# Improved Function Definitions - Perception



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ni
Ni is a sub-conscious filtering and collecting of correlations; it filters incidences to detect underlying principals, laws of nature, or reoccurring themes. It can be experienced as a sense of something that causes one to act on a hunch. Sometimes these correlations coalesce into symbols ahead of the Ni user having any explanation for why. Ni users often express a sense of storing up or mentally flagging data and experiences that can be fully digested later, or that they trust will be available for useful recall at an appropriate time.

Ni dominant personalities often seek time to bring sub-conscious correlations out in the open, handing these hunches or symbols off to what Jung labels judging functions; this can be done internally or outside themselves for conscious interpretation, to be verified as causative, relevant or true. Conversely, this “sense of how things work” can make them quick to intuitively grasp a process without the time it takes for a full walk through or a detailed explanation. 

Se
Se is a state of alertness and vivid in- the-moment awareness through the physical senses. Se preferences encourage engagement and participation of the Se dominant personality with his or her literal and physical environment. Se dominant individuals thrive in situations where they have autonomy to act with limited clear guidelines. They flourish and are energized where they can be recognized and rewarded for effective responsiveness and adaptability.

Se awareness is the opposite of Ni abstraction. Ni will sense that Se fuels rash, mistaken, or superficially misdirected conclusions with negative or chaotic ramifications. Se will sense that doing it “wrong” and making adjustments, is still faster or more attuned to the “real world”. Doing nothing is seen as a missed opportunity and more consequential than a misstep along the way.

Ne
Ne is a filter for novelty, causation, and conceptual exploration (possibilities). Ne dominant persons often see the world in metaphor, as do Nis, but Ne is directed with anticipation or watchfulness while Ni ‘s reflective qualities are exercised in afterthought or a flash of insight that may not be contextually triggered. Both “N” types focus on correlations and associations that would not be directly observed through the senses. While Ni dominant perception typically holds a convergent and precise approach the Ne dominant personality is likely to be looking at dynamics, engaging responsive testing or “research on the fly”, to accommodate a more divergent or expansive attitude of thinking. 

Similar and yet different from Se, Ne is searching for possibility, utility, defining operations, or context and value of something as a means to understanding it - more than directly interacting with it. Anything more deliberate or conscious like investigating, defining, and developing policy, or opinion, would come from what Jung calls the judging functions or apperception (Ti, Fi for example). Ne’s paradigm shifting or curiosity is not deliberated, more like abstract scanning, and generating of associations, as a matter of course for the way the outside world is taken in.

Si
Si is a filter for familiarity, personal wellbeing relevance, and physical or literal context. Si may be experienced as a desire for comfort in ones environment with an awareness of appropriateness or incongruities to ones surroundings. One example would be sensing that something isn’t right after an interruption causes you to lay your cell phone down in a random place. Another might be the sense of satisfaction from having a favorite coffee break hang-out, enjoyed in some regular interval or time slot in one’s schedule. 

The two above cited examples may be Si that all perception types could experience; layers of complexity in this function would vary individually. We all use all functions to some extent; but we have preferences or default settings, priorities of personality needs. The richness of the Si dominant’s Si experiences will be personal and meaningful to that individual. 

Si dominant persons appreciate having historical or social background (context and continuity) about how policies or practices gain legitimacy. Ne, though opposite to the Si perspective, may still take in background information; the difference is that Ne accepts causation of what is, as a springboard for something new, while Si seeks precedent as its own answer. Si precedent seeking is not a choice the way Te judgment functioning could overlap with a similar seeming goal. This priority or reference point status of what is familiar is an assumed or natural default for Si; it is the starting point or automatic filter for how the outside world is taken in and collected for recall. 


These (above and linked below) are based on my year long observations and discussion engagements here at PerC, personal experience of tested loved ones whom I’ve known for years, and a respect for Jung’s observations as outlined in his work “Psychological Types”. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174436-fi-fe-revisited.html



Does this align or contradict with your own experience?
Do you feel confident in an MBTI assessment of you -as a particular type?
How long have you been active at PerC, or other similar forums?
Have you studied Jung and/or other type models?
Do you have opinions about type testing and testing formats?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

*Does this align or contradict with your own experience?* 

It seems fairly similar to what I've _read, _at least, and it may even come closer to capturing the ideas.




*Do you feel confident in an MBTI assessment of you -as a particular type?* 

A very firm, resolute and balanced 'No' mingling with 'Yes.'



*How long have you been active at PerC, or other similar forums?* 

Two years.




*Have you studied Jung and/or other type models?* 

Yes. Rather than the functions themselves, I've had difficulties in understanding the dynamics between 8 cognitive functions and how they work together in any one personality. There are many ways in which functions are each defined and described, but I haven't found how more than 4 functions are expressed actively, and there is a general vagueness to the way they are described in one personality, causing estimations which may or may not be correct. I notice other members seem to have the same issues. 

'Shadow functions' are also described, but again, there seems to be nothing that integrates it into the whole personality, tying the different concepts together holistically so they can be understood on a dynamic, practical level. So many times, I've read a shadow function being: 'shown during times of stress'. 'Stress' has not yet been defined within those definitions, and can mean a lot of different scenarios, or orientations of 'stress'. Examples need not be given, but the terms require definition, I think.

Due to this confusion in MBTI theory, I've begun gravitating towards Socionics. I've been pleasantly surprised with my findings. There is still some slight confusion, but overall it seems to capture the way functions are working together, and why. 




*Do you have opinions about type testing and testing formats?* 

As far as I've seen, observed and participated... Actual tests or quizzes seem fruitless. Even giving questionnaires on forums of any kind yield unsatisfactory, contradictory results. 

Much of the time, there is a lot of debate in a 'Type Me' thread.

Usually, members who believe their own type to be established, offer help... Their type may be criticized due to disagreements, and vindictive vengeful attitudes seem to be an overwhelming trend response. There's a resounding 'Us Against Them' mentality. 

Within one personality type group, there will be subjective ideas about how a particular type is supposed to think cognitively, and if one member of this group doesn't match the subjective ideal, which may have been translated into a majority group ideal... A wordless agreement is reached, and there appears to be a pecking order that ostracizes the perceived misfits.

It seems to be very easy to get the wrong idea, due to a mass production of opinionated consensus. Example: "To be a RARE, you'd have to be incredibly insightful. You don't strike me as a RARE-- You're too happy!"


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Word Dispenser_, I've heard people around here mention the Beebe model, but honestly shadow functions sound like somebody is making things too complicated. Maybe I need to study it? -Also have to put a lid on things, wrap it up, do a prototype, whatever. Well, in particular an ENTJ thread about depression or self esteem, don't remember where exactly that was but it seemed like a long way around (Beebe) to explain something in an ego stroking way. But I know peoples ego's and being receptive to material of course is part of the whole thing.

Problems I want to fix: 


How to sound unbiased in descriptions and help people to be comfortable with being honest to themselves
Anecdotal is interesting and fun to people - but then they think it is a recipie - or take it too literally
Long poetic descriptions are fun on PerC but won't work for how I want to see this usefully applied- to people but also to business models, or finding a communication style for particular team etc.
Function descriptions that don't overlap so as to have a common vocabulary and more confidence of accurate test making.
Tests that people resonate with.
Maybe something more like a map, uses the 16 but addresses fluctuations within a type.
Not over-stepping, find actual commonalities and not be excessive with too many characterisitics that corrolate behaviors that come as a result of many other factors.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @_Word Dispenser_, I've heard people around here mention the Beebe model, but honestly shadow functions sound like somebody is making things too complicated. Maybe I need to study it? -Also have to put a lid on things, wrap it up, do a prototype, whatever. Well, in particular an ENTJ thread about depression or self esteem, don't remember where exactly that was but it seemed like a long way around (Beebe) to explain something in an ego stroking way. But I know peoples ego's and being receptive to material of course is part of the whole thing.
> 
> Problems I want to fix:
> 
> ...


We come from a land of gonzo journalism... (For some reason, 'The Land Down Undah' song sounded off in my head.)

That is-- It's pretty difficult to be completely objective in writing, and not to show some type of bias. The real issue, I think, is in behaviour tendencies being written for functions, and function dynamism. 

Behaviour is just a result of cognitive causation. So, writing practical examples seems to isolate and aggravate the existing problems with typing, since people within all types will be unique individually anyway, yet also common. 

Any type can enjoy sports and physical sensation attributed to Se, for example. It's the motivations and reasons behind that, which can be more difficult to isolate. Particularly to a casual observer.

I agree that long poetic definitions are too vague, and it's too easy to draw your own interpretation (As in art.) This system requires equations. :tongue:

Even the test questions are vague in this way. Maybe instead of, 'When you make a decision, do you choose feeling over thinking?' (How slanted is _that_?) It should be more contextual and situational, with precise ways of isolating cognitive traits.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Mapping out position of judging functions would be an easier starting point? Multiple choice progression questions from one opposit to the other - after judging questions - a link to determine perception pref. Too constraining or not?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_monemi_ Am I being fair about Se and Si Improved Function Definitions - Perception





Old Intern said:


> Se
> Se is a state of alertness and vivid in- the-moment awareness through the physical senses. Se preferences encourage engagement and participation of the Se dominant personality with his or her literal and physical environment. Se dominant individuals thrive in situations where they have autonomy to act with limited clear guidelines. They flourish and are energized where they can be recognized and rewarded for effective responsiveness and adaptability.
> 
> Se awareness is the opposite of Ni abstraction. Ni will sense that Se fuels rash, mistaken, or superficially misdirected conclusions with negative or chaotic ramifications. Se will sense that doing it “wrong” and making adjustments, is still faster or more attuned to the “real world”. Doing nothing is seen as a missed opportunity and more consequential than a misstep along the way.


Your Se definition is mostly defined in relation to Ni and focused on the drawbacks of Se. If you contrast that with your definitions for Ni and Ne, I don't think it's a fair assessment. I appreciate the attempt.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Don't relate at all to your Ni definition. It doesn't really strike me as Ni. Too much focus on unconscious processes, hunches etc. That's not what Ni is. Ni is a searching for symbolic archetype content. Also too much focus on future prediction. Ni can do that, but that's not all Ni does. It's late here so I will write up what I think of Ni at a later time.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

I think one of the problems with function definitions is that the same words are used over and over again that are loaded with connotations. As a resort I sense the same essence almost regardless of the definitions I read. Also, I love anecdotal explanations of things, and most type materials either don't come with these types of explanations or they are ridiculous examples in the extremes. What I need, and what I think most people would benefit from, are examples that highlight minor distinctions in behavior. The truth is, how many different types of people does anyone actually know? I'm a young professional and work in an office, it's not like each person's life is drastically different. People have families, go to soccer games, work on their house, or if they're young you can replace those things with getting drunk/high and online dating. That's just what people do, but everyone does things a little bit differently.

I don't know how many people this applies to, but I also need more dynamic descriptions, ones that intricately describe how things happen as opposed to states like: "This person is always thinking of possibilities!", "This person likes to surf!", "This person likes manga!", etc. . This may be not allowed in this section of the forum, but I think socionics is absolutely amazing for typing people, specifically the reinin dichotomies. It makes typing 1000% easier. If you haven't read about them already you really need to check them out.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> I think one of the problems with function definitions is that the same words are used over and over again that are loaded with connotations. As a resort I sense the same essence almost regardless of the definitions I read. Also, I love anecdotal explanations of things, and most type materials either don't come with these types of explanations or they are ridiculous examples in the extremes. What I need, and what I think most people would benefit from, are examples that highlight minor distinctions in behavior. The truth is, how many different types of people does anyone actually know? I'm a young professional and work in an office, it's not like each person's life is drastically different. People have families, go to soccer games, work on their house, or if they're young you can replace those things with getting drunk/high and online dating. That's just what people do, but everyone does things a little bit differently.
> 
> I don't know how many people this applies to, but I also need more dynamic descriptions, ones that intricately describe how things happen as opposed to states like: "This person is always thinking of possibilities!", "This person likes to surf!", "This person likes manga!", etc. . This may be not allowed in this section of the forum, but I think socionics is absolutely amazing for typing people, specifically the reinin dichotomies. It makes typing 1000% easier. If you haven't read about them already you really need to check them out.


I hate socionics. No luck typing myself or other people using it. The more I read the more I came up empty handed. Went with the "type me thread" deal and that was just a mess of people bumping me all over the place. I like MBTI because it was just so easy to type myself. I got typed a decade ago, forgot about it, retook the test years later, got the same result. Took the test again last year. Same result. That much hasn't changed. I can't relate to the socionics descriptions.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

monemi said:


> I hate socionics. No luck typing myself or other people using it. The more I read the more I came up empty handed. Went with the "type me thread" deal and that was just a mess of people bumping me all over the place. I like MBTI because it was just so easy to type myself. I got typed a decade ago, forgot about it, retook the test years later, got the same result. Took the test again last year. Same result. That much hasn't changed. I can't relate to the socionics descriptions.


I don't know if I'm allowed to post links to other typology websites or if that's against forum rules, but the subjective vs. objective dichotomy in socionics which is Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi is awesome. On the 16types website there's an article that does a good job, and it couldn't be more clear to me the difference and it's really clear to see in real life. In terms of MBTI descriptions, I've never read a better Ti description then Lenore, often stuff out there is wrong or not clear at all. (to me at least)


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Can Ne out-causation Ni?

The answer isn't merely a matter of words.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I agree with these descriptions for the most part, but I personally think "descriptions" often end up generic no matter how "correct" they may be. Somebody who doesn't understand WHY the descriptions make sense will misinterpret a description which is why I usually favor a more basic understanding of where the descriptions come from.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> I don't know if I'm allowed to post links to other typology websites or if that's against forum rules, but the subjective vs. objective dichotomy in socionics which is Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi is awesome. On the 16types website there's an article that does a good job, and it couldn't be more clear to me the difference and it's really clear to see in real life. In terms of MBTI descriptions, I've never read a better Ti description then Lenore, often stuff out there is wrong or not clear at all. (to me at least)


They get so specific to the point that none of them are me. It is all either you are this or you are that. I don't fit those descriptions in any hard and fast ways. I'm more flexible than any of that. I don't take issue with being given a label. But not to the point that what they're describing isn't me anymore.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

monemi said:


> Your Se definition is mostly defined in relation to Ni and focused on the drawbacks of Se. If you contrast that with your definitions for Ni and Ne, I don't think it's a fair assessment. I appreciate the attempt.


I will look this over, could this be more about my paragraph arrangements or bigger/deeper deficit of my definitions?

I appreciate honest feedback because I have trouble at times knowing if what is in my head made it to the page, as well as missed aspects of functions. What I was trying to work off from is the oppositeness and tension between Ne-Si and Se-Ni. So Ne-Si comparisons are at the bottom of Si (and I may be biased on that one but can't tell if it shows - my inferior Si).

Se shown here as a drawback? I will think about that. Especially since if I use this - Ni-doms are not typical customers for me. They seem to be a majority at PerC but not in the world of small business. One thing I wanted to emphasize is that Ni is not about innovation it is about not making mistakes - which I don't personally see as an asset - excessive perfectionism and ego protection comes from Ni - in avoidance of Se (in my experience - INTJ aquaintance).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

S8on said:


> I agree with these descriptions for the most part, but I personally think "descriptions" often end up generic no matter how "correct" they may be. Somebody who doesn't understand WHY the descriptions make sense will misinterpret a description which is why *I usually favor a more basic understanding of where the descriptions come from*.


? If you care to expound on this - I'm all ears. Thanks for participation; it helps to have a mix of people newer and older to the forum.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

default settings said:


> Can Ne out-causation Ni?
> 
> The answer isn't merely a matter of words.


Clearly my definitions need editing, - so grateful for input. My point was that Ni is collecting correlations quietly behind the scenes and Ne is playing with it in the moment. So when Ni gets a flash of insight it's reflective whereas Ne is active (as much as a perceiving function could be considered active).

Ni's causation process gets handed off to a judging function for confirmation. Ne experiences itself as a middle-man about what could be and the could-be's get fed back into observation. Ni will out-causation Ne on a long-term or reasearch project that's all documented in detail maybe?

In fact This kind of pairing down is what I want to do here. I need Ne, Se, Te, user friendly definitions because on-line personality cults seem dominated with either Ni, Fi, or Fe ? But I don't want to end up with bias, just cleaner less arbitrary vocabulary.

@_ephemereality_, look forward to your insight about Ni per your prev. post. would like get as unbiased asI can be with these definitions, and have enjoyed other posts of yours.
@_PaladinX_ good stuff below - thanks


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@Old Intern

Here are some other quotes by @monemi that I found particularly interesting about Se vs Ne:



monemi said:


> I dislike most of the explanations of Se on here. And I note that it seems to be function descriptions are written by intuitives low on Se and not understanding it. They don't value it and so they downplay it to the point that Se-dom's can't even relate and type themselves. Take a fun function and suck the life out of it and present it to people and no one's going to relate to it.
> 
> Se vs Ne
> 
> ...



When asked about the difference between seeking new sensory stimulation and seeking novelty:



monemi said:


> Seeking new sensory stimulation is deciding in the middle of a house party that you're bored and decide to convince people to play street hockey outside with you.
> Seeking novelty is loving TEDTalks.
> 
> One is opportunistic, in the moment, requires minimal planning and proactive. (Finding equipment and convincing people to join you.) The other is looking for new and interesting ideas and doesn't stimulate all of the sensors.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

monemi said:


> I hate socionics. No luck typing myself or other people using it. The more I read the more I came up empty handed. Went with the "type me thread" deal and that was just a mess of people bumping me all over the place. I like MBTI because it was just so easy to type myself. I got typed a decade ago, forgot about it, retook the test years later, got the same result. Took the test again last year. Same result. That much hasn't changed. I can't relate to the socionics descriptions.


I found the same frustration with Socionics at first. Questionnaires, in general, seem to provide more confusion than enlightenment a lot of the time...

But, then I went on my own to read descriptions of the different blocks, and it all tumbled into place. _Especially _in relation to others. I can't say when it happened, but it just made everything _so much easier _to understand. Even from an MBTI standpoint.

I'd say be patient, and check out the stickies in the socionics sub-forum, with the Sociotype.com: Socionics Applied site in hand to compare the different blocks. You'll see what I mean.

This way, you're not just dealing with 4 functions, you're dealing with 8, and you can then see how they are each expressed in a personality, and how they work with the other functions on an interrelated level.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

It would help if you could list which types use which functions. Thanks.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

@PaladinX @monemi So Se is impulsive?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Reinin dichotomies 
eleven plus Jungian T/F I/E S/N J/P
 Carefree and farsighted 
Yielding and obstinate 
Static and dynamic 
Democratic and aristocratic 
Tactical and strategic 
Constructivist and emotivist 
Positivist and negativist 
Judicious and decisive 
Merry and serious 
Process and result 
Asking and declaring 



I would like to note that Jung's dichotomies do not exactly use what is defined in MBTI as "J" or "P".

J/P testing includes a whole list of assumptions and corollaries made for "types" or dominant- secondary positions shown in yellow on my chart (a few post's above). The chart shows Jung's delineation of *direct* and *indirect* thinking - archaically described as rational and irrational and without directly ascribing things like neatness or punctuality.

