim that Jung's theory is logically sound - I don't feel well-versed enough in all the details required to make a judgement call on that. The only truths in logic that can exist independent of initial assumptions are tautologies - like A being identical to B so therefore B is identical to A (as in your line/distance between two points example above). However sound the logic, one has to take for granted the assumptions initially made before one can accept the conclusion as having been logically proven. Take issue with those assumptions and the conclusion is meaningless, a logical structure without anything demonstrable underlying it.


----------



## Aliceinwonders (Sep 5, 2012)

For one thing, I know that in some countries, the majority of the population tests as STJ, but it ends up turning out to have been social pressure influencing their answers rather than a genuine preference.

This is a great point, it made me think that since social pressure could be such a great influence... what if these individuals also started behaving like actual STJ since they percieve that that's how they should behave. You become what you think about 99 percent of the time. 

I mean, there is an easy fix for some of the assumptions made. A good portion of the highly religious people that are assumed be SJs might very well be NFs. 

This could be true. But I would think that they would have to be a very well developed NF since it would take maturity for an NF to appreciate Traditions. 

The thing is, I've noticed that there are a LOT of things about society that really don't make much sense if the majority of people are Sensors. There seem to be a lot of things that are designed to help people who are oblivious to details. There's actually an amazing amount of symbolism/abstraction in most media, and just various other things like that

But what if the people that invented things were NFs? Like what if they designed these tools in the way that they think for people just like themselves. In order to create innovation you must think outside of the box.


----------

