# Te, Ni vs. Ni, Te



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

How do these cognitive functions operate in tandem? What are the differences between how Te & Ni function as opposed to Ni & Te? I think I have a fair understanding of the definition of both functions however how they work in the order they do confuses me. Of course, Te & Ni would make someone an ENTJ and Ni & Te would make someone an INTJ however I am not necessarily looking for the differences between the types themselves (although that information would be useful as well).

Also, if one is Ni dominant, do they really have these so called "visions"? If yes is the answer, what does a vision mean? A visual mental picture? Would a type whose auxiliary function is Ni also have these visions? If they do, is it wrong for me to say that those visions aren't as strong as someone who is Ni dominant?


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

The differences in order... Well, I can't say for sure, but I imagine that Ni followed by Te would use Te to justify or disprove their Ni musings, where as Te followed by Ni would use Ni to find some view that makes them seem right or something similar. Those are just guesses though.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't know if "visions" have anything to do with type, unless I'm misunderstanding what people refer to when they mention them - or it's an INFJ specific phenomenon.

Cause I'm an Ni-Te and I don't get visions. I am more visual than auditory and I can picture things that I've recently seen to a pretty stark degree, but there's not necessarily anything visual tied to what goes on in my head or the insights I get.

If there is, I must be oblivious to it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> I don't know if "visions" have anything to do with type, unless I'm misunderstanding what people refer to when they mention them - or it's an INFJ specific phenomenon.
> 
> *Cause I'm an Ni-Te and I don't get visions.* I am more visual than auditory and I can picture things that I've recently seen to a pretty stark degree, but there's not necessarily anything visual tied to what goes on in my head or the insights I get.


The "vision" are initiated by the Ni user itself: we are going to imagine scenarios that could happen or building theoretical scenarios to come to a new answer that lies inside the imagined extension. It´s not a magic ability that comes out of the blue like Ne.

That doesn´t mean that Ni is for Ni-doms not on autopilot. It works just more concentrated with other functions.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

QrivaN said:


> The differences in order... Well, I can't say for sure, but I imagine that Ni followed by Te would use Te to justify or disprove their Ni musings, where as Te followed by Ni would use Ni to find some view that makes them seem right or something similar. Those are just guesses though.


That makes sense. However, I guess I'm looking for a real life example. How does Te & Ni work in a real world setting? What behaviors would result? Given a specific problem, how does Te & Ni work differently then Ni & Te?



LostFavor said:


> I don't know if "visions" have anything to do with type, unless I'm misunderstanding what people refer to when they mention them - or it's an INFJ specific phenomenon.
> 
> Cause I'm an Ni-Te and I don't get visions. I am more visual than auditory and I can picture things that I've recently seen to a pretty stark degree, but there's not necessarily anything visual tied to what goes on in my head or the insights I get.
> 
> If there is, I must be oblivious to it.


Ok, according to your answer, I think you've confirmed my suspicion that the word "vision" that is so often associated with Ni dominant types aren't really "visions", in the conventional sense. Although I suppose "vision" would be the best way to describe how the function might work, which is probably why the word is often used. Honestly, my main reason for asking is because I can't really determine if I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, although I'm 100% positive on the NTJ part. Whether I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, I as well do not get these "visions".


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> The "vision" are initiated by the Ni user itself: we are going to imagine scenarios that could happen or building theoretical scenarios to come to a new answer that lies inside the imagined extension. It´s not a magic ability that comes out of the blue like Ne.
> 
> That doesn´t mean that Ni is for Ni-doms not on autopilot. It works just more concentrated with other functions.


Ok, so if an Ni dominant personality uses their Ni "vision" to come to a conclusion or receive an answer, would they be able to backtrack their thought process? Excluding the use of Te I suppose. Also, I think you're being quite bias in regards to Ne. Really, I think many people can agree that Ne and Ni are equally as random, it's just that Ne is seemingly far crazier (probably is) and perhaps harder to understand due to the many possibilities generated by Ne, which are then pieced together. By harder to understand, I mean, it's probably much harder for an S to follow the track of a dominant Ne user as opposed to an Ni user. Then again, an Ni user would probably just offer "the answer" and leave an S without a "track" to follow. Unless Te is used.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Since when is developed knowledge a bias? Ne is adaptive and Ni is directive the difference should be obvious.

If a Ni user is able to remember to backtrack his thought process depends on the significance since iNtuition isn´t really found of details.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> How do these cognitive functions operate in tandem? What are the differences between how Te & Ni function as opposed to Ni & Te? I think I have a fair understanding of the definition of both functions however how they work in the order they do confuses me.


There is not significant difference in most cases, I think... not in how each function works. The difference is on the level in which the functions express themselves to varying degrees of dominance.

When INFJ's are stressed, we become ESTP's... we may go on behaving just like an ESTP for an extended period of time... this is because we have all the same functions, we just use them in opposite orders of dominance.



> Also, if one is Ni dominant, do they really have these so called "visions"? If yes is the answer, what does a vision mean?


Depends what kind of vision you're talking about. I think the vision most commonly associated with Ni-doms is an ideal model of how things should be done to achieve something. The vision is that future idea that has yet to be realized. I think ENTJ's have this too... it's just for an INTJ and INFJ, the vision is much of who they are... where as with an ENTJ, they're more apt to be in the present moment, and usually have smaller visions... a vision on how to start a business, and how that business should be... a vision of how to get all A's this semester at college... a vision of how to be promoted.

For an INFJ and an INTJ, their vision may include those things, but to us our vision is the world around us... everything has to fit into our vision, everything. It all has to be put into a proper place within our heads and work amongst a macro-understanding... this large integrated pattern applies to every aspect of our life and interaction with the world. This may be true for some ENTJ's and ENFJ's as well, but the more you interact in the present, the less you're focusing on this model... in other words, ENTJ's and ENFJ's use the model just enough to come back into the present with what they need.

Where as INFJ's and INTJ's are more apt to neglect the present and delve further than they have to, into their Ni-model. This usually means our Ni is more robust, but it doesn't have to mean that in every instance.

