# The idea of living in one's head



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> I agree to disagree roud:
> 
> What is living outside the head? It's opinion-based question, which can't be defined.


Of course it can be defined. I have already offered a definition in this very thread. 



> Also, does auxillary mean auxillary function? If yes, why did you forget to add that you're talking about cognitive functions?


I thought that would be pretty self-evident considering the forum I posted this in. 



> If Fe is not people-oriented, that what is Fe oriented for anyway?


Fe is not people-oriented, no. Fe is oriented towards a sense of ethical unity outside the self, wherein it sees every object as a part of this unity and Fe is very sensitive to how people are a part of this unity or not. It does not need to be people. It can be groups, social ideas, objects, nature, animals etc. What Fe does is that creates awareness of what I'd like to call object relations. It knows how objects relate to each other, creating a very intricate and grand theme of ethical values in the same objective sense Te does with impersonal logic. This is why Fe types often latch onto very universal ethical concepts such as love. My ESFJ grandmother does this for example. To her, love is not a personal feeling as it would to Fi, but love is instead a universal ethical concept people should adhere to in a universal way. How we feel about love is irrelevant to her. It is how we act on love, similar to ideas of virtue. Fe being oriented towards the externally and thus also objective world, does not understand personal sentiments in this manner because this is the introverted perspective it rejects. Instead, Fe measures value importance in how people say, behave. There are aspects of Fe that deals with people, but as a cognitive function perspective it is much too narrow to think of Fe solely as only dealing with people. 



> Why should introverts and extroverts have different perception of reality in the first place, and how do you define the perception of reality?


Did you read what I wrote what Jung wrote about introversion-extroversion? The introvert derives information from within himself and he is a selective reader. He prefers depth over breadth, and he only picks that which is genuinely interesting to his own ego desires. For an introvert less is more. He gets lost in his own mental content and he is able to tap into it a deeply personal way. This content is linked to the collective consciousness but it is not the collective consciousness itself he is experiencing. This is not the same as the introvert being an intuitive. Intuitives can get in direct contact with the collective consciousness because intuition serves as a bridge between the material world and the collective consciousness, making it possible for the intuitive to receive content generated by the collective consciousness. Instead, for the introvert, it is an exploration of such archaic ideas that is relevant to him, that it is depth in content that he seeks driven by his own ego desires. 

This becomes very obvious if we compare Ne vs Ni. Ne seeks breadth of experience. It wants to generate more ideas and more options. It takes something small and keeps blowing it very large and also notice how Ne types never attach any self-importance to any of these ideas. Why? They are of objective nature to the Ne type. Each is as relevant and important and none has more value than the other. Ni doesn't work that way. It takes something very large and wants to make it very small. It is selective in what data to remove until there is only one piece left in the puzzle that to the introverted intuitive, is seen as the most important and relevant to him. It is of subjective nature, it has subjective worth. Even if you present the same data to several Ni types, they will not arrive at the same conclusions of what they are personally experiencing. Yet they will be able to all personally agree that they are personally experiencing something. They know what it is, but it is of such deep, archaic and subjective nature it is often difficult to put into words. 

This is because both Ne and Ni operate with Si and Se. Si is sensory experience of highly personal nature, compressed into an idealistic form usually projected onto other physical objects that Jung refers to as idols. It wants to narrow down sensory experience just the way Ni wants to narrow down intuitive experience. Ne must necessarily take such experiences as the foundation of their intuition and work their way from the ground up. Similarly, Ni must take the breadth of experience from Se, consider all the sensory as it is, before it can draw its singular conclusions of reality.

Most importantly however, functions are not so much functions as in a machine that works in our head or like a computer program made to function this specific way. Instead, what functions really are is that they are worldviews, specific ways of conceptualizing and understanding reality. This becomes extremely apparent in philosophy. If one has studied philosophical history, we notice quite quickly that philosophical thought varies between each philosopher and each is as eager to proclaim how their ideas of reality are the best ones. This is because the dominant function is instrinsically intertwined with the ego, our sense of self and who we are. Because almost every individual has a sense of self-importance, we place particular importance on the idea that represents us the best, in this case the dominant. So we then stress that our reality as we understand it is the best one. This is why people cannot always agree on forums like these either. Functions permeate very deeply when it comes to human interpersonal behavior. It permeates even this very discussion. 



