Axes and Quadras
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com/dp/B089278TWR/...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blo...
__________________
Just trying to explore this idea more. Enjoy!
ESFJ Revisit: • Revisiting the Types: ...
ESFP Revisit: • Revisiting the Types: ...
I'm an ENFP male and I speak for myself when I say I love the image of the Delta guy heading to the mountains. I dream about going far off into the deep woods or to the middle of nowhere, where I am free to go absolutely mad. Fire guns into the air, shoot fireworks off all day, chemistry experiments and psychedelic drugs while making outrageous art.
Michael, I’m an ENFJ, and this has been VERY accurate of how I think! Especially the last part where you explain the communication between Beta and Delta! You explained my conflict with sooooo many NFPs and especially STJs and I’m glad to better understand what is going on. Thanks for this!
Lol was thinking of you and my ISTP irl during the ironic "burn the witch" bet and couldn't stop laughing at the accuracy on not understanding where each other is coming from but meaning the same thing essentially (it's Alana btw x)
Niamh S Oh wow, I’m just seeing this lol but yeah! That’s a very ironic but great example.
"Now I'll tell you what I think. ... OEDIPUS!"
That put me on the floor. In tears. Gasping for breath. You have a fantastic sense of humor.
Spot on here. I get this a LOT from Betas: "But you don't think for yourself, you don't care about real life. All you care about is your own selfish perspective." Seriously, your "quotes" are like almost word for word. It's interesting, because at that point, I'm usually thinking (read FEELING) the exact same thing about them. It's so hard to navigate though, because we're defining "thinking for yourself" differently (FiSi vs TiNi), and "real life" differently (TeNe vs. FeSe) and even "individual self" differently (Ti vs Fi). It's not like I can just say to some random person at work or in life "Methinks we're having a clash of x functions." Unless it's like on a typology forum or smth. But most other places, it doesn't work. (Sometimes it even doesn't work on typology forums). I wish there was like a phrasebook for translating typology-speak into normal everyday English, to help communicate better when clashes such as quadra differences arise in everyday life.
It's interesting how you went into more detail about the clash between Beta and Delta than the clash between Alpha and Gamma. I'm curious, is that just because you *are* Beta and have personal experience in this area, or is it because you objectively suspect less of a clash between Alpha and Gamma? Like maybe being so completely "universal" or so completely "contextual" kind of leaves them more missing each other completely and sort of living and letting live like on entirely different spheres, as opposed to Beta and Delta, who are each the half of universal and of contextual that the other is not, causing them not only to miss each other, but also to clash dramatically in the process. You didn't state this in the video, but I'm curious whether you would agree with this characterization.
Love your work. I share your videos on a regular basis. Keep em coming. :)
--INFP
Thank you so much! I'm very glad I could help! Your feedback is very helpful and encouraging.
As for your question, the main reason I spent more time on Beta and Delta clashing is because Alpha and Gamma are much more purely their axes, which I spent the whole first half of the video describing, and talking about how they clash. Alpha is wholly universal, and Gamma is wholly contextual, so how the individual axes clash is representative of who the quadras clash. So I just didn't want to be redundant. But because Delta and Beta are a mixture, I needed to lay some extra groundwork to understand them. So in some sense, I actually spent a lot more time on Gamma and Alpha, just indirectly.
Though I have had a fair bit of personal experience clashing with Deltas, so that probably plays a role too. But I've also watched Alpha and Gamma go at it a lot.
Thank you for watching!
Ok yeah that makes sense. I can see how that would seem redundant. Thanks for pointing that out. My Si brain wouldn't have thought of it in that way on my own lol.
Yeaaaaa, this makes sense. Because I was like "How do we not care about real life?" But it makes sense now, and yea I prioritize my view of life over how other people see life, and I can see how Ti says "You don't think for yourself." But I guess we both stress each other out about things we don't really care about? Because I feel like someone saying "You don't think for yourself." is something I don't really care about lol, but when it comes to caring about real life or not I guess how I view it is, I don't really care what majority of people do or care about because I will live and die and never having paid attention to what I care about or want to do if I am always considering what the world cares about or whats to do.