An INFJ could neglect their Ni and focus on Fe more... sounds like a bad idea to me, but they could do it... and they'd probably test as some blend of ENFJ and INFJ, as that's pretty much what they would be.




> Would a type whose auxiliary function is Ni also have these visions? If they do, is it wrong for me to say that those visions aren't as strong as someone who is Ni dominant?


Strong is probably an incorrect word to use. Complex is probably a better one. An ESTP can have a very strong Ni-vision of what should be done and act upon it. The difference is that they're not going to live their life based upon Ni-visions. They'll only conjure one when they need it.


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> That makes sense. However, I guess I'm looking for a real life example. How does Te & Ni work in a real world setting? What behaviors would result? Given a specific problem, how does Te & Ni work differently then Ni & Te?


Hm...okay, let's say an INTJ and an ENTJ are both trying to solve a difficult problem for work. The INTJ is likely to jump to a conclusion half way through working it out, then back-track to prove that the answer they got is right (at least that's what I tend to do). The ENTJ would be more likely to work the problem out, then find some way to prove that their answer is right, even if it isn't (but that's just a guess on my part. I'm not very experienced with ENTJs).




> Ok, according to your answer, I think you've confirmed my suspicion that the word "vision" that is so often associated with Ni dominant types aren't really "visions", in the conventional sense. Although I suppose "vision" would be the best way to describe how the function might work, which is probably why the word is often used. Honestly, my main reason for asking is because I can't really determine if I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, although I'm 100% positive on the NTJ part. Whether I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, I as well do not get these "visions".


Yeah, that sounds about right. It's not so much that we get visions, as we have a good feeling of how a situation will turn out, based on several variables. Someone on the forums described Ni as being "a sort of sped-up deductive reasoning". I think that is a bit simplified of a definition, but combined with the "visions" definition, I find it to be fairly accurate. 

Here's a question that might help you find your type. Do you use logic to justify your thoughts, or do you use leverage to justify your logic? (Sorry. I feel like I worded that badly...)


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Ok, so if an Ni dominant personality uses their Ni "vision" to come to a conclusion or receive an answer, would they be able to backtrack their thought process? Excluding the use of Te I suppose. Also, I think you're being quite bias in regards to Ne. Really, I think many people can agree that Ne and Ni are equally as random, it's just that Ne is seemingly far crazier (probably is) and perhaps harder to understand due to the many possibilities generated by Ne, which are then pieced together. By harder to understand, I mean, it's probably much harder for an S to follow the track of a dominant Ne user as opposed to an Ni user. Then again, an Ni user would probably just offer "the answer" and leave an S without a "track" to follow. Unless Te is used.


Try thinking of it this way: Ni is similar to deductive reasoning, whereas Ne is more inductive. Ni is subjective because it's introverted. It rules out what "can't be true" for us. Ne gets all of these ideas and possibilities, and just goes with them.


----------



## TrippedOnReality (Jul 4, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Ok, so if an Ni dominant personality uses their Ni "vision" to come to a conclusion or receive an answer, would they be able to backtrack their thought process?


That's how it works for me, but it was a skill I needed to learn and Te seems to be the thing that makes some logical sense out of the Ni leaps (and it always follows the logic path backward from end point to beginning point). 

I can try to give you an example or two of how my ENTJ friend and I differ. I have an ENTJ friend and the two of us play a video game together. Sometimes he has this need to test and retest things to make sure we can earn money in the game in the most efficient way possible. Often times I get a hunch for which way will be the best way base on some experience and general knowledge about how the game has worked previously and the direction it seems to be headed in the future. So we'll test a bunch of different ways to make money, and test them far more completely than I would typically because I trust that my Ni is picking up some pattern and it just "knows" the best way is a certain way. ENTJ is less sure of this intuition and needs to test things completely, even if he has general feeling about which way will be the best way to make money. 

The other big difference between us is how we deal with people, he's more active in his pursuit of information about people and will actively ask questions of people and be generally engaging to try to figure them out; I tend to sit back and watch how people interact with one another asking very few questions, but the goal for both of us is basically the same: how to deal with this person efficiently. His approach is direct and efficient time-wise. My approach is indirect and efficient energy-wise.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> The "vision" are initiated by the Ni user itself: we are going to imagine scenarios that could happen or building theoretical scenarios to come to a new answer that lies inside the imagined extension. It´s not a magic ability that comes out of the blue like Ne.
> 
> That doesn´t mean that Ni is for Ni-doms not on autopilot. It works just more concentrated with other functions.


Can you give an example of this in action? I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Ok, according to your answer, I think you've confirmed my suspicion that the word "vision" that is so often associated with Ni dominant types aren't really "visions", in the conventional sense. Although I suppose "vision" would be the best way to describe how the function might work, which is probably why the word is often used. Honestly, my main reason for asking is because I can't really determine if I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, although I'm 100% positive on the NTJ part. Whether I'm an ENTJ or INTJ, I as well do not get these "visions".


Yeah, seems to be a confusion of language, as is often the case with MBTI related stuff.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Can you give an example of this in action? I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.


Sure: http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/110671-cock-pussy-intj-random-mind-garbage.html

When Ni is in autopilot mode you just think and this "thinking" is Ni not some T function.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Since when is developed knowledge a bias? Ne is adaptive and Ni is directive the difference should be obvious.


I found your remark about how Ne "comes out the blue" like magic bias because I don't think it really does just "come out of the blue". I can agree that Ne is adaptive and Ni is directive however. Yet, to me, despite having a use of Ni, Ne does not "come out of the blue" any more or less than Ni does. 



Razare said:


> Depends what kind of vision you're talking about. I think the vision most commonly associated with Ni-doms is an ideal model of how things should be done to achieve something. The vision is that future idea that has yet to be realized. I think ENTJ's have this too... it's just for an INTJ and INFJ, the vision is much of who they are... where as with an ENTJ, they're more apt to be in the present moment, and usually have smaller visions... a vision on how to start a business, and how that business should be... a vision of how to get all A's this semester at college... a vision of how to be promoted.


