# How do you know if you're using Ni and how does it differ from being Ni-dominant?



## FluffySheep (Dec 24, 2013)

I've been recently identified as an INTJ because of my high Fi (in relation to my measly Fe) and Te, and how I've been told that I experience Ni-Fi loops (I've read the "Recognizing the Inferior Function" threads on INTP and INTJ).

Something just doesn't settle with me, though: I don't feel like I have Ni, but how can I be an INTJ without having the function that significantly makes an INTJ an INTJ? I don't have ground-breaking "insights" or "Eureka!" moments that a lot of people are referring to. Maybe I just don't have enough information, or my brain just doesn't think/process information that way. I feel like I don't use Ni (or if I have, I don't remember/recognise it at all).

The only explanation that I found that I could relate to (the bolded one) was IonOfAeons' description in the "Ni: Just what the hell is it? XD" thread.



IonOfAeons said:


> Ni is confusing...
> It's really hard to know where you're looking when you come up with an answer using it. 'Multiple interpretations' is a good description because unlike Ne, it doesn't really seem to generate anything, it's just a master synthesizer.
> 
> Comparing Ne and Ni, think of having a destination you have to get to. Ne will see the distant spark of it and build looking at the obstacles all around it. You'll take that object to block this hazard, then look for the next thing to help you get over that wall, etc.
> *With Ni you would look at the destination* and feel sure that there was some predetermined path that you were looking for. This relates to looking inwards and then having 'ah-ha!' moments because suddenly the timings and patterns make sense and you're not looking for ways to _overcome_ your obstacles, you're merging with the obstacles so * they actually turn out to have the answer for getting you to your destination. You didn't have to change them, you simply had to find a way of integrating yourself with them.*


Since I don't yet fully grasp the concept of Ni, I don't know how accurate his explanation is. Also, I may have only used certain functions a few times; I don't think I'd qualify to be a Ni-dom if I've only used it a few times in my life (assuming that this explanation is true). I don't think just "predicting" situations is enough to justify being a Ni-dom. 

Examples:

A lot of people can predict things/scenes in movies (well, mainly because they're predictable), but it doesn't mean that they're Ni-dom.

Late November a Burger King was being constructed near us, and all the banner said "Opening December 2013." I said "Psh, yeah—December 31."

(While these may be called "predictions," I don't really see how only Ni-doms or Ni-strong types think of them. With just a vague "Opening December 2013," of course BK will open on Dec. 31—they'd say "Well, technically we _did_ open during December.")

I've read the descriptions from careerplanner, cognitiveprocesses[dot]com, keys2cognition, oddlydevelopedtypes (plus some others I can't remember) and these threads (since I can't post links yet):

Is an insight from Ti or Ni?
Ni: Just what the hell is it? XD
Introverted Intuition (Ni): Your Experience As An INTJ
Ti vs. Ni
Ni instead of Ne
The Ti vs. Ni one with "The Sequel" in the title (However, after a reading the first posts, it doesn't look like it would have any new information, so I didn't finish it.)

I forgot the others.

Could it be possible to be totally unaware that you've been using Ni? If so, how do you become aware of it? (I have a feeling that someone would say something with the main idea/point as "You just do," but still—there may be others.)

How would a Ni-dominant person differ from a person who only occasionally uses Ni?

Edit: I realised just now that my thread title was poorly phrased and I omitted some parts that should've gone in between. :/ Hopefully the idea is still intact...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ni is symbolic in nature.

Here is an example of the symbolic and predictive nature of Ni from Jung:



> In another account of the same case, Jung mentions "a young woman about 27 or 28" who informed him during her initial analytic session that she had a snake in her belly: "Her first words were when I had seated her, 'You know, doctor, I come to you because I have a snake in my abdomen.'" Jung exclaimed: "What?!" The woman replied: "'Yes, a snake, a black snake coiled up right in the bottom of my abdomen.'" According to Jung, "I must have made a rather bewildered face at her, for she said, 'You know, I don't mean it literally, but I should say it was a snake, a snake.'" In the middle of her analysis, "which lasted only for ten consultations," the woman told Jung that she had predicted how the analysis would conclude: "'I'll come ten times, and then it will be all right.'" How, Jung asked, did she know? "'Oh,'" she said, "'I've got a hunch.'" When the woman appeared for her fifth or sixth session, she said, 'Oh, doctor, I must tell you, the snake has risen, it is now about here'" (1977: 309). When she appeared for her tenth session, Jung inquired: "'Now this is our last consultation. Do you feel cured?'" (1977: 309-10). The woman said: "'You know, this morning it came up, it came out of my mouth, and the head was golden'" (1977: 310).


