Perceiving versus Judging

[aeon]

Intuition—registering mental objects as continuous and non-discrete

• treating mental objects as lacking a definite informational boundary
• giving a dispersed and unspecific perimeter to a concept or idea
• registering objects as wave-like
• modeling ideas as existing in a superposition, rather than a specific position
• perceiving objects as having a hazy, gradated self-extension or influence
• having multi-meaning, rather than single-meaning

Sensing—registering mental objects as discontinuous and discrete

• being cognizant of the informational starts and ends of objects
• treating a concept or idea as a localized dataset
• registering objects as particle-like
  
• modeling mental objects as specific with finite ranges
• having a sharp and focused description of a concept or idea, without ambiguity
• handling variables as definite amounts or quantities; single-meaning

Paradoxically, very much alike, yet very much different from one another.

Of course, all paradoxes can be resolved as they are the poles of a singular truth.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

I’ve always been really annoyed at people who pose as superior by cynically knocking things, especially when they offer nothing new or better.

Big 5 bullcrap

Um, okay then.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

Um, okay then.

Cheers,
Ian

Wasn’t aimed at you Ian.

 

[aeon]

Wasn’t aimed at you Ian.

Didn’t think so. No problem, mate!

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Intuition—registering mental objects as continuous and non-discrete

• treating mental objects as lacking a definite informational boundary
• giving a dispersed and unspecific perimeter to a concept or idea
• registering objects as wave-like
• modeling ideas as existing in a superposition, rather than a specific position
• perceiving objects as having a hazy, gradated self-extension or influence
• having multi-meaning, rather than single-meaning

Sensing—registering mental objects as discontinuous and discrete

• being cognizant of the informational starts and ends of objects
• treating a concept or idea as a localized dataset
• registering objects as particle-like
  
• modeling mental objects as specific with finite ranges
• having a sharp and focused description of a concept or idea, without ambiguity
• handling variables as definite amounts or quantities; single-meaning

Intuition is like total system state analog non-linear with feed-forward and recursion flow with built-in PID control.

Sensing is like discrete digital quantization with AND, OR, NOR, and XOR gates, accumulators, and bipolar flip-flop junctions.

edit: N is quantum mechanics, S is general relativity.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

Intuition is like total system state analog non-linear with feed-forward and recursion flow with built-in PID control.

Sensing is like discrete digital quantization with AND, OR, NOR, and XOR gates, accumulators, and bipolar flip-flop junctions.

Cheers,
Ian

So intuition is an analog synth and sensing is a digital synth? Lol

I think Si is data and subjective experiences. Ni is the analysis of data and pattern recognition along with future predictions based on this. Si struggles to predict the future because it can only join dots of data. It is lost in the details.

 

[John K]

It seems to me that the definition of the functions in Big 5 is a bit confusing. Not in the sense of being incorrect but in the sense that they are different conceptually to the Jungian definitions. That leads to semantic difficulties. There is a more subtle problem of this sort between Jung’s own definition of the functions and the way that has been reconstructed by the MBTI creators. The same words used to define the functions also have a lot of different meanings colloquially too, and this adds to the semantic problem. For example I often use the word ‘feeling’ in the sense of starting to gain insight into something.

Rather than these things all competing with each other for what is fundamental truth, they are all different conceptual systems for expressing the same underlying truth in some of its aspects. They all have strengths and weaknesses and we can choose which of them to apply in line with this - as long as we make it clear which of these we are using. To give an analogy, it’s a bit like choosing which coordinate system to use in mathematics. You do far better expressing navigational issues in spherical polar coordinates than Cartesian ones because they fit the shape of the earth like a glove. Both systems describe the same underlying reality though - the earth’s surface.

I actually prefer Jung’s original conceptual framework myself, but that’s a matter of taste rather than rejection of the others. The original idea is that there are four functions. Each one can be applied either subjectively or objectively and that determines the way they are manifest in each of us, but the functions themselves are not changed by this.

I think that understanding it more fully comes from having some feel for Jung’s overall psychology of the unconscious. I believe that he first started developing his typology in response to his patients in therapy. He needed access to their unconscious minds and he found this differed according to type. His motive in developing his typology started off as a way of identifying his patients’ inferior functions, which he found were the gateways he was seeking to their hidden minds. It seems that his model succeeded in this based on his empirical experience in his therapeutic practice.

 

[aeon]

N perceives the interrelationship and total state value of interference-pattern wave quanta from which a deduction can be made.

This is true of Ni and Ne...Ni in the subjective, Ne in the objective.

S perceives the apprehension of individual discrete objects existing as nested holons in a recognized pattern from which an induction can be made.

This is true of Se and Si...Se in the objective, Si in the subjective.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

That’s all I need to read.

In other words, you didn't see what you wanted to see and immediately decided to fill in the rest with comforting assumptions to protect your narrative. But no, it's the Fi users who refuse anything that doesn't feel good.

Of course it's inherently a critique of MBTI, there would be no need to make a new model otherwise. CT is probably the most in-depth cognitive model to date, it doesn't deny F, it has nothing to do with propagating Big 5 except for the fact that it acknowledges the existence of both essential traits and fluctuating traits. Ren has also made several reviews of it on his blog and channel. Of course, you would know all this if you spent at least as much effort understanding it as you do in making self-aggrandizing or snide comments about anything that diverges from your immaculate INFJ conception.

This is what happens when your entire self-worth and security is teetering on idealized mental constructs.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Paradoxically, very much alike, yet very much different from one another.

Of course, all paradoxes can be resolved as they are the poles of a singular truth.

This is exactly the heart of Jungian perspective, as well as his predecessors like William Blake. If you're looking for a timeless truth, look for something that contradicts itself.

 

[David Nelson]

In other words, you didn't see what you wanted to see and immediately decided to fill in the rest with comforting assumptions to protect your narrative. But no, it's the Fi users who refuse anything that doesn't feel good.

Of course it's inherently a critique of MBTI, there would be no need to make a new model otherwise. CT is probably the most in-depth cognitive model to date, it doesn't deny F, it has nothing to do with propagating Big 5 except for the fact that it acknowledges the existence of both essential traits and fluctuating traits. Ren has also made several reviews of it on his blog and channel. Of course, you would know all this if you spent at least as much effort understanding it as you do in making self-aggrandizing or snide comments about anything that diverges from your immaculate INFJ conception.

This is what happens when your entire self-worth and security is teetering on idealized mental constructs.

I may have at least partly deserved this. So I’ll take it on the chin and move on.