Ah, ok. So I suppose Ni instead of being simply "a foreseeing of the future", it is more "an ideal representation or model based on a foreseeing of the future" or "a foreseeing of the future which creates an ideal representation or model". In either case, a goal is clear to which the individual will adhere to.



QrivaN said:


> Hm...okay, let's say an INTJ and an ENTJ are both trying to solve a difficult problem for work. The INTJ is likely to jump to a conclusion half way through working it out, then back-track to prove that the answer they got is right (at least that's what I tend to do). The ENTJ would be more likely to work the problem out, then find some way to prove that their answer is right, even if it isn't (but that's just a guess on my part. I'm not very experienced with ENTJs).
> 
> Do you use logic to justify your thoughts, or do you use leverage to justify your logic? (Sorry. I feel like I worded that badly...)


Well, a lot of the time that does happen to me, where I come to a conclusion half way through working it out, but most of the time I continue to work out the problem anyways. I don't really like placing so much faith into my intuition. I suppose this has to do with, in the case that I was wrong, I would have wasted time and effort. Also, I would probably be pissed off that I was wrong haha. 

As to your question (yeah, a little confusing), I think I probably use logic to justify my thoughts. Then again, I usually think my thoughts are perfectly logical in itself, so I don't think I normally need to use leverage unless someone is opposing my logic.



TrippedOnReality said:


> That's how it works for me, but it was a skill I needed to learn and Te seems to be the thing that makes some logical sense out of the Ni leaps (and it always follows the logic path backward from end point to beginning point).
> 
> I can try to give you an example or two of how my ENTJ friend and I differ. I have an ENTJ friend and the two of us play a video game together. Sometimes he has this need to test and retest things to make sure we can earn money in the game in the most efficient way possible. Often times I get a hunch for which way will be the best way base on some experience and general knowledge about how the game has worked previously and the direction it seems to be headed in the future. So we'll test a bunch of different ways to make money, and test them far more completely than I would typically because I trust that my Ni is picking up some pattern and it just "knows" the best way is a certain way. ENTJ is less sure of this intuition and needs to test things completely, even if he has general feeling about which way will be the best way to make money.
> 
> The other big difference between us is how we deal with people, he's more active in his pursuit of information about people and will actively ask questions of people and be generally engaging to try to figure them out; I tend to sit back and watch how people interact with one another asking very few questions, but the goal for both of us is basically the same: how to deal with this person efficiently. His approach is direct and efficient time-wise. My approach is indirect and efficient energy-wise.


Yeah, I suppose according to both of your examples, ENTJ is probably more fitting. When you say your ENTJ friend has to keep testing despite having a general feeling of which way will be the best way to make money, I can relate. I often have hunches but can be reluctant to place complete faith in them without extensive testing. Just going by the hunch isn't usually enough for me, I HAVE to see that it really is the best way before feeling at ease. Although sometimes, if I get bored or something, I'll just accept my hunch and move on. However, there usually comes a time where I come back to it, despite my hunch proving correct thus far at that point, and test it out again. 

If I'm really trying to figure someone out, I usually do ask them questions, trying to illicit information. Although a lot of the time I do simply sit back and watch. Then again, this has more to do with the fact that I'm probably too preoccupied with something else in my head to ask questions, as I normally would. Being indirect generally annoys me, again, it goes back to placing too much faith into my intuition I guess. To me, I see it as "Why sit back and watch when you can just ask them a question and get an answer right away. Done and done."


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I found your remark about how Ne "comes out the blue" like magic bias because I don't think it really does just "come out of the blue".


It was a short description based on my perception it is definetely faster as it creates multiple possibilities. It should describe an outside view.


----------



## TrippedOnReality (Jul 4, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> "Why sit back and watch when you can just ask them a question and get an answer right away. Done and done."


That sounds exactly like something my ENTJ friend has said to me. And I agree, at times, it's better to just ask them a question and get the answer right away, but if it's someone I don't know and I'm not sure if I want to get to know them, I'm much more inclined to just sit back and watch to see if they are even worth my time and energy to approach. Plus it's kind of fun to sit back and watch and try to figure people out, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> How do these cognitive functions operate in tandem? What are the differences between how Te & Ni function as opposed to Ni & Te? I think I have a fair understanding of the definition of both functions however how they work in the order they do confuses me. Of course, Te & Ni would make someone an ENTJ and Ni & Te would make someone an INTJ however I am not necessarily looking for the differences between the types themselves (although that information would be useful as well).
> 
> Also, if one is Ni dominant, do they really have these so called "visions"? If yes is the answer, what does a vision mean? A visual mental picture? Would a type whose auxiliary function is Ni also have these visions? If they do, is it wrong for me to say that those visions aren't as strong as someone who is Ni dominant?


Jungian rationality vs irrationality.

Irrationals like to entertain their minds with crap not backed by facts
Rationals are shorter sighted preferring to inquire only stuff backed by facts


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen.... In this corner we have Boolean11:



Boolean11 said:


> Jungian rationality vs irrationality.
> 
> Irrationals like to entertain their minds with crap not backed by facts
> Rationals are shorter sighted preferring to inquire only stuff backed by facts


And in this corner, we have Carl Jung, talking about Ti-doms (who are among Jung's "rational types" — i.e., J-doms):



Jung said:


> External facts are not the aim and origin of [introverted] thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern. *It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate.* Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style. Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind's eye. ...
> 
> But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case *introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play*. ...
> 
> This kind of thinking easily gets lost in the immense truth of the subjective factor. *It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery.* Accordingly, visions of numerous possibilities appear on the scene, but none of them ever becomes a reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being mere symbols of the ineffable and unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as thinking that remains bound to objective data.


As for those "irrational types" (P-doms) who Boolean11 says "like to entertain their minds with crap not backed by facts"... here's what Jung had to say about Se-doms:



Jung said:


> No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed.