The thing about alphas (or at least NTPs; can't really speak for SFJs) is that, ime, we are hyper-aware of how many different contexts there can be. I think often the drive toward universalism is coupled with the suspicion that true universals are very, very rare-or maybe even the feeling that they probably don't exist but would be such a glorious, precious thing if they could. So in some sense I think that we are not so much seeking to escape context, but accommodate contextS: every single context we've ever encountered, heard or, or even just imagined, all at once.
"Contextual types will often feel that the universal types are simply projecting what is right for them onto everybody else and then acting as though it were the most reasonable, logical, and impersonal thing in the world." This seems backwards from the way you constrasted Ti vs. Te in your INTP revisited video. For instance, the image at 6:18 where Te is saying "Can't you see this is how the world is?" and Ti objecting "I don't think that's how the WHOLE world is", and the anecdote later on in the same video where your ENTJ teacher's claims re: male and female traits seemed to you to be "highly subjective observations and only true on very local scales, yet always touted as universally true." Are these not demonstrations of Ti, the universalist function, saying to Te, the contextual function, "You're just projecting what is right for you onto everybody else and then acting as though it were the most reasonable, logical, and impersonal thing in the world"?
Actually, this is something I, an INTP, have often felt in negative interactions with members of other quadras: that they are being contextual (fine, often useful and appropriate) but without REALIZING they're being contextual (uh-oh), maybe unconsciously assuming that their context is way more common than it really is (an understandable human tendency which everybody sometimes succumbs to, but still incorrect), and sometimes even explicitly downplaying the importance or frequency of other contexts (!!!! D:). Maybe this isn't quite the same thing you are saying that Contextuals feel about Universals... or maybe "projecting own context as though it were universal, without acknowledging or even realizing it is only one context" is something that all quadras do. :P
This is a great point -- thank you for bringing it up. I was essentially quoting contextual types from my own experience, but you're absolutely right in that *every* quadra feels that the other quadras are projecting their limited context onto the world. In fact, one of the interesting things about the quadras, and my experience with them, is that they often level more-or-less the *same accusations* against each other, just with different conceptions of what those accusations specifically mean. Both Fi and Fe tend to think the other is being "selfish" or "vain", but they have rather different ideas about what really constitutes vanity and selfishness, and are unaware of how nuanced their own conception is.
Another gem of a video Michael, thank you!
brilliant, as always! i wish more people would see this
Your videos are my favorite! Thank you for making them!
The best video about MBTI and socionics I've ever seen!!! It clarifies so much about cognitive functions and axes and provides the best personality sort --- the quadras. The quadras represents the fluidity of axes and functions rather than the dichotomies of mbti.
I actually think Buddhism, particularly Zen, is a primarily contextual philosophy. "Direct transmission" is exactly how you described the Ni-Se-Te-Fi attitude to communication. The tendency to 'pure abstraction' is quite opposed to Zen.
Yeah, that's how I see it too, so I was surprised when he said it was Universal. Maybe Buddhism uses a blend of the two, or I could be missing something. I'm an INTJ and I've been studying Buddhism for a while, but I still get confused about these opposing perspectives and how they play a role in enlightenment.
no no the disapearance of ego is to experience yourself more objectively as if your subjectivity doesn't exist
Zen is pretty ISTP.
I think that this video in tandem with many of the principles in your "Empirical vs. Interpretative series" really arrange the quadras in a highly elegant manner. This video does the trick in terms of describing the quadra from the contextual vs. universal angle. Likewise, the "Empirical vs. Interpretive" series does a great job of delineating the quadra that stand on each side of this polarity (empirical/interpretive internally vs. externally).
I think that a hybrid of these two themes are ideal in describing the four quadra and actually do a more effective job of describing quadra from cognitive premises rather than behavioral ones. Really amazing job in delineating all this!
