The Key Factor in Screening Ni Dominance

[whytiger]

Which is why I was discussing earlier the value of 'Ego' which for an NF is both F and N, for an NT is both T and N. But NTs can also get vibes about people as a result of their logical deductions, whereas NFs can get vibes about a system based upon something being 'off'. The functions aren't exclusive to personal relationships, its just people like to pretend they are because NFs like to feel they are 'peopley' whereas NTs like to think they are 'clevery'.

I am learning your vocabulary. Ok, to my Ti you are saying: vibe = rational, jive = irrational.

Yes, I get a logical "vibe" about people by seeing how what they say intuitively "jives" with what they do. With systems it's the same sort of thing. Does what the system is supposed to do jive with what it actually does?

 

[bickelz]

Which is why I was discussing earlier the value of 'Ego' which for an NF is both F and N, for an NT is both T and N. But NTs can also get vibes about people as a result of their logical deductions, whereas NFs can get vibes about a system based upon something being 'off'. The functions aren't exclusive to personal relationships, its just people like to pretend they are because NFs like to feel they are 'peopley' whereas NTs like to think they are 'clevery'.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I am learning your vocabulary. Ok, to my Ti you are saying: vibe = rational, jive = irrational.

Yes, I get a logical "vibe" about people by seeing how what they say intuitively "jives" with what they do. With systems it's the same sort of thing. Does what the system is supposed to do jive with what it actually does?

I'm going to say Yes, within reason. Although I may not entirely understand, I think it depends on whether the system is both experiencing something appropriately and is also designed for the task at hand. It wouldn't be the first time a system has been applied inappropriately but in a completely honest manner.

Sometimes it's more important to understand simply what it is, rather than if the outcome is either the same or different. A system is great, but rubbish in = rubbish out, also correct in + rubbish process = rubbish out.

 

[whytiger]

I'm going to say Yes, within reason. Although I may not entirely understand, I think it depends on whether the system is both experiencing something appropriately and is also designed for the task at hand. It wouldn't be the first time a system has been applied inappropriately but in a completely honest manner.

Sometimes it's more important to understand simply what it is, rather than if the outcome is either the same or different. A system is great, but rubbish in = rubbish out, also correct in + rubbish process = rubbish out.

Right, verification is where you check that the system is doing what we say it does. Validation is where you check if the system does what we want it to do.

When I compare myself to ISTPs, I find that I will be able to understand, intuitively, what an algorithm is supposed to do and what it does, whereas they, more often, need it explained to them. We both use Ti in the sense that we have this sort of internal schematic, but how the information gets in there to be processed is very different.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Right, verification is where you check that the system is doing what we say it does. Validation is where you check if the system does what we want it to do.

When I compare myself to ISTPs, I find that I will be able to understand, intuitively, what an algorithm is supposed to do and what it does, whereas they, more often, need it explained to them. We both use Ti in the sense that we have this sort of internal schematic, but how the information gets in there to be processed is very different.

You are right there, I remember working with a few ISTP colleagues who could follow the minutae of equations with perfection. But, ask them to use an 'algorithm' to take the results and post process it and they looked like they were experiencing physical pain the result would often be the ISTP descending into a one week farce where they would basically spit out their dummy until they had worked out the minutae pathway of the task.

 

[whytiger]

You are right there, I remember working with a few ISTP colleagues who could follow the minutae of equations with perfection. But, ask them to use an 'algorithm' to take the results and post process it and they looked like they were experiencing physical pain the result would often be the ISTP descending into a one week farce where they would basically spit out their dummy until they had worked out the minutae pathway of the task.

To their credit, I can't match an ISTP in their area of expertise no matter how much practice I get. Details bog me down. I'm much better being thrown into something I've never seen before.

One thing I'm not clear on is this whole myth that Ni is about seeing things from different perspectives. That seems more of a Ne or Ti thing to me.

 

[InvisibleJim]

To their credit, I can't match an ISTP in their area of expertise no matter how much practice I get. Details bog me down. I'm much better being thrown into something I've never seen before.

One thing I'm not clear on is this whole myth that Ni is about seeing things from different perspectives. That seems more of a Ne or Ti thing to me.

That's typology gibberish regarding alternate perspectives. It respects alternate perspectives because it demands it's own perspective.

 

[bickelz]

To their credit, I can't match an ISTP in their area of expertise no matter how much practice I get. Details bog me down. I'm much better being thrown into something I've never seen before.

One thing I'm not clear on is this whole myth that Ni is about seeing things from different perspectives. That seems more of a Ne or Ti thing to me.