I can't resist noting that I've pointed out that exact same Jung Ti-dom description to Boolean11 before — but maybe he missed it because he was too busy "entertaining his mind with crap not backed by facts." :tongue:


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@reckful

You took this too literal so your understanding of the issue is wrong. It merely holds on a pure text and remains completely theoretical. It is an Output that was described not an essence.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> Ladies and gentlemen.... In this corner we have Boolean11:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe the irrational have less concern or implication to forthcoming of the facts. In which T types is usually more into pertaining those facts. In that for some T types it may seem as the irrational functions are oblivious to facts?
Of course this is an generalization that can probably be backed by facts, to me facts is just stuff that gets in your way >.<
Kinda like when Einstein mentioned education gets in your way of learning, paraphrasing of course.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> @reckful
> 
> You took this too literal so your understanding of the issue is wrong. It merely holds on a pure text and remains completely theoretical. It is an Output that was described not an essence.


I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

reckful said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say.


You cannot treat a broad category(irrational/rational) like a small category (Ti-dom).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You cannot treat a broad category(irrational/rational) like a small category (Ti-dom).


Jung's broad category (rational types, or J-doms) includes Jung's smaller category (Ti-doms), so it would be strange if Jung said that _rational types generally_ tend to be "short sighted" and "inquire only stuff backed by facts" (as Boolean11 incorrectly asserted) while simultaneously describing Ti-doms (Jung's own type, as he saw it) as people who tend to ignore or give short shrift to the facts.

If you think Boolean11's post is correct, can you point me to any passage where Jung says that rational types generally — i.e., _all_ J-doms, not just Je-doms — tend to be overly fact-focused at the expense of bigger-picture thinking?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

reckful said:


> Jung's broad category (rational types, or J-doms) includes Jung's smaller category (Ti-doms), so it would be strange if Jung said that _rational types generally_ tend to be "short sighted" and "inquire only stuff backed by facts" (as Boolean11 incorrectly asserted) while simultaneously describing Ti-doms (Jung's own type, as he saw it) as people who tend to ignore or give short shrift to the facts.
> 
> If you think Boolean11's post is correct, can you point me to any passage where Jung says that rational types generally — i.e., _all_ J-doms, not just Je-doms — tend to be overly fact-focused at the expense of bigger-picture thinking?


You are far too focused on a literal example of such a jungian text. When reading Ti-dom stuff against Ni-dom stuff you can see the difference between perception and judgment that´s what Boolean11 is talking about. A Ti>Fe (Ji) user could talk about facts but his "facts" are subjective because of the introversion of Ti. You can´t use your Te approach so directly in understanding such a alien field. For the Fi/Te users of the judgment bread there is a focus on Te without perception as the lead what makes the same impression.



> ENTj/ISFj: They focus on the Te-Fi, using their Se-Ni in service of their interactions with the world.
> ESFp/INTp: They focus on the Se-Ni, using their Te-Fi in service of their perceptions of the world.





> ESFj/INTj: They focus on the Ti-Fe, using their Si-Ne in service of their interactions with the world
> ENTp/ISFp: They focus on the Si-Ne, using their Ti-Fe in service of their perceptions of the world.


Source: Socionics

The focus lies on discernment and so directly on tools (facts) for that(j) - perception speaks for itself and Judgment is in the service of perception not otherwise.(p)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You are far too focused on a literal example of such a jungian text. When reading Ti-dom stuff against Ni-dom stuff you can see the difference between perception and judgment that´s what Boolean11 is talking about. A Ti>Fe (Ji) user could talk about facts but his "facts" are subjective because of the introversion of Ti. You can´t use your Te approach so directly in understanding such a alien field. For the Fi/Te users of the judgment bread there is a focus on Te without perception as the lead what makes the same impression.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Boolean11's post referred to "*Jungian* rationality vs. irrationality," and I responded by pointing out that the description was incorrect insofar as it purported to summarize what _Jung_ said.

You haven't pointed to any Jung passage to the contrary, and your latest post doesn't seem to even be talking about what Jung said, so you're really not addressing my posts at all.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

reckful said:


> You haven't pointed to any Jung passage to the contrary, and your latest post doesn't seem to even be talking about what Jung said, so you're really not addressing my posts at all.


I did but you didn´t understand you just insisted on your jungian stuff without conisdering any other stuff that is related to it. A typical rational behaivour and at this point I´m going to doubt your typing as an INTJ. You fit perfectly in the Ti dom category a description that you already cited by yourself.

ISTP (Ne-PoLR) is also a common mistype as INTJ.

InvisibleJim mistyped as ILI (INTJ) is LSI (ISTP)


> I would consider it to be Ne PoLR, Im expressing an alternative way of valuing ideas. Its in the nature of LSI and ESI to react with aggression to alternate paradigms; they will frame it as people refusing to answer their points, but how do you show anyone how to think down an alternate route, especially one which they view as ending with a pit of vipers?





> I think ISTj's generally underestimate the negative possibilities that can emerge from their course of action that right now seems to be certain (thinking-positivist-process)
> ISFj's tend to overestimate the time and energy necessary to do typically intensively Ne tasks (studying, for example).(feeling-negativist-result)
> 
> 
> ...


I saved some Ne PoLR stuff.



Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> LSIs are unlikely to be as passive in a conversaton... while an ILI is more likely to be indecisive and hesitant over what they think, essentially creating doubt for others too, LSIs are more likely to aggressively defend what they have decided on, as if their view is rigid and impregnable and others should agree.


Exactly :happy:


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

The problem is that I've always seen Invisible Jim as Extraverted Logic using. He's very much about the practical use of things as opposed to the logical consistency.

