# Opposing functions ARE the extra/introverted version of each other



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Si-Ne, otoh, perceive _qualitative _relations, _similarities in the qualities of things_...for this reason, Ne has a _spatial _focus and can be said to be concerned with space


Si perceives time because it connects qualitative relations across time

Ne, curiously enough, is unique amongst the perceiving functions in that it stands _outside _of time...in this respect, it's relationship to Si is different than Ni's relationship to Se...and Ne's unique, _otherworldly_, ability to defy the laws of physics, so to speak, by _connecting things that are not_ _causally connected _may account for its attribution to genius, its ability to create new things that not only didn't exist before but may never have come into existence without Ne's vision

it's almost as if Ne is connected to another world from which it draws inspiration


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Si perceives time because it connects qualitative relations across time
> 
> Ne, curiously enough, is unique amongst the perceiving functions in that it stands _outside _of time...in this respect, it's relationship to Si is different than Ni's relationship to Se...and Ne's unique, _otherworldly_, ability to defy the laws of physics, so to speak, by _connecting things that are not_ _causally connected _may account for its attribution to genius, its ability to create new things that not only didn't exist before but may never have come into existence without Ne's vision
> 
> it's almost as if Ne is connected to another world from which it draws inspiration


because Si constructs our sense of time, it is the cf that can be said to exist or to_ be in time_

Ne naturally opposes Si, then, in the sense Ne stands outside of time


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

I agree 100% with OP. The way I see it (informed somewhat by Socionics)


*Ni* - Time, and having the attitude for peripherally intuiting what will happen in an inertial or fatalistic way, resisting being blinded by what is in front of your nose.
*Se* - Actualisation, and having the attitude for seizing the day and apprehending reality, resisting inertia or fatalism.


*Si* - Familiarity, and having the attitude for attending to the little details that other people overlook, resisting novelty or sillyness.
*Ne* - Novelty, and having the attitude for grasping possibilities and novel ideas out of the air, resisting normalcy or familiarity.


*Ti* - Chaos, and having the attitude for understanding and respecting the natural "inner" logic of things, resisting group identity.
*Fe* - Harmony, and having the attitude for forging alliances and partaking in a greater sense of identity, resisting chaos and the abandonment of order.


*Fi* - Values, and having the attitude for tuning into something's inherent, internal character, resisting cold objectification.
*Te* - Logistics, and having the attitude for clearly identifying roles and procedures toward agreed-upon goals, resisting childish impulses by taking responsibility.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Masterpiece said:


> Both opposing functions in a given functional pair operates the same way in essence, but in opposite directions - one works towards the external while the other works internally. I think this theory can explain some other things too, like how one function suppresses the other; seeing as you obviously can't simultaneously input and output information at the same time. It can also explain why we are encouraged to develop the two last functions in our stack; as doing so will allow us to hit the right balance between storing up enough information and putting them to good use.


One _derives_ from the external and the other _derives_ from the internal. Extraverted functions adjust their inner world to align with the image the external world has presented to them. Introverted functions adjust the external information to align with the image which the inner world presents to them.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Se-Ni perceive _causal _relations, Se immediate_ opportunities to act_ in the external world, Ni the future consequences of such actions...for this reason, Ni has a _temporal _focus and Ni can be said to be concerned with _time_


Should have added last night, that this seems to be based on the common portrayal of Ni=“future” (so if you add Si=“past”, then I could see why you would just have Pi=time). But Ni isn't necessarily future; it just references archetypal patterns which say help give a sense of the future, but it's more than just “foretelling”.



> Si-Ne, otoh, perceive _qualitative _relations, _similarities in the qualities of things_...for this reason, Ne has a _spatial _focus and can be said to be concerned with space


Yes. That would agree with the concept behind “Inquiring”, but I don't think it's a spatial relation for Ne (which may be comparing _ideas_ that are not things in space, such as these concepts).



> "e" isn't the same as "real"..."e" means "objective" or "external".


 “External” is often considered “real world”. It's either an object in the real world, or it's the subject's own “world”. 



> "i" doesn't mean "removed"..."i" means "subjective" or "internal"


 And what I meant there was that it's “removed“ from the “real world” of actual “objects”. Basically, what we would often call “withdrawn”. So that's what I think the term “removed“ is better suited for.



> "real" and "removed" here describe the qualities of space and time...real space and time are directly experienced by our senses, space by Se and time by Si....removed space and time are indirectly experienced or imagined by our intuition, space by Ne and time by Ni
> 
> Ne is removed from real Se space, but remains in the external world of objects, only in the mind's eye, so to speak


This again has S=“real”, (and thus, N= “removed” from reality). It fits in one sense, but what S does is *register* reality as real. Either in the moment, or by filtering it through internal knowledge. That may lie elsewhere in “time”, but what is being processed is still what's been perceived through space.



> yes, and our sense of the present moment in time is largely internally constructed...for example, we feel hungry and sleepy at certain times in the day; these internal sensations give us a sense of the passing of time...we also compare our perceptions in the present moment to our memories and use the sense of continuity to construct an internal sense of time
> 
> Ni looks through time because it is focused on _causal _patterns...Ne jumps through space because it is focused on _qualitative _patterns
> 
> ...


When I speak in terms of “plotting”, I'm thinking of all of spacetime from beginning to end, as a four dimensional “block“. I'm not looking in terms of what we're conscious of, like through memory, or what we consider “present” (which changes according to different inertial frames of reference anyway). The whole premise I'm operating off of, is that these functions are “divisions of reality”, which implies there's a “whole” undivided reality (which our consciousness divides, so of course, we can't experience the whole), and that's what I'm trying to characterize; that's what things would be “plotted” in. 
“So “plot” means, if you want to find a particular object at a given time, then you must use the three space coordinates. If you want to find an event, which is a change of a particular object in space (whether acceleration, or any other change, which is all from energy being applied to it in some way), then you must use the time dimension. In both cases the one form of continuum (s or t) is given, and you must use the coordinates of the other to “plot” the thing you're looking for.

So when I associate N with time (rather than Si), it's not the time of the processing, itself I'm pointing to, it's about perception of _patterns_, which take time to play out, including those imagined by Ne. (Again, looking at the “whole” first; not starting from our processing, which is the dividing of the whole). 
Si isn't so such about _putting together_ these patterns; as S, it's more “itemized”, which is what would cover your point of only seeing one moment of time, at a time (which means you're only really perceiving space). Si zeroes in on a particular time, (where t becomes essentially 0 [i.e. inanimate] and all you’re really working with is the three coordinates of space. Basically, “space” will assume all points of time, and “time” covers all points of space. This is the principle behind a Minkowski spacetime diagram). So then, it's intuition we can use to put together these items into a pattern. (And of course, these things are all working together, all the time). And Si IS concerned with real space, because its impressions are what's used to navigate through it.
So I say Ne's “environment” is time itself, and Si works with it well because Ne can put together its points of time. Se's environment is space, and Ni works with it in being immediate in filling it in with an internally derived timelike pattern.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> Should have added last night, that this seems to be based on the common portrayal of Ni=“future” (so if you add Si=“past”, then I could see why you would just have Pi=time). But Ni isn't necessarily future; it just references archetypal patterns which say help give a sense of the future, but it's more than just “foretelling”.


Ni uses patterns it learns from experience, patterns stored in memory...when it recognizes these patterns in its sensory perception, it maps its memory to a vision of what _will _happen in the external world--ie, it envisions an event at some time in the future

Ni might use patterns it inherits from its ancestors, so-called jungian archetypes...but I am skeptical of archetypes as jung claimed they are the source of Ti's ideas, which I haven't confirmed from personal experience...I also have no experience of achetypes in my use of Ni

frankly, I think archetypes is an unnecessary idea that adds nothing that can't be explained by personal experience



> Yes. That would agree with the concept behind “Inquiring”, but I don't think it's a spatial relation for Ne (which may be comparing _ideas_ that are not things in space, such as these concepts).


concepts are abstractions of _things_, real and imagined...Ne connects disparate things (incl concepts) by the similar qualities they share...so Ne connections to concepts can be thought of as indirect connections to the underlying things...or, the concepts can be taken at face value as things that exist in a figurative space...after all, Ne is the objective perception of _removed _space...removed space doesn't necessarily have to have three spatial dimensions like real space...it just has to exist some other space



> “External” is often considered “real world”. It's either an object in the real world, or it's the subject's own “world”.


our experience of time is internal, subjective...it only exists because we remember the past and connect it to the present...if we had no memory, we would have no experience of time, only disconnected spaces



> And what I meant there was that it's “removed“ from the “real world” of actual “objects”. Basically, what we would often call “withdrawn”. So that's what I think the term “removed“ is better suited for. This again has S=“real”, (and thus, N= “removed” from reality).


no...again, real, _experienced _time is _internal_, not external



> It fits in one sense, but what S does is *register* reality as real. Either in the moment, or by filtering it through internal knowledge. That may lie elsewhere in “time”, but what is being processed is still what's been perceived through space.


time can only be "registered as real" by connecting the present to the past...as I said, without this connection to the past, there is no experience of time, only disconnected spaces



> When I speak in terms of “plotting”, I'm thinking of all of spacetime from beginning to end, as a four dimensional “block“. I'm not looking in terms of what we're conscious of, like through memory, or what we consider “present” (which changes according to different inertial frames of reference anyway). The whole premise I'm operating off of, is that these functions are “divisions of reality”, which implies there's a “whole” undivided reality (which our consciousness divides, so of course, we can't experience the whole), and that's what I'm trying to characterize; that's what things would be “plotted” in.
> “So “plot” means, if you want to find a particular object at a given time, then you must use the three space coordinates. If you want to find an event, which is a change of a particular object in space (whether acceleration, or any other change, which is all from energy being applied to it in some way), then you must use the time dimension. In both cases the one form of continuum (s or t) is given, and you must use the coordinates of the other to “plot” the thing you're looking for.


you have to record events on the time axis with a clock so it is still a Te measurement, not a Si perception



> So when I associate N with time (rather than Si), it's not the time of the processing, itself I'm pointing to, it's about perception of _patterns_, which take time to play out, including those imagined by Ne.


what if Ne ideas never "play out"?...then they can't be located on your 4d plot...yet they exist, don't they?

like I said, Ne imagines things that don't necessarily exist in time..._Ne stands outside of time_



> (Again, looking at the “whole” first; not starting from our processing, which is the dividing of the whole).
> Si isn't so such about _putting together_ these patterns; as S, it's more “itemized”, which is what would cover your point of only seeing one moment of time, at a time (which means you're only really perceiving space). Si zeroes in on a particular time, (where t becomes essentially 0 [i.e. inanimate] and all you’re really working with is the three coordinates of space.


no...Si does focus on the subjective impression made by its immediate external environment, but it connects these impressions to other impressions it has stored in memory to form its sense of time



> Basically, “space” will assume all points of time, and “time” covers all points of space. This is the principle behind a Minkowski spacetime diagram).


no...we don't experience space and time as einsteinian space-time...the latter is a Ti _concept_, not a S or even N _experience_



> So then, it's intuition we can use to put together these items into a pattern. (And of course, these things are all working together, all the time). So I say Ne's “environment” is time itself


LOL

Ne is not concerned with the time stamps of its intuitions, only with the shared qualities of things that are typically not even causally connected in time...this is why Ne is so unconcerned with and even dismissive of routine, of following the rules laid down against time

Si, otoh, _is _concerned with routine and observing rules delineated by time...this is cuz Si constructs the sense of time and therefore prefers to live in the house that it built (a place Ne usually can't abide)



> And Si IS concerned with real space, because its impressions are what's used to navigate through it.


all types observe and navigate in real space...but not all types have real space as the _primary _focus of their cognition...Si's primary focus is not real space but the subjective impressions real space imparts



> So I say Ne's “environment” is time itself, and Si works with it well because Ne can put together its points of time. Se's environment is space, and Ni works with it in being immediate in filling it in with an internally derived timelike pattern.


again, the idea of Ne being in time contradicts the evidence of Ne doms who are anything but creatures of time


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Ni uses patterns it learns from experience, patterns stored in memory...when it recognizes these patterns in its sensory perception, it maps its memory to a vision of what _will _happen in the external world--ie, it envisions an event at some time in the future
> 
> Ni might use patterns it inherits from its ancestors, so-called jungian archetypes...but I am skeptical of archetypes as jung claimed they are the source of Ti's ideas, which I haven't confirmed from personal experience...I also have no experience of achetypes in my use of Ni
> 
> frankly, I think archetypes is an unnecessary idea that adds nothing that can't be explained by personal experience


 Archetypes are simply "ruling patterns", and are associated with all four introverted functions. These "patterns" are the "models" of S. N, T, F data, where the extraverted functions deal with the "real world" of those functions themselves. 

Like in Beebe's book (http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...nctions-type-beebe-model-14.html#post30917409), he points out that "For Si, the person’s happiness at a meal might be affected by 'a dissonance with the archetype of a good meal that has been constellated by the excessive stimulation' of the internal body sensations or the audibility of others at the table." 
For Ni, “unconscious images acquire the dignity of things” (Jung). It naturally “apprehends the images rising from the a priori inherited foundations of the unconscious” (where Ne’s images arise from looking at objects), and thus rather than thinking about, experimentally comparing, or feeling the archetype that arises in relation to a situation, Ni “becomes directly aware of the archetype as an image, as if ‘seeing’ it”. Later, (p.184, citing Jung) it “peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image”, and is “directed to the inner image”, and observes “how the picture changes, unfolds and finally fades” (and is the consciousness most consistently devalued in contemporary Western culture).
I use the notion of metrical symmetry as a primordial archetype used by Ti, being it’s what mathematics [number theory] relies on, and can be seen in visual reflections, and reflections of reflections.
When Fi feels “bad”, “it is feeling the entire archetypal category of ‘bad’” (or as he later puts it, an “archetypal standard of appropriateness”, often represented in dreams as a “judge”, and that Fi “works art the archetypal (not personal) level, compels us to feel the rightness or wrongness of images” p221). So this shows that “archetypes can be felt every bit as much as they can be thought about, directly intuited or experience somatically”. 