Thank You @_Cellar Door_ for making mention of these categories as potentially being more useful.
I wondered if people on the forum think these things fit inside functions or are necessarily seperate
@_Grad0507_ all the types, functions, and positions of percieving judging - color coded on my chart (yellow) in the thread, but might not show in some browsers? Click to enlarge, not sure if original is good size for this or not.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll copy pasta what I wrote in my ILI description about Ni:


* *




ILIs operate with Ni base, making them naturally attuned to detecting hidden trends, meanings and patterns in the world around them. With intuition being introverted, the ILI is capable of reviewing long-term patterns from the past and making predictions into the present and future. This is because Ni operates similarly to Si, in that Ni needs to build models of the world by reviewing data over longer time periods. This differs to Ne base found in ILEs and IEEs who are attuned to possibilities in the present.

Introverted intuition could be best described as finding purpose and meaning beyond what can be immediately experienced that links to greater universal but fundamental truths of how the world functions. Someone with base Ni would for instance look at a clock but what they see and experience is not the clock itself but how the clock is representative of the concept of time. Further examination of the clock and the concept of time could lead to the search for greater and deeper universal truths such as how time controls the concepts of life and death and the apparent cyclical nature of the universe itself.

Ni being a perceptive function allows for information to be stored, reviewed and distilled over time into grander, universal concepts. It is this distillation process of information that allows the ILI to make predictions into the future, and it is this distillation that associates Ni with time. By time one ought to not confuse Ni with the concept of time itself either as a standard of measurement or how we understand change and movement in the physical world, but by how Ni detects and connects to universal patterns in the sense-world. It is therefore more accurate to say that Ni is timeless -- it exists outside the detected space-time continuum. It is thus this ethereal existence that allows the Ni base type to connect to time, and one can argue that Ni is capable of seeing through time itself due to its ability to detect universal concepts and patterns that are true regardless of context specifics. An example of such pattern is that one must first be born in order to be considered a living being. 

It is not always easy or possible for the Ni base type to express his or her conceptual understandings of the world due to Ni’s introverted nature. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, introverts have a greater difficulty in general to communicate with the external world due to the how their information metabolism operates. Communication with the external world relies on the acceptance of general principles. These general principles are different to the universal concepts Ni is attuned to, and expression of the universal requires the ILI to find matching external general and logical principles in order to convey the Ni visions properly.

Secondly, being of the IP temperament, the ILI tends to prefer observation over judgement. This is due to the nature of irrationality itself leading the ILI to mostly being attuned to perception data. Sorting through this data requires the active use of a judgement function, making it sometimes seem as if the ILI has troubles coming to conclusions or making decisions. Because Ni operates on detecting patterns over longer time-periods, it is possible for the ILI to find it difficult to sometimes come to definitive conclusions about the state of the world. The ILI may experience a sense of uncertainty in trusting his or her own judgements, feeling that unless a definite pattern has been formed, it is very difficult if nigh impossible to tell the true outcome of things. This could to the outsider look like unnecessary passive observation and as if the ILI does not fully know what it is he or she wants or desires and an extroverted judgement type might even experience the ILI as aimless or without a definite goal. To the eyes of the outsider, it is thus easy to mistake the ILI as a recluse who tends to drift through the world without any apparent purpose or larger life goal, predominantly defined by his or her inertia and inability to create action in the present moment even though the ILI deep down seeks a way to engage with the world in an active, rather than passive, manner.

However, to the ILI, such goals and purposes are impossible to attain without first feeling that he or she fully knows and understands what is to come due to the ILI always being guided by his or her Ni visions. Instead, decisions of importance tend to coalesce over time, resulting in a drive or move that is experienced as inevitable. As such the true nature of the irrational temperament can be observed as outsiders might wonder why the sudden movement or need for action that seems to come out of nowhere, being unaware that this spur of action has in fact been a long on-going, internal process for the ILI.

Thirdly, leading with introverted intuition means complete psychological rejection of the sense-world. All energy is focused inward, constantly distilling whatever vision the Ni base type happened to be interested in at any given moment. Intuition, working by detecting archetypal hidden meanings, is naturally difficult to explain or convey because it does not work with what is tangible, concrete and can be directly observed or experienced. This might lead to the impression that ILIs predominantly “live in their own heads” in that not only do they seem to lack interest in the world around them, but the esoteric nature of intuition might be entirely lost upon those who lack this natural ability to connect and detect hidden meanings and patterns in the sense-world. The end result might be that the Ni base type is experienced as unrealistic, unpragmatic or simply not seen as making much sense in conversation. It is therefore easy to see why the Ni base type requires the use of an extroverted judging function to be able to fully express and realize their visions in the present world.




In a more tl;dr manner, I think I'd describe Ni as being a mentality that allows for interpretation within the sensory. By that I mean that when engaged with sensory content, Ni seeks the symbolic meaning and wishes to interpret it according to what seems to make the most sense to the ego, which is why it is introverted over extroverted. That's pretty much the only thing I agree about when it comes to Nardi's understanding of Ni too, in that you can give an Ni type a picture, almost any kind of picture, and they will read a lot of meaning in it:










Take this picture for example. To me, what it represents is something more akin to loneliness, separation. That's what I get from it. I see a boat, but it's without a passenger. It's just drifting alone, and the camera focus gives an impression as if it's existing separate from the rest of the world, blurring everything else out of focus. The open sea seems to imply that one is separate in the world and drifting through life, walking alone. 

What's important here isn't my focus on the objects in the picture, but how I draw meaning from the objects to represent an intuitive and abstract idea like loneliness or separation. That's what Ni does. It doesn't have to be gut feelings or hunches as much as they must be impressions of the sensory but the conclusions drawn from the content is intuitive rather than sensory.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ I'm going to study your post. One thing might be that some things about Ni, I tried to address in Ne? My paragraph break downs didn't work well at all. But saying Ne and Ni both notice or have a filter for meanings that won't be observed directly through the senses just doesn't say enough?

Boat picture is a good example for discussion.
. . . . btw I think by the time you draw conclusions about a picture - you are using judgement (Fi in your case). One problem I'm having with existing definitions is that people don't make the primary distinction of direct and indirect thinking that Jung talks about. As a result, some people's struggling with type for themselves happens because they blur Ni, Fi, Si, and even Ti together. 

For example, Si could influence the same type of conclusion from your boat photo. For myself, I look at what I believe the artist is trying to do in order to come to a similar conclusion. I notice a grayish blur swirling around a brighter coloration of the boat and say - what is the significance of that? . . . A . . . B . . . or maybe . . .C. You on the other hand have passed it to Fi demonstrating why INTJ is still categorized as a "J" type even though you lead with "N".


@_ephemereality_ , your spoiler section (so far - still thinking).
To me (shallow extrovert that I am :tongue this seems to cover what you said.

"Ni is a sub-conscious filtering and collecting of correlations; it filters incidences to detect underlying principals, laws of nature, or reoccurring themes." . . . . Ni being reflective is short for looking at these corrolations that have been built up or stored over time - but this may not be clear enough.

I am still thinking about your spoiler section, however, and may ad more depth to my definition (one or two more lines?) Anyone reading definitions on my site would want to be understood or else what would be the point. I may be neglecting intent in my definition but is this more specific to Ni dom? Maybe have general definitions but then address each Dom in more depth?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Grad0507 said:


> @_PaladinX_ @_monemi_ So Se is impulsive?


That's one aspect of it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @ephemereality I'm going to study your post. One problem might be that some things about Ni I tried to address in Ne? My paragraph break downs didn't work well at all. But saying Ne and Ni both notice or have a filter for meanings that won't be observed directly through the senses just doesn't say enough?


Well, it's correct that they do but it would be more meaningful if you were able of defining the differences in what meaning is sought, in my opinion. It's not obvious to me.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I do have a tendency to either oversimplify or make my simplification a bit convoluted so bear with me.

Something like this

Se vs Si

Sensing is related to sensory interaction with the world

Se being extroverted means the senses exist outside of a person
Different sensations are there for a person to seek
If you have a sensation once, you'll have a different sensation the next time
That's why Se-users are more likely to seek stimulation and interact with the environment

Si being introverted means the person wants to "link" themselves to different sensations
Different sensations are there for a person to internalize
If you've already experienced the sensation once, you know what will happen if you try it again.
That's why Si-users are less favorable of stagnation, they've linked themselves to these certain sensations


My descriptions above are not really good in themselves, but I try to go for simple language (less connotation) and start from the fundamental definition of a function (Sensing), note the differences between introversion/extroversion of the function, not how a person processes with that function (cognitive), and finally patterns of behavior that may arise from using that function. The methodology would be more clear in reaching patterns of behavior and there'd be more of an explanation WHY a certain behavior occurs.


One thing I think not enough people understand is Extroversion vs Introversion which is why a lot of confusion occurs as well.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

S8on said:


> I do have a tendency to either oversimplify or make my simplification a bit convoluted so bear with me.
> 
> Something like this
> 
> ...


So you are saying my definition jumps to a conclusion, my outcome for Si is on target, but without giving the reader enough understanding?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality;4537634
[IMG said:


> http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/014/8/6/venice_boats_by_isacgoulart-d725tzb.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> Take this picture for example. To me, what it represents is something more akin to loneliness, separation. That's what I get from it. I see a boat, but it's without a passenger. It's just drifting alone, and the camera focus gives an impression as if it's existing separate from the rest of the world, blurring everything else out of focus. The open sea seems to imply that one is separate in the world and drifting through life, walking alone.
> 
> What's important here isn't my focus on the objects in the picture, but how I draw meaning from the objects to represent an intuitive and abstract idea like loneliness or separation. That's what Ni does. It doesn't have to be gut feelings or hunches as much as they must be impressions of the sensory but the conclusions drawn from the content is intuitive rather than sensory.


I think your observations contains a lot of Fe perspective. The spoiler information is flowery and flows with its description. Then your observations of the picture gives me this impression as well. You seem to connect your feelings to it, you notice the lack of people, the boat being separate from people, etc. It comes off subjective instead of objective. 

So I don't think it really focuses on the Ni so much as Fe. 

What I noticed first about the photo is the blue that contrasts with the gray and I wondered about the process of achieving that effect. I also noticed the unfocused edges that pointed right to the crispness of the boat, and that made me admire that skillful achievement. The one thing I didn't like was the man in the boat. If this were my picture I would have wanted to cut that out. I also feel some peace and nostalgia from the water and remember my similar experiences. 

My Ni observation stays hidden and I project my extroverted thinking and some of my Fi because I think it's appropriate for the situation. My Ni isn't going to show itself until I have to apply it to something relevant, like Photoshoping my photos or something like that.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I think your observations contains a lot of Fe perspective. The spoiler information is flowery and flows with its description. Then your observations of the picture gives me this impression as well. You seem *to connect your feelings *to it, you notice the lack of people, the boat being separate from people, etc. It comes off subjective instead of objective.
> 
> So I don't think it really focuses on the Ni so much as Fe.
> 
> ...


Fi - introversion, filtering it through one's own processes, perspectives, interests, likes, wants (individual and subjective @Kathy Kane - your interests are more skill related but this is still personaly your interests or background).
Fe - would be more like me thinking "what was the artist's intent?" - objective.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> So you are saying my definition jumps to a conclusion, my outcome for Si is on target, but without giving the reader enough understanding?


Yes, that's it, but not you specifically; most descriptions in general. From how I've seen people discuss the cognitive functions, either not enough people understand the base of what they mean or it isn't referred to enough in interpreting them.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Fi - introversion, filtering it through one's own processes, perspectives, interests, likes, wants (individual and subjective @Kathy Kane - your interests are more skill related but this is still personaly your interests or background).
> Fe - would be more like me thinking "what was the artist's intent?" - objective.


The system is objective and the people is subjective. The intent is objective because it focuses on the end goal and motive is subjective because it focuses on the personal desires involved. 

The difference between Fe and Fi would be the way it's expressed and the connection to the inner or outer world. Fe will extrovert their motives, likes, wants, and desires. Fi will introvert those and be reluctant to give them out to the external world. If the person feels sad the Fe will say it or express it in some way, and Fi will keep it in and express it through a different extroverted function, depending on what is dominate. The Fe sadness will be related to other people and the Fi sadness will be related to personal experiences.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> The *system* is objective and the people is subjective. The intent is objective because it focuses on the end goal and motive is subjective because it focuses on the personal desires involved.
> 
> The difference between Fe and Fi would be the way it's expressed and the connection to the inner or outer world. Fe will extrovert their motives, likes, wants, and desires. Fi will introvert those and be reluctant to give them out to the external world. If the person feels sad the Fe will say it or express it in some way, and Fi will keep it in and express it through a different extroverted function, depending on what is dominate. The Fe sadness will be related to other people and the Fi sadness will be related to personal experiences.


I don't understand your top sentance. I'm with you on the bottom paragraph. (because we have two differnt kinds of objective and subjective?)

Although you may be reading too much into Fi about how much a person holds in or not (this is you . . . . and maybe some others with tertiary Fi?). I don't subscribe to anything like saying introverted functions=shy or keeping things to one's self. This doesn't work partly because of EXFX's, and *Fi doms, and partly because Fi is personal and differs individually. 

Unless people show me, or enough people testify to how this is not true in their own experience, this (below) will be part of my definitions. It is consistent with Jung's observations even if it doesn't build on his original I/E premise of attitude. AND it makes sense out of MBTI type dynamics in ways type is discussed and demonstrated here at PerC.

*Introverted functions *filter everything through one’s own perspective (or doing add-ons from one’s own mental library of one kind or another) and a sense of self comes from the observation of one's own processes.

*Extroverted functions *operate more like a middle-man and a person's sense of self comes from what they see reflected in the world - in terms of results, reactions, with only the sense of being an observer added into the picture, not looking at one's own processes.

These *plus* better understanding of Jung's *direct* and *indirect* thought - to help people see a distinction from functions of judging (Fi, Ti, Fe, Te) and percieving (Se, Si, Ne ,Ni) - would eliminate a ton of confusion when people try to type themselves.

*Fi doms are not - here or in real life, necessarily quiet at all about their personal priorities or "values" = I hate using the word values because it means too many different things to readers.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I don't understand your top sentance. I'm with you on the bottom paragraph. (because we have two differnt kinds of objective and subjective?)


I see objective as the process that gets us to the conclusion. So the system that is used to meet the objective is what is important to a T. The people are arbitrary to the system. The object doesn't have feeling and emotions attached to it, so any feeling the person has needs to be separated. 

The subject would be the people in the system and how they fit into the equation. Their feelings are important, as is what they have to offer to the system. So the lack of people would be noticed to someone who is focused on the subjective information. 



> Although you may be reading too much into Fi about how much a person holds in or not (this is you . . . . and maybe some others with tertiary Fi?).


I don't think that introverted functions want to be extroverted. They function at their highest form internally. So extroversion of introverted functions is uncomfortable. Anyone with Fi as one of their top four functions wouldn't want to extrovert their internal connections. If it needs to be extroverted then it is done through a higher extroverted function. I seem to extrovert my feelings through my Te. Someone with Fi higher than me might extrovert them through their Se or Ne. 



> I don't subscribe to anything like saying introverted functions=shy or keeping things to one's self. This doesn't work partly because of EXFX's, and *Fi doms, and partly because Fi is personal and differs individually.


I don't see it as shyness. I see it as form and function. Here's a silly example: a tomato has seeds on the inside, not because it's not as confident as a strawberry, but because its seeds are designed to function internally. Tomato seeds work best internally and strawberry seeds work best externally. I think it's the same way with our functions. If we have introverted feelings then we keep that function introverted to perform at our best. 



> Unless people show me, or enough people testify to how this is not true in their own experience, this (below) will be part of my definitions. It is consistent with Jung's observations even if it doesn't build on his original I/E premise of attitude. AND it makes sense out of MBTI type dynamics in ways type is discussed and demonstrated here at PerC.
> 
> *Introverted functions *filter everything through one’s own perspective (or doing add-ons from one’s own mental library of one kind or another) and a sense of self comes from the observation of one's own processes.
> 
> ...


If that is the way you understand it then that is the best way for you to describe them.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Kathy Kane_ - I will finish reading but have to make this comment - I love discussing ideas in detail, (extroverted Ti) but I know they are my ideas or filtered through my experiences and uses. Te sees and seeks objectivity - so Te is your process but certainly not the process of the Fi dom for example.

So then an *Fe* dom is focused objectively on material *you *categorize as subjective (material or persons being non-process) - am I following you there? Do you see how I want to maybe avoid the words objective and subjective when describing intoverted and extroverted functions? Jung uses subjective to mean coming from the user of the function and objective as coming from outside. - Subject-Object relations like Freud, ones love object etc.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Kathy Kane_ - I will finish reading but have to make this comment - I love discussing ideas in detail, (extroverted Ti) but I know they are my ideas or filtered through my experiences and uses. Te sees and seeks objectivity - so Te is your process but certainly not the process of the Fi dom for example.


I would argue you use your Ne when you speak about your thinking process. You might even use some Fe as well, for whatever reason. 



> So then an Fe dom is focused objectively on material *you *categorize as subjective - am I following you there? Do you see how I want to maybe avoid the words objective and subjective when describing intoverted and extroverted functions? Jung uses subjective to mean coming from the user of the function and objective as coming from outside. - Subject-Object relations like Freud, ones love object etc.


I can see how it could be confused. I would say the outer world is social and the inner world is personal. I guess if you are viewing the people being typed as the subject his way makes sense.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Don't relate at all to your Ni definition. It doesn't really strike me as Ni. Too much focus on unconscious processes, hunches etc. That's not what Ni is. Ni is a searching for symbolic archetype content. Also too much focus on future prediction. Ni can do that, but that's not all Ni does. It's late here so I will write up what I think of Ni at a later time.


What you consider to be Ni, is actually Ti. It's not your fault you think this. Mbti is responsible for your confusion, since you typed yourself intj and then assumed Ni was your lead function. But you use subjective logic, Ti.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> *I would argue you use your Ne when you speak about your thinking process. You might even use some Fe as well, for whatever reason.
> *
> I can see how it could be confused. I would say the outer world is social and the inner world is personal. I guess if you are viewing the people being typed as the subject his way makes sense.


I'm sure you are right on the bold part . . . but Ne is perception. In Jungs definition of perception - this is indirect thinking, intake, the Ne truck just keeps dumping possibilities on my brain, but it would be intake without output because that is the difference between judging functions and percieving ones. Forming something into a theory, or in the case of Ni with the photo above, the perception is taken in - what is done with it goes to a judging function.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

onion said:


> What you consider to be Ni, is actually Ti. It's not your fault you think this. Mbti is responsible for your confusion, since you typed yourself intj and then assumed Ni was your lead function. But you use subjective logic, Ti.


But Ni would have no vebalization of it's own - perception - intake, a sense of how something works, making connections or associations in one's mind - a kind of knowing. I've often said Ti is just Ni that makes noise in my head - and this lines up with how ENTJ's seem to experience Ni, a sense without words to it. So I admit this is a murky confusing area.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> But Ni would have no vebalization of it's own - perception - intake, a sense of how something works, making connections or associations in one's mind - a kind of knowing. I've often said Ti is just Ni that makes noise in my head - and this lines up with how ENTJ's seem to experience Ni, a sense without words to it. So I admit this is a murky confusing area.


I wasn't saying you don't understand Ni. You seem to have a good grasp of the functions. I was saying @ephemereality misinterprets what it is. He's typed himself INTp. (Ni, Te,) but after having a discussion with him, I was shown nothing but Ti arguments, and no objectivity whatsoever. Reading his understanding of Ni here, it's clearer than ever he's really a Ti user. He doesn't understand Ni at all. He'll try to tell you you're wrong in your understanding of Ni now in a minute, just watch. 

