# The differences between dominant judging and dominant perceiving



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The way I read it is like this:



uncertain said:


> Si sounds even more distant to me. I don't know
> 
> Not so much that a pen to a penis, but that it links almost everything in a similar shape to a penis.


You don't seem to value Ne. I would say the focus on the shape is more in the realms of Ne.


> The human eye is like a window is a totally different thing.


This is an Ni perspective. In other words, you get Ni.


> I mean what should a Ji lead be like?


No idea. I could tell you if I was one.


> Do you find Ne-users and other Ni-users hard to communicate? I'm thinking the reason being that Ne is a different function and that Ni has an introverted nature.


I find it difficult communicating with other Ne users if their Ne is very strong and unfiltered. I don't have the capacity to sort through and filter that information because it moves in so many directions whereas I seek one or a few singular conclusions. 

I suppose the impression Ne types have of Ni types is the opposite - we seem to be too narrow-minded and limiting. Ni types, as a whole I presume, do not trust anything if we cannot tell it with a great degree of certainty. The universe is full of probabilities, all of them in their own way as viable, and without possessing sufficient amount of data, how do I know which one is the right answer? 

Ne types don't operate like this. It's not about seeking one answer that to the Ni type at least, explains everything from any perspective, but they rather choose to explore options for options' sake. You might want to ask an Ne dominant such as @_zallla_ @_Maybe_ @_Vergil_ though. Not sure who else I can think of as of this moment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@uncertain Also, how do you relate to these lyrics? Do they make sense to you?

Eyes transfixed at flashing visuals
Looking without seeing
Subject for subliminal attacks
Subconscious registrations

Efficient manipulation methods
The embedded distorters
One step in the mass hypnosis
On a monumental scale

Vile embrace of the one who beholds
Robbed of thoughts and of feelings

Draining dry the very mind
All we know is what they show
Never seen - the chains that binds
Lies enslave you!
Registrations that will burn our spirits hollow
Making sure the blind stays blind

We are slaves to the subliminal

No choice to accept or reject
Heading straight for the source
Perceived below normal awareness
Suck in the embedded additions

Eyes transfixed at flashing visually
Looking without seeing

Subject for subliminal attacks
Subconscious registrations

Vile embrace of the one who beholds
Robbed of thoughts and of feelings

Draining dry the very mind
All we know is what they show
Never seen - the chains that binds
Lies enslave you
Registrations that will burn our spirits hollow
Making sure the blind stays blind

Drugged docile by the embeds
They enter below the threshold
Intricate manipulation technique
Promotes robotic behavior
Consume according to fabricated needs
Command the subconscious
Follow all the shallow standards
Programmed instinct response

Draining dry the very mind
All we know is what they show
Never seen - the chains that binds

Registrations that will burn our spirits hollow
Making sure the blind stays blind

Enslave you


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I suppose the impression Ne types have of Ni types is the opposite - we seem to be too narrow-minded and limiting. *Ni types, as a whole I presume, do not trust anything if we cannot tell it with a great degree of certainty. The universe is full of probabilities, all of them in their own way as viable,* and without possessing sufficient amount of data, how do I know which one is the right answer?
> 
> Ne types don't operate like this. It's not about seeking one answer that to the Ni type at least, explains everything from any perspective, but they rather choose to explore options for options' sake. You might want to ask an Ne dominant such as @_zallla_ @_Maybe_ @_Vergil_ though. Not sure who else I can think of as of this moment.


Sorry it's gonna be long here.

I was educated by a Ni-dom teacher who strongly believed that there were infinite possibilities in every situation, so attempting to generalize a group of people or something else was away from reality. But then he said that one couldn't operate like this in reality. There had to be rules. He had a BIG Ni written on his face. I had never thought about that before, at least not in that way, and probably became more Ni or more perceptive after that. My usual belief is I'm not always right and a lot of time it's hard to say who is right or who is wrong, which makes me a generally more thoughtful student even before class, and it is kind of similar to your words-in-bold in a way, I think. I generally don't impose my belief on people, but on the other hand I have quite a strong moral conviction in real life so I can accidentally show my agenda in various situation, or I show it when I feel the urge to.

