Perceiving versus Judging

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Intuition Spoiler 5 says you've no chance

I really enjoyed going through these. On the Sensing possibilities, I was wondering all the time if you were going to mention individuation - and there it is in the Yes option (I don't mean Jungian individuation, but the ability to discriminate objects).

On Intuition, I was delighted that your Yes box was occupied by something very consistent with positive scepticism, which is dear to my heart. I think Ni has a lot to do with the shimmering multiverse of possibilities - it's stifled by too much interference from the judging functions.

These aren't my own definitions, but they are something I agree with the most out of all currently available models. I was simply aiming for a modicum of aesthetic organization instead of unceremoniously dumping a bunch of links lol. But since we're already here, here's the rest.

https://cognitivetype.com/redefining-f/
https://cognitivetype.com/redefining-t/

Personally, I wouldn't subscribe to any sort of philosophical scepticism. While I'm in the Guénonian boat of seeing truth as infinite, or perhaps as Leibniz says, "every system is true in what it affirms, and wrong in what it denies", I have no qualms about tying myself to a system or even being somewhat aggressively dogmatic if the alternatives are unconvincing. I don't approach anything with the active intention of deconstructing it just to see if everything is consistent. That more or less happens naturally as I encounter new ideas which modify my heuristic.

These days, I let Fi guide the way, and as long as it feels correct I will cling to it unapologetically. If that speaks of any contradiction, I hardly care. Or maybe buying into Jung's conception of dualities helps me avoid cognitive dissonance lol.

 

[David Nelson]

Maybe this will put the endless debate to rest. It won't, but it could.

Redefining Sensing:

Spoiler: 1

View attachment 88360

Spoiler: 2

View attachment 88361

Spoiler: 3

View attachment 88362

Spoiler: 4

View attachment 88363

Redefining Intuition:

Spoiler: 1

View attachment 88364

Spoiler: 2

View attachment 88365

Spoiler: 3

View attachment 88366

Spoiler: 4

View attachment 88367

Spoiler: 5

View attachment 88368

I'm too lazy to do the entire judging section right now.

What is it’s or your conclusion? That MBTI is wrong?

 

[David Nelson]

I’ve got a feeling the Big 5 is favoured by people like Jordan Peterson because it fits into their simplistic right wing views and is more something people can choose rather than something more set in stone. It seems to me like a strategy or choice to evade the truth, probably stemming more from Fi and Te.

 

[aeon]

I’ve got a feeling the Big 5 is favoured by people like Jordan Peterson because it fits into their simplistic right wing views and is more something people can choose rather than something more set in stone. It seems to me like a strategy or choice to evade the truth, probably stemming more from Fi and Te.

I like the Big 5 because it has been clinically validated, and can be used in research. I also like it because it speaks to aspects of temperament and psychology that other metrics either do not, or do a poor job of.

That said, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Of the five metrics, only one seems to be somewhat related to choice—conscientiousness.

I’ve got no sense of Jordan Peterson other than he’s a smart enough man that sometimes says things that are insightful (that I may or may not agree with), and sometimes says things that I disagree with because he tends toward cultural conservatism, and I am decidedly otherwise. If a person describes themself as a JP fan, I tend to consider them as highly suspect until proven otherwise.

I’m not sure why you would associate FI and Te with evading the truth. Please explain yourself, if you will.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[John K]

Personally, I wouldn't subscribe to any sort of philosophical scepticism.

I’m attracted to scepticism because it’s rooted in the idea that whatever we think we know, there is always going to be truth that transcends and supersedes it. It also embodies the idea that there are many circumstances in which there are alternatives to a given truth in the same way that there are many value systems that can be brought to bear on something.

I don’t hold with pessimism or cynical scepticism - for me it’s as though there is an infinite library of books that reflect reality. I am free to pick and read any of them and while I do I can suspend judgement and live in that version of reality. I can then pick another book that might contradict the first one, and live in that one too for a while.

I have my favourite books of course, but they are all interesting, and it’s very rewarding to experience the world through many different sets of eyes.

I find that binding myself too tightly to any of these books through my judging functions locks me out of the others. That’s like giving up access to the magic of the wood between the worlds and I avoid it to a considerable extent. There are some that are more plausible than others of course, but that plausibility is based on my own empirical and inductive evidence - like with good science, there is always an open door for something new that reduces or increases the level of plausibility of a given book.