Ni does use different perspectives but it's goal is to converge onto a conclusion so it may not take enough perspectives into context while Ne's goal is to think up as many perspectives as it can at the same time. Ti whittles things down and figures out of they make sense or not.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

its goal is to converge

I agree. In general, I would say that the Xi functions converge, whereas the Xe functions diverge.

Possible: IJ and EP types are especially converge-diverge based (property based), with EJ and IP being focused on internalise-externalise (process based).

There is a beta quadra opposition/tension to the INFJ just as there is a gamma quadra opposition/tension to the INTJ

Can you elaborate on this one?

Apparently there isn't a consensus as to whether INFJ = INFp or INFj or not necessarily either.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Can you elaborate on this one?

Apparently there isn't a consensus as to whether INFJ = INFp or INFj or not necessarily either.

To elaborate, me and some people think it is equivalent or more importantly that it is defined to be equivalent and has the same connotations and outcomes regardless of the specifics. Other people do not.

 

[Arsal]

To elaborate, me and some people think it is equivalent or more importantly that it is defined to be equivalent and has the same connotations and outcomes regardless of the specifics. Other people do not.

The irony is that this is a very, very Ti Ego position to take.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The irony is that this is a very, very Ti Ego position to take.

Don't start me on the demonstrative function again.

Post Edit:

I'm started. An INTJ has Ti in their demonstrative. They actually use it very well, but they don't really like using it and it's what they use when you ask them technical questions that they are thinking hard about. They still view it as 'there is no need to force my explicit logical understand upon the conclusion' and therefore accept alternate 'versions' of it. This is why typing through the PoLR is tres important!

This is why its so hard to type the difference between INTx ISTx and such, because Thinking is such a well defined function and introverted intuition is so bloody ambiguous. Look for how they use F, not how they use T.

This is why, INTx is so bloody similar behaviour wise, because INTP is skilled in but doesn't really like Ni, INTJ is skilled in but doesn't really like Ti.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

To elaborate, me and some people think it is equivalent or more importantly that it is defined to be equivalent and has the same connotations and outcomes regardless of the specifics. Other people do not.

Defined where? I thought the four first-tier dichotomies were defined roughly the same in each, so if the functions don't correspond, then it would imply either that the functions are actually different, or that at least one of the models is wrong/inconsistent.

--

However, I meant can you elaborate on -this-

There is a beta quadra opposition/tension to the INFJ just as there is a gamma quadra opposition/tension to the INTJ

The sentence after was basically why I want you to elaborate on it (i.e. to better understand how the two could be interpreted to be the same), not that the reasoning wouldn't be enlightening in itself.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The sentence after was basically why I want you to elaborate on it, not that the reasoning wouldn't be enlightening in itself.

There is a beta quadra opposition/tension to the INFJ just as there is a gamma quadra opposition/tension to the INTJ, this is the selection and rejection mechanism as a result of Ni dominance.

Let us accept/pretend that there is a selection/rejection mechanism to how an Ni dominant views their options, that infact despite that we may discuss the means of cognition as a 'set paradigm' of functions and attitudes that the ego is a mixture of functions interacting.

Now the ego is all about the good stuff. However, it is balanced by the Id, the subconscious feeding info into the conscious ego.

The gamma id is Fe-PoLR and Si role, whereas the beta id is Te-PoLR and Si role. Therefore identifying the difference is how there is an active rejection of the Fe or Te information elements/cognitive processing when decisions are made.

You may most typically see this in the INFJ beta-id as:

I'm far more preferred to discussing the individualised elements of a problem but I don't get why you keep drawing parralels and stating 'facts' without a really detailed basis of logical parallel.

My model says x = y, stop pointing out that in reality y is not always/factual x and that it may lie upon a distribution. I've built a model in my head that dictates states correlation = causation, I don't care that you are pointing out it is unrealistic because I actively dislike Te and reaching common ground on logical concepts has no interest/value to me.

But listen I'm willing to accept that you have your own logical system as you don't try to enforce it upon me.

And by contrast the INTJ viewpoint based upon gamma-id would be:

I'm far more preferred to discussing the individualised notions that people subscribe to when it comes to ethics, you can't disprove this by drawing elements of external 'net' effects of groups of people, because the individual is individual.

Therefore it's personal justified for me to say, because I think this is right, it is in it's way right. Stop harping on about how there are societal consequences, because I don't care for the society that creates these consequences because they are the result of flawed principles because I actively dislike Fe and sharing these elements of ethics others has no interest/value to me.