////

One thing that makes me feel like a Fi-dom is that I can be very critical of myself. Recently it's more intense and it makes me depressed. The bad news is that it starts to feel like major depression, which is another story. I measure myself against a moral standard. I feel very guilty after I do something I deem as bad. For example, I hate to think highly of myself because I'm not that great, so if I think highly of myself, I will be against reality and be arrogant, which are crime and of course I feel guilty about committing crime. If I occasionally do, I feel bad very soon. Recently I think very hard about myself if I'm right or wrong in different things, or if I'm even a worthy or legitimate person, if I'm ever justified, etc. I feel like it's time to put myself in my own critique before it's moral for me to move on to deal with the world.

I can be oversensitive as well. Sometimes I think I have done something bad to people and it turns out it doesn't really matter. That's one thing I find among some ISFPs. They overthink or being oversensitive that they say so little and sometimes act weird, which are mistaken by others as something really silly, or not very true, but in fact there can be quite a lot going on in their mind.

The funny thing is that when it comes to friends, I can be the most uncritical person. I am very forgiving because when I start to think about me being not-such-a-good-person, and about another person's perspective and why they do certain bad things, I realize that he/she has reason for doing that, and if that reason and purpose is not evil, I won't blame them at all but accept what they have done. People have certain flaws, since I readily accept who they are because they do the same for me, if their wrong deed result from these flaws I won't quite blame them either. Then, even if they have been really wrong or bad, if it's not too bad, or not against important principle I value, then I generally forgive them. I guess I'm more Ni when it comes to others than I'm when I think about myself.

////

I sometimes do that seeking one answer thing. Many answers are too much for me. But there is paradox in this one answer thing in certain areas, so sometimes I'm not so much into that. No matter what, I simply find the effort and process of trying to figure out one single answer for big life question very beneficial, like I learn a lot other things during the process, or I become more thoughtful, a better person, etc. I stop when I find that my "theories" are helpful enough currently, or I might go on, which depends.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I suppose the impression Ne types have of Ni types is the opposite - we seem to be too narrow-minded and limiting. Ni types, as a whole I presume, do not trust anything if we cannot tell it with a great degree of certainty. The universe is full of probabilities, all of them in their own way as viable, and without possessing sufficient amount of data, how do I know which one is the right answer?
> 
> Ne types don't operate like this. It's not about seeking one answer that to the Ni type at least, explains everything from any perspective, but they rather choose to explore options for options' sake. You might want to ask an Ne dominant such as @_zallla_ @_Maybe_ @_Vergil_ though. Not sure who else I can think of as of this moment.


I think as an Ne dom its not about seeking options for options sake. Its about not wanting to limit an answer. Its about wanting an answer to extend infinitely so as to find new unexplained possibilities which is similar to options for options sake ,but not exactly the same thing.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_uncertain_ Also, how do you relate to these lyrics? Do they make sense to you?
> 
> Eyes transfixed at flashing visuals
> Looking without seeing
> ...


Gonna take a break from writing. Will come back later on


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

Much too tired to read through the whole thread. I did skim though. 

I am unsure of my type, to be honest. But I would say I make judgements first (though, I deny this to myself and everyone else), then will slowly let my perceptions change my judgements if they somehow prove to be incorrect. 

For example:
I see a fat person walking down the street, my immediate thoughts are that this person is a sad, lazy, unmotivated waste of space (I know, extremely harsh.. I don't express these judgements though, and I think they are rational judgements), based on the fact that to become so fat you really need to have very little self control. I mean, if you eat a normal amount of food you will never get that fat. You may gain some weight and put on fat, but to become extremely overweight you need to really spend most of your time filling yourself with food.

I will keep watching though, and eventually through my perceptions my judgements may change. For example, I could see that this person has cuts on their arms or notice that they are very shy and seem ashamed. Then my judgements towards that person can change to see them as a sad person with a likely bad history that caused them to retreat into food. 