I would say that if he's an ILI, he'd be the Logical subtype however.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> Ladies and gentlemen.... In this corner we have Boolean11:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ladies & gents, above is just the longer version of the truth. 



easy to comprehend version: replace "facts" as a crude abstraction for lead "thinking" & "crap" for unprocessed data said:


> Jungian rationality vs irrationality.
> 
> 
> Irrationals like to entertain their minds with crap not backed by facts
> Rationals are shorter sighted preferring to inquire only stuff backed by facts


----------



## oxygen forest (Jan 5, 2012)

TrippedOnReality said:


> That sounds exactly like something my ENTJ friend has said to me. And I agree, at times, it's better to just ask them a question and get the answer right away, but if it's someone I don't know and I'm not sure if I want to get to know them, I'm much more inclined to just sit back and watch to see if they are even worth my time and energy to approach. Plus it's kind of fun to sit back and watch and try to figure people out, but maybe that's just me.


Directly asking them would be more efficient, but I've found that they take it as a sign I want to talk generally, and then I get stuck in an unwanted conversation. It ain't like asking google. Google doesn't do small-talk.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> The problem is that I've always seen Invisible Jim as Extraverted Logic using. He's very much about the practical use of things as opposed to the logical consistency.
> 
> I would say that if he's an ILI, he'd be the Logical subtype however.


And how do you explain his aggressive nature?

He is like the exact copy of one of my classmates during grade school, he was very good at excel and math (Ti-dom). And totally a representation of an LSI regardless of his more theoretical way he was far from being ILI.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> And how do you explain his aggressive nature?
> 
> He is like the exact copy of one of my classmates during grade school, he was very good at excel and math (Ti-dom). And totally a representation of an LSI regardless of his more theoretical way he was far from being ILI.


Aggressive? how? I've always seen him trying to be the voice of reason or a peacemaker of sorts... except when he was nuts.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Aggressive? how? I've always seen him trying to be the voice of reason or a peacemaker of sorts... except when he was nuts.


Seems so that only my kind is able to see that (after enough input). He is just Fe dual-seeking :angry: you could see him as ILI but some feeler wrote that she sees him as LSI and it makes simply more sense. I´m rather blind on my own type. I´m suspicious about his Ti/Fe.


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

I have no idea what type you guys are (I'm such a beginner!) but your quarreling is very entertaining to me. It's the kind I see on facebook between NT acquaintances. It's funny. So much that I came here to understand Ni but ended up trying to follow what you're saying despite having insufficient knowledge. I failed, but it was a fun ride.

But, Zero11, are _you _sure of your type? I'm just seeing things that strike me as odd. Maybe the projection is one of them. You complain that reckful insisted on their "Jungian stuff" but wouldn't that be typical INTJ behavior? Focusing on (objective, but still) details regardless of the big picture... blah blah.
Maybe I think so because reckful's approach to "factual data" sounds like an enchantment, a lot like a friend of mine who is a (typical, self-typed) INTJ. He loves discussion but whenever I try to follow his discussions I'm like "..*sigh*" because he tends to get caught up in details and I tend to gloss over them when I (seldom) discuss; Discussion between us only leads to frustration. 

I don't know. I could be totally wrong because I have mad what-I-assume-is Ne; To have a general understanding of a particular phenomenon I'm obliged to pick one possibility kind of at random and go through with it until I crash because I couldn't see what was miles ahead. Lots of trial and error. Maybe my current understanding of Ni is one of the wrong ways. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I don't mind being corrected.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Seems so that only my kind is able to see that (after enough input). He is just Fe dual-seeking :angry: you could see him as ILI but some feeler wrote that she sees him as LSI and it makes simply more sense. I´m rather blind on my own type. I´m suspicious about his Ti/Fe.


I suppose the difference is that I've known him for a good 4 or so years online and I have known him for almost 1 year in person (he occasionally frequents my Socionics Society meetups). 

What I will say is that he is a lot firmer and more resolute than the other ILIs in the society, possibly because of him being a Logical subtype while they are Intuitive subtypes. He does tend to create doubt in the group that counteracts my attempts so I do think we have a relationship of Extinguishment.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Chell said:


> But, Zero11, are _you _sure of your type?


As sure as it gets! All the inter-type relationships are making sense to me they fall into the picture. I can only relate to the ILI description in Socionics and to the INTJ description after further confirmations. I read several books on that topic including Psychological Types. Ni is my source power I am Fe-PoLR my Sister is ESFJ, I have a ENFJ aunt and my father is ISFJ (Si Fe). There is absolutely no doubt about my type.

I'm just seeing things that strike me as odd. Maybe the projection is one of them. You complain that reckful insisted on their "Jungian stuff" but wouldn't that be typical INTJ behavior?

No it is Ti-dom behaivour. :dry:



> Focusing on (objective, but still) details regardless of the big picture... blah blah.


What? Focusing on details is S>N.



> Maybe I think so because reckful's approach to "factual data" sounds like an enchantment, a lot like a friend of mine who is a (typical, self-typed) INTJ. He loves discussion but whenever I try to follow his discussions I'm like "..*sigh*" because he tends to get caught up in details and I tend to gloss over them when I (seldom) discuss; Discussion between us only leads to frustration.


Ahh yeah thats unfortunate.



> I don't know. I could be totally wrong because I have mad what-I-assume-is Ne; To have a general understanding of a particular phenomenon I'm obliged to pick one possibility kind of at random and go through with it until I crash because I couldn't see what was miles ahead. Lots of trial and error.


I agree that sounds like Ne but if it is necessary Ne hmmm...



> Maybe my current understanding of Ni is one of the wrong ways. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I don't mind being corrected.


What is your understanding of Ni?



Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> *What I will say is that he is a lot firmer and more resolute than the other ILIs in the society*, possibly because of him being a Logical subtype while they are Intuitive subtypes.


This sounds like your Fe would appreciate his Fe, Fi is not firm to Fe valuers. And you mentioned him as being a peacemaker. This is external ethics.
Fi is not creating anything for a direct outside purpose.



> He does tend to create doubt in the group that counteracts my attempts so I do think we have a relationship of Extinguishment.


Being LSI would make him your Supervisee. 
What do you mean with he creates doubt in the group that counteracts your attempts?


