• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

my new simplified perception hypothesis

SkyWalker

observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
Local time
Today 9:38 AM
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
986
-->
Se perception focuses on what there (ALREADY) IS to WIN

Ne perception focuses on what there MIGHT BE to WIN

Ni perception focuses on what there MIGHT BE to LOSE

Si perception focuses on what there (ALREADY) IS to LOSE


opinions please?
 

jgb99

Redshirt
Local time
Today 3:38 PM
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
9
-->
Why do Si and Ni focus on what there is to lose and Ne and Se focus on what there is to win?
 

SkyWalker

observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
Local time
Today 9:38 AM
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
986
-->
yes thats basically what i am saying:

i = pessimistic forecast (not like depressed pessimism, but perception focus on the things which are loseable)
e = optimistic forecast (not like optimistic mania, but perception focus on the things which are winnable)

N = future (possibilities, what might be)
S = now (factual, what is)

i wish to know what the typologists out there think about this?
 

Words

Only 1 1-F.
Local time
Today 8:38 AM
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
3,222
-->
Location
Order
If you want to understand functions, just read Jung's meaning of "extraversion" and "introversion" first. To simplifiy, it is simply orientation.

Extravert = orients around object.
Introvert = orients around subject.

object = external. subject = internal(self)

N =/= future. S=/= now.

It's just abstract versus concrete. In addition, abstract/concrete is subjective.

Also.
Why do Si and Ni focus on what there is to lose and Ne and Se focus on what there is to win?
This. I'm not sure how lose-able and winnable are even slightly related to Pi and Pe.
 

a detached retina

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:38 AM
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
192
-->
I think it's a litte bit more like this: Si is the earth, Se is the worm eating the earth, Te is the early bird eating the worm, Ti is the early bird special, Fe is the senior citizen eating the early bird special, Fi is the death of the senior citizen, Ni is the corpse, Ne is the microbe eating the corpse and turning it back into the earth. Si is the earth... etc.
 

Words

Only 1 1-F.
Local time
Today 8:38 AM
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
3,222
-->
Location
Order
I think it's a litte bit more like this: Si is the earth, Se is the worm eating the earth, Te is the early bird eating the worm, Ti is the early bird special, Fe is the senior citizen eating the early bird special, Fi is the death of the senior citizen, Ni is the corpse, Ne is the microbe eating the corpse and turning it back into the earth. Si is the earth... etc.

Why use metaphors? Why not just go by the original definition?
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today 11:38 AM
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,175
-->
Winning and losing?



Can you explain to me how you
reached this conclusion? I'm
curious.
 

Adymus

Banned
Local time
Today 1:38 AM
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
2,180
-->
Location
Anaheim, CA
yes thats basically what i am saying:

i = pessimistic forecast (not like depressed pessimism, but perception focus on the things which are loseable)
e = optimistic forecast (not like optimistic mania, but perception focus on the things which are winnable)

N = future (possibilities, what might be)
S = now (factual, what is)

i wish to know what the typologists out there think about this?
No. Just no.
 

Cogwulf

Is actually an INTJ
Local time
Today 8:38 AM
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
1,544
-->
Location
England
In this thread: Subjective metaphors.
 

SkyWalker

observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
Local time
Today 9:38 AM
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
986
-->
If you want to understand functions, just read Jung's meaning of "extraversion" and "introversion" first. To simplifiy, it is simply orientation.

Extravert = orients around object.
Introvert = orients around subject.
.

I know this, I've read chapter 10 of Phychological types.

So I guess [N=future, S=now] is fully agreed, just not the [e=pursue win, i=avoid loss] stuff.

So about the e/i stuff, let me guide you gently to my hypothesis from the conventional and maybe you see that it is the same:


==
extraversion:

When Se/Ne perceives input, it filters-out/perceives to reach the objective.
- Se sees immediately how to REAP the occasion (take it now while you have the chance, live in the moment, etc)
- Ne sees how to GROW such a future reap occasion (imagination etc, it does not see/live in the now, it sees/lives for a future better now)

==
Introversion:

When Si/Ni perceives input, it filters-out/perceives to reach the subjective
- Si sees immediatetly what to SAVE from the occasion (same stuff as Se sees, but Se reaps it (objective thing to do) and Si saves it (subjective thing to do)).
- Ni sees the way to avoid loss of the future growth potential (same stuff as Ne sees, but Ne grows it (objective thing to do) and Ni protects/saves the seed of the growth potential so the growth can happen later (subjective thing to do)).

==

again we come to this:
introverted perception= pessimistic forecast from the same input data, avoid loss (reach the subjective)
extraverted perception= optimistic forecast from the same input data, pursue win (reach the objective, THE GOAL)


-------------


Do you know those 'over-couragous people' who are blind to losses?
Do you know those 'over-scared people' who are blind to winnings?
Of course you do, and of course you know that that is NOT a judgement thing, it is perception! And they may rationally judge in the same way, the underlying differnent perception makes the different outcome of that judgement. This perception is simply how they see the same input data differently! One sees the possible loss in the data and the other sees the possible win.
If that is perception, and we have proof all around us that these win/loss types exist, and these are obvious opposites within perception usable as good absolute ends of the spectrum, and they are not related to introverted vs extraverted, then what is left??? it must be related to introversion/extraversion, this was the hunch that lead to this hypothesis
 
Top Bottom