I'd be willing to bet that this person is an INFJ. I am not sure how similar or different Ni would be experienced in an INTJ.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

INTJ's are actually quite sufficiently in touch with Fi, it's not their strongest function, not something they prefer as a main filter between them and the world, but Fi affects INTJ's more than they would like to acknowledge, since Ni works on relatively emotionless plane, and Te just plainly ignores emotion-based judgements.

I would use some songs as examples: I would describe Ni-Fi through this song (typed this band as INTJ)


* *












I would describe Fi-Ni loop through this song (typed this band as ISFP)


* *












I don't mean that you should reconsider your type based on which song you relate to the most, I merely posted them so I could save some time from compiling a long rant or list for you on how Ni-Fi loop or Fi-Ni loop differ, since music can sometimes say a thousand words. If you can gain the same vibes from these songs, maybe it helps you to understand better how these loops differ from one another, and thus helps you to gain more insight, or learn something on your own roud:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Ni is symbolic in nature.
> 
> Here is an example of the symbolic and predictive nature of Ni from Jung:
> 
> ...


Very different and yes, you are right that person was likely an INFJ or perhaps an ENFJ. I find that INFJs like how to say... more anecdotal ways of putting things. Flowery, perhaps. As an INTJ my worldview isn't as organic but more mechanical, so I would attempt to express the same through the use known physiological terms instead. 

Also a good example of how intuition can be concrete, in my opinion. 

As for the OP, the OP sounds like an xNTP to me, not INTJ.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

When you are too lost in thoughts and contemplation while walking to realize you are approaching a hole in the ground, proceed to fall in and then die.

Only after you have died in that manner will you truly know you are using Ni.


----------



## FluffySheep (Dec 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> As for the OP, the OP sounds like an xNTP to me, not INTJ.


Why do you think that?

Is it possible to sound or seem like an INTJ yet remain INTP in functions? Majority of the people answered that I "seem" like an INTJ, but... I don't know. I thought that I'd be relieved that I'd finally have my answer (knowing my current type), but I'm not. It's like there's something missing, or something I haven't considered. I know too little to effectively and truthfully say that I'm an INTJ, so I went with what the majority told me. Hmm...

Maybe only when I understand Ni would I be able to determine my type. (I don't like how indefinite that sounds.)



PaladinX said:


> Ni is symbolic in nature.
> 
> Here is an example of the symbolic and predictive nature of Ni from Jung:
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that this person is an INFJ. I am not sure how similar or different Ni would be experienced in an INTJ.


So it's kind of like talking in analogies? Is this situation similar or a totally different function?

Someone goes to the ER because of stomach pains, but when the doctor asked where exactly it hurt, or how much it hurt (given a scale from 1 to 10), that person could not give an exact answer. The doctor then asks what it feels like, and the patient says "I don't know what kind of pain it is. It's not stinging, or a stabbing kind of pain. It's like there's this black hole somewhere here," while gesturing to the area below the ribcage. After the examination, it turns out that the pain is from hyperacidity.


----------



## WinterFox (Sep 19, 2013)

default settings said:


> When you are too lost in thoughts and contemplation while walking to realize you are approaching a hole in the ground, proceed to fall in and then die.
> 
> Only after you have died in that manner will you truly know you are using Ni.



:laughing: Only an INTJ would come up with such a description of Ni 
Btw, this isn't the only method that indicates Ni. I just thought of another method. 
If a person gets too lost in thoughts and contemplation and they ended up getting run over by a vehicle and died, then that person can be very sure that they are using Ni too. 
Btw, why does people who use Ni have such a tragic way of dying? :laughing:


----------



## FluffySheep (Dec 24, 2013)

Rather than "tragic" I find it kind of unfortunate lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FluffySheep said:


> Why do you think that?
> 
> Is it possible to sound or seem like an INTJ yet remain INTP in functions? Majority of the people answered that I "seem" like an INTJ, but... I don't know. I thought that I'd be relieved that I'd finally have my answer (knowing my current type), but I'm not. It's like there's something missing, or something I haven't considered. I know too little to effectively and truthfully say that I'm an INTJ, so I went with what the majority told me. Hmm...
> 
> ...