The mbti people don't understand Ni either, and the confusion they have caused is really unfortunate. It makes me not want to come here any more to be honest. All the misinterpreting that goes on, and people talking with authority about things they don't understand is just a joke.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

onion said:


> I wasn't saying you don't understand Ni. You seem to have a good grasp of the functions. I was saying @_ephemereality_ misinterprets what it is. He's typed himself INTp. (Ni, Te,) but after having a discussion with him, I was shown nothing but Ti arguments, and no objectivity whatsoever. Reading his understanding of Ni here, it's clearer than ever he's really a Ti user. He doesn't understand Ni at all. He'll try to tell you you're wrong in your understanding of Ni now in a minute, just watch.
> 
> The mbti people don't understand Ni either, and the confusion they have caused is really unfortunate. It makes me not want to come here any more to be honest. All the misinterpreting that goes on, and people talking with authority about things they don't understand is just a joke.


But he was talking about a painting, as an illustration or case study of Ni experience - this isn't expected to be backed up with Te. Taking us into an experience because it's topical may not be the same as my processing that is always going on (Ti internal dialog) and Ti desire to get things worded into wider application, broad strokes that I can re-use.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

onion said:


> I wasn't saying you don't understand Ni. You seem to have a good grasp of the functions. I was saying @ephemereality misinterprets what it is. He's typed himself INTp. (Ni, Te,) but after having a discussion with him, I was shown nothing but Ti arguments, and no objectivity whatsoever. Reading his understanding of Ni here, it's clearer than ever he's really a Ti user. He doesn't understand Ni at all. He'll try to tell you you're wrong in your understanding of Ni now in a minute, just watch.
> 
> The mbti people don't understand Ni either, and the confusion they have caused is really unfortunate. It makes me not want to come here any more to be honest. All the misinterpreting that goes on, and people talking with authority about things they don't understand is just a joke.


I think you have Fe and Ti mixed up. Ti is objective, it's just introverted objectivity. The subjectivity seen is the Fe function, which is a subjective process.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I think you have Fe and Ti mixed up. Ti is objective, it's just introverted objectivity. The subjectivity seen is the Fe function, which is a subjective process.


Fe is not subjective. Fe users are sometimes insecure, they need others to validate them because they don't see their own inner workings the way you do. They look for who they are outside; but this looking outside is what makes it objective as a function.

You are confusing a dictionary or common use definition that we associate objectiveness with being un- emotional. ? Functions are not emotions. Feeler processes are still mental processes and emotion is a full body or physiological experience. They can (but don't have to ) correlate and they are not one in the same.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

After reading the current discussion, I must say that I find hilarious that some people can confuse a perceiving function with two different judging functions. I have read that long Ni definition and as a Ni dom I think that it explains many things about how Ni works as a base function, so I really wonder why someone could confuse that with Fe or Ti.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

People were distracted by the painting, maybe didn't read the spoiler? I thought the spoiler said what I was trying to say - but I have to figure out how to consolidate or steal just a smaller chunk of it.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Fe is not subjective. Fe users are sometimes insecure, they need others to validate them because they don't see their own inner workings the way you do. They look for who they are outside; but this looking outside is what makes it objective as a function.
> 
> You are confusing a dictionary or common use definition that we associate objectiveness with being un- emotional. ? Functions are not emotions. Feeler processes are still mental processes and emotion is a full body or physiological experience. They can (but don't have to ) correlate and they are not one in the same.


I'm using it in a non-clinical way. I'm not conducting a study on anyone so I wouldn't refer to them as the subject. Like I said earlier, Fe and Fi won't focus on the system but on the people and how it effects them. I found it apparent in the first description of the picture and in the Ni description. I saw no indication of the function or system of Ni.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> People were distracted by the painting, maybe didn't read the spoiler? I thought the spoiler said what I was trying to say - but I have to figure out how to consolidate or steal just a smaller chunk of it.


Well, I think that it can be a bit difficult to sum up that definition without losing information in the process, and trying to do that about a function that you don't value adds more problems because you can't see how it really works as you can have a negative idea about it. Still I think that you can try to point the main ideas, and then leave it to be checked by Ni types for finding out if the definition can be improved.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> People were distracted by the painting, maybe didn't read the spoiler? I thought the spoiler said what I was trying to say - but I have to figure out how to consolidate or steal just a smaller chunk of it.


I don't think Ni can extrovert itself in that way. The description is either from the Te or Fe functions or possibly by someone without Ni as the dom. What you see isn't Ni, but an interpretation of it.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm using it in a non-clinical way. I'm not conducting a study on anyone so I wouldn't refer to them as the subject. Like I said earlier, Fe and Fi won't focus on the system but on the people and how it effects them. I found it apparent in the first description of the picture and in the Ni description. I saw no indication of the function or system of Ni.


You were looking for Te in the Ni description? or you expect (experience) Ni to be something else?
I'm going to have to take off for a while but look forward to afternoon when I can come back.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> But he was talking about a painting, as an illustration or case study of Ni experience - this isn't expected to be backed up with Te. Taking us into an experience because it's topical may not be the same as my processing that is always going on (Ti internal dialog) and Ti desire to get things worded into wider application, broad strokes that I can re-use.


I was talking about his post on the first page of this thread. I can't copy and paste on this iPad. I think it's the 4th post down. He was refuting your take on Ni. He said that's not how he understands Ni and then explained his own interpretation. He's not the only one who doesn't know what Ni is either. Mbti "experts" are under the same illusion. That's why in mbti they call intj's Ni doms. All anyone has to do is read the profile of an Intj to know Ni is not the lead function.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I don't think Ni can extrovert itself in that way. The description is either from the Te or Fe functions or possibly by someone without Ni as the dom. What you see isn't Ni, but an interpretation of it.


Hm, if you don't think that the description describes Ni, could you try to define it with your own words? because I think that you're mixing up perceiving and judging functions, but I would like to check that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> What you consider to be Ni, is actually Ti. It's not your fault you think this. Mbti is responsible for your confusion, since you typed yourself intj and then assumed Ni was your lead function. But you use subjective logic, Ti.


That's quite gutsy for you to claim that and you are absolutely incorrect in your assumptions. I typed INTP first, then INFP until I settled on INTJ, which I did not because of MBTI but because of _socionics_. It was socionics that helped me figure out my actual cognitive type, not the MBTI. So I typed ILI in socionics first, then the MBTI. I actually kept INTP for a while as a type label in the MBTI since that's usually what I score, but I realized that didn't work because sometimes people would ask me about what inferior Fe is like and I am not capable of answering that question first hand. It felt dishonest. 

Go ahead and think I'm a Ti dom, but I think that more than anything shows your own inability to understand type and functions rather than mine.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I think you have Fe and Ti mixed up. Ti is objective, it's just introverted objectivity. The subjectivity seen is the Fe function, which is a subjective process.


I should have been more precise. What I should have said was that he argued in a Ti style, using no objective logic. He took his own thinking to be truth and ignored objective facts that proved his thoughts and conclusions wrong. He tried to make examples of how he uses Te but they were very weak and it was clear to me that he didn't know what he was talking about.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> You were looking for Te in the Ni description? or you expect (experience) Ni to be something else?
> I'm going to have to take off for a while but look forward to afternoon when I can come back.


No. I read it to see how someone interprets it. All I saw was an Fe description of Ni. I guess I expected Te from an INTJ. The flowery language and flow is not the way I would've explained it at all. Though, other Fe people probably found it inspiring. I just didn't relate to the way it was described because of the delivery.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> That's quite gutsy for you to claim that and you are absolutely incorrect in your assumptions. I typed INTP first, then INFP until I settled on INTJ, which I did not because of MBTI but because of _socionics_. It was socionics that helped me figure out my actual cognitive type, not the MBTI. So I typed ILI in socionics first, then the MBTI. I actually kept INTP for a while as a type label in the MBTI since that's usually what I score, but I realized that didn't work because sometimes people would ask me about what inferior Fe is like and I am not capable of answering that question first hand. It felt dishonest.
> 
> 
> Go ahead and think I'm a Ti dom, but I think that more than anything shows your own inability to understand type and functions rather than mine.


Oh right, so you used Socionics to type yourself as an intp? Then infp? Then intj? Why not ILI, IEI, and LII then? Why would you use Socionics to figure out your mbti type? Right yeah. You might have everyone else fooled, but you don't fool me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> Oh right, so you used Socionics to type yourself as an intp? Then infp? Then intj? Why not ILI, IEI, and LII then? Why would you use Socionics to figure out your mbti type? Right yeah. You might have everyone else fooled, but you don't fool me.


LOL. Your paranoia is quite hilarious. If you had actually understood anything I wrote in the MBTI vs socionics thread, you'd know that I don't see the systems as separate because I see them as two representations of the Jungian types. I am not as concerned about the labels as I am about understanding my Jungian cognition which is decidedly NiT, now that I understand it better. This translates into INTJ and ILI respectively. 

But go ahead, your delusion is quite funny and you don't even attempt to hide your agenda from the public.
@Kathy Kane if you actually think I am an Fe type I beg you to define what Fe is and how it actually looks like in someone's cognition, because I'm as far away from an Fe type you'd ever come. I don't Fe. @Old Intern is right pointing out that I probably expressed myself more in terms of NiFi there, but the point isn't to get hung up on how I defined my impression but the process which led me to experience it. That's Ni or perception. Perception observes and experiences. In order to convey my impression I need to define it, even loosely, or I can sit here and hope to transfer it through mind power alone which won't happen.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Hm, if you don't think that the description describes Ni, could you try to define it with your own words? because I think that you're mixing up perceiving and judging functions, but I would like to check that.


Ni is how information is gathered and sifted into categories. As an intuitive the sensory details are discarded, for the material that has relevance to a conclusion or decision. The categorization is done in an efficient manner in order to form the end results without distraction. So instead of having all the like colors or like objects, it would have everything related in patterns, symbols, or connectivity. The inner workings are more important than the details. 

That would be my summation of Ni.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> @Kathy Kane if you actually think I am an Fe type I beg you to define what Fe is and how it actually looks like in someone's cognition, because I'm as far away from an Fe type you'd ever come. I don't Fe.


I explained it here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html#post4537925


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Ni is how information is gathered and sifted into categories. As an intuitive the sensory details are discarded, for the material that has relevance to a conclusion or decision. The categorization is done in an efficient manner in order to form the end results without distraction. So instead of having all the like colors or like objects, it would have everything related in patterns, symbols, or connectivity. The inner workings are more important than the details.
> 
> That would be my summation of Ni.


This sounds more like dominant Thinking than it does dominant perception, because you are describing the judgement of data here, which becomes obvious because you mention categories, make things fit etc. You are more interested in seeing logical connections than focusing on the experience of something. That's why you mention that it relates to everything in order to create this connectivity. Perception doesn't work like that, especially not in a conscious sense. It does not seek or create connections. That's the realm of judgement. Also, this focus on the inner workings seems to imply that you favor Ti over Te.

I think you should consider whether you are a Ti dom. I would recommend looking into ISTP first as a likely option. While I'm at it, I would recommend to look into enneatype 1 as a core type.



Kathy Kane said:


> I explained it here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html#post4537925


You didn't explain how Fe works in someone's cognition. You just explains how you think it looks like when expressed, which isn't accurate either.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Ni is how information is gathered and sifted into categories. As an intuitive the sensory details are discarded, for the material that has relevance to a conclusion or decision. The categorization is done in an efficient manner in order to form the end results without distraction. So instead of having all the like colors or like objects, it would have everything related in patterns, symbols, or connectivity. The inner workings are more important than the details.
> 
> That would be my summation of Ni.


Well, this ain't Ni. You're describing some judging function, as all the process that you mention deals with conclusions, and Ni doesn't make conclusions because it perceives archetypal content. So I can deduce that you're confusing Ni with something else that isn't a perceiving function.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> LOL. Your paranoia is quite hilarious. If you had actually understood anything I wrote in the MBTI vs socionics thread, you'd know that I don't see the systems as separate because I see them as two representations of the Jungian types. I am not as concerned about the labels as I am about understanding my Jungian cognition which is decidedly NiT, now that I understand it better. This translates into INTJ and ILI respectively.
> 
> But go ahead, your delusion is quite funny and you don't even attempt to hide your agenda from the public.
> @Kathy Kane if you actually think I am an Fe type I beg you to define what Fe is and how it actually looks like in someone's cognition, because I'm as far away from an Fe type you'd ever come. I don't Fe. @Old Intern is right pointing out that I probably expressed myself more in terms of NiFi there, but the point isn't to get hung up on how I defined my impression but the process which led me to experience it. That's Ni or perception. Perception observes and experiences. In order to convey my impression I need to define it, even loosely, or I can sit here and hope to transfer it through mind power alone which won't happen.


Attacking me instead of my argument is what's known as ad hominem. It's not big and it's not clever. 

And by the way, ILI's have inferior Fe also, so you're contradicting yourself, by saying you don't have inferior Fe, and at the same time claiming you are ILI. 

And tell me, what exactly is my agenda? My only agenda is people getting to the truth. The truth is important to me. When I see people acting like they are an authority on a subject, and I know they are not, I call them out on it. It really is that simple.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Kathy Kane You may change your mind about some things- after you have been here longer. MBTI was originally used for job placement – built on making use of Jung’s observations. You could Google the history of MBTI if interested. BTW, Cognition essentially means – knowing, or a form of knowing. And I’m not trying to preach one system or another. All definitions are flawed. We see patterns and evidence for clusters of behavior or else a site like PerC wouldn’t exist. If the definitions weren’t seriously flawed, also, a site like PerC wouldn’t exist.

Freud, Jung, even though historically dated; they were professionals in psychology (unlike MBTI builders), and contemporaries of each other. Object relations, Subject/Object - if you don't understand what this means - we don't have a common vocabulary. We can’t make up our own meanings of words and talk to anybody.

Your definition of Fe – is only readable to you, but maybe you are looking at task oriented vs. relationship oriented? Your Ni description makes sense to me but I wonder still what can be used as universal for Ni.

BTW, ( @ephemereality , @onion , @Blue Flare - and anyone else in the Ni-Ti debate) I won’t spend time here defending Ti because I did that already on somebody else’s thread. But I see why people have a struggle sometimes with typing themselves and others when it comes between INTJ and INTP. This is why I think it is helpful to draw a clear line between perceiving and judging functions.
@Kathy Kane , 
*This brings me back to where we talked about what people introvert or extrovert*. It was interesting for me to think about how I do prefer discussions that engage my Ne. But someone who just test drove a car and is in the market for one, might start noticing and talking about a particular model on the road, this doesn’t make them Se dom. My point is that what we introvert and extrovert (as a matter of expression) is highly situational and doesn’t fit rigid analysis. It only confuses people when used as typing criteria. And it is even more complex on-line when people are trying to describe stuff inside their own heads.

Nevertheless, etiquette and sociability being high on an Fi “values” list doesn’t come close to anything like Fe. Fe’s pushing their tastes and interests onto other people might be an Fi interpretation of Fe, but doesn’t align at all with what Fe means to Fe’s. You have to understand Object/Subject (clinical-ish) definitions to get this.

Another example - introverted Sensation won’t become Se – ever. It’s like recycling of plastics; you have to keep types of stuff separate, because it will never return to its original state once it gets mixed together (subjectivity, introverted function).

The definition of consciousness from Freud and Jung, the ego as the observing self has to be understood to make any useful sense of this. I’m trying to boil this down with definitions that don’t use clinical, or socially conditioned, or private word meanings; so I’m grateful for responses and don’t intend to discourage anyone from speaking their mind.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> The system is objective and the people is subjective. The intent is objective because it focuses on the end goal and motive is subjective because it focuses on the personal desires involved.
> 
> The difference between Fe and Fi would be the way it's expressed and the connection to the inner or outer world. *Fe will extrovert their motives, likes, wants, and desires. Fi will introvert those and be reluctant to give them out to the external world.* If the person feels sad the Fe will say it or express it in some way, and Fi will keep it in and express it through a different extroverted function, depending on what is dominate. The Fe sadness will be related to other people and the Fi sadness will be related to personal experiences.


No, this misses the point, focusing on the person's expression, a social idea, and limited view or common use definition of introversion and extroversion.

Fe is extroverted according to my above definitions about I/E functions - and according to a less superficial understanding of what extroversion is (this can be Googled too). Extroversion is an outward focus, (definition of consciousness from Freud,Jung, and general psychology) not simply outward expression. An extrovert is not a louder introvert.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ indulge me to answer this? Try not to focus on functions for a minute.

Imagine you just got some bad news off your voice mail. It’s “after hours” enough that you won’t be able to get anyone to answer your return call. They didn’t give enough detail for you to know exactly what is going on. Nobody died or anything but it is something that could negatively impact your life. You have a long ride home, alone. Do you:


Tell yourself there is no point in getting worked up about anything without knowing the facts. Start thinking about what you have “left on your plate” for that evening. You think about the next action on the phone call, and the context of what you know about your responsibilities or intentions for the next day. You start to think about what happened but you brush it aside as wasted energy because you don’t know enough about it yet; you have to get to the truth first.
You know you don’t have enough information but still, you can’t help but think about how this new development has a domino effect on your own plans or other components of the project in question. You have thoughts about what was ”the weak link in the chain”, or what might have happened. Or you focus on a baseline of what you need to make happen. You may even rehearse what you will propose, assign, or do, in order to get things back on track. You might think of damage control. Anyway, you are glad to have some time to yourself to process things. You want to be ready to mentally switch gears before you get home.
If you have authority, you might start thinking about who needs to get fired or chewed out. But anyway, you can’t help but notice your own internal reactions, a sinking feeling, or anger, and then you start to worry. You worry about this being your fault. You think about how somebody may think it’s your fault even if it might not be. You think about what you should have done or what someone else should have been doing.
Your first inclination is that you are eager to contact a trusted friend you can sort through this with.

also, I'm re-reading your spoiler description.
. . . . . well, I re-read it. Still don't see a feelie componet others saw, but I might be dense.
Your definition (spoiler) sounds like what I said in the first place (top) but you just gave me a longer, wordier walk through of it?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @ephemereality indulge me to answer this? Try not to focus on functions for a minute.
> 
> Imagine you just got some bad news off your voice mail. It’s “after hours” enough that you won’t be able to get anyone to answer your return call. They didn’t give enough detail for you to know exactly what is going on. Nobody died or anything but it is something that could negatively impact your life. You have a long ride home, alone. Do you:
> 
> ...


Hm, I am not sure I can honestly answer your scenario because you made it intentionally vague. What kind of bad news? What aspect of my life does it concern? How will it potentially impact my life negatively? What person called me? What is our relationship to each other? What kind of message did they leave? Did it provide all information I need to know how to deal with the situation? 

Essentially, I can't answer your question without knowing the content of that phone call. All of your options essentially seem very xNTP to me though, and even if I knew the content of that phone call I am not sure I could pick any of those three options. 

Let's take more of a real life example because it's easier for me to describe my thinking process. My grandmother died shortly after Christmas. We were not particularly close or anything, but there are legal and practical issues concerning her death I need to deal with being the only living heir left to one of her daughters (my mother). 

