Attitudes of perception in polarized types

Home Page Forums Ask a Demographic Attitudes of perception in polarized types

  • safsom
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    For the formulation of my own typological system (which has its root in Jung but the methods used within it being epistemological rather than vultological), I have recently begun to root out the core differences between the two attitudes of perception Рdelineated here as introverted and extroverted perception. Before expounding on my analyses of these attitudes, however, I think it is integral to define introversion and extroversion, lest any confusion arise on part of the reader of this post (which would greatly hinder the flow and quality of productive, erudite discussion). Simply put, extroversion is a focus directly on the object, independent of the subject (as per Jung). The extrovert is not reflective when that word means contemplative of his or her relation to the object, to the extrovert, it is the object itself that is of interest.  What does this imply in the perceptual realm?

    It means that dominant extroverted perceivers (termed Pe leads here in CT), have their main concern within¬†objects¬†themselves. Those can be discrete, well-defined, “concrete” objects (in the case of Se), or hazy, abstract, “fuzzy” potential-based objects (Ne). They¬†immerse¬†themselves in whatever object has caught their perception. Theoretically, this could lend itself to a certain obsessiveness with that which is external, potentially making it a great catalyst for research and discovery. Problems that may arise are flightiness (latching on to new objects) and a lack of retention (extroverted perception may have the tendency to neglect stockpiling or storing information, and instead focus on its gain). They¬†become¬†the perception, they¬†become¬†the object (because they’re not projecting like Je leads), and so they simply¬†abandon¬†any sense of self (apart from Ji frameworks) in normal cases.

    Dominant introverted perceivers (termed Pi leads here), on the other hand, are also concerned with information Рto the point where many could be considered walking encyclopedias. The difference lies in the subject focus versus the object focus. Though it is still perception, and thus gathers data, due to its subjective focus, the gathered perceptions will find analogies in past perceptions. It is a cumulative process, and so the information is stored with other information in a web. This is why introverted perceiver types are known for having good memories and cautious tendencies Рthey want the external world to lie within the realm of what they have seen (subjective perceptions are by very definition crystalized and thus rooted in the past). They do not ever become the object like Pe leads, but they impress upon the object their own qualities Рbeing some of the most subjective types for this very reason.

    My question to the forum lies in how you the¬†attitude¬†of your perceptual functions (whether that be introverted, extroverted or both) manifests in your cognition and behavior. I’m specifically concerned mostly with polarized types. In my own case, I find that I am attracted to the scrupulous and meticulous construction of information networks (and I am known as a ‘walking encylopedia’ or ‘dictionary’ in my social circles, so my self-assessment is not far off), but I am also rather¬†externally¬†obsessive – I will intake raw information at times without undergoing the additional process, simply¬†immersing¬†myself in the information (Se). I’m wondering how polarized types both on my end (Ni) and the other end (Se) of the spectrum will answer. Thank you for reading.

    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by safsom.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by safsom.
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    This is a really wonderful description of the behaviors of these processes! I am not a polarized type, so the only info I can give you is that I certainly tend to lose myself in concrete perception if I am open and focused enough. I actually tend to seek this out. I enjoy the feeling of wholly externalizing my being into an experience, though it takes some effort. My sense of self can sometimes stop me from attaining this, sometimes to the point of feeling wholly removed from the reality and experience around me.

    This was a really spot on description, I’d love to see your descriptions of the judging functions!

    safsom
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @alice

    One question – does this phenomenon of object immersion happen to you when you are studying abstract phenomena as well? I’m referring to entities that are purely metaphysical or theoretical without concrete manifestation – how does the physical immersion work in this case?

    I am asking because theories are still phenomena external to the self – they exist in the realm of objective judgement and perception after all. They are outside the self. Does the immersion happen in the same way? Do you associate them with physical phenomena?

    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Very interesting question! I didn’t think about this.