Also, this is just what I've been waiting for!
Thinking about how, between Paul's letters (ESTJ) and Augustine's commentary (INFP), the delta quadra has singlehandedly had the greatest impact on Christian theology.
Amazing video as always Michael
thank you for the clarity you bring into this
very well done
I come back to those basics from time to time
I admire your editing skills
This video has helped me understand myself in relation to other people in a way that has given me inner peace. Many thanks.
Jupiter is the best of Holst’s Planets. Good choice.
Contextual Perception
Ni-Se
Aware that insights are coming from the self. They are internalized so ideas involved revel themselves from one's own mind creating something new in the subject. With the vibrant sensation of reality, it is directed by one's perspective being the center looking out in high resolution.
Universal Perception
Ne-Si
Insights are more of a view of reality as relations and all relations that could be from reality. Sensation is more of a certainty of the contents of reality than having a high resolution of reality.
Contextual Judgement
Te-Fi
Thinking is in the act of doing to test, experiment and build. To account for variables and go by the standard, does it work or not. Feeling goes by the built-up accumulation of preferences that determine if something feels right. Fi is judgment so in context the decisions one has made allows access to tons of context regarding preferences.
Univeral Judgment
Ti-Fe
Thinking is more complete in its designs and systems. It is concerned with finding the best way to solve problems by practically thinking of all possible ways to solve a problem in its head. Feeling is universal in that its preferences has been built up through decisions in groups. The right way to act is embedded in Fe's interactions with a large number of people well Fi would be from building preferences in one on one interactions.
I love your videos, sir... thank you for existing
Very useful; I can also now point people to this video instead of just a snippet from the ESFJ video
brilliant, Michael!
I struggled with questions so much and this video is full of informations that helped me to understand more and get concepts for what I experience. I now could solve everything with that approach. the whole thing with the axes and later fair minded and goal getting etc and those four groups is just brilliant and worth being carved in stone.
Im clearly beta and and not delta => now I can eventually decide on my type for the first time with a solid argument :-) (y)
I did study socionics but only with your translations I get it. thank you very much for doing this!!! I come back to your videos more and more. thank you for this work!
Great intro, Jupiter!
This is amazing. ISFP married to ENTP and I’m excited to show him this if he’ll tolerate it (but honestly out of all the MBTI I’ve shown him he tolerates yours the best- although he still insists he’s an INTP :)
This video is so helpful and revealing that I am now very eager to show this to people to help understand our differences. As a gamma, I definitely see everything as case by case and I always noticed that alphas would take what seemed to me like heuristic shortcuts in thinking, like "If this person says x, it's because they were thinking y." I've also never been able to understand when people reacted to me saying or doing things that was not currently saying or doing, which I just naturally see as someone putting words in my mouth. Having all situational functions, universal functions have always seemed clumsy somehow, because I am so used to the precision behind "how does this apply to this?"
Great video Michael
Something else I wanted to add, I think that all types are extreme in some way and hybrid in another. I have theorized that the other half of this would be involvement versus evasion of the direct present moment. I believe that Ni/Se and Fe/Ti are more directly invested in the present, while Si/Ne and Fi/Te are more removed. Te on it's own may not see that far in the future, but it is still an anticipatory function removed from direct contact.
Can you do more videos on this? I’m still struggling to make sense of myself.
As an Alpha Quadra guy(ENTP) my main quarrel with Gammas and Deltas(as opposed to Betas) is not that they are selfish, but that they never want to discuss ends, only ever means. I just wanna play linguistic tennis all day, but these people say: "I know what I want." How do you know? Well, they just know. And thus the conversation stops and I'm forced to either leave, or discuss something of inferior importance.
Would you say that the Fe/Ti and Se/Ni axes are similar, in the sense that they both focus on maintaining a palpable outer appearance/presentation, while having an understanding of the abstract phenomena underlying things?