> concepts are abstractions of _things_, real and imagined...Ne connects disparate things (incl concepts) by the similar qualities they share...so Ne connections to concepts can be thought of as indirect connections to the underlying things...or, the concepts can be taken at face value as things that exist in a metaphorical space...after all, Ne is the objective perception of _removed _space...removed space doesn't necessarily have to have three spatial dimensions like real space...it just has to exist in some other space


And I think that's the thing; you're thinking of "_metaphorical_ space", and I'm thinking of real space. So I think of Ne's "metaphorical space" (or its "environment) as time. The similar qualities "disparate" things share are _patterns_ that play out in time. 



> our experience of time is internal, subjective...it only exists because we remember the past and connect it to the present...if we had no memory, we would have no experience of time, only disconnected spaces
> 
> no...again, real, _experienced _time is _internal_, not external
> 
> ...


The problem, again, is that you are looking at our perspective of space and time, and I'm taking a more transcendent view. You're looking at "split reality", but this is best understood looking at the whole. 



> what if Ne ideas never "play out"?...then they can't be located on your 4d plot...yet they exist, don't they?
> 
> like I said, Ne imagines things that don't necessarily exist in time...Ne stands outside of time


But still, it is an *imaginary* time (and imaginary existence) then; or your "metaphorical space", but that "space" is still sequential. So you're taking that 4D "block" and projecting into the part we can't see yet, what "could be", or even making a copy of the block and recreating present or past parts of it, like in fantasizing about "alternate realities". 



> no...Si does focus on the subjective impression made by its immediate external environment, but it connects these impressions to other impressions it has stored in memory...it's in this process of connecting the present to the past that Si's sense of time is formed


 But that's a simple connection of two *points*, not a pattern playing out. Like what we see here: Fundamental Nature of the MBTI S (of either attitude) deals with points, N is the "motion component", dealing with the connection between _multiple_ points (e.g. "where it's heading"). So Si does connect two points, and thus does have a timelike element, but the emphasis is on the points, not the connection. The page reads "The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process." Again, N is what comes and puts the points together into a pattern.



> no...we don't experience space and time as einsteinian space-time...the latter is a Ti concept, not a S or even N experience


 Einsteinian space-time is what we inhabit, if you accept his theory, which is almost universally accepted. Otherwise, what kind of space and time do you hold to?




> Ne is not concerned with the time stamps of its intuitions, only with the shared qualities of things that are typically not even causally connected in time...this is why Ne is so unconcerned with and even dismissive of routine, of following the rules laid down against time
> 
> Si, otoh, _is _concerned with routine and observing rules delineated by time...this is cuz Si constructs the sense of time and therefore lives in its own construction
> 
> ...


Again, Si's "routines" is from itemizing two different points, which happen to be displaced through time, but Si focuses on the points of tangible experience, not the connection itself, other than using it to compare. So yes, you assume the common "rules" of each point carried through time, but N is what then would fill in the connection (which is adding "meaning"). So no, Ne would not get hung up on "routine" or "rules"; it's just noting the pattern of change (or at least potential change). 
Si just points out "what is"; it either matches, or it doesn't. That's it. So no, it's not "real" space in the sense of _referencing_ current "at hand" reality. That's what Se does; hence, e="in the _real_ world". Si's subjective impressions are just to compare what is at hand now, with what was at hand before.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> And I think that's the thing; you're thinking of "_metaphorical_ space", and I'm thinking of real space. So I think of Ne's "metaphorical space" (or its "environment) as time. The similar qualities "disparate" things share are _patterns_ that play out in time.


no...most of Ne's ideas never "play out in time"...Ne plays _outside _of time

_things _like concepts that don't have extensions in space nevertheless exist...if we want to be quite literal, concepts exist in the space between peoples' ears, in their _brains_...they nevertheless point to concrete things in the external world outside of peoples' brains...symmetry, for example, is an abstraction from concrete things that are symmetrical...those things obviously have spatial dimensions



> The problem, again, is that you are looking at our perspective of space and time, and I'm taking a more transcendent view. You're looking at "split reality", but this is best understood looking at the whole.


"trancendent"?...we don't perceive in "the whole", whatever you think that means



> But still, it is an *imaginary* time (and imaginary existence) then; or your "metaphorical space", but that "space" is still sequential. So you're taking that 4D "block" and projecting into the part we can't see yet, what "could be", or even making a copy of the block and recreating present or past parts of it, like in fantasizing about "alternate realities".


Ne is not concerned with "imaginary time"...it is concerned with the qualities of _things_, of _objects_...even you said so yourself above:



eric b said:


> (where *Ne’s images arise from looking at objects*)





> But that's a simple connection of two *points*, not a pattern playing out. Like what we see here: Fundamental Nature of the MBTI S (of either attitude) deals with points, N is the "motion component", dealing with the connection between multiple points (e.g. "where it's heading"). So Si does connect two points, and thus does have a timelike element, but the emphasis is on the points, not the connection. The page reads "The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process." Again, N is what comes and puts the points together into a pattern.


no...Si connects the present to the past, which itself is _already connected _to other points from prior experience...so what Si draws is a _pattern of experience _from the past to the present...that pattern is Si's sense of time



> Einsteinian space-time is what we inhabit, if you accept his theory, which is almost universally accepted. Otherwise, what kind of space and time do you hold to?


LOL

space and time is only evident as space-time when relativistic effects are present...in the world of our perceptions, our _experience_, there are _no _relativistic effects...that's why newton didn't discover relativity

your minkowski diagram is a Ti concept realized by making Te measurements, including the _measurement _of time...the Te measurement of time is not the S-N _perception _of time, which is what we are concerned with here

this, btw, is another reason why we don't perceive objective (measured) time...for us, time is a cognitive _construction _built from our sensory perceptions and memory



> Again, Si's "routines" is from itemizing two different points, which happen to be displaced through time, but Si focuses on the points of tangible experience, not the connection itself, other than using it to compare. So yes, you assume the common "rules" of each point carried through time, but N is what then would fill in the connection (which is adding "meaning"). So no, Ne would not get hung up on "routine" or "rules"; it's just noting the pattern of change (or at least potential change).
> 
> Si just points out "what is"; it either matches, or it doesn't. That's it. So no, it's not "real" space in the sense of _referencing_ current "at hand" reality. That's what Se does; hence, e="in the _real_ world". Si's subjective impressions are just to compare what is at hand now, with what was at hand before.


again, Si has already connected the points in the past, so when it connects a new point in the present it is automatically connected to all prior connected points...it's this pattern of prior points that forms the basis of Si's sense of time


----------



## Masterpiece (Jul 17, 2016)

PiT said:


> You mean in reference to your OP? It seems odd to me that a general rule-making function should extrovert as feeling. Sure Te needs to consider possible falsification, but Fe should have to do that as well. I have experienced clear counterexamples wherein people try to empathize with me over things that I don't feel. I can't have been the only person to experience this, yet I see people hold up extroverted feeling (not named as such in this context, but it is basically the same thing) as some sort of unqualified good that holds the key to a true utopia.


I didn't mean that Fe is the end all be all of value judgements, if that's the impression you got from my OP. What I meant was that Fe's values are _always_ driven by some form of (Ti) rationale, despite not seeming so. Let's look at the most generic example of an Fe value - the belief that we should all treat each other with respect. This belief kind of loses its' meaning after being expressed so many times, but the original idea behind it was to treat everyone as equals so that we each get equal opportunities to play our parts to the fullest during our time on this planet, like with all living beings in the animal kingdom. However, because this underlying rationale is much too troublesome and complicated to explain and express to everyone, it has to be condensed into a sole, single 'sentence' which can be easily said (and hence reinforced) to anyone, and that is "to treat each other with respect". This 'sentence' when used as an empirical moral value may not actually be the key to a perfect utopia, and can indeed do more harm than good, as some of the meaning it tries to convey in the first place _does_ get lost in the process of being passed around so much, but the main point here is that there _is_ rationalism to the origin of Fe values, despite them not being the 'ultimate truth'.

EDIT: I actually am not sure if any of that makes sense lol. I'm kinda half-awake right now. But hopefully you'll catch my drift.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> Archetypes are simply "ruling patterns", and are associated with all four introverted functions. These "patterns" are the "models" of S. N, T, F data, where the extraverted functions deal with the "real world" of those functions themselves.
> 
> Like in Beebe's book (http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...nctions-type-beebe-model-14.html#post30917409), he points out that "For Si, the person’s happiness at a meal might be affected by 'a dissonance with the archetype of a good meal that has been constellated by the excessive stimulation' of the internal body sensations or the audibility of others at the table."


Si can form a memory of "a good meal, etc" from personal experience....why invoke ancestral memories, when personal ones will do?





> For Ni, “unconscious images acquire the dignity of things” (Jung). It naturally “apprehends the images rising from the a priori inherited foundations of the unconscious” (where Ne’s images arise from looking at objects), and thus rather than thinking about, experimentally comparing, or feeling the archetype that arises in relation to a situation, Ni “becomes directly aware of the archetype as an image, as if ‘seeing’ it”. Later, (p.184, citing Jung) it “peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image”, and is “directed to the inner image”, and observes “how the picture changes, unfolds and finally fades” (and is the consciousness most consistently devalued in contemporary Western culture).


Ni can recall these images from its own memory...so why invoke ancestral memories?

in fact, science has shown that the parts of the brain used to forecast the future are the same ones used to form and recall memories

next



> I use the notion of metrical symmetry as a primordial archetype used by Ti, being it’s what mathematics [number theory] relies on, and can be seen in visual reflections, and reflections of reflections.


we have direct experience of structures--like animals, chairs and tables, cars, as well as own bodies--that are symmetrical...for example, when we learn how to walk we learn the importance of symmetry and balance...so it's only natural we should think symmetry is beneficial, even beautiful...there's no reason to invoke some vague notion of ancestral memories when personal experience will suffice

are you starting to see a pattern here?





> When Fi feels “bad”, “it is feeling the entire archetypal category of ‘bad’” (or as he later puts it, an “archetypal standard of appropriateness”, often represented in dreams as a “judge”, and that Fi “works art the archetypal (not personal) level, compels us to feel the rightness or wrongness of images” p221). So this shows that “archetypes can be felt every bit as much as they can be thought about, directly intuited or experience somatically”.


LOL

we have plenty of experiences of "bad"!...do we really need our ancestors to tell us when we feel bad?!



archetypes are superfluous and don't explain anything that can't be more easily explained by personal experience


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> Archetypes are simply "ruling patterns",
> 
> The problem, again, is that you are looking at our perspective of space and time, and I'm taking a more transcendent view. You're looking at "split reality", but this is best understood looking at the whole.


the problem here is that you are trying to defend a theory you got from jung and others...I, otoh, am trying to understand whether it is possible to define cfs from the ground up, from what we already know, for example, from science

science tells us that our bodies have internal clocks, eg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultradian_rhythm

these rhythms regulate our bodily functions, like breathing, heartrate, body temperature, hormones, appetite, arousal, bowel movements, and so on

introverted sensing is, first and foremost, the perception of our bodies' physical sensations...the sense of our bodies' rhythms--of our bodies' sense of time--therefore, falls naturally into Si's domain

the continuity of our sense of time most likely arises from Si's perceptions of the continuity of our bodies' sensations


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

blogs.scientificamerican.com *

Time on the Brain: How You Are Always Living In the Past, and Other Quirks of Perception*

George Musser
[HR][/HR] 

I always knew we humans have a rather tenuous grip on the concept of time, but I never realized quite how tenuous it was until a couple of weeks ago, when I attended a conference on the nature of time organized by the Foundational Questions Institute. This meeting, even more than FQXi's previous efforts, was a mashup of different disciplines: fundamental physics, philosophy, neuroscience, complexity theory. Crossing academic disciplines may be overrated, as physicist-blogger Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out, but it sure is fun. Like Sabine, I spend my days thinking about planets, dark matter, black holes—they have become mundane to me. But brains—now there's something exotic. So I sat rapt during the neuroscientists' talks as they described how our minds perceive the past, present, and future. "Perceive" maybe isn't strong enough a word: our minds _construct_ the past, present, and future, and sometimes get it badly wrong.
Neuroscientist Kathleen McDermott of Washington University began by quoting famous memory researcher Endel Tulving, who called our ability to remember the past and to anticipate the future "mental time travel." You don’t use the phrase "time travel" lightly in front of a group of physicists for whom the concept is not a convenient metaphor but a very real possibility. But when you hear about how our minds glide through time—and how our memory provides a link not only to the past but also to the future—you see Tulving's point.

McDermott outlined the case of Patient K.C., who has even worse amnesia than the better-known H.M. on whom the film Memento was based. K.C. developed both retrograde and anterograde amnesia from a motorcycle crash in 1981. (The literature doesn't say whether he was wearing a helmet, but let this be a lesson.) He can't remember anything that happened more than a few minutes ago. He retains facts and skills, but can't remember actually doing anything or being anywhere.