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> As sure as it gets! All the inter-type relationships are making sense to me they fall into the picture. I can only relate to the ILI description in Socionics and to the INTJ description after further confirmations. I read several books on that topic including Psychological Types. Ni is my source power I am Fe-PoLR my Sister is ESFJ, I have a ENFJ aunt and my father is ISFJ (Si Fe). There is absolutely no doubt about my type.
> 
> I'm just seeing things that strike me as odd. Maybe the projection is one of them. You complain that reckful insisted on their "Jungian stuff" but wouldn't that be typical INTJ behavior?
> 
> ...


No there really is no Extraverted Ethics to him. 

and I mean that when I say something he then comes in with something contrary to what I have said. It's very like what happens with other ILIs, always restoring doubt to the equation.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Jack Oliver Aaron

Okay is there some visual stuff of him?


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> @_Jack Oliver Aaron_
> 
> Okay is there some visual stuff of him?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> Jung's broad category (rational types, or J-doms) includes Jung's smaller category (Ti-doms), so it would be strange if Jung said that _rational types generally_ tend to be "short sighted" and "inquire only stuff backed by facts" (as Boolean11 incorrectly asserted) while simultaneously describing Ti-doms (Jung's own type, as he saw it) as people who tend to ignore or give short shrift to the facts.
> 
> If you think Boolean11's post is correct, can you point me to any passage where Jung says that rational types generally — i.e., _all_ J-doms, not just Je-doms — tend to be overly fact-focused at the expense of bigger-picture thinking?


Can you point to anything saying Carl Jung said he was in fact a Ti-dom? Other than your personal assumptions that is

Besides your quote you did previously did not dismiss what @_Boolean11_ said, only that the objective facts is not the main focus of such thinking.


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> As sure as it gets! All the inter-type relationships are making sense to me they fall into the picture. I can only relate to the ILI description in Socionics and to the INTJ description after further confirmations. I read several books on that topic including Psychological Types. Ni is my source power I am Fe-PoLR my Sister is ESFJ, I have a ENFJ aunt and my father is ISFJ (Si Fe). There is absolutely no doubt about my type.
> 
> I'm just seeing things that strike me as odd. Maybe the projection is one of them. You complain that reckful insisted on their "Jungian stuff" but wouldn't that be typical INTJ behavior?
> 
> ...


Hmm, I see! You sound well-informed on this subject. Don't mind that, I just recalled that one from some general INTJ description. 

What do you mean necessary Ne, by the way?

Hmm, I tried to explain it in my own terms on this topic. I would love some input on that, actually. I could try to synthetize but I feel that it'll be lacking. But should I say - I see Ne as converging, and Ni as diverging. Ni sees the thing ahead and works out the ways to get there, etc. Ne sees the multiple ways to get there (the brainstorming method, for instance) and may or may not reach "the thing". (May not because it may also get sidetracked, I think. Sort of like, finding a completely different path that will lead to a completely different thing.) Is that right?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Can you point to anything saying Carl Jung said he was in fact a Ti-dom? Other than your personal assumptions that is


In talking about why Jordan viewed introverts and extraverts in terms of their unconscious side, Jung explained that that was typical of P-doms, and that his own temperament led him (Jung) to have the opposite perspective (i.e., to view people in terms of their conscious sides). So he thought of himself as a J-dom, and he certainly thought of himself as an introvert, so that narrows it down to Ti-dom and Fi-dom. He also confessed that, up until not long before he published Psychological Types, he'd thought T was part of introversion (i.e., that all introverts were T's and all extraverts were F's) — which is not a mistake he would have made if he'd thought of himself as an introverted F.



myjazz said:


> Besides your quote you did previously did not dismiss what @_Boolean11_ said, only that the objective facts is not the main focus of such thinking.


If you don't find that those Jung quotes I posted stand in stark contrast to Boolean11's quick summary, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The duality Boolean11 described in his first post is really more of a summary of Jung's view of Ti-doms ("crap theories not backed by facts") and Te-doms ("shorter sighted preferring to inquire only stuff backed by facts"), and isn't really consistent with anything Jung said about J-doms generally and P-doms generally.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> In talking about why Jordan viewed introverts and extraverts in terms of their unconscious side, Jung explained that that was typical of P-doms, and that his own temperament led him (Jung) to have the opposite perspective (i.e., to view people in terms of their conscious sides). So he thought of himself as a J-dom, and he certainly thought of himself as an introvert, so that narrows it down to Ti-dom and Fi-dom. He also confessed that, up until not long before he published Psychological Types, he'd thought T was part of introversion (i.e., that all introverts were T's and all extraverts were F's) — which is not a mistake he would have made if he'd thought of himself as an introverted F.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't find that those Jung quotes I posted stand in stark contrast to Boolean11's quick summary, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The duality Boolean11 described in his first post is really more of a summary of Jung's view of Ti-doms ("crap theories not backed by facts") and Te-doms ("shorter sighted preferring to inquire only stuff backed by facts"), and isn't really consistent with anything Jung said about J-doms generally and P-doms generally.


Oh man you are still not reading the Jordan part right yet? Once again Jung called Jordan an Intuitive due to Jordan viewing from his unconscious which by the way is an summary for what Jung called Intuition. Once again I will ask can you point out anywhere where Jung said in fact that he was an Ti dom w/o your assumptions and apparently incorrect ones at that. If we take Jordan and what Jung has already stated in his own words and compare it yours we will see some truth.
Since Jung was saying that Jordan wan using an Intuitive side in his observations and Jung as you pointed out said he did the opposite (apparently later in life) in observing people, hence Sensing. Now if we take what Jung said that he used T and S while holding back N and F while during a scientific work or approach. Now this makes sense...
So in the part that you got Jung was an Ti dom with comparison to what you think he said about Jordan is on the bases of an false assumption. So something has to be changed in order for your theory to work right and how will that affect the rest?
We can argue the fact that Jung called Jordan an Intuitive, and used the example of Jordan using his unconscious observation point of view. 
As was pointed out here in this post "your" Jungian view and that is somewhat true because it is your view instead of what is actually being said.
We can take what Carl Jung said about having to hold back N and F within a scientific approach and the fact that Jung him self at one point observed people from an unconscious point of view, example Introverts are Thinkers wasn't until he separated his Intuition and Sensing in a workable logical truthful observational way. Of course this is my assumption based on the facts that I am aware of. 