Generally, though I think this may be the case for everyone, I make quick, rash judgements initially and then eventually change those judgements based on contradictory evidence that I see.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

uncertain said:


> Sorry it's gonna be long here.
> 
> I was educated by a Ni-dom teacher who strongly believed that there were infinite possibilities in every situation, so attempting to generalize a group of people or something else was away from reality. But then he said that one couldn't operate like this in reality. There had to be rules. He had a BIG Ni written on his face. I had never thought about that before, at least not in that way, and probably became more Ni or more perceptive after that. My usual belief is I'm not always right and a lot of time it's hard to say who is right or who is wrong, which makes me a generally more thoughtful student even before class, and it is kind of similar to your words-in-bold in a way, I think. I generally don't impose my belief on people, but on the other hand I have quite a strong moral conviction in real life so I can accidentally show my agenda in various situation, or I show it when I feel the urge to.


Rules? Sounds like he preferred Je over Ni then, but anyway. How does your strong moral conviction look like?


> ////
> 
> One thing that makes me feel like a Fi-dom is that I can be very critical of myself. Recently it's more intense and it makes me depressed. The bad news is that it starts to feel like major depression, which is another story. I measure myself against a moral standard. I feel very guilty after I do something I deem as bad. For example, I hate to think highly of myself because I'm not that great, so if I think highly of myself, I will be against reality and be arrogant, which are crime and of course I feel guilty about committing crime. If I occasionally do, I feel bad very soon. Recently I think very hard about myself if I'm right or wrong in different things, or if I'm even a worthy or legitimate person, if I'm ever justified, etc. I feel like it's time to put myself in my own critique before it's moral for me to move on to deal with the world.


Being critical of oneself and others isn't necessarily an example of Fi valued logic. This really sounds more like an issue with being a superego type in enneagram, or having some kind of superego influence. 

To reason with Fi means that you logically evaluate actions, behaviors, impressions and so on, based on an ethical standard that you set up for yourself. 

For example, I'm against charity because *it is not fair *to help one or a few people by giving back what they should already have been in possession of to begin with. This is very Fi-Te utalitarian logic. I think especially for me, having Te auxiliary with Fi tertiary, I seek balanced options and try to find the middle-road in most situations because that's part how Ni operates.


> I can be oversensitive as well. Sometimes I think I have done something bad to people and it turns out it doesn't really matter. That's one thing I find among some ISFPs. They overthink or being oversensitive that they say so little and sometimes act weird, which are mistaken by others as something really silly, or not very true, but in fact there can be quite a lot going on in their mind.


I don't think being oversensitive to critique is indicative of Fi either. Fi is a way to ethically evaluate any given situation. It always operates on like-dislike, pain-pleasure, good-bad and so on. An Fi type might ask herself after meeting a new person; Do I really like this person? Maybe I don't like him because he's loud, noisy, annoying, takes up too much space and so on. That's Fi evaluative logic. 



> The funny thing is that when it comes to friends, I can be the most uncritical person. I am very forgiving because when I start to think about me being not-such-a-good-person, and about another person's perspective and why they do certain bad things, I realize that he/she has reason for doing that, and if that reason and purpose is not evil, I won't blame them at all but accept what they have done. People have certain flaws, since I readily accept who they are because they do the same for me, if their wrong deed result from these flaws I won't quite blame them either. Then, even if they have been really wrong or bad, if it's not too bad, or not against important principle I value, then I generally forgive them. I guess I'm more Ni when it comes to others than I'm when I think about myself.


That seems a bit like an Fi perspective perhaps.


> ////
> 
> I sometimes do that seeking one answer thing. Many answers are too much for me. But there is paradox in this one answer thing in certain areas, so sometimes I'm not so much into that. No matter what, I simply find the effort and process of trying to figure out one single answer for big life question very beneficial, like I learn a lot other things during the process, or I become more thoughtful, a better person, etc. I stop when I find that my "theories" are helpful enough currently, or I might go on, which depends.


How do you deal with paradoxes?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

chwoey said:


> Much too tired to read through the whole thread. I did skim though.
> 
> I am unsure of my type, to be honest. But I would say I make judgements first (though, I deny this to myself and everyone else), then will slowly let my perceptions change my judgements if they somehow prove to be incorrect.
> 
> ...