 

[David Nelson]

I like the Big 5 because it has been clinically validated, and can be used in research. I also like it because it speaks to aspects of temperament and psychology that other metrics either do not, or do a poor job of.

That said, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Of the five metrics, only one seems to be somewhat related to choice—conscientiousness.

I’ve got no sense of Jordan Peterson other than he’s a smart enough man that sometimes says things that are insightful (that I may or may not agree with), and sometimes says things that I disagree with because he tends toward cultural conservatism, and I am decidedly otherwise. If a person describes themself as a JP fan, I tend to consider them as highly suspect until proven otherwise.

I’m not sure why you would associate FI and Te with evading the truth. Please explain yourself, if you will.

Cheers,
Ian

I’m going more on feeling and intuition with this one. The Big 5 sounds like it’s popular because it appears to be more self-choosing and less restrictive than MBTI and its aspects correlate more directly with arguments for right wing ideas of usefulness in society versus incompetence. Thus I suspect people on the right like JP tend to like the Big 5 while they dismiss MBTI. Neuroticism is a pretty vague metric since it depends on many factors like upbringing, current status etc.

JP is no doubt knowledgeable about psychology and similar things, but I think as a general wise guru he is highly overstretched. He is politically naive and quite/very right-wing, offering nihilistic views of life. Some of his harsh truths are necessary and useful but he goes way too far. He even depresses himself at times. Noam Chomsky cited someone who said JP is the intellectual we deserve and I agree with that. He’s right on some counts, way off on others.

In Fi and Te wrt truth: I’m on my usual fascist? cog function box here lol. Fi is naturally more prone to selfishness and self-serving attitudes than Fe, because it’s about how a person feels internally about themselves. Te is about superficial external world, lacking theoretical analysis. Thus imo these 2 functions, which are always together in a function stack, tend to correlate more with people who get what suits them from the world ‘as is’. They are far more likely to be opportunists who go along with things which are wrong, and simply don’t care. The truth is not something they focus on.

 

[aeon]

I’m going more on feeling and intuition with this one. The Big 5 sounds like it’s popular because it appears to be more self-choosing and less restrictive than MBTI and its aspects correlate more directly with arguments for right wing ideas of usefulness in society versus incompetence. Thus I suspect people on the right like JP tend to like the Big 5 while they dismiss MBTI. Neuroticism is a pretty vague metric since it depends on many factors like upbringing, current status etc.

Have you taken the Big 5? It is self-selecting just as MBTI is. I don’t see it as more or less restricting—it’s a psychometric that has five axes:

1. social ↔ reserved
2. limbic ↔ calm
3. organized ↔ unstructured
4. accommodating ↔ egocentric
5. non-curious ↔ inquisitive

I suppose you can look at it through a political lens with utility being the focus, just as many do with the MBTI, but to reduce it to being only that is a misread, in my opinion, especially given the fact it has been clinically validated—something MBTI has not.

I’m rcuai:

avoidant, often late, patient, rarely prepared, non-aggressive, slow to judge others, withdrawn, unconcerned with image, relaxed, avoids crowds, easy going, not demanding, low maintenance, unambitious, not domineering, private, thinks before acting, concerned with the feelings of others, not wild and crazy, not controlling, does not like to show anger, hard to offend, dislikes the spotlight, uninterested in leading, not competitive, overly nice, not physically affectionate with most people, not bothered by disorder, level emotions, does not second guess self, agnostic/atheistic tendencies, not picky about food, not relationship obsessed, unproductive, unimposing, plain in appearance, disorganized, loner, lower energy level, very curious, uninterested in prestige/fame, not superficial, likes difficult reading material, does not get worked up about most things, fearless, flexible, trusting, does not stick to plans, easily distracted, interested in science, unconcerned that people have trouble reading them, a good loser, modest, not swayed by emotions

I think that actually gives a better picture of many aspects of myself than other psychometric tests do.

more detail:

That, for example, gives a much better picture of my engagement than does MBTI through the use of E/I.