Because people suck at typing for most of the part on this forum and have no clue what intj is or how to recognize it. Look at you - so much ne. Always going off in different connections and I see fe there too so there must be ti. Because you don't state or prefer fe first or take in obvious fe data your thinking is of static nature. You want to state what something is, not where it is going. Obvious ntp if I ever saw one. I lean entp.

Ni is not about analogy but symbolism. It's different. If I say my heart hurts because there's a thorn in my chest that's ni in very simple and concrete terms. It's not that it describes something but what is represented. How the thorn symbolizes the pain, the depth and severity. Though I don't think you'll understand because ne blocks out this kind of logic of viewing the world.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Ni concerns itself with the nature of a thing. It's essence, devoid of how it appears... because the nature of a thing is not found in it's appearance. The more pronounced the emphasis on the nature of things is, the more the details of those things are put aside. An S might think/speak at length about observable aspects, or 'stuff', but deprioritize what it all 'means'. That isn't to say that they aren't capable of this, but their minds tend to orient to what exists rather than what those things might symbolize. 

Thus, the woman with the 'snake' in her stomach was simply oriented to the nature of the thing. The nature of it was best described as a snake. That is the image, the idea, the common symbol that best reflected what she was experiencing. Why not simply discuss the details of the feeling? Well, sometimes an Ni dom will do just that, but their mind more naturally inclines to it's nature. 

This isn't always so poetic, and needn't be at all. However, an Ni-dom will indeed find their mind reaching out for good symbols, decoupled from the details of the moment, to communicate. 

A fundamental difference between Ni and Ne is that Ni seeks for the 'symbol' (or simply way of seeing it) that resonates the nature of the thing most for them. This is, by it's nature, somewhat private - and thus somewhat idiosyncratic. Ni symbols, paradigms, ideologies, platforms, world views, whatever, often are the sorts of things that take some indoctrination to get into sync with. Ni doms are sometimes seen as 'cultish' in this way, but it is simply that their vision of the nature of things are often decoupled from appearance and make no attempt at consensus for it's own sake. 

Ne, on the other hand, yearns for consensus. Objectivity. It asks symbols to be universal, and is very quick to understand the 'gist' of the nature of a thing than to dive deep into a subjective view of that nature. Ne, most notably, is also quick to induct another perspective concerning that nature. It is often said that Ne sees that nature of things as multi-faceted, and attempts to create a mosaic by inducting all possible interpretations of the essence of things.... anticipating that from that mosaic, a broader perspective will emerge. This is why Ne types are perhaps the most inclined to innovation. 

When an Ni innovates, it's often something the Ne would never have seen, having been too pulled around by every different perspective, to quick to accept the 'gist' of something. 

A good analogy of Ne vs Ni would be Einstein (Ne) and Hawking (Ni). Einstein used an inductive perception of the nature of things to consider a new, broad idea of the universe. Having done that, he spent the rest of his life attempting to stretch that theory further, wider, greater, broader. Hawking, instead, sought to consolidate... to backfill our idea of the universe until it was rich, thorough and complete. 

It could be said that Ni seeks the the deepest truth, where Ne seeks the broadest one.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Ni is a largely subconscious perceptive function; alone, I'd argue that it doesn't really present itself in an overt manner (spacing out, dreaminess, contemplative demeanor, more relaxed, etc aside). It is a process which runs in the background, being fed information by Se (largely subconsciously) and piecing it together tirelessly. This is how we Ni-doms can arrive at conclusions without actually knowing how they came about, or from where the information we have gleaned was derived. 

Speaking from personal experiences, Ni-zone outs occasionally take me so deep that reality somehow unfurls before me; for a fleeting moment, I see the world devoid of any subjective filters (personal or collective). I see the shade of gray, objective reality. It's as though I suddenly feel a oneness with the Universe, understanding it far greater than I had previously... then I come crashing back to 'reality'.

Contrary to the stereotypical descriptions, I do not concern myself chiefly with symbolism. Certainly, it intrigues me and I find it fascinating. I'm hardly the walking encyclopedia for the topic some descriptions would have you believe, though. For myself, it's more about entertaining thoughts of what _isn't_ there, rather than what is. My mind is focused on potentialities rather than actualities; physical reality is of very little interest to me, and my mind encourages me to break free of its chains.