If so, do you think this could be dichotomized with the Te/Fi Ne/Si outlook, similar to how you juxtapose the analog vs digital outlooks? Or does it not really warrant that comparison?
In one of the images that you can easily found on Google regarding socionics, there are the definitions "involved" and "abstract" functions. These define Sensation and Feeling and Intuition and Thinking respectively. I think it's the definition that you are searching for, but unfortunately I didn't find any further articles that elaborate it more.
I love the music: Jupiter!
This analysis is very helpful! So how would you define introversion and extroversion now then?
I totally agree with this analysis and have also came to similar ideas on my own (I'm INTP). As examples, I see the enlightenment and kantian categorical imperative as arguable the best attempts ever to bring about an universalist understanding and formulation of human ethics. In my view, the categorical imperative can be directly mapped into jungian typology as Ti-Fe (choose an rational, self-developed set of systems applicable to the whole humanity). On the other hand, the faith in progress (Ne) by scientific experimentation (tried and true Si), which at the end should bring about human flourishing to the socity (Fe) and the free individuals (Ti, no superstition, no external control of thought). On the other hand, what you call is to me best exemplified by the absolutism model, which is obedience of rules by the monarch (Te), religion (Ni, visions of the "future life", to distract from the material political arena, obedience to the monarch or church as the voice of God), Se (force, the Leviathan, evidently) and Fi (keep your feelings for yourself, do not agitate the masses). Thus, two possible models to apply in society that arise by projecting or extending the functioning of the self (which is how I think everybody develops his or her political ideology), constantly battling throughout history (e.g., the greek universalist versus the egyptian or persian absolutist).
INFP got roasted
I am INFJ / Beta and have always wondered why communication with my INTP and ENFP brothers can be so difficult.
* The INTP Alpha has double-universalising tendencies, and I really struggle to get him to take data, complexity, systems into account because his primary impulse is towards a deductive world based on axioms that are universal, such as 'all taxation is theft', there is no way to add data to an axiom because it rebuffs the context. Everything is frozen and beyond reproach
* The ENFP Delta has opposite tendencies to me, I seem to suffocate him with my conclusions (universal judgements) while my contextualised perceptions seem too limiting to him
I like how you played out different perspectives and how they could view one another, it's brilliant. Although, these are definitely accurate depictions, it is not to say that we are glued to our own ways of processing. It is natural to believe that one's individual process is the "right" way, but it's also human nature to accept other people and their way of processing as "right" for them. I'm an INFP, and sure, I've thought about Beta types in the way that you described. Manipulative would be the word I would use, although ENTP's could potentially be incredibly manipulative, I find Beta types more deceiving in their delivery. It's as if they only want you to like/accept them, even though they secretly don't accept you (or so I used to think). However, the intention is rarely to be manipulative or hurtful. It may be viewed that way, but there is a collective human consciousness that we all share, even if our processes are different. I'm very close with my ENFJ mom, we have very similar perspectives and ways of viewing the world, even if our methods of coming to those conclusions are completely different.
Bout time.
Michael, let's discuss Quadras together sometime, might be fun.
Hey! Sure, I'm game. I'm busy with work these days, but when are you available? Friday or Saturday is better for me generally.
@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy Both Friday (evening) and Saturday are good for me. I'm on British time, currently 16:41.
@@WorldSocionics I could do 7 PM your time (so 3 PM my time) on Friday? Unless you want to do later?
@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy 3pm saturday, sounds ideal
@@WorldSocionics sounds good! Is this through Google hangouts?
I wonder.. what is the likelihood of a meta-level consciousness to emerge from a system akin to this?
I feel like your definition of the universal axis hinges far too heavily on its introverted functions. For example, you say that the universal axis seeks a point of rest and doesn’t want to keep changing? Can’t I easily look at it from the Ne and Fe perspective and say that the universal axis would be better described as the deconstruction/annihilation axis that wants to free up any and every form of dogma/break up fixed ideas? In this way, Ne, Se, Fe, and Te can all be said to continuously change according to new information. While Si, Ti, Fi, and Ni are all more dogmatic and static in their worldview.