Tellingly, not only can he not recall the past, he can't envision the future. When researchers ask him to picture himself somewhere he might go, he says that all he sees is "a big blankness." Another patient McDermott has worked with can explain the future in the abstract, but says he can't imagine himself in it.

To investigate the perception of past and future in people without brain injuries, McDermott did fMRI brain scans of 21 college students, asking them to recall a specific incident in their past and then envision themselves in a specific future scenario. Subjectively, the two feel very different. Yet the scans showed the same patterns of activity. Areas scattered all over the brain lit up; our temporal perception is distributed. As a control, McDermott also asked the students to remember events involving Bill Clinton (presumably, ones they were not personally involved in), and the patterns were very different. In a follow-up study, McDermott asked 27 students to anticipate an event in both a familiar and an unfamiliar place. The brain scan for the familiar one resembled the one for the act of remembering; the unfamiliar one was the odd man out.

The bottom line is that memory is essential to constructing scenarios for ourselves in the future. Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Our ability to project forward and to recollect the past both develop around age 5, and people who are good at remembering also report having vivid thoughts about the future.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

^
the idea Ni is based on memories was my conjecture based on my own experience and on what made more sense than archetypes...it was formed before I saw scientific evidence like this, but when people arrive independently at the same conclusions, it lends more credence to the result


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

nature.com *

Link proved between senses and memory : Nature News*

Michael Hopkin
[HR][/HR] Brain scans show how sights and smells evoke the past.








If one sense is stimulated to evoke a memory, other senses are triggered too.

Marcel Proust reflected that "the smell and taste of things remain poised a long time, ready to remind us... the immense edifice of memory". It's a familiar phenomenon: a single smell or sound has the power to conjure up entire scenes from the past. Now a British-led group of neuroscientists has come up with an explanation.

The key, the researchers claim, is that memories relating to an event are scattered across the brain's sensory centres but marshalled by a region called the hippocampus. If one of the senses is stimulated to evoke a memory, other memories featuring other senses are also triggered.

This explains why a familiar song or the smell of a former lover's perfume has the power to conjure up a detailed picture of past times, says Jay Gottfried of University College London's Department of Imaging Neuroscience, who led a recent study of memory retrieval.

"That's the beauty of our memory system," he says. "Imagine a nice day on the beach. The smell of sun lotion, the friends you were with, the beer you were drinking; any of these could trigger memories of the whole thing."

Gottfried's team made the discovery by presenting subjects with a series of pictures, each paired with an unrelated smell. The subjects were asked to form a mental link between the two: if, for example, a picture of a duck was accompanied by the smell of roses, the volunteers may have imagined a duck walking into a rose garden.

The participants were then shown the pictures again, this time without the smells and interspersed with novel pictures, while the researchers scanned their brain activity. Familiar pictures stimulated both the hippocampus and the piriform cortex, which deals with smell. New pictures had no such effect, the researchers report in the journal Neuron[SUP]1[/SUP].

The study shows that a visual stimulus can activate brain regions associated with a previously experienced smell. But does it work the other way around? After all, smell has long been hailed as the 'memory sense', the one most likely to provoke reminiscence.

“Odour memory seems to be the most resistant to forgetting”
​Jay Gottfried 
University College London

The researchers did not address this question directly. "But odour memory seems to be the most resistant to forgetting," says Gottfried. Previous work has shown that memories of images begin to fade days or even hours after viewing, whereas recall of smells remains unimpaired for as much as a year[SUP]2[/SUP].
Gottfried suspects that odour-linked memories may persist even after the hippocampus has given up its orchestrating role. Patients with damage to their hippocampus can have amnesia stretching back several years, but still recall smells from their childhood.

But experts still do not really know why our noses have such a hold on our memories. How exactly do our brains make close associations, such that the smell of an aunt’s cake can transport one back to childhood? 

"If you could answer that you'd be looking at a Nobel Prize," says Gottfried. 
University College London


 *References*
Gottfried, J. A., Smith, A. P. R., Rugg, M. D.. & Dolan, R. J. Neuron, 42, 687 - 695, (2003). | Article | ISI | 
Engen, T & Ross, B. M. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 221 - 227, (1973). | ISI |


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> no...most of Ne's ideas never "play out in time"...Ne plays _outside _of time
> 
> _things _like concepts that don't have extensions in space nevertheless exist...if we want to be quite literal, concepts exist in the space between peoples' ears, in their _brains_...they nevertheless point to concrete things in the external world outside of peoples' brains...symmetry, for example, is an abstraction from concrete things that are symmetrical...those things obviously have spatial dimensions





> Ne is not concerned with "imaginary time"...it is concerned with the qualities of _things_, of _objects_...even you said so yourself above:
> (where Ne’s images arise from looking at objects)


If Ne's ideas aren't realized, they still "play out" in a "hypothetical" time. If I imagine a pattern of a sequence of events, then I'm imagining it playing out in time, even if it never happens. The "space" between people's ears is not the space we are describing when discussing Ne products. We're discussing "concrete things in the external world", but we're discussing "where they're heading"; not "what they are" in actual spatial experience. It's hypothetical. It's about what plays out in time.

Se and Ni are the "meta" functions (and hence, about instant "Realizing"). So Se is the most purely spacelike, Ni is the most timelike (as you've associated it with time), and Si and Ne combine elements of both.



> "trancendent"?...we don't perceive in "the whole", whatever you think that means ["you've been drinking the jungian koolade for too long"; weird, that it quotes what's not there; never seen it do this before; I take it, this must have been an edit]


No; we don't perceive in the whole, but I think to get a better understanding of how this works, we must try to look at it in light of the whole.



> no...Si connects the present to the past, which itself is _already connected _to other points from prior experience...so what Si draws is a _pattern of experience _from the past to the present...that pattern is Si's sense of time
> 
> again, Si has already connected the points in the past, so when it connects a new point in the present it is automatically connected to all prior connected points...it's this pattern of prior points that forms the basis of Si's sense of time


 No; Si is not looking at the pattern; it's comparing two points. And then perhaps another two, and so on. That itself doesn't equate to putting together a whole pattern.

I have to give a reminder that we get into thinking of the functions as "gears", where you're "using" one, then you're shifting to the other, but these are divisions of reality simultaneously present in every mental process. (So again, starting from a "whole" being good to understand this from). Someone said somewhere, none of them operate in a vacuum. 
What "differentiates" them into almost discrete perspectives is what our ego complexes focus on. So the purpose of Si is to look at the different points and compare one to the other. Intuition then draws or "animates" in into a "pattern". So an Si type's ego will look at how current reality lines up with what he remembers, and then a less conscious Ne puts it together and forms a pattern. This Ne might not be mature enough (as it's associated with less mature complexes such as the inferior) to then "go with the flow" of the emergent information, so then his ego will draw back and maintain "routine" and "rules", where an Ne type will be more willing to "rebel" against those routines in the back of his consciousness, and go with the flow. 
S is the "static" component, N is the "motion" component. 




> space and time is only evident as space-time when relativistic effects are present...in the world of our perceptions, our _experience_, there are _no _relativistic effects...that's why newton didn't discover relativity
> 
> your minkowski diagram is a Ti concept realized by making Te measurements, including the _measurement _of time...the Te measurement of time is not the S-N _perception _of time, which is what we are concerned with here
> 
> this, btw, is another reason why we don't perceive objective (measured) time...for us, time is a cognitive _construction _built from our sensory perceptions and memory


 (This sounds like it gets into the whole question of whether time is "real" or not. That's why I think it's best to try to look in terms of a whole). 
But I used the Minkowski diagram just to illustrate how time and space are intermingled. But if you have a horizontal line, that's all of space, but only one point of time. A vertical line is sitting through all of time, in one point of space. So there's always both space and time, involved, but you can be not "moving" in one, when you focus only on a single point of its coordinates, and then you're really only "moving" through the other coordinates. (The point was not what function you're using by measuring with a Minkowski diagram; it's using a T concept to illustrate something).
Again, the point was that S is looking at things that are static in time, dealing in one instant at a time (even if referencing multiple points from the past like Si, or unfolding points like Se), and N is what puts together the different points into a framework of "meaning".


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> the problem here is that you are trying to defend a theory you got from jung and others...I, otoh, am trying to understand whether it is possible to define cfs from the ground up, from what we already know, for example, from science
> 
> science tells us that our bodies have internal clocks, eg:
> 
> ...


OK, ground up; it's obviously a totally different way of looking at it. I'm simply trying to extend Jung's concepts, which these are. Most people looking from a scientific framework think the whole notion of cf's is imaginary anyway. By tying them to concepts they accept, like "space" and "time"; I'm trying to show they're not imaginary.

(And since everyone has internal sensations/body clock, then for non-Si types, it's "undifferentiated", so you can't really use it in that way to define normal differentiated Si. Undifferentiated functions are "mixed together", which was the original definition of "concrete". 
The clock is still perceiving from a tangible object in space; the body, point by point in time; si o it's still more spacelike and physical. I've always acknowledged Si has a timelike element, but it it is still primarily, perception of space).



ae1905 said:


> Si can form a memory of "a good meal, etc" from personal experience....why invoke ancestral memories, when personal ones will do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I gave those illustrations precisely to show it's not necessarily about "ancestral". Any "ruling pattern", whether from ancestors, or from our own experience.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Masterpiece said:


> I didn't mean that Fe is the end all be all of value judgements, if that's the impression you got from my OP. What I meant was that Fe's values are _always_ driven by some form of (Ti) rationale, despite not seeming so. Let's look at the most generic example of an Fe value - the belief that we should all treat each other with respect. This belief kind of loses its' meaning after being expressed so many times, but the original idea behind it was to treat everyone as equals so that we each get equal opportunities to play our parts to the fullest during our time on this planet, like with all living beings in the animal kingdom. However, because this underlying rationale is much too troublesome and complicated to explain and express to everyone, it has to be condensed into a sole, single 'sentence' which can be easily said (and hence reinforced) to anyone, and that is "to treat each other with respect". This 'sentence' when used as an empirical moral value may not actually be the key to a perfect utopia, and can indeed do more harm than good, as some of the meaning it tries to convey in the first place _does_ get lost in the process of being passed around so much, but the main point here is that there _is_ rationalism to the origin of Fe values, despite them not being the 'ultimate truth'.
> 
> EDIT: I actually am not sure if any of that makes sense lol. I'm kinda half-awake right now. But hopefully you'll catch my drift.



I wasn't attributing that viewpoint to you, but rather railing against what I have seen elsewhere. 

Thanks for the explanation though. It makes a lot more sense now, but it still seems a little arbitrary that this should be Fe; why not decide after all that treating others with respect is the road to building the kind of society people would want to live in, while also enumerating a variety of exceptions (e.g. criminals)? I suppose this way of thinking about it is more Fi/Te, however.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> OK, ground up; it's obviously a totally different way of looking at it. I'm simply trying to extend Jung's concepts, which these are. Most people looking from a scientific framework think the whole notion of cf's is imaginary anyway. By tying them to concepts they accept, like "space" and "time"; I'm trying to show they're not imaginary.


your problem is you're starting with jung's theory to which you are trying to fit the facts

you should start with the facts and deduce the conclusions _independently _of jung or anyone else



> (And since everyone has internal sensations/body clock, then for non-Si types, it's "undifferentiated", so you can't really use it in that way to define normal differentiated Si. Undifferentiated functions are "mixed together", which was the original definition of "concrete".
> The clock is still perceiving from a tangible object in space; the body, point by point in time; si o it's still more spacelike and physical. I've always acknowledged Si has a timelike element, but it it is still primarily, perception of space).


you see what I mean?...."differentiated" is jung's concept...forget jung

everyone has internal clocks...everyone has a sense of time...what distinguishes Si _types _is their _focus on Si bodily sensations_, the _primary place _they put on these sensations

a person who is highly sensitive to his internal sensations will be highly vigilent about his environment and how it affects his feeling of well-being...he will remember what things in his environment make him feel good and what things don't...he will try to control his environment and will notice when even small changes occur

do you see how the typical traits of Si types stem from his sensitivity to his internal sensations?

do you see why Si types have a keen memory for what is important?

do you see how Si types naturally develop a sense of time in the process of continually monitoring their internal sense of well-being?