So, if you're an Ni user you may have experienced some of the above, or perhaps identify with what I have said.

If Ni isn't dominant (a perfect example being my ENFJ fiancee) you're far more likely to appear less reflective, and also (again, in my experience) have a greater 'bounciness' to you energy-wise. My ENFJs Ni only really reveals itself when she wishes to discuss a 'deep' topic. Quite often I'm amazed at her depth and complexity. On the surface, she's fun, energetic and extremely warm. Just beneath that exterior she's wise, intelligent and deep. Oh my is she deep... you'd never know it, though! 

On the other side, I appear somewhat cold, aloof and generally removed. You have to engage my Fe to get me to warm up. In other words, we share the same functions but there is a noticeable difference between how NiFe and FeNi present themselves. I would assume the same can be said for NiTe and TeNi.


----------



## WinterFox (Sep 19, 2013)

Btw OP, if you are confused about Ti vs Ni, maybe we can try analyzing things from another perspective.
Instead of comparing INTP Ti with INTJ Ni, you can try comparing INTP Ne with INTJ Ni instead.
Both Ne and Ni are about seeing possibilities but Ni will narrow down these possibilities whereas Ne will multiply these possibilities.

This is how a conversation between an Ni and a Ne user is like:


Ni: Should we go to the supermarket to buy some groceries?
Ne: What groceries are we buying?
Ni: Eggs and a loaf of bread
Ne: Just eggs and a loaf of bread? What about other things like drinks?
Ni: No, we don't need to buy other things.
Ne: *starts suggesting more possibilities* Oh, I just forget, we have run out of tissue papers. Should we go buy tissue papers as well?
Ni: *starts getting irritated* I said NO! Which part of no don't you get it?!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Ni concerns itself with the nature of a thing. It's essence, devoid of how it appears... because the nature of a thing is not found in it's appearance. The more pronounced the emphasis on the nature of things is, the more the details of those things are put aside. An S might think/speak at length about observable aspects, or 'stuff', but deprioritize what it all 'means'. That isn't to say that they aren't capable of this, but their minds tend to orient to what exists rather than what those things might symbolize.
> 
> Thus, the woman with the 'snake' in her stomach was simply oriented to the nature of the thing. The nature of it was best described as a snake. That is the image, the idea, the common symbol that best reflected what she was experiencing. Why not simply discuss the details of the feeling? Well, sometimes an Ni dom will do just that, but their mind more naturally inclines to it's nature.
> 
> ...


I always thought Ni was universal though, in that whatever truth is found encompasses the totality of the universe itself, whereas Ne is situated _in_ the universe, Ni is dislocated, broader, grander. Sometimes I can see flashes of the entirety of the universe unfold in front of my eyes. I see its inception and its death at the same time, just like I see the tiniest portion and the total vast size at the same time. 

So I don't understand when you say Ne seeks the universal lol. I never did. How can it be universal when Ne still insists there's some form of shape it must bend? Take the example of the box. Ne types often claim that thinking outside the box is what Ne is, but the thing is, to me as an Ni type, it assumes there is a box there, a limit, an object, some foundation itself. What if there is no box? No rules, no laws, no boundaries? Ne must necessarily assume there is an object there first for it to operate. Then how can it be thinking outside the box if it still operates with the logic that there _is_ a box? I don't see a box or think of boxes when I think of Ni. I think beyond boxes. Boxes are irrelevant. The shape of the object is irrelevant. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to make it into some Ne vs Ni debate. Just felt like putting it out there because I never understood why Ne types tend to think of Ne as big picture etc, because to me it seems so limited at some level, and I don't mean that in an offensive way. I just don't understand, lol.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Socionics describes Ne as "intuition of possibilities" and Ni as "Intuition of time" I think that's a much easier way to think about it than by the pseudo-depth-masturbation a lot of people engage in when talking about Ni.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I always thought Ni was universal though, in that whatever truth is found encompasses the totality of the universe itself, whereas Ne is situated _in_ the universe, Ni is dislocated, broader, grander. Sometimes I can see flashes of the entirety of the universe unfold in front of my eyes. I see its inception and its death at the same time, just like I see the tiniest portion and the total vast size at the same time.
> 
> So I don't understand when you say Ne seeks the universal lol. I never did. How can it be universal when Ne still insists there's some form of shape it must bend? Take the example of the box. Ne types often claim that thinking outside the box is what Ne is, but the thing is, to me as an Ni type, it assumes there is a box there, a limit, an object, some foundation itself. What if there is no box? No rules, no laws, no boundaries? Ne must necessarily assume there is an object there first for it to operate. Then how can it be thinking outside the box if it still operates with the logic that there _is_ a box? I don't see a box or think of boxes when I think of Ni. I think beyond boxes. Boxes are irrelevant. The shape of the object is irrelevant.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not trying to make it into some Ne vs Ni debate. Just felt like putting it out there because I never understood why Ne types tend to think of Ne as big picture etc, because to me it seems so limited at some level, and I don't mean that in an offensive way. I just don't understand, lol.