I thought this was judgement too, but now I am not so sure. I think there's a difference between judging a situation (evaluating it according to logic or ethics) and being _judgemental_.


> I will keep watching though, and eventually through my perceptions my judgements may change. For example, I could see that this person has cuts on their arms or notice that they are very shy and seem ashamed. Then my judgements towards that person can change to see them as a sad person with a likely bad history that caused them to retreat into food.


This seems like some kind of intuition.


> Generally, though I think this may be the case for everyone, I make quick, rash judgements initially and then eventually change those judgements based on contradictory evidence that I see.


I am actually not so sure this is the case. I think dominant judgers may operate a lot on that the systems/laws that they perceive to govern the objective world are always true once established, meaning that when they engage in new situations they will refer to this knowledge first rather than taking in impressions of how things appear to be in front of them.

I am not sure though.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I've had trouble with the very obvious reality that perceiving must precede judging, because information must be taken in in order to have a thought about it. However, I think that maybe the original intent was that in this dichotomy, perception is taken as assumed and perception and judging are both "judging." Perception has a snap reaction, a more formless "here I am". Judgment is more like a very clear, very rational and evident statement on something. Perception is where most people misunderstand each other. 

Where this comes in in MBTI is that the major perceiving function may be ahead of the judgment or vice versa. Both modes are sourced from something else, but perception is a more "raw" material "judgment" and judgment is a processed "judgment." Both assert things, but since perception is directly observing something and turning it into axiom, a dominant perceiver will rely on their axioms to approach things, and thus seem irrational and not easily understood or pared down by rational methods. A dominant judger, though their process is one that is rational and self-evident(externally or internally) given its set of rules, is making somewhat arbitrary distinctions that perceiving functions would not warrant or find justified to apply to their worldview, in general. So if MBTI is correct, a person will use both, and this creates for the varied circumstances you see among people. Perception and judgment will mingle in a way that both find conducive to their ends or means. 

I have no damn idea if this is connected to reality, but it seems to be consistent with itself.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Possible Fi dom here.

I find that perception always precedes judgment and there can never be enough new information. I consider and reconsider everything unless I have gone through the whole experience of gathering data in a prior situation that is identical to the current one, where a solid decision was reached. Methods used and approach, opinions change depending on incoming infrmation on a constant basis. The evaluation process can become tedious and long.

I may never arrive at a conclusion (judgment) if the information I'm getting is not enough, contradictory or too ambiguous. Everything must be considered, if I leave something out, don't follow a lead, then the judgment may be erronous imo.

My thoughts are always changing, racing and there is no internal structure I am aware of, this manifests in a lack of external structure as well, despite needing it in order to make sense of the streams of thoughts, to narrow down possibilities and arrive at conclusions.

For this specific reason I tend to wite out thoughts and debate them with others or just try and organize my thoughts externally on paper. This serves as a filter for information.

When it comes to moral judgments however I tend to be quick in applying judgment at first without expressing it, but then I refine it as more and more information is aquiered. The judgment may changed based on incoming information. This is the only exception.

Conclusion reached through repeated observation of own behaviour over longer periods of time, backed up by written evidence on these forums.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> I thought this was judgement too, but now I am not so sure. I think there's a difference between judging a situation (evaluating it according to logic or ethics) and being _judgemental_.


Personally, I think being judgmental has more to do with making snap character assessments of people and/or looking down on others based on them doing something the observer dislikes. For example, the guy driving the bus listens to rap music, some of it crude and misogynistic. This being a bus system that serves the entire town (and has rules against profanity on the bus, now that I think about it), I'm surprised he's able to get away with playing such vulgar music, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. I have an extreme distaste for that sort of music --> he listens to it --> I consider him a distasteful person I don't want to interact with, which translates to limited friendliness or coldness on my part. He may actually be an overall nice guy with an unfortunate taste in music, but my instinctive reaction is to vilify him because he associates with something I am against. "That kind of music is offensive; I don't like that he listens to it and that I'm being subjected to it" - making a judgment. "That kind of music is awful, and he listens to it, so he's a terrible person" - being judgmental.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I've had trouble with the very obvious reality that perceiving must precede judging, because information must be taken in in order to have a thought about it. However, I think that maybe the original intent was that in this dichotomy, perception is taken as assumed and perception and judging are both "judging." Perception has a snap reaction, a more formless "here I am". Judgment is more like a very clear, very rational and evident statement on something. Perception is where most people misunderstand each other.