> I gave those illustrations precisely to show it's not necessarily about "ancestral". Any "ruling pattern", whether from ancestors, or from our own experience.


didn't jung mean ancestral when he created the idea of achetypes?

aren't achetypes supposed to be the commonly held patterns shared by everyone, not the individual patterns we each discern?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> If Ne's ideas aren't realized, they still "play out" in a "hypothetical" time. If I imagine a pattern of a sequence of events, then I'm imagining it playing out in time, even if it never happens. The "space" between people's ears is not the space we are describing when discussing Ne products. We're discussing "concrete things in the external world", but we're discussing "where they're heading"; not "what they are" in actual spatial experience. It's hypothetical. It's about what plays out in time.


here, you are just inventing nonsense...Ne connects disparate objects by their shared qualities...it doesn't imagine actually turning one object into the other or even creating the other object...for example, if I say "cars are like trains", I don't imagine building a train or the car becoming a train or anything *happening *between a car and a train!...a car and a train are just both vehicles used to transport people

this is fundamentally cuz Ne relations are _not causal_...Ne isn't concerned with what might _happen_...that's Ni, not Ne



> Se and Ni are the "meta" functions (and hence, about instant "Realizing"). So Se is the most purely spacelike, Ni is the most timelike (as you've associated it with time), and Si and Ne combine elements of both.


more jungian claptrap



> No; we don't perceive in the whole, but I think to get a better understanding of how this works, we must try to look at it in light of the whole.
> 
> No; Si is not looking at the pattern; it's comparing two points. And then perhaps another two, and so on. That itself doesn't equate to putting together a whole pattern.


sensing functions detect patterns....Se isolates objects in its field of view upon which it sees opportunities to act...Se relies on its memory to recognize these patterns, on the similar opportunities it's seen before

Si also detects patterns, only based on the internal sensations it isolates in its internal field of view, so to speak...because Si continually monitors its internal states, it naturally develops an extended pattern of sensation stretching back in time...it's these _cumulative _patterns, _built up over time, _that give Si its sense of time, of the past and its connection to the present



> I have to give a reminder that we get into thinking of the functions as "gears", where you're "using" one, then you're shifting to the other, but these are divisions of reality simultaneously present in every mental process. (So again, starting from a "whole" being good to understand this from). Someone said somewhere, none of them operate in a vacuum.
> What "differentiates" them into almost discrete perspectives is what our ego complexes focus on. So the purpose of Si is to look at the different points and compare one to the other. Intuition then draws or "animates" in into a "pattern". So an Si type's ego will look at how current reality lines up with what he remembers, and then a less conscious Ne puts it together and forms a pattern. This Ne might not be mature enough (as it's associated with less mature complexes such as the inferior) to then "go with the flow" of the emergent information, so then his ego will draw back and maintain "routine" and "rules", where an Ne type will be more willing to "rebel" against those routines in the back of his consciousness, and go with the flow.
> S is the "static" component, N is the "motion" component.


nonsense

Ne doesn't construct a continuous sense of the past to the present

Ne is discontinuous, episodic, unpredictable....Ne _jumps_, it doesn't flow

our sense of the past, otoh, is intimately tied to our sense of self...it is only through our memories that we maintain our identities as the same person over our whole lives

Ne can never produce this sense of continuity of self

the self isn't something we intuit or abstract, something removed from our bodies

the self is something we directly feel and know in our bodies, in our very beings



> (This sounds like it gets into the whole question of whether time is "real" or not. That's why I think it's best to try to look in terms of a whole).
> But I used the Minkowski diagram just to illustrate how time and space are intermingled. But if you have a horizontal line, that's all of space, but only one point of time. A vertical line is sitting through all of time, in one point of space. So there's always both space and time, involved, but you can be not "moving" in one, when you focus only on a single point of its coordinates, and then you're really only "moving" through the other coordinates. (The point was not what function you're using by measuring with a Minkowski diagram; it's using a T concept to illustrate something).
> Again, the point was that S is looking at things that are static in time, dealing in one instant at a time (even if referencing multiple points from the past like Si, or unfolding points like Se), and N is what puts together the different points into a framework of "meaning".


the space and time of humans is euclidean and absolute


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

there is this misconception that the sensing funtions are raw sensory inputs and no more...so you hear people say, for example, Ni takes in raw Se information and does [something with it]...but Se is not just raw data...Se is the processing of sensory data to focus attention on a subset of the data on which Se can act

a good example of this something wayne gretzky, the hockey player, once said: "I skate to where the puck will be, not to where it is"...what gretzky is saying is he recognizes a pattern on the ice and knows how to take advantage of it...he isolates in his field of vision the important elements on which he has the opportunity to act

obviously, everyone can look at the same ice, the same players, etc, as gretzky...not everyone, however, will see what gretzky sees, not because they don't receive the same sensory inputs--they do--but because they can't recognize what inputs, what patterns of information, are important

that's textbook Se

that's how Se works


if it didn't work this way, Se would have no idea what to do, just as the people watching wayne gretzky don't see "where the puck is going"


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

ae1905 said:


> here, you are just inventing nonsense...Ne connects disparate objects by their shared qualities...it doesn't imagine actually turning one object into the other or even creating the other object...for example, if I say "cars are like trains", I don't imagine building a train or the car becoming a train or anything *happening *between a car and a train!...a car and a train are just both vehicles used to transport people
> 
> this is fundamentally cuz Ne relations are _not causal_...Ne isn't concerned with what might _happen_...that's Ni, not Ne


interesting.. can you explain the difference between casual relations and non causal relations? 

what makes Ne non-casual and Ni casual?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

spaceynyc said:


> interesting.. can you explain the difference between casual relations and non causal relations?
> 
> what makes Ne non-casual and Ni casual?


causal relations are relations between things that are connected by cause and effect..._gretzky seeing where the puck is going and, as a result, skating there_, is a set of facts that are causally connected

acausal relations are relations between things that are not connected by cause and effect..._a car is like a train in that both are transport vehicles_ is a set of facts that are not causally connected...rather, they are connected by the shared quality of being transport vehicles

note: googlng "acausal" to confirm it is a word, I came across a use of the word by jung; whatever he meant by acausal, I only mean it in the vernacular sense of _not arising from cause and effect



_
Ne is acausal cuz it intuits _qualities of things_ which are not typically causally connected, like the quality of being vehicles shared by a car and train in my example above

Ni is causal cuz it intuits what _will happen _to things, like gretzky seeing where a puck will be and skating there


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

ae1905 said:


> there is this misconception that the sensing funtions are raw sensory inputs and no more...so you hear people say, for example, Ni takes in raw Se information and does [something with it]...but Se is not just raw data...Se is the processing of sensory data to focus attention on a subset of the data on which Se can act
> 
> a good example of this something wayne gretzky, the hockey player, once said: "I skate to where the puck will be, not to where it is"...what gretzky is saying is he recognizes a pattern on the ice and knows how to take advantage of it...he isolates in his field of vision the important elements on which he has the opportunity to act
> 
> ...


so you're saying Se is hyper focusing on sensory data thats relevant to desired action? 

Se recognizes patterns in its environment external of the self is what you're saying... whereas Si recognizes patterns internal to the self

so you're saying all perceiving functions do some kind of pattern recognition? I thought that was only intuitive ones that do that


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

ae1905 said:


> causal relations are relations between things that are connected by cause and effect..._gretzky seeing where the puck is going and, as a result, skating there_, is a set of facts that are causally connected
> 
> acausal relations are relations between things that are not connected by cause and effect..._a car is like a train in that both are transport vehicles_ is a set of facts that are not causally connected...rather, they are connected by the shared quality of being transport vehicles
> 
> note: googlng "acausal" to confirm it is a word, I came across a use of the word by jung; whatever he meant by acausal, I only mean it in the vernacular sense of _not arising from cause and effect_



lol I am an idiot you said "causal" not "casual" sorry. thanks for the explanation learning a lot from you here.

would you say that Ne is not causal because Si isn't casual, it is very specific and case by case.

and vice versa for Se. Se is causal because Ni is a cause and effect function?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

spaceynyc said:


> so you're saying Se is hyper focusing on sensory data thats relevant to desired action?
> 
> Se recognizes patterns in its environment external of the self is what you're saying... whereas Si recognizes patterns internal to the self
> 
> so you're saying all perceiving functions do some kind of pattern recognition? I thought that was only intuitive ones that do that


yes, they have to...cognition is _attention and focus_...sensory functions have to focus to identify meaningful information

the main difference between sensation and the intuition patterns that are culled from sensory data is intuition interpolates (Ne) and extrapolates (Ni) the data to read between the lines or read what isn't on the page, so to speak, while sensing _isolates _the _actual _words on the page, if you will, that it deems important

because intuition is comfortable working with what isn't visible to the naked eye, it can also work with abstract, non-sensory data, like concepts


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

ae1905 said:


> yes, they have to...cognition is _attention and focus_...sensory functions have to focus to identify meaningful information
> 
> the main difference between sensation and the intuition patterns that are culled from sensory data is intuition interpolates (Ne) and extrapolates (Ni) the data to read between the lines or read what isn't on the page, so to speak, while sensing _isolates _the _actual _words on the page, if you will, that it deems important
> 
> because intuition is comfortable working with what isn't visible to the naked eye, it can also work with abstract, non-sensory data, like concepts


I see, so sensing function recognizes _what_ the pattern is and intuitive functions recognize the _why_ the pattern exists or what possibilities come from the pattern


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

spaceynyc said:


> lol I am an idiot you said "causal" not "casual" sorry. thanks for the explanation learning a lot from you here.
> 
> would you say that Ne is not causal because Si isn't casual, it is very specific and case by case.
> 
> and vice versa for Se. Se is causal because Ni is a cause and effect function?


Se is like a myopic or incipient Ni and the two are probably opposed for that reason...maybe some Ni types, especially Ni-auxs and Ni-terts, can take Se patterns and extrapolate them farther out in time to Ni patterns?...maybe that's the way Ni works?

Si and Ne are not opposed in the same way...Ne doesn't extend or finish or even usually use Si impressions...the quality of being a transport vehicle, for example, is not an internal sensory impression!...rather, Ne and Si are opposed by the fact Si is embedded in time, in the past and present, and is, therefore, a creature of time, while Ne stands outside of time and is, therefore, unconcerned with time

this is the basis of the tension between Si routine and Ne procrastination, between Si order and Ne creativity, etc


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

spaceynyc said:


> I see, so sensing function recognizes _what_ the pattern is and intuitive functions recognize the _why_ the pattern exists or what possibilities come from the pattern


they see different patterns...Se sees what can be done right now, Ni what might happen in the future...Si sees how what is present now is similar to the past, Ne how one thing is similar to another

if Ni looks at an Se action, it might see its consequences...but every time Se cuts down a tree, there isn't always an Ni in the woods to hear it

if Ne looks at Si impressions, it might see other possibilities...but for Ne, Si is usually out of sight, out of mind

these functions can each operate without inputs from the others


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

simple example of the perceiving functions

take the letters, _a, b, d, e_

Ni: g, h, j, k, etc

Ne: donut, homer simpson, _doh!_ nut 

Se: hey, look!...I can spell _bade_!...I _bade _you to come here!...lol

Si: reminds me of the time in grade school when bobby mispelled my name...bummer...I hate it when people make simple mistakes


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> your problem is you're starting with jung's theory to which you are trying to fit the facts
> 
> you should start with the facts and deduce the conclusions _independently _of jung or anyone else
> 
> ...





ae1905 said:


> here, you are just inventing nonsense...Ne connects disparate objects by their shared qualities...it doesn't imagine actually turning one object into the other or even creating the other object...for example, if I say "cars are like trains", I don't imagine building a train or the car becoming a train or anything *happening *between a car and a train!...a car and a train are just both vehicles used to transport people
> 
> this is fundamentally cuz Ne relations are _not causal_...Ne isn't concerned with what might _happen_...that's Ni, not Ne
> 
> ...


So the issue is that you simply don't believe in Jung's theory. That's fine, but I think his theory is good, but like to come up with new ways of framing it, especially since he was not always clear with many of his statements, and this is a forum built around Jungian typology. It's ironic to call his theory “claptrap", while in the process of using it.
Meaning; sensation and intuition themselves may not have been invented by Jung, but when you add “attitudes” (i/e) to them, and discuss a “function” typology based on them, then that is what Jung invented. 

But again, anyone is free to take his concepts and put on their own way of framing them; add in other schools of thought like the scientific ones you posted, but then what I'm saying isn't “nonsense"; I'm just trying to expand upon Jung's ideas. (Just like you seemed to be playing upon my idea of framing the functions in terms of space/time/things/people to begin with, and just flipped around S/N attitudes. [At least you're the only other person I've ever seen to use those concepts]. 
And I do deviate from Jung, like expanding his concept of "archetypes" beyond just some "ancestral" thing. That's really one possible source of archetypes. Some archetypes, such as "mother", "father" are simply common experience across all ages). 

And note, what I said comparing Se/Ni/Si/Ne as most spacelike to most timelike and Se/Ni as "meta" was not even from Jung. I was trying to acknowledge your point that Si has a timelike element and Ne has a spacelike element, so if that's Jungian claptrap, you're just as much caught up in it.
(Also, if one wants to “start fresh” and take a “factual” [empirical] view, then, this is what leads the science/psychology field to reject all of this stuff as “nonsense").


My understanding of the timelike aspect of Ne is that it involves what you experience when following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line (its “environment”). Hence, what “could” happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen. (Of course, things can change, and so Ne remains “open”).

Ne is described as spotting “the still unrealized possibilities in things”; and thus referencing “the real world”.
That _potential_ is where the timelike element lies.

So an Ne comparison of “a car is like a train” usually has a frame of reference regarding some potential, if nothing more than just the process of likening them (where Se is more instant). That's the "causality" of it. Not one thing _turning into_ another [literally], but the process of linking one to the other. It in effect does "become" the other, _in your mind_.


I once read about tests that had been done in type classes, of showing an image of a triangle with horizontal bands. With a surprising amount of consistency, the Sensates describe it just like this, or as a three-sided plane with parallel bands. The Intuitives say they see a railroad track or a striped dunce cap. Each side can see why the other described it the way they did, but the S’s heard: “What are the properties of this image?” and N’s heard “What does this image mean to you?”; that is, what pattern is it like in your tacit memory?
This is timelike in that these “patterns” are constructs *formed over time*, where the S’s [regardless of attitude] simply described exactly what they saw immediately in space.