As an Ne dominant it just feels weird to identify with the universal axis when you call it “static”, “seeking rest”, and “wanting to freeze things”.
But I could be misunderstanding you. I’d really appreciate a reply to help me understand ^^
Sorry for the late reply:
You bring up a good point, and I think you're right that I focused too much on the introverted side of the axes. It was my attempt to see if I could abstract out any overall characteristics of each axis, which transcend the individual characteristics of the functions that compose them. So, "what is Ne/Si as a *whole*," etc.
I was trying to describe, for instance, Ne/Si in contrast to Se/Ni, and I do think that, in the specific way I meant it in the video, those phrases work: in that the Se/Ni axis as a whole shifts how it views the world depending on what context it is in, while the Ne/Si axis as a whole is trying to find a position where they don't ever have to shift.
Se just says what reality is, though they don't often realize that their field of vision is limited. Ni then declares what the meaning of that secretly limited view is. Te/Fi are the same way, I believe, only in a judgement sense. Fi determines what the subject wants in the first place, and Te determines, from however reality really works, what the most efficient route would be to accomplish this. What is most efficient (or, from their perspective, what "makes most sense") is implicitly dependent upon what the Te/Fi type already decided was most important to want, via Fi.
From the point of view of Ne/Si or Fe/Ti, those other two axes seem incredibly short-sighted and egocentric and biased. You're right: Ne is hardly static or restful -- quite the opposite. But I think that ultimately it is driving towards a position which, in comparison with Se/Ni, is describable as "static" or "restful". More-or-less, I think... because Ne, unlike Ni or Se, is *indirect*. It doesn't just get up on a mountain and say, "This is how things stand today." It does not trust what it first sees, but always looks for a more creative approach that will prove more objective and less contaminated by their own possible biases. The same goes for Fe, except in the realm of ethics and goodness.
Hmm. Sorry this was a bit of a ramble, I'm just trying to work it out myself.
Michael Pierce Nah, I love the ramble lol. This helps a ton.
It’s like you said: Se/Ni is continuously making committal perceptions on what it first sees in a changing environment (“I’ll put my foot down here...now I’ll put my foot down here...okay now here!” And so on lol).
But Ne/Si want to endlessly question and test the stability of the ground it’s walking on until it comes across something that it can finally rest on/something that continues to remain true through the test of time.
interesting point on Beta vs. Delta...I have been thinking about this and what I find "dishonest: might partially be about the underlying manipulation inherent in Beta types; it feels like a facade to me, and I don't like it. But I would say, as a Delta, I am interested in what the other person really thinks, without them necessarily immediately seeing it from the other's point of view.
How this theory applies on entp cause entps are always hungry for knowledge and that's makes them movement type
14:08 Always funny to me as an INTP that it could be considered "cutting" . It didn't even cross my mind during all of this vid.
Good vid eitheir way. I should get on this socionics stuff.
SpyMonkey3D wow, it's incredible seeing other points of view on a thing of other people. My first reaction was : now Michael's going to get into trouble 😂😂😂 (I think i may be INFJ).
I've been hammering this objectivity/subjectivity distinction for a while now. MP gets it sort of right here, except it only works this way with the judging functions. Si and Se are particularist while Ni and Ne are universalist. This video explains the distinction: ua-cam.com/video/9_PX5MTpluY/v-deo.html
😎
Does anyone know whether these labels "delta", "alpha" are supposed to mean something or are they arbitrary?