JP is no doubt knowledgeable about psychology and similar things, but I think as a general wise guru he is highly overstretched. He is politically naive and quite/very right-wing, offering nihilistic views of life. Some of his harsh truths are necessary and useful but he goes way too far. He even depresses himself at times. Noam Chomsky cited someone who said JP is the intellectual we deserve and I agree with that. He’s right on some counts, way off on others.

I think that’s fair.

In Fi and Te wrt truth: I’m on my usual fascist? cog function box here lol. Fi is naturally more prone to selfishness and self-serving attitudes than Fe, because it’s about how a person feels internally about themselves. Te is about superficial external world, lacking theoretical analysis. Thus imo these 2 functions, which are always together in a function stack, tend to correlate more with people who get what suits them from the world ‘as is’. They are far more likely to be opportunists who go along with things which are wrong, and simply don’t care. The truth is not something they focus on.

I’ll play along.

Fi is concerned with a moral sense of what is right, and what is wrong. It is informed by Te, such that the subjective judgment is kept in alignment with objective fact. The truth, inasmuch as it can be known, is something Fi/Te users cannot avoid.

On the other hand, those in the possession of Fe and Ti cannot be trusted. Ti concerns itself with subjective truths that are internally consistent, but do not answer to anyone or anything external. In this way, those subjective truths have no external validity. And then, what of Fe? There is no internal sense of right and wrong, but instead, what is right and what is wrong is to be found in the outside world, as part of a group consensus. This means the Fe user will feel this way, or that, depending on the way the wind blows, and all the while Ti will say nothing, because it does not concern itself with the potential ambiguity and dissonance of objective fact.

So the Fe/Ti user could be truthful, or not, but they have no way to know either way. Inasmuch as this is true, they should not be blamed when their vision for the future includes sending people to the gas chambers. They won’t know better, because they can’t know better—and they didn’t know better, amirite?

How’d I do?

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

Thanks Ian for that. A problem I see with the big 5 is it’s higher level of complexity, more like Te is to Ti. The measures are more objective/measurable rather than fundamental. They are like the consequences of simpler causes. MBTI is a fundamental construct in that it assesses the relative influence of basic, irreducible cognitive systems as they relate to reality. Big 5 seems like it could change through your life depending on circumstances and is therefore more phenomenological (big word lol).

The drug Vioxx was ‘clinically verified’ but harmed over 140,000 people before it was withdrawn. So that argument isn’t infallible.

wrt Ti, I think you may be confusing subjectivity of opinion versus logic. Ti is like theory to Te as practice. Ti is not less about truth than Te but more in certain understandings. According to Te, making money as a hedge fund manager is common sense. According to Ti it is unethical.

Fe is not about going with the herd, although it may present that way in unhealthy individuals. No, it’s about social harmony and feelings for others, empathy. To say it’s justice perhaps require alignment with T function, which will always be Ti.
Wrt the Austrian dictator, I think he actually thought he was doing the right thing, not because he was just following subjective feelings or a heard mentality. He just didn’t have the right facts and extrapolated too simplistically. This is an INFJ weakness due to Ni Ti internal loop and focus missing other options. Interestingly, and a thing which causes much confusion, is that the big picture thinking of INFJ also has the corollary of being too narrow. Ne is imagination and options. Ni is narrow, deep focus. But on the big picture. I am still trying to understand all this because I seek clarity and want to pass on any insights I gain to others (due largely to Fe). I think this was part of AHs downfall. He could see far, and indeed his vision is still in use, but he lacked width of perspective. This was evident in his not listening to his generals. There was also a degree of correct ethics in his thinking even if Nazis corrupted this by their actions. Like Nietzsche he recognised man should be great and achieve things. But in condemning whole races as inferior on that basis, he made a grave error. It’s easy to think he was just pure evil, but I don’t believe that. I think he was just wrong and stubborn and then loved the power and took drugs etc. But he probably did also have a personality disorder as he loved being in WW1 and was delighted when WW 2 started. It is hard to understand him being an INFJ since he showed little empathy for others. But I definitely think he was. I think INFJs can be cruel and switch off emotions at times, it’s just not their preferred mode of existence.

