I'm also writing these articles in such a way as to make it user-friendly and shareable for MBTIers. If you feel these articles clarify key misconceptions about the N/S/T/F attributes that you see in other groups, please share them with your MBTI friends. 🙂 One of the things I'd like to do is elevate the typology conversation away from these old misconceptions.
I've recently made a new facebook page that will also be updated regularly with all these articles and more -- in an effort to grow CT into a more prominent position. If you'd like to help grow CT, and see it take a greater spotlight in the typology community stage, feel free to give the page a like or share.
And if you feel these articles could be more beginner-friendly somehow, do let me know what you guys think!
(The goal is to finally bring down the entry barrier of CT, so it can be shared with friends and family.)
I postponed my feedback on the S and N articles because I definitely relate more to the N view and I even tend to think it is the "correct" one. I kept wondering if this is new or an older pattern but my impression is after our views change, we tend to believe we always had the new ones and dismiss previous information pointing out the opposite, which makes it even harder to parse them out.
One question is how much this is purely N vs. S and if there is no influence of J vs P, as polarized P leads tend to have a certain "hazy" qualia that is not there in polarized J leads for example. So, for example an SeFi I--I vs a TeNi I--I.
I am curious about the distinction, as I do think the polarized P lead would relate to some of the N description more than a polarized J lead and they would also come off in these particular ways when talking about their experience.
Another question is if the N attributes apply equally to Ni and Ne. Especially the part about registering objects as wave like. I am not an Ne user, so I can't see that very well. I can definitely see it in some people, but I am not sure I can see it in Ne-Si users without conscious Si, so is the wave-like perception of objects an attribute of N or is is a general attribute of Pe-Pi together, more apparent when both are conscious? In case of Ne-Si Ne providing the associations (resulting in indiscriminate correlating) and Si providing a certain pattern of movement (shown by inertia) and these two together leading to the wave like perception? I think it's a legit question, as the most obvious example of wave like registering of objects is Umbi, who is Ne and Si conscious. I think I can see this in Rondo too. But I am not sure about Ne I-I- users. There is some P flowiness but I don't know if they do register objects as wave like by default.
Relating strongly to this N section doesn’t mean your psyche leads with N, as cognitive typology does not assign a hierarchy based on F, T, N, S “preference.” Instead, this article is only mean to introduce you to what CT means by the N component, which never exists independently but is always tied to either Pe or Pi.
Definitely but I know no other way of reaching a conclusion than comparing the attributes to people's behavior/ their experience, as described by them. Making this disclaimer because I did read this section but can't basically make any argument or ask any questions without making these comparisons. 🙂
One question is how much this is purely N vs. S and if there is no influence of J vs P, as polarized P leads tend to have a certain “hazy” qualia that is not there in polarized J leads for example. So, for example an SeFi I–I vs a TeNi I–I.
So, starting with this one, there's a greater need to clarify the differences between J and S.
J = Is an idealistic modeling system. J is not content-dependent, but is a content-less set of principles or systemic operations that form an "understanding" of reality through this interpretive structure. If the structure is external (i.e. an ideology, doctrine, theory) you learn the structure and then you know where to "slot" in information and how to use it. J superimposes something over reality which simplifies and condenses information in order to gain a sense of certainty about reality.
S = Is non-idealistic and is not a model, but is the information itself when it is localized. This can manifest more in tangible details such as appearance, volume, size, width, height, position, angle, time, etc. At abstract levels it becomes a comprehension of abstract objects by the organic limits of their ideas. For example, a dog needs four legs and a head to be a dog (i.e. the natural limits of the abstract object "dog" includes them). This is not an idealistic concept, but is derived from direct observation.
Now, for the sake of explaining these differences using an example, lets suppose I make an idealistic model and I say "a dog's head comes from planets, its tail comes from moons." I then go on to talk about different kind of heads like a Venus head or a Mars head. I describe other tails like a Europa tail or Ganymede tail. These are fictional categories, but suppose you can learn to identify what kind of dog you're looking at through this "system." This is the kind of specificity that J provides.
J is the kind of specificity you might find in politics, in laws and rules. Or it can be 'laws' of nature which are nonetheless constructs. J can put idealistic barriers around anything. But where it gets tricky is that sometimes what we want is for our J barriers to be in congruence with S. Good zoology and good taxonomy would develop parity between J and S. In this J+S case it's hard to see the distinction, but you can always think of J as an "ideal form", or like a linguistic scaffold over the real thing, instead of the real thing by itself. (well, unless you think something like numbers are 'real' even without any universe, which is an example of giving J priority in philosophy)
Now lets take an example similar to the one you suggested: SiFe l--l vs TeNi l--l. The SiFe here is polarized and therefore is mixing Si spatiotemporal localities and Ne superpositions, creating an admixture of "I remember when I..." and also "uncle Jeff looked like an Silky Terrier on a bad hair day, or like a poodle stuck in a thorn bush!"