Since you plainly are enable to put aside your assumptions it is fruitless to even begin to discuss the part about Ti and your misunderstanding of what Boolean11 said. In which was by the way an Ti perspective of Rationale vs Irrational which in a way wasn't really against the grain of the actual model.

The difference between a person who can learn and have actual discussion on a topic and someone who will not put ones ideology or egotism to the side. Is the latter will never accept anything besides what he holds true no matter what evidence or truth or facts is given.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

So that others who may not know the topic surrounding Jordan and Jung. This is what Jung said about Jordan in Psychological Types
"When he characterizes the introvert as the passionate and the extravert as the intellectual, he is clearly seeing the two types from the side of the unconscious, i.e. he perceives them through the medium of his unconscious. He observes and recognizes intuitively: this must always be more or less the case with the practical observer of men."

Also this is what Jung said what Intuition basically is "It is that psychological function which transmits perceptions in an unconscious way"

Also to note that the section of the book that talks about Jordan also capitalizes on an intro to the Intuition (N) Type's due to Jordan himself as the example , as well as Introverted Feelers.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Oh man you are still not reading the Jordan part right yet? Once again Jung called Jordan an Intuitive due to Jordan viewing from his unconscious which by the way is an summary for what Jung called Intuition. Once again I will ask can you point out anywhere where Jung said in fact that he was an Ti dom w/o your assumptions and apparently incorrect ones at that. If we take Jordan and what Jung has already stated in his own words and compare it yours we will see some truth.
> Since Jung was saying that Jordan wan using an Intuitive side in his observations and Jung as you pointed out said he did the opposite (apparently later in life) in observing people, hence Sensing. Now if we take what Jung said that he used T and S while holding back N and F while during a scientific work or approach. Now this makes sense...
> So in the part that you got Jung was an Ti dom with comparison to what you think he said about Jordan is on the bases of an false assumption. So something has to be changed in order for your theory to work right and how will that affect the rest?
> We can argue the fact that Jung called Jordan an Intuitive, and used the example of Jordan using his unconscious observation point of view.
> ...


There are lots of ambiguous things in Jung that reasonable people can debate about, myjazz. But in this case, as in our other recent back-and-forth, you're simply misunderstanding Jung.

In Chapter X, Jung explained:



Jung said:


> Naturally it also depends very largely on the attitude of the observer whether he seizes hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of the personality. *Generally speaking, a judging observer will tend to seize on the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be more influenced by the unconscious character*, since judgment is chiefly concerned with the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception registers the process itself.


You're right that Jung viewed Jordan as an N-dom, but he viewed Jordan's propensity to type people based on their unconscious side as characteristic of P-doms generally (N-doms and S-doms both), while J-doms "tend to seize on the conscious character."

Later in Chapter X, explaining why he labeled Je-doms "rational" types, Jung said:



> [W]e have to consider whether by 'rational' we are speaking from the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology or from that of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. This observer could easily arrive at a contrary judgment, especially if he intuitively apprehended merely the outward behaviour of the person observed and judged accordingly. On the whole, the life of this type is never dependent on rational judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. ... *I therefore base my judgment on what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am willing to grant that one could equally well conceive and present such a psychology from precisely the opposite angle. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different psychology, I would have described the rational types in the reverse way, from the standpoint of the unconscious—as irrational, therefore.*


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> There are lots of ambiguous things in Jung that reasonable people can debate about, myjazz. But in this case, as in our other recent back-and-forth, you're simply misunderstanding Jung.


Then please point out my misunderstanding other than saying 'cause I said so. I on the other hand pointed it out and also referenced it to what is actually being said. The only assumption in which I also stopped at was towards the end, I also pointed out that I started to go into logical assumption zone and stopped.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Then please point out my misunderstanding other than saying 'cause I said so. I on the other hand pointed it out and also referenced it to what is actually being said. The only assumption in which I also stopped at was towards the end, I also pointed out that I started to go into logical assumption zone and stopped.


I did point it out. Did you bother reading that first quote from Chapter X before you posted? This isn't a speed test.

It's not that N-doms type based on the unconscious side and S-doms based on the conscious side. It's P-doms (N-doms and S-doms both) who are prone to type others based on their unconscious side and J-doms who are prone to type others based on their conscious side.

So the relevant opposition between Jordan and Jung was P-dom vs. J-dom, not N-dom vs. S-dom. Your interpretation of what Jung says in the Jordan chapter is _completely inconsistent_ with what Jung says in Chapter X — which is why I really don't see this as a reasonable-people-can-disagree issue.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> I did point it out. Did you bother reading that first quote from Chapter X before you posted? This isn't a speed test.
> 
> It's not that N-doms type based on the unconscious side and S-doms from the conscious side. It's P-doms (N-doms and S-doms both) who are prone to type others based on their unconscious side and J-doms who are prone to type others based on their conscious side.
> 
> So the relevant opposition between Jordan and Jung was P-dom vs. J-dom, not N-dom vs. S-dom. Your interpretation of what Jung says in the Jordan chapter is _completely inconsistent_ with what Jung says in Chapter X — which is why I really don't see this as a reasonable-people-can-disagree issue.


No I read what you quoted but failed to see where you assumed the opposite of Intuition to be Thinking. Where Jung said himself that it is Sensing and Feeling is the opposite of Thinking. You can continue to add MBTI once again and jump around section to section or stay in the one we are in. either way is good to me but unlike last time don't start complaining when I do so.