 

[aeon]

Thanks Ian for that. A problem I see with the big 5 is it’s higher level of complexity, more like Te is to Ti. The measures are more objective/measurable rather than fundamental. They are like the consequences of simpler causes. MBTI is a fundamental construct in that it assesses the relative influence of basic, irreducible cognitive systems as they relate to reality. Big 5 seems like it could change through your life depending on circumstances and is therefore more phenomenological (big word lol).

In this I disagree because of my study of early childhood development as it concerns pair bonding, mirroring, modulation of arousal, attachment style, vasovagal nerve activation, and so on. The base neurology of the individual is almost immediately apparent, in particular the ways that later inform 1, 2, and 4 as part of initial face recognition, touch, and feeding. 5 is apparent by the time a child is able to walk and separate itself from its pair-bonded caregiver for the first time—at which point 1 and 2 can be further ascertained based on the child’s responses to novel external stimuli. 3 isn’t able to be seen as early, or as easily, but children display temperaments and engagement styles as they interact and play with other children for the first time, long before they have a chance (much less ability) to take on socially-conditioned rules of behavior.

Do later experiences change an individual’s responses in this way? Outside of very early severe developmental trauma, i.e., physical, emotional, sexual, and neglect, I don’t tend to think they do in a significant way, and longitudinal case studies don’t support the idea either—and this is witnessed cross-culturally.

The drug Vioxx was ‘clinically verified’ but harmed over 140,000 people before it was withdrawn. So that argument isn’t infallible.

Indeed, it is not, so one must look at the number and nature of studies, their intent, repeatability, peer review, and so on. In this way, the two could hardly be different. The example serves to strengthen the argument through the considered questions raised. That said, your prudence is both valued and noted.

wrt Ti, I think you may be confusing subjectivity of opinion versus logic. Ti is like theory to Te as practice. Ti is not less about truth than Te but more in certain understandings. According to Te, making money as a hedge fund manager is common sense. According to Ti it is unethical.

Still playing —Ti is subjective, but that does not mean it is opinion. Ti can manifest systems of logic and thought that are internally consistent, but they are not subject to objective systems of thought, logic, or verifiable fact. Because Ti has no object relation in this way, it may consider and judge something as wrong, by its own measure, but not unethical, which requires external objective reference.

Fe is not about going with the herd, although it may present that way in unhealthy individuals.

And this is exactly key. Jung did not intend his model of cognitive function to be one that could be used to diagnose. All eight were presented as adaptive in function—none are maladaptive, an indicator of deficit, or signs that point to, or predict, human behavior.

Yet, this is something you do regularly here on the forum as it concerns functions other than your own.

My example, which I was very clear about in terms of being playful, is purposefully ludicrous, and an intentional misread of Jung to make a point. You can use cognitive function any way you like, but to misuse it to pathologize others, and advance an agenda (of whatever kind)—I don’t think or feel it is constructive, welcoming, or helps to further discussion here. Also, I think you do yourself a disservice when you do this.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

I think your understanding of Ti is wrong. It is not just internally coherent. Is E= mc (squared) just internally coherent? If Ti is only internally coherent then it is wrong. Logic is logic. There is no internal and external logic which don’t overlap.

Also I think you are wrong about Jung. The book I have, which defines the cognitive functions clearly applied moral judgments on them as they are typically manifested. I suspect it is a modern (or postmodern) interpretation to make them morally neutral which is an illusion. I don’t believe they are all the same. Our culture has become one of levelling everything to the denial of real virtue. That is a crying shame and a deep injustice, especially in a world where deep injustices are rife and either hidden or lied about. That an attempt to be “fair” and equal is actually the opposite since it gives moral weakness and all kinds of sins a free pass is a deep irony. Personality is not just something like skin or eye colour. I know my opinions may be rare or controversial but I genuinely believe them until I think otherwise. It’s not controversial to say some people are nicer or better than others in most people’s eyes, so what accounts for these differences? Why could they not correlate to some degree with personality type? I think human virtue is a difficult concept for humans to completely come to terms with, like sexuality, because we are closely entwined with it. It’s hard to separate the subject from ourselves and our own perspectives. But personality typing allows that 3rd person perspective. But we have to be able and willing to see it.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

What is it’s or your conclusion? That MBTI is wrong?