There's a matter of consciousness here, as in, what takes precedence in your psyche. I also think this comes back to how judgement and perception are in fact defined. Perception isn't just "seeing" that there is a banana on the table and the banana is yellow, but it is the "conscious" act of noting that there is indeed a banana on the table and it is yellow. Perception would be akin to saying, "there is a banana on the table." This is how intuitives and sensors differ, because a sensor would indeed note the banana in an as if manner, "it is banana," whereas an intuitive would consciously project into the realms of intuition. An Ne type might for instance think, "that is not a banana, it's a penis." 

Not entirely sure how judgement would operate, but Fi might perhaps reason something like, "I really appreciate that my job provides its employees with free fruit".


> Where this comes in in MBTI is that the major perceiving function may be ahead of the judgment or vice versa. Both modes are sourced from something else, but perception is a more "raw" material "judgment" and judgment is a processed "judgment." Both assert things, but since perception is directly observing something and turning it into axiom, a dominant perceiver will rely on their axioms to approach things, and thus seem irrational and not easily understood or pared down by rational methods. A dominant judger, though their process is one that is rational and self-evident(externally or internally) given its set of rules, is making somewhat arbitrary distinctions that perceiving functions would not warrant or find justified to apply to their worldview, in general. *So if MBTI is correct, a person will use both, and this creates for the varied circumstances you see among people. Perception and judgment will mingle in a way that both find conducive to their ends or means.*


Obviously, but the real question is, what comes first as in, what takes precedence in the psyche and how can we determine this in people?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

This is interesting: http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/cognitive_styles2007.pdf


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> This is interesting: http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/cognitive_styles2007.pdf


Gulenko Cognitive Styles(wiki) - Wikisocion


----------



## Dementor (Sep 18, 2011)

chwoey said:


> Much too tired to read through the whole thread. I did skim though.
> 
> I am unsure of my type, to be honest. But I would say I make judgements first (though, I deny this to myself and everyone else), then will slowly let my perceptions change my judgements if they somehow prove to be incorrect.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with this. I make judgements fast based on opinions and values, but my introverted nature prevents me from expressing these judgements. I have learned not to trust these judgements and I am able to perceive new information and change my perceptions, but at the same time I am on guard until the opposite is proved. So yes, in a way, to judge one must first perceive. I believe it is impossible not to judge, everyone does it, the difference is that not everyone share their judgements. 





LeaT said:


> For example, I'm against charity because *it is not fair *to help one or a few people by giving back what they should already have been in possession of to begin with. This is very Fi-Te utalitarian logic. I think especially for me, having Te auxiliary with Fi tertiary, I seek balanced options and try to find the middle-road in most situations because that's part how Ni operates.
> 
> I don't think being oversensitive to critique is indicative of Fi either. Fi is a way to ethically evaluate any given situation. It always operates on like-dislike, pain-pleasure, good-bad and so on. An Fi type might ask herself after meeting a new person; Do I really like this person? Maybe I don't like him because he's loud, noisy, annoying, takes up too much space and so on. That's Fi evaluative logic.


My conscience and overly sensitive nature may at times be overwhelming. I've noticed that I use Te to rationalize things, and to find logic in whatever awfulness I stumble across. This helps me see the truth and reality behind things instead of being naive and trapped in my own universe where everything is happiness. When my world does not correlate with reality it makes me incredibly angry, depressed and desperate. So instead of shutting myself in, I gather information on everything, analyze it according to my value system and try to find logical and possible ways of achieving my goals. I sometimes find myself preferring Ti, I'm in the borderline between INTP/INFP. I've compared myself to INFP and ENFP friends many times. What I've noticed is that I am able to search within myself to find logical answers and I trust my own judgements since I gather so much information before I make one. They need others input, are insecure and often struggle being independent. This is probably due to unhealthy levels.

