Why function strength tests are $@(#@ - a guide to understanding function theory - Page 7

Why function strength tests are [email protected](#@ - a guide to understanding function theory

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 67 of 67
Thank Tree336Thanks

This is a discussion on Why function strength tests are [email protected](#@ - a guide to understanding function theory within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; More knowledge in the OP....

  1. #61

    More knowledge in the OP.

  2. #62

    No reply *bump*.

  3. #63

    Well, any category grouping NFP with STJ, NTJ with SFP and so on... cannot make sense to me.
    "Same perspectives, different priorities" sounds oxymoronic af.

    Like :
    Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
    Would that mean:
    - that an ESFJ does not believe in a logical argument provided by someone else and prefer to stand by their own flawed logic?
    - that an INTP does not possess personal value systems and prefer to stand by social norms to get by in the social world?
    because this, at least, would make sense to me. But grouping them? nah I still don't get it.
    Ocean Helm thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64
  6. #65

    Quote Originally Posted by NiDBiLD View Post
    I think you can use only either Se-Ni or Si-Ne. Because the two paradigms contradict eachother. They are impossible to combine without having to go into details and add exceptions and what-ifs everywhere. I also want to limit the span of function theory to only the cognitive processes preceding a decision. Everything else is outside of the span of at least my thesis on this subject. I can explain how I think about this and why:

    All humans can percieve the details of the tangible here-and-now, but only Se-types use it as a major factor in their decision-making. That's why they are Se-types. Likewise, all humans have some degree of memory. This does not mean that they use Si as a basis for decision making. Everyone can solve a practical problem in an objective manner, but this does not mean they use Te for decision making. I think what cognitive functions theory does is that it elaborates on certain aspects of the psyche, and it explains how these might be combined in order to form different decision making processes and priorities.

    Si relies on a single storehouse of data gathered over time. Events percieved as similar to each other by the subject (by use of judging functions) are put in the same array. An "average" - in the mathematical sense - of events in the same array is then used as an axiom for decision making. This means that this average is sent to a judging function when it's decision-time. I guess the decision-making process of a Si-Ne-type could be described something like this:

    "Oh, I am in this kind (Si) of situation now. This means that I have these options (Ne) for action. What am I going to do (Je), and why am I doing it (Ji)?"

    Se does it differently. It does not look at average of similar situations as a basis for judgment. It does not rely on previously established axioms. It looks at the emergent tangible data in the present moment, and sees what can be done in just this particular moment. A Se-type might have memories of similar situations in the past, but that information is not used for decision-making and the type is therefore not a Si-user.

    A decision making process for a Se-Ni-type would look something like this:

    "So this is the available data in this particular situation (Se) and these are the interpretations of the data that make sense to me right now (Ni). What am I going to do (Je) and why am I going to do it (Ji)?"

    One can't use both these sets. They are mutually incompatible world views.



    I am not clear on exactly what you mean here, but if I have interpreted you correctly, then this is my answer:

    There is a great difference between Te-pragmatism and Fe-ethics, and the two are also mutually exclusive, because there is a conflict of values and priorities inherent in the difference between the two.

    A Fe-user would want to establish common ground with people in order to make agreed-upon-by-all decisions, because in Fe-space, what makes a decision justified is that everyone can agree it's a good idea. It is a political function, so to say. It is ready to compromise and change because of differing opinions and feelings. The best possible decision in Fe-space is the decision that has the most people believing it is good. It does not matter if the solutions proposed are horribly inefficient - as long as everyone likes the idea, it's all good.

    Fe wants to make decisions that are agreed upon and that pleases people in one way or another. The reactions of other people is the basic measurement unit for deciding if a decision is good or bad.

    Te is practically the total opposite.

    Te only cares about the opinions of others if these opinions have practical implications to the decision. A Te-solution does not usually take people into account, except as numbers in a risk management calculation - Because opinions are irrelevant to the Te-mind.

    Te cares nothing about the wills and wants of the self or others. It is not an ethical system - it's just as amoral as building a functioning machine. Either a machine works or it does not - only the measurable efficiency of the construct is the basis for decisions. More efficient = good. Less efficient = bad - regardless of people's opinions, because people's opinions can change no measurements. Measurements are objective and therefore they stand above opinions. They are facts, and facts are real. A solution works in reality, or it doesn't. That's what's important for Te-judgment.

    Do you understand the difference?

    And also, how do you measure an ethical structure?
    I think it's a mistake to think of Fe as an ethical structure. You were closer to the truth when you said it was related to judging whether things were good our bad based on the outcome of people. For example my Fe growing up was concerned with not triggering "detroit" where everything seemed dangerous. This didn't make me especially ethical. (not that I am not at this point). It could be said ethics are a rule set are they not? I certainly didn't create a rule set, things were too chaotic, so I created aa perceiving Se of everything, abstraction was necessary because Detroit was to dangerous. People like to call Fe a "harmony" function, but that's people who grew up in harmony with others, it's a misrepresentation based on their personal bias of the world.

  7. #66

    Quote Originally Posted by NiDBiLD View Post
    That's interesting. I don't know if that theory holds for testing though, but it's definitely worth a try. What's the pattern here? What kind of functions do you think correspond to which senses?

    I am pretty sure my functions would list something like this:

    Te is Auditory (I think outwards. I don't really know what I am about to say until I say it. My thinking works by the rules of language, and language is my home arena). Somehow, what comes out is pretty much always logically sound, regardless of how messy my internal ramblings tend to be)

    Ni is Auditory Digital (My Ni combines and takes apart the words of a statement, serving Te, reads them backwards and forwards, turns them around, puts them in different contexts and finds their opposites in order to understand the statement from several perspectives. Contradictory wordplay, puns and different syntactic formulations of the same basic meaning is pretty much all that goes on in my head. It's impossible to shut up.)

    Se is Visual (My direct focus is on the visual. I don't like messy rooms, cluttered space or asymmetry. I'd prefer a room that stinks before a room that is messy. For Ni to start spinning there needs to be either auditory Te data or visual Se data coming in.)

    Fi is Kinestetic (I gain affirmation through pretty much only physical action. Saying "I love you" doesn't do it. Emotions need physical evidence to be taken seriously.)
    My Ni is visual and abstracted non-visual-non-auditory symbology. I don't agree at all that it's tied to a sense. Also I like the Original Post. Just completely disagree with this explaination of functions tied to senses.

  8. #67

     
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 194
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 08:27 PM
  2. Function Order Models Guide
    By Fanille in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 06:14 PM
  3. Replies: 105
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 02:38 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2010, 11:09 PM
  5. Cognitive Function Tests
    By murkrow in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 02:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0