Well, consider this: 

If what you describe as Universal is the whole of truth... I look at your idea of the whole of truth... as ONE truth. A marble in a jar of marbles. Yes, this makes my conception of that truth shallow. It makes my conception of all truths shallow. However, what it does do is allow me to compare them all at a distance. 

I'll see two Ni types argue, gods of their own universes. I see both of their perspectives objectively. I induct them both. I put them both in the jar, shake em around a bit and see if a bigger picture emerges.

I find it difficult to describe this to an Ni, because they are so locked in their universe that they cannot see what I mean by universal. I guess I mean multiversal. Objective (in the vernacular sense) feels best. The consequence of objectivity is shallowness, but that is okay. Objectivity is more important than depth to me.

Which is interesting, because I feel quite the opposite on the subject of logic. I understand Ni because I understand Ti. I consider my logic to be universal. A Te would call it subjective, staring at a tree and missing the forest. I would call it pure logic, @_Scelerat_ calls it masturbation and frankly is not wrong to do so. 

I feel the same way about Ni. So often an Ni will express their view of truth... and I think that it seems to me to be a brilliantly and thoroughly well-contained universe, in a marble, in a jar of marbles. 

You don't see THE universe, you see YOUR universe. You are in a realm of your own creation. You see it utterly and universally, yes, but that is why I say 'mosaic' to describe Ne. It is a mosaic of the universes that Ni inhabits. Each only vaguely understood, combining into a greater objective whole. It's cherrypicking. 

As far as 'think outside the box', I don't know. Do I think outside the box? It's more that I collect all the boxes and try to determine what from each of them could be combined into a better box with better stuff in it. For Ni, I think it is about picking a box and then blowing the walls off of it to truly become the god of what others still see as just a box. 

With all Ni types, including you, I just want to yank you out of whatever realm you've made yourself the god of, to see that there are other realms with other gods and it's all just a subjective mess.


----------



## FluffySheep (Dec 24, 2013)

WinterFox said:


> Ni: Should we go to the supermarket to buy some groceries?
> Ne: What groceries are we buying?
> Ni: Eggs and a loaf of bread
> Ne: Just eggs and a loaf of bread? What about other things like drinks?
> ...


Yeah, that's when that happens. I actually just had this conversation now and I got kind of annoyed (but I think it's more of an impatience thing rather than me using Ni):

(BG: I gave a list of things to buy, and among those things were "Cool Grey 1, 3, 5" and "Warm Grey 1, 3, 5.")
Person: The shop said they didn't have those colours. They have 11 for both, though.
Me: (She interrupted me while I was doing something important, so I got annoyed.) Why are you telling me this? I don't need to know what else they have. I gave you a list for a reason.

Or when someone does grocery shopping and they say that they'd "only get some" things. Then while inside the grocery the person keeps going "Oh, we need this, too. Oh, and that. We also ran out of butter, let's go get some." At the end, we have twice as much grocery bags than originally planned. I get annoyed because the only reason I agreed to go was that I believed and was assured that it would only take a short amount of time.

I think I'm just generally impatient.



ephemereality said:


> I lean entp.
> 
> Ni is not about analogy but symbolism. It's different. If I say my heart hurts because there's a thorn in my chest that's ni in very simple and concrete terms. It's not that it describes something but what is represented. How the thorn symbolizes the pain, the depth and severity. Though I don't think you'll understand because ne blocks out this kind of logic of viewing the world.


Interesting... I've never been typed as ENTP before. I've always just looked at INTP and INTJ because that's all I ever got in my life, and while I was unsure of my being NT, I was very sure that I was an Ixxx.

I've read from careerplanner and a few other people that, for introverted users who are not very aware of the functions, the auxiliary appears more dominant because it is the extraverted process. Is the introvert the only one "blind" to their dominant introverted function, or do the "outsiders" also see what is the most extraverted function?