> I need those layman terms, because I am not willing to take any more wild guesses.


Then go and study Jung? Or better yet, don't hold a discussion at a level you aren't willing to commit to. 



> If this thread looks like that:
> 
> *** *User 1 *understands that living outside the head means enjoying the present moment and not being worried about the past or future
> ** User 2* understands that living outside the head means perceiving the objective physical qualities of the objects and focusing on the action and motions in the 3D world without analysing or making connections inside the head
> ...


And why is this a problem? You don't quite understand. See, because from all of these options, I can intuit what is of personal value to me because I'm an introvert. I am selective. Because Se considers the breadth of what is sensory, I can personally cherrypick something from each of these statements and then still end up with something that is of personal satisfaction in a subjective way. What happens is that I take a piece from each object and mold it into one singular piece I find to be of importance to me. 

In fact, you have pretty much only reinforced what I've been writing here with this, and one might for example wonder whether your psyche is really introverted or not considering your strong objection against reality being introverted in this manner, like when you write that every person has their own personal opinion. An introvert does not take issues with that but an extrovert might, feeling they need to align towards certain generalized standards, especially if the extrovert prefers Je.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I have never gotten this as an insult and yes, I understand this can be one way to understand the expression, but I am looking at it mostly from the point of view that people often use this term when justifying that they are an introverted type. Why is this? Why do people use this particular expression to prove their introverted-ness as if any of the above described has something to do with introversion? People use this as a self-identified description, not as an insult someone else called them by. Clearly there is a difference there.


I wasn't looking at it from that angle. Seeing it from the point of view of insults only is not interesting because insults are usually meaningless anyways. Often those kind of insults are just thrown around out of frustration at the person. But are the points in my list really insults per se?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I meant I could say I ''live in my head'' if, for instance, I considered the fact I tend to be very prone to ''fantasizing'' (stuff like creating stories, imagining scenarios, just mental escapes in general). Is this an insult to my self? Not really. This is the main reason why I could say I may tend to live in my own head (but this is only if we use the expression loosely like I think it is used usually by everyone).



> Except I know there are people out there who are Si types, especially auxiliary ones, who use this as an expression to describe themselves. This is why I am thinking it could be related more to Si vs Ni in some way but I am still not entirely sure how that would pan out.


ESFJs and ESTJs who say they live in their own head? Am I reading that right? That's intriguing. In what instance do they use that phrase? What was the context? I just find it weird they would use that in a very serious matter and not just thrown around.

And why are you making the Si/Ni link assumption when I'm sure a lot of xNFP/T types have used the expression as well?




> Well, it is not a literal as much as it is a conceptual question. It is not whether the statement itself makes sense in terms of linguistics, but again why people use it to justify their supposed cognitive introversion.


Perhaps my use of the term ''literally'' wasn't appropriate. What I meant is that I think you are right in saying that the expression is problematic for reasons I believe you expressed well in that house analogy of yours for instance.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> I wasn't looking at it from that angle. Seeing it from the point of view of insults only is not interesting because insults are usually meaningless anyways. Often those kind of insults are just thrown around out of frustration at the person. But are the points in my list really insults per se?
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I meant I could say I ''live in my head'' if, for instance, I considered the fact I tend to be very prone to ''fantasizing'' (stuff like creating stories, imagining scenarios, just mental escapes in general). Is this an insult to my self? Not really. This is the main reason why I could say I may tend to live in my own head (but this is only if we use the expression loosely like I think it is used usually by everyone).


I don't understand that because I don't do that. I have also been curious to what that links to. I don't do fantasy; I don't do daydreaming. 



> ESFJs and ESTJs who say they live in their own head? Am I reading that right? That's intriguing. In what instance do they use that phrase? What was the context? I just find it weird they would use that in a very serious matter and not just thrown around.