So N can be described as grasping a pattern that two otherwise disparate situations have in common [as you said], and gambles that the new situation is going to operate in the same general way as the one already known. First, here we see the clear time element; the *predictive* sense; based on “patterns” that themselves deal in some kind of “motion” (change) that is not necessarily spatial. Both Ne and Ni do this, but Ne simply looks along time at the motion component (whether temporal, spatial, _or just *mental*_) of the pattern to make the “guess”, while Ni references the unconscious images to gain something more like a “hunch”.

What you're saying about internal body sensations is valid and I have no argument with it, but still, the actual *perception* is of a physical, spatial object: the body. And yes, it works over time, but the _perception_ is of something tangible. For Ne, the perception is not of something tangible in actual space, though it may involve images of objects in space. It carries a meaning that implies a kind of [even if imaginary] "motion".

To flip it around and say across the board "Pe="space"; "Pi="time" and add this new "real vs removed" factor; it can be made to fit to a certain extent, but I don't think it's bringing any more clarity. With "Ne is discontinuous, episodic, unpredictable....Ne _jumps_, it doesn't flow"; you're making it sound like Se and Ni, and we already have a lot of confusion around Ni, and especially distinguishing it from Ne. "objective perception of removed space=Ne; subjective perception of removed time=Ni; subjective perception of real time=Si"; you explain it, it has some sense to it, you created something new apart from Jung, but it's still not making things more clear. 




ae1905 said:


> causal relations are relations between things that are connected by cause and effect..._gretzky seeing where the puck is going and, as a result, skating there_, is a set of facts that are causally connected
> 
> acausal relations are relations between things that are not connected by cause and effect..._a car is like a train in that both are transport vehicles_ is a set of facts that are not causally connected...rather, they are connected by the shared quality of being transport vehicles
> 
> ...


Right here, you're saying Se is "causal" (and giving an example that seems to stretch its perception out through time), and you denied Ne dealt with time, because you said it wasn't causal, so does this make Se timelike?

This is why what you're saying isn't quite adding up. It's muddying things, perhaps because you're using Jung's concepts at the same time as rejecting them [i.e. tacking other concepts onto his functions while rejecting his larger framework, such as the concept of "undifferentiation"; i.e. functions "mixed together", which is what explains some of this stuff].



ae1905 said:


> simple example of the perceiving functions
> 
> take the letters, _a, b, d, e_
> 
> ...


Good, except that the Ne example is rather shallow and sounds almost stereotypical. I guess it could do something like that (when the person is being really silly and nonsensical), but the example is really grabbing an analogy out of thin air, without any framework actually connecting the two sequences (unless there was some reference to this on the show or in some meme somewhere I wasn't aware of). 
A better example of Ne would be 1, 2, 4, 5, matching the letters to corresponding numbers.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> So the issue is that you simply don't believe in Jung's theory. That's fine, but I think his theory is good, but like to come up with new ways of framing it, especially since he was not always clear with many of his statements, and this is a forum built around Jungian typology. It's ironic to call his theory “claptrap", while in the process of using it.
> 
> Meaning; sensation and intuition themselves may not have been invented by Jung, but when you add “attitudes” (i/e) to them, and discuss a “function” typology based on them, then that is what Jung invented.
> 
> But again, anyone is free to take his concepts and put on their own way of framing them; add in other schools of thought like the scientific ones you posted, but then what I'm saying isn't “nonsense"; I'm just trying to expand upon Jung's ideas. (Just like you seemed to be playing upon my idea of framing the functions in terms of space/time/things/people to begin with, and just flipped around S/N attitudes. [At least you're the only other person I've ever seen to use those concepts].


I wasn't "playing with your idea of space/time, etc"...I speculated about the cfs and space and time in other threads here more than a year ago...and I find your intepretation incorrect and incoherent because you take jung's claptrap at his word when he says Ne is about the future

you won't get at the truth by trying to fit the facts to jung...you have to start with facts, and that is something you haven't done



> And I do deviate from Jung, like expanding his concept of "archetypes" beyond just some "ancestral" thing. That's really one possible source of archetypes. Some archetypes, such as "mother", "father" are simply common experience across all ages).


ok, so you've read some other jungians and swallowed their ideas, too

to me, it's all claptrap when it starts with unsubstantiated theory, no matter where the theory comes from



> And note, what I said comparing Se/Ni/Si/Ne as most spacelike to most timelike and Se/Ni as "meta" was not even from Jung. I was trying to acknowledge your point that Si has a timelike element and Ne has a spacelike element, so if that's Jungian claptrap, you're just as much caught up in it.


the idea Ne is concerned with time is jung's idea...if you combined my idea of Ne as being concerned with a removed space with jung, I take no repsonsibility for your errors



> (Also, if one wants to “start fresh” and take a “factual” [empirical] view, then, this is what leads the science/psychology field to reject all of this stuff as “nonsense").


jung explained the introverted function by his idea of "archetypes" and "collective unconscious", which science rejects...I agree with science...I am trying to find if introverted functions can be understood by empirical facts and anecdotal experience...for example, science tells us we have separate neurological systems to sense the outside world and our bodies...these can form the basis for extroverted and introverted sensing functions...nowhere do we have to talk about "archetypes", "collective unconscious", and other jungian claptrap



> My understanding of the timelike aspect of Ne is that it involves what you experience when *following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line (its “environment”). Hence, what “could” happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen.* (Of course, things can change, and so Ne remains “open”).


your understanding is wrong....the bolded is Ni, not Ne



> Ne is described as spotting “the still unrealized possibilities in things”; and thus referencing “the real world”.


says who?...jung?

LOL




> That _potential_ is where the timelike element lies





> .
> 
> So an Ne comparison of “a car is like a train” usually has a frame of reference regarding some potential, if nothing more than just the process of likening them (where Se is more instant). That's the "causality" of it. Not one thing _turning into_ another [literally], but the process of linking one to the other. *It in effect does "become" the other, in your mind*.


no, it doesn't....I don't picture a train morphing into a car!...I just picture a train and think, "transport vehicle"..."transport vehicle" then makes me picture a car

LOL

like I said, Ne doesn't flow in a continuous causal process like Ni..._Ne _*jumps* from one image or idea to another, neither of which are causally connected



> I once read about tests that had been done in type classes, of showing an image of a triangle with horizontal bands. With a surprising amount of consistency, the Sensates describe it just like this, or as a three-sided plane with parallel bands. The Intuitives say they see a railroad track or a striped dunce cap. Each side can see why the other described it the way they did, but the S’s heard: “What are the properties of this image?” and N’s heard “What does this image mean to you?”; that is, what pattern is it like in your tacit memory?
> This is timelike in that these “patterns” are constructs *formed over time*, where the S’s [regardless of attitude] simply described exactly what they saw immediately in space.


both sensors and intuitives used their _memories _here, the sensors to identify geometric objects, the intuitives to connect the geometric objects to other objects they resemble

frankly, this is an example of Se vs Ne

there is no "process over time" here, just the recollection of images stored in memory



> So N can be described as grasping a pattern that two otherwise disparate situations have in common [as you said], and gambles that the new situation is going to operate in the same general way as the one already known. First, here we see the clear time element; the *predictive* sense; based on “patterns” that themselves deal in some kind of “motion” (change) that is not necessarily spatial.


where is the "predictive sense" or "motion" in seeing a hat in a triangle?



> Both Ne and Ni do this, but Ne simply looks along time at the motion component (whether temporal, spatial, _or just *mental*_) of the pattern to make the “guess”, while Ni references the unconscious images to gain something more like a “hunch”.


where does Ne "look along time at the motion of the triangle to see a cap"?

you are *forcing your idea *of Ne on to the simple fact that Ne jumps discontinously and acausally from the triangle to the cap



> What you're saying about internal body sensations is valid and I have no argument with it, but still, the actual *perception* is of a physical, spatial object: the body. And yes, it works over time, but the _perception_ is of something tangible. For Ne, the perception is not of something tangible in actual space, though it may involve images of objects in space. It carries a meaning that implies a kind of [even if imaginary] "motion".


the only "motion" is a sudden _jump _from one idea to another, a _quantum leap_, not a newtonian motion



> To flip it around and say across the board "Pe="space"; "Pi="time" and add this new "real vs removed" factor; it can be made to fit to a certain extent, but I don't think it's bringing any more clarity. With "Ne is discontinuous, episodic, unpredictable....Ne _jumps_, it doesn't flow"; you're making it sound like Se and Ni, and we already have a lot of confusion around Ni, and especially distinguishing it from Ne. "objective perception of removed space=Ne; subjective perception of removed time=Ni; subjective perception of real time=Si"; you explain it, it has some sense to it, you created something new apart from Jung, but it's still not making things more clear.


it is perfectly clear

contrast this with your explanation that "Ne connects Si impressions to form the sense of time"....if Ne used Si impressions, it would be introverted, not extroverted!

your theory can't explain our sense of time

indeed, you confuse our understanding of time by assigning both Ne and Ni to the sense of the future 



> Right here, you're saying Se is "causal" (and giving an example that seems to stretch its perception out through time), and you denied Ne dealt with time, because you said it wasn't causal, so does this make Se timelike?


I already addressed this...Se operates in the _present moment_...but our perception of time is constructed from our memories, particularly our subjective impressions of past experiences



> This is why what you're saying isn't quite adding up. It's muddying things, perhaps because you're using Jung's concepts at the same time as rejecting them [i.e. tacking other concepts onto his functions while rejecting his larger framework, such as the concept of "undifferentiation"; i.e. functions "mixed together", which is what explains some of this stuff].


no...I see things clearly precisely because I reject jung



> Good, except that the Ne example is rather shallow and sounds almost stereotypical. I guess it could do something like that (when the person is being really silly and nonsensical), but the example is really grabbing an analogy out of thin air, without any framework actually connecting the two sequences (unless there was some reference to this on the show or in some meme somewhere I wasn't aware of).


Ne doesn't need "frameworks"...that's where you are mistaken



> A better example of Ne would be 1, 2, 4, 5, matching the letters to corresponding numbers.


my example is more imaginative and interesting...yours is sterile

either way, there is no time in either of our examples of Ne


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@*Eric B* 

I know you've invested a lot of time into jung and other jungians, so you are defending your investment

I, otoh, recognized from the get go that jung's ideas about archetypes and the collective unconscious were not supported by science and were not, therefore, worth my time and effort

and because I didn't waste time on these ideas, I can see the facts for what they are and am not bound to distort them to fit ideas my ego isn't invested in defending


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> First, here we see the clear time element; the *predictive* sense; based on “patterns” that themselves deal in some kind of “motion” (change) that is not necessarily spatial.


bob likes football...bob looks forward to sunday afternoons

does bob look forward to sundays cuz he's concerned with time?

or does bob look forward to sundays cuz he likes football?



if Ne acts on its intuitions, the actions will necessarily happen in the future

does that mean Ne is concerned with the future?

or does it mean Ne is concerned with its intuitions?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> bob likes football...bob looks forward to sunday afternoons
> 
> does bob look forward to sundays cuz he's concerned with time?
> 
> ...



Ne usually doesn't even act on its intuitions


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> I wasn't "playing with your idea of space/time, etc"...I speculated about the cfs and space and time in other threads here more than a year ago...and I find your intepretation incorrect and incoherent because you take jung's claptrap at his word when he says Ne is about the future
> 
> you won't get at the truth by trying to fit the facts to jung...you have to start with facts, and that is something you haven't done
> 
> ...





ae1905 said:


> I know you've invested a lot of time into jung and other jungians, so you are defending your investment
> 
> I, otoh, recognized from the get go that jung's ideas about archetypes and the collective unconscious were not supported by science and were not, therefore, worth my time and effort
> 
> and because I didn't waste time on these ideas, I can see the facts for what they are and am not bound to distort them to fit ideas my ego isn't invested in defending





> no...I see things clearly precisely because I reject jung





> jung explained the introverted function by his idea of "archetypes" and "collective unconscious", which science rejects...I agree with science...I am trying to find if introverted functions can be understood by empirical facts and anecdotal experience...for example, science tells us we have separate neurological systems to sense the outside world and our bodies...these can form the basis for extroverted and introverted sensing functions...nowhere do we have to talk about "archetypes", "collective unconscious", and other jungian claptrap


What you're calling "science" is another field, created by men. While Jung took an iNtuitive (highly abstract) approach, mainstream science took an entirely "empirical" (basically, Sensory) approach, and like men always do, began to cast anything that didn't fit their criteria into outer darkness as "nonsense". *What they forgot, is that no man is 100% "objective"*; and that they too have biases they filter the data they take on through, and often agendas and ego investment connected to this. So again, you can take their approach and reject Jung, but you're still taking some of his theory and trying to reframe it and force it to conform to their "scientific" principles that totally reject almost all of it including cf's themselves (and then accusing me of trying to "force" things). 
Again, you can do that, but you're now acting just like these "scientists" in rejecting whatever doesn't fit these principles as total nonsense. But just know, they would reject what you're saying, for using cf's (and adding some new abstract factor like "real vs removed")! 
So right now, there's no "nonsense"; just two different ways to build on Jung's theory. (And an Ne perspective should realize that, but the perspective you are using now looks more like Ni or S, with the focus on "fact" and the "closure" of "just knowing" that another idea is totally wrong. [This is how I find NTJ's and STP's are more likely to handle the theories]. Since Ne is the primary function we're disagreeing on, I think it's from confusing it with Se and Ni).