Nada They are when the quadras arrive in the ticking clock of the socion.
www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/145-The-Clock-of-the-Socion-Energy-Dynamics-of-Quadra-and-Benefit-Rings
Nada they're just names of groups. They're all the types that share the same functions
This is very good. I think a better name for this is natural/constructed, since contextual/objective could be confused with introversion and extraversion or other stuff like abstract/involved this is what I wrote about it a few weeks ago: www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypology/comments/7opywa/introducing_the_naturalconstructed_elemental/?JungianTypology
"Natural functions: Ti, Si, Fe, Ne
Constructed functions: Fi, Ni, Te, Se
Ti: Natural truth: What is true regardless of whether we believe it is or not, without humans, which in turn becomes the most detached and impersonal judgment.
Te: Constructed truth: This is the full belief in statement, what people believe is true. (For example it could say that it's not confirmed you have a mental illness unless you're professionally diagnosed, then TJs get triggered if you self diagnosed, etc...)
Fe: Natural values: Don't kill your friends, kill creatures that attack you, protect your children, etc.
Fi: Constructed values: Constructing a meaning for your life and having strong ethical code/personal values that you know are yours (personalization). What you 'stand for'. These are the individual desires and goals that each person constructs for themselves.
Si: Natural action: Basic survival instincts like hunger, thirst, shelter, sleeping etc.
Se: Constructed action: Trying to achieve an object of desire or higher value by imposing your will; direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact.
Ni: Constructed imagination: Creating a personal vision/picture of reality, a perception of being late or on time etc., a personal picture of how you want to turn the world into or simply an image of how it will turn under X condition/circumstances.
Ne: Natural imagination: Mental pictures of reality trying to match reality naturally, accepting reality the way it is.
Conclusions: Ti-Fe axis and Si-Ne axis are natural, Fi-Te axis and Ni-Se axis are constructed. Alphas are the most natural types, gammas are the least."
4:19 : Jordan Peterson didn't lie when he said he was high in openness to experience.
Good video but your point about Zen being heavy in alpha and rare in gamma is way off. It's actually the opposite. Zen is Ni Te Se heavy.
So would you say certain personality types are more likely to create, command, and maintain civilizations? Whilst say, the mountainous 'Gammas' are the spices that stir up such societies? I guess I'm asking from a position of: Could a society made solely of each type, I.E. Beta-land and Delta-topia, exist on it's own and be relatively equal in productivity and culture when compared to the others? Or would one Quadra come out on top in effectiveness?
This question is kind of unanswerable, but maybe it's worth it for the meme, erm, I mean for the intellectual exercice.
Alpha : Imagine a Cromagnon-punk society.
Beta : ?
Delta : ?
Gamma : Nuclear wasteland..
I've read socionics' articles on how civilizations go through 'quadra phases,' here's a link to one: www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/117-Quadra-Progression-by-Gilly
+Golden Thanks for the article Golden, I'll certainly give this a thorough study.
In socionics site they say they made experiments like isolating groups of people from the same quadra in a room. And they describe the tipe of interactions and activities. Gammas are more oriented to projects. Alphas want to relax having confort and enjoy, avoiding havy topics. Betas want to engage in big groups and party, talk loud and dont want to leave any one out of the group. And Deltas engage in intelectual conversation in small groups letting people choose and alternate betwen groups as they please. You can google it
Heyo! A fascinating question. I think that it's perfectly possible, and even in some ways advantageous, to have a civilization or large group made up of just one quadra. But as with any group that is kept "pure" in some psychological way, it necessarily begins to suffer psychological "inbreeding". The underlying assumptions of a given quadra are quickly reinforced by every member, and no one questions it, so eventually I would expect to see certain kinds of problems crop up. As far as "effectiveness" goes, though, I don't know if one would actually be more advantaged than another. It depends on how you measure the effectiveness of a culture, I suppose. But I am disinclined to say that any quadra would ultimately prove more advantageous than any of the others in the realm of working together.
Actually, I'm working out a video that talks about these kinds of things, though maybe not precisely in the way you posed it. I'm interested in where the underlying assumptions behind each quadra ultimately leads to, if you just follow it along ad absurdum. I'm inclined to say that each one falls apart in a different way, though that may just be because everything falls apart at ad absurdum...