In the instance that they think they are introverted. I can PM you about details. 



> And why are you making the Si/Ni link assumption when I'm sure a lot of xNFP/T types have used the expression as well?


Well, they are still Si types lol. Essentially, Si has an aspect that includes body awarenes and body experience. Si is somehow linked to the body, though I am not sure what this is or what it means. Likely because I'm not an Si type. The head is still a part of the body even though the expression itself is meant to suggest something of more disjointed nature. But when I think of how I experience myself, I don't even see myself having a body. Then how disjointed is that?

In fact, I think it makes sense that Si types might place particular emphasis or stress a particular body part over the entirety of the body because of the subjective nature of Si. Just because it's the head doesn't mean it's not a part of the body. 



> Perhaps my use of the term ''literally'' wasn't appropriate. What I meant is that I think you are right in saying that the expression is problematic for reasons I believe you expressed well in that house analogy of yours for instance.


I see.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Nowhere Man said:


> As an almost surefire introvert, I can definitely relate to the idea of "living in one's head". Of course, we all technically "live in our heads" all the time. But as for this particular type of living in one's head: Basically, I tend to "tune out" the external world and everything coming in through my senses and concern myself directly with what I'm thinking or feeling rather than what I'm seeing, hearing, etc. I'm still aware of the outside world, of course, but it sort of fades into the background, and instead of seeing what is directly in front of me, I merely perceive, think, feel and contemplate whatever is going on in my mind. That's the best way I can describe it, and I hope it helps you to understand what people mean when they say "living in one's head".


Right. I also found earlier in life that I tended to "model" things and potential actions in my head rather than actually doing them in real life. I could read a book and experience life vicariously through the characters and have it impact who I was, without actually doing it; it was all happening "inside my head" with nothing to show externally. All that modeling did change me and impact me, and of course I was prepping that internal model with real-life data I could observe outside of me -- I wanted the model to reflect external reality so it wasn't just a total unrealistic fantasy -- but it all occurred internally for me.

That is what I would have meant if I said (and I did on occasions) that I "lived life inside my head." I have met some other people like this, and others who HAVE to live life in the external world or it "doesn't count" for them and they have trouble learning from it, and finally others who are a mix of the two approaches. I think nowadays I'm more of a mix, but still feel happy to model things and do it easily; it's just that you're not left with much to show externally, afterwards, and so to accomplish some practical goals, I try not to live "inside" all the time.


----------



## HypoTempes (Nov 25, 2013)

Even though i live inside of my own head , i go outside for inspiration. 

Easiest way to explain this is via an analogy "you live inside a house but you need to go out sometimes in order to do things"

Inside your house is where you feel safe but you need to visit a supermarket in order to get food.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I don't understand that because I don't do that. I have also been curious to what that links to. I don't do fantasy; I don't do daydreaming.


I have a lot of mental wanderings, that's for sure. But these only happen when I'm alone or right after I read or hear something interesting.



> In the instance that they think they are introverted. I can PM you about details.


Sure.




> Well, they are still Si types lol. Essentially, Si has an aspect that includes body awarenes and body experience. Si is somehow linked to the body, though I am not sure what this is or what it means. Likely because I'm not an Si type. The head is still a part of the body even though the expression itself is meant to suggest something of more disjointed nature. But when I think of how I experience myself, I don't even see myself having a body. Then how disjointed is that?
> 
> In fact, I think it makes sense that Si types might place particular emphasis or stress a particular body part over the entirety of the body because of the subjective nature of Si. Just because it's the head doesn't mean it's not a part of the body.


So you're talking about all the types then? I thought you were insisting on Si and Ni auxiliary and dominant. Because every single one has Ni or Si in their function set.

In that case, the introverted perception functions would be the most probable cause, yes.

In the case of my ISTJ dad, it seems clear to me that he thinks I don't take properly care of my health enough to his liking. Even if I am currently very healthy, he still manages to convey this message constantly. His philosophy of life is literally to take care of your bodily health in order to accomplish your goals. It doesn't get more simplistic then this.