You're focusing on "archetypes", but I've only used that term to describe the products of introverted functions. To use an old example I got from a one time member; I can see a messy desk before me, and this "object" itself implies a "correct" (T) course of action, to make it neat. That's extraverted Thinking, based on a real world "object". To use Ti, I can organize it a totally different way, such as some symmetrical arrangement, that others might not see as neat or efficient. This is all that's meant, at this point, by "archetype". It's an internal *model *of "correctness" rather than an external standard of efficiency or practicality.
So you reject Jung because of his discussion of "archetypes" and the "collective unconscious" (which I might not totally agree with all of it myself), but you're missing the point. (Yet you continue to use the concept; i.e. cf's that these things are connected with).

The "empirical" view of "introversion" being looked at (that's introversion _by itself_; not tied to any "functions", which they reject, in the Jungian sense), is that of an "overstimulateability" to external stimulus, which leads the person to withdraw and turn inward. this is of course the opposite of extraversion. Jung himself was even reported to have looked into this toward the end. Adding functions to it simply means that the ego then turns its dominant function to the preferred orientation, which is in this case, inward. That's simple to understand, but then if you're going to just follow mainstream science and reject Jung, then you might as well drop the functions from it, and just go with FFM, which is a bit more accepted in the mainstream, and includes the Extraversion factor.



> the idea Ne is concerned with time is jung's idea...if you combined my idea of Ne as being concerned with a removed space with jung, I take no responsibility for your errors


. I didn't _combine_ my idea with yours, which I didn't hear of until recent threads. I just showed that what I had been discussing can explain the timelike aspect of Si and spacelike aspect of Ne. You're trying to make Si 100% timelike, and Ne 100% spacelike, and that's what's really forcing things, because you want S/N to be this new "real" vs "removed" axis.



> *>following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line (its “environment”). Hence, what “could” happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen.*
> 
> your understanding is wrong....the bolded is Ni, not Ne


 I once thought so (and this is what made it nearly impossible to understand what Ni was in contrast to Ne; the way it was described, was that ANY "future inferring" was Ni); but the thing is, that's a _conscious_ perceiving (note, "_looking_ through"; "_following_"), and Ni is totally unconscious. Like Se, it's immediate (hence the much fabled "aha! moment". I originally thought we agreed on this, when you tied Se/Ni and Si/Ne together, with the former involving immediacy and the latter having to compare things). 


> [Ne: a,b,d,e≈1,2,4,5] ok....but this still has nothing to do with time





> no, it doesn't....I don't picture a train morphing into a car!...I just picture a train and think, "transport vehicle"..."transport vehicle" then makes me picture a car


 But I didn't say "_morphing_" [in any _literal_ sense]. I said "becomes", and what I was describing was basically, the shifting through the larger category of "transport vehicle". So any "morphing" would be "train—vehicle—car", and _*this*_ is the "motion component" of intuition (at least in this particular example)! You're not just taking what's "there" in space; you're going "somewhere else" with your mental imagery. Hence, the timelike element lying in the "mental" process.



> Ne doesn't need "frameworks"...that's where you are mistaken


The "framework" in this case is "transport vehicle". (There is no such _connecting_ element in comparing the letters to donuts and Homer Simpson).



> like I said, Ne doesn't flow in a continuous causal process like Ni..._Ne _*jumps* from one image or idea to another, neither of which are causally connected
> both sensors and intuitives used their _memories_, the sensors to identify geometric objects, the intuitives to connect the geometric objects to other objects they resemble
> 
> frankly, this is an example of Se vs Ne
> ...


 But you see in the example of "train—vehicle—car", there _is_ a causal link; in the _mental process_ used to get from one image to the other! It's not a quantum leap; it does follow a point to point mental "motion", but it is usually largely unconscious. (I admit that this may seem to be the loosest part of my idea, but it's connected to the notion that while S is "physical", N is "mental". The hat example isn't predictive, and really, prediction is when judgment is added, and in reality, judgment is involved in "transport vehicle", which is a _category_ used to determine "true/false" [T]; i.e. rationally, what fits or doesn't fit. Though this judgment is also often unconscious, but the "perception" is what moves through it to _connect_ the two otherwise disparate images. Even if it _was_ a "quantum leap", that is still a _move_ment of one place to another. So when I said "the clear time element is the predictive sense", this was qualified by "Ne simply *looks along* at the motion component" ...while Ni references the unconscious images”.)

.



> it is perfectly clear
> 
> contrast this with your explanation that "Ne connects Si impressions to form the sense of time"....if Ne used Si impressions, it would be introverted, not extroverted!


And the mistake here is the all too familiar one, of treating the functions as discrete "things", where you're either "using" one or the other. This is just what I've been trying to get the idea away from, because it's what causes all the confusion in determining type preference. (And it's also seemingly part of what makes the larger psychological community reject "functions" altogether, from demanding hard, "empirical" evidence from them as if they _were_ tangible objects!) They're all _interconnected_ [with every process there is both, simultaneously an internal and external aspect of the data], and only sorted out by what part of the data the ego focuses on. But then, again, that's just Jung's "claptrap" idea of "differentiation". I think you'd be better off just not using the functions in your theory.


> your theory can't explain our sense of time
> 
> indeed, you confuse our understanding of time by assigning both Ne and Ni to the sense of the future


 But I never said Ne and Ni were about the "future". I say they can be used to gauge or get a sense of the future by following patterns. They can also be used to try to recreate past or present situations whose causes we don't have the hard sensory data for.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> bob likes football...bob looks forward to sunday afternoons
> 
> does bob look forward to sundays cuz he's concerned with time?
> 
> ...


 I don't see this as a good example of Ne, if that's what it's supposed to be. "Looking forward" to something is not really "using Ne", at least not in any "differentiated" sense. (But again, the "Jungian claptrap!) Again, I did not say "iNtuition=future". If anything, that has a strong "valuing" element (it's _liking_ something, and thus a positive F judgment, though again, it doesn't mean the person is "using Feeling" in any differentiated sense either; else, it's impossible to determine any type, as we all have physical senses, intuition, thoughts, and feelings of like or desire; which are "mixed together" in every experience we have. That's why, it's better to keep the Jungian framework of "differentiation", or just not accept his concept of cf's at all).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> I don't see this as a good example of Ne, if that's what it's supposed to be. "Looking forward" to something is not really "using Ne", at least not in any "differentiated" sense. (But again, the "Jungian claptrap!) Again, I did not say "iNtuition=future". If anything, that has a strong "valuing" element (it's _liking_ something, and thus a positive F judgment, though again, it doesn't mean the person is "using Feeling" in any differentiated sense either; else, it's impossible to determine any type, as we all have physical senses, intuition, thoughts, and feelings of like or desire; which are "mixed together" in every experience we have. That's why, it's better to keep the Jungian framework of "differentiation", or just not accept his concept of cf's at all).


you missed my point

just because you are focused on something that may happen in the future doesn't mean you are focued on the future, per se

bob is focused on football, not the future

Ne is focused on its intuitions, not the future

the future just happens to be a correlate of the few Ne intuitions that are pursued, a result of the fact that time moves in one direction and any new action must necessarily happen in the future

but, as I said, most Ne intuitions are never pursued and don't even have this accidental correlation with time

Ne isn't focused on time and stands outside of it


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

this is quickly devolving into one of those discussions that only wastes my time...you have no insights or criticisms to make...if I respond it will only be to correct your errors...but why do I care if you are in error?...that's _your _problem, not mine

sigh



Eric B said:


> What you're calling "science" is another field, created by men. While Jung took an iNtuitive (highly abstract) approach, mainstream science took an entirely "empirical" (basically, Sensory) approach, and like men always do, began to cast anything that didn't fit their criteria into outer darkness as "nonsense". *What they forgot, is that no man is 100% "objective"*; and that they too have biases they filter the data they take on through, and often agendas and ego investment connected to this. So again, you can take their approach and reject Jung, but you're still taking some of his theory and trying to reframe it and force it to conform to their "scientific" principles that totally reject almost all of it including cf's themselves (and then accusing me of trying to "force" things).
> Again, you can do that, but you're now acting just like these "scientists" in rejecting whatever doesn't fit these principles as total nonsense. But just know, they would reject what you're saying, for using cf's (and adding some new abstract factor like "real vs removed")!
> So right now, there's no "nonsense"; just two different ways to build on Jung's theory. (And an Ne perspective should realize that, but the perspective you are using now looks more like Ni or S, with the focus on "fact" and the "closure" of "just knowing" that another idea is totally wrong. [This is how I find NTJ's and STP's are more likely to handle the theories]. Since Ne is the primary function we're disagreeing on, I think it's from confusing it with Se and Ni).


whatever



> You're focusing on "archetypes", but I've only used that term to describe the products of introverted functions. To use an old example I got from a one time member; I can see a messy desk before me, and this "object" itself implies a "correct" (T) course of action, to make it neat. That's extraverted Thinking, based on a real world "object". To use Ti, I can organize it a totally different way, such as some symmetrical arrangement, that others might not see as neat or efficient. This is all that's meant, at this point, by "archetype". It's an internal *model *of "correctness" rather than an external standard of efficiency or practicality.
> So you reject Jung because of his discussion of "archetypes" and the "collective unconscious" (which I might not totally agree with all of it myself), but you're missing the point. (Yet you continue to use the concept; i.e. cf's that these things are connected with).


NO

the cfs are NOT connected to "archetypes"

nowhere have I mentioned or used the idea of archetypes

that is YOUR mistake



> The "empirical" view of "introversion" being looked at (that's introversion _by itself_; not tied to any "functions", which they reject, in the Jungian sense), is that of an "overstimulateability" to external stimulus, which leads the person to withdraw and turn inward. this is of course the opposite of extraversion. Jung himself was even reported to have looked into this toward the end. Adding functions to it simply means that the ego then turns its dominant function to the preferred orientation, which is in this case, inward. That's simple to understand, but then if you're going to just follow mainstream science and reject Jung, then you might as well drop the functions from it, and just go with FFM, which is a bit more accepted in the mainstream, and includes the Extraversion factor.


overstimulation leads to a focus on the inner world of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions...introverted functions are just the operations of thinking, feeling, and perception when people turn inwards



> . I didn't _combine_ my idea with yours, which I didn't hear of until recent threads. I just showed that what I had been discussing can explain the timelike aspect of Si and spacelike aspect of Ne. You're trying to make Si 100% timelike, and Ne 100% spacelike, and that's what's really forcing things, because you want S/N to be this new "real" vs "removed" axis.


your idea that Ne connects Si impressions is not only wrong it is incoherent



> I once thought so (and this is what made it nearly impossible to understand what Ni was in contrast to Ne; the way it was described, was that ANY "future inferring" was Ni); but the thing is, that's a _conscious_ perceiving (note, "_looking_ through"; "_following_"), and Ni is totally unconscious. Like Se, it's immediate (hence the much fabled "aha! moment". I originally thought we agreed on this, when you tied Se/Ni and Si/Ne together, with the former involving immediacy and the latter having to compare things).


so?...whether it's conscious or unconscious (or both), Ni works by matching patterns stored in memory to present perceptions to intuit a possible future event



> But I didn't say "_morphing_" [in any _literal_ sense]. I said "becomes", and what I was describing was basically, the shifting through the larger category of "transport vehicle". So any "morphing" would be "train—vehicle—car", and _*this*_ is the "motion component" of intuition (at least in this particular example)! You're not just taking what's "there" in space; you're going "somewhere else" with your mental imagery. Hence, the timelike element lying in the "mental" process.


the thought process, train-vehicle-car, has nothing to do with objective time, the measured time in the objective world...nor has it anything to do with the subjective time of Si impressions

there is NO time dimension in the process, train-vehicle-car

the fact it takes a split second for this process to happen is _incidental _to the significance of train-vehicle-car



> The "framework" in this case is "transport vehicle". (There is no such _connecting_ element in comparing the letters to donuts and Homer Simpson).


_DOH!_

the pattern connecting _a,b,d,e _to a _donut _is both are missing something in the middle...I don't see what calling this idea a "framework" adds

the pattern connecting a _donut _to _homer simpson_ is homer loves donuts

the pattern connecting _homer simpson_ to _doh! nut_ is homer oftens says _doh! _and he is a _nut_..._doh! _juxtaposed with _nut _also connects back to _donut _and is a play on words

I wouldn't call any of these "frameworks", but they are examples of qualities connecting disparate things, in the same way _vehicle _connects trains and cars



> But you see in the example of "train—vehicle—car", there _is_ a causal link; in the _mental process_ used to get from one image to the other!


no...now you are _completely _confused...when we talk about causation, we are not talking about the underlying neurochemistry of the brain, how one mental process causes another...we are talking about how _perceived objects cause changes in other perceived objects_...Se perceives a puck is going to be somewhere else...Ni perceives so-and-so is going to be fired...we perceive how one object will cause another object to change _according to the laws of physics and human nature_, etc

train-car doesn't fit this causal pattern...train doesn't cause car...train doesn't change car...train is connected to car in this intuition only by virtue of their _shared qualities _of being vehicles, not because one in any way causes the other

you REALLY don't understand Ne...or the other functions, for that matter



> It's not a quantum leap; it does follow a point to point mental "motion", but it is usually largely unconscious. (I admit that this may seem to be the loosest part of my idea, but it's connected to the notion that while S is "physical", N is "mental". The hat example isn't predictive, and really, prediction is when judgment is added, and in reality, judgment is involved in "transport vehicle", which is a _category_ used to determine "true/false" [T]; i.e. rationally, what fits or doesn't fit. Though this judgment is also often unconscious, but the "perception" is what moves through it to _connect_ the two otherwise disparate images. Even if it _was_ a "quantum leap", that is still a _move_ment of one place to another. So when I said "the clear time element is the predictive sense", this was qualified by "Ne simply *looks along* at the motion component" ...while Ni references the unconscious images”.)
> .
> 
> And the mistake here is the all too familiar one, of treating the functions as discrete "things", where you're either "using" one or the other. This is just what I've been trying to get the idea away from, because it's what causes all the confusion in determining type preference. (And it's also seemingly part of what makes the larger psychological community reject "functions" altogether, from demanding hard, "empirical" evidence from them as if they _were_ tangible objects!) They're all _interconnected_ [with every process there is both, simultaneously an internal and external aspect of the data], and only sorted out by what part of the data the ego focuses on. But then, again, that's just Jung's "claptrap" idea of "differentiation". I think you'd be better off just not using the functions in your theory.
> But I never said Ne and Ni were about the "future". I say they can be used to gauge or get a sense of the future by following patterns. They can also be used to try to recreate past or present situations whose causes we don't have the hard sensory data for.


you continue to confuse Ne with Ni

Ne stands outside of time


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> this is quickly devolving into one of those discussions that only wastes my time...you have no insights or criticisms to make...if I respond it will only be to correct your errors...but why do I care if you are in error?...that's _your _problem, not mine
> 
> sigh
> 
> ...


 Again, you sound like those scientists who aim to dictate reality and error (and then start talking about their time being wasted when the other side doesn't simply bow to their pontifications), and don't realize that their views are often skewed by biases just like everyone else. Again, why discuss cf's at all, then?



> NO
> 
> the cfs are NOT connected to "archetypes"
> 
> ...


 I didn't say _you_ mentioned archetypes; I said _Jung_ used them, and they were the context behind the overall framework cf's are understood through, and that what you did was to take the cf's out of that context, reject "jung" overall as "claptrap", and then try to recast them in a more mainstream science concept.




> overstimulation leads to a focus on the inner world of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions...introverted functions are just the operations of thinking, feeling, and perception when people turn inwards


I don't think there's really any dispute there. The *point* there was, assigning attitude to a function is strictly a Jungian concept. You want to call his theory claptrap, yet still use the functions-attitudes, or "cf's".



> your idea that Ne connects Si impressions is not only wrong it is incoherent


And that's the only conclusion when you remove some of Jung's concepts out of their larger contexts. According to _your_ idea of Ne and Si it's incoherent.


> _DOH!_
> 
> the pattern connecting _a,b,d,e _to a _donut _is both are missing something in the middle...I don't see what calling this idea a "framework" adds
> 
> ...


 I can see the connection of donuts to Homer Simpson, but what your analogy was comparing them to was the letter sequence of "a, b, d, e". That's where a connecting pattern is missing. 



ae1905 said:


> you missed my point
> 
> just because you are focused on something that may happen in the future doesn't mean you are focued on the future, per se
> 
> ...





> so?...whether it's conscious or unconscious (or both), it works by matching patterns stored in memory to present perceptions to intuit a possible future event
> 
> the thought process, train-vehicle-car, has nothing to do with objective time, the measured time in the objective world...and it has nothing to do with the subjective time of Si impressions
> 
> ...


No, I don't understand _your_ idea of the functions. Which are based not on Jung, but on something else completely; trying to reframe them according to mainstream science or whatever. Keep that in mind. You're acting like your definitions are some official, well known "givens", but they aren't. Again, you're free to do that, but this is basically a Jungian typology forum, and so if some of us want to discuss Jungian concepts, then people aren't necessarily going to understand your anti or contra-Jung ideas, especially when they use elements making up Jung's theory.

You're actually the one who brought the term "causation" into it, and insisted upon it (and no, I still don't understand what you said you "addressed", in Se being "causative", but *not* timelike, because of something else, regarding our perception of time being from our subjective memories; so I'll have to look over that again). 
You're the one who kept injecting "one perceived _object_ causes changes in the other _object_" into it, and denying that's what you said as if that's what I said you were suggesting. So I simply showed that "causation" can be looked at as the _process_ by which iNtuition jumps from point to point in making connections. *If there were no time dimension in that, your mind would have no time to make the connection, and it would be frozen on the initial image! 
*You'll probably tie this to Si and the "internal clock" perception of "time", but along with that physical process is the actual *imagery* we see unfolding in our minds. That's what I'm saying iNtuition covers, not the physical world of tangible objects. The point here is, a _pattern_ our mind follows. (More on this below)
And then, you're the one who kept assuming I was saying "Ne=future"; which again is assuming the real world of "_space_", which is _where_ "one [material] object changes another". That's not what I'm saying.

(Everything operates in both space and time, so this is a dispute over separating which sequences we are using to defines S and N. I would think a term like your "removed" would fit what I'm describing. Looking back over that, I see you say "what Se and Si perceive can *become* what Ne and Ni imagine; intuition can perceive what the present moment might *become*", which looks like it is making both Ni and Ne about the future, and thus time, which you now seem to be denying, for Ne. "what is *removed from the ...now*" therefore lies in time. I know I initially associated "removed" with "introversion", but I could see where it would fit iNtuition as well. 

I take it, Se="real here", Si="real now", Ne="removed from here" and Ni="removed from now"; thus Se/Ne=space; Si/Ni=time. Is that how that works? If so, how is Ne "removed from *here*"? How does it "move freely through space"; or even we move freely to space to get to it? That makes it sound like "it" might simply be _somewhere else_ in space, and you could go "freely" look for it and find it somewhere and give a new set of longitude/latitude/altitude coordinates for its location. I don't think you've really explained this enough. 
You did say "remains in the external world of objects, but only in the mind's eye". I think of something like that more as "removed from *now*", as it's something I might like to see, but it's not here _now_, and I can imagine it being here now, but action would have had to have been taken for that to have been realized, and it would thereafter have to be taken to realize it in a future point when it becomes "now". Both space and time are involved, but *the actual medium being moved through in the imagining of the idea (and thus its separation from actual reality) is time*. [Not talking about the process of making it happen, which will then involve space or "one object changing into another" more]. 

The way I distinguish space and time is which medium the actual *displacement* of events or objects occurs in. Ne products' _displacement _from here and now isn't actual space. [At least not _necessarily_]. You say a train or a car; when you see the train, where is the car? It's likely not located in some place you could point to via height, width or depth from the train. 
It also might not be "future", in actual "_real space_", so it's only something your mind arrives at [i.e. a kind of imaginary "motion"] through a _pattern_; which is "wheeled object that transports things"; or in essence, it could have been the other object in the same place, if different action had taken place in the past, to get it there. So the _displacement_ is what's in "your mind's eye", but that displacement is not space when you're imagining a different object in the same space. In fact, an actual "space" it is located in is totally irrelevant. It's just an idea of what happens to be a hypothetical spatial (physical) object. But then, what about these *"ideas"* we're discussing? Functions, types, etc. We're *using the same Ne process in comparing them, and there's no actual "objects" in any real or imaginary "space"* like a car or train. 
The only displacement then becomes the _process_ of perceiving "A is like B is like C" based on referencing similar qualities they possess, which in the case of typology, are totally nonphysical. And with the typological concepts, they additionally are patterns of behavior, which can be observed through time. So when I say N is a timelike _focus_, it's a general concept of pattern recognition and mental connections, and not necessarily about actual objects that may be in space and/or change into or affect one another.

This may be a weak argument for time, but I believe this is from dealing with such abstract [and thus malleable] concepts, [and one of the main reasons science rejects the whole notion in the first place, so to be consistent, you should just reject the functions. Perhaps deal with dichotomies only, like others here]. 
But it is less of a stretch to see the displacement in terms of time, than to say it is space. Likewise, for Si, you _could_ point through time, to a point when something was there, but it's still primarily about what was "there", in space, to begin with, than it is about the "then", which is just a reference point.
But in any case, I'm not the one who made any hard association of Ne with "the future"). 

So yes, perception of objects changing other objects like the hockey puck moving would be Se. But our dispute lies with *Ne*, not Se, but what you're doing is constantly changing the subject back to Se imagery and then using that to try to debunk what I'm saying about Ne. 
So no, you don't believe pattern recognition counts as "time", but then, it's two different conceptions of cf's, so yes, it is a waste of time to keep calling the other one error, etc.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

what did I say earlier?

this discussion has devolved in to one where I repeat myself as I correct your errors

what a waste of time


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I know I forgot to point out what environment N was (was rushed and had to leave). When I as an N see the striped triangle, I think “when I see this image, it tends to be a railroad track”. That may involve Si, but another function is there putting together the experiences into a connecting meaning.
This example is limited as well, as its purpose was to compare how an S and an N type sees it. It too is using a concrete image like the other one (this time, actually printed in REAL space, on a paper), but shows the N doesn't just look at what's there, but lets it _unfold_ something else (and that's either N attitude, so you can't say it's likely Ne's “removed space“).

I never said S couldn't SEE patterns, and the again, you're using more concrete images; AI parsing VISIBLE pictures. When I speak of “patterns” regarding INTUITION, it's not talking about necessary VISIBLE things, because that's S. I keep mentioning MEANINGS. But you keep switching back to sensory stuff. 

Yeah, you've already had a knack for trying to tell me what I am, and that's the problem now.

I know my ideas aren't perfect, but your attitude is totally screwed up. You seem like someone who learned a bit of science and the empirical approach, and you think you know everything.

You need to be more open minded. I've ackowledged some of your points, but you are so rigidly set against anything other than what you believe (such as Jung, and how the concept of differentiation helps sort out which process is represented by which function).
I even try to sit down and work with your ideas, and I get “I’m not going to go down this path because your ideas lead to dead ends”. It only seems this way because I'm already trying to work around your non-negotiable stance that Jung is all “nonsense”. You're setting all the parameters, and I think I've granted you enough. So then phooey on you, then.
When a person starts talking about the other person (ad hominem; like the general statements about me and my “problems”, or I'm “wasting your time”, like you're a real scientist taking time out of his lab work), then you've proven your argument isn't as strong as you make it seem, no matter how authoritatively you may argue it, or how much difficulty I may have in explaining mine. So you lash out, and the only thing left to attack is the other person or his thinking, even if subtly.
“good god man!”, like I said the earth _was_ flat or something.

(Speaking of that; again, you're using a very concrete analogy that doesn't fit. The shape of the earth is physical, and you can within a day test it. Jung's ideas are very abstract, along with religion and politics, so you can't readily prove or disprove them, and that's why the S perspective of science rejects them in the first place. Not readily “testable” enough. But that doesn't mean not real, because it hasn't been disproven in any empirical test. The theories of all those other scientists mentioned started out that way, but now “science”, like everything else, is institutionalized, and that tends to stifle any free thought, such as Ne).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> I know I forgot to point out what environment N was (was rushed and had to leave). When I as an N see the striped triangle, I think “when I see this image, it tends to be a railroad track”. That may involve Si, but another function is there putting together the experiences into a connecting meaning.
> This example is limited as well, as its purpose was to compare how an S and an N type sees it. It too is using a concrete image like the other one (this time, actually printed in REAL space, on a paper), but shows the N doesn't just look at what's there, but lets it _unfold_ something else (and that's either N attitude, so you can't say it's likely Ne's “removed space“).
> 
> I never said S couldn't SEE patterns, and the again, you're using more concrete images; AI parsing VISIBLE pictures. When I speak of “patterns” regarding INTUITION, it's not talking about necessary VISIBLE things, because that's S. I keep mentioning MEANINGS. But you keep switching back to sensory stuff.


yeah, you did when you said "S is point to point", and "Si doesn't connect more than two points", and "Ne connects Si points", and so on

you have tried to impose your preconceived idea of what S is, an idea you got from jung or one of his disciples

I, otoh, just looked at sensing itself and quickly saw it _must _see patterns or it couldn't see anything, at all

that's the difference between thinking for yourself and letting someone else (jung, in this case) do your thinking for you 



> I know my ideas aren't perfect, but your attitude is totally screwed up. You seem like someone who learned a bit of science and the empirical approach, and you think you know everything.


I never said or implied I know everything, but I do know what I know because I have thought it through myself

and that makes all the difference



> I even try to sit down and work with your ideas, and I get “I’m not going to go down this path because your ideas lead to dead ends”. It only seems this way because I'm already trying to work around your non-negotiable stance that *Jung is* *all “nonsense”*. You're setting all the parameters, and I think I've granted you enough. So then phooey on you, then.


two words: tarot cards





> When a person starts talking about the other person (ad hominem; like the general statements about me and my “problems”, or I'm “wasting your time”, like you're a real scientist taking time out of his lab work), then you've proven your argument isn't as strong as you make it seem, no matter how authoritatively you may argue it, or how much difficulty I may have in explaining mine. So you lash out, and the only thing left to attack is the other person or his thinking, even if subtly.
> “good god man!”, like I said the earth _was_ flat or something.


you said an Ne impression of a car is subjective

that _is _like saying the earth is flat


honestly, you are a textbook example of a person who bends over backwards and distorts simple ideas just to avoid acknowledging the truth

why twist Ne into a function that processes Si impressions when you can just admit Si creates patterns that involve more than two Si impressions?

can't you see how desperate and deluded you are?

good god, man, get a grip!


and I only call people names when they earn it, when they stop being respectable

so if I call you names you can be sure that's what I think of you

however, I _didn't _call you any names...I simply said you made me _think _of the names I could call you


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> yeah, you did when you said "S is point to point", and "Si doesn't connect more than two points", and "Ne connects Si points", and so on


 That's NOT what that's saying. It's about what each function *focuses* on.