3:46 nice
I think there's things that don't add up right here. Why are you assuming Ne-Si and Fe-Ti are universalists? If we try to abstract and know what's common among these 2 axis that makes them universalists, we would come the conclusion that Ne is universalist and Se is not and they're both extraverted perception functions (an so is Si vs Ni) So my question is why would u assume such thing?
You might want to check socionics definition of static/dynamic wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Information_elements#Information_Element_Dichotomies
😪
Lovely video. Kind of grim though, as it seems to entail that getting along in peaceful collaboration with each other is inherently impossible, since that would require some basic common understanding of human nature and reality in general.
Check out Dave super powers new videos on cognitive functions
I would think that from contextualized judgment being integrated with universal perception that consideration and decision would not be separate as considerate nor inconsiderate. First, Fi-Te that even if they have a goal that understanding people must be how a person achieves that goal and that requires social exposure which is not, in fact, looking for ways to not consider others as opposed to their goal but only in an ethical manner decide that it is worth consideration or not. The Fi values system is just as considerate as per the values Fi chose or falls into. A values Fi may fall into is consideration of others views. It would be Te that would pursue the goal at all costs dismiss the views of others to achieve it. Sometimes a goal is not worth the human cost which is a value Fi may hold. And further is that Fi-Te may have multiple goals in a hierarchy of importance that changes.
With Ne and Si, the universality makes it so that the potential of an abstract idea (referring to Ne, not Si) can be described as being able to be realized in the real world. This in effect is where goals come from that Fi-Te can implement plans. Ne sees the potential and Fi-Te manifest it. So universal perception means potentiality represents al possibility and that makes it apply everywhere even still being in the abstract and not the concrete. An idea can be shared with anyone because it is universal. Even an idea that has never been thought up before. This makes Ne insights transferable.
Ni may see ideas in historical contexts where they apply. Ni insights connect ideas in a more ordered way filling gaps.
Ne sees ideas and applying anywhere as ideas can spontaneously come into existence in the mind of a person.
Ti-Fe
Thoughts are more ordered. Values are more societally oriented.
This is all that comes to mind. You made a creative video. You do like to fill those gaps.
I'm surprised you haven't talked about Jordan Peterson's work as it could relate to the jungian idea of archetypes.
You'd probably really revitalize this topic as a UA-cam Niche.
To the person saying that Michael is an intelligent person who wastes his time on bullshit like the MBTI: you obviously don't understand and so you have to call MBTI bullshit, if everyone followed your logic there would be no science, psychology or critical thinking, you probably belong to this category of people who only believe in what they are told exists, quickly dismissing anything else. I hate to disappoint you but even though the MBTI system is overly general and deals with approximations, there are some good insights into the personality and mind, and I can tell you by experience that it helps enhance one's perception and decision making. But if all you care about is trivial stuff, you re in the wrong channel.
It is beyond me how someone as smart as you has spent so much time on MBTI without realizing that's it's bullshit, or, at the very least, not nearly worth all this time you've invested into it.
EDIT: I know how this works. I spent two years on this (bull)shit.
I love how you've presented an argument. You've totally convinced me that you know how people, life, and the universe works/comes off as on the cognitive level. Thanks for saving me!
Also, he's not using MBTI, he's going off Jungian Typology. So, he hasn't invested that much time into it. He's said early on in his videos that the MBTI system is behaviorist, not cognitive. Shallow psychological content as opposed to pure structure. Honestly, it's beyond me how people can comment such hollow criticisms without actually knowing what they are talking about.
The qnswer is in your own post., unintentionally...
Like you said, it's beyond you... Or what you think you undertand. That's the problem in this case.
Isn't there supposed to be a part where you back up your exasperation with reasons why you disapprove of the mbti?
The points Michael makes are hard to refute because of how accurately they fall inline with how you feel the differences between you and others
There are preferences people take, and the way Michael describes it in at least this video, it falls neatly in conjunction with the 16 type model