As for the disjointed thing, I don't think there is a ''separation'' of mind and body, or whatever people like Descartes suggested. I'm a monist in that sense I guess. I don't understand body awareness either, I am only ''aware'' of my ''body'' when I feel physical discomfort. And even then sometimes I might not acknowledge/miss it.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

My understanding is that if any function is well differentiated from the rest, then attention or "will" can be directed towards those goals (that which the function seeks) at the exclusion of others. So the remark on "living in one's head" vs "living in the moment" are really indicators of a one-sidedness of function differentiation at the exclusion of others with the opposite orientation. 

There is a nuance between "living" vs "being". Being means relating objects to internalized objects of the self; the distinction between being in one's head vs moment is relating internal vs external objects with the self. e.g. I imagine myself picking up a pen vs actually picking up a pen. Living otoh is an attachment to a mode of being that is non-transitory and connotes a preference or prior. Being connotes no such preference in itself.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I thought that would be pretty self-evident considering the forum I posted this in.


Auxillary can mean many things, nothing is self-evident.





> Fe is not people-oriented, no. Fe is oriented towards a sense of ethical unity outside the self, wherein it sees every object as a part of this unity and Fe is very sensitive to how people are a part of this unity or not. It does not need to be people. It can be groups, social ideas, objects, nature, animals etc. What Fe does is that creates awareness of what I'd like to call object relations. It knows how objects relate to each other, creating a very intricate and grand theme of ethical values in the same objective sense Te does with impersonal logic. This is why Fe types often latch onto very universal ethical concepts such as love. My ESFJ grandmother does this for example. To her, love is not a personal feeling as it would to Fi, but love is instead a universal ethical concept people should adhere to in a universal way. How we feel about love is irrelevant to her. It is how we act on love, similar to ideas of virtue. Fe being oriented towards the externally and thus also objective world, does not understand personal sentiments in this manner because this is the introverted perspective it rejects. Instead, Fe measures value importance in how people say, behave. There are aspects of Fe that deals with people, but as a cognitive function perspective it is much too narrow to think of Fe solely as only dealing with people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This was quite informative. Thanks roud:





> Then go and study Jung? Or better yet, don't hold a discussion at a level you aren't willing to commit to.


I have studied Jung enough, and I know well enough that psychology-related discussion can always be expressed in ways that reach to more people, and make a lot more sense to as many people as possible. It's not like we're having a scientific debate where every word is on stake, terminology is crucial and every error in fact is a serious business.

Only authorities are Jung and Myers-Briggs, and they never discussed the subject that this thread references to, so we can only imagine, guess, presume and exchange opinions about how everything relates back to their theory.



> And why is this a problem? You don't quite understand. See, because from all of these options, I can intuit what is of personal value to me because I'm an introvert. I am selective. Because Se considers the breadth of what is sensory, I can personally cherrypick something from each of these statements and then still end up with something that is of personal satisfaction in a subjective way. What happens is that I take a piece from each object and mold it into one singular piece I find to be of importance to me.
> 
> In fact, you have pretty much only reinforced what I've been writing here with this, and one might for example wonder whether your psyche is really introverted or not considering your strong objection against reality being introverted in this manner, like when you write that every person has their own personal opinion. An introvert does not take issues with that but an extrovert might, feeling they need to align towards certain generalized standards, especially if the extrovert prefers Je.


It's all really true but I don't understand how this relates to my question.


----------



## MisterDantes (Nov 24, 2013)

It feels like things are going in circles: People are saying the same things over again in different words.
My tip to @ephemereality 
read the responses (I assume you do) and the simply make up your mind about this issue. You have asked, we have answered. now the rest is up to you to process this information in a way that suits you


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MisterDantes said:


> It feels like things are going in circles: People are saying the same things over again in different words.
> My tip to @ephemereality
> read the responses (I assume you do) and the simply make up your mind about this issue. You have asked, we have answered. now the rest is up to you to process this information in a way that suits you


This isn't about making up my mind. I'm looking for a discussion but people aren't willing to bite. Also I hate when people tell me what I should do or think no matter how well meaning so just stop.


----------

