Perceiving functions perplex me a bit. Ni has been the most elusive to me. As for definitions of perception:
According to wikipedia
So with this perception, a representation is formed, that representation seems to be implicitly judged to an extent prior to any cognitive functions taking over, and that implicit judgement (or perhaps classification) seems to define how we perceive.
I mean, this absolutely relies on outside sensory stimulus, that is what perception is based on. It is what happens after that point which perplexes me, especially with the MBTI framework. Perception figures out what something is before judging figures out what the value is.
So are the perceiving functions all based upon classification/representation systems? I get the sense that introverted perceiving functions require a stricter classification than extraverted.
Si
Si makes sense to me, it would immediately attempt to represent something based on previously acquired representations. To me, it represents a closed loop and a representation/perception is rarely ever allowed to exist of its own accord.
Ni
How does Ni work in terms of representation? I guess I see a chain of linear linkage with Ni. The representation is joined with past representations. However, those representations don't actually take over as the new representation, as Si would to, but rather lineates a progression, and creates a path of where that perception came from, and where it is going. So this lineated cognition sort of takes over for the total sum of a new representation.
Ne
To me, Ne seems like the partier of perception, stimulus occurs and the perception brings along all its representation friends. From one perception there are a slew of other previous representations called with some potential link, however minute. However, the representation in itself always remains intact and unchanged regardless of the links formed. Those links can be, and often are, shed which seems to be the big difference between Ne and Ni in my mind.
Se
Se strikes me as the purest of all perceptions. There are few to no past representations that are linked to the current experience. Every stimulus is its own: new, fresh, and unique.
Would it be fair to say extraverted perceiving functions (Se & Ne) typically allow a perception to remain unchanged while there is a high probability that a representation is adapted or changed to fit into some sort of framework with introverted perceiving functions (Si & Ni)?
Thoughts?
According to wikipedia
Princeton
The Princeton definition makes a lot more sense. A perception is a representation. I had trouble understanding how introverted could play a role in something that is making use of extraverted sources. However, perhaps the princeton definition helps.
So with this perception, a representation is formed, that representation seems to be implicitly judged to an extent prior to any cognitive functions taking over, and that implicit judgement (or perhaps classification) seems to define how we perceive.
I mean, this absolutely relies on outside sensory stimulus, that is what perception is based on. It is what happens after that point which perplexes me, especially with the MBTI framework. Perception figures out what something is before judging figures out what the value is.
So are the perceiving functions all based upon classification/representation systems? I get the sense that introverted perceiving functions require a stricter classification than extraverted.
Si
Si makes sense to me, it would immediately attempt to represent something based on previously acquired representations. To me, it represents a closed loop and a representation/perception is rarely ever allowed to exist of its own accord.
Ni
How does Ni work in terms of representation? I guess I see a chain of linear linkage with Ni. The representation is joined with past representations. However, those representations don't actually take over as the new representation, as Si would to, but rather lineates a progression, and creates a path of where that perception came from, and where it is going. So this lineated cognition sort of takes over for the total sum of a new representation.
Ne
To me, Ne seems like the partier of perception, stimulus occurs and the perception brings along all its representation friends. From one perception there are a slew of other previous representations called with some potential link, however minute. However, the representation in itself always remains intact and unchanged regardless of the links formed. Those links can be, and often are, shed which seems to be the big difference between Ne and Ni in my mind.
Se
Se strikes me as the purest of all perceptions. There are few to no past representations that are linked to the current experience. Every stimulus is its own: new, fresh, and unique.
Would it be fair to say extraverted perceiving functions (Se & Ne) typically allow a perception to remain unchanged while there is a high probability that a representation is adapted or changed to fit into some sort of framework with introverted perceiving functions (Si & Ni)?
Thoughts?