The way I thought about this was more in the lines of how her death would impact my life as a whole, especially concerning the funeral. Should I stay or should I go? There are practical issues concerning the funeral, one of them being that my grandmother lived in another city so I need to book tickets to go where the funeral is held. Any form of travel is a question mark for me because of my cats. In this case, I thought I can solve it by leaving during the day and return in the evening, alternatively the morning after. I would stay with my other grandmother who lives in that town too. However, it turned out that she got sick and then we had an argument and I felt I absolutely did not want to see her right now. I'm still kind of angry at her when I think about it. So I decided I won't go. Saves me time, money and likely a lot of annoyance going to a religious ceremonial I am not overly fond of. There are also other issues concerning my family in that I'm trans and I haven't met some of them since coming out. I feel like I want to avoid a lot of social situations, especially large ones for that reason, because I feel that people often just make it awkward saying the wrong name etc and I end up being hurt. I don't trust people. It's just easier for me to deal with a few of them or one on one instead of the entire family on my mother's side. 

I did not see this scenario and outcome as desirable so I decided not to go, simply.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ Did you deal with the legal stuff?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @_ephemereality_ Did you deal with the legal stuff?


Luckily I just need to sign some papers my aunt will send me in the mail.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I'm sure you are right on the bold part . . . but Ne is perception. In Jungs definition of perception - this is indirect thinking, intake, the Ne truck just keeps dumping possibilities on my brain, but it would be intake without output because that is the difference between judging functions and percieving ones. Forming something into a theory, or in the case of Ni with the photo above, the perception is taken in - what is done with it goes to a judging function.


For me the Ni takes in *patterns* not *possibilities*, is that a good way to separate Ni from Ne? So Ni takes in a complete set of actions and reactions (possibly in story form as a series of events, like in the 'you reap what you sow' kind of idea) or a complete metaphor (which is a picture together with its interpretation, everything which it contains as meaning is completely there in the one metaphor)...or other inputs which I can't think of right now but there might be others...so, stories with meaning, metaphors, things which one can turn around and look at internally from many angles...items to explore in such a way...a stream of these items I suppose arriving and being tempting to explore internally and internalise as part of my internal picture of the universe...

then Te kicks in and selects which ones are worthy of further exploration and starts to say 'this doesn't match my view of reality so bin it or alter it in such a way...', or sometimes Fi gets there first and says 'I like that one, don't bin it, it's pretty...' etc etc...I think we all seem to know what Fi and Te do after that quite well.

The boat photo...it is meaningless to me...I looked at it and thought...someone is trying to evoke loneliness...and I felt patronised by it or patronising because I saw through it...I had a vague curiosity as to which country it might have been taken in because of the style of boat, but then I rejected that line of enquiry as being more difficult to find out than the amount of curiosity I felt. I was a bit annoyed by the colour alterations which seemed false to me...I didn't notice the presence or absence of people except to think that the boat was empty and being stored for the night. If anything I thought that it would fill with water if it should rain, but then I thought the owner would know that and maybe it doesn't rain there much...so most of my reactions are Te and Fi by and large rejecting the picture as not being useful or carrying a subtle enough meaning _to be worth investing in_...which is what @S8on said, sort of, although they said it about Si and not Ni, but maybe the analogy is worth stretching to fit - that *Ni is looking to make links between me and the idea behind the image* as presented - and this image of the boat isn't worth me making the effort to link myself with it...


----------



## juilorain (Oct 29, 2013)

I have my own relationships for explaining the perception functions. I wanted to start my own thread, but I found this. I think this would clarify some misunderstandings about Ni.

Just gonna say I don't use Ni (that's a lie; everyone does, but I prefer to look at it as a last-resort-option. I can only imagine how I act under situations of severe stress where I do use it as a shadow function and then relate it to the more familiar Si) However, I will focus just on the first four preferred functions associated with our types.

Everyone has an introverted and extroverted perception function. Both are required for a healthy person. Both perception functions are opposite on the N/S dichotomies and both are opposed on the I/E attitude. I have dom Ne and inferior Si.

I hate using Si as it is counter to Ne's prodigiousness and quite frankly, isn't me. If I start shutting up, quietly conforming to every little detail, and washing people's clothes without asking, then something is wrong. The INTJ is Ni dom and Se inferior; if the INTJ started riding all the roller coasters, riding sexy cars the 50 mph above the speed limit down a freeway, while being loud and obnoxious would totally be strange. ESFPs are Se dom, Ni inf (and them planning the future of humanity would mean the world would end), and ISFJs are Si dom and Ne inferior (so if one comes up with new theories in theoretical physics that rewrites _everything _and finds all new laws would be amazing and seems to defy all laws of probability). Why am I explaining this? They each exhibit the characteristic behaviors of the functions. But Jungian theory does not take into account behavioralism; in fact, the cognitive functions are, by definition, _inside_ our psyche.

We all see, feel, hear, think, abstract out, and feel. However, our functions and their relative placement determines what our brains interpret this information that is constantly streaming through. Se and Ne share the same attitude but are split on the dichotomies. Both are externally focused, both Se and Ne crave unique experiences, and both seek novelty. But Se creates concrete sensory information from these experiences, while Ne extract ideational and abstract conclusions. We do nothing with this unfiltered information (which our minds/consciousness decided which was important) and gives it to Fi or Ti to filter through, determining what is even more relevant/useful to the present situation. For Fi and Ti doms, they inwardly judge first internally then _open up _by using Se or Ne to take in more raw info to make more judgements.

Ni and Si are both introverted, meaning Ni doms and Si doms constantly take in information and arrange it in templates from remembered sensory experiences(Si) or patterns which project it into the future(Ni) which then gives guidance to Fe and Te that determines if said pattern was useful/explains why things happen. If not, Ni and Si rearrange the information into a new timeline/template. Fe/Te doms will first make the judgement and compare it to a template or pattern projected into the future, but always keeping efficiency/social situations above templates and future goals and will use them to their advantage.

For those who are not perception dominants, the perception functions are the middle two functions which help the Fe/Fi/Ti/Te user to understand(Fi+Ti) or implement (Te+Fe)

With Ne/Si and Ni/Se combined, the person can combine both their strengths and weaknesses equally, but at the same time, if the person is so good at collecting and arranging information, how with the person use it? That's why you can't have a Ne-Si-Te-Fi person. It makes no sense; the person would not know how to make a good decision becuase they would spend so much time taking information in, none of it will be left for Te to make something useful. All the abstract info that Ne collects from the external world would be arranged in nice, unchanging, and sensory templates?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

juilorain said:


> I have my own relationships for explaining the perception functions. I wanted to start my own thread, but I found this. I think this would clarify some misunderstandings about Ni.
> 
> Just gonna say I don't use Ni (that's a lie; everyone does, but I prefer to look at it as a last-resort-option. I can only imagine how I act under situations of severe stress where I do use it as a shadow function and then relate it to the more familiar Si) However, I will focus just on the first four preferred functions associated with our types.
> 
> ...


Why must the inferior experience always be a bad thing? You know, I have my moments where I'd love to drive a sexy car at a high speed down the freeway, and I've definitely had actual RL moments of riding rollercoasters where I get so caught up in the experience I just crave more novelty that way. It's definitely not all bad. I flinch more when someone tells me "touch this", "taste that", or "you're overthinking it, it's just a vase". 



> With Ne/Si and Ni/Se combined, the person can combine both their strengths and weaknesses equally, but at the same time, if the person is so good at collecting and arranging information, how with the person use it? That's why you can't have a Ne-Si-Te-Fi person. It makes no sense; the person would not know how to make a good decision becuase they would spend so much time taking information in, none of it will be left for Te to make something useful. All the abstract info that Ne collects from the external world would be arranged in nice, unchanging, and sensory templates?


Why must function order dictate actual order of operation? I think that's a simplistic way of viewing it. Function order merely predicts preference or value of each function within the psyche, which is not the same as order of operation. The actual order of operation for say, an INTJ would be taking in info from unconscious Se so conscious Ni can interpret, and somewhat conscious and unconscious Te-Fi can make sense of the interpretation. The only order of operation that defines the perception dominant as such is perception > judgement, but that's it. Perception doms just focus more on information than they do making sense of information.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> For me the Ni takes in *patterns* not *possibilities*, is that a good way to separate Ni from Ne? So Ni takes in a complete set of actions and reactions (possibly in story form as a series of events, like in the 'you reap what you sow' kind of idea) or a complete metaphor (which is a picture together with its interpretation, everything which it contains as meaning is completely there in the one metaphor)...or other inputs which I can't think of right now but there might be others...so, stories with meaning, metaphors, things which one can turn around and look at internally from many angles...items to explore in such a way...a stream of these items I suppose arriving and being tempting to explore internally and internalise as part of my internal picture of the universe...
> 
> then Te kicks in and selects which ones are worthy of further exploration and starts to say 'this doesn't match my view of reality so bin it or alter it in such a way...', or sometimes Fi gets there first and says 'I like that one, don't bin it, it's pretty...' etc etc...I think we all seem to know what Fi and Te do after that quite well.
> 
> The boat photo...it is meaningless to me...I looked at it and thought...someone is trying to evoke loneliness...and I felt patronised by it or patronising because I saw through it...I had a vague curiosity as to which country it might have been taken in because of the style of boat, but then I rejected that line of enquiry as being more difficult to find out than the amount of curiosity I felt. I was a bit annoyed by the colour alterations which seemed false to me...I didn't notice the presence or absence of people except to think that the boat was empty and being stored for the night. If anything I thought that it would fill with water if it should rain, but then I thought the owner would know that and maybe it doesn't rain there much...so most of my reactions are Te and Fi by and large rejecting the picture as not being useful or carrying a subtle enough meaning _to be worth investing in_...which is what @_S8on_ said, sort of, although they said it about Si and not Ni, but maybe the analogy is worth stretching to fit - that *Ni is looking to make links between me and the idea behind the image* as presented - and this image of the boat isn't worth me making the effort to link myself with it...


Thank you @_Dabbling_ Excellent post for this topic and it illustrates how a clear understanding of I/E would help people type themselves more easily. Yes NI is stored in the person, and NE is explored outside the person. Thus the difference between patterns or applying collected correlations (Ni) vs. seeing “spin offs or connections at the moment of contact” (Ne)

This thread demonstrates how personal Fi is too? Fi makes* evaluations*, but those evaluations are sooo individual and unique (different INTJ posts /evaluations in the picture exercise).

Btw, I notice patterns or tendencies - but the filing system is different and less efficient for looking backward. My Ne notices stuff that Ti will collate, but it gets noticed in the moment (makes noise in my head with Ti). This could go into a literal notebook of ideas, but usually acts more like a flag or mental post-it note. I’m guessing Ni is like raw data in a camera (without being sensory) the data won’t be accessed until a *judging function* triggers it - experienced as pattern recognition, or flashes of insight. 

The Introverted function uses what is available and verifiable inside the organism (whatever has been stored, prioritized, processed, or filed).

The extroverted function uses what is available and verifiable from environment (extroverted functioning).

*Perceiving functions are filters for intake of raw data *(Se, Ne, Ni, Si)
*Judging functions define the person's structuring criteria *(Te, Fe, Fi, Ti)

roud: Primary and secondary functions could therefore be defined as raw data, and structure, or vice versa, (first and secondary). Tertiary will then be a secondary structure (fall back plan, limiting conditions, or controlling parameters) or will be a secondary filter (checking/balancing of raw data)

@_juilorain_ - love your Si sentiments, sounds like me. I think of the inferior function as what might get my left-over psychic ram. I envy Se at times, just can't quite keep myself there.
@ephemereality, Not sure if anyone else is using my structural theory as presented here (not order of operation) - structuring looks self evident to me.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> [/COLOR]The Introverted function uses what is available and verifiable inside the organism (whatever has been stored, prioritized, processed, or filed).
> 
> The extroverted function uses what is available and verifiable from environment (extroverted functioning).


Thanks @Old Intern . This thread is helping me too. I would never have thought of myself as a dreamer disconnected from the real world, which is sometimes the impression I am left with when I read about intuition and introversion. But compared to Ne I am beginning to see how an Ne user might get that impression of Ni.

I tried really hard yesterday to think of some concrete examples of the kinds of metaphors I DO love and internalise, but I found it way more difficult than I anticipated to think of the perfect one... Which is probably that perfectionist Te again...I don't want to lead you up the garden path...but here are some examples.

1) a big diamond on a gold ring...as you might see in an expensive jewellery shop advert, on a plain white background. Symbolising eternal love and the promise of engagement, the looking forward to the wedding, the wider family, the big occasion, different home, maybe babies and all the future changes which might happen, plus all the past which has led to this moment, maybe the first meeting, the nerves, the romance, romantic stories I have read, the romantic place such as Paris where this ring might be offered and accepted, the song diamonds are forever...etc etc. All conjured up and held in my brain and accessed and stored under the image of a rich engagement ring. I mean, Ni somehow entices me with the image of the ring seen in an advert somewhere! and I have taken it in and added meaning and richness and links to it somehow but not consciously. It's just an image I originally liked - and thinking about it now I'm using Te to describe it because of this post, but I liked it for the Fi originally...something beautiful with myriad meanings which are all beautiful as well. But thinking about it now, I cannot remember any time when I consciously thought systematically in my head about the ring and its meanings. Jumping from one evocative idea to another about it is more like it, until today I find it as a fairly fully formed peg on which hang numerous different strands...

2) a painting I have where water falls from the top like silver rain onto a pair of outstretched hands, as though the hands will catch the rain, maybe to drink it or wash with or just to enjoy the falling feeling of the water on the hands. Some water is falling down below out of the hands in the picture and these drops are golden in colour. There is some suggestion that these golden drops are now falling into the hands or onto the heads of many people painted at the bottom of the picture, though these further people are merely suggested by the artist. Again for me and perhaps more logically Te to me, this encapsulates a lot of what I think about what works in practice in dealing with people, though it's difficult for me to spell it out in words for you...the idea that we receive something good (silver) and use it or enjoy it but also improve it (gold) as we hand it on to others...the continuous flow from 'above' etc etc. Again it is stored as a picture which encompasses the whole idea. The sequential Te I have to use to explain it here masks the holistic wholeness with which I hold this kind of thing as a unit.

Where I am stuck at the moment is I don't actually understand what you mean here:



Old Intern said:


> For example here I notice patterns or tendencies - but the filing system is different and less efficient for looking backward. *My Ne notices stuff that Ti will collate, but it gets noticed in the moment (makes noise in my head with Ti)*. This could go into a literal notebook of ideas, but usually acts more like a flag or mental post-it note. I’m guessing Ni is like raw data in a camera (without being sensory) the data won’t be accessed until a *judging function* triggers it - experienced as pattern recognition, or flashes of insight




Could you explain the bit I have put in bold please? I'm guessing it is like my Se but more to do with abstract ideas? Sometimes especially when I'm a bit tired and starting to relax all I want is to go out to a cafe and drink tea and eat a slice of cake...what feels like a need for new enjoyable sensory input. Or go to a restaurant, or cinema, or bowling or ice skating or... I'm an introvert but at those times I definitely want to go places and experience new things. Though usually not interacting with new people, more just stereotyped interactions like the one you'd have with the waitress. When I try to imagine THAT but in the realm of the constant excitement of new ideas I start to get the mental heebie jeebies, it would be overload for me I think. It's like maybe reading, I read loads of books at once and I think it is this point exactly, I can only take in a small amount to process on any one topic at once, so I read a few pages but then I stop and change to another book...so I'm reading many topics in a day but only small amounts of each. Also, I don't tend to go for fiction and I find thrillers quite mentally tiring, but perhaps Ne adores that constant mental stimulation...

Fascinating, thanks again @Old Intern .


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Dabbling_, When you mentioned pattern recognition it made me think of how a person has to have something stored up to be making comparisons with. Well we all (humans) do that to some extent but the difference is in the way we file, priorities, and access everything. What someone pulls out of a picture (meaning) would be judging. But the resources for how the information is taken in, recorded or compared (raw data) would have to be a perceiving function.

I've referred to an INTJ friend before (on some other threads) who has an MBA. We were both self employed and living near each other at one point. I can see how he solves something from stored information, seeing an angle others might not see for engineering a new part as one example.

If I had his background, I might be able to work on a similar problem (although a lot of math for his undergrad engineering . . . . . so let's not kid myself . . .) But anyway, I'd have to be doing something with a model to work on it. The model wouldn't be proving, the model would be a tool for Ne to play with. This might be where Se can seem to blend with Ne, but I might also imagine a model in my head. The impression I get from my friend is that he is searching Te databases in his mind, while I “draw pictures” or do a mental walk through of something.

One reason I love this forum - Ne to Ti - collating heaven


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Does this align or contradict with your own experience?
will discuss down below



Do you feel confident in an MBTI assessment of you -as a particular type?
pretty confident. it's not because the details are perfectly aligned, but rather because a convergence of factors seems to make my type the most likely.



How long have you been active at PerC, or other similar forums?
eh, on and off for a few years if you count other places?



Have you studied Jung and/or other type models?
mostly through osmosis



Do you have opinions about type testing and testing formats?
doesn't everybody?



Old Intern said:


> Ni
> Ni is a sub-conscious filtering and collecting of correlations; it filters incidences to detect underlying principals, laws of nature, or reoccurring themes i think you discuss this in more detail down below by Ne, but here, at least, "underlying principles" sound slike it could be confused for other functions.... It can be experienced as a sense of something that causes one to act on a hunch. Sometimes these correlations coalesce into symbols ahead of the Ni user having any explanation for why. Ni users often express a sense of storing up or mentally flagging data and experiences that can be fully digested later, or that they trust will be available for useful recall at an appropriate time. how is this distinguishable from Si + Ne?
> 
> Ni dominant personalities often seek time to bring sub-conscious correlations out in the open, handing these hunches or symbols off to what Jung labels judging functions; this can be done internally or outside themselves for conscious interpretation, to be verified as causative, relevant or true. Conversely, this “sense of how things work” can make them quick to intuitively grasp a process without the time it takes for a full walk through or a detailed explanation. ...I don't really understand this paragraph as a whole, but maybe that's because of a lack of Ni
> ...


note that i commented primarily on stuff i disagreed with.

man oh man would it be nice if the type community could eventually get its act together on the perceiving functions... i feel like we've been making great strides with the judging ones....

is the http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/172154-cognitive-functions-art-how-relates.html thread at all relevant here?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Word Dispenser_, I've heard people around here mention the Beebe model, but honestly shadow functions sound like somebody is making things too complicated. Maybe I need to study it? -Also have to put a lid on things, wrap it up, do a prototype, whatever. Well, in particular an ENTJ thread about depression or self esteem, don't remember where exactly that was but it seemed like a long way around (Beebe) to explain something in an ego stroking way. But I know peoples ego's and being receptive to material of course is part of the whole thing.
> 
> Problems I want to fix:
> 
> ...


by the way i am totally on board with all these goals.
(on that note, curious as to your thoughts on my attempt here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/173564-set-statements-about-te-fi-vs-ti-fe.html it needs work but i felt like i was starting to be on to something, maybe.)


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@ephemereality 
sorry i'd do this as a proper post-quote but the stupid post-quote feature is, as usual, refusing to work..



> I'll copy pasta what I wrote in my ILI description about Ni:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have this enduring suspicion that this is actually a very important point... See, what you did with the picture made me _highly uncomfortable_ in a_ skin crawly_ way and while my initial explanation of that discomfort would probably have been based on Ti-- aka, your interpretation felt so _weird_ and _touchy-feely_...... I actually had a conversation on this topic re:the art thread with some irl infp friends and they, too, said this kind of symbolism-seeking gives them the heebie-jeebies, which means it may actually be an Ne vs Ni difference. 

