Conversation Between Auburn and followthehippos
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 32
  1. followthehippos
    05-10-2012 05:59 AM
    It's fine, I don't want to bring your focus onto something you don't feel the need to address.
  2. Auburn
    05-10-2012 04:28 AM
    Hehe. Well, now I can't remember exactly where we left off.
  3. followthehippos
    05-10-2012 03:15 AM
    Still gotta address the INTJ to ENTP problem. ;p
  4. followthehippos
    05-03-2012 02:18 AM
    And yet, something about the explorer/anchor dichotomy seems off. That means that Ne-Si types are always blind to some things that Se-Ni types are not and vice-versa. It would seem the mind is more complete if it possessed both. Perhaps it need not both for practical purposes, but I highly doubt an Ne lead explores the world from a purely abstract window, it would seem to me that Se would play a role as well. Such would be the same with the anchors. Maybe I'm making a logical fallacy, I do not know. I assume you would propose an Ne lead need not Se because Si provides the practicality to anchor the purely abstract explorations. I don't see why they must be suffused as being separate.. ugh, now I'm seeing more things. Aggravating. Give me some time (I've been thinking for a long time on this as is) to think of this more.
  5. followthehippos
    05-03-2012 02:10 AM
    That would also mean you don't believe in shadow functions, or whatever terminology is used to describe behavior of an individual as if being another type. Or, am I incorrect and you do? Also, I've been aware of that description for a while (hence my mentioning of anchor functions and explorer functions). Also, INTPs are known for being unaware of what is unknown, hence why you thought it was implied. Maybe to others it was, but I don't see how anyone makes that connection without awareness of the explanation of anchor and exploration functions as you describe. Only in that regard does it make sense.

    Further, you believe cognition is written via DNA. I could program my own human and determine his type; the environment simply acts as a mechanism to mature the coding already contained therein. It is as if evolution takes part in all of this, or so we would believe. I don't classify myself as parallel with such school of thought.
  6. Auburn
    05-03-2012 12:41 AM

    And so, if we have Ne, we don't need Se because Ne fills that role of Explorer (and so on). But I actually managed to explain it once in this thread. At least, how I view two of the function pairs and how they need to be together.
  7. Auburn
    05-03-2012 12:40 AM
    Heh. ^^ And here I thought it was already implied!
    Ah well..

    I do believe cognition is hardwired yes. If not genetically, then it develops very early in childhood. I've observed functions in toddlers! O: Totally weird mind-burst.

    Err, but to be honest I don't entirely know the "why", only the "what". Similar to what Nardi is discovering, it's not clear why the brain displays the patterns it does, but I can see that it does. I can see that a person uses two functions in unison. Ti is paired with Fe. Fi is paired with Te. Ne is paired with Si. Se is paired with Ni.

    And a person has one pair of perception functions and a pair of discernment functions, one of these pairs being their most native while the other is supportive. I postulate that we only have four functions because that is all our mind needs. A way to abstract information, a way to absorb concrete information, a way logical way to make decisions and an ethical way to make decisions.
  8. followthehippos
    05-03-2012 12:10 AM
    It also articulates a clearly defined line in between types. Do you believe individuals are hardwired as they are throughout their life from birth (or during the development of consciousness whatever), or do you maintain that development occurs in early childhood? Or do you not have the answers?
  9. followthehippos
    05-02-2012 11:59 PM
    Haha, knew I figured it out (to a degree). Do you have an explanation you could provide, whether it be a gist or thorough I don't really care. That explains fairly well your insights and even suggests your belief about how personality types will be in finality brought about into a harder science. It explains a lot and articulates your observations into anchoring functions and exploring functions, and whatever other insights you have into feeling and thinking. Haha, this is fun, I'm half way proud of myself. Your move Auburn. ;P
  10. Auburn
    05-02-2012 11:49 PM
    I believe we each have 4, yes... O:
  11. followthehippos
    05-02-2012 10:54 PM
    Does a person with Ne-Si have any form of Ni-Se/Se-Ni from your observations? If no, does that mean you maintain that each individual has only 4 functions instead of 8?
  12. Auburn
    05-01-2012 06:22 PM
    Um, I don't think a person could be Ni(Te) in childhood and Ne(Ti) in adulthood. Because they're two completely different function sets.

    Those brain wirings are entirely inverted. So if we take what neuroscience tells us (nardi/etc) about brain types, it doesn't really make much sense. What would make partly more sense, imo, would be a switch from, say, TiNe to NeTi. But I'm skeptical of that as well.

    Humm.. I think, from your writing, that you indeed had the Ne type of intuition even as a child. But you just weren't very sociable (?). But your mind still thought in the Ne manner. Just my $0.02.
  13. followthehippos
    05-01-2012 03:31 PM
    No worries, it is riddled with typos. It may not easily distinguish Ni from Ne. I have no idea. I do think the things you are seeing have merit and I even believe you are seeing Ne. Either I am ENTP as defined and I've gone through the change (assuming I was once Ni(Te)), or something else. I understand how you've stated Ni-Se and Ne-Si working together, I'm wondering if you can be anchored with both intuition and sensing and explore with sensing and intuition. Some form of an in between ground. I used to be a very serious person (until I dated an ENFP) and of course other events have caused interesting development for myself. I apologize if the story isn't clear and I understand you are busy. I do not expect you needing to devote effort in discussing this with me, but if you feel it is of value I understand.
  14. Auburn
    05-01-2012 02:43 PM
    BTW - I'm still in the process of reading your story. I haven't forgotten about it.
  15. Auburn
    05-01-2012 02:30 PM
    @Kevin thread - Oh my...

    Now that is bizarre and unexpected.
  16. Auburn
    04-13-2012 10:25 PM
    Oh not at all, I'm open to discuss. And actually Ne(Ti) would also make sense with what I noticed (having Ti and Fe as the inner two functions). :3

    But I am curious, what exactly gives him away for you? (i need to take another look at more of his videos).
  17. followthehippos
    04-13-2012 08:53 PM
    Hmm, I'm fairly certain on the third guy being Ne(Ti) but me just saying, I'm pretty sure that's what he is doesn't get us very far. I hoped the analysis helped you out in noticing more details in some form. Let me know if you desire further discussion or whatever. I imagine you feel the need for autonomous thinking on this though.
  18. Auburn
    04-13-2012 03:49 PM
    Kay, sorry for the delay. Um..
    I agree with you on the first guy: Ni(Te).
    The second guy I think is Te(Ni).
    The third guy I couldn't tell. I do think he has Fe+Ti somewhere in there though, probably as the inner wheel functions.
    The fourth guy uses the functions Te+Fi, Ni+Se, but I can't say the rest.
    When he smiles, he has that same type of awkward Fi smile that those with auxiliary Fi have. He could be Se(Fi) but then possibly also Te(Ni). I dunno for sure.. C.C;

    So it seems we generally agree more than disagree. \o/
  19. followthehippos
    04-12-2012 11:38 AM
    It's entirely possible; personally I believe I've shifted between the two personas. Keep in mind I have a lot of experience interacting with people so my social adeptness has improved greatly. Out of curiosity, not so rush, do you have an eta on your next response?
  20. Auburn
    04-12-2012 11:08 AM

    Heheh. Y'know you really strike me as an Ne(Ti) just from your general online persona. But this is just a passing impression.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.