The kind of "specificity" that the SiFe l--l will have is informational, and is not the kind that the TeNi l--l will have. The TeNi l--l will likely be an ideologue of some sort, and the kind of "specificity" they'll have will be more ideal-- such as based on ethical axioms or logistical procedures.
If they were in a conversation, the TeNi l--l might say "I think all bathrooms in the country should be for both male and female, since there's only one kind of human person, not two." Notice how the TeNi's ideology is ignoring natural informational boundaries, a little bit. Then, the SiFe l--l may respond with: "Well, what are you gonna do with all the male bathroom signs? Draw little dresses on them?"
The SiFe l--l is taking it lightly and isn't choosing to enter into an ideological battle here with the TeNi (due to lacking J development), but they're looking for informational comprehension of what these ideas would look like in their local contexts (with a bit of Ne playfulness too). This is kinda how the different sorts of specificity, between J and S, work.
High J+N types may be very specific about their J structures, but these structures may not have great parity with local or actual information. They have greater parity with gradients and spectra that are perceived as spanning across reality, even if they're not in any particular place.
I postponed my feedback on the S and N articles because I definitely relate more to the N view and I even tend to think it is the “correct” one. I kept wondering if this is new or an older pattern but my impression is after our views change, we tend to believe we always had the new ones and dismiss previous information pointing out the opposite, which makes it even harder to parse them out.
So, since this relates to you specifically.. maybe I can offer my outsider's view of your psychology? 🙂 I've seen you grow more and more in fascination with your Ni in the past half year or more, and indeed your attitude toward it has shifted from one of very strong wariness of it to more of a tentative toe-dipping, and eventually plunging into it. And I have noted that your vultology shows Ni now in ways that it didn't when you arrived.
I still remember what you were like when I first met you. Very curious about information, but also very informationally rich in questions about specifics. You learned to read people really fast because of this, and I've seen this with other Se-leads like Wolf, Calin, Collo, etc. Your followup questions showed that you registered the information acutely for 'what it was.'
Likewise, you've always been curious about a lot of topics, but with each topic you immerse yourself in it, and data-mine it. And you're always present as you do so. I don't get the same haziness from you that I feel from Ne-leads, or from Ni-leads. Even your interpersonal habits ("gossipy" ;p) come out as, so-and-so said, this-and-that happened, etc. I don't sense that you disperse events across an immediate superposition (Ne).
However, I do see your growing inclination to disperse the meaning of events across Ni's trans-local layers, but this seems to be something new and something your Se is fighting not to get too "lost in", or too hazy with. This is just my outsider's view of you, for what it's worth!
Another question is if the N attributes apply equally to Ni and Ne. Especially the part about registering objects as wave like.
So, I'm glad you brought this up because it gives me a chance to clarify something. I don't want to reduce things too much into the metaphor of particle and wave -- or to have these newer clarifications boiled down to just that metaphor. Ni and Ne are computationally different in many ways, and this is why I generally dislike talking about attributes like "N" in isolation, because they never exist in isolation. So collapsing things down to particle or wave differences is misleading.
From one point of view, we could say Ne and Se are both more "particle-like" if we're talking about the information of the moment. But in this metaphor, Ne would be a particle in a superposition, and Se would be a collapsed particle.
And from one point of view, we could say Ni and Si are both "waves", if we're talking about information stretching across a landscape. But in this metaphor, Ni is more like 'entanglement' across dimensions, while Si is more like chronological ripples moving forward linearly.
If by "wave-like" we mean to say information that's linked together, then Si does that in a sense too, and Pi's "panoramic" narrativism is a sort of wave. Pi in general is a "web", which is like a wave, sorta. The analogy of N to a wave is therefore a bit off, and biased towards a planar (Pi) metaphor. Removing this planar bias, N is more generally like a "potentiality/probability" field or particle. The exact language that will consolidate into model 2 is still being worked on, and conversations like this will help refine the final version. But we can also think of things like this:
I wonder if this seems any clearer?
I do want to present these ideas in a coherent fashion, so I appreciate your questions very much! Let me know if this helps and/or where there is need for more explanation.