I have yet to translate what that means regarding Ne... 
I have this vague suspicion that it might be as follows-
E functions the "actual state of the thing", "objective" in a sense
I functions prefer to "inner state of the thing", "subjective" in a sense

With S, this translates to Se being there, in the sensory moment, whereas Si is all about how the specific person is feeling about the sensory input. 
But N is about _ideas_, and it's like Ni is constantly seeking this inner, deeper, idea and Ne is all like stoooop stick to what's external and, almost, "observable" in a sense. only not in a sensory sense, in an ideas sense. like Ne won't tunnel for deeper meanings it'll just (like Se with sensation) be looking for new idea stimulus. 

maybe?
this is all like half-formed vague stuff in my head.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Pelopra Convergent -Divergent, yes I was building on things i've read around here that also seem to fall into an observable trend/pattern in threads but wondered how much is enough to say on this.

Ni - underlying principals, to me this says exactly what N is, but you are right about my paragraph divides being off so that Ni seems incomplete and maybe Ne-Se comparisons make Se seem less valued? This wasn't intended but resulted from the paragraph break down which should be shifted around somehow. What function other than Ne does" underlying principal" collide with?

Ni-Ne watchfulness vs. hindsight requires me to refer to better definitions of introverted and extroverted functioning. I started to go into this somewhere between this post and op of the thread; I need to polish off something produced out of my discussions with @Dabbling - to use as a formal part of definitions. I/E in reference to functions, is a major source of confusion for a lot of people.

Opposites = Ne-Si, Ni-Se, Te-Fi, Fe-Ti, comes from Jung and MBTI –few things they actually agree on. These functions are impossible to do at the same time, or as a dom/aux or primary plus helper kind of thing. When people shift back and forth with these they make a noticeable shift, whereas something like Ne-Ti has a flow or cooperation to it.

I’m open to Si changes; it is after all, my inferior so my understanding may be simplistic or exaggerated.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

(sorry for multiple posts... edit post is _also _not working for me atm dflkjgs'dlgjs'lnbnlkds;fgvn;sldkfnjgl;khdv)
just wanted to add as note to above post that my other reason for thinking it's not a judging-function related thing is that intjs, infjs seem united in their comfort with that sort of symbolism-stuff...

annnnd here i feel the need to insert some stuff from a conversation between an entp friend of mine and an infj friend of mine with an intj briefly chiming in: 



> ENTP:
> Philosophy-- I understand that for some it’s not just a way to mess around with ideas that don’t make a difference in practice – but it all to often seems like a journey in circles, going nowhere, even if the journey is conducted on an esoteric or whatever plane. instead of that whole morass, much philosophy could be conducted more efficiently by taking the literalism, comparing it to a realistic situation, and reformatting the literalism in terms of what in actuality matches up with the ideals.
> INFJ:
> …some of us deal with literalisms better if they are put in philosophical terms. The discussion goes in circles, but along the way there is a lot to extract…And beleive it or not…this actually ENERGIZES some of us…that is right! This is not a brain teaser but an exciting, refreshing circuit around what makes us happy!
> ...


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Pelopra_ Convergent -Divergent, yes I was building on things i've read around here that also seem to fall into an observable trend/pattern in threads but wondered how much is enough to say on this.
> 
> Ni - underlying principals, to me this says exactly what N is, but you are right about my paragraph divides being off so that Ni seems incomplete and maybe Ne-Se comparisons make Se seem less valued? This wasn't intended but resulted from the paragraph break down which should be shifted around somehow. What function other than Ne does" underlying principal" collide with?
> 
> ...



to me, it seems that ne-si work _together_, though. i.e. not simultaneously, but they support each other. like a muscle pair-- one withdrawn, one extended, they can't both be extended at the same time but you can't just have one.
whereas SeNi NeSi cannot coexist in one person, at least as far as I can tell but I might be overreaching.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> to me, it seems that ne-si work _together_, though. i.e. not simultaneously, but they support each other. like a muscle pair-- one withdrawn, one extended, they can't both be extended at the same time but you can't just have one.
> whereas SeNi NeSi cannot coexist in one person, at least as far as I can tell but I might be overreaching.


This is why I think Socionics is really comprehensive and seems to explain the dynamics between functions pretty well. As I see it, all functions make up pairs that can't exist without the other when being used as top four preferences, like a symbiotic relationship between inner cognition. But, I thought that was pretty obvious.

NeSi
NiSe
FiTe
FeTi


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> This is why I think Socionics is really comprehensive and seems to explain the dynamics between functions pretty well. As I see it, all functions make up pairs that can't exist without the other when being used as top four preferences, like a symbiotic relationship between inner cognition. But, I thought that was pretty obvious.
> 
> NeSi
> NiSe
> ...


i think what i and most people initially introduced to functions via mbti don't like in socionics is the IXXp/j problem. 
saying that INTjs and ENTps share the same functions, not ENTps INTps, feels really off. And saying "well call the INTps INTjs and vice versa and the problem goes away" isn't true, either. INTPs aren't judgers even via the socionics measure.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Yes, I think that was supposed to be an example of NF and it seemed a little forced. But then, did they know they were being filmed? See I think that says something about what matters to the people (audience) doing the writing too. I wouldn't have to be funny but there is something subversive in me that just couldn't do the thing straight.


s'true. i'd feel the need to put on a show. like "oh man, i am not standing up there reading a boring description of a cup how can i make this interesting and show off how tootin clever and original and creative I am"

they wouldn't need to know they were being filmed-- either way, there was an audience. so the question is just if they knew they'd be asked to read it out loud.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> @_ephemereality_
> sorry i'd do this as a proper post-quote but the stupid post-quote feature is, as usual, refusing to work..
> 
> 
> ...


THREE intjs thanked this post wow haha i feel validated. xD


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

This fits with what I said about misreading subjective as emotional farther up in the thread, Ni being stored correlations (inside the subject). Whereas Ne is working off possibilities about what is current. Some people say you are most *bothered* by the I/E opposite of your own functions. I’m not that bothered by any functions until I see a habit or practice that disrupts my own life or intentions.

Fi bothers me when somebody seems to want to be angry or place blame to the point of not being open to how to make something right or back on track - for example. But see that stands in the way of Ne seeing possibilities and not wanting to be dragged down (in real life). What somebody says on a post might make my wheels turn but I'm only irritated if it looks outrageously self deceptive or self serving and makes no sense.

Some tests say ENTP but I could be INTJ as a second choice - now does that make any sense? I think it does. I think @Pelopra this could mean you are bothered by Ni because you are just generally a little more extroverted than I am - or this is your Se reaction to something so "impractical" as Ni?

I don't "say" anything about sticking to what is external. What some people think is almost observable seems blatantly obvious to me occasionally though. And If I had to work with an NI dom I might not know how to do it - maybe. ? Te bothered me in an INTJ friend, just that he would tell me things I already knew and seemed to not hear what I was actually pondering or working on.

Ni doms are occasionally bothered by me because I make something too simple for them - maybe. I just think I cut through the crap and make a summary.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> This fits with what I said about misreading subjective as emotional farther up in the thread, Ni being stored correlations (inside the subject). Whereas Ne is working off possibilities about what is current. Some people say you are most *bothered* by the I/E opposite of your own functions. I’m not that bothered by any functions until I see a habit or practice that disrupts my own life or intentions.
> 
> Fi bothers me when somebody seems to want to be angry or place blame to the point of not being open to how to make something right or back on track - for example. But see that stands in the way of Ne seeing possibilities and not wanting to be dragged down (in real life). What somebody says on a post might make my wheels turn but I'm only irritated if it looks outrageously self deceptive or self serving and makes no sense.
> 
> ...


the problem isn't that Ni isn't impractical, it's that it seems to me almost as if it's making stuff up.

like Ni and symbolism-- there's a picture of a boat on water and suddenly it's all about the fundamental loneliness of the ineffable soul of man? IT'S A BOAT.
Although Ne s in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... after all, if I look at that picture I'm gonna see a whole story attached to the boat, which is owned by an old man who goes fishing in it every sunday and constantly tries to convince his son to come along with him... (which, heck, maybe is also about the fundamental loneliness of the ineffable soul of man...)

The truth is, I don't have a fully rational justification for how itchy Ni makes me feel. It just does...

(with Te and Fi I can at least point to a disagreement, and with Se I can simply say that it bores me and my brain doesn't pay attention. but i haven't pinned down my issue with Ni...)


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Well what I want to ask is the exact purpose of this discussion...the endpoint is what I want. I know @Old Intern is intending to write type descriptors for non MBTI familiar types for her website for business use....and I'm wondering how long these descriptors need to be and whether they have to be in her own words for copyright reasons, that kind of thing...

In type spotting, the open ended waffly type which I associate with Ne and the crisp incisiveness of Ni seems an easy distinction for me to make! but yesterday I was chatting with my counsellor friend ENTP and I actually asked her whether she was sure she was a P for this exact reason you discuss, that she sounded way more incisive Ni and indeed I was throwing ideas into the mix in an Ne fashion while she kept returning us to the central topic. Her answer was (almost) that she was compensating for me doing the more Ne thing, and indeed she is a very bright older lady, it wouldn't surprise me if she has trained herself to do that but I was impressed nonetheless. Then I read here about ENTP being more similar to INTJ...whew! I want to think that one through. When I visit my INTJ woman friend, I find I play more of a Feeler role, to compensate for the lack of Feeling that comes off her... And I certainly self taught myself Fe over the last fifteen or twenty years as a conscious effort to improve my social skills and social life, I simply observed people and then copied the expected behaviours another time. I didn't know that was called Fe at the time, but I let my Ni make patterns with it. So I can work NI-Fe with people and Ni-Te as a thinker. My Fi is very weak. I have a handle on my Si via nostaligia and I get Se sometimes as a desire to go out and have a cuppa at a cafe or go to cinema or roller coaster or something and I like travelling to new places. Tell you what, I was so energised after this amazing chat with ENTP yesterday, I didnt want it to end and I was absolutely buzzing...I've never felt that way before tat I can consciously remember and I suddenly got how extroverts feel, if they feel like that then yes I'm beginning to get it why they would recharge through it...

ENTP also said that MBTI isn't an indicator of how able you are to use that function, but of how clearly you know that that is what you actually prefer to do. So I definitely know I'm an introvert, not I am a strong introvert. We also agreed that it is useful for personal growth NOT for boxing oneself and making excuses for not being able to do stuff.

I am truly sounding like a rambling Ne type here, for which I sort of apologise, but I'm happily working on exploring different ways and freedoms of thought processes, so if I sound Ne to you Ne types I will be pretty pleased.

Again. I'm pushed for time, so this will have to suffice for now....more later


----------



## 18skeltor (Oct 6, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> Eh, I dunno, I'm with Old Intern on this one. Shadow Functions reminds me a bit of the enneagram-- i imagine those who find the latter useful also appreciate the former.
> (Plus, whatever, anything involving "archetypes" and bandying around terms like "crone" "anima" "demon" tends to get my hackles up)


I don't use enneagrams, but I do believe Shadow Functions are important. Like I say, when I've experienced Fi, those are the worst experiences of my life. I know that I've had felt it, though. It's like your experiencing something unnatural, that you're not used to, but forced to in this particular situation. You never use these functions in your everyday living, and so they make you feel really shitty.


----------



## 18skeltor (Oct 6, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> *You are referring to shadow functions?* Would you care to expound or share something you found helpful?
> 
> I'm not trying to discredit anything, just looking to make things I've learned here usable to people who won't take to what seems to me like a predominant Ni, Fi, or Fe choice for how this gets presented on other sites.
> 
> So – I don’t want to miss anything in my own understanding of how functions seem to work.


I've experienced Fi. When I look back on my life, the moments that stuck out as the worst ones in my life, those are moments when I've been forced to use Fi.
I don't know how these moments occur, but I'm creating a thread to understand how they do.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> the problem isn't that Ni isn't impractical, it's that it seems to me almost as if it's making stuff up.
> 
> like Ni and symbolism-- there's a picture of a boat on water and suddenly it's all about the fundamental loneliness of the ineffable soul of man? IT'S A BOAT.
> Although Ne s in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... after all, if I look at that picture I'm gonna see a whole story attached to the boat, which is owned by an old man who goes fishing in it every sunday and constantly tries to convince his son to come along with him... (which, heck, maybe is also about the fundamental loneliness of the ineffable soul of man...)
> ...


This sounds like Si. Anybody else see this is all Fe-Si? You don't feel comfortable with Ni sometimes if you don't find anything familiar, or relatable in it. Ne, like any form of extroversion can get a little frustrated with too much detail. Ti, in myself even, I have a need to sort and prune my thoughts. But Ne is the essence of openness - welcoming opportunity to hear something I have not exactly heard before. The "N" in me has an admiration for symbolism but I tend to go for what I asses as iconic, something widely relatable, whereas Ni (in an intj) can be mixed with Fi so it has a personal twist.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

18skeltor said:


> I've experienced Fi. When I look back on my life, the moments that stuck out as the worst ones in my life, those are moments when I've been forced to use Fi.
> I don't know how these moments occur, but I'm creating a thread to understand how they do.


Give us a link here when you do that?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> This sounds like Si. Anybody else see this is all Fe-Si? You don't feel comfortable with Ni sometimes if you don't find anything familiar, or relatable in it. Ne, like any form of extroversion can get a little frustrated with too much detail. Ti, in myself even, I have a need to sort and prune my thoughts. But Ne is the essence of openness - welcoming opportunity to hear something I have not exactly heard before. The "N" in me has an admiration for symbolism but I tend to go for what I asses as iconic, something widely relatable, whereas Ni (in an intj) can be mixed with Fi so it has a personal twist.


i dunno if i was saying Ne causes it, or that a symptom of having Ne is having this discomfort. If the latter, than it wouldn't make a difference if it was Si. If the former... well, then it interferes a bit with my growing theory that extroverted functions are static reactive functions and introverted functions are dynamic passive functions (this is clearly being subconsciously seeded by socionics).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> Well what I want to ask is the exact purpose of this discussion...the endpoint is what I want. I know @_Old Intern_ is intending to write type descriptors for non MBTI familiar types for her website for business use....and I'm wondering how long these descriptors need to be and whether they have to be in her own words for copyright reasons, that kind of thing...
> 
> In type spotting, the open ended waffly type which I associate with Ne and the crisp incisiveness of Ni seems an easy distinction for me to make! but yesterday I was chatting with my counsellor friend ENTP and I actually asked her whether she was sure she was a P for this exact reason you discuss, that she sounded way more incisive Ni and indeed I was throwing ideas into the mix in an Ne fashion while she kept returning us to the central topic. Her answer was (almost) that she was compensating for me doing the more Ne thing, and indeed she is a very bright older lady, it wouldn't surprise me if she has trained herself to do that but I was impressed nonetheless. Then I read here about ENTP being more similar to INTJ...whew! I want to think that one through. When I visit my INTJ woman friend, I find I play more of a Feeler role, to compensate for the lack of Feeling that comes off her... And I certainly self taught myself Fe over the last fifteen or twenty years as a conscious effort to improve my social skills and social life, I simply observed people and then copied the expected behaviours another time. I didn't know that was called Fe at the time, but I let my Ni make patterns with it. So I can work NI-Fe with people and Ni-Te as a thinker. My Fi is very weak. I have a handle on my Si via nostaligia and I get Se sometimes as a desire to go out and have a cuppa at a cafe or go to cinema or roller coaster or something and I like travelling to new places. Tell you what, I was so energised after this amazing chat with ENTP yesterday, I didnt want it to end and I was absolutely buzzing...I've never felt that way before tat I can consciously remember and I suddenly got how extroverts feel, if they feel like that then yes I'm beginning to get it why they would recharge through it...
> 
> ...


Te, or Fe in an Ni dom, is what pushes for closure. (Ni doesn't have judging qualities). Se and Ne, (by virtue or vice of being extroverted perception) thrives on change and interactivity. It seems that some people are far more to the PE end than others. If I look back and find the thread there is another test that proposes a rating system that drills down preferences within a function stack. For example, I'm strongly NT, more than PE, but more PE than most INTJ's and I favor Ti if forced to choose between Ti and Te. In other words a person who is closer to the line on some functions could be for example, open ended on many things but not feeling any need to be indecisive about life in general. INFJ's often make the comment about 2 kinds, some who use Ti more than other INFJ's who exhibit a lot of Fe -etc. But I believe we still witness strong patterns. The big value would be to have a common vocabulary for what functions represent.

You are right that these tests are not about measuring ability. It stands to reason that people become good at what motivates them - but experience, IQ, opportunity - these tests don't measure a whole person. I believe functions overlap in the role the functions play in the persons life and it would be more accurate to think of it as operating from different filing systems. For example in me - Ne is the "ON" valve and Ti is the funnel or off switch. It seems to me that someone with higher Fe would necessarily want to spend less time with Ti and rely more on social connections than I do.

Function descriptions I've seen so far that don't work for what I need

too much experiential -walk through (primarily P functions) - approach distracts people because nobody can be inside somebody else's head. We try too hard to apply what is described by reading it into our own experience. This makes us try too hard to see something we don't use or miss what we take for granted and use all the time but would not describe it exactly as someone else does.
Sites have cultures that encourage people to be one thing or another - against one's own best interest people may deceive themselves so culture and biases in the descriptions would play a part.
overlap in J functions, P function descriptions
vocabulary used can be emotionally loaded or today's common use and associations of some words will be misleading. Jung works for me but is a little like reading the Bible for anyone not already into it.
Anecdotal gets misused like a literal recipe, might do/or use video or animation that touches on examples but emphasizes that the examples don't equal what functions actually are?
I think most tests on-line are crap because they lump behaviors together. Behavior is not the function in action - the purpose in the action - or the "filing system" behind why we do things - is what a function or function pair is.
Now that I've been here a while I see "functions" as potential common vocabulary for more than personality. A person could have a business model that uses a "function" strategy.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> i dunno if i was saying Ne causes it, or that a symptom of having Ne is having this discomfort. If the latter, than it wouldn't make a difference if it was Si. If the former... well, then it interferes a bit with my growing theory that extroverted functions are static reactive functions and introverted functions are dynamic passive functions (this is clearly being subconsciously seeded by socionics).


YOUR itchy feeling is Si. You are having trouble understanding Ne, and Se, - because you don't use them. Si has trouble with what it has not experienced. But Si is fantastic at sharing and finding shared experiences.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> YOUR itchy feeling is Si. You are having trouble understanding Ne, and Se, - because you don't use them. Si has trouble with what it has not experienced. But Si is fantastic at sharing and finding shared experiences.


I don't have trouble understanding Ne, I have trouble defining it, particularly in non-ambiguous terms that would prevent Ni,Se users from mistakenly identifying with it. I've seen some descriptions that did a good job describing Ne as I experience it, but although I nod along and say 'yes, that, exactly that' I:
1. Don't yet seem to be able to describe it myself yet because that involves me trying to watch myself using Ne and I cannot use Ne and watch myself use Ne at the same time it just doesn't work.
2. don't feel satisfied with just a description, i want a _distinction_

And yes, I use Ne.
(very slightly losing patience with arguing this point... -groan-.)


