It's funny how I see my own Te Nemesis coming up, just one inconsistency (the word "worry") and I dismissed most of the video. Good I planned to take notes on it later anyways and it had a lot more good stuff than my initial "dismissal" reaction. The thing I disagree with is the "worry" part. The dominant function is shining so brightly that the counterpart is thrown in its shadow. Beebe calls it "Opposing", Socionics calls it "Ignorning" attitude. This kind of attitude just can't lead to a worry. At most it can lead to doubt or annoyance. When you replace "worry" with "doubt" the whole theory makes a lot more sense. I reworded some of the Nemesis phrases: Te Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other peoples' thinking." Ti Nemesis "Doubt that they don't have the right facts and are not smart enough to process the information they have." Fe Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other people's feelings as their own feelings will have precedence as an initial reaction." (Then their moral system will kick in and adjust.) Fi Nemesis "Doubt that their values and their own value as a person are enough. So they overcompensate in giving more." Ne Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other peoples' intentions, path choices, desires and worry experiencing bad consequences for peoples' choices" Ni Nemesis "Doubt their own set path constantly as their Ne Hero's desires to explore new possibilities or enable other people with choices might be compromised" Se Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other people's experiences" Si Nemesis "Doubt that they are disciplined enough or capable enough to commit to a person or a task to see it through."
I can see where you're coming from and how that could make sense, but that sounds a lot closer to the critic functions. Where the nemesis is dismissive due to it being unsure and the hero being unwilling to expand, the critic already assumes incompetence within the context of a potentially careless parent function. The hero is prideful, so the nemesis is unsure/uncertain (which does create worry) leading to dismissiveness because it's easier to deal with even though the nemesis actually wants to verify/validate. The parent (teenager) is careless, so it does not try to sharpen itself and believes it alone is enough leading to doubt and cynicism being the default of the critic. At the end of the day, the nemesis is optimistic while the critic is pessimistic. What you explained makes a lot more sense within the context of the critic function; at least with the list of functions
@@ourobot284 Agree, the descriptions I put sound as if it could have been the Critic too. Doubt might not been the best word, it's a word I took from the video. Opposing/Ignoring is still better. I can just say from my own experience "worry, unsure, uncertain" are nothing I can attribute to my Te Nemesis. When you say this function slot is additionally also optimistic, then it fits even less. I have Se as my parent function. If one actually thinks one worries through your Nemesis, then there might be a bias coming from the other functions. For example Ne Parent for INTP is quite a worrysome function, at least this is what it looks to me as an Se user. So personally I believe the "worry" theory is flawed as it does not fit all types.
As an Infj, Ne Nemesis definitely has me more "paranoid", but it comes as "are you prepared for this? Ie Contingency plans. Dont be naive or gullible."
Te nemesis is so true for me 😂 But just to clarify, I don't think people are dumb, just that they don't know what they're talking about.. this inevitably causes people to feel like I think theyre stupid understandably. cs joseph explains it better
![Rhuanedd Richards - Cyfarwyddwr BBC Cymru [Bl. 8 a 9 CYMRAEG]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ih3cihiNauM/mqdefault.jpg)
Well explained straight to the point 💯
It's funny how I see my own Te Nemesis coming up, just one inconsistency (the word "worry") and I dismissed most of the video. Good I planned to take notes on it later anyways and it had a lot more good stuff than my initial "dismissal" reaction.
The thing I disagree with is the "worry" part. The dominant function is shining so brightly that the counterpart is thrown in its shadow. Beebe calls it "Opposing", Socionics calls it "Ignorning" attitude. This kind of attitude just can't lead to a worry. At most it can lead to doubt or annoyance. When you replace "worry" with "doubt" the whole theory makes a lot more sense.
I reworded some of the Nemesis phrases:
Te Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other peoples' thinking."
Ti Nemesis "Doubt that they don't have the right facts and are not smart enough to process the information they have."
Fe Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other people's feelings as their own feelings will have precedence as an initial reaction." (Then their moral system will kick in and adjust.)
Fi Nemesis "Doubt that their values and their own value as a person are enough. So they overcompensate in giving more."
Ne Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other peoples' intentions, path choices, desires and worry experiencing bad consequences for peoples' choices"
Ni Nemesis "Doubt their own set path constantly as their Ne Hero's desires to explore new possibilities or enable other people with choices might be compromised"
Se Nemesis "Doubt the validity of other people's experiences"
Si Nemesis "Doubt that they are disciplined enough or capable enough to commit to a person or a task to see it through."
I can see where you're coming from and how that could make sense, but that sounds a lot closer to the critic functions. Where the nemesis is dismissive due to it being unsure and the hero being unwilling to expand, the critic already assumes incompetence within the context of a potentially careless parent function. The hero is prideful, so the nemesis is unsure/uncertain (which does create worry) leading to dismissiveness because it's easier to deal with even though the nemesis actually wants to verify/validate. The parent (teenager) is careless, so it does not try to sharpen itself and believes it alone is enough leading to doubt and cynicism being the default of the critic. At the end of the day, the nemesis is optimistic while the critic is pessimistic. What you explained makes a lot more sense within the context of the critic function; at least with the list of functions
@@ourobot284 Agree, the descriptions I put sound as if it could have been the Critic too. Doubt might not been the best word, it's a word I took from the video. Opposing/Ignoring is still better. I can just say from my own experience "worry, unsure, uncertain" are nothing I can attribute to my Te Nemesis. When you say this function slot is additionally also optimistic, then it fits even less. I have Se as my parent function. If one actually thinks one worries through your Nemesis, then there might be a bias coming from the other functions. For example Ne Parent for INTP is quite a worrysome function, at least this is what it looks to me as an Se user. So personally I believe the "worry" theory is flawed as it does not fit all types.
I believe the other narrator with the lisp does an excellent job on par with this narrator. Great channel excellent presentation and good knowledge.
As an Infj, Ne Nemesis definitely has me more "paranoid", but it comes as "are you prepared for this? Ie Contingency plans. Dont be naive or gullible."
Amazing as always!
Amazingly articulated intro. The push/pull dynamic is spot on
Hell ya good job man!
Te nemesis is so true for me 😂 But just to clarify, I don't think people are dumb, just that they don't know what they're talking about.. this inevitably causes people to feel like I think theyre stupid understandably. cs joseph explains it better
💜
🤟
Istp here have you ever watched other people they are dumb 😂❤
Agree
💜