teatime and others - My re-awakened affinity for the general attitudes comes from fascinating videos like this one -- where the Big Five trait Openness (highly synonymous with the "N" dimension) -- are being elaborated on. Meaningful statistics can be, and are being, discovered about the general attitudes this way, which I find indispensable to a more thorough understanding of types. This is the sort of information about the general attitudes which I find rich in detail.
(But I should note this talk applies to any types ego associated with their intuitive function. I know of an SiFe-Ne who is a life-long creative and failed musician, and he fits the descriptions in this video perfectly)
This video is essentially describing Ni or Ne heaviness in all types. It's interesting to hear Peterson suggest Jungian dreams appear in heavy-N patients, but it's practically useless for heavy-S patients. And that the aesthetic sense, which is in some ways synonymous to symbolic perception, is tied to this dimension as well. This suggests that the appreciation of art (not as "decor", as Peterson criticized) but as something deeply symbolic and evocative; is evocative precisely because heavy-N types have an open channel between themselves and the unconscious through the intuitive function.
Alerith has often brought up with me in conversation that she felt high-N types were more connected to unconscious content, and I didn't really give it much thought. But I can see how the primordial images of the psyche become more available to a person that is highly attuned to their associative perception.
What I enjoy about Peterson's continual talent in phrasing is that he articulates this very real phenomenon that heavy-N users experience, without putting it on a pedestal, as other models do. Instead, it's simply seen as a different evolutionary strategy with its pitfalls and shortcomings like everything else.
That's the sort of mentality I find most accurate when discussing the subject matter of type differences. Because it's also not correct to try to be so politically correct about the subject of temperamental differences as to suggest that higher competence in specialized areas doesn't emerge. Surely they do, and so it's another one of those cases of how "equal" doesn't mean "homogeneous".
The qualities that comprise the whole of human expression -- i.e. "creativivity" / "conscientiousness" -- cease to hold undertones of superiority/inferiority, which we may feel inclined to squeal away from, if we just come to realize that the traits themselves are equal in the broadest evolutionary sense, outside of culture and convention.
Cultures Prioritizing Traits
The video touches on this a lot, and it's interesting because traits which are sometimes given praise such as "creative" (not always) were taboo in other times in history and still are in other cultures. Different cultures value certain human traits, and different traits fall into the category of unappealing or undesirable over time. But these elements of our nature seem to transcend the norms of culture, calling upon us to also transcend the specific biases of our culture when evaluating the spectrum of human diversity.
Too funny! I have literally been avoiding my work all morning, listening to Jordan Peterson, including his views on curse of creativity. I am in love! He says so many of the things I think, but he says them well. I'm insanely jealous.
I noticed that he refers to the Big Five a LOT. The criticisms I've heard about the Big 5 are that the components that make up each category are actually more reliable predictors of things than the five categories themselves. I'd like to see a breakdown of "Openness." I'm just not seeing Ni and Ne here. Well, maybe. A NiFe would make a better entrepreneur than a SiFe. But couldn't a Se-something be successful, too? Like SIA. Oh, wait... You have her as NeFi, I think.
Anyway, he speaks of both artistry (creativity, N Land) and aesthetic beauty. The sheer aesthetic beauty he speaks of later seems kinda Se to me. No? His rants against the ugliness of North American architecture and city design are truly kindred with my spirit. I can never understand how this doesn't bother more people, so I bitch about this loudly to as many people as I can. I think is actually does unconsciously affect people, but they just don't have the awareness of it.
I have more to say from the POV I'm best acquainted with - my own story, but I don't really want to ramble about it online. However, I'll say that I agree with Alerith.
(P.S. What about neuroticism and Ji? Or Pi? ) (P.P.S. Host: "What's the real art history of Canada?" Me: "Satruday Night Live." In a similar vein, Jordan sounds so much like Norm MacDonald.)
I think that even in high Se users, it's Ni that embeds the symbolic representation. Likewise, in the Si/Ne duality, it's Ne that does the 'creative' association.
Insofar as the aesthetic dimension goes, I think the symbolic appreciation of it (rather than just sensory) comes from the unconscious; the primordial non-literal. So while I can see everyone appreciating art and even creating it, what I gathered Peterson meant by art appreciation is this capacity to understand the evocations and thematic ideas woven across and within it.
I've seen it too where the stronger someone's Ne/Ni function is, hierarchy aside, the more prone they are to be very numinous in their thinking. Some FiSe-Ni I've known are far more numinous than I am, too. So again I think high-Se users can be quite attuned to that dimension, but if they are, we'll also see a high prevalence of Ni. Like Kate Bush or Bjork.
Okay, gotcha. He did start out talking about art as thematic, very strongly so distinguishing it from pure sensory experience. But then he moved more into aesthetics. Man, it's like North America gets both wrong! How can you get both wrong?! Trump...
I work from home, btw. So, I'm only ripping myself off. I'm pretty sure I need an employer.
I just remembered how Peterson defined creativity. Seems important. lol. And I would define it the same way. It's the ability to generate solutions to a problem. It inherently has constraints, like poetry.
I saw a funny picture in this forum the other day, but I can't post it here because I can't figure it out. But it's how each function would solve the problem of a barrier/wall.
Post by tobyspringfield on May 2, 2017 12:32:22 GMT -5
I've always had a bizarre way of explaining Sensing and Intuition that made sense to me so I'd like to share it. Well to me, it seems sensing is an "isolate and destroy" attitude of perception. It's like a soldier looking to take out an army. He looks for a way to separate the soldiers and take them out one by one, individually. It seems like Sensing separates things from every association and sees those things as they are, alone, with no connection to other things. Since this is basically face value and very conscious, it's done on a very conscious level. Intuition on the other hand seems like a spiderweb to me. Intuition makes connections and draws things together whereas Sensing separates things from other things. And since this connecting isn't done at face value it seems logical that it's done mostly in the subconscious. Not sure if this made any sense at all but I hope it did.
Post by bellabellas86 on May 2, 2017 13:13:11 GMT -5
Watching this now - he's FeNi. Identical gestures and body movements to my very defined FeNi friend (also very strong on Ni, but definitely Fe dom). Despite the strong Ni, I think Peterson's overall worldview is that of Je (for instance, he highly values success in the Je-ish enneagram 3-ish kind of sense). He may use a lot of Ni, but to put it in Jungian terminoology - he seems to ultimatetly be attracted more to the external "object" rather than the inner "subject", and Ni seems to be ultimately in psychic subjugation to Fe.