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> I don't have trouble understanding Ne, I have trouble defining it, particularly in non-ambiguous terms that would prevent Ni,Se users from mistakenly identifying with it. I've seen some descriptions that did a good job describing Ne as I experience it, but although I nod along and say 'yes, that, exactly that' I:
> 1. Don't yet seem to be able to describe it myself yet because that involves me trying to watch myself using Ne and I cannot use Ne and watch myself use Ne at the same time it just doesn't work.
> 2. don't feel satisfied with just a description, i want a _distinction_
> 
> ...


What do you mean by distinction? What seems to you to be missing from my description in the OP? I'm asking - not challenging. . . . can you link me to descriptions that almost work for you?

We did mention convergent vs divergent. When I was new at PerC I wondered about describing Ne as multiple connections springing from one thing (diverging) vs. a more web like Ni description. I experience a bit of web-like connecting of things and thought I could be ENTJ BUT could not fit that with my love for Ti. My aha moments and interconnected ideas are when I work on something on-purpose (more likely Ti). After reading Ni/Ne descriptions I started to notice how often when someone says something to me my first reaction is well it could be A,B,or C . . . . or saying to someone "do you hope to accomplish A, B, or C?. . . hey what if . . . . " and I knew my ability to see the underlying or key elements to something - "N" quality - came from a more playful, realtime, divergent approach. Though I'm not clever and witty the way some are around here.

But Ne is a whole other animal from Fe wanting to get consensus (and be on the right team or the good side of somebody, or having a sense of who is more trustworthy and who is not) and Si having internal senses about things. My ESFJ roommate from yester-year used to talk about getting "vibes" about people or situations - Si . This wasn't a matter of being insecure or emotional - just that she monitors her internal experience - and I don't. I just don't want you to have been misled by anti Fe-dom biases around here or anything like that.

I knew I was Ne dom before I had a word for it - things friends and relatives would say to me about being different from them, then I read Jung's description in Psychological Types when I was 20-ish or a little younger and wow - it made sense. Friends commented things like - not practical, head-in-the clouds, or gift T shirts that say I'm not messy I'm creative, or absentminded professor comparisons. "Not practical" came from someone who lived to buy clothes so I'm assuming what was meant was more like not down-to-earth?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> What do you mean by distinction? What seems to you to be missing from my description in the OP? I'm asking - not challenging.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ion-definitions-perception-3.html#post4568439

[/quote]
We did mention convergent vs divergent. When I was new at PerC I wondered about describing Ne as multiple connections springing from one thing (diverging) vs. a more web like Ni description. I experience a bit of web-like connecting of things and thought I could be ENTJ BUT could not fit that with my love for Ti. My aha moments and interconnected ideas are when I work on something on-purpose (more likely Ti). After reading Ni/Ne descriptions I started to notice how often when someone says something to me my first reaction is well it could be A,B,or C . . . . or saying to someone do you hope to accomplish A, B, or C, hey what if . . . . and I knew my ability to see the underlying or key elements to something - "N" quality - came from a more playful, realtime, divergent approach.[/quote]

yes, that's basically me.



> But Ne is a whole other animal from Fe wanting to get consensus (and be on the right team or the good side of somebody, or having a sense of who is more trustworthy and who is not) and Si having internal senses about things. My ESFJ roommate from yester-year used to talk about getting "vibes" about people or situations - Si . This wasn't a matter of being insecure or emotional - just that she monitors her internal experience - and I don't. I just don't want you to have been misled by anti Fe-dom biases around here or anything like that.


i don't fully understand why you're implying those would look anything alike. 
i imagine that all functions could, in some sense, be described as "a vibe". by which i mean that, even with Ti, I can come up with the list of reasons why something is wrong. but the source of the "wrongness" is already something more abstract.



> I knew I was Ne dom before I had a word for it - things friends and relatives would say to me about being different from them, then I read Jung's description in Psychological Types when I was 20-ish or a little younger and wow - it made sense. Things like not practical, head-in-the clouds, or gift T shirts that say I'm not messy I'm creative, or absentminded professor comparisons. "Not practical" came from someone who lived to buy clothes so I'm assuming what was meant was more like not down-to-earth?


Yeah, Ne made sense for me as well. Not just because I would occasionally forget to eat or get dressed (Si) and, if i closed my eyes, couldn't tell you what you were wearing even if you'd been standing right in front of me (Se), but also just because, in general. Most Ne descriptions are accurate for me. My problem is... i suppose i want an Ne description that any other sensing type would immediately be able to say "oh no. not me. that is definitely not what i am". and my experience is that most descriptions don't meet that standard (i have the same issue with Ni, as well. I don;t have Ni, but I say that because I've read tons of descriptions... each individual description is confusingly or vaguely enough phrased that it's not a crystal-clear decision, especially when i'm feeling contrary and interpreting things in ways i'm pretty sure they weren't intended (but i only know that because im already familiar with the theory) in order to demonstrate how easily a newbie could be confused


edit: in fact, it occurs to me that part of the problem people have been having with me calling myself Ne on this forum is that i have deliberately been trying to take things as literally as possible. Not "filling in gaps" or anything like that. No "this is the general sense I get of what you're trying to say". I don't want to do any of those because my "general sense" is highly informed by my not-inconsiderable bulk of previous knowledge about MBTI and I specifically want an understanding of cognitive functions _not dependent _on having read several books worth of material on the stuff.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Pelopra_ I was distracted by your lasagna comment on another thread? - it reminded me of stuff my Si dom Ex would remember and be offended that I just didn't have the "depth" or nostalgia he wanted. And - I know my own Si description here is weak so I was just checking.

Also on some other threads when people had trouble typing themselves, Si was sometimes an issue because of it being introverted - it becomes personal and individual . . . . so I'm still thinking about what to say on Si. I know my paragraph structure needs improvement from OP but can't think of anything to add or edit from Ne - yet.


One thing could be that I'm not emphasizing what functions ARE? In this thread, I didn't address what a perceiving function IS; so from that standpoint - a person can think about causation or options and possibilities - anyone could do that. ? I used the term of each one being a filter - trying to show how this is a filter for "intake and filing" whereas judging is more what a person DOES and thinks - on purpose. I was thinking of diagraming something to explain J/P I/E definitions that I think people misappropriate but maybe more to indicate that should be in a function definition too.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Pelopra_ I was distracted by your lasagna comment on another thread? - it reminded me of stuff my Si dom Ex would remember and be offended that I just didn't have the "depth" or nostalgia he wanted. And - I know my own Si description here is weak so I was just checking.
> 
> Also on some other threads when people had trouble typing themselves, Si was sometimes an issue because of it being introverted - it becomes personal and individual . . . . so I'm still thinking about what to say on Si. I know my paragraph structure needs improvement from OP but can't think of anything to add or edit from Ne - yet.
> 
> ...


yeah, so i do have weirdly developed Si. especially with food, _especially _with food with emotional associations.
i can sort of choose to activate Si. make myself focus on a sensation. i'm almost 100% certain it;s not anything remotely Se related-- it has more to do with, say, the feel of a warm, fuzzy blanket against my skin.
but the thing is, if i'm not activating it, it doesn't seem to be there so much. like it'll just fade into the background.


also do that diagram! do! do!


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Wow! I'm loving this! I asked for endpoint not closure, @Old Intern because Ni seems to me to be like stretching a rubber band between two points and optimising (in the original, mathematical sense) the route between them. I can't use that skill to help you without end as well as starting point...

@peloptra regarding seeing yourself using Ne. It's not impossible to go back after an event or decision, some time after, and try to put together the input facts, the final output and then wonder how you got to C from A and why you didn't choose B. Though it's tough work for me and makes me tired quite quickly I can do it enough to be able to see which function did what...given my grasp on the functions. And it helps to see the functions operating in other people as it's easier to watch others than to self analyse, because there is almost too much information inside me. Secondly if you are not understanding the symbolic thing then you are perhaps talking with immature or weak Ni people. The key to the metaphor or symbol is always its point of contact with the real life situation....so the sun is like an egg yolk (because it is round and yellow). Ni people may not say the part in the bracket because it is so obvious to them, so if you don't understand them then ask them why that symbol is relevant...you should get a clear answer. After some years of standing around offering comments like 'that lady behaves like a Ferrari' and not being understood, maturity for me has meant including way more explanations and omitting the critical analogies altogether in favour of other ways (Fe, taught by observation and copying) of trying to offer advice on people's behaviour. (Ferrari...rich, opulent, pushes for own way, drives too close behind you making you uncomfortable to be around, step out of the path of this lady before she runs you over....btw I just made that up, no connection to any person I know IRL is intended!  )

Okay, off the top of my head:

Ni abstract, picture based, seeks optimal solutions, good at spotting abstract patterns, strongly linked with personal recollections and previous experiences but often in unexpected ways to an outside observer, takes time to process and internalise information, only takes in a few facts at once so can appear unpredictable or irrational. Speaks briefly and may leave abstract sentences hanging halfway through.
Ne abstract, stream of new ideas which do not link strongly into the personality, offers new ideas straight away, can abstract from many facts or streams of data at once, can appear to 'talk for ever without reaching a conclusion'. The appearance of brainstorming a topic.

Si internal understanding of the world based on previous interactions and memories, personal links with objects, places, food, etc; strong preference for telling stories to relive memories both good and bad, nostalgia. This person can view a whole company of physical activity of many people including many items of varied data eg supply and demand, cost and benefit etc as a single organism and identify areas of weakness. This person gets stuff done, usually behind the scenes.
Se desire for constant stream of external stimulation such as roller coasters, meeting new people, can deal confidently with many streams of external information at once eg enjoys music or radio while performing other tasks. This person gets stuff done, usually very publicly.

Te thinking process is discussed in interactions with others, so known thinking processes are followed which conform to societal norms. Comes across as a logical thinker. Such a person has difficulty thinking novel thoughts. This person may make decisions which benefit 'the company' or a group at the expense of particular individuals. This person may appear heartless.
Ti thinking processes are not shared with others so the person believes they are acting or thinking logically but this is not apparent to others. May start half way through a conversation eg 'I must do it now!', but the listener has no idea what the 'it' is as the thinking has occurred internally and been hidden from view. Such a person has difficulty speaking their thoughts aloud. This person may appear heartless.

Fe Takes in the feelings of others by reading facial expressions, body language and gathering and collating such information about other people, seeks to influence the feelings of others by their own behaviour, eg good speaker, teacher, preacher. So busy taking in the constant feelings and reactions of others that this person may have difficulty 'switching off' from those around them. This person tends to describe the feelings of others or the group rather than their own feelings and does not therefore tend to discuss or speak in terms of their own individual personal hurts. Eg 'we all felt sorry for Harry'. This person may appear illogical.
Fi Feels their own feelings privately and individually, has difficulty expressing their feelings directly eg may describe a personal situation to evoke the feeling in the listener rather than say directly 'I felt sad when...' This person may feel overlooked or misunderstood by others. This person may openly disagree with the feelings or decisions of a group. This person may consciously carry deep past hurts. This person may appear illogical.

As I say, this is off the top of my head, in simple everyday language, with a few examples and I think adding the negative for each would discourage the reader from identifying (for pleasure's sake) with everything, a risk which you identified.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Dabbling said:


> Wow! I'm loving this! I asked for endpoint not closure, @_Old Intern_ because Ni seems to me to be like stretching a rubber band between two points and optimising (in the original, mathematical sense) the route between them. I can't use that skill to help you without end as well as starting point...
> 
> @peloptra regarding seeing yourself using Ne. It's not impossible to go back after an event or decision, some time after, and try to put together the input facts, the final output and then wonder how you got to C from A and why you didn't choose B. Though it's tough work for me and makes me tired quite quickly I can do it enough to be able to see which function did what...given my grasp on the functions. And it helps to see the functions operating in other people as it's easier to watch others than to self analyse, because there is almost too much information inside me. Secondly if you are not understanding the symbolic thing then you are perhaps talking with immature or weak Ni people. The key to the metaphor or symbol is always its point of contact with the real life situation....so the sun is like an egg yolk (because it is round and yellow). Ni people may not say the part in the bracket because it is so obvious to them, so if you don't understand them then ask them why that symbol is relevant...you should get a clear answer. After some years of standing around offering comments like 'that lady behaves like a Ferrari' and not being understood, maturity for me has meant including way more explanations and omitting the critical analogies altogether in favour of other ways (Fe, taught by observation and copying) of trying to offer advice on people's behaviour. (Ferrari...rich, opulent, pushes for own way, drives too close behind you making you uncomfortable to be around, step out of the path of this lady before she runs you over....btw I just made that up, no connection to any person I know IRL is intended!  )
> 
> ...



your definition of Ni sounds very suspiciously like Ne to me. 
Ni is not "the sun is like an egg yolk" or "the lady behaves like a ferrari"
(in fact, the phrase "is like" or anything else simile-ish is stereotypical Ne, in certain contexts)
Ni would see the lady and her ferrari, and proceed directly to "materialistic opulence and the social structure of rewarding avarice" or something like that.
much of the point of Ni is that it is _not_ something that a person could simply fill in the gaps to know. It's not a surface level impression but some sort of connection to some deeper universal thread of meaning. This, at least, is what I've succeeded in gathering from multiple attempts at explaining Ni to me.

I don't really like the Ti description, either. Remember that Ti is paired with extroverted perceiving, so there will still be discussion of ideas. As far as I can tell, from my own experience, Ti is an instantaneous analysis of an idea. Sometimes not so instantaneous. the point is-- if you've ever used adobe illustrator, there's a keyboard shortcut which shows you all the outlines of everything on the drawing board (taking away color etc)? It looks something like a blueprint. in any case by stripping away a lot of distraction it focuses attention to the crucial core outline of the design. This is not that, this goes with that, this looks terribly out of place and throws the whole thing out of balance. That's basically what Ti does to ideas, or really to any input that can be reduced to idea form (emotional and aesthetic decisions included). It's very efficient and effective, but it's big weakness is that sometimes color and other features stripped out of the outline are actually relevant. Thus for example Ti users may be inclined to dismiss gut feelings that they cannot come up with a rational justification for-- and then feel _quite_ chagrined when they discover their gut was, in fact, correct.
I'm not 100% sure how Te would fit in this analogy. Perhaps, where Ti sees an outline of what is there, Te has the blueprint of what _should_ be there, and can match the elements that are in place or not in place.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> your definition of Ni sounds very suspiciously like Ne to me.
> Ni is not "the sun is like an egg yolk" or "the lady behaves like a ferrari"
> (in fact, the phrase "is like" or anything else simile-ish is stereotypical Ne, in certain contexts)
> Ni would see the lady and her ferrari, and proceed directly to "materialistic opulence and the social structure of rewarding avarice" or something like that.
> ...


No, I disagree...Ni spots patterns over time, in a reductionist manner. This is a write up intended primarily for S users. All that is necessary is for N types to see enough information to realise they are N, they will then explore further for themselves elsewhere if they are interested. The explanation of the metaphor is not generally available to the Ni user without reflection on their individual past. You might see a Ferrari and link to materialistic opulence in general accepted thoughts using Ne, but I am thinking of a specific person who tailgated me years ago and who always wore furs. If she also was from Ukraine and had a pet monkey, then the Ni becomes terribly personalised and difficult to unpick years later...but the Ni user is intuitively suspicious of leading the way on a convoy containing anyone who owns an exotic pet... I'm exaggerating to make the point, but it is not Ne. Ne is a flow of abstract ideas which are unconnected with the speaker. Ni generally observes and is usually silent, brief in speech and speaks in metaphorical language. That is enough for an S type to identify it is not them, which is what @Old Intern needs (see, I am driven by the endpoint, another sign of Ni which needs end and start to optimise.) Ne is like a chess game, whereas Ni is more like those wolves and goats going across rivers games. Ni is you reap what you sow, so tell me what you are sowing and I will tell you what you will reap. Ne is let's see what happens if we sow everything. Ni is I want beans, so I need to sow...err...bean seeds, warm ground, nitrate fertiliser, etc. Specialism determined by the endpoint, and broken into steps.
@Old Intern, on your website, have you considered collecting feedback from your customers as to what type they think they are from your descriptors, and how helpful they found them? What would be one extra rating box for you to set up might lead to some helpful insights, since we are all N types here but they will be predominantly S types. Also, have you considered asking S types to help on the descriptor writings for those bits? Also, in your listings maybe start with the S type and F type descriptors, make N descriptors brief and near the end...because they will be a turn off for your S types?


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

@Old Intern

I'm not sure this is useful to you now...it seems to be going round in circles.

What I might do if I were you is pull out just your Si definition and start a thread in a lead Si forum, get some Si doms to look at it for you. Then the same for Fi in a lead Fi forum...start several different threads and see what the doms of those functions say.

Personally I think you're doing great, but maybe my Ni lead isn't actually going to get you the sort of definition on anything else that the actual doms would give you.

Let me know if I can help you further.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> LOLOLOL
> er.
> no.
> 
> ...



Comparing the attitudes and behaviour of different people by cognitive type is the stuff which PerC is built on. Saying S would do this, or that, is fine as long as it is not derogatory. My remark was in no way derogatory, since it is evidentially true that there are no S types on this particular thread at this time.

How can that be typist and calling Ni creepy be not typist, in your view?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> Wow! I'm loving this! I asked for endpoint not closure, @_Old Intern_ because Ni seems to me to be like stretching a rubber band between two points and optimising (in the original, mathematical sense) the route between them. I can't use that skill to help you without end as well as starting point...
> 
> 
> Okay, off the top of my head:
> ...


Had to be away from wi-fi yesterday but I printed this out to think about it.
@_dab_bler I was impressed by your Si description (someone you know?); even though it made me think about how the same function can sort of backfire in the opposite direction. It can create busy work because the person doesn’t want to throw anything away, or cause agonizing and excessive research over small stuff, because they live in a cocoon and can’t see how a particular practice doesn’t serve any real benefit anymore, etc. But the tortoise and the hair thing, yeah you nailed that element in your description. Your post is also an example of how fleshing something out makes copy more readable.

But I have a problem with what fleshed-out –*anecdotal* explanations do (ends up being Fi, Fe water-cooler more than strategic use?).*I may have to use both.*In fact your suggestion of scenarios showing good and bad could work as a whole series of blog posts (making the other ideas more real?) - and this kind of thing makes a real reason to use a content management system :wink::shocked::laughingputs me in Ne heaven). I made my chart – opposite of fleshing it out but (the chart and accompanying *theoretical* function definitions) -Ti has gone so far inside my own head, indulge me, and then I can edit? -chart will be a following post and Ti -might be a link when I get that far?

One other thing – Ne and Se may be a little misrepresented in your above post? I know I am not a multitasker (at all) and relate to other ENTP’s talking about how sometimes they have to go into all or nothing mode. This ties into what I was saying about opposites. Ne is not equivalent to a short attention span or antsy pants, Ne hates redundancy. Ne-Ti see’s one thing being able to get branched out into a whole tree, an idea forms like spokes of a wheel, (divergent - one source, not busy body - I will explain more in a Ti description) Si then becomes such a waste of time, doing what is known and already been done when a world of possibility awaits. It’s not that we drift and nothing matters - it’s that we see so much and struggle with prioritizing; having an imagination that could go on forever (input from the Ne truck just keeps showing up at the loading dock).