Yes, I am an Fi-dom no doubt: I have very strong values that drives me towards a greater purpose. However, I grew up with only sensors and thinkers and being incredibly curious and self-aware I've developed my functions much more than many other people of my type. I prefer to have systems around me and orderly environments, I like to know what is going to happen and I usually don't have a problem taking charge if I feel I can contribute.

I have noticed that when I have gathered enough information and feel secure on a topic, I don't really take criticism. If I find that the other person has got more to offer or is more knowledgeable I am able to listen and perceive information, instead of being narrow-minded and shutting them down, though I wish to do this at times to. Its the constant "what if" that drives me in everything. I don't know if this is Fi or Ne what, because it seems that when I get confident in a subject etc, it does not really matter what other people think: my sensitive nature disappears as long as I have facts and trustworthy sources. But of course, I analyze to the point that I find nothing to be completely trustworthy.


I don't know if you find this helpful or according to the topic, I'm currently studying the cognitive functions to get more insight.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

I spend a majority of my time just taking things in. Usually first from a subjective viewpoint. Then later I have to compare if it fits reality as we currently know it. I don't spend very much of my time doing this as I should. If I haven't had the time to compare it to some reliable source I will usually suspend judgement until I can get that source. A lot of time this comes off to others as basically nay saying. I can't just have someone say "This is so" and suspend my judgement that it's not knowable to me. It needs more than a reason for existing. It needs to exist because it has no choice but to exist.

Yeah, that was probably tangential to the point. If that.

Of course this begs the question. What is a reliable source? On that count I pick which one seems to me to be more reliable. Again continuing the subjective nature we have to deal with when dealing with our form of observing reality.:crazy:


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Gulenko Cognitive Styles(wiki) - Wikisocion


negative, and inductive Holographical-Panoramic Cognition. I swear dynamic-negative-inductive doesen't exist in the list...which is odd, because that is what I'd type as, however there is no option with those 3 in mind. Holographical-Panoramic works thou.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> negative, and inductive Holographical-Panoramic Cognition.


If you claim that your cognition is the best represented as holographic-panoramic, this leaves you with the types LII from alpha, SLE from beta, ESI from gamma and IEE from delta. 



> I swear dynamic-negative-inductive doesen't exist in the list...which is odd, because that is what I'd type as, however there is no option with those 3 in mind.


And there's a reason why that option doesn't exist. It has to do with the way the information elements (functions) operate. You will for example notice that all the IP and EJ types possess synethetic cognition meaning dialectial-algorithmic and vortical-synergetic, and this is because Pi as an information element when located in the ego block will naturally lead the person's cognition to take on a synthetic character. This is because the way Pi itself as a function operates, in that Pi synethesizes data. 

Claiming that you for example falls on the dynamic rather than the static spectrum thus contradicts the entire way Model A works, since all dynamic types are those with Pi and Je in the ego block. This is because both Pi and Je are information elements are dynamic. Pi perceives the world in an ever-changing way, and Je understands each situation as contextual. 

What you are saying would thus logically result with someone who has both static elements and dynamic elements in the ego block, and this contradicts each other. If your cognition is holographic-panoramic, you are _de facto _also a static type, because that is how Ji and Pe operate, and holographic-panoramic is associated with the IJ and EP temperaments.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Rules? Sounds like he preferred Je over Ni then, but anyway. How does your strong moral conviction look like?


By rules he meant nothing more than the traffic light.
I can't tell but I know I do, and I can react strongly to things sometimes, without showing it. I can't tell until it manifests in a certain situation, and unfortunately I can't remember any instance clearly now.



> Being critical of oneself and others isn't necessarily an example of Fi valued logic. This really sounds more like an issue with being a superego type in enneagram, or having some kind of superego influence.
> 
> *To reason with Fi means that you logically evaluate actions, behaviors, impressions and so on, based on an ethical standard that you set up for yourself. *


BOLD is a _perfect_ description of what I've been doing I guess 80% of the time, if I am not doing actual things. It's my fault I fail to just write a sentence like this. Isn't being critical of oneself an example of the bold words?