    While I do have a deep interest in abstract and metaphysical concepts, and spend many hours researching and deep-diving into them, I can’t maintain focus on them very easily. I certainly don’t feel the same feeling I get from wholly engrossing sensory experiences. It’s a totally separate form of stimulation I think! Sifting through abstract information can certainly be engrossing and immersive, but it never brings the same intoxicating feeling of¬†letting go that I get in sensory immersion. I research out of curiosity mostly, but sometimes I think I research out of definitional seeking as per my Ji function. I almost never get satisfaction in this pursuit, as I don’t think that’s what I’m looking for in attaining definition on a matter. Seeking clarity on abstract or metaphysical concepts only brings more questions, and really, a loss of definitional quality. I do it anyway though! The amount of times I check the CT forums a day certainly reflects some kind of deep drive in me to seek out this kind of information.

    I think it has to do with that feeling of satisfaction, and that seems to lie firmly in the realm of Se, at least for me. I probably won’t immerse myself in anything unless I can get some kind of satisfaction out of it, and that seems impossible for me in the realm of the non-corporeal.

    Delrake
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    My question to the forum lies in how you the attitude of your perceptual functions (whether that be introverted, extroverted or both) manifests in your cognition and behavior. I’m specifically concerned mostly with polarized types.

    I’m wondering how polarized types both on my end (Ni) and the other end (Se) of the spectrum will answer. Thank you for reading.

    My general mode of operation is to explore information first and foremost. Only after a level of familiarity with the material can I then start to make sense of it. This could take days, months, etc. It depends on the complexity and depth of the subject. At some point during a research binge, there’s a moment of clarity where it all comes together and I can finally understand the overarching theme. The information accumulation seems to automatically build to this understanding. It’s like I can trust Ni to make sense of everything passively and it does. It just takes a lot of exploration to finally get there. These moments don’t happen often, but when they do it makes it all worth it. So I’d say Ni seems to be the destination for me, with Se being the vehicle to get there.

    As a sidenote, there’s an excerpt in Auburn’s book where he says Se-Ni users read books to simulate an experience. I couldn’t agree more. When I take in new information, I simulate the reality/worldview of the person presenting it. These abstract simulations are mentally stimulating and allow for the construction of an ever-expanding and worldview. I’ll give the person the benefit of the doubt and then go along with what they’re saying as if it were true. As I take in more information from other sources, I can then compare and contrast with the original source and make sense of what is true/false or better/worse.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Delrake.
    safsom
    Participant
    • Type: NiTe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    It’s like I can trust Ni to make sense of everything passively and it does.

    This is interesting because the way you are framing it here makes it sound somewhat akin to a deductive process, one that’s trying to solve a problem or reach an insight. You say your main priority is to explore information first and foremost, which implies a degree of spontaneity – how do you reach understandings of the overarching themes without themes being set to determine the directions of these understandings?

    Delrake
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    “how do you reach understandings of the overarching themes without themes being set to determine the directions of these understandings?”

    It’s kinda like this. If those dots are all Se data points, then Ni could be the line going through. Ni finds the trend/theme/pattern/meaning with enough data. This understanding is an overall personal impression and is in no way permanent. The moment of clarity feels like a layer of reality unfolding before me.

    So you’re wondering, how? This one is hard to answer. I don’t really use deduction to get there, it’s more like a visual and mental simulation of the information I’m taking in. I imagine the realities I’m being presented with and try to make sense of it visually and chronologically, involving the past, present, and probabilistic future in addition to comparing and contrasting with what I already know and believe to be true. This leads to that moment of understanding.

    Hope that helps a bit.

    Could you explain how the Ni-Se works for you?

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by Delrake.
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I relate to @delrake ‘s first comment, except that I’m a bit more wary of Ni–which makes sense because it isn’t conscious for me.
    I think there are certain types of things, such as certain kinds of interpersonal relations, where my Se really works at maximum, taking in the sensory information at maximum resolution, because these are what’s deemed most important (by Fi).

    I feel like I don’t consciously trust Ni by default,¬† but when it does happen to click an answer into place, I do trust it in that moment.

    edit: I wonder if you relate to any of this @animal

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

Tagged: , , , ,

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.