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Had to be away from wi-fi yesterday but I printed this out to think about it.
> @_dab_bler I was impressed by your Si description (someone you know?); even though it made me think about how the same function can sort of backfire in the opposite direction. It can create busy work because the person doesn’t want to throw anything away, or cause agonizing and excessive research over small stuff, because they live in a cocoon and can’t see how a particular practice doesn’t serve any real benefit anymore, etc. But the tortoise and the hair thing, yeah you nailed that element in your description. Your post is also an example of how fleshing something out makes copy more readable.
> 
> But I have a problem with what fleshed-out –*anecdotal* explanations do (ends up being Fi, Fe water-cooler more than strategic use?).*I may have to use both.*In fact your suggestion of scenarios showing good and bad could work as a whole series of blog posts (making the other ideas more real?) - and this kind of thing makes a real reason to use a content management system :wink::shocked::laughingputs me in Ne heaven). I made my chart – opposite of fleshing it out but (the chart and accompanying *theoretical* function definitions) -Ti has gone so far inside my own head, indulge me, and then I can edit? -chart will be a following post and Ti -might be a link when I get that far?
> ...


I got the initial Si thing from something I read on a thread here, someone was saying how great Si was. I changed it a bit as their analogy was war gaming, but I could try to find it and link it for you if you want.

I don't have much of a grip on Ne, I define it mostly by being the opposite of what I do, which comes out negative. Or by being like people I know but again it's not an internal grip on it. I don't really get it...do you see the whole tree at once, or is it an abstract stream of ideas in a crazy sequence, like a roller coaster ride is exhilarating to me as a constant stream of Se input? And no, I don't get Ti. I think maybe I do it sometimes, but it's had to pin down. So change those and any others as much as you like! 

I'm glad I've started your Ne off, but don't forget you do actually want to get this thing up and running....:wink:


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Si then becomes such a waste of time, doing what is known and already been done when a world of possibility awaits. It’s not that we drift and nothing matters - it’s that we see so much and struggle with prioritizing; having an imagination that could go on forever (input from the Ne truck just keeps showing up at the loading dock).


It's funny this bit sort of reminded me of the other day. I make cards as an occasional hobby and I've spent literally years seeking for the best design for my Christmas cards...finally this year got something I think is great and now I'm intending to churn out a hundred or so ready for next Christmas. So I would see that as an Ni trait in action, that seeking the best design which is easy to make, quick, effective...etc. But some way into starting to churn out, I find myself going to the craft cupboard over and over again, literally getting out more and more stuff I've bought in the past, sort of like looking through it in case any of it might be useful, but really just for the sake of looking through it, because my Ni is yelling...NOOOO!!! You have the best design already, get back to it! But it was like I needed a mental break and I guess the Se took over, just like more and more craft stuff out just to 'see what I'd got in the cupboard'. That's the Se world of possibility up against the Ni doing what is known and already been optimised...kind of like but unlike, but it reminded me of that when I read this bit.

I wish I could find my Ne /Ti...is there a question which would provoke it do you think? I can get to Si via nostalgia.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Personality Infrastructure

 Experience Filtering

Indirectly influence able, your “pre-sets” of how you filter “intake”can be fed, starved, or put on a special diet; but what you control is experience and not the actual filtering. Once direct effort is exercised it becomes a self invested part of your filing system.

At some level all filters may be useable and accessible to everyone; but having a personality, with a filing system that works for you can be better than adding complexity with “spare parts” more suitable in a different personality infrastructure. 
Sourced 
internally or externally

*External* – contributes a sense of orienting one’s self in the world

*Internal* – an observing, participating, self that monitors one’s own internal processes

A person with only internal sourcing could become dependent on a key relationship or an organization to be their only link to the outside world
A person with only external sourcing could have a sense of being hollow or caving like a house of cards if situations prove to not be what they seemed

*S* *Contextual Interpretation*
*N Abstracted Concepts*


*I Internally Witnessed*
*E Externally Triggered*

Self Investment

Where energy and mental engagement 
is chosen and directed

*
F Intrinsic Measures*
*T Logical Structures*

*
I Internally Arrived at*
*E Externally Referenced*

_________________________________

This does away with 


objective - subjective
Jung's use of rationals and irrationals
a confusing corrolary that doesn't always fit about introversion and extroversion in a common use social sense.
Confusion about emotionalism or Jung's term Affect vs a feeling function - this will show more in actual definitions

I have ideas about layout and Icons, not needed to be shared here. F,T,I,E might still be needed to help people who are already familiar with Jung and MBTI. I need a vocabulary that isn't arbitrary and shows a more mechanical aproach to how people use different "filing systems", sometimes to manage same behaviors; behavior is not what a function is.

Why do I want to do this this way?
One example from my own life was when (million years ago) the INTJ friend I've referenced here before handed me a newspaper article. It was an epiphany. This article – lifestyle section or something like that was about different kinds of organization, how some people are catalysts and they need stuff handy. Everything might relate to everything else and don’t expect these people to stop a train of thought so they can alphabetize something. This doesn’t mean a person like me needs to be messy, just that we need organization that is logical and handy for the way we use things. Contrast this with how my ESFP Dad likes things “out of sight – out of mind whirlwind stack it all up way of organizing. He would “help me” to appease my mom when I was a kid. What this meant was that as soon as I got back to living my life, with an idea or a project - everything would just have to get all unpacked and dumped out. I was an adult before I figured out organizing can be helpful instead of some list of “shoulds” you do to make other people shut up. But I needed to “see” a kind of organizing that worked for me, with bins to chuck like things together and areas that are handy for specific kinds of things. . . . So I can see how these definitions would help people solve problems, not tell people to "fake" a new function – like telling me I should learn to like Si.
@Dabbling I'm getting to the ti-ne thing in a minute:tongue:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

This is what I have so far - to go with the chart. Sure I will be doing editing so feel free anybody to rip into it if you see dumb stuff, or if it seems awkward to follow or whatever.

*Fi *Self investment criteria that is intrinsically measured, comes from privately held ideals and is accessed to uphold, express, or maintain internally sourced standards.

*Fe *Self investment criteria when intrinsically measured externally, is based on external reference for participation in the world (a person’s community or circle of concern).

*Te* Logical structure for self investment is gauged and measured by results (more?).

*Ti’s* internally referenced logical structure is gauged and “sparked” by internal monitoring of what has been learned. Activity is measured from an internally built architecture designed and “upgraded” to accommodate perceived opportunities, responsibilities and interests.

This internally monitored structuring gives the individual a sense of expanded self with growth of competencies and understandings. In frameworks, and broad strokes, all internalized knowledge is seen as re-useable and widely transferrable. Sometimes this can come across as fiercely categorical or simplistic in expression, but these “categories” are not judgmental and not fixed as if sacred; what they are is a filing system working in tandem with a very open (externally sourced) experience filter.
______________________________________

@_Dabbling_ Te-Ti crossing over is done all the time, even according to Jung, the significance is where the person starts and ends. Ti will do fact finding and Te will sometimes build a customized policy or structure (when the right thing is not readily available). But if Ni filtering has already limited the options in a way, and then Te keeps Ni connected to reality, you have the difference of convergence or divergence. Ni-Te prizes efficiency because that’s what you do when something is known – creativity sort of (for lack of a perfect term) - but converging inward to efficiency. Ne starts open and filters through Ti to decide what is doable or worth doing but the motivation is to somehow forge into what is new, or uniquely fitted to do something a better way that hasn’t been already done.

So my guess is that Ni-Te would need a reason to do something novel, and then it will. Efficientcy just doesn't scratch an itch for me, I'd rather have a unique enough specialization that I can get paid to do something and have it be worth the wait or the bigger price tag. Although, I had a good run, but in this ecconomy - dunno. Thing is Ni-Te would be like I died? because it isn't me?
@_Dabbling_, your Se comment above - What happened to me, being that I had to finish stuff to get paid and put myself in that position on purpose; what I had to do is recognize there would always be the moment of hell. What that is, is when the whole thing, whatever it is, isn't new anymore and you are sure it's not as cool as you thought because with Ne - there is never the best thing, something could always be better. You just accept that this will happen and will do the next cool, better thing on some other project. -Plus when you have a customer, they signed a contract and put money down so as long as they get what the signed on for you have to just tell yourself its good. Usually I have a clear perspective and think I did ok after I got paid and had a rest or break of some kind.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Dabbling said:


> It's funny this bit sort of reminded me of the other day. I make cards as an occasional hobby and I've spent literally years seeking for the best design for my Christmas cards...finally this year got something I think is great and now I'm intending to churn out a hundred or so ready for next Christmas. So I would see that as an Ni trait in action, that seeking the best design which is easy to make, quick, effective...etc. But some way into starting to churn out, I find myself going to the craft cupboard over and over again, literally getting out more and more stuff I've bought in the past, sort of like looking through it in case any of it might be useful, but really just for the sake of looking through it, because my Ni is yelling...NOOOO!!! You have the best design already, get back to it! But it was like I needed a mental break and I guess the Se took over, just like more and more craft stuff out just to 'see what I'd got in the cupboard'. That's the Se world of possibility up against the Ni doing what is known and already been optimised...kind of like but unlike, but it reminded me of that when I read this bit.
> 
> I wish I could find my Ne /Ti...is there a question which would provoke it do you think? I can get to Si via nostalgia.


Aren't you describing Ne and Si? That's all I see here in your explanations. 

I don't think doing Christmas cards a year in advance has anything to do with Ni. Doing it yourself, and on a yearly basis is more Si. You said, "the best design which is easy to make, quick, effective" I don't see Ni there either. Ni doesn't have to be short, it can be long and complicated with the details vast. We just skip all of that and see the end result. 

When you said you go back to the crafts in the cupboard you are describing Ne. Se needs motion, adventure, new excitements, and anything that isn't standing still. Ne looks to all the possibilities in the cupboard and rejects them for the original design. Ne is the world of possibilities. Se is the world of the wind in your hair, the spice on your tongue, the vibrations in your eardrums, the love of stinky cheeses, or the array of bright colors. If you had said you kept going back because the sparkles, shines, glosses, twinkles, or vivid colors drew you back, I would be more likely to say it was Se. 

Saying Ni is "doing what is known and already been optimised (sp,)" is just wrong. That is Si. Si does the past experiences repeatedly. 

This thread is like an Ne Si wonderland.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Aren't you describing Ne and Si? That's all I see here in your explanations.
> 
> I don't think doing Christmas cards a year in advance has anything to do with Ni. Doing it yourself, and on a yearly basis is more Si. You said, "the best design which is easy to make, quick, effective" I don't see Ni there either. Ni doesn't have to be short, it can be long and complicated with the details vast. We just skip all of that and see the end result.
> 
> ...


Well, I shall be pleased if you can find me some Ne, I'm actively hunting for it and this thread is one place where I let it just roll on over...if that's Ne that's great. My point about the decorations is actually what you say, maybe I didn't explain it so well...the sparkles and the colours and the twinkles, yes. I didn't USE any of what I got out. And as for actually making the actual cards, I don't successfully make my own cards every year, it's more of an idealist pipe dream. I see an end result of loads of perfectly made cards but skip the practicalities of managing my actual self to actually sit down and do it, instead of reading or playing on PerC.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

^Using the words “Christmas Card” means nothing about the specific process, hope that didn’t confuse anyone.

@_Dabbling_, This process could be the same if you brought your car into the shop and you ask yourself do I only do what I came in here for?; or do I let them check out everything and advise me. ? Worst case this is still a *finite* thing, which fits with what we were saying about board games or your rubber band. Whatever is wrong with the car even if not known yet - is what it is, so in that sense has a known or knowable factor, an end point - and Ni may guide the middle part. Ni filling in the middle is consistent with other descriptions around PerC. BTW, @_MegaTuxRacer_ has a good though longer Ne-Ni comparison /description http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/135674-ne-vs-ni-sequel.html


So I figured out what you meant about a question to “get” or “see” what Ne-Ti is doing? 

*Emphasizing asking “why do it?” (as a means of funeling Ne), Ti (with Ne influence) subordinates what and how.* Ne generates possibilities and Ti, picks the best options based on Ti’s answer to why something is being done.I've heard people describe Ti as process oriented but that can also stem from Si, a better word for this aspect of Ti would be policy making? *So the car-shop (and Christmas Card) equation is meant to be finite *but my blog site design would be (for example) intended to go on forever if possible. A starting point of why, systemized with Ti, intended to branch out and not be finite.

Yes I do need to launch, adult survival necessitates timelines, and Ne’s do this reluctantly (torture) but they do it in service of why. Efficient - if lame, won’t help me. 

But this isn’t Fi precisely because I can’t do Fi, it wouldn’t be real for me; I would be fabricating drama, intensity, or Si-rehashing, push something at people to make noise? An effective on-line presence is necessary for creatives, but serious Facebook - not even doable for me. I'm okay with twitter but it's getting old and wearing thin.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Oh, that's really helpful, thanks so much. I will have to think about that more but I invariably do it, whatever it is, because it needs doing, because it is efficient, because that's the way it works, yeah, I totally get this from my viewpoint, I never diverge from a point of why, the why for me is always a closed end seeker. 

Yes, you need to get it up and running, you're enjoying finding and perfecting definitions but you've got enough to get on and go for it I think. It's good stuff and you can refine it and overhaul it after a decent time period.

Have a serious blog where you discuss stuff, 3-500 word posts, once a week, build a following. Link that to both twitter and Facebook so your blogs get advertised as soon as they are posted. Then link everything into your 'selling' website. Also add helpful links to other places people might want to go from your site, and link to anyone else's website or follow them on twitter when they become a friend if they are doing similar stuff. Have everything linked as well to a dedicated email address of yours. There are tried and tested strategies for building a blog following...I tried it for a while but didn't keep it up. But googling how to grow a blog following will get you some good advice.

Thanks again, I will think about why asking why is a different question for me...very helpful....big thanks.
Kick, kick, I'm looking forward to seeing your website up and running...


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Dabbling said:


> Comparing the attitudes and behaviour of different people by cognitive type is the stuff which PerC is built on. Saying S would do this, or that, is fine as long as it is not derogatory. My remark was in no way derogatory, since it is evidentially true that there are no S types on this particular thread at this time.
> 
> How can that be typist and calling Ni creepy be not typist, in your view?


Ni isn't creepy.
I am personally creeped out by it.
i'm also terrified of horses but that doesn't mean horses are terrifying.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Dabbling_, thanks for helpful discussion. I'm nervous about putting myself out there. I did a lot of face to face which used to work well but on-line is such a different world. Like you were saying about body language, or for me, not seeing faces and being able to say – “do you have a concern I didn't address?” -while seeing reactions, etc.

I don't even need to have a huge following, LinkedIn Local discussions are pretty cool and they have an area professionals networking meet-up thing I've done, and a lot of other relevant groups are around. My trouble is I need a job, maybe even just a 15 to 20ish hr thing, Because what I used to do has been replaced by freebies (for now in a tough economy anyway) plus face to face selling is costly and obsolete and even the types of customers I used to have, have disappeared, or merged into something controlled out of state and such.

I did well with emails, but need a central tool that demonstrates some design and coding ability. I need to be not pegged as old and out of touch, but won’t be able to compete on a pure designer or coder basis. 

The longer I stay doing something that has me filling out search engine registration forms or other telecommute busy work, the farther away I am from the life and type of work I loved. I want something that has me working with a small team or maybe just one or two companies that need some in-house marketing stuff on a regular basis. - I had a *balance of in-my head time *and *group-out-there-doing-stuff-time* that is out of whack now as well as my budget. 

The other thing I see is high turn-over, partly because techies want to move up or onward, but partly people don’t know what they want when they hire someone? So I want a tool that keeps serving my interests one way or the other.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> BTW, @_MegaTuxRacer_ has a good though longer Ne-Ni comparison /description http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/135674-ne-vs-ni-sequel.html


Who dares disturb me from my slumber?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Personality Infrastructure
  

Experience Filtering

Pattern of personality “pre-sets” that filter how the outside world is taken in and referenced for recall.

Sourced 
Internally or externally

*External* – contributes a sense of orienting one’s self in the world

*Internal* – an observing, participating, self that monitors one’s own internal processes



*S* *Contextual Interpretation
**N **Abstracted Correlations*
*I **Internally Accumulated
**E ** Externally Triggered*

Self Investment ________________

Where energy and mental engagement
is chosen and directed

_________________
*F **Ideals Based Evaluative Thinking
**T **Structural and Strategic (logic)
...based Thinking*
*I **Internally Arrived at
**E **Externally Referenced*

_________________________________


Te
 Logical structure, when externally referenced (Te) is primarily concerned with matters of prioritization and imposing order on the external world. With Te, vigilance is given to factual data, and peripheral factors or context may be disregarded in an attempt to take a reductionist approach.

The categoricalness of externally referenced thinking (Te) is purposed to match what can be objectively determined, with what has been or can be collectively known (the problem and the answer, respectively). 

Since they are not thinking about thinking, a Te user is not typically inspired toward epiphany moments or understandings without specific goals for the acquired knowledge. The Te influenced individual prizes knowledge based on reference to what can be “legitimately” specified and credentialed, or demonstrated from results. However, an internally sourced experience filter (Ni or Si) can provide satisfaction or guidance in the form of internal monitoring.

Ti
 Ti’s internally referenced logical structure is gauged and “sparked” by internal monitoring of what has been learned. Activity is measured from an internally built architecture designed and “upgraded” to accommodate perceived opportunities, responsibilities and interests.

This internally monitored structuring gives the individual a sense of expanded self with growth of competencies and understandings. 

In frameworks, and broad strokes, all internalized knowledge is seen as re-useable and widely transferrable. Sometimes this can come across as fiercely categorical or simplistic in expression, but these “categories” are not judgmental and not fixed as if sacred; what they are is a filing system working in tandem with a very open (externally sourced) experience filter.


About Ideals based evaluative thinking - Fe and Fi
Ideals based thinking accepts or rejects behaviors, choices, and aspirations with the evaluation (as its own end) being the focus or intent of thought. 

Behavioral constraints and qualifiers that are their own first cause can be assessed from a point of internal or external referencing without one being more altruistic or selfish than the other at a structural level. Criteria could range from issues like personal character, world or community concerns, corporate culture, or the choice of a haircut. The criterion is not the structure.

To complicate matters, individuals may sincerely want approval in a group and not see how much they want to be acknowledged for internally held ideals, not indicated from the group. Conversely the case can be made that a person acquires social skill as part of a logically structured framework or as a means of upholding personal ideals. And truly externally referenced ideals sometimes come from connection being valued as its own end even if this causes negative ramifications for self or others.

Jung calls this arena of thinking, feeling functioned cognition. He attempts to make a distinction between priorities we hold that are “feeling toned” vs. affect. Some personalities are structurally more vulnerable to emotional fluctuation and others may be witnessed as more detached or even tempered. However, scholars point out that Jung’s judging functions T or F, both maintain the consistency of thought or personal schema that would not be true of emotional, situational, reactionary behavior.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

I'm supposed to be in hibernation while i study finals but....
this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/54521-not-recognizing-yourself-dominant-function.html
brought me here: Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth

and i found it sufficiently interesting and possibly related to stuff we discussed on this very thread that I'm popping back in to quote it...



