# Who wants to talk Jungian cognitive functions?



## Westcoast Ghost (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm thinking DP could relate to the suppression of the extraverted perception function. Like for myself as an ISTP: not using Se; being stuck in a massive Ti-Ni loop. Same concept for the other types.

When I read or hear descriptions of Se I recall exactly how the world used to be, and I can point to those descriptions to explain what I'm missing from my perception now.

Anyone else think DP could be approached from this angle?


----------



## greymanor (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm an INTJ actually had to take the test for class last week...I was thinking the same,but i don't know im not an expert. ithink obviously suppression thing has a lot to do with it if not the fact that it is all there is too it


----------



## Westcoast Ghost (Sep 8, 2013)

greymanor said:


> I'm an INTJ actually had to take the test for class last week...I was thinking the same,but i don't know im not an expert. ithink obviously suppression thing has a lot to do with it if not the fact that it is all there is too it


So do you think the suppression for you as an INTJ would be of your auxiliary Te, or your inferior Se?


----------



## Haumea (Jul 11, 2009)

What you're really suggesting is that DP = being stuck in a introverted-introverted Dominant-Tertiary loop.

Which means types susceptible to DP would be...all introverts. It's certainly plausible.


----------



## Westcoast Ghost (Sep 8, 2013)

Haumea said:


> What you're really suggesting is that DP = being stuck in a introverted-introverted Dominant-Tertiary loop.
> 
> Which means types susceptible to DP would be...all introverts. It's certainly plausible.


Naw. An ENFP for example could lose or suppress their Ne which takes them out of the present & could be experienced as DP/DR, I think. It would result in Fi-Te-Si - doesn't have to start as introverted. Everyone has Pe functions, not just introverts.


----------



## Veloso (Oct 19, 2014)

blackmars said:


> I'm thinking DP could relate to the suppression of the extraverted perception function. Like for myself as an ISTP: not using Se; being stuck in a massive Ti-Ni loop. Same concept for the other types.
> 
> When I read or hear descriptions of Se I recall exactly how the world used to be, and I can point to those descriptions to explain what I'm missing from my perception now.
> 
> Anyone else think DP could be approached from this angle?


Very interesting!


----------



## Westcoast Ghost (Sep 8, 2013)

Veloso said:


> Very interesting!


I'm glad you think so. 
To expand on that, Se had been described as feeling the weights and pressures of objects around you without even having to touch them. Like when I was younger it was that way 24/7. I could feel that something was 3D and solid without having to feel it with my body. Now even if I touch something it still feels 2 dimensional. 
Se also involves living in the present, as opposed to Ni which views time as a series of events. I don't experience the live passage of time anymore, which could indicate Se deficiency.
There's more but I'm rushed..

I don't know about Ne because it's never been prominent for me. So this is just an incomplete theory.


----------



## Dr. B (Aug 31, 2014)

its not a theory at all. Its not scientific.


----------



## missjess (Jun 1, 2012)

Dr. B said:


> its not a theory at all. Its not scientific.


Not all theory's have to be "scientific" being that narrow minded won't get anyone anywhere with treating dp.


----------



## Dr. B (Aug 31, 2014)

missjess said:


> Not all theory's have to be "scientific" being that narrow minded won't get anyone anywhere with treating dp.


Nonsense. A theory in this sense HAS to be scientific. You are trying to use the word to make your 'hunches' and 'speculations' sound more rational by using a scientific term - theory. So learn what a theory really is before misleading people here - including yourself,

Narrow minded? I dont think so. But I am educated.

I've gotten very far in understanding DP - who ever said I treated it? Not me. Not for the first time, you go way beyond the evidence. Dont do this. Its dishonest.


----------



## Westcoast Ghost (Sep 8, 2013)

Dr. B said:


> Nonsense. A theory in this sense HAS to be scientific. You are trying to use the word to make your 'hunches' and 'speculations' sound more rational by using a scientific term - theory. So learn what a theory really is before misleading people here - including yourself,
> 
> Narrow minded? I dont think so. But I am educated.
> 
> I've gotten very far in understanding DP - who ever said I treated it? Not me. Not for the first time, you go way beyond the evidence. Dont do this. Its dishonest.


Please cite a credible source which dictates the only definition of "theory" is one that is scientific.


----------



## Dr. B (Aug 31, 2014)

Theory is a scientific term - people use it too wildly in conversation...any scientific education will teach you that. Its the same when we talk about the theory of evolution. People think (wrongly) the word theory in this context is a weak thing - like its only an idea, one of many. Not true. The 'Theory' of evolution is actually a fact. Its the flip side of the above arguments

If you want citations, anything on informal logic, critical thinking and what is known as the fallacy fo equivocation - where a term is used with multiple meanings. That's basically, this entire thread. Happy reading.


----------