Also, by going with your example of Ni, would it be possible to "use" it if certain situations call for it? Like, say, when you're writing? Or is another function involved in creative writing? (I'm going just by the "literary" or the "poetic" manifestation, though.)

Sorry for the numerous questions.


----------



## WinterFox (Sep 19, 2013)

FluffySheep said:


> Yeah, that's when that happens. I actually just had this conversation now and I got kind of annoyed (but I think it's more of an impatience thing rather than me using Ni):
> 
> (BG: I gave a list of things to buy, and among those things were "Cool Grey 1, 3, 5" and "Warm Grey 1, 3, 5.")
> Person: The shop said they didn't have those colours. They have 11 for both, though.
> ...




hmm to be honest I'm not sure whether you are an Ni or Ne because it's quite difficult for me to type people online, I usually need to interact with people in real life before I can type them. But one thing I am very sure of is you use Ti and Fe, which means that you are either an xNFJ or xNTP.
Anyway, I was at the ENTP forum earlier and this is how the ENTPs there described Ni and Ne:


Ne exhales a variety of possibilities from one idea, Ni inhales all ideas and unites them into one principle or pattern.
Ni is convergent, Ne is divergent.
*Ne* – is Intuition directed outward. It views time in a forward “future” direction. The shape of time sweeps up and outward in all directions and has no forward boundaries. People with dominant Ne tend to be more optimistic and idealistic, preferring to consider what could be, rather than what is, or what was.
*Ni* – is Intuition directed inward. It views time in a “timeless” manner. I believe Ni has no shape. Time is formless and infinite. Ni dominant people can more often perceive truths that are not contained by the circumstances which surround them.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

FluffySheep said:


> I've been recently identified as an INTJ because of my high Fi (in relation to my measly Fe) and Te, and how I've been told that I experience Ni-Fi loops (I've read the "Recognizing the Inferior Function" threads on INTP and INTJ).
> 
> Something just doesn't settle with me, though: I don't feel like I have Ni, but how can I be an INTJ without having the function that significantly makes an INTJ an INTJ? I don't have ground-breaking "insights" or "Eureka!" moments that a lot of people are referring to. Maybe I just don't have enough information, or my brain just doesn't think/process information that way. I feel like I don't use Ni (or if I have, I don't remember/recognise it at all).
> 
> ...


High Fi,.. not aware of Ni,.... Te still important,..... questioning your type,.... you seem to "feel" a lot, and you chose as your nick name: FluffySheep.

My Ni looks at all this and goes like: Not an INTJ!

Have you considered you´re another type? INFP's tend to do what you´re doing now and INFP's tend to like the INTJ type. Not saying you are an INFP, but consider it a possibility to investigate.


----------



## FluffySheep (Dec 24, 2013)

Peter said:


> High Fi,.. not aware of Ni,.... Te still important,..... questioning your type,.... you seem to "feel" a lot, and you chose as your nick name: FluffySheep.
> 
> My Ni looks at all this and goes like: Not an INTJ!
> 
> Have you considered you´re another type? INFP's tend to do what you´re doing now and INFP's tend to like the INTJ type. Not saying you are an INFP, but consider it a possibility to investigate.


To be honest I thought of me being an xxFx only in passing because no one has ever typed me that way. I just narrowed it down to the two types that people have always identified me as. I'll look into it and see if it applies to me more.

What do you mean by me seeming to "feel a lot"? Perhaps (a) specific line/s that made you think of it so that I would know how it manifests; I've always believed that Fe was more on "feeling about/for other people" (such as taking into account their emotions, feelings, etc.), and Fi was more on measuring things based on one's values/emotions/etc. Maybe that's why I overlooked Fe.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

arkigos said:


> With all Ni types, including you, I just want to yank you out of whatever realm you've made yourself the god of, to see that there are other realms with other gods and it's all just a subjective mess.


I think this way about both Ni doms and Ti doms at times, Ni doms are too tangled up in their personal vision to check it against reality and Ti doms are too tangled up in their personal logic to check it against reality. 

What is the moral behind Plato's Horse fable? - Yahoo UK & Ireland Answers is a typical example of what happens when you have Ni doms and Ti doms in a discussion, 2 days before someone thinks to count how many teeth a horse has. The discussion just becomes too removed from reality.


----------