> First, a difficulty: the invisible dominantWhen people read Lenore's descriptions of types and attitudes, or even the attempts at exegesis posted on this site, they seldom recognize themselves in their dominant function. The reaction is usually something like, "Whah? Maybe sorta kinda, but this hardly seems like me."
> A dominant function, after all, is your main universe of description, and a universe of description does not include itself. It's the lens, not what you see. The dominant function is so ingrained in your personality that you might think that everyone has it also. Jung says that he took a while to figure out that not everyone else was an Introverted Thinker (_has anyone else seen this quote or know where it is?_). Since everyone has arms, you wouldn't say "I'm a person with arms" when you describe yourself. Same with the dominant function.
> So is it possible to get descriptions of function attitudes by the very people who use them for ego orientation? Or is the only way to discover function attitudes painstaking observation of people's behavior and spoken self-understanding for years to find implicit rules?
> The hypothesis of this page is that people do often describe their own preferred function attitudes. But it's under slightly unusual circumstances.
> ...


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Pelopra - Good Stuff, thanks!


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> *1*. The "I had a lesson dedicated to MBTI on my Psychology 101 course and I am sincerely interested in this theory now" crowd
> 
> *2*. The "MBTI is like Astrological Signs 2.0, so awesome" crowd
> 
> ...


Is this just SOOOoooo funny - or is it tragic? 
Will a structural -chart-like jungian thing give me a definition people can at least understand as a common vocabulary?

I think what we have trouble with is we look at behavior and categorize that - but it isn't what Jung was trying to do. He wanted to explain how we file and prioritize/ access differently.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Is this just SOOOoooo funny - or is it tragic?
> Will a structural -chart-like jungian thing give me a definition people can at least understand as a common vocabulary?
> 
> I think what we have trouble with is we look at behavior and categorize that - but it isn't what Jung was trying to do. He wanted to explain how we file and prioritize/ access differently.



I agree, categorizing and generalizing is definitely beneficial to some degree, since it helps you to evolve a critical mind, improves observation skills and sets you on a track to pay more attention and interest in human psychology. Jung was also on the most part very spot on, but even he had certain biases - such as being an INFJ (Te PoLR), he viewed Te in rather negative light, as in a "slave mentality" of sorts. So, considering Jung as a main authority is not the most objective approach to typology.

Between the lines of my post I actually wanted to convey that many people on PerC are incapable to reason on their own, to do their own research, and rely on stereotypes. For example, cognitive functions have much, much more to it than just corresponding to certain personality traits, or basic capabilities. There comes my everlasting, passionate hate for oversimplified stereotypes. 

Perhaps the solution to dissolve this mess of mistyping and stereotyping is to change the vocabulary (in socionics, thinking = logic and feeling = ethics etc. plus changing the names on introvert/extrovert to something else, since they have already become adjectives in popular use, and so on) and to keep expanding and improving the theory, meanwhile creating more guides and discussion to allow MBTI newbies to gain access to typology-related information that is not biased in favour to any type, cognitive function or attitude, that completely cuts down on double meanings, and encourages people to learn with ease, but at the same time to form conclusions on their own and to not believing a single person who attempts to convince them that there are any fundamental, set-in-stone truths in typology, besides the very essentials of how the theory is structurized.

As a simple example, everyone should learn how to read, and everyone should know the correct definitions of the words, but the readers of the book must be encouraged to interpret the text in a unique, subjective manner, not in a single manner defined by some "typology authority".

When there is a story of a cat flying in the skies, people need to know what is cat, what is flying and what is the skies, but they are free to assume that it was either spacecraft, wings, jetpack, a plane etc. not that someone states "It only makes sense that cat was flying in the helicopter. Everything else is not logical and just wrong, because [100 ignorant arguments]" and everybody starts to believe that it only does make sense that the cat could fly in the skies in an helicopter, and in no other way.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Well . . . . . One problem might be that people need to understand *experience filtering* (above) is *not *my novel take on what P functions are - It really is the only reasonable and most direct modern day interpretation of what Jung meant by indirect thinking. He wasn't dividing "rationals" and "irrationals" into reasonables vs reactionary crazies.

Unless you want to go into the house of mirrors about collective unconscious and other voodoo that made interesting reading to Jungian followers nearly 100 years ago, you have to have a modern day definition for P and J that reflects Jungian observations without being tangled in multiple avenues of misunderstanding. !!!!!!!

People today think ego means self esteem and perception, as a dictionary definition leads people to assume volition in P functions which throws the understanding of all of it out the window.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Se

Se is a filter for “real time” awareness to what is happening now. A breadth of awareness necessitates suppression of subliminal analysis. However, this means filtering out or not generating biases and hesitations that are not physically evidenced or called for in the context presented.

Someone who favors this filter is sometimes baffled by what others miss or fail to act on. This sense of “how can they not notice this?” should not be confused with decisive action or categorizing that happens when experience is handed off to judgment functioning. Awareness of a more self invested level as a judging function would be is focused on mental participation, more than intake of the situation.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Si

Si is a filter for the value of history, experiential comfort, and familiarity; as it offers a gauge of appropriateness and harmony or disharmony in one’s surroundings. One’s private interpretations and moods are included as a full contextual experience. 

This filtering becomes a useful resource for reliable results and interpersonal satisfaction. However, it comes at the expense of rejecting what the person has no familiar experiential reference point for. This rejection is not the product of judgment, or a closed mind. The person could know of an advantage to taking in new information but have strong discomfort, unless they look for some way to relate to what is new through something familiar, as a trustworthy base.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ni

Ni filtering creates a “mental holding room” for correlations and associations that are distilled down from incidences of life, or intake of information. Specifics of how meaning is sorted and used will depend on the interplay of judging functions or perhaps a whole function stack order of priorities.

But the abstracting of meaning is largely subconscious and continuous in the background for those who favor this filter. It can be experienced as causing a person to act on a hunch or to arrive at symbolic meaning ahead of being able to access words of explanation.

Benefits are experienced in pattern recognition, detecting underlying principals, laws of nature, or reoccurring themes. This comes at the expense of suppressed awareness in physical experience or contextual cues in day to day living.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ne

Ne is a filter for expansiveness and novelty. Like Ni, Ne makes abstract associations, only this is occurring in “real time”. Ne attempts to separate the essence of something from its surrounding context, defining what is, by sifting through a “what if” of shifting paradigms. When doing this the Ne user learns what something is not, as well as defining possibilities of what something could become. This filter also brings to mind commonalities from one system or grouping of events to another. Unlike Ni, Ne will be triggered by external reality and projected forward; Ni is convergent, collecting and scanning for what is timeless, to be projected into what is finite when called for through judgment functions.

Perceiving functions are all processes of intake not creative output, but Ne in high priority or function stack preference makes the user gifted for innovation and trouble shooting. The divergent process of Ne has a downside though because this yearning for exploration necessarily rejects what is familiar (Si); this will sometimes create detours to efficiency or present communication difficulties with people whose interests are at cross purposes with the Ne users visionary openness.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Well . . . . . One problem might be that people need to understand *experience filtering* (above) is *not *my novel take on what P functions are - It really is the only reasonable and most direct modern day interpretation of what Jung meant by indirect thinking. He wasn't dividing "rationals" and "irrationals" into reasonables vs reactionary crazies.
> 
> Unless you want to go into the house of mirrors about collective unconscious and other voodoo that made interesting reading to Jungian followers nearly 100 years ago, you have to have a modern day definition for P and J that reflects Jungian observations without being tangled in multiple avenues of misunderstanding. !!!!!!!
> 
> People today think ego means self esteem and perception, as a dictionary definition leads people to assume volition in P functions which throws the understanding of all of it out the window.


Yes...if I understand you correctly, you consider that P vs J is involuntary, certainly by adulthood when the type is established?

You're beginning to sound a bit anguished! Have you got that website up and running yet? Kick kick. Just get it started and don't obsess about exact wording too much at this stage.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Dabbling_, Personality Junkie does a great job of being simple, readable, and explaining "types" - but I need my own thing for a different use, and getting* function definitions understandable quickly is a main point.
*
Maybe I'm still doing a bad job because the post you quoted has nothing to do with P or J as a person's orientation. I don't need an excuse for how I am (or anyone else), and I see the advantages for either - as far as any comment I have in a P vs. J discussion, which wasn't my interest or intent in that excerpt. - My concern is to end up with a useful *diagram* which I started to rough out here.


What I need people to understand is what a perceiving function is. It's not the output of being clever, or physically indulgent.
Judging functions are not measures of how emotional or smart a person is, or what they like to talk about and what they hold in.
I need to get clear because these are all reference points for other discussions (other publication) - different from entertainment pieces for the break room, or therapy for interpersonal issues.

My concern about "experience filtering" is it makes sense without using jargon (on my chart), but at the same time might get blown off BECAUSE of not using buzz words for people who have only lightly studied Jung, or MBTI and other theories.

The exact wording IS everything. Of course I expect to edit and evolve but starting out lame is worse than doing none of it. There are aspects to my project that don't involve any engagement here, but it is a helpful place to edit thoughts. So I'm grateful for any honest responses.

BTW, re-reading it I see how the above excerpt could sound different than what I was trying to get out of my head. The delima of jargon and mis-matched meanings of terms and the readers associations of what words mean - is what was troubling me in the excerpt posted. This is the same problem people comment on around here about trouble with testing. I thought this issue was highlighted well though in a humorus way with the excerpt I posted from @_KraChZiMan_


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> @_Old Intern_
> 
> I'm not sure this is useful to you now...it seems to be going round in circles.
> 
> ...


I did use your advice, and will do a bit more of it to fine tune.:happy:

P functions are now revised per the first go-round feedback (OP) about my paragraph breakdown being bad - hard to follow and in places, seeming biased or uneven.

It may be the J functions that still need work, started on in my chart, per last version posted in this thread.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Dabbling_, Personality Junkie does a great job of being simple, readable, and explaining "types" - but I need my own thing for a different use, and getting* function definitions understandable quickly is a main point.
> *
> Maybe I'm still doing a bad job because the post you quoted has nothing to do with P or J as a person's orientation. I don't need an excuse for how I am (or anyone else), and I see the advantages for either - as far as any comment I have in a P vs. J discussion, which wasn't my interest or intent in that excerpt. - My concern is to end up with a useful *diagram* which I started to rough out here.
> 
> ...


Sorry. I picked up only one phrase...


> ...volition in P functions...


 which sparked the question I posted. I was just trying to relate it back to the J and P discussion, but I guess that wasn't hugely helpful to your aim on this thread. Just a bit of a digression. Please ignore it.

I do read this thread but I seem to be wading through treacle intellectually now. I don't think I'm sufficiently concerned about detail to be able to help you fine tune it. For what it's worth I still struggle with your definitions in places, but I don't know how too improve them. I've already tried to define what they are like for me, and I'd feel I was repeating myself and simultaneously insulting your obvious experience and intelligence to go there again. I've learnt so much from your wisdom on this already.

My friend at work today - we got chatting about MBTI and I was able to tell her about the introverted and extroverted functions, which I understood properly from this thread. And guess what, she said she'd never had it explained so well, and she's been on courses! So a big thank you! You're great and I can't wait to watch you rolling in dough from this new venture. I have every confidence in you. I'm sorry if I hacked you off, I didn't mean to.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Ni
> 
> Ni filtering creates a “mental holding room” for correlations and associations that are distilled down from incidences of life, or intake of information. Specifics of how meaning is sorted and used will depend on the interplay of judging functions or perhaps a whole function stack order of priorities.
> 
> ...


Spelling: principles


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> I'm supposed to be in hibernation while i study finals but....
> this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/54521-not-recognizing-yourself-dominant-function.html
> brought me here: Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth
> 
> and i found it sufficiently interesting and possibly related to stuff we discussed on this very thread that I'm popping back in to quote it...


Very interesting. Thanks for posting it. I'll try not to creep you out too much... :smile:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Dabbling - hope it didn't sound like I was going off on you. :laughing:
Abstract narrative IS harder to read, might that be what you were getting at? or just that we've covered it all now?
Thanks for the vote of confidence too.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Personality Infrastructure
> 
>  Experience Filtering
> 
> ...


Okay, I'm going to crawl all over this thing with my NiTe pick axe. Sorry in advance if I hurt your feelings. 

I'd say, you are aiming at a market, a mass market where most people about 75% are Sensors and most of them will also be less well educated than you, since my guess from your style of writing is that you're at least in possession of a degree and quite possibly a doctorate or more.

So I think you could do to simplify it a bit. Put it into easier English words, if you can do so. Or, if you don't feel able to use shorter words, use devices like 'click here for the full definition' and hide some of this under buttons or something.

Some examples: S = events based, N = ideas based.

This bit: I don't have much clue what you're saying here though I have read it loads.

Indirectly influence able, your “pre-sets” of how you filter “intake”can be fed, starved, or put on a special diet; but what you control is experience and not the actual filtering. Once direct effort is exercised it becomes a self invested part of your filing system.

At some level all filters may be useable and accessible to everyone; but having a personality, with a filing system that works for you can be better than adding complexity with “spare parts” more suitable in a different personality infrastructure. 

Putting an abstract cognitive function on a special diet is great Ne, but it's not entirely clear to me how I would do such a thing. Indeed I'm now wondering whether I have done this by accident...it's confusing. And how would I exercise direct effort...???

Surely (I apologise in advance for the confident INTJ style!) what you want is a quick hook to get your reader interested, and most people like stories, so how about your version of something like this...

I'm just an ordinary person <appeal to F> but when I came across <insert your preferred MBTI descriptor here> theory I was entranced because it enabled me to <insert your preferred emotional hook related to whatever you are selling eg save my marriage, find my ideal job, deal with depression, talk easily to just about anyone>!!! And now I have dedicated myself to bringing this amazing knowledge to help YOU. Just answer these few simple questions and pay me a few bucks and into your lap will easily fall <insert benefits you hope they will get>


But don't worry if you can't work it out, just drop me an email and <for my upgraded silver service> pay me extra bucks and I will help you find your type and what is best for you. 

Q: do you prefer ideas or real objects? N/ S
Q: do you like to keep people happy or prefer objective truth F/T
Q: are you personal attached to most objects you own or do objects not hold meanings for you beside their usefulness sort Se from Si
Q: does talking things over help you to work out what you think? Sort Te from Ti
Q: does asking other people help you work out how you feel about something? Sort Fe from Fi

Several simple questions then send them to a page for TeFi, for example, asking them to read it and return if they don't think it describes them, and have a different page for each combination, each one leading to your different selling links or whatever you're planning.

Hope this is helpful to you...it may be just so different to you that you will just need to bin it... 
D


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Personality Infrastructure
>  
> Experience Filtering
> 
> ...


 @Dabbling, how full of myself to quote me but [EMAIL="[email protected]" @azdahak[/EMAIL] @azdahak told me I had too much detail wandering round on the first version (like I am anticipating too many things in the reader that should be adressed somewhere other than the chart) so I cleaned it up some

But (@Dbbbling) you are right that wordiness may be getting in the way, and I will study your prev. post on that. Thank you much for being a sounding board and you won't hurt my feelings.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @Dabbling, how full of myself to quote me but [EMAIL="[email protected]" @azdahak[/EMAIL] @azdahak told me I had too much detail wandering round on the first version (like I am anticipating too many things in the reader that should be adressed somewhere other than the chart) so I cleaned it up some
> 
> But (@Dbbbling) you are right that wordiness may be getting in the way, and I will study your prev. post on that. Thank you much for being a sounding board and you won't hurt my feelings.


It's not wordiness per se, it's ideas ness, or vocabulary, or both. How would this stuff be written up in the vocabulary of your local paper? What it lacks is the simple background, the basic overview, the context in which the ideas hang.

To me it's the mental equivalent of going to the garden centre to buy some flowers for my mother in law's birthday and being hijacked by a helpful gardener who is more interested in telling me the Latin names of the plants than in what their colours are and whether they will last in the vase...which is what I want to know! Once I'm sure about the basics being relevant to me, I will listen to the Latin names, but only if I have to. Nis have very short attention spans and I'd scan a page of text for the key information.

You're a thinker, but it needs to appeal to feelers as well, if not more so than thinkers, because I suspect that feelers are more into self improvement and more likely to part with their cash for 'emotional learning', which is what this is, in many ways. I hope that a not a typism, I don't mean it unkindly.

If you read this thread with a picture, what's interesting is how hard the posters find it to type their own cognitive functions, even though the OP has made them pretty clear at the start. That's the mountain you have to climb, I guess, helping people who won't find it easy at all.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/85534-functions-how-they-work.html

Curiously he uses a picture approach which I personally think is quite a good way into figuring out your reactions. So you could consider doing that on your website, use some pictures?

Tell you though, I have bumped enough people's feelings inadvertently in the past to make me very cautious in offering anything like blunt truthful advice...but I do know that different types can help on a team. What you need on your team now is some sensors, so as to get the full Monty!


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Dabbling said:


> It's not wordiness per se, it's ideas ness, or vocabulary, or both. How would this stuff be written up in the vocabulary of your local paper? What it lacks is the simple background, the basic overview, the context in which the ideas hang.
> 
> *To me it's the mental equivalent of going to the garden centre to buy some flowers for my mother in law's birthday and being hijacked by a helpful gardener who is more interested in telling me the Latin names of the plants than in what their colours are and whether they will last in the vase...which is what I want to know!* Once I'm sure about the basics being relevant to me, I will listen to the Latin names, but only if I have to. Nis have very short attention spans and I'd scan a page of text for the key information.
> 
> ...


I will study your posts in more depth when I can get to it - putting out a small fire at the moment - but *I completely get and agree with the bold part on your post*. But IS it readable if someone IS motivated to even read through it - something I can't quite tell yet.

*Te and Se (and others) would not* want to read this as a list, though I would make it available for someone who wanted to do that too. But most people also won't bother to read a glossary of terms like Personality Junkie offers from education options on their front page. So then people believe they understand something when they don't. People have trouble typing themselves largely because anecdotal is just a behavior that could be the result of many (not function related) factors. I need to follow Jungian intent of the definitions. But* maybe what I have so far is no better than posting excerpts of Jung?* . . . . . but like the Bible his language is old and misunderstood on that basis alone.

What I would do with these function definitions is to link to them with icon/buttons - off from an article(s), but they actually serve as a glossary. I want the definitions as a basis for commenting about a huge variety of things like management best sellers, differences in techie service providers - people being able to talk to each other in regard to training people, different project management depending on types of personality learning styles etc. Start-up dream teams (based on companies I've worked with/for).

- Art school is hardly PHD caliber but I've worked with so many small businesses (near 20yrs worth) and contractors, and read soooo many marketing publications - I just see a tie in because everything jumps out at me about "type" now.

I'm clicking your link at the moment but have to keep myself off PerC after that - for today . . . . . just so addicting to be here . . . . I have a 4pm deadline to finish something - pay not as uncertain as this, my pet project :frustrating:. @Dabbling , Truth - yes I can handle the truth, thanks for staying around on this:tongue:.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Ni
> 
> Ni filtering creates a “mental holding room” for correlations and associations that are distilled down from incidences of life, or intake of information. Specifics of how meaning is sorted and used will depend on the interplay of judging functions or perhaps a whole function stack order of priorities.
> 
> ...


Please don't use the word "principals" for Ni, or pattern recognition. I also would advise against hunches. Hunches are in my opinion the result of lower order intuition in an individual. Principals is something I'd associate more with judgement, especially Ji, and same with patterns and pattern recognition as a whole. A lot of people think they are Ni types because they relate to these buzzwords. It's misleading. There must be a better way to describe Ni in a somewhat easy to understand sense without relying on these misleading buzzwords.


----------