> For example, I'm against charity because *it is not fair *to help one or a few people by giving back what they should already have been in possession of to begin with. This is very Fi-Te utalitarian logic. I think especially for me, having Te auxiliary with Fi tertiary, *I seek balanced options and try to find the middle-road in most situations because that's part how Ni operates.*


I dont' quite get your point on charity. By charity I am thinking the church. I am not against it but I am against people who think charity is all that's enough and there should not be welfare from the state.

Do you mean it is wrong for charity to exist in the first place because it means that the society is not equal or what? What does it have to do with fairness? If I'm following you, then what's the point of talking about that someone who is propertyless should have property so that we don't need charity?

I think middle-road is a good idea but that's not always what I prefer, unless I see a great deal of benefit in compromising, which is rare. I don't naturally think of compromise/balance, and usually I have to be reminded that there are various middle-roads where we compromise and get things go, but I am usually quite reluctant to choose that middle-road. I think things start to get less interesting/exciting/meaningful when I compromise, because if I agree on something I don't feel totally right about, it's kind of pointless to me, and I feel like I'm not true to myself or to the others even though everyone knows that it's a compromise. Sometimes the perfectionist mindset poke in as well--if it is "good enough" then it feels like nothing/failure. I also feel like it's my fault not being able to keep things as they are till the end, and that I am a little bit of a failure.

It's contradictory because I also tend to avoid conflict and compromising is probably good for everyone. A lot of time I feel kinda bad either way. I don't know, but I might probably be happy if I am doing this for someone else.



> I don't think being oversensitive to critique is indicative of Fi either. Fi is a way to ethically evaluate any given situation. It always operates on like-dislike, pain-pleasure, good-bad and so on. *An Fi type might ask herself after meeting a new person; Do I really like this person? Maybe I don't like him because he's loud, noisy, annoying, takes up too much space and so on.* That's Fi evaluative logic.


Wait, not everyone do this?



> How do you deal with paradoxes?


The paradox in my mind is this: While one single answer for a big question tell some truth, such as the mechanism behind a series of phenomena, but generalization always goes off away from reality in a strict sense. It is an inherent philosophical paradox that you can't solve. It's the nature of things. I ignore it a lot of times. Come back to my teacher. He meant that if a person didn't make any generalization or not have at least a few ways to deal with the world, he couldn't even function on a daily basis. Another example of rules might be number 1-10. He asked us all the time to challenge assumption and established concept and to break down the world. One example of assumption would be any form of stereotypes. Some less obvious one would be some history, such as the United States of America being established on 1776.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

@_LeaT_
I should directly ask you why you think I am a Pi-lead


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_uncertain_ Also, how do you relate to these lyrics? Do they make sense to you?
> 
> *Eyes transfixed at flashing visuals
> Looking without seeing*
> ...


I don't know. The bold make sense to me, I guess, but it's too heavy. The subliminal thing happens sometimes, and I can be stroke by ah-ha moments unpredictably, and I like those moments, Yes! with a fist. But I'm not like being ATTACKED by it, not a heart attack, and I don't feel like a.. slave??
By "looking without seeing" does it mean that our eyesight are blinded by the flash for awhile because the light is so strong? Or does "looking" mean seeing the object and "seeing" mean seeing things beyond the flash? But what else can a light or flashing thing be if not a light or flashing thing?

Why do lies enslave you? Why would you even be interested in lies? Why would "[subconscious] registrations burn our spirits hollow"? I'm not sure about "the blind stays blind." I first think, how can you unblind a person if he is already blind? But then I start to read it as that there are certain problems in your life that you don't want to explore for some reasons so you just leave them as they are. Usually I ask myself to challenge those things even though I'm reluctant to most of the time, but it's always healthy to take challenge, and I can feel like a coward if I don't, which is bad. I guess this line describes a lot of people though.

I just don't really get the unbold lyrics.


----------



## Praying Mantis (Nov 14, 2012)

LeaT said:


> An Ne type might for instance think, "that is not a banana, it's a penis."


That has more to do with being perverted than anything.


----------