Back to what you said about Jordan and Jung doing the opposite, since Jung said Jordan was in fact using Intuition the opposite according to Jung is in fact Sensing. We can either agree on basic knowledge of this or do I have to recite and use quotes, I really do hate doing so but sometimes is a must. In that their is no way you can go from Intuition to Ti as opposite if so that means Jordan was using Te in order to use Ti as an comparison. How would we assume that Jordan was using Te? Am I missing something?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> No I read what you quoted but failed to see where you assumed the opposite of Intuition to be Thinking. Where Jung said himself that it is Sensing and Feeling is the opposite of Thinking. You can continue to add MBTI once again and jump around section to section or stay in the one we are in. either way is good to me but unlike last time don't start complaining when I do so.
> 
> Back to what you said about Jordan and Jung doing the opposite, since Jung said Jordan was in fact using Intuition the opposite according to Jung is in fact Sensing. We can either agree on basic knowledge of this or do I have to recite and use quotes, I really do hate doing so but sometimes is a must. In that their is no way you can go from Intuition to Ti as opposite if so that means Jordan was using Te in order to use Ti as an comparison. How would we assume that Jordan was using Te? Am I missing something?


The "opposites" Jung was focusing on were _rational_ (J-dom) vs. _irrational_ (P-dom). Here's the money quote again, myjazz. I don't understand why this is so hard for you.



Jung said:


> Naturally it also depends very largely on the attitude of the observer whether he seizes hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of the personality. *Generally speaking, a judging observer will tend to seize on the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be more influenced by the unconscious character*, since judgment is chiefly concerned with the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception registers the process itself.


"Judging observer" = J-dom and "perceptive observer" = P-dom. N-doms are P-doms, and so are S-doms. So if Jordan was an N-dom and Jung was an S-dom, they wouldn't be "opposites" in this respect; instead, they'd both be inclined to type people based on their unconscious sides. But Jung explained that his temperament inclined him (unlike Jordan) to type people based on their conscious sides — which he said was characteristic of "judging observers" (i.e., J-doms).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> The "opposites" Jung was focusing on were _rational_ (J-dom) vs. _irrational_ (P-dom). Here's the money quote again, myjazz. I don't understand why this is so hard for you.
> 
> _
> 
> ...


So now you are saying Jung is Extraverted?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> So now you are saying Jung is Extraverted?


Easy one! No.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> Easy one! No.


Um yes, by what you quoted and said that Jung falls into judging observer will tend to seize on the conscious character. In that you are saying that Carl Jung was more in superior to an Extraverted Attitude.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Um yes, by what you quoted and said that Jung falls into judging observer will tend to seize on the conscious character. In that you are saying that Carl Jung was more in superior to an Extraverted Attitude.


I have no idea what you're trying to say here. As I've explained (repeatedly now): by "judging observer" vs. "perceptive observer," Jung was referring to a J-dom vs. a P-dom in the process of typing a third party, and Jung said the J-dom would tend to focus on the third party's "conscious character," while the P-dom would tend to focus on the third party's "unconscious character." Jung said Jordan categorized introverts as the "impassioned type" because Jordan focused on the introvert's unconscious affects, whereas Jung, because he was a J-dom (a "judging observer"), was temperamentally inclined to focus on the introvert's "conscious character."

Jung didn't say anything about extraversion/introversion of the _observer_ being a factor in terms of whether they'd focus on the third party's conscious or unconscious side.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@reckful

"since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening. But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion."

Since you either didn't read or add the part after not to mention on what topic Jung was talking about. I added it for you here, Yes Jung did say that E/I of that is the factor. Since you put Jung into the Judging observer area you put Jung into Extraverted


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> @reckful
> 
> "since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening. But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion."
> 
> Since you either didn't read or add the part after not to mention on what topic Jung was talking about. I added it for you here, Yes Jung did say that E/I of that is the factor. Since you put Jung into the Judging observer area you put Jung into Extraverted


I'm sorry, myjazz. You sound like you mean well (i.e., I don't think you're trolling), but I feel like I've done all I can for you and, for some reason, that hasn't been sufficient. I'm afraid that, if anyone's ever going to get you to see the light on this particular issue, it's going to have to be somebody other than me.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

reckful said:


> I'm sorry, myjazz. You sound like you mean well (i.e., I don't think you're trolling), but I feel like I've done all I can for you and, for some reason, that hasn't been sufficient. I'm afraid that, if anyone's ever going to get you to see the light on this particular issue, it's going to have to be somebody other than me.


So you are saying you are wrong since you are unable and ran out of ways to justify your assumptions?
No duh I am not trolling what was your first clue.
If you want to tap out. tap out but don't act like all high and mighty when doing so


----------



## TBone (2 mo ago)

HighClassSavage said:


> How do these cognitive functions operate in tandem? What are the differences between how Te & Ni function as opposed to Ni & Te? I think I have a fair understanding of the definition of both functions however how they work in the order they do confuses me. Of course, Te & Ni would make someone an ENTJ and Ni & Te would make someone an INTJ however I am not necessarily looking for the differences between the types themselves (although that information would be useful as well).
> 
> Also, if one is Ni dominant, do they really have these so called "visions"? If yes is the answer, what does a vision mean? A visual mental picture? Would a type whose auxiliary function is Ni also have these visions? If they do, is it wrong for me to say that those visions aren't as strong as someone who is Ni dominant?


Being Ni-Te, I will hear people talking about a problem and I get glimpses of multidimensional and multistep solutions that I instinctively know will be effective but unless I stop and write, draw or explain them they vanish until the next time I'm triggered. I've often heard myself say "ok so I'm hearing several different things that are related, so we need to do 4 things. 1st ... 2ndly ... 3rd ... " and by the time I get to the 3rd or 4th the glimpse has faded. I cant make my brain rethink it through logic, but it will come back suddenly later. In meetings I take notes as people speak including my own ideas which might just have a series of trigger words so that I can reaccess the various aspects of the solution that I glimpsed. I don't get fully formed visions, it's only when I prepare a slide that they start to make sense and hang together.
Also, occasionally my glimpses of intuition are not optimal and its only when I go to write or explain them that I realise I'm wrong. I've learnt to test whether I can explain something fully. If I can't it might be a poor approach or an approach that's just too complex to be worth the effort. Te keeps me grounded.


----------

