Are these CF definitions accurate or not?

[AUM]

I've been trying to make my own definitions for all of the cognitive functions, so I was wondering if I'm actually capturing their correct essence of what they are.Since this is an INFJ forum, I'll begin posting these first. What do you think?


Introverted Intuition: A function that shifts the perspective of past experiences into models of future probabilities and chooses the most likely outcome out of all of them.

Extraverted Feeling: A function that derives external consensual values as objective criteria of reality.

Introverted Thinking: A function that breaks apart systems to find a fundamental truth to describe the whole of that system.(Note: Many people may confuse this definition with an another variation of Ni, the only difference is that Ti is more technical, and Ni more holistic.)

Extroverted Sensing: A function that makes use of the physical senses to gather information of the external environment.

Any suggestions or corrections are welcome

 

[bickelz]

The way you describe Ni is more like Si because Ni doesn't really use past experiences. To an extent it does but it usually takes on new problems from scratch and takes in as much information needed to come to a conclusion. It's convergent intuition.

 

[Kmal]

Ni uses past experiences to make a model of reality, but what information it DOESNT have, it guesses based on probability and seeing things from as many perspectives as it can conjure.
Si uses past experiences to make the model and I dont know what it does with information it doesnt have--

 

[This]

Ni uses past experiences to make a model of reality, but what information it DOESNT have, it guesses based on probability and seeing things from as many perspectives as it can conjure.
Si uses past experiences to make the model and I dont know what it does with information it doesnt have--

Ni and Si could be the same thing for all we know, same with Ti and Ni (likely there is some overlap.) Nothing is really THAT definitive. Once you start trying to break down cognitive functions into "Hard Science" you start treading on some very thin ice. But yes Ni uses past experience it just may not be that clear WHAT past experience.

 

[AUM]

The way you describe Ni is more like Si because Ni doesn't really use past experiences. To an extent it does but it usually takes on new problems from scratch and takes in as much information needed to come to a conclusion. It's convergent intuition.

I've been struggling with this Ni-Si paradigm for a while now. I think Si will never use their experiences to predict novel scenarios, but rather, Si will assume that the trends will not change in any given time. Si will assume that the sun will come tomorrow, that the economy will recover, that gravity will always keep us down and so on, simply because experiences in the past have led us to believe in a predictable reality.

Ni will look at those past experiences and begin to ponder what will happen if the sun doesn't come out tomorrow, what will happen if the economy doesn't recover, what if gravity disappears and make predictions out of that data. So Ni does use past experiences as starting points into other future probabilities.

Edit: And before some people come in here and complain that I'm making fun of SJ's for their myopia, just let me clarify that they have in their arsenal their ability to also predict novel scenarios by using Ne. Just sayin' Note: This edit serves as a reminder that even I can use Si. I'm expecting retributions for people complaining about Si's inability to think "outside of the box" since I always have one or two members who come in here and yell, "not aaaaalll Si users are like that, you're generalizing boohoo!" Just taking precautions, that's all.

 

[Kmal]

Ni and Si could be the same thing for all we know, same with Ti and Ni (likely there is some overlap.) Nothing is really THAT definitive. Once you start trying to break down cognitive functions into "Hard Science" you start treading on some very thin ice. But yes Ni uses past experience it just may not be that clear WHAT past experience.

I do think there is a difference, otherwise they'd be the same!
Ni doms tend to guess on things and try to fill in the blanks, while Si users tend to think they need to experience it first to have the model of the whatever it is they're making the model of.
The Ni doms tendency to guess and fill in the blanks is where their 'inherent' confidence comes from.

I've been struggling with this Ni-Si paradigm for a while now. I think Si will never use their experiences to predict novel scenarios, but rather, Si will assume that the trends will not change in any given time. Si will assume that the sun will come tomorrow, that the economy will recover, that gravity will always keep us down and so on, simply because experiences in the past have led us to believe in a predictable reality.

Ni will look at those past experiences and begin to ponder what will happen if the sun doesn't come out tomorrow, what will happen if the economy doesn't recover, what if gravity disappears and make predictions out of that data. So Ni does use past experiences as starting points into other future probabilities.

[MENTION=678]AUM[/MENTION] that said-- if the past repeats itself, we should be able to predict the future.

 

[AUM]

that said-- if the past repeats itself, we should be able to predict the future.

But can past trends predict future outcomes always? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, I'll say.

Si users do very well in predictable environments because it lets them predict several years into the future with perfect accuracy, but in uncertain environments, they don't have the sufficient information to make a model that includes all the uncertain variables that might affect the future. Like I said in my previous post, unless SJ's are willing to use Ne to make a guess into the trends and patterns of any given data they have at that point, they might as well leave that job to an Ni, and not just any Ni user either, but one who ironically has a good usage of its Se as well and, obviously, one who has the sufficient knowledge of the issue in hand.

Now to be fair, SJ's do have an excellent detail grasp with future trends once they master their Ne, even moreso than Ni ever will. Si is a very detail-oriented function which will make very concrete and realistic models of what their Si-Ne paradigm has created. My mom is an ESFJ and her intuition is eerily accurate which made me wonder if she was an ENFJ at some point. But no, compared to my Ni which only grasps the fuzzy big picture into the future, she can tell you very detailed what may happen and how, covering all the mechanics of what she is saying. I will never be able to be that specific, only vague.

 

[AUM]

And by the way, I find it amusing that most people went to question the Ni description in the OP. Does this mean all the other function definitions were OK?

I find that hard to believe *shock*