But listen I'm willing to accept that you have your own set of preferences and ethics as long as you don't enforce those upon me.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The other thing I should point out:

These aren't bad things.

Infact this is how these types relieve 'cognitive' stress. Let the IxTJ have his Fi release. Let the IxSJ have their Ti release. Humour them. Attempting to put a lid on it will only make them wound up and angry.

Challenging them to discuss it and bring it out dissipates the poison and allows them to improve their perspective.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That INFJ description could be interpreted, when contextualised a bit, to suggest that the INFJ is rejecting the usual web of definitions used to describe the world, i.e. a rejection of static T, Ti. They're defining their own definitions instead to put a structure to their insights, and you're making them adhere to the pre-established definitions which they have no use for.

If you had a pragmatic basis for rejecting the model, I doubt the INFJ would reject it, but when your criticism comes from the employment of a separate model with an assumption that terms are referring to the same thing in each when, to the INFJ at least, they are not, then the apparent factual inaccuracy will be rejected.

Static F doesn't care for Static T, because that's not what it's trying to do. If you give a criticism which is dynamically T based, then I'm sure it would be considered.

--

I doubt the debate will get any where. Your Tb demonstrations seem reasonable, except that I don't see how it follows from your premise.

Types are effectively the same across each model, as determined by the first tier dichotomies. MBTI functions are second tier, socionics values are third tier.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I doubt the debate will get any where. Your Tb demonstrations seem reasonable, except that I don't see how it follows from your premise.

Types are effectively the same across each model, as determined by the first tier dichotomies. MBTI functions are second tier, socionics values are third tier.

I'm not trying to convince you that there is a wrong or right, merely to tell you this is how it seems to me. Could you define 'tier'?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm not trying to convince you that there is a wrong or right, merely to tell you this is how it seems to me. Could you define 'tier'?

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Dichotomies

First tier dichotomies are the ones which the 4-letter code is based on, i.e. I/E, N/S, F/T, J/P. I claim that these are the same in each.

Second tier dichotomies are formed by combinations of pairs of these, such that two types fall on the same side of a dichotomy with respect to two first tier dichotomies if they are either both the same or both different. For example, NJs and SPs fall on the same side, which corresponds to MBTI Ni/Se. Taking I/E and P/J divides Irratoinal dominants from Rational dominants, taking I/E with either N/S or F/T according to my hypothesis gives a function model which is structurally equivalent to MBTI's, and just as valid (which I denote by j/p subscripts).

Third tier dichotomies are similarly defined. Fw/Tb (w and b being white and black, to distinguish it from the MBTI codes) is valued by IxFJs, IxTPs, ExTJs, and ExFPs. The third tier dichotomies which are independent of I/E and P/J seem to be very interesting, however I'm not totally sure what the reasoning behind them is, and likewise for the fourth tier dichotomy (which places types which differ by an even number of letters together).

 

[Orion]

Ni is the opposite, it seeks to expel individuals around you to free up mind space.

To locate the Ni dominant look for the individual who is willing to push their friends away for space often for extended periods of time and also to travel totally against societal grain in doing so. The mindset of Ni is such that it is actively resentful that others have encroached on it's intellectual and psychological head space.

The same could be said for Fi, Ti, and Si-doms, really. That's extremely non-specific. I find the way you are hand feeding the forum your personal knowledge and how people are lapping it up, disturbing.

People, please read books. Read Jung, research Analytical Psychology if you really want to know yourself. There are trained Jungian Analysts who have written books and spent their lives researching, the material is out there to really understand this stuff.

In essence Ni is a very strange and fractuous mindset. The only member of this board who I can really say is 'Kosher' Ni dominant (from my limited experience) is @Bird . It took me some time to think about that and bring that realisation back into mind and it clicks.

I think you are well aware of how volatile your statement is because you know how people on this forum see Ni and that many people want to be one and that it is held in a certain precedent. Your thread is conceited and aimed at causing a social reaction. Bird is an Fi-dom, also. If you are going on the shallow basis of her strange or counter-cultural nature as the evidence of her Ni dominance, then I'm dissapointed. Sounds more like a transference to me, because you know, everyone is in love with her for some strange reason.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yes, some of us should read psychological types rather than defending other peoples viewpoints from PersonalityNation. There is some excellent advice in there for one of the contributors to the thread.

There is no requirement for you to agree with me, there is however a benefit in 'if it is all wrong' providing your own viewpoint, even without evidence. This way you can show a high degree of knowledge and help us all decide if what you suggest is sensible. If there is no attempt made what else are others to think? *wiggles eyebrows*