It's extremely reductive and one-dimensional to the point of stripping people of normal human qualities by giving exclusive importance to them in specific functions. This is clearly shown in interpretations like your insistence on Si being mere "data" or "memory". It's much more than that, and not so different from Ni. Neither is Fe synonymous with empathy or caring, these are traits that belong to individual agreeableness. A more accurate representation of Fe is in approaching problems through social economy or psychology. A Te user might resolve a personal conflict in a direct and private manner like assault or demanding compensation, while Fe users are equally capable of indulging in all sort of conniving and manipulation of social capital like rumormongering on social media to damage your reputation, emotional blackmail or guilt tripping. The reasons for this are addressed in the materials I provided.

 

[David Nelson]

It's extremely reductive and one-dimensional to the point of stripping people of normal human qualities by giving exclusive importance to them in specific functions. This is clearly shown in interpretations like your insistence on Si being mere "data" or "memory". It's much more than that, and not so different from Ni. Neither is Fe synonymous with empathy or caring, these are traits that belong to individual agreeableness. A more accurate representation of Fe is in approaching problems through social economy or psychology. A Te user might resolve a personal conflict in a direct and private manner like assault or demanding compensation, while Fe users are equally capable of indulging in all sort of conniving and manipulation of social capital like rumormongering on social media to damage your reputation, emotional blackmail or guilt tripping. The reasons for this are addressed in the materials I provided.

What you provided made no sense to me. It is not clear what is being said or defined. It is poorly written imo.

 

[Wyote]

It is poorly written imo.

 

[David Nelson]

What is that symbol you keep posting? Looks like duck or something! Lol

 

[Wyote]

It's much more than that

I feel like you can't or shouldn't even take mbti seriously unless you define the scope of the functions in some kinda way just as you've done. It gives mbti some credence. I realize you're just drawing the definitions from what's already generally understood by some, but it's good to promote this way of thinking about it.

 

[Wyote]

What is that symbol you keep posting? Looks like duck or something! Lol

Duck, rabbit, it's a mystery perhaps.
No, it's just a thinking face with a hand on its chin

 

[aeon]

What you provided made no sense to me. It is not clear what is being said or defined. It is poorly written imo.

Interesting—I found the material provided by @Sidis Coruscatis to be one of the clearest, and best-written considerations of the functions and engagement I have ever read, so exacting it was in terms of what they are and what they are not—especially the focus on object-based cognitive processes.

Redefining “Feeling”
Redefining “Thinking”
Redefining “Intuition”
Redefining “Sensing”
Redefining “Introversion”
Redefining “Extroversion”

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Duck, rabbit, it's a mystery perhaps.
No, it's just a thinking face with a hand on its chin

Thonk you for that.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

Interesting—I found the material provided by @Sidis Coruscatis to be one of the clearest, and best-written considerations of the functions and engagement I have ever read, so exacting it was in terms of what they are and what they are not—especially the focus on object-based cognitive processes.

Redefining “Feeling”
Redefining “Thinking”
Redefining “Intuition”
Redefining “Sensing”
Redefining “Introversion”
Redefining “Extroversion”

Cheers,
Ian

“Emotions or feelings fall outside of the domain of cognition”
That’s all I need to read. Yes, anything can trigger emotions. A footballer engaging Se who is playing badly can get annoyed or upset. But that doesn’t deny F. F isn’t the only source of emotions. It’s seems like an attempt to move towards Big 5 bullcrap. It’s more a critique than a new model. Hence very negative. I’ve always been really annoyed at people who pose as superior by cynically knocking things, especially when they offer nothing new or better. Often these people are simply about smoke and mirrors.

 

[David Nelson]

It's extremely reductive and one-dimensional to the point of stripping people of normal human qualities by giving exclusive importance to them in specific functions. This is clearly shown in interpretations like your insistence on Si being mere "data" or "memory". It's much more than that, and not so different from Ni. Neither is Fe synonymous with empathy or caring, these are traits that belong to individual agreeableness. A more accurate representation of Fe is in approaching problems through social economy or psychology. A Te user might resolve a personal conflict in a direct and private manner like assault or demanding compensation, while Fe users are equally capable of indulging in all sort of conniving and manipulation of social capital like rumormongering on social media to damage your reputation, emotional blackmail or guilt tripping. The reasons for this are addressed in the materials I provided.

Si is not so different from Ni?
Now I know I can’t take you seriously.