> you said an Ne impression of a car is subjective
> 
> that _is _like saying the earth is flat


 Only in your rigid black and white thinking. I explained it, you don't accept the answer, so to you, it's like saying the earth is flat. (Meanwhile, you deny an image of a car *in someone's mind* has a "subjective" element to it).



> I never said or implied I know everything, but I do know what I know because I have thought it through myself
> 
> and that makes all the difference


 You ACT like you know everything. (The other thing I was going to say there was that your knowledge has gone to your head). Like you "think things through" and see reality SO clearly, unlike all us other imbeciles, and can't possibly be mistaken and so should just steamroll over anyone who disagrees. 

Like this:


> you have tried to impose your preconceived idea of what S is, an idea you got from jung or one of his disciples
> 
> I, otoh, just looked at sensing itself and quickly saw it _must _see patterns or it couldn't see anything, at all
> 
> ...


Like who the hell are you? "Textbook example", and general pronouncement; you sure do sound like a knowitall! "YOUR iNtuitive bias"; you even sound like a type-ist the way you're saying that! This is a sign of immaturity, and again, is a sign that your ideas are not as sure fire as you are putting them out there to be. People try to hide their ignorance behind a façade of superior knowledge. *It's the flat-earthers *(and they're actually still out there), *who resort to calling everyone 'deluded'*, _because_ of the fact they have no real proof of their view, and so have to conclude everyone else is too deluded to see the absolute "truth" they presume to have!
(And what I said is that the functions are "_mixed together_" in consciousness. None of them work in isolation; they are not discrete gears you shift in and out of [a common mistake of people who don't understand them]; but then you can't seem to process that information, so instead of trying to understand what that means or just realizing it's another way of looking at it you don't agree with, you get on this ridiculous high horse like you've mastered all "truth", and then start talking down to me or bashing Jung. How many times are you hurling "tarot cards" now? You don't realize how childish that looks).



> and I only call people names when they earn it, when they stop being respectable
> 
> so if I call you names you can be sure that's what I think of you
> 
> however, I _didn't _call you any names...I simply said you made me _think _of the names I could call you


 Well, you've said enough before, and you're calling names now. The fact that you admit to waiting for an infraction to expire is telling. Even more telling is that you're only waiting for it to expire to say worse stuff. It's clear what you're about, and no matter what you say about your "truth" or about how "deluded" you call me, you're showing you're not to be taken seriously.

So let's chill now, already.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@*Eric B* 

who the hell am I?

I'm the guy who thinks for himself

that's more than enough

in fact, it's too much for you


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Wow; should you get a medal?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> Wow; should you get a medal?


LOLOL

does a sprinter deserve a medal for outrunning a paraplegic?


LOLOL


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@Eric B

I can gauge how smart you are from what you write

trust me: I am _much _smarter than you are


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OK kid, enough! You're showing your whole "thinking" is meaningless if that's what you have to resort to; now you're being trollish, as figures (and it's obviously a pattern; figure out if that's an S or N pattern), and stop, before you get more infractions!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Eric B said:


> (Speaking of that; again, you're using a very concrete analogy that doesn't fit. The shape of the earth is physical, and you can within a day test it. *Jung's ideas are very abstract, along with religion and politics, so you can't readily prove or disprove them*, and that's why the S perspective of science rejects them in the first place. Not readily “testable” enough. But that doesn't mean not real, because it hasn't been disproven in any empirical test. The theories of all those other scientists mentioned started out that way, but now “science”, like everything else, is institutionalized, and that tends to stifle any free thought, such as Ne).


jung is pseudoscience...psychology, otoh, is an _empirical _field...our minds are the _physical _products of the operations of our brains and can, therefore, be studied using empirical methods...so why bother with pseudoscience when you can have the real thing?


my speculation about jung is he wanted to outdo freud, the founder of psychoanalysis...freud stole the idea of the unconscious (from schopenhauer) and developed the use of dream analysis to understand what was supposedly happening below the surface of consciousness...to outdo freud, jung created a _super _unconscious he called the "collective unconscious" and claimed to also see dream-like imagery there, like freud claimed to see in the unconscious

so jung basically copied freud, but introduced even more outrageous ideas to differentiate his theories from freud's

unfortunately for him, freud has long since fallen into disrepute...so it's not surprising that jung, who built his ideas _on top of freud's_, would also be discredited

that's what happens when you squat on the shoulders of midgets


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@ae1905 Why are you even discussing functions if you think Jungs theory is nonsense? That makes no sense, whatsoever. 
If Jungs collective unconscious is an outrageous idea to outdo Freud, then introverted functions are also outrageous ideas. Without the collective unconscious, all the function attitudes are extraverted, there is no Ti vs Te, only T. If you don't like Jung and you want science backing your theories, then stick to the dichotomies. You're essentially invalidating the functions and simultaneously trying to define them.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kynx said:


> @*ae1905* Why are you even discussing functions if you think Jungs theory is nonsense? That makes no sense, whatsoever.
> If Jungs collective unconscious is an outrageous idea to outdo Freud, then introverted functions are also outrageous ideas. Without the collective unconscious, all the function attitudes are extraverted, there is no Ti vs Te, only T. If you don't like Jung and you want science backing your theories, then stick to the dichotomies. You're essentially invalidating the functions and simultaneously trying to define them.


as I already explained, the concept of extroversion-introversion is recognized by academic psychologists and has nothing to do with jung's my-unconscious-is-even-more-unconscious-than-your-unconscious unconscious...so you are wrong that introversion only makes sense in the context of tarot cards...cfs can be properly thought of as thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition when people turn inwards, or, alternatively, as the thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition of introverts

no scientist would disagree with any of this


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> as I already explained, the concept of extroversion-introversion is recognized by academic psychologists and has nothing to do with jung's my-unconscious-is-even-more-unconscious-than-your-unconscious unconscious...so you are wrong that introversion only makes sense in the context of tarot cards...cfs can be properly thought of as thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition when people turn inwards, or, alternatively, as the thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition of introverts
> 
> no scientist would disagree with any of this


Not introverts and extroverts, introverted and extraverted functions. Intj and intp are both introverted personality types. Science supports that to an extent, yes, but it doesn't support each type having a different thinking or intuition process. INT + P or J. The only difference between an intp and an intj which science supports is the J- P dichotomy. Not Ti vs Te or Ni vs Ne.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kynx said:


> Not introverts and extroverts, introverted and extraverted functions. Intj and intp are both introverted personality types. Science supports that to an extent, yes, but it doesn't support each type having a different thinking or intuition process. INT + P or J. The only difference between an intp and an intj which science supports is the J- P dichotomy. Not Ti vs Te or Ni vs Ne.


I think ffm's openness to experience dimension would capture some of the differences between Ne and Ni...its agreeableness dimension probably wouldn't distinguish between Te and Ti, but conscientiousness would (though Ne and Ni would contribute to this score, as well)

so intps and intjs would score differently on at least two ffm dimensions...that should open the way to an investigation of the individual styles of thinking and intuition, and sensing and feeling of these and other types

you have to remember that ffm is not a model of cognition, of how our brains process information...rather, it's a statistical model that uses the five most commonly used (irreducible) words in the personality literature as the five "factors" that describe human personality

so there is plenty of room to examine cognition and ask questions like, do introverts think, feel, and perceive in different ways than extroverts?, and are there two (or maybe more) types of introverts who favor thinking, and if so, in what ways do they think differently?...and so on


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> I think ffm's openness to experience dimension would capture some of the differences between Ne and Ni...its agreeableness dimension probably wouldn't distinguish between Te and Ti, but conscientiousness would (though Ne and Ni would contribute to this score, as well)
> 
> so intps and intjs would score differently on at least two ffm dimensions...that should open the way to an investigation of the individual styles of thinking and intuition, and sensing and feeling of these and other types
> 
> ...


Ok, let's look at it another way. 

Cf =
TiNeSiFe
FeSiNeTi

MBTI =
INTP
ESFJ

FFM/SLOAN key =
RXUEI
SXOAN

The theories with any scientific validity don't support the cognitive functions. There's no recognition of similarities between an INTP and an ESFJ. There's little point discussing function definitions and trying to support your definitions by claiming science, when science doesn't recognise them as anything significant within PT.

The functions have no scientific backing, science ditched them. By all means, discuss functions, dichotomies, dimensions, see where they correlate or don't correlate and whatever. But don't interchange between supported and unsupported as and when it suits and then call one half of the theory nonsense because its unsupported, but continue to use the rest of the unsupported theory at the same time. It confuses those who are trying to learn and also burns my head out. 

If you in fact can redefine Ne, Ti, etc. using the ffm to support your definition, then great, I would love to read it. But it seemed more like you were applying your own definitions, using random psychology, which isn't specific to PT and expecting everyone to just accept your definitions. Even if you're definitions are perfect, you're not explaining them anywhere near concisely enough for others to follow and see for themselves how they fit into scientifically supported PT.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kynx said:


> Ok, let's look at it another way.
> 
> Cf =
> TiNeSiFe
> ...


TiNeSiFe and FeSiNeTi are function _stacks_...I haven't said anything about stacks in this thread, only about perceiving functions



> The functions have no scientific backing, science ditched them. By all means, discuss functions, dichotomies, dimensions, see where they correlate or don't correlate and whatever. But don't interchange between supported and unsupported as and when it suits and then call one half of the theory nonsense because its unsupported, but continue to use the rest of the unsupported theory at the same time. It confuses those who are trying to learn and also burns my head out.


I haven't used any of the theory here in this thread, only some salient traits of the perceiving functions



> If you in fact can redefine Ne, Ti, etc. using the ffm to support your definition, then great, I would love to read it.


I'm not interested in ffm...I only used it cuz you said science only supports j-p...in fact, people who score intp and intj on mbti would probably get different results on openness and conscientiousness in ffm, so science lends some support to the idea there are different ways intuition and thinking work



> But it seemed more like you were applying your own definitions, using random psychology, which isn't specific to PT and expecting everyone to just accept your definitions. Even if you're definitions are perfect, you're not explaining them anywhere near concisely enough for others to follow and see for themselves how they fit into scientifically supported PT.


yes, I want to see if I can get the cognitive functions starting from first principles and commonly accepted facts


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> yes, I want to see if I can get the cognitive functions starting from first principles and commonly accepted facts


So you're trying to 'Te' your understanding of the cognitive functions and you're getting annoyed with a Ti dom for not limiting his own thought process to only that which exists within the boundaries of 'Te's framework'?

And of course, @Eric B is getting frustrated with you for trying to force him into Te's approach. 

:laughing: This is classic stuff.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kynx said:


> So you're trying to 'Te' your understanding of the cognitive functions and you're getting annoyed with a Ti dom for not limiting his own thought process to only that which exists within the boundaries of 'Te's framework'?
> 
> And of course, @*Eric B* is getting frustrated with you for trying to force him into Te's approach.
> 
> :laughing: This is classic stuff.



no...a Ti thought process begins from a vantage point of greatest certainty and works, step by step, to claim less certain ground...think descartes' "cogito ergo sum"... @*Eric B*, otoh, has swallowed jung and other jungians _whole _without thinking critically about it...that's _Te_...that's why infps like you typically accept jung and other so-called authority figures verbatim...weak Te

@*Eric B* is probably an infj...polr Te...you need to have weak T to believe jung's ideas so uncritically...jung himself was an infj


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kynx said:


> So you're trying to 'Te' your understanding of the cognitive functions and you're getting annoyed with a Ti dom for not limiting his own thought process to only that which exists within the boundaries of 'Te's framework'?
> 
> And of course, @*Eric B* is getting frustrated with you for trying to force him into Te's approach.
> 
> :laughing: This is classic stuff.



I wasn't "forcing" him to do anything...I only posted to share my ideas...I wasn't looking to critique other people's ideas...in fact, I haven't even read other posts here..._he _was the one trying to force me to discuss _his _ideas


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

And you strike me as either ISTP (Ti, but with Se), INTJ (Te "scientific" approach and "just knowing"), or INTP in a TiSi loop. (Tertiary usurps aux. so in any of those cases, Ne "openness to ideas" is low).
But I hadn't said that, because it's really not that relevant, and we shouldn't be using type as weapons and saying "you use this function too much/too little so you must be this other type", especially making someone a Feeler because they "don't think enough". I've seen that before).

For a Ti dom. Te is the "backup" function, and Ti will take something (like either Jung or mainstream science) and filter it through the subjective standard, and then the ego will be invested in whatever the conclusion. Ne "tries it on" as a viable idea. So I saw something in some of Jung's ideas, and fit it into my frameworks of type. You're the one letting mainstream "science" do all your thinking for you. Whatever they say, that's IT. That's more a T+S or Ni

But please don't talk about me anymore. I'm done with you. You showed the other day that you're not about having a serious intelligent discussion, no matter how much you feign intelligence and scientific knowledge. You've blown whatever credibility you may have had.(Looking back, I actually explained my whole theory in the beginning, back on p.2. On the beginning of p3, you sidestep all of that and start talking about “ancestral" stuff on every quote response to that explanation, and that's where it started to go downhill. So I had already explained the stuff you said I wasn't answering and there was NOTHING about ancestors, but you rejected it, and then took that as the basis of your polemic against Jung). I'M the one who doesn't have time for this! Now please move on!


----------

