Artsu Tharaz

Btw, by "they" I meant Socionists. Just thought I'd say that.

Hmm, interesting.

- I understood what you meant by aesthetics and I was immediately struck by how well it describes "Feeling". Or at least, the current MBTI definition of Feeling as I understand it, i.e. "wholeness" and "harmony".
- Phn v Nmn comes close, but perhaps Noumenon has to do with the object independent of perception, whereas I understand N to have more to do with "perspective" and "interpretation" rather than "truth".
- Indeed.
- I would think Analyst = P-dom and Synthesist = J-dom. P has to do with observation and study and taking in as much data/information as possible, whereas J has to do with synthesizing an idea to practical fruitation. But it would be best to map this onto the MBTI J/P dichotomy rather than P-dom and J-dom, as (and I would agree with them when they say this) MBTI got the J/P wrong. The only time the dichotomy works when one takes into account both dominant and auxiliary functions, and only the Extraverted functions. So, Je in top two = synthesist, Pe in top two = analyst.

In terms of how it relates to typology?

- Aesthetics vs. Logic (F/T?)
- Phenomenon vs. Noumenon (S/N?)
- Subjective vs. Objective (I/E?)
- Analytic vs. Synthetic (P/J?)

Yes. What about other functions? Does it apply to Lv and Lv' also?

Can't wait for choppin' hour! This is neat, cheers mate.

Concrete vs. Abstract; Logic vs. Aesthetic; Subjective vs. Objective; Algebraic vs. Analytic.

The deeper you look, the less clearly you see.

You must dive in.

Match made in Jungian heaven.

i concur

oh hell no, I don't study at all. or do m school work. I just mean that I like to vvisualize how things are going ot go before they go. i don't study at all. HATE sutdying. its retarded.

heh, most of them. I can't really not plan., Its why I thought I was an SJ at one point.

WHOA. Pink freaking page! ahahaha. nah, I read that Ne doms move their eyes a round a lot, and don't pause to think halfway through, so I planned out what I would say before i started, and made sure to shift my eyes all the time.

Ugh...definitely a lot to memorize...and I already forgot what I learned back in January and that is going to be on the test as well. If I lose my scholarship , my dad will have to start paying my tuition...since he won't let me get a job (I'm secretly looking for one though). I think they give me a 1 semester warning though, to pull it up. I will make it in the end though.

What are you studying?

I heven't been doing well with Ochem this semester, it's affecting my gpa, and I might lose my scholarships because of said gpa being sub par this year.

Not too well. Worried and anxious.


You?

Sup sup sup.

That section of their site is down at the moment, strangely.

They retyped her as INFJ in the updated list.


And yes, that makes sense. Perhaps it works that way.

Pod'lair. (Not that I consider Pod'lair to be accurate, but their reasoning behind it is solid.)

"Core". I knew that term would mislead. That's not what I mean. Consider this, take a problem and then keep reducing it to simpler and simpler terms. In the end, you will end up with a logical absolute. Well, Fi types (regardless of where it stands in their cognitive hierarchy) don't, they end up with an ethical/humanistic absolute. I know xNTJs who do this. They appear cold and heartless, but very often, the reasoning behind their solutions is "because it's the right thing to do." (Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient/reliable. I'm aware of that.)

Tertiary is as "back-up" is true, though here's how I see it (work in progress): The top two functions are conscious functions, meaning functions we actively associate with to control, manipulate, change, put into categories, etc. The bottom two functions are unconscious functions, meaning functions we passively make use of. Sometimes the dom/aux is not enough - this is when we associate with our tertiary or inferior as a conscious functions and this is a tiring process. However, tert/inf as unconscious functions are constantly affecting our decision-making passively. They are never fully "turned off" and are always affecting our decision-making ability.

So for example, an INFJ who makes a Fe-based decision is always going to be aware of the logic (or lack of) behind their decisions. Like an INTJ is always going to be aware of the ethics or lack of behind their decisions. Or how INTPs are always very aware of how they are being perceived (inf. Fe), even if they are being overly logical. Or how ESxPs have their future planned out in their mind (inf. Ni). However, the difference is in how confidently these functions are being used, and the level of confidence defines its position in the hierarchy.

Anyway, yeah.

I've thought of doing it, but it seems like so much worrrkk. *drool*

Regarding INTJs; you are right that Te-users also can look at personalized systems via Te, I couldn't include that in my rep comment because there is a word limit and I had to keep it short.

"Also, it seemed to be an attempt to, or at least can be interpreted as an attempt to, make the personal system less personal - to make the external world operate more on logic, less on values - but enforcing one's own values in the process."

Te doesn't work this way, in my understanding. Te doesn't see logic as absolute as Ti-users do. This post reflects my understanding best. Te depends upon absolutes from Fi, despite how low it is present in the person's cognitive hierarchy. A Te'ed system will always derive from Fi, whereas a Fe'ed system will always derive from Ti. I'm not articulating properly, fuck.

Ayn Rand is INFJ (apparently) and Objectivism is one of the most cold and logic-based ideologies out there. That is the domain of Ti, however, which derives logic from an internal, subjective source. Te sees systems as "games" to be "won", but when creating new systems, they form a basis in Fi. If you strip away all the external influence from an INTJ, you get a very humanistic core (Fi), whereas if you strip away all the external influence from an INFJ, you get a very impersonal/logical core (Ti).

<said member> has always appeared to me as having a logical "core". This is just my